Eifert NOT ruled out (yet), Green healing

[Shake n Blake]

(12-25-2015, 10:19 AM)BengalsRocker Wrote: I agree with you.

Now that Eifert has emerged and used successfully as a receiving threat.

1. The problem I had with letting Gresham go was the uncertainty that Eifert would be durable enough and be used in that way consistently.

2. Yes there were flashes of it... but would it last? 

3. The track record of this team the last decade kind of loomed.

4. Even you have to admit Gresham was head and shoulders above the previous "applicants"... more like appli-cant's.

I'm glad he's gone because of his strange moodswings and disappearing act if the ball wasn't fed to him early in games.

Would it have been nice to see him step in during Eifert's absence?  Sure.  

5. Kroft is serviceable for the moment. Not too much of a threat for the long haul as TE #1 if need be this season.

It really all depends on plays designed in his realm of abilities.

As far as Palmer goes. Yeah his time here was winding down IMO.

6. Not sure if that was more of a mental thing or just needed a new scheme.

Who knows. Maybe Gruden might have been the remedy for that though.

You gotta admit it. Palmer would have loved him some AJ Green.

I am a huge Chad fan but the quite in the huddle would have made Palmer a tad bit happy in that point in time.

1. The risk/reward didn't balance out for me. It seemed Gresh burned some bridges here. Was it worth the mood swings and mental lapses to keep an insurance policy that's capable of producing at an average level? May as well start fresh with a young player who isn't so polarizing.

2. I saw more reasons to believe in Eifert than reasons for doubt. He was a first round pick, best prospect in that draft and he produced Gresh-like numbers (445 yards) while playing 2nd fiddle as a rookie. Rookies TEs typically struggle, so Eifert's production made me believe he'd only be better in a featured role with more experience.

3. While we never really had reliable receiving TEs before Gresh, I think this had more to do with Marv's priorities (blocking) than their inability to find a good receiving TE. They loved Reggie Kelly despite his lack as a receiver. I just believe the priorities have changed.

4. Gresh was our best TE since Tony McGee, but again, I don't think pass catching was the trait that Marv was interested in, initially.

5. I think you're selling Kroft short. He's posted a statline of 4-62-1 in 2 games without Eifert. That would project to 32-496-8. Very Gresh like numbers. Sure it's a small sample size, but I think he's doing well so far.

6. I think it was a little of both. Things were stagnant and obviously Mike Brown wasn't going to make a change. Could Palmer have enjoyed a resurgance with Jay Gruden and AJ Green replacing Brat and a clearly aging (not distracted) Chad Johnson? Probably, but IMO we're already getting that type of production from a younger player. 

I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't think Palmer and Gresh were bad players. I just recognized that it was time to move on and I don't miss them because very promising and productive players have replaced them. Kroft included. I feel really good about that guy.