Christian Westerman

[fredtoast]

(11-21-2018, 02:51 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Was there anything more predictable than Fred showing up in this thread to go on a crusade about how brilliant the coaches are for playing Redmond over Westerman, and how we're all a bunch of idiots who know nothing?

The same guy who was riding Livings jock harder than can be, right up to the point where he was cut and NEVER played in the NFL again. "But der da der, he got a big contract in FA!"

Followed up by how brilliant Paul Alexander was, riding his jock right up to the point he got fired only what, 7 games into his first season? "But der da der, he's really respected by the HS conferences!"


Sure wish we were all as smart and infallible as the coaches and Fred.

Livings was released by the Cowboys with an injury settlement.

Alexander I admitted had to go after the Ogbuehi, Fisher draft debacle.  But I will still defend his credentials from his coaching career prior to that.

But I honestly do believe that NFL coaches who watch these guys take hundreds of snaps in practice know more bout which ones are the best than the guys here on the message board.  Back when the Bengals never had a winning season I could understand calling our coaches "the worst" or an "embarrassment" but since they have been out performing most other teams in the league it seems kind of silly.

Bengals need to improve, but that does not mean that every single move they make is wrong.  It would be impossible for Marvin to have a winning record against other NFL coaches if that was true.  We just have too many drama queens  with serious victim mentality around here.  They don't want to just criticize the coaching  and playing ability.  Instead they want to make it personal by claiming the coaches and players have serious character flaws where they are intentionally doing things to upset fans and lose games.

[Beaker]

(11-21-2018, 02:51 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Was there anything more predictable than Fred showing up in this thread to go on a crusade about how brilliant the coaches are for playing Redmond over Westerman, and how we're all a bunch of idiots who know nothing?

1. Fred wasn't crusading about how brilliant the coaches are. He simply says the coaches see them every day in practice and fans don't. Therefore, the coaches have more info/knowledge with which to base their assessments than the fans do.

2. Fred is correct with that assertion.

3. I am not a Fred apologist, in fact Fred and I don't see eye to eye on many topics. But when he presents valid stats in this particular forum, many fans tell him he's wrong and begin with the "Fred is a Bengals shill" BS. Too many of us fans watch games and think we know more than people getting paid to make those decisions. That doesn't mean those people are always right, but it does mean they know mor than you or you would be getting paid for your knowledge instead of them.

4. Fans run on nearly 100% emotion. That is never more evident than in this forum. Logic be damned, stats are wrong, "I don't care if the coaches see them every day and know them as people, I know more than the coaches. Blow the whole thing up. Fire everybody, cut all the players who make a mistake, overpay for every big name FA who comes down the road, do that and the Bengals will surely win the SB!" It's amazingly absurd and I am glad that the Bengals front office doesn't bend to the fickle will of the fans every time they get upset.

[Sled21]

(11-21-2018, 02:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Bengals are 11th in league in average yard per carry (4.5) despite having only one run of greater than 40 yards.

Bengals are tenth in fewest sacks allowed.

Bengals O-line needs to improve, but their production is pretty good for second rate players under the tutelage of second rate coaches.

I think that sack percentage is only due to Andy getting the ball out so quickly. He rarely has time to go through all his reads.... he's just lucky Green or Boyd are usually getting it done.

[I_C_DeadPeople]

Do yourselves a huge favor, put Fred on ignore like i did, does as world of good.

[Beaker]

(11-21-2018, 03:19 PM)I_C_DeadPeople Wrote: Do yourselves a huge favor, put Fred on ignore like i did, does as world of good.

Ignoring logic always does. 

[Whodey614]

As much as I would like to see Westerman get a real chance, I don't think it's undeniable that Pollack has done a pretty solid job thus far. He's handpicked one player (2 if you count the Glenn trade). Just last year we could barely get more than 1-2 yards on a run. We're averaging 4.5 this year. Crazy to think about considering Mixon isn't used as much as he should be. Price was out for a while, he hasn't been great but he will become a solid player. Hopkins stepped up and filled in admirably at center. Bobby Hart has looked serviceable at times this year. Redmond has actually put together some solid games as of late, so he's showing some improvement. You think that would've happened with PA? Hell, Bodine would still be here and Ogbuehi probably starting at RT.

