John Ross

[sandwedge]

(03-02-2018, 11:03 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Marvin Lewis has never once in his 15 years as Bengal head coach lost a game because he played too conservative with a lead in the second half.

But he did lose a game by trying to be too aggressivce with a lead late in the game. (Tampa Bay '10)

Didn't we have a game against SD, where it was like 45-10 at halftime and ended up losing? I'm thinking 2004-2006ish? LT lit us up in the 2nd half...

[fredtoast]

(03-02-2018, 12:33 PM)sandwedge Wrote: Didn't we have a game against SD, where it was like 45-10 at halftime and ended up losing? I'm thinking 2004-2006ish? LT lit us up in the 2nd half...

We were up 28-7 at halftime and lost  49-41, but Palmer threw the ball 20 times in the second half (including a 74 yard td bomb the Chad).

Deltha O'Neal got abused in the second half of that game and the next week rookie Johnathan Joseph took over his starting position.

[fredtoast]

(03-02-2018, 12:01 PM)ochocincos Wrote: It's something that can't really be "proven" to be true or false.
Fans have just seen the Bengals offense sputter out in the second half of games, so that's their evidence. The second half stats have been posted repeatedly on this board before, so I'm not going to go collect them all again.
Can it be 100% proven that the issue is Marvin being conservative compared to failed execution? Probably not, but fans have just visually observed the sputtering and believe it's Marvin's approach since it's been a trend for many years under Marvin.

Yes, we have had ous struggles in the second half the last couple of years, but it is not because we were too conservative.  for example our in our epic second half meltdown against the Steelers this year we only ran the ball 6 times the entire second half.

And the same people who complain about marvin losing games by being too conservative in the second half also claim we lost the playoff game in '14 against the Chargers because we threw the ball too much in the second half.

it is nothing buty another message board myth.

[*SHRacerX*]

(03-02-2018, 11:03 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Marvin Lewis has never once in his 15 years as Bengal head coach lost a game because he played too conservative with a lead in the second half.

But he did lose a game by trying to be too aggressivce with a lead late in the game. (Tampa Bay '10)

Oh, bullshit...and the point was he would (and has) backed off in the FIRST half.  

I think the more relevant point is that he would never have a 21 point lead in the first place because his entire philosophy is so gutless. 

[*SHRacerX*]

(03-02-2018, 11:09 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I see I am going to have to keep posting this over and over again.

Marvin plays rookies as much as the average NFL coach.  Most NFL coaches play vets over rookies.


According to profootballreference over the last ten years there have been 227 different rookies who started at least 14 games. Since there are 32 teams that is an average of 7.1 per team. Over the last ten years the Bengals have 7 different rookies who have started at least 14 games. 


When we expand it beyond just rookie seasons it does not change very much. Looking at the first three seasons of every player's career over the last 10 years there were 785 who had at least one season with at least 14 starts in his first three years. That is an average of 24.5 per team, and the Bengals have had 24. 

I guess I am going to have to keep posting this over and over again.

Your average number is just that...an average.  Your number factors in the starting of AJ Green, Andy Dalton, Votaze Burfict, Russell Bodine, where Marvin had NO CHOICE but had to play them.  That makes his numbers look average.  

Marvin lets players like Ross, Westerman, Redmond, Core, Malone, and WJIII sit while players supposedly in front of them are not remotely producing.  This breeds mediocrity and also creates an environment of resentment (Ross, and who knows how many others).  You seem fine with this and that is your right.  I am not fine with it and that is mine.  You keep trying to cherry-pick (that is kind of your schtick) things to make an argument against my opinion of Marvin and it just doesn't work.  Marv holds back talented players over ones that are paid more, and produce very little.  I have no idea why he is that way, but that is Marvin.  

[fredtoast]

(03-02-2018, 07:08 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: Oh, bullshit.

Then prove me wrong.

Give me an example of a game we lost because Marvin was too conservative with a lead in the second half.

