Eifert

[reuben.ahmed]

I would be surprised if AJ Green stayed for money, based on recent interviews. Let's not let this guy rot on our team. He doesn't have a ton of time left, easily hitting midpoint of career and going to be going downhill.

By blow up I mean change the major pieces, we don't have that many major pieces.
QB - iffy
RB - pick 1 or 2, damn.
WR - who knows? Can't see why AJ would want to stay here, changes the game when you don't have a guy that needs to get doubled
TE - Eifert is gone
OL - I don't know if anyone is doing well, revamp

I thikn Lazor is definitely going to try and fix QB and RB rhythm and stop playing 3 RBs.

Dalton and Green combo is not getting any younger, and not everyone is like T. Brady, they're going to hit the hill. At that point, Dalton isn't good enough for us to want to stick with him when he's on the downside of his career. AJ would be frustrated to feel like we might be in a rebuild.

We tried, we got 5 straight playoff years, good times with this group. This coming from someone who says there are 31 losers every year. It's tough to win the super bowl with dynasty franchises that are run better than us. Something that I think Kyrie Irving will figure out when he retires with 1 ring.

[Atomic Orange]

Just add him to the pile of "what ifs".

[Shake n Blake]

(09-18-2017, 07:05 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It's the same with Gronk except it's way different because he isn't hurt nearly as much as Eifert.  When are we going to stop pulling the "Gronk is injured, too" rabbit out of the hat on this one?

I wouldn't say "nearly as much".

Gronk has missed 28 games in his last 5 years and is currently nicked up.
Eifert has missed 28 games in 4 years and is currently nicked up.

Both have had several types of injuries, including back problems for both.

[*bengalfan74*]

Man this guy !

[CincyWestside]

Should make him cheap to extend. I'd give him a contract with incentives to stay on the field. Can't deny his talent and redzone presence. He was a top 5 TE a few years ago, I'd bank on getting him cheap over an unknown draft prospect.

[jj22]

Time to move on. At least we didn't extend him.

[*Nately120*]

(09-18-2017, 10:59 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I wouldn't say "nearly as much".

Gronk has missed 28 games in his last 5 years and is currently nicked up.
Eifert has missed 28 games in 4 years and is currently nicked up.

Both have had several types of injuries, including back problems for both.

I ran the numbers all quick like yesterday and Gronk is good for about 12 games per year and Eifert for 9 or so.  I can calculate it again if I get a moment. 


..............Gronk.....Eifert

2016.......8............8
2015.......15..........13
2014........15.........1
2013 ........7........15
2012 ........11
2011 ........16
2010 ........16
AVG ........12.57........9.25
MEDIAN....15............10.5

[Shake n Blake]

(09-19-2017, 11:48 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I ran the numbers all quick like yesterday and Gronk is good for about 12 games per year and Eifert for 9 or so.  I can calculate it again if I get a moment. 


..............Gronk.....Eifert

2016.......8............8
2015.......15..........13
2014........15.........1
2013 ........7........15
2012 ........11
2011 ........16
2010 ........16
AVG ........12.57........9.25

Right on, but Gronk's only 16 game seasons were the first 2 seasons of his career. It kinda looks like he's fallen off quite a bit since then.

5 seasons is a long time, and that's how long Gronk has been having injury problems.

Now this isn't me saying Eifert is worth a fat contract (Gronk has always been amazing when he suits up, Eifert has been inconsistent). Strictly from an injury standpoint, there hasn't been an enormous gap lately. That's all I'm saying.

[snowy]

Nately120 Wrote:It's the same with Gronk except it's way different because he isn't hurt nearly as much as Eifert.  When are we going to stop pulling the "Gronk is injured, too" rabbit out of the hat on this one?

You're reading things into it that aren't there. My point is, Eifert is injured and now Gronk is, too. No rabbits, no hats. And it IS a shame they're so young to have their bodies falling apart. Thass all.

[McC]

(09-19-2017, 03:43 PM)snowy Wrote: You're reading things into it that aren't there. My point is, Eifert is injured and now Gronk is, too. No rabbits, no hats. And it IS a shame they're so young to have their bodies falling apart. Thass all.

It's the position.  TE's who don't get injured are rare.  Probably the most dangerous position on the field.  They're big targets taking blind shots, having their knees taken out or being gang tackled.  Harm's Way is where they live.

[*PhilHos*]

Is it possible that Eiffert has been asked to block more due to our crappy OL? Might explain his injuries and lack of production.

It's a serious question. I can't recall how much blocking he's been asked to do this year.

[Big Boss]

Can't even be bothered to care anymore.

[*Nately120*]

(09-19-2017, 03:43 PM)snowy Wrote: You're reading things into it that aren't there. My point is, Eifert is injured and now Gronk is, too. No rabbits, no hats. And it IS a shame they're so young to have their bodies falling apart. Thass all.

I'm just saying Eifert has played 15 games once and Gronk has played 15 or 16 4 times.   That's all. Gronk misses less games than Eifert.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-19-2017, 04:05 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm just saying Eifert has played 15 games once and Gronk has played 15 or 16 4 times.   That's all.  Gronk misses less games than Eifert.

But that's only because he's played in more.

[Millhouse]

Last two years they took a receiver in the 1st and 2nd rounds, when Eifert is unreliable to stay healthy. Is it too soon to say in hindsight that they should have taken a tight end instead of Boyd or even maybe Ross? Just a question/thought is all.

