53 Man Roster

[Whatever]

(05-01-2017, 03:04 PM)Au165 Wrote: They aren't going to part from Hewitt, his cap hit is basically 60% of his contract this year. They are going to keep a Fullback on the team. I think with so many return options, short of us not finding anyone to field punts (most have KR experience) then Erickson is gone. Don't forget it's one thing to make the 53, to actually return those kicks you have to make the 46 man game day and it is going to be tough to do that with Erickson when he is so low on the order at WR.

Erickson is unlikely to go anywhere.  We all saw how long they held on to Tate, and Erickson had a very good year last year.  Simmons, as the ST's coach, has a ton of say in who they keep as the 4 and 5 WR.  The #6 is traditionally a developmental player who only dresses in case of injury.  Ross and Mixon are unlikely to be utilized full time on return duty, and will likely only be used when the team is looking for a big play.

Green, Boyd, and Ross are locks.  LaFell is a virtual lock unless he has a very poor camp and preseason and a bubble player steps up huge.  Erickson has the inside track on the #5 spot as the primary returner.  Malone is pretty much a lock unless he has a complete disaster in camp.  Core will likely go to the PS, as he still has eligibility.  He's also far more likely to clear waivers than Erickson because a team in need of a returner will snag Erickson in a heartbeat.

[Brownshoe]

I'm surprised how many people don't have Erickson or Peerman making the roster. Both of them are special team beasts. I'm pretty sure the RBs will be Mixon, Gio, Hill, Peerman. I just don't think we will keep 7 WRs, and I don't know who we can drop.

[jeremydc]

(05-02-2017, 02:54 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: I'm surprised how many people don't have Erickson or Peerman making the roster. Both of them are special team beasts. I'm pretty sure the RBs will be Mixon, Gio, Hill, Peerman. I just don't think we will keep 7 WRs, and I don't know who we can drop.

Agreed on both. Lawson and Wilson may free up that 7th wr spot if they play multiple positions .

[yellowxdiscipline]

(05-01-2017, 09:20 PM)bonesaw Wrote: I think Dielman was drafted because we can get him to the practice squad

I wouldn't bank on that. You don't draft guys because he's stashable, because more than likely someone else valued him more and will scoop him off the PS

[Au165]

(05-02-2017, 12:32 AM)Whatever Wrote: Erickson is unlikely to go anywhere.  We all saw how long they held on to Tate, and Erickson had a very good year last year.  Simmons, as the ST's coach, has a ton of say in who they keep as the 4 and 5 WR.  The #6 is traditionally a developmental player who only dresses in case of injury.  Ross and Mixon are unlikely to be utilized full time on return duty, and will likely only be used when the team is looking for a big play.

Green, Boyd, and Ross are locks.  LaFell is a virtual lock unless he has a very poor camp and preseason and a bubble player steps up huge.  Erickson has the inside track on the #5 spot as the primary returner.  Malone is pretty much a lock unless he has a complete disaster in camp.  Core will likely go to the PS, as he still has eligibility.  He's also far more likely to clear waivers than Erickson because a team in need of a returner will snag Erickson in a heartbeat.

I completely disagree. They didn't comment on all of the rookies ability to return for no reason. Erickson is fighting for a roster spot big time. Hard to justify a guy who's major quality is returning when we got guys that bring far more as a WR, but also we have guys who can cover the return duties.

[Okeana]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18_cLXbo8_eVE9dSOqP0RWviIj7kwKcioHoZ5kejQoEs/edit?usp=sharing

an updated version of my final 53. Lawson will act as the 7th LB and as a DE on the roster. I had us taking 6 WR in favor of keeping Redmon as a backup lineman. It basically came down to Core or Erickson and I think the measurables of Core are more favorable, but it could easily be Erickson. Running 6 CB's with Derron Smith acting as a swing 7th.

The Defensive line has to lose people this year. I think they keep Glasgow, but Hardison or Thompson has to go. So I put Thompson on IRI and started Hardison. Sims, Williams, and Gillberry all gone. Willis will be both DE and DT similar to Gil and he can play LDE.

I have Fejedelem losing out to Wilson and going PS and Flowers/PJ Dawson get cut in favor Jordan Evans and of course Lawson.

[Okeana]

(05-02-2017, 09:09 AM)Au165 Wrote: I completely disagree. They didn't comment on all of the rookies ability to return for no reason. Erickson is fighting for a roster spot big time. Hard to justify a guy who's major quality is returning when we got guys that bring far more as a WR, but also we have guys who can cover the return duties.

Agreed.  I think Wilson will be among the favorites to take over return duties because he brings more to the team.  I think its Erickson vs Core and they like core better

[Whatever]

(05-02-2017, 09:09 AM)Au165 Wrote: I completely disagree. They didn't comment on all of the rookies ability to return for no reason. Erickson is fighting for a roster spot big time. Hard to justify a guy who's major quality is returning when we got guys that bring far more as a WR, but also we have guys who can cover the return duties.

