Your Opinions Of Willis and Smith

[RoyleRedlegs]

(08-24-2017, 09:58 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: I'm really not sure what your point is wasn't Boza just drafted last year so if we draft an edge rusher a year later that means we're behind the times again you're making no sense

My point is, we haven't drafted guys with the skills/body type of those who win off the edge. 
Our pass rush has been largely inconsistent and without Geno on the field, it's nearly non-existent. 

This is noticeable in playoff games especially. 
You need guys who can disrupt the QB. 
Make him move, make him feel footsteps. 

You need to be able to attack inside and on the edge. We've largely ignored the edge. 

[RoyleRedlegs]

(08-24-2017, 09:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Clarke had 4 sacks last year. That's 4-times as many as Smith. So why should Smith be on the field?

Not really "fudging" anything; just saying it's going to be difficult for him to make the 53. They classify Hardison as a DE; not sure I'd be "fudging" it to not consider him as such. 

Don't know how much slower I can type this. I hope he makes the squad, but he has an uphill battle. 

How many of Clarke's sacks were garbage sacks or products of other people creating pressure and he was just there to clean it up.
The process matters. I know you are steadfastly against this notion, as you care about "results" but how you get to the results matters. 

Yes you are. Lawson is a LB he will not impact who is and isn't kept at DE unless they change their minds and commit him full time to DE.

Not sure why you bring up Hardison now in this conversation 

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(08-25-2017, 10:47 AM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: How many of Clarke's sacks were garbage sacks or products of other people creating pressure and he was just there to clean it up.
The process matters. I know you are steadfastly against this notion, as you care about "results" but how you get to the results matters. 

Yes you are. Lawson is a LB he will not impact who is and isn't kept at DE unless they change their minds and commit him full time to DE.

Not sure why you bring up Hardison now in this conversation 

I do know that the sacks against Pittsburgh, Miami and Denver, he clearly beat his man (ie: weren't coverage sacks).

The Houston sack, I don't remember at all.

EDIT: Just looked at some Miami Footage, Clarke would've had a sack on Tannehill too, when Dunlap had his strip sack.

[*ochocincos*]

People talking about how Smith is so much worse than Will Clarke because of last year's stats, but in the same three years they've been in the league, Smith has had the same number of sacks as Clarke (4.5). And so far this preseason, Smith has looked much better than Clarke (and MJ).

Also, Smith was a more prolific pass rusher in college compared to Clarke. Clarke only had 9.5 sacks total in four years at WVU, which was in the Big East Conference for 2010-2011 before changing over to the Big 12 in 2012. Meanwhile, Smith put up 21.5 sacks while at Arkansas, which is in the SEC (tougher conference than Big East and Big 12). Actually in pre-draft predictions, Smith was rated in the 3-4 round range whereas Clarke was considered a 5th rounder by NFL.com. Some other draft sites also had Smith rated ahead of Clarke with about the same round projections. Clarke was more potential with ideal measurables whereas Smith was a smaller guy with (much) better college production. I believe that's why Clarke went in the 3rd whereas Smith fell to the 5th.

If it's me and I know how the Bengals are with developing talent in the middle-to-late rounds, I'm taking the guy with a better resumé over someone who is primarily just potential.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(08-25-2017, 11:04 AM)ochocincos Wrote: People talking about how Smith is so much worse than Will Clarke because of last year's stats, but in the same three years they've been in the league, Smith has had the same number of sacks as Clarke (4.5). And so far this preseason, Smith has looked much better than Clarke (and MJ).

Also, Smith was a more prolific pass rusher in college compared to Clarke. Clarke only had 9.5 sacks total in four years at WVU, which was in the Big East Conference for 2010-2011 before changing over to the Big 12 in 2012. Meanwhile, Smith put up 21.5 sacks while at Arkansas, which is in the SEC (tougher conference than Big East and Big 12). Actually in pre-draft predictions, Smith was rated in the 3-4 round range whereas Clarke was considered a 5th rounder by NFL.com. Some other draft sites also had Smith rated ahead of Clarke with about the same round projections. Clarke was more potential with ideal measurables whereas Smith was a smaller guy with (much) better college production. I believe that's why Clarke went in the 3rd whereas Smith fell to the 5th.

If it's me and I know how the Bengals are with developing talent in the middle-to-late rounds, I'm taking the guy with a better resumé over someone who is primarily just potential.

Still say that the best for the team going forward, is:

Dunlap
Willis
Clarke
Smith

Then for DT:

Geno
Bilings
Deshawn Williams
Glasgow


If you go 9 (which we always do), add a DE (which we always do), so either MJ or Dingleberry. If you go 10, add a DT (either Hardison or Tupou) and you're set.

