Eifert

[SunsetBengal]

(09-18-2017, 02:32 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: He's been dealing with knee tendonitis the whole preseason/season, though they've been pretty quiet about it.

The back is new-ish. He had back surgery in the offseason, but supposedly he was fine and fully recovered from it. So presumably it's a new back thing.

Lol, no.  Once you have a back injury, (disc related) you're damaged goods for life.  I suffered two herniated discs, about 15 years ago.  The best I've ever been is about 85% of my pre-injury self.  As I continue to age, that number drops, and the frequency at which I reinjure the affected area rises.

They have laser treatments today, that are lifetime's better than the old styles of surgical repair on discs.  Heck, they even replace discs with synthetic discs now.  If he were to retire from football, he could likely recover to be most of his former self.  However, as long as he continues to take the jarring and collisions associated with his sport, he'll never fully recover.  It will always be an endless cycle of injury and recovery.

[Derrick]

(09-19-2017, 07:50 PM)TKUHL Wrote: I was pounding the table for Howard. Simply for the fact Eifert is always hurt, and soon to be FA. Plus I didn't see what it would hurt to take a guy in the first who can be a threat on offense as well as help for this horrible line as a blocker.

Can't argue with this. I don't think Ross will be able to hold up physically.

[*ochocincos*]

(09-19-2017, 07:50 PM)TKUHL Wrote: I was pounding the table for Howard. Simply for the fact Eifert is always hurt, and soon to be FA. Plus I didn't see what it would hurt to take a guy in the first who can be a threat on offense as well as help for this horrible line as a blocker.

This was precisely why I wanted Howard. Groom him as a receiver for a year behind Eifert while utilizing his great blocking skills.

[*Nately120*]

(09-19-2017, 07:35 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Honestly you're picking nits anyway. I didn't intend my post to be some big defense of Eifert. I guess I deserved it though, because I was picking nits with Nately saying "it's not even close". 

The data is open to interpretation.  The difference is if we toss out Gronk's injury-free first two seasons because we figure he's reached a point of no return and the fact that he played all 32 games in years 1 and 2 is irrelevant OR if we decide that those seasons could give us faith that the guy CAN survive an entire season. If we toss out Gronk's prior healthy years it might be fair to likewise assume that Eifert's years of starting 15 and 13 games are long gone, too. Unfortunately, it looks like Eifert may have crossed into glass territory after that pro bowl injury.

I'll agree the numbers are a lot closer if you toss out Gronk's first two seasons, but it's the logic of doing that that is up for debate.  As for the missing playoff games I haven't looked into that.  I know Gronk has missed multiple playoff games in a row because the Patriots actually play more than one playoff game per year, so that could inflate that number.

[*ochocincos*]

(09-19-2017, 10:24 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The data is open to interpretation.  The difference is if we toss out Gronk's injury-free first two seasons because we figure he's reached a point of no return and the fact that he played all 32 games in years 1 and 2 is irrelevant OR if we decide that those seasons could give us faith that the guy CAN survive an entire season.  If we toss out Gronk's prior healthy years it might be fair to likewise assume that Eifert's years of starting 15 and 13 games are long gone, too.  Unfortunately, it looks like Eifert may have crossed into glass territory after that pro bowl injury.

I'll agree the numbers are a lot closer if you toss out Gronk's first two seasons, but it's the logic of doing that that is up for debate.  As for the missing playoff games I haven't looked into that.  I know Gronk has missed multiple playoff games in a row because the Patriots actually play more than one playoff game per year, so that could inflate that number.

To go along with what you are saying, Gronk has four seasons of 790+ yards and double-digit TDs. Three of those were 1k+ yards.
Eifert has only had one very good season, and it was only 615 yards.
Gronk has 4 times as many receiving yards and 49 more TDs in just three more seasons accrued.
Eifert is not on Gronk's level.

You know who else has only had one very good season with the Bengals? Jeremy Hill. But Jeremy Hill has still been more productive than Eifert.

[HarleyDog]

(09-19-2017, 10:55 PM)ochocincos Wrote: To go along with what you are saying, Gronk has four seasons of 790+ yards and double-digit TDs. Three of those were 1k+ yards.
Eifert has only had one very good season, and it was only 615 yards.
Gronk has 4 times as many receiving yards and 49 more TDs in just three more seasons accrued.
Eifert is not on Gronk's level.

You know who else has only had one very good season with the Bengals? Jeremy Hill. But Jeremy Hill has still been more productive than Eifert.

Eifert at one point was looking like he could be compared to Gronk. Yet his constant absence due to injuries takes him out of the equation. I get nervous on routine tackles he's going to come up lame.

[*SHRacerX*]

I feel bad for the guy, but even with being able to potentially sign him for less moving forward is it the best decision? He just doesn't seem to be available. Uzomah flashed last year, but also seems to have a penchant for being injured. Kroft is as ho-hum as they come from a receiving standpoint, and he isn't an excellent blocker.

A few years ago, instead of Uzomah, I wanted Nick Boyle from Delaware. He was a pounder of a blocker, and was just athletic enough to move the chains. Baltimore took him right after we took Uzo. He hasn't done a ton as he had an injury early, but I can't help but think that type of TE would have been a bigger help to our team considering our offensive line woes.

I hope Uzo returns and finishes with a good year to allow Eifert to sign elsewhere. I don't hate the guy, but as so many have said, his body seems to have 20 years of abuse on it instead of 5.

[Housh]

He's managed to string together what 2 full seasons worth of games in 6 years?

[Shake n Blake]

(09-21-2017, 02:56 AM)Housh Wrote: He's managed to string together what 2 full seasons worth of games in 6 years?

It'd be 2 full seasons + 5 games out of 4 years. Unless you count these last 2 games as 2 more years.

He's played 41 games out of 69 (59.4%) since he was drafted.

There's plenty of reasons to knock the guy. No need to exaggerate the truth.

[Quantum Bengal]

I'm a big fan of Eifert, but a bigger fan of Burfict.... glad we signed Tez long term first. This is a big concern when looking to sign Eifert long term....May be a Franchise Tag guy in the future.

[*Nately120*]

(09-21-2017, 01:18 PM)Quantum Bengal Wrote: I'm a big fan of Eifert, but a bigger fan of Burfict.... glad we signed Tez long term first.  This is a big concern when looking to sign Eifert long term....May be a Franchise Tag guy in the future.

Isn't needing to extend Eifert the reason we let our o-line fall apart?  Solid move, this.

[Bengal Dude]

(09-21-2017, 01:24 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Isn't needing to extend Eifert the reason we let our o-line fall apart?  Solid move, this.

Lord knows Hobson constantly mentioned Eifert as one of the big reasons we kept rolling money over.

[*Nately120*]

(09-21-2017, 03:39 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: Lord knows Hobson constantly mentioned Eifert as one of the big reasons we kept rolling money over.

Sorry Dalton, we can't spend the money to maybe keep you from getting ground into the turf because we're going to extend Eifert...wait, we aren't going to extend him?  Oh well, no skin off my arse.  Sorry Andy, now smile or I'll tell everyone you're a team-killing cancerous diva!

[*ochocincos*]

(09-21-2017, 03:45 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Sorry Dalton, we can't spend the money to maybe keep you from getting ground into the turf because we're going to extend Eifert...wait, we aren't going to extend him?  Oh well, no skin off my arse.  Sorry Andy, now smile or I'll tell everyone you're a team-killing cancerous diva!

Joke is on us because the Bengals never said it was for extensions THIS year. It's probably for Dunlap/Atkins next year (rinse and repeat this same response yearly, just replace player names).