Brandon Thompson

[THE PISTONS]

(08-21-2017, 05:30 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If they didn't go after Zuttah, I doubt they go after anyone.

- - - - - - - -

Interesting fact... with Thompson leaving, that means only 1 of the 5 early (rd1-3) draft picks the Bengals made in 2012 are still on the roster.

That's a horrible stat. 5 year guys are usually the core of a roster.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Gonna miss Yams.

Yes he was middling for most of his time here, but man, that first step was still incredibly explosive; its too bad he could never leverage it well-enough.

[Bengal Dude]

(08-21-2017, 12:46 PM)bengalhoel Wrote: A.J. Green not a 90 after the season he was having?  What does it take to get a 90?

Be JJ Watt.

[McC]

(08-21-2017, 12:17 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Offense:
QB: Dalton (80.8)
RB: Hill (72.4), Gio (73.0)
WR: Green (89.4), LaFell (77.5), Boyd (73.0)
TE: Eifert (86.2)
FB: Hewitt (74.7)
OT: Ogbuehi (44.2), Fisher (47.8)
OG: Boling (73.0), Smith? (42.3 at OT) - assuming Hopkins will supplant by Wk 1 though
C: Bodine (70.5)

Defense:
DE: Dunlap (83.0), Johnson (43.4), Gilberry (72.2)
DT: Atkins (88.7), Sims? (68.2) - assuming he starts, but I'm guessing will be Billings
LB: Minter (77.5), Burfict (87.1), Vinny Rey (84.2)
S: Iloka (75.0), Williams (78.5)
CB: Jones (76.7), Kirkpatrick (72.4)

Bolded are those below 70. Only MJ and the OTs (and Sims and Smith if they actually start) had worse grades than Bodine.

Those are last year's numbers, right?  Is it ridiculous to think they might improve?

It may not sound like much but getting to 70 if you started out horrible seems like progress.

[*ochocincos*]

(08-21-2017, 05:05 PM)McC Wrote: Those are last year's numbers, right?  Is it ridiculous to think they might improve?

It may not sound like much but getting to 70 if you started out horrible seems like progress.

They are last year's numbers, yes. I can't view 2015 or earlier because I don't pay for PFF Edge.
But 70 = 28th C in the league. I also provided evidence that he's in the bottom 5 starters on the team.
And yes, 70 if you started out horrible does seem like progress, but what's the end goal and how long will it take to get there?
If it takes Bodine 5-10 years to become a top 15 C, is it worth the team suffering through those years just to get to that point to say they drafted a player who eventually got to be a top 15 C in the league? Or will it be easier/faster to get a new C via draft/FA? I'd lean with the latter.

Also, I admire your optimism, I really do. I just don't see the evidence to support that optimism a lot of the time.

[McC]

(08-21-2017, 05:19 PM)ochocincos Wrote: They are last year's numbers, yes. I can't view 2015 or earlier because I don't pay for PFF Edge.
But 70 = 28th C in the league. I also provided evidence that he's in the bottom 5 starters on the team.
And yes, 70 if you started out horrible does seem like progress, but what's the end goal and how long will it take to get there?
If it takes Bodine 5-10 years to become a top 15 C, is it worth the team suffering through those years just to get to that point to say they drafted a player who eventually got to be a top 15 C in the league? Or will it be easier/faster to get a new C via draft/FA? I'd lean with the latter.

Also, I admire your optimism, I really do. I just don't see the evidence to support that optimism a lot of the time.

But if you start at 50, it probably takes you a long time to get to 70.  But once you get to 70, I would think the leap to 75 or 80 might be within your reach in a reasonable amount of time.  I'm sure he'll never be great but I'm hoping for decent.  And sorry, but I won't buy into the gloom when it's still so early.

[*ochocincos*]

(08-21-2017, 06:20 PM)McC Wrote: But if you start at 50, it probably takes you a long time to get to 70.  But once you get to 70, I would think the leap to 75 or 80 might be within your reach in a reasonable amount of time.  I'm sure he'll never be great but I'm hoping for decent.  And sorry, but I won't buy into the gloom when it's still so early.

If we were talking about someone who was in their first or second year, I would agree. But Bodine's poor performance has been an issue now for three straight years, and it hasn't improved enough. It's not good that your second-best OL is the 28th best at his position. You shouldn't keep holding onto someone in hopes they one day become a good player because they are very marginally improving. Bodine is entering the final year of his contract and at this point there needs to be justification paying for Bodine over drafting a C within the first two days of the 2018 draft or picking up a different C in FA.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(08-21-2017, 06:42 PM)ochocincos Wrote: If we were talking about someone who was in their first or second year, I would agree. But Bodine's poor performance has been an issue now for three straight years, and it hasn't improved enough. It's not good that your second-best OL is the 28th best at his position. You shouldn't keep holding onto someone in hopes they one day become a good player because they are very marginally improving. Bodine is entering the final year of his contract and at this point there needs to be justification paying for Bodine over drafting a C within the first two days of the 2018 draft or picking up a different C in FA.

Their stubbornness on Bodine has been killer.
They have never brought in any potential competition either which hasn't inspired confidence. 

[McC]

(08-21-2017, 06:42 PM)ochocincos Wrote: If we were talking about someone who was in their first or second year, I would agree. But Bodine's poor performance has been an issue now for three straight years, and it hasn't improved enough. It's not good that your second-best OL is the 28th best at his position. You shouldn't keep holding onto someone in hopes they one day become a good player because they are very marginally improving. Bodine is entering the final year of his contract and at this point there needs to be justification paying for Bodine over drafting a C within the first two days of the 2018 draft or picking up a different C in FA.

