Posts: 36,147
Threads: 49
Reputation:
233719
Joined: May 2015
Location: Star Valley, Wyoming
(01-12-2018, 01:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Honestly, after the failure of Bodine, Fisher, and Ogbuehi I can't really object to the firing of Alexander. I just think the hatred going back for years is unfounded.
Also, I was not aware that the O-line coach called the plays, so I am not sure what you mean by Lazor "changing up the scheme". The bengals play book has always contained different running plays with different blocking schemes. I remember when Kyle Cook was coming back from injury and started over Travis Stephenson. They said the reason they did it was because they could use all of the different blocking schemes with Cook, but were limited with Stephenson. So as I understand it the choice of blocking scheme on a run play has always been up to the OC calling the plays instead of the O-line coach. Where did you hear that Lazor changed the scheme midseason?
As Ocho and Wyche here show, there were many transcripts from bengals.com that spoke of PA being in charge
of the run game until the last 6 games of the season when Lazor implemented a much more aggressive scheme
than the zone blocking scheme PA was running for the first 10 games.
The result? Huge difference in a positive way.
That zone blocking scheme gave the Lineman no confidence cause it was too passive.
There might be some speculation going on but PA being the assistant HC and the OL coach must of got a little
upset with Lazor sort of stepping on his toes. There was one transcript that spoke of having coaches that could
argue but could get over it and become a family in the end. Lazor said something to this effect.
Paraphrasing of course.
(01-12-2018, 01:56 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Was mentioned in Hobson article that Alexander was in charge of the ground game.
http://www.bengals.com/news/article-1/Alexanders-departure-signals-change-in-run-game/8bf651dc-520e-43e8-bf96-56a2d8d32bdb
(01-12-2018, 02:34 PM)Wyche Wrote: That's fair enough.....I think he had let nuances of an ever evolving game pass him by, but I respect your opinion and honest answer.
My apologies, I guess you hadn't been around during the discussion about all of this over the last few weeks. It appears Alexander was over the run game, and calling the blocking schemes per Lazor's presser and the Bengals homepage. It was discussed on here after the Cleveland game (and before any of this came to light) that it appeared the Bengals had switched up their blocking approach. From that game forward, the run game improved on a YPC basis rather dramatically. Then, all of that was confirmed as ochocincos noted above.
This is speculation on my part, but it appears the assistant HC title had gone to his head, or Mike had given him way too much leeway in that department.
Posts: 11,044
Threads: 38
Reputation:
48466
Joined: May 2015
(01-12-2018, 01:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Okay, here is a more detailed analysis.
There have only been 2 O-linemen draft in the 4th round or later over the last 7 years who have made the Pro Bowl.
Here is the yearly break down of the number of O-linemen drafted in the fourth round or later who were starters (starter = more than 8 starts) for more than one season and started at least 32 games.
2011...5
2012...3
2013...3
2014...7
2015...3
2016...0 (5 players have started at least 8 games in a single year, but only one has more than 16 starts in 2 years)
2017...0 (no players with more than 8 starts in their rookie season)
So in 7 years I would say there have been a total of 21 O-linemen drafted after the fourth round who became legit "starters", and the Bengals have two of them. There may still be a couple from the '16 and '17 draft who will meet the criteria, but it looks like on average there are about 3 each year or less than 10% of the 32 NFL teams.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/draft-finder.cgi?request=1&year_min=2011&year_max=2017&draft_round_min=4&draft_slot_min=1&draft_slot_max=500&pick_type=overall&pos%5B%5D=t&pos%5B%5D=g&pos%5B%5D=c&pos%5B%5D=ol&conference=any&show=all&order_by=gs
Here is the problem with this: Six time Pro Bowler, two All Pro Geno Atkins would count as a zero after two full seasons and would barely qualify after three seasons getting his 32nd start in the last game of the season.
Tank Johnson had more starts than Geno after three seasons, but wasn't more talented. Your inclusion criteria is inherently flawed because it measures starts, not talent.
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
(01-12-2018, 03:55 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Here is the problem with this: Six time Pro Bowler, two All Pro Geno Atkins would count as a zero after two full seasons and would barely qualify after three seasons getting his 32nd start in the last game of the season.
Tank Johnson had more starts than Geno after three seasons, but wasn't more talented. Your inclusion criteria is inherently flawed because it measures starts, not talent.
Then post the info that supports your opinion.
I agree mine is not perfect but at least it is more than just "It is true because I say so".
Posts: 11,044
Threads: 38
Reputation:
48466
Joined: May 2015
(01-12-2018, 04:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then post the info that supports your opinion.
I agree mine is not perfect but at least it is more than just "It is true because I say so".
Sure, right after you tell me how to objectively measure Geno Atkins talent level and prove empirically he is more talented than Tank Johnson instead of an indirect assessment based upon starts without any type of direct correlation to talent level.
If such a thing was possible then there wouldn't be any draft busts. Therefore, this entire argument is "because I said so" and your opinion is backed up by meaningless fluff as my example indicated.
Posts: 18,631
Threads: 462
Reputation:
118347
Joined: May 2015
Location: Nashville, TN
(01-12-2018, 04:56 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Sure, right after you tell me how to objectively measure Geno Atkins talent level and prove empirically he is more talented than Tank Johnson instead of an indirect assessment based upon starts without any type of direct correlation to talent level.
If such a thing was possible then there wouldn't be any draft busts. Therefore, this entire argument is "because I said so" and your opinion is backed up by meaningless fluff as my example indicated.
How far back does PFF go?
Also, I agree with you that especially with DL, starts are not a good indicator. Someone could be a starter but still get fewer snaps than a non-starter.
And we know Marvin especially doesn't give a damn about things like PFF when it comes to evaluating his players. He will play the person he prefers even if multiple outlets say that player sucks.