Since it was the number one reason you listed for hating Marvin you must have A LOT of examples to prove me wrong.

I'll wait.

[fredtoast]

(03-02-2018, 07:31 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: Your average number is just that...an average.  Your number factors in the starting of AJ Green, Andy Dalton, Votaze Burfict, Russell Bodine, where Marvin had NO CHOICE but had to play them.  That makes his numbers look average.  

That is my point exactly.

No NFL coach plays rookies unless he has to.

[Shake n Blake]

(02-26-2018, 11:34 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: By a player like John Ross, I mean a risk/reward type.  A guy with a super high ceiling, but a moderate to severe risk, due to injury history.

Why I was not elated about the selection of Ross?  Not because it was John Ross, specifically.  The idea of having a viable threat with "lightning strike" ability to pair with AJ Green is a very exciting thing to imagine.  However, this offense had serious fundamental issues on the OL.  A team that can't establish the run with any sort of authority is going to have troubles when they are forced to go to the air, almost exclusively.  (even with a veteran QB that has one of the quickest releases in the league)

So, you might say that I'm more disappointed that the Bengals took a gamble on a splash player, while completely ignoring fundamental needs.  When you add in the notion that Ross may have hidden information about the non-surgery shoulder, it really exacerbates the situation.  

Also sure, we can look at each of the players that I listed and examine and rationalize the various reasons for their lack of early production/contribution.  However, if you step back and look at the pool of players, you notice one commonality among them.   

I read this post and instantly think "why do we have to solve everything through the draft?" That is what pisses me off. Not the selection of a WR. That filled a need...but we should've addressed the line SOMEHOW. We could've easily done both. 

[fredtoast]

(03-02-2018, 07:31 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: Marvin lets players like Ross, Westerman, Redmond, Core, Malone, and WJIII sit while players supposedly in front of them are not remotely producing.  This breeds mediocrity and also creates an environment of resentment (Ross, and who knows how many others).  You seem fine with this and that is your right.  I am not fine with it and that is mine.  You keep trying to cherry-pick (that is kind of your schtick) things to make an argument against my opinion of Marvin and it just doesn't work.  Marv holds back talented players over ones that are paid more, and produce very little.  I have no idea why he is that way, but that is Marvin.  

Marvin plays the best players.  The worst thing a coach could do would be to put in players who do not deserve to play.

Core, Malone, and Ross were not good enought to play in front of LaFell.  What evidence do you have that any of them are better than LaFell?  LaFell has started for two different NFL teams and has over 5000 career receining yards.

WJIII played more snaps that Adam Jones in 6 of the 9 games Jones played this year.  You just make stuff up an claim it is true.  

[SunsetBengal]

(03-02-2018, 07:35 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I read this post and instantly think "why do we have to solve everything through the draft?" That is what pisses me off. Not the selection of a WR. That filled a need...but we should've addressed the line SOMEHOW. We could've easily done both. 

And, they did not.  It was so glaringly obvious to us fans, along with much of the sports media community, yet it's like they deliberately wanted to prove some kind of point.  What that point was, I haven't a clue.

All that I can say is that Paul Alexander must have done one hell of a sales job on Mike Brown.  I'm so glad that Lazor showed some balls, and put Alexander in his place, when he seized control of the running game/blocking scheme.  Although it may have looked like a typical "dead cat bounce", the line showed renewed enthusiasm from that point forward.

I'm just hoping that the new regime of position coaches can convince Marvin to lobby Mike to the idea that winning teams are built from the inside out.

[HarleyDog]

(03-02-2018, 07:45 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: And, they did not.  It was so glaringly obvious to us fans, along with much of the sports media community, yet it's like they deliberately wanted to prove some kind of point.  What that point was, I haven't a clue.

All that I can say is that Paul Alexander must have done one hell of a sales job on Mike Brown.  I'm so glad that Lazor showed some balls, and put Alexander in his place, when he seized control of the running game/blocking scheme.  Although it may have looked like a typical "dead cat bounce", the line showed renewed enthusiasm from that point forward.