All I'm saying is, this is who we have to work with.  Wanting better won't change that.  I'm just hoping he gets to 75.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(08-21-2017, 06:55 PM)McC Wrote: All I'm saying is, this is who we have to work with.  Wanting better won't change that.  I'm just hoping he gets to 75.

It doesn't concern you going into year 4 they have never even made an attempt at adding a better option? 

[McC]

(08-21-2017, 06:57 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: It doesn't concern you going into year 4 they have never even made an attempt at adding a better option? 

Does it matter or change anything if it concerns me?

[RoyleRedlegs]

(08-21-2017, 06:58 PM)McC Wrote: Does it matter or change anything if it concerns me?

It would actually mean you acknowledge they have botched the handling of the position instead of just saying "Oh shucks." 

[McC]

(08-21-2017, 07:01 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: It would actually mean you acknowledge they have botched the handling of the position instead of just saying "Oh shucks." 

Of course they have.  Who doesn't know that?  How many more times does it need said?  There is one hell of an echo around here, wouldn't you say?

[Whatever]

Wow. This thread gets started to talk about Thompson getting cut and immediately devolves into yet another "bash the OL and/or specific OL player" thread...because enough of those haven't been started or enough threads derailed into that discussion.

Anyways, Thompson was a decent rotational player before the injuries piled up, but he has that stigma of being a part of a horrid draft class for the Bengals. Best of luck to him.

[BoomerFan]

There was a time when I thought Brandon Thompson could be productive but between injuries and just never really showing up it makes sense to move on.

[*ochocincos*]

(08-21-2017, 07:34 PM)Whatever Wrote: Wow.  This thread gets started to talk about Thompson getting cut and immediately devolves into yet another "bash the OL and/or specific OL player" thread...because enough of those haven't been started or enough threads derailed into that discussion.

Anyways, Thompson was a decent rotational player before the injuries piled up, but he has that stigma of being a part of a horrid draft class for the Bengals.  Best of luck to him.

IMO Brandon Thompson did not live up to his draft status (3rd round) even when he was at his best health. He was healthy for all of 2013 and played 11 games in 2014. In those 27 games, he had only 2.5 sacks and 1 TFL. He had a great first step, but really never translated that into (much) NFL success.

I never expected him to make the Bengals roster this year and I don't think he would have made it last year either if he didn't go on IR.

[phil413]

With his injury history I don't know if he's going to make anyone's roster, but he is a nice option to have around if they have a rash of injuries. If you need him in Nov/Dec for a few weeks he can come right in and at least not be lost.

[Luvnit2]

(08-21-2017, 06:57 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: It doesn't concern you going into year 4 they have never even made an attempt at adding a better option? 

Nope, I trust the coaches. Bodine is not some 1st round pick we invested a bunch of money on, just the opposite he is low paid center on a rookie contract. Maybe Ml and PA and more so Vince Tobin disagree with you 100% and feel he is doing just fine. It amazes me how some think they have all the answers and their opinion is always correct. Maybe, you are dead wrong on Bodine, but you think rallying a bunch of other fans to share your opinion a player is "garbage" using words you use makes you right.

I look at it as the Bengals scouting and coaching department think Bodine is not an issue or as big an issue as you are trying to make it out to be. I am not worried about our interior line, I am worried big time about Ced and Fisher (who many are ignoring his shortcomings because they are so busy bashing Ced.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(08-21-2017, 10:22 AM)ochocincos Wrote: Still and always will be concerned with this guy...

It's a "witch hunt"! :paul:

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(08-21-2017, 11:53 AM)ochocincos Wrote: 70 is considered the very lowest for "average". The highest for "average" is 79.9. The #11 C last year (Greg Mancz) was 79.9, so he was labeled as "average" according to PFF.
Here are some data points since I had to look up select individuals and can't just get a simple list because I don't pay for premium...

Frederick DAL - #1 C 90 rating (elite)
Mack ATL - #4 C 88.7 rating (high quality)
Whitehair CHI - #6 C 85.9 rating (high quality)
Ben Jones TEN - #8 C 83 rating (above average)
JC Tretter CLE (formerly GB) - #9 C 81.4 (above average) - signed with CLE for 3-year, $16.75 mill (~$5.5 mill per year)
Greg Mancz HOU - #11 C 79.9 rating (average)
Maurkice Pouncey PIT - #13 C 78.6 rating (average)
Jeremy Zuttah BAL - #17 C 76.7 rating (average) - resigned with BAL for 2-year, $4 mill w/ incentives to go up to $6 mill ($2-3 mill per year)
Richburg NYG - #19 C 75 rating (average)
Ryan Kelly IND - #22 C 73.8 rating (average)
Bodine - #28 C 70 rating (average)


The difference in a 70 (Bodine - #28 C) and 81.4 (Tretter - #11 C) may not seem like a lot, but what it shows to me is that it should be pretty easy to find someone that can be better than 28th in the league. And a top 10 C was able to be picked up for just over $5 mill a year to a team that is a dumpster fire. The Bengals are closer to a SB than Cleveland and likely could have gotten Tretter for about the same contract (maybe even slightly less).

Michael Johnson (#103 edge last year - poor) could have been cut to free up $4 million to go toward JC Tretter (or some other OL).

Damn it pisses me off to see Alex Mack's name without CIN by it.....