Doubt it'll shake out this way, but if I was Burney, that's who I'd make my decisions on.

[Luvnit2]

(08-25-2017, 11:32 AM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: Still say that the best for the team going forward, is:

Dunlap
Willis
Clarke
Smith

Then for DT:

Geno
Bilings
Deshawn Williams
Glasgow


If you go 9 (which we always do), add a DE (which we always do), so either MJ or Dingleberry. If you go 10, add a DT (either Hardison or Tupou) and you're set.

Doubt it'll shake out this way, but if I was Burney, that's who I'd make my decisions on.

I agree with this and think Gilberry because of age may be the one cut. I think MJ will be safe as they rarely cut a vet with a large contract

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(08-25-2017, 11:40 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I agree with this and think Gilberry because of age may be the one cut. I think MJ will be safe as they rarely cut a vet with a large contract

Agreed. That and he is the better locker-room guy in terms of leadership (at least, in terms of Social Media and off-field events) and the better run stopper.

Love Dingleberry the man, have had a bit of good banter with him on his Instagram, but IMO, he shouldn't be the choice for the locker-room leader/established vet role.

[*psychdoctor*]

(08-24-2017, 07:09 PM)kevin Wrote: Here is mine.  David Pollack was drafted # 1 for his HIGH MOTOR. A GUY THAT GOES ALL OUT EVERY PLAY like a Tim Krumrie.  Of course Pollack had the bad injury early on.  All I've seen of Willis and Smith is HIGH MOTOR on every play be it early in game or late in game. I'm not saying this makes them starters right away, but I sure can't see cutting them from the defense. They also have sometimes just physically dominated.  I have to think something is wrong with the owners and coaches if these two spark plugs aren't on the roster. I could see them very good on Special Teams and coming off the bench.  They have the talent to someday be starters, maybe sooner than later. These two look like the type defensive players Steelers and Ravens come up with and Bengals wish they had.  Munoz and announcers have been very impressed by both so far. I can't see them not being on the roster. The have great ability and have HIGH MOTORS not taking any plays off.

Unfortunately I see the Bengals keeping Michael Johnson over Chris Smith.  Ugh.

[*Synric*]

I see alot of this guy over this guy cuz he's a better pass rusher...before you can rush the passer you have to stop the run. If you can't stop the run rushing the passer is a moot point.

[THE PISTONS]

(08-25-2017, 10:44 AM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: My point is, we haven't drafted guys with the skills/body type of those who win off the edge. 
Our pass rush has been largely inconsistent and without Geno on the field, it's nearly non-existent. 

This is noticeable in playoff games especially. 
You need guys who can disrupt the QB. 
Make him move, make him feel footsteps. 

You need to be able to attack inside and on the edge. We've largely ignored the edge. 

I agree. It's nice to have some of the smaller, quicker pass rushers. Those seem to be the guys that get the most sacks in the NFL. I think that Willis has a ton of potential. He needs a lot of work and is far from finished, but he has potential.

[*ochocincos*]

(08-25-2017, 01:02 PM)Synric Wrote: I see alot of this guy over this guy cuz he's a better pass rusher...before you can rush the passer you have to stop the run. If you can't stop the run rushing the passer is a moot point.

Is it? Why is stopping the run a prerequisite to rushing the passer?

The thing the Bengals have lacked more of in recent years has been pass rush outside of Dunlap and Atkins, so that's why many fans want better pass rushers.

Also, since I don't have access to it, could someone who pays for PFF premium look up MJ's and Clarke's run defense ratings from the last 1-2 years? If it's solid, it means their pass rush was absolutely abysmal to rate in the low 40's overall.
I'd guess their run defense hasn't been that good either, thus resulting in their very poor ratings.

[*Synric*]

(08-25-2017, 01:13 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Is it? Why is stopping the run a prerequisite to rushing the passer?

The thing the Bengals have lacked more of in recent years has been pass rush outside of Dunlap and Atkins, so that's why many fans want better pass rushers.

Also, since I don't have access to it, could someone who pays for PFF premium look up MJ's and Clarke's run defense ratings from the last 1-2 years? If it's solid, it means their pass rush was absolutely abysmal to rate in the low 40's overall.
I'd guess their run defense hasn't been that good either, thus resulting in their very poor ratings.

Down and distance lol. If you can't stop the run teams are put in more favorable positions. Basic football. 

[THE PISTONS]

You can hide a good pass rusher that can't stop the run by playing them in obvious passing situations...but it also takes them away on early downs.

The Bengals tend to play 2-way DE's and have shyed away from specialists.

With how deep we are at WR and D-Line...I have no idea if we'll be able to activate some of these guys on gameday.