I'm just hoping that the new regime of position coaches can convince Marvin to lobby Mike to the idea that winning teams are built from the inside out.

I get everything your saying except the bolded. So your not into bringing in some FA"s that can make an immediate impact?

[Joelist]

I believe "inside out" means you build from the OL and DL out.

[HarleyDog]

(03-02-2018, 08:53 PM)Joelist Wrote: I believe "inside out" means you build from the OL and DL out.

  Now I get it. Brain fart.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-02-2018, 08:48 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I get everything your saying except the bolded. So your not into bringing in some FA"s that can make an immediate impact?

On the contrary, my good friend.  By building a team from the inside out, simply means to build the people closest to the ball strongest, and then move to the skill positions.  A team that can control both lines of scrimmage has a significantly higher chance of winning games, than a team with a weak line.

I'm all about using free agency, as well as the draft to build a strong team.  In the Bengals case, if you're going to rely on the draft almost exclusively, then you better expand the scouting dept. and get it right..

[HarleyDog]

(03-02-2018, 09:03 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: On the contrary, my good friend.  By building a team from the inside out, simply means to build the people closest to the ball strongest, and then move to the skill positions.  A team that can control both lines of scrimmage has a significantly higher chance of winning games, than a team with a weak line.

I'm all about using free agency, as well as the draft to build a strong team.  In the Bengals case, if you're going to rely on the draft almost exclusively, then you better expand the scouting dept. and get it right..

I get it now. I let my corporate thinking override my football thinking there for a minute (beer influenced). You're right and I have felt that way as well. If your line isn't worth shit, your team isn't worth shit. I don't think there's ever been an exception. Now if you take for example the Patriots, their lines sucked at the beginning of last season and corrected it in stride. Very freaken impressive coaching and that's what it was, all coaching and adjusting. 

I think FA and good coaching could immediately put us in contention. Last year was very disorienting. 

[*SHRacerX*]

(03-02-2018, 07:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then prove me wrong.

Give me an example of a game we lost because Marvin was too conservative with a lead in the second half.

Since it was the number one reason you listed for hating Marvin you must have A LOT of examples to prove me wrong.

I'll wait.

Off the top of my head?  The steelers game last year at home where they were up 17-0 and scored three points the entire rest of the game.  

I'll wait, and read a breakdown of the pass/run ratio implying that they were still being "aggressive" according to Fred, while I was AT THE GAME (you said recently you don't even watch all the games?  You can't learn much from a box score) and they did their typical dumbass, conservative approach and scored a whopping 3 points the remaining two and a half quarters. 

Have fun wasting key strokes.  

[*SHRacerX*]

(03-02-2018, 07:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is my point exactly.

No NFL coach plays rookies unless he has to.

I guess this shows me.  That is why Kareem Hunt played his first game as a rookie, and he even fumbled on his first carry.  A turnover, against the defending Super Bowl Champs, in week 1.

Did Reid bench him?  No, he gave him more chances and Hunt went on to set the NFL record for total yards by a rookie in their first game (246 yards!) and that was a third round pick?

But I guess Reid had to play him, especially after the fumble.  

[*SHRacerX*]

(03-02-2018, 07:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Marvin plays the best players.  The worst thing a coach could do would be to put in players who do not deserve to play.

Core, Malone, and Ross were not good enought to play in front of LaFell.  What evidence do you have that any of them are better than LaFell?  LaFell has started for two different NFL teams and has over 5000 career receining yards.

WJIII played more snaps that Adam Jones in 6 of the 9 games Jones played this year.  You just make stuff up an claim it is true.  

Marvin thinks one of his best players at Guard was Hopkins.  He was awful all year, was never benched until injured, and then the Bengals bring in Westerman and Redmond and have their two best rushing performances against teams that needed to win to make the playoffs.  I guess Marvin doesn't know who the best players are, instead of not just playing younger guys.  