[*ochocincos*]

How I view the Bengals' options after this year:
#1 = AJ Green
#2 = Joe Mixon
#3 = John Ross
#4 = Brandon LaFell or Tyler Boyd
#5 = TE or Core/Malone based on play call

The Bengals don't need some elite pass catching TE that is often hurt.
They invested two first round picks into Green and Ross, and two second rounders into Mixon and Boyd. Use them.
Going back to having TE being one of the last options and used a decent amount for blocking like the Bengals used to wouldn't be the worst thing. They sure made it work with Chad, Housh, Henry, Rudi, and Reggie Kelly.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-19-2017, 11:48 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I ran the numbers all quick like yesterday and Gronk is good for about 12 games per year and Eifert for 9 or so.  I can calculate it again if I get a moment. 


..............Gronk.....Eifert

2016.......8............8
2015.......15..........13
2014........15.........1
2013 ........7........15
2012 ........11
2011 ........16
2010 ........16
AVG ........12.57........9.25
MEDIAN....15............10.5

Not to mention..
Gronk's last 5 years:  226 catches / 3,581 yards (15.8 AVG) / 31 TD
Eifert's 5 years: 127 catches / 1,537 yards (12.1 AVG) / 20 TD

(09-18-2017, 10:59 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I wouldn't say "nearly as much".

Gronk has missed 28 games in his last 5 years and is currently nicked up.
Eifert has missed 28 games in 4 years and is currently nicked up.

Both have had several types of injuries, including back problems for both.

Shake... I am sorry I gotta do this, it's going to hurt me more than you.

You just Fred'd that post.

I'm sorry, it had to be said. You used shady unequal criteria and, from my count unless you're including postseason (which would be even more unfair criteria), bad math.

Gronk's last 5 years vs Eifert's last 4? (24 vs 27 by my count)... You could have done last 4 vs last 4. (19 vs 27) Or you could have done first 4 vs first 4 (14 vs 27). But you chose the Fred route. Never choose the Fred route.  

[Shake n Blake]

(09-19-2017, 06:04 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Shake... I am sorry I gotta do this, it's going to hurt me more than you.

You just Fred'd that post.

I'm sorry, it had to be said. You used shady unequal criteria and, from my count unless you're including postseason (which would be even more unfair criteria), bad math.

Gronk's last 5 years vs Eifert's last 4? (24 vs 27 by my count)... You could have done last 4 vs last 4. (19 vs 27) Or you could have done first 4 vs first 4 (14 vs 27). But you chose the Fred route. Never choose the Fred route.  

No complicated manipulation of numbers here. It's simple. I used 5 years for Gronk because that's how long he's been having injury troubles. I used 4 years for Eifert because that's how long he's been in the league and he's always dealt with injuries since he's been in the NFL.

If you don't like that the years aren't equal (let's be honest, you just don't like that they don't paint Eifert in the worst light possible), then go ahead and average them. Gronk has averaged 5.6 missed games over the last 5 years and Eifert has averaged 7 missed games.

I included playoff games. Eifert missed 1 playoff game whereas Gronk missed 4. I don't see how that's unfair. Gronk missed the games, so I counted them. If anything, missing playoff games should count for more.

I used pro football reference if you want to check my numbers.

Honestly you're picking nits anyway. I didn't intend my post to be some big defense of Eifert. I guess I deserved it though, because I was picking nits with Nately saying "it's not even close". 

[TKUHL]

(09-19-2017, 04:24 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Last two years they took a receiver in the 1st and 2nd rounds, when Eifert is unreliable to stay healthy. Is it too soon to say in hindsight that they should have taken a tight end instead of Boyd or even maybe Ross? Just a question/thought is all.

I was pounding the table for Howard. Simply for the fact Eifert is always hurt, and soon to be FA. Plus I didn't see what it would hurt to take a guy in the first who can be a threat on offense as well as help for this horrible line as a blocker.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-19-2017, 07:35 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: No complicated manipulation of numbers here. It's simple. I used 5 years for Gronk because that's how long he's been having injury troubles. I used 4 years for Eifert because that's how long he's been in the league and he's always dealt with injuries since he's been in the NFL.

If you don't like that the years aren't equal (let's be honest, you just don't like that they don't paint Eifert in the worst light possible), then go ahead and average them. Gronk has averaged 5.6 missed games over the last 5 years and Eifert has averaged 7 missed games.

I included playoff games. Eifert missed 1 playoff game whereas Gronk missed 4. I don't see how that's unfair. Gronk missed the games, so I counted them. If anything, missing playoff games should count for more.

I used pro football reference if you want to check my numbers.

Honestly you're picking nits anyway. I didn't intend my post to be some big defense of Eifert. I guess I deserved it though, because I was picking nits with Nately saying "it's not even close". 

I guess my problem was you added that extra year, but cut it off right before two 16-game Gronk seasons. Gronk's 7 seasons he's missed the same as his last 5 seasons, but one makes him look much more fragile.


I did redo the math using PFR and a calculator rather than just mental math just to make sure.

'12-'16 Gronk played 56 games.
5x16 = 80 possible games
80-56 = 24 games missed in those 5 years

Same with Eifert. '13-'16 he played 37 games.
4x16 = 64 possible games
64-37 = 27 games missed in those 4 years

So I still have no idea how you got 28 and 28, man. Lol