Personally I would. But I'm not the Bengals coaches.

[*ochocincos*]

(08-25-2017, 01:18 PM)Synric Wrote: Down and distance lol. If you can't stop the run teams are put in more favorable positions. Basic football. 

I get that, but that doesn't mean you have to have all your DEs be good run defenders and pass rush is just a bonus. You can have a mix of both.

I think we would all agree we shouldn't be playing MJ on third down, correct? He's not a good rusher. If he actually is still good at defending the run (can someone provide proof? I'm not finding any), he should only be used in early down situations or where the likelihood of running is high.

The thing is the Bengals don't have any edge rushing threats outside of Dunlap, Willis, and Lawson. MJ is not a threat. Clarke, while showing a bit of optimism last year but nothing so far this preseason, might also not be a threat. If an injury happens to one of our three pass rushers, that area drastically declines.

Also, Dunlap is clearly going to be a 3-down player unless he needs a breather. So only one spot needs another run defender. Willis was a solid stack and shed defender in college, so I expect he will be solid in run defense in the NFL too. I actually believe he was selected before Lawson because he was a more complete player whereas Lawson is strictly an edge rusher (right now). So don't think that the Bengals have no run defenders if MJ and Clarke aren't on this team.

If you want to keep Clarke or MJ to give yourself more confidence in the run game, fine. But don't keep Smith off the roster because you greatly value run defense vs pass rush. The NFL is still becoming more and more about pass rush and defending the pass rather than stuffing the box to prevent the run. The AFC North isn't even really a ground and pound division anymore. Le'Veon Bell is more of a threat running outside and catching passes than he is between the tackles. The Ravens' aren't a ground-and-pound running team anymore. Crowell is the closest thing to a true between-the-tackles ground game, but even he didn't amass 1000 rushing yards. The Browns have been putting more emphasis on their RBs catching passes too, so they are going away from a traditional run game.

[*bengalfan74*]

(08-25-2017, 01:13 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Is it? Why is stopping the run a prerequisite to rushing the passer?

The thing the Bengals have lacked more of in recent years has been pass rush outside of Dunlap and Atkins, so that's why many fans want better pass rushers.

Also, since I don't have access to it, could someone who pays for PFF premium look up MJ's and Clarke's run defense ratings from the last 1-2 years? If it's solid, it means their pass rush was absolutely abysmal to rate in the low 40's overall.
I'd guess their run defense hasn't been that good either, thus resulting in their very poor ratings.

The cover story for MJ the last couple of seasons has been he's still good against the run. Which really means he's lost his effectiveness, what little he had anyways. MJ had one good season what was it 2012 ? He's been trailing off ever since, especially since he came back he's been very average at absolute best !

I hope we get to see Smith against the 1st's Sunday, then we'll get a little better idea. Right now I'm all for cutting both MJ and Clarke.

[*Synric*]

(08-25-2017, 01:32 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I get that, but that doesn't mean you have to have all your DEs be good run defenders and pass rush is just a bonus. You can have a mix of both.

I think we would all agree we shouldn't be playing MJ on third down, correct? He's not a good rusher. If he actually is still good at defending the run (can someone provide proof? I'm not finding any), he should only be used in early down situations or where the likelihood of running is high.

The thing is the Bengals don't have any edge rushing threats outside of Dunlap, Willis, and Lawson. MJ is not a threat. Clarke, while showing a bit of optimism last year but nothing so far this preseason, might also not be a threat. If an injury happens to one of our three pass rushers, that area drastically declines.

Also, Dunlap is clearly going to be a 3-down player unless he needs a breather. So only one spot needs another run defender. Willis was a solid stack and shed defender in college, so I expect he will be solid in run defense in the NFL too. I actually believe he was selected before Lawson because he was a more complete player whereas Lawson is strictly an edge rusher (right now). So don't think that the Bengals have no run defenders if MJ and Clarke aren't on this team.

If you want to keep Clarke or MJ to give yourself more confidence in the run game, fine. But don't keep Smith off the roster because you greatly value run defense vs pass rush. The NFL is still becoming more and more about pass rush and defending the pass rather than stuffing the box to prevent the run. The AFC North isn't even really a ground and pound division anymore. Le'Veon Bell is more of a threat running outside and catching passes than he is between the tackles. The Ravens' aren't a ground-and-pound running team anymore. Crowell is the closest thing to a true between-the-tackles ground game, but even he didn't amass 1000 rushing yards. The Browns have been putting more emphasis on their RBs catching passes too, so they are going away from a traditional run game.

This reminds me of the 2014 Chris Carter situation. 

