Alex Redmond

[THE PISTONS]

Gee...maybe Westerman would be worse...

Allowing another three pressures against the #Browns on Sunday, #Bengals G Alex Redmond leads all at his position in pressures allowed (36) and ranks 65th (among 67 qualifiers) in pressure percentage allowed (8.8).

And this doesn't include poor run blocking.

[fredtoast]

I don't understand.

Why couldn't Westerman be worse?

[THE PISTONS]

(11-30-2018, 02:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't understand.  

Why couldn't Westerman be worse?

When you're the worst at your position, you replacement can be no worse than the worst at the position.

[fredtoast]

(11-30-2018, 02:45 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: When you're the worst at your position, you replacement can be no worse than the worst at the position.

So if I replaced him I could not be any worse?  That is some absurd logic.

And he is 65 out of 67.  That is not "worst".

[THE PISTONS]

(11-30-2018, 02:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So if I replaced him I could not be any worse?  That is some absurd logic.

And he is 65 out of 67.  That is not "worst".

Yeah you're right...better to not try to replace a guy ranked 65 out of 67 because the replacement could be worse.

[*ochocincos*]

Just like last year, the Bengals will not attempt to use Westerman until they are mathematically "out" of the playoff hunt unless there's an injury.

[NATI BENGALS]

Evan Mathis is calling. He wants Westermans job as backup G.

[fredtoast]

(11-30-2018, 03:05 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Yeah you're right...better to not try to replace a guy ranked 65 out of 67 because the replacement could be worse.

Exactly.  If the replacement is worse it is stupid to play the replacement.  That is exactly why only 67 guards have played enough snaps to qualify.  NFL coaches know that the guys playing may not be very good but they are usually better than the guys sitting on the bench behind them.

[fredtoast]

(11-30-2018, 03:13 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Evan Mathis is calling. He wants Westermans job as backup G.

Would that be the good Mathis that started for us in '09, or the piece of crap who looked so bad in '10 he had to settle fore league minimum contract in free agency?

[THE PISTONS]

Good thinking. Don't want to derail our Super Bowl run by playing Westerman.

[fredtoast]

(11-30-2018, 03:17 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Good thinking. Don't want to derail our Super Bowl run by playing Westerman.

I still don't understand your point.

How would you explain to the RBs and QB that you are going to play a guy who is not as good as the guy currently starting?

[THE PISTONS]

(11-30-2018, 03:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I still don't understand your point.

How would you explain to the RBs and QB that you are going to play a guy who is not as good as the guy currently starting?

I'm sure the QB's would be upset that we benched the guy giving up the most QB pressures in the league.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(11-30-2018, 02:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So if I replaced him I could not be any worse?  That is some absurd logic.

And he is 65 out of 67.  That is not "worst".

Talk about "absurd logic".

[fredtoast]

(11-30-2018, 04:45 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I'm sure the QB's would be upset that we benched the guy giving up the most QB pressures in the league.

Of course they would if his replacement was worse.

[fredtoast]

(11-30-2018, 04:48 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Talk about "absurd logic".

Thank you.

See, Pistons, Nate gets it.

Just because a guy starting in the NFL is struggling that does not mean it is impossible for his back up to be worse.

[*Synric*]

(11-30-2018, 03:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Would that be the good Mathis that started for us in '09, or the piece of crap who looked so bad in '10 he had to settle fore league minimum contract in free agency?

Mathis only played like 100 snaps in all of 2010 because the Bengals went with Livings over him.

I know in 2009 he was one of the top run blocking guards and did not allow a sack. 2011 2012 and 2013 he was the best guard in football. You can talk it all you want but playing Livings over Mathis was very stupid.

Edit: And apparently in those 100 snaps in 2010 Mathis didn't give up a single sack...

[fredtoast]

(11-30-2018, 05:19 PM)Synric Wrote: Mathis only played like 100 snaps in all of 2010 because the Bengals went with Livings over him.

I know in 2009 he was one of the top run blocking guards and did not allow a sack. 2011 2012 and 2013 he was the best guard in football. You can talk it all you want but playing Livings over Mathis was very stupid.

Mathis started in front of livings (until he was injured) in 2009 when he deserved to.

He was garbage in 2010.  There was plenty of film for every team to watch and Mathis had to settle fore a league minimum contract because he looked bad in 2010.

It is one thing to call the Bengals coaches stupid.  It is another thing to call every single coach in the league stupid.

[*Synric*]

(11-30-2018, 05:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Mathis started in front of livings (until he was injured) in 2009 when he deserved to.

He was garbage in 2010.  There was plenty of film for every team to watch and Mathis had to settle fore a league minimum contract because he looked bad in 2010.

It is one thing to call the Bengals coaches stupid.  It is another thing to call every single coach in the league stupid.

From pff 2010 free interior line free agency list.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/ranking-the-free-agents-offensive-interior-linemen

Quote:4. Evan Mathis, Cincinnati Bengals

Age as of 1st September 2011: 29
2010 Grade: +6.2
Key Stat: Played just 114 snaps in 2010.
Behind The Numbers: After a great start to the 2009 season, Mathis returned from a brief injury and found himself in a rotation with Nate Livings. It was a strange decision, but not as strange as Mathis being dropped to the bench for nearly 90% of the 2010 season. When he got his chance he played as well as you’d expect, allowing one pressure and generally winning his battles in the trenches. Mathis could be one of the steals of free agency.

So that whole played like crap in 2010 is a load of crap. He played well when they gave him a chance problem was the Bengals did not play him over Livings. 

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(11-30-2018, 05:30 PM)Synric Wrote: From pff 2010 free interior line free agency list.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/ranking-the-free-agents-offensive-interior-linemen

So that whole played like crap in 2010 is a load of crap. He played well when they gave him a chance problem was the Bengals did not play him over Livings. 

Maybe he hit the ketchup bottle wrong.

[fredtoast]

(11-30-2018, 05:30 PM)Synric Wrote: From pff 2010 free interior line free agency list.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/ranking-the-free-agents-offensive-interior-linemen

So that whole played like crap in 2010 is a load of crap. He played well when they gave him a chance problem was the Bengals did not play him over Livings. 

Just more proof that NFL teams consider PFF a joke.  I am not saying that Mathis did not play well in 20009, but the problem with PFF is that once they pick a player they like (or don't like) then they keep giving out good (or bad) subjective grades.

After the 2010 season Mathis himself posted a video about how out of shape he was and what he did to get back in shape.  And every NFL team agreed.

Like I said, it is one thing to call the Bengals coaches stupid.  It is another to call every coach in the NFL stupid.  There was plenty of film on Mathis, but he still had to settle for a league minimum contract to be a back up with the Eagles.

If it was all bias on Alexanders part then why would Alexander had started him over Livings in 2009?