The only evidence I have of Core was a very promising end to 2016-17 season where I saw the Ratbird DBs drop off Core because they feared his speed.  No one has done that to Lafell, at least not when in stripes.  Malone flashed a bit this year, but, again, your argument becomes self-fulfilling when you want NFL examples and they don't get opportunities.  Malone did look good in the preseason last year. 

Your point about "snaps played" with WJIII is your typical cherry picking....your hands must be so stained from how many times you do this.  

At the beginning of the season, since Adam was suspended week 1, I will start with week 2, and show you the following:

Week 2- Texans   Jones- 92% of defensive snaps.  WJIII- 0%, he did play on special teams.  He was not injured.
Week 3- Packers   Jones- 81% of defensive snaps.  WJIII- 20%, though he did get a pick 6 on one of those
Week 4 and 5, Jones was nicked up, but still played a few snaps, WJIII played more
Week 6- Jones was out due to injury that he tried to fight through
Week 7, Jones back, and played 59% of defensive snaps, WJIII played 55%.  This was the only game the Bengals won where WJIII played fewer snaps than Jones.  
Week 8- Jacksonville   Jones played 61% of defensive snaps, WJIII played 47%.  
Week 9- Titans   They played essentially the same % of defensive snaps.

At this point, the Bengals were 3-6, and all but eliminated.  Marvin played WJIII more the rest of the way as Jones was eventually injured in week 13, and put on IR.  They went 3-3 down the stretch. 

The bottom line:  Marvin went with Jones over WJIII early in the year and even when it was obvious to everyone that Jones had lost it, he kept playing.  The season was going down the tubes, and he stayed the course and it finished in the direction it was heading.  There was a slight uptick in performance after WJIII began played the vast majority of the snaps.  Had he gone with WJIII early, they might not have started as poorly as they did.  

[Sled21]

(03-03-2018, 11:12 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: The bottom line:  Marvin went with Jones over WJIII early in the year and even when it was obvious to everyone that Jones had lost it, he kept playing.  The season was going down the tubes, and he stayed the course and it finished in the direction it was heading.  There was a slight uptick in performance after WJIII began played the vast majority of the snaps.  Had he gone with WJIII early, they might not have started as poorly as they did.  

 Jackson struggled with zone coverage early in the season, and got burnt several times due to this. And, since the Bengals were playing zone most of the time, it makes sense that Jones would get more snaps. I love some WJIII, but while he is a beast in man coverage, he had to bring his skills in zone coverage up to speed. He did. And he will shine from here on out. But does anyone really think Adam Jones would have stopped and let Le'veon Bell tiptoe past him on the sideline to go on downfield and score a touchdown because he would have been afraid to hit him? The kid is still learning, and like it not, watching Jones helped him learn....

[*SHRacerX*]

(03-03-2018, 11:51 AM)Sled21 Wrote:  Jackson struggled with zone coverage early in the season, and got burnt several times due to this. And, since the Bengals were playing zone most of the time, it makes sense that Jones would get more snaps. I love some WJIII, but while he is a beast in man coverage, he had to bring his skills in zone coverage up to speed. He did. And he will shine from here on out. But does anyone really think Adam Jones would have stopped and let Le'veon Bell tiptoe past him on the sideline to go on downfield and score a touchdown because he would have been afraid to hit him? The kid is still learning, and like it not, watching Jones helped him learn....

So, in Jones' 10th season, he was rated:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/adam-jones/2223   

(PFF rating of POOR, 4)

And in WJIII first season (playing) he was: 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/william-jackson/10658

(PFF rating of 89.2, HIGH QUALITY, less than 1% off ELITE ranking)

I would rather him learn from someone else.  And a part of my despise for Jones was the footage of him speaking to the police officer from the back of his car.  Never should have been allowed back on the team.  His 15th chance should have been his last.