Let's give him a chance to build the line before we give him the PA treatment. The line still needs a RG/RT. Might need to keep our options open at LT too if Glenn keeps struggling. That's where we will judge Pollack. Maybe Westerman replaces Boling after next season? Boling would only be 30, but maybe that's "old" for a guard in Mike Brown's eyes.

[SladeX]

Personally I hate the whole "you're not an NFL coach, so STFU" argument. It is designed to do nothing except kill discussion. None of the board are NFL coaches, so I guess we should all stop discussing the team and potential moves or non moves, and just cheer.

Go bengals! Who dey!

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(11-21-2018, 09:12 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Alexander says he's not good enough.... I'm cynical. Then Pollack comes in and says he's not good enough.... he's not good enough.

Pretty much.  In the case of Westerman, he's had eyes from two different line coaches.....well, 1 and a half.....and he's not getting a shot.  Pollack changed from PA in that he did roll with Redman.  I think we just mucked up another line pick.

[fredtoast]

(11-21-2018, 04:00 PM)SladeX Wrote: Personally I hate the whole "you're not an NFL coach, so STFU" argument. It is designed to do nothing except kill discussion. None of the board are NFL coaches, so I guess we should all stop discussing the team and potential moves or non moves, and just cheer.

I have no problem with people arguing about coaches decisions regarding players that we have all seen play.

But it is absurd to claim that anyone here knows more about a player who has only been on the filed for less than one game in the regular season than coaches who have seen him take hundred of reps in practice.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(11-21-2018, 01:56 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Pollack said this? I thought it was Marvin who said why Westerman wasn't playing?

EDIT - It was Marvin who said it https://www.cincyjungle.com/2018/8/29/17791954/marvin-lewis-hints-at-frustration-bengals-og-christian-westerman

Well......hmmmmmmm  

[McC]

(11-21-2018, 10:56 AM)fredtoast Wrote: There is not a single NFL team that just randomly plays guys to see how good they are.  Coaches watch practice and play who they think is best.  They don't replace a starter unless they think that his back up is better.

If terrible teams are just always getting better by playing their back ups then you should be able to give me a few examples, right?

You keep talking about the "ONLY WAY" to find out how good a player is is to play him them, but for some reason you can't you give me a long list of teams that are benching their starters to play back ups on a whim?  It may happen from time to time, but the claim that it is the "only way" is completely ridiculous.  If it was the "only way" then every team in the league would be doing it all the time.

You accuse anyone who disagrees with you of trolling yet all you do is make up total BS and post it as if it is a fact.

On a whim?  If a guy is sucking and bringing everybody else down, I'd hardly call it a whim to try the next guy.  I'm not talking about a team that is playing well randomly benching starters.  I am talking about a team that is stinking it up trying to do something about it.

You tell me another way to tell if a guy can get it done in a game other than playing him.

[McC]

(11-21-2018, 04:00 PM)SladeX Wrote: Personally I hate the whole "you're not an NFL coach, so STFU" argument. It is designed to do nothing except kill discussion. None of the board are NFL coaches, so I guess we should all stop discussing the team and potential moves or non moves, and just cheer.

Go bengals! Who dey!

Spot on.  Those are the words of a lame ass who just wants to argue but really has no salient point.

[fredtoast]

(11-21-2018, 07:06 PM)McC Wrote: You tell me another way to tell if a guy can get it done in a game other than playing him.

Well, based on what every other NFL team does I would say evaluate him on the practice field.

Even when you are dealing with backups you don't see teams rotate every one they have at a particular position.  Instead they pick the one they feel is the best and play him.  If he struggles and they feel they might have someone better then they will try someone better.  But most of the time they will pick the best looking guy from practice and stick with him.

Most back ups struggle when they get into games.  This is because they are not as good as the starters.  But it does not mean there is an equal chance the guy below him on the depth chart is better.

