03-06-2018, 01:40 PM
(03-05-2018, 06:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Instead of just screaming insults give me the exact ratio.
But here is what is happening. you say we have to ignore Dalton and Green starting right away because the bengals wre FORCED to start them. Buut I am saying that Artie Burns was a starter his rookie season because the Steelers had the 30th ranked pass defense the pravious year and were forced to start him.
So If you are going to keep screaming about how i can't grasp a concept show me the nexcta ratio s you are claiming for both teams and we will discuss them.
What I Bolded above is a flat out distortion of what I said and distorting seems to be what you do..
I never said to "ignore" Dalton or Green.
They were simply outside of the 5 year comparison that I made.
I did say that Carson Palmer leaving the team forced the Bengals to have to draft Dalton high and thus did not give them time to draft and develop a QB behind Palmer. Palmer was himself drafted and developed, sitting for his rookie season behind Jon Kitna. Palmer leaving the team likely got the Bengals to do something they didn't want to do and that was to fast track the rookie QB Dalton. My point.
What I bolded above of what you claimed I said about AJ Green is a distortion. Likely just a distortion or bad memory on your part. Re-read the entire thread. I said nothing of the sort about AJ Green.
I did say that Steeler examples could also be found past 5 years out as the Dalton/Green examples were.
Your acknowledgement that the Steelers had to fast track Artie Burns because they had allowed their corners to be depleted as a way of saying the Bengal corner pipeline is a better approach because the Bengals don't allow them to get depleted actually supports my argument. The Bengals benefit by staying DEEPER at the corner position while the Steelers use those draft picks at other positions. Strengthening those other positions.
Similarly, drafting only 1 bell cow back in Leveon Bell with a high pick (1st or 2nd round) over a 5 year period can be compared with the Bengals drafting 3 running backs high which were all on the same roster for 1 season in Hill, Gio and Mixon. Depth at one position (running back) versus spreading 3 draft picks over other positions besides running back in this case.
There are pluses and minuses that can be discussed between the two approaches. Bengals benefit with a deep cornerback pipeline, while the Steelers allow their corners to get thinner in depth but can use those draft assets to make other positions on the team stronger.
I am all for a civil conversation on the pluses and minuses of each approach and I said in the thread that I simply wanted to see the Bengals do a little more of what the Steelers appear to be doing and a little less of the pipeline behind a veteran approach. What is a good balance of the two is where I was trying to take the conversation, however, the conversation never gets past your over-simplification of a multi-layered topic into start or not start day one opening day which it was never about.
My tweaking as I called it of what the Bengals tend to do would be to use the pipeline behind the veteran approach as much as possible while being open to improving any glaring weak link starting positions on the team as quality players to do so present themselves in drafts. Upgrade the starting team on the field more rapidly when and if weak links remain. Be open to a great Center in a draft for example as the Steelers were to getting Pouncey even if the cornerback pipeline gets depleted for a draft. Go back to the pipeline the next draft based on current needs and weak starting link reviews.
Both approaches have pluses and minuses, are getting used by both the Steelers and Bengals and I believe they are getting used at differing rates or ratios. You believe they are doing it at exactly the same rate which is fine with me for you to believe.
Didn't say all this to knock the Bengals. Did say it as a way of maybe doing something slightly different, at times as a way of improving the overall starting team more rapidly and reduce the amount of starting weak links versus having better depth at certain positions in preparation of veteran players leaving the team.
Being open to a change in this balance. Regulate it a little differently so to speak. Keeping in mind weak starting links at any position as we go for potential upgrade. The best BALANCE between both worlds.
