Should Bengals be switching rookie positions?

[McC]

(05-08-2017, 09:53 PM)jj22 Wrote: My argument isn't against Lawson. It's against another failed position switch forcing a college prospect as a rusher into the SAM spot. I'm actually shocked folks act like they haven't read this script before. Sorry if I spoiled the ending.

And people asked and I told. Damned if I ignore the quest for proof, damned if I don't. Either way did you have someone to add that Marvin has coached as HC that made the successful switch? Or are you just upset I was asked to defend my position and relunctantly after trying to ignore the silly request given Marvins history replied?

And the lawyer "speak" went completely over your head.

The quest for proof?  Are you ***** Sir Lancelot?  No lack of perspective there. 

Believe me, since you want to go insulting, nothing you say will ever go over my head.

And he made the successful switch with David Pollock.  Fate just stepped in and cancelled it.

So Marvin's failed twice and that means such a move will never work?  That's stupid.  And to argue so vehemently.  That's beyond stupid. 

And yes you are arguing against the player.  If he succeeds, let's just see how vehemently you admit you were wrong and how big of a tool you were about it.

[jj22]

Who was I insulting? And why are you telling me what I was arguing? I don't think you're making much sense. Fred and others asked and I answered. I wasn't even talking to you.

And yes the lawyer shot at Fred completely went over your head. Obviously. Comically. If that's insulting to you then sorry. Staying out of it if you get sensitive when something goes over your head.

[fredtoast]

(05-08-2017, 06:05 PM)jj22 Wrote: The case is closed Fred. Too little too late.

You need to learn how a debate works.

I made the last points and you could not come up with any reply.

That means I won, not you.

[fredtoast]

(05-08-2017, 09:53 PM)jj22 Wrote: My argument isn't against Lawson. It's against another failed position switch forcing a college prospect as a rusher into the SAM spot. I'm actually shocked folks act like they haven't read this script before. Sorry if I spoiled the ending.

You mean Peter Boulware making 4 Pro Bowls or Adalius Thomas making 3 Pro Bowls and even All Pro one year?

Pretty much every single NFL team looks at college DEs as potential OLBs.  Marvin has doen ti before with great success.  If the Bengals were NOT doing this then jj22 would probably be squealing about that also.

But it actually seems that he is just opposed to Lawson, and may not have been so upset if we had drafted a different "tweener".

[jj22]

I'm not responding so folks can attack me for responding. But if I wanted to attack Lawson, I'd attack him in a Lawson thread (I don't. I just want him focused on rushing the passer).

This is a thread about Bengals switching rookie positions and obviously I'm opposed to it. That's what this thread and the focus of my reply was about. Everything else is folks getting sensitive and upset over things they were confused over.

And maybe after 15 years of Marvin failing to find a SAM via this kind of position switch should let us know it was a credit to Peter and not Marvin.

[Jpoore]

(05-08-2017, 10:42 AM)ochocincos Wrote: I don't care where Lawson plays as long as Lawson and Willis can get 7+ sacks combined this year.
I don't think it's unrealistic to expect a third and fourth round pick to each pick up about 3.5 sacks each as rookies.
They were both projected early second round picks for a reason, so hopefully they are better than their actual draft positions indicate.

I actually think theyll borh get about 6 sacks. I think the dline gets 42 sacks this year. Willis/lawson getting pressure/sacks means less focus on dunlap and geno.

[Jpoore]

Who cares man?? Just be glad that we actually have depth for once, especially on that dline.

[fredtoast]

(05-09-2017, 09:12 AM)jj22 Wrote: And maybe after 15 years of Marvin failing to find a SAM via this kind of position switch should let us know it was a credit to Peter and not Marvin.

If Marvin had tried it over and opver with top picks or free agents then I would say that you have a point.  But his high pick (Pollack) did not fail because of coaching.  And we had the number 3 defense the year Marvin "Totally failed" with James Harrison.  Manny Lawson was a mid-tier free agent that we turned into a decent starter on a top 10 defense ever season he was here.  

Like I said before.  Every other team in the league does the same thing.  If the bengals were not doing it then people would be screaming at Marvin about that.  Some people will complain no matter what move the bengals make.

[*ochocincos*]

Those that are talking about the Bengals failing with James Harrison and Manny Lawson, I get it.
Harrison and Manny Lawson never had more than 2.0 sacks in a season with the Bengals.

However, remember that the Bengals were in a Zimmer defense when Manny and Harrison played in Cincy, not a Guenther defense.
If Carl Lawson is supposedly going to be the Bengals next attempt at finding Boulware/Pollack, this might be a better defensive scheme for him to succeed in terms of rush attempts from the OLB position vs a Zimmer scheme.

It's also worth mentioning that even David Pollack only had 4.5 sacks as a rookie, so don't be shocked if Lawson only gets 3-4. As long as he can get more than Harrison or Manny did in their time in Cincy, that will be considered an improvement in my book.