Carter was a force rushing the passer that preseason and so the Bengals kept him on the 53. What happened was the Bengals never put up alot of points and played close games never giving alot of obvious passing situations to bring Carter in the game so he was cut mid season. 

Sad thing is Carter could have been a monster in 2015 when the Bengals were on of thr best scoring teams in thr NFL. Lol even Peko had like 6 sacks in 2015. 

PS. Clarke barely took snaps in any season but 2016 and had 4 sacks that year...This year they are working him in Hunts role on the strong side and inside. 

[*ochocincos*]

(08-25-2017, 01:54 PM)Synric Wrote: This reminds me of the 2014 Chris Carter situation. 

Carter was a force rushing the passer that preseason and so the Bengals kept him on the 53. What happened was the Bengals never put up alot of points and played close games never giving alot of obvious passing situations to bring Carter in the game so he was cut mid season. 

Sad thing is Carter could have been a monster in 2015 when the Bengals were on of thr best scoring teams in thr NFL. Lol even Peko had like 6 sacks in 2015. 

PS. Clarke barely took snaps in any season but 2016 and had 4 sacks that year...This year they are working him in Hunts role on the strong side and inside. 

Chris Carter also was slotted as a LB then IIRC, so it's really not the same to Smith. Carter and Lawson is probably a better comparison for how they could be used, but Lawson is more talented than Carter.

Regarding 2014 itself, the Bengals were last in the NFL in sacks (20.0) and 11th in points allowed per game (19.8), so perhaps if they actually used Carter properly and more often, they could have had more wins and maybe gotten over that playoff hump. Plus, MJ wasn't even on the roster in 2014 so if you're trying to use 2014 run defense as a justification for keeping MJ, well that point is moot.

[*Synric*]

(08-25-2017, 02:12 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Chris Carter also was slotted as a LB then IIRC, so it's really not the same to Smith. Carter and Lawson is probably a better comparison for how they could be used, but Lawson is more talented than Carter.

Regarding 2014 itself, the Bengals were last in the NFL in sacks (20.0) and 11th in points allowed per game (19.8), so perhaps if they actually used Carter properly and more often, they could have had more wins and maybe gotten over that playoff hump. Plus, MJ wasn't even on the roster in 2014 so if you're trying to use 2014 run defense as a justification for keeping MJ, well that point is moot.

I'm not arguing about keeping anyone. I'm just flat out saying you have to stop the run before you rush the passer that's basic football. 


If you want high amount of sacks you have to put a clamp on the run game to force 3rd and longs and score points to force teams to throw more to catchup....it's the same thing with INTs.

[*ochocincos*]

(08-25-2017, 02:23 PM)Synric Wrote: I'm not arguing about keeping anyone. I'm just flat out saying you have to stop the run before you rush the passer that's basic football. 


If you want high amount of sacks you have to put a clamp on the run game to force 3rd and longs and score points to force teams to throw more to catchup....it's the same thing with INTs.

Yes, that helps, but teams aren't just running on every first and second down. They pass quite often. So only putting an emphasis on pass rush on third and long seems like it's not enough IMO.

Also, here's some evidence for why I think the Bengals can (and should) afford to let MJ and Clarke go in favor of a pass rusher like Chris Smith.
Bengals were 21st in rushing yardage and YPG last year, which is not very good. That's with MJ, Peko, and Clarke. All of those players were given passes in the pass rush department because they are supposed to be good run defenders. Well it might just be that all three of those players who used to be solid run defenders have declined in that area, and that combined with their sad pass rush ability resulted in them all being rated in the 40's in PFF ratings.

So what I'm trying to say is that MJ's and Clarke's "solid" run defense might actually not be what it's cracked up to be anymore. And even if Chris Smith does happen to be a worse run defender than both, his pass rush upside might be an overall net gain compared to what MJ and Clarke can offer.

[*bfine32*]

(08-25-2017, 10:47 AM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: How many of Clarke's sacks were garbage sacks or products of other people creating pressure and he was just there to clean it up.
The process matters. I know you are steadfastly against this notion, as you care about "results" but how you get to the results matters. 

Yes you are. Lawson is a LB he will not impact who is and isn't kept at DE unless they change their minds and commit him full time to DE.

Not sure why you bring up Hardison now in this conversation 

Yeah, I really don't care how pretty the sacks are, just as long as they get there. Was Smith's one sack last year pretty or garbage?

If you think Lawson will not play into how many edge rushers we keep then consider me "fudging"

Hardison was brought up because even though he is listed a DE (same position as Smith) he has a different skill set than Smith and will have a lot less impact on who else we keep on this team as an edge rusher than Lawson.

Do you really expect them NOT to consider Lawson when they consider how many edge rushers we keep because a roster states LB after his name?