They've commented on every player who has an ounce of return ability in every post draft press conference since forever.  How many kicks have you seen Gio and Boyd returning?  Not many.  It's their job in those interviews to hype these kids up to get the fanbase excited and buying tickets.  The only way Erickson gets cut is one of the rookies wins the return job, which won't be easy, and if it's even close, Erickson will get the job by default.

The Bengals drafted John Ross 9th overall, and they are going to revamp the playbook to take advantage of his skill set.  The only WR we have with a similar skill set is Erickson.  If they cut him, they have to scrap a section of the playbook.  That doesn't make much logical sense.

Speaking of not making logical sense, why would you keep Core on the 53 when you can most likely get him on the PS and keep both players?  

[Whatever]

(05-02-2017, 10:25 AM)Okeana Wrote: Agreed.  I think Wilson will be among the favorites to take over return duties because he brings more to the team.  I think its Erickson vs Core and they like core better

Wilson will have to beat out Peerman for the 4th RB spot, and we all know Simmons will bang his fist on the table for Peerman.  

I think if the coaches were that high on Core, he would've been able to take James Wright's spot on the game day roster.  They were so down on Wright at the end of the year that they waived him and weren't even willing to give him a shot to win a job in TC. 

At the end of the day, Core is probably just the second coming of Kumerow, who was the second coming of Wright, who was the second coming of Whalen, who was the second coming of Binns.  In other words, a scrub WR who got some fluff pieces written about him in camp to make people think he's the next Marques Colston who'll be out of the league within 2 years of the Bengals cutting him.

[*ochocincos*]

(05-02-2017, 12:35 PM)Whatever Wrote: Wilson will have to beat out Peerman for the 4th RB spot, and we all know Simmons will bang his fist on the table for Peerman.  

I think if the coaches were that high on Core, he would've been able to take James Wright's spot on the game day roster.  They were so down on Wright at the end of the year that they waived him and weren't even willing to give him a shot to win a job in TC. 

At the end of the day, Core is probably just the second coming of Kumerow, who was the second coming of Wright, who was the second coming of Whalen, who was the second coming of Binns.  In other words, a scrub WR who got some fluff pieces written about him in camp to make people think he's the next Marques Colston who'll be out of the league within 2 years of the Bengals cutting him.

Wright was activated over Core because of Wright's contributions on ST. Core is much less experienced/effective on ST.

[Luvnit2]

(05-01-2017, 03:26 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I posted this in the original thread that used this format, but I'll re-post it here as well:

Lawson gives us flex at LB, Smith and Johnson give us flex at guard, Wilson gives us flex at S, RB, ST and Returner. There are multiple flexes between DT and DE.

Wilson, Mixon and Ross are all capable return men, allowing us to cut Erickson and Wilson, Dennard, Fejedelem and Evans allow us to cut Peerman.

Of course right now with zero camp injuries, looks like we have a lot of tough calls. The biggest being Erickson and Peerman on your list. I would also argue we may a vet OT if they feel Smith can no longer play RT. I hope we have no injuries, but for example they may be very cautious with Gio placing him on IR for 6 weeks also.

[Au165]

(05-02-2017, 12:24 PM)Whatever Wrote: They've commented on every player who has an ounce of return ability in every post draft press conference since forever.  How many kicks have you seen Gio and Boyd returning?  Not many.  It's their job in those interviews to hype these kids up to get the fanbase excited and buying tickets.  The only way Erickson gets cut is one of the rookies wins the return job, which won't be easy, and if it's even close, Erickson will get the job by default.

The Bengals drafted John Ross 9th overall, and they are going to revamp the playbook to take advantage of his skill set.  The only WR we have with a similar skill set is Erickson.  If they cut him, they have to scrap a section of the playbook.  That doesn't make much logical sense.

Speaking of not making logical sense, why would you keep Core on the 53 when you can most likely get him on the PS and keep both players?  

Yea we will have to wait and see. I think it makes no sense to keep a less talented guy to return when you have guys who have done it well in college. Boyd was good at it in college, but we were so thin last year at WR they didn't want top risk using him. Pacman can return punts and with the youth a CB maybe we see him do it more.

As for Erickson being Ross's back up, that is laughable. Erickson is nothing like Ross, other than he is small. Alex ERickson is a slot receiver and nothing else, Ross will play all over the field. Malone is much closer to Ross than Erickson. You don't put core on the PS because he has decent game tape and you don't risk losing him. Heading in to the draft they were referring to him as the future 2 possibly. You don't put him on PS if you have any plans of cutting bait with LaFell next year.

[Whatever]

(05-02-2017, 12:37 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Wright was activated over Core because of Wright's contributions on ST. Core is much less experienced/effective on ST.

Which I could go with if not for the fact that Wright was almost as bad on ST's as he was at WR and the offense was struggling mightily.

