Adeniji got Benched vs Cowboys

[*ochocincos*]

(12-14-2020, 07:03 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: XSF is a career backup injury risk. Counting on him to be a starter is a sign of a bad front office.

I never expected he would be when he was signed. I always thought it would have been better for him to come in and compete with Jordan and keep John Miller at RG, but they chose to release Miller.

With that said, XSF did play well in the first game of the season, but then he went to IR. That one game gave a glimmer of hope, but I wanted to see him play a handful more games by the end of the season.

[*bfine32*]

(12-14-2020, 07:03 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: XSF is a career backup injury risk. Counting on him to be a starter is a sign of a bad front office.

Player A prior to Signing with the Bengals:

Started 11 of 64. Getting all of his starts due to injury by the starter.

Was counting on Bobbie Williams to be a starter a bad move? 

[*bfine32*]

(12-14-2020, 07:08 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I never expected he would be when he was signed. I always thought it would have been better for him to come in and compete with Jordan and keep John Miller at RG, but they chose to release Miller.

With that said, XSF did play well in the first game of the season, but then he went to IR. That one game gave a glimmer of hope, but I wanted to see him play a handful more games by the end of the season.

The brilliance of the Bengal Brain