Zac Taylor 2019-2020: 6 total wins
Zac Taylor 2021-2022: Double-digit wins each season, plus 5 postseason wins
Zac Taylor 2023: 9 wins despite losing Burrow half the season
Zac Taylor 2024: Started 1-4. If he can turn this into a playoff appearance, it will be impressive.
Sorry for Party Rocking!
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
(01-12-2018, 04:56 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Sure, right after you tell me how to objectively measure Geno Atkins talent level and prove empirically he is more talented than Tank Johnson instead of an indirect assessment based upon starts without any type of direct correlation to talent level.
If such a thing was possible then there wouldn't be any draft busts. Therefore, this entire argument is "because I said so" and your opinion is backed up by meaningless fluff as my example indicated.
As I said before "Number of starts" is not the most accurate measure of talent, but it is far from "meaningless fluff". It will not tell us who is the best among the starters, but in general the players who start are better than the players who do not start. And the players who start multiple years are generally better than players who have as many as 8 starts just once in their career.
Posts: 13,442
Threads: 132
Reputation:
89225
Joined: May 2015
(01-12-2018, 06:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: As I said before "Number of starts" is not the most accurate measure of talent, but it is far from "meaningless fluff". It will not tell us who is the best among the starters, but in general the players who start are better than the players who do not start. And the players who start multiple years are generally better than players who have as many as 8 starts just once in their career.
If I'm not mistaken I don't believe your numbers include undrafted free agents that have become starters.
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 13,442
Threads: 132
Reputation:
89225
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 6,201
Threads: 13
Reputation:
45971
Joined: May 2015
Location: Good Times
An O-line coach that was here well before the 2nd longest tenured head coach in the NFL.
An O-line coach who got highly promoted to assistant HC.
An O-line coach who had his hands on anything done with personnel he had overseen.
Please tell me what Paul Alexander has done here that would merit any of these things?
The guy clearly was Mike's pal.
No one else in the organization has had as much rope as him... not even Marvin!
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
(01-12-2018, 06:38 PM)Synric Wrote: So as to your argument wouldn't the undrafted guys be counted as players that are coached up at least doubling your initial numbers?
Just pointing out errors and irregularities.
Yes, but still not as common as some here like to claim.
And 2 of those 52 were guys PA turned into starters (Livings, Cook).
The claim that all NFL coaches are consistently finding starters that are either undrafted or picked in the fourth round or later just is not true. And when you look at the numbers PA was as good as most coaches in finding and developing this type of talent.
During one 12 year stretch ('97-'08) the Bengals used a total of 3 picks in the first two rounds of the draft on O-linemen, and only 2 more on third rounders.
Posts: 15,116
Threads: 221
Reputation:
147378
Joined: May 2015
(01-12-2018, 07:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: :
Yes, but still not as common as some here like to claim.
And 2 of those 52 were guys PA turned into starters (Livings, Cook).
The claim that all NFL coaches are consistently finding starters that are either undrafted or picked in the fourth round or later just is not true. And when you look at the numbers PA was as good as most coaches in finding and developing this type of talent.
During one 12 year stretch ('97-'08) the Bengals used a total of 3 picks in the first two rounds of the draft on O-linemen, and only 2 more on third rounders.
This is a bit misleading though, because we had great anchors on the line through much of that (Willie, Braham, Levi, Steinbach, Whit) and we also used Free Agency to plug holes with guys like Bobbie Williams, Richmond Webb, Matt O'Dwyer etc.
We had plenty of talent during those years, and that's a big reason WHY we weren't drafting linemen. That's like having Drew Brees and claiming the Saints QB coach had nothing to work with because they didn't draft a 1st round QB for awhile.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
Posts: 11,044
Threads: 38
Reputation:
48466
Joined: May 2015
(01-12-2018, 06:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: As I said before "Number of starts" is not the most accurate measure of talent, but it is far from "meaningless fluff". It will not tell us who is the best among the starters, but in general the players who start are better than the players who do not start. And the players who start multiple years are generally better than players who have as many as 8 starts just once in their career.
How many games did Ghiaciuc start for other teams after the Bengals? Andrews? Livings? There is a pattern of offensive lineman with lots of starts for the Bengals who didn't start for another team or were quickly demoted after failing to meet expectations. Bodine has been a perennial starter with little to no competition for those starts.
Judging the quality of offensive linemen by their number of starts is like me claiming you're the second best poster here based upon number of posts because since 2015 only one poster has more post than you. Now that is some meaningless fluff.
Posts: 889
Threads: 36
Reputation:
5042
Joined: May 2015
Location: California
While this type of move feels good in the short term i don't really see this making that big of a difference in the overall scheme of things. We still have a mediocre head coach, a mediocre coordinator and a mediocre QB.
Posts: 1,689
Threads: 113
Reputation:
2790
Joined: May 2015
(01-12-2018, 01:21 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It's a myth that number of starts equals talent. Ghiacuic, Livings, Bodine, Andrews. They all had lots of starts, but not a quality lineman among them.
Eventually, you will admit the truth just like you did with Bratkowski.
Wasn't Fred's argument only that "Other teams aren't getting production from o-linemen drafted in the 4th round or above because they're not starting?" Not sure how his logic is flawed here.
If they're not starting or getting significant playing time, then they're not producing on the field unless we count being a practice dummy as production.
And since very few teams have linemen drafted late as starters, they're either not good enough to produce as a starter or another linemen--either drafted earlier or a free agent--is more productive.
The only assumption that I could question is the one that coaches and teams are correct in the evaluations of their linemen, but i'm willing to bet they're right MOST of the time.
|
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: 51209558878_91a895e0bb_m.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51209558878_91a895e0bb_m.jpg)