However, if that's what you want to go with, that just further emphasizes my point about how much influence Simmons has over these bubble WR's.  Who do you think he's gonna push to keep, the guy that led the AFC in KR average or the guy they couldn't dress last year because he wasn't good enough at ST's?

[*ochocincos*]

(05-02-2017, 12:45 PM)Whatever Wrote: Which I could go with if not for the fact that Wright was almost as bad on ST's as he was at WR and the offense was struggling mightily.

However, if that's what you want to go with, that just further emphasizes my point about how much influence Simmons has over these bubble WR's.  Who do you think he's gonna push to keep, the guy that led the AFC in KR average or the guy they couldn't dress last year because he wasn't good enough at ST's?

According to Hobson, it sounds like they will try to do whatever they can to keep seven WRs because they are high on both Core and Erickson.

Geoff Hobson Wrote:Brandon LaFell is going nowhere and as of right now I think they’re going to do everything possible to keep seven wide receivers. The coaches absolutely love Josh Malone and I think everyone in their room thought he’d be gone in the second round. But he just turned 21 and the sense is he’s viewed as a guy that’s going to need a year to develop and will probably be inactive for most games. So LaFell and Malone are going nowhere and they also covet Cody Core and Alex Erickson, so the sense is that tough cut may be elsewhere. But that’s a long way off.

http://www.bengals.com/news/article-1/Hobsons-Choice-upon-further-review-/bdb07b94-e441-4901-8110-82653940ed62

[Au165]

(05-02-2017, 12:48 PM)ochocincos Wrote: According to Hobson, it sounds like they will try to do whatever they can to keep seven WRs because they are high on both Core and Erickson.
http://www.bengals.com/news/article-1/Hobsons-Choice-upon-further-review-/bdb07b94-e441-4901-8110-82653940ed62

7 WR's is kind of unheard of. Maybe they start with Gio on the Pup and only carry 3 HBs to start the season.

[*ochocincos*]

(05-02-2017, 12:53 PM)Au165 Wrote: 7 WR's is kind of unheard of. Maybe they start with Gio on the Pup and only carry 3 HBs to start the season.

Or 8 OL, or cut Hewitt. Or go light on defense somewhere and carry 26 offensive players instead of 25. There are options. There can be arguments made for or against a certain position.
I honestly think an injury will happen somewhere on offense and we won't be debating this come end of preseason.

[muskiesfan]

I saw Hobson has said the team is wanting to keep 7 WRs which makes me believe that Erickson makes the team. He did a very good job as a return man last year, so it makes sense. There will be some tough cuts this year and that's before they dig through other team's cuts. So I'm expecting them to keep Green, LaFell, Boyd, Core, Ross, Malone, and Erickson. I'm sure they'll keep Peerman which gives us 4 backs; Hill, Bernard, Mixon, Peerman. We know Dalton and McCarron are locks. So I'm thinking it will look something like this

QB(2)- Dalton, McCarron
RB(4)- Hill, Bernard, Mixon, Peerman
WR(7)- Green, LaFell, Boyd, Core, Ross, Malone, Erickson
TE(4)- Eifert, Kroft, Uzomah, Hewitt
T(3)- Ogbuehi, Fisher, Smith
G(4)- Boling, Westerman, Hopkins, Redmond
C(2)- Bodine, Johnson
DE(4)- Johnson, Dunlap, Clarke, Willis
DT(4)- Atkins, Billings, Hardison, Glasgow
LB(6)- Burfitct, Minter, Lawson, Vigil, Rey, Evans
CB(6)- Jones, Kirkpatrick, Dennard, Shaw, Russell, Jackson
S(4)- Iloka, Williams, Smith, Wilson
LS(1)- Harris
P(1)- Huber
K(1)- Elliott

Let me tell you, that was pretty tough. I had Winston as my last cut. Probably not a reality, but if keeping 7 WRs is really in the plan I had no idea who else to trim off the roster.

[Au165]

(05-02-2017, 12:59 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Or 8 OL, or cut Hewitt. Or go light on defense somewhere and carry 26 offensive players instead of 25. There are options. There can be arguments made for or against a certain position.
I honestly think an injury will happen somewhere on offense and we won't be debating this come end of preseason.

Probably. I don't think Hewitt gets cut though. I already explained the financials there, we would be paying him 60% of his salary not to play for us.

[*ochocincos*]

It's worth pointing out that at this point last year, everyone pegged Brandon tate making the team because there didn't seem to be anyone that could supplant him as the returner. And then some UDFA out of Wisconsin ends up taking his roster spot.

Granted Erickson ended up having a very good year as a returner, but it doesn't mean there still can't be an upgrade that comes along. The Bengals have a lot of options now at returner and someone could still supplant Erickson.

[BenZoo2]

Not sure how we keep 7 WRs and 3 qbs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk