Alex Erickson

[BengalsRocker]

(10-17-2016, 05:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because like many fans here you do not understand how the NFL works.

Tate was never close to the worst return man in the league.  Yet most fans claimed we could easily replace him.  If it was so easy to replace guys like that then wouldn't EVERY TEAM in the league have s guy better than that?

Same with Nugent and many other players that fans squeal about "Not deserving to be on our roster".  You all need to look around the rest of the league and see how hard it is to replace guys who are just "average starters".

Look pal I never squealed about Tate or said he was the worst.

If you read my post on this very thread I even said he should have made the roster over Wright.

He brings much more value.

No, it should not take years to find someone more competent for the future.

They have tried.  Yet, because they have failed...  now that's the gold standard for the league?

No team can be perfect at finding all replacements.  I understand that.

They just have not done well to upgrade the position and that is fact.

So I'll lob this one over to you and others...  why did they cut Tate?  Coaches know best after all.  Was it financial?

[BengalsRocker]

(10-17-2016, 05:29 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I already said the honeymoon with Erickson is over.

That said, the people pining for Tate are getting silly. Adam Jones can't do anything in returns. Huber is making occasional poor punts because he looks like he is hurrying to get the ball off.

That makes this clear it is not a Tate/Erickson thing. This is a ST thing. The Bengals depth is seriously hurt. Let's look at who was good at ST in the past:

-Peerman, hurt
-Lamur, gone
-Williams, forced into a starting role
-Kirkpatrick, became a starter
-Burkhead, hurt on and off all season
-Backup TEs, forced into a bigger role on offense

Guys who were good ST players, but either hurt, gone, or forced into a role they are not as good at, forcing THEIR backups, who would either not make the team, or be inactive/PS are now the ST guys.

It isn't losing Tate or putting in Erickson, it is the loss of depth causing the talent level of the Bengals ST to plummet.

I can get on board with this.

STs has been weak as a whole.

Blocking and gunning have regressed.

[fredtoast]

(10-17-2016, 06:44 PM)BengalsRocker Wrote: So I'll lob this one over to you and others...  why did they cut Tate?  Coaches know best after all.  Was it financial?

They cut Tate because Erickson looked fantastic in the preseason.

[bengalguy71]

(10-17-2016, 06:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They cut Tate because Erickson looked fantastic in the preseason.

Problem was he looked good against 2nd and 3rd teamers?

[JumboTron]

(10-17-2016, 05:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because like many fans here you do not understand how the NFL works.

Tate was never close to the worst return man in the league.  Yet most fans claimed we could easily replace him.  If it was so easy to replace guys like that then wouldn't EVERY TEAM in the league have s guy better than that?

Same with Nugent and many other players that fans squeal about "Not deserving to be on our roster".  You all need to look around the rest of the league and see how hard it is to replace guys who are just "average starters".

LOL, just couldn't help yourself could you?

[Shake n Blake]

Lol. No I don't miss Tate.

1. Yall are being way too hard on this kid. Not only is he a rookie, he's only played 6 games with 13 total returns. So Tate gets 5 years and Erikson gets 13 touches before judgement comes raining down?

2. Blocking has been atrocious, yet Erickson's 20.6 yard average on KR's is better than Pacman's (18.7) and Burkhead (19.5). He also has the best PR average (6.8), which also tops Pacman (5.0).

3. What did Tate bring that Erickson isn't? Last year he averaged 22.9 on KR's and 6.3 on PR's (worse than Erickson's current average). Dude had 1 TD in 5 years and very few big plays. The main thing his fans (unreal that Tate has fans) boasted about was his ability to hang on to the football. Welp, so far so good there.

Heck, Tate fans should love Erickson. They look like the same guy. Erickson even fields some punts inside the 10.

[Shake n Blake]

(10-17-2016, 06:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They cut Tate because Erickson looked fantastic in the preseason.

Fans can tell you that. If Erickson really is awful, coaches should've known better.

You're trying to play both sides of the fence here. Defend your boy Tate while not insulting the coach's ability to judge talent.

[Brimey]

If preseason mattered we would have the league leader in sacks with our star DE Dontay Moch. But I expected Erickson to look a bit better than this. We have had zero game effecting ST play

[fredtoast]

(10-17-2016, 08:13 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: You're trying to play both sides of the fence here. Defend your boy Tate while not insulting the coach's ability to judge talent.

No I am not.  I always used facts and stats to defend Tate.

The people trying to play both sides of the fence are the ones who squealed about how Tate did not deserve to be on an NFL roster and then criticize the coaches for him not being here now.

[fredtoast]

(10-17-2016, 08:00 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Heck, Tate fans should love Erickson. They look like the same guy. 

Thanks for proving how much you really know about Tate.

Erickson is averaging 6.8 per punt return with zero returns over 15 yards.  Tate averaged 9.2 yards per punt return for the Bengals with 4 over 40 yards and 12 over 20 yards.  But I guess those to look just alike to someone who knows as much about football as you.

Erickson is averaging 20.6 on kick returns with a long of 26.  Tate averaged 24.3 with 7 longer than 40 yards.  Again "just alike" to an "expert" like you.

[Derrick]

(10-17-2016, 08:24 PM)Brimey Wrote: If preseason mattered we would have the league leader in sacks with our star DE Dontay Moch. But I expected Erickson to look a bit better than this. We have had zero game effecting ST play

It is the blocking for returns that has deteriorated so much this season. The returner is surrounded by tacklers almost as soon as the ball arrives. PISS POOR ST BLOCKING!

[Shake n Blake]

(10-17-2016, 08:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Thanks for proving how much you really know about Tate.

Erickson is averaging 6.8 per punt return with zero returns over 15 yards.  Tate averaged 9.2 yards per punt return for the Bengals with 4 over 40 yards and 12 over 20 yards.  But I guess those to look just alike to someone who knows as much about football as you.

Erickson is averaging 20.6 on kick returns with a long of 26.  Tate averaged 24.3 with 7 longer than 40 yards.  Again "just alike" to an "expert" like you.

Are you comparing Tate's career numbers to numbers for a rookie with 13 career returns? Seems "fair".

Certainly more fair than me comparing Erikson to his current teammates or Tate's most recent year as a Bengal.

[eoxyod]

Before the days of Tate we were awful. The days after Tate we are awful. This is our punishment


Annnyyyyyways, everyone liked that we moved on from Tate so don't act like people were always saying we should have kept him. His time had run up. That doesn't mean he was awful but they went with their move. So far it seems to be the wrong move (Goodness the Steelers game Erikson messed up our field position on the most consistent basis), but hindsight is always 20/20. There isn't a single coach that would cut Erikson after the preseason he had. It was going for the higher reward move although naturally with an undrafted unknown it involved higher risk. Figure it out like a team should and move on

[Roland]

Time to revisit this little slice of brilliance. Erikson is now the top returner in the league with 10 or more returns. Without his return yardage last night the Bengals probably weren't even in the game.

Add to that the fact that they need to stop putting Jones out for punt returns. He doesn't have it anymore and there's no sense in risking him. He's not a sound returner and doesn't make good decisions. Letting the ball hit because he thought it was going out of bounds cost them twenty yards of field position last night.

[yellowxdiscipline]

He's a rookie. Lets revisit this next year.

[*jason*]

(11-15-2016, 10:48 AM)Roland Wrote: Time to revisit this little slice of brilliance. Erikson is now the top returner in the league with 10 or more returns. Without his return yardage last night the Bengals probably weren't even in the game.

Add to that the fact that they need to stop putting Jones out for punt returns. He doesn't have it anymore and there's no sense in risking him. He's not a sound returner and doesn't make good decisions. Letting the ball hit because he thought it was going out of bounds cost them twenty yards of field position last night.

Yeah. He's at least making some splash plays now. His judgement is God awful though. The Bengals are consistently starting drives inside the 20. That needs to stop.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-15-2016, 03:09 PM)jason Wrote: Yeah. He's at least making some splash plays now. His judgement is God awful though. The Bengals are consistently starting drives inside the 20. That needs to stop.

Agreed 100%. As soon as one of our coaches tells him about the rule change and how a touchback takes you to the 25 and to quit running it 5-6 yards deep out of the endzone and barely getting the 20 we will be set 

[CageTheBengal]

Whether it's Erickson or Ced Ogbuehi everyone needs to take a chill pill. They need time and a chance to develop and they are going to get it. It doesn't happen overnight so there is no sense in bouncing from one extreme to the other. One minute some are saying he needs to be cut and the next it turns out he's not so bad. Both of these guys are rookies basically and they will have ups and downs and only after there is enough evidence after they get a fair shot to develop their game can we make a call. I think a lot of you have seen enough football to know it's not always smooth sailing with young players. Act like you've been there before.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-15-2016, 05:15 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: Whether it's Erickson or Ced Ogbuehi everyone needs to take a chill pill. They need time and a chance to develop and they are going to get it. It doesn't happen overnight so there is no sense in bouncing from one extreme to the other. One minute some are saying he needs to be cut and the next it turns out he's not so bad. Both of these guys are rookies basically and they will have ups and downs and only after there is enough evidence after they get a fair shot to develop their game can we make a call. I think a lot of you have seen enough football to know it's not always smooth sailing with young players. Act like you've been there before.

One is an undrafted rookie, the other is a 2nd year 1st round pick.

No, one of them is a rookie actually, the other one is a 2nd year 1st round pick.

[CageTheBengal]

(11-15-2016, 05:19 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: One is an undrafted rookie, the other is a 2nd year 1st round pick.

No, one of them is a rookie actually, the other one is a 2nd year 1st round pick.

So let me get this straight you don't believe having playing time on the football field in an actual game contributes significantly to a players growth? Ogbuehi learned all a rookie needed to know about playing RT at the highest level of the sport from the bench with a playbook in his hand?

Get real. This is reality you can't just plug and play there is such a thing as player development and actually playing the sport with the pros helps a great deal. He isn't up to speed like a 2nd year player should be because he is learning the physical part of the game as if he is a rookie no less coming off of an ACL tear. How was he supposed to learn the physical part of the game on the bench?