[fredtoast]

(11-21-2018, 07:08 PM)McC Wrote: Spot on.  Those are the words of a lame ass who just wants to argue but really has no salient point.

(11-21-2018, 05:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have no problem with people arguing about coaches decisions regarding players that we have all seen play.

But it is absurd to claim that anyone here knows more about a player who has only been on the filed for less than one game in the regular season than coaches who have seen him take hundred of reps in practice.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-21-2018, 05:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have no problem with people arguing about coaches decisions regarding players that we have all seen play.

But it is absurd to claim that anyone here knows more about a player who has only been on the filed for less than one game in the regular season than coaches who have seen him take hundred of reps in practice.

Less than one game?

He started both of the last two games of last year, and looked pretty good.

[fredtoast]

(11-21-2018, 05:52 PM)Wyche Wrote: Well......hmmmmmmm  

(11-21-2018, 02:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: https://bengalswire.usatoday.com/2018/08/13/frank-pollack-pro-football-focus-explains-christian-westerman-isnt-starting/


Westerman didn’t seem to take too many first-team reps either.

That’s because Pollack sees what he sees and doesn’t care what outsiders have to say, as he told reporters:

Quote:

“No offense to Pro Football Focus, but I really don’t give a damn what they say,” Pollack said. “He had the same as about everybody else. He did a lot of good stuff. He was physical. He’s got to clean up his technique. He got high at times. But he’s grinding on that. He’s got to work on better hand placement. He did a lot of good things, as did everybody. But as did everybody else, he made some mistakes he’s got to improve. Typical Game 1 stuff.”

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-21-2018, 07:06 PM)McC Wrote: On a whim?  If a guy is sucking and bringing everybody else down, I'd hardly call it a whim to try the next guy.  I'm not talking about a team that is playing well randomly benching starters.  I am talking about a team that is stinking it up trying to do something about it.

You tell me another way to tell if a guy can get it done in a game other than playing him.

Come on McC... benching a guy who for awhile there was leading the NFL in pressures allowed and penalties committed? Don't be so influenced by whims.  

[3wt]

(11-21-2018, 10:56 AM)fredtoast Wrote: There is not a single NFL team that just randomly plays guys to see how good they are.  Coaches watch practice and play who they think is best.  They don't replace a starter unless they think that his back up is better.

If terrible teams are just always getting better by playing their back ups then you should be able to give me a few examples, right?

You keep talking about the "ONLY WAY" to find out how good a player is is to play him them, but for some reason you can't you give me a long list of teams that are benching their starters to play back ups on a whim?  It may happen from time to time, but the claim that it is the "only way" is completely ridiculous.  If it was the "only way" then every team in the league would be doing it all the time.

You accuse anyone who disagrees with you of trolling yet all you do is make up total BS and post it as if it is a fact.

I think you are absolutely right that few if any teams play guys instead of their starters to see how they will play - especially if they have not separated themselves in practice.

But it doesn't mean that there's no benefit in trying.   I think of players that come in and exceed everyone's expectations - like Farve and Brady.  But they were only given chances because the starting player got injured.

I think if we get to the point where it is clear we have no chance for the playoffs, and Redmond continues to struggle I'd be inclined to give Westerman a sustained trial at RG.

[McC]

(11-21-2018, 11:00 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Marvin never cut him.  He was a free agent and he Broncos offered him more money than we did.

Peko 100% proves my point that the message board consensus is sometimes very stupid. 

Okay, so he gave him a we don't want you back offer.  Splitting hairs.

[fredtoast]

(11-21-2018, 07:17 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Less than one game?

He started both of the last two games of last year, and looked pretty good.

 People talk about how key Redmond and Westerman were those last two games but they each basically played half of the offensive snaps with Trey Hopkins playing 100%.  Bengals had 163 offensive snaps those last two games.  Hopkins played all 163.  Westerman played 87 (53%) and Redmond 80 (49%).

So I guess Westerman actually played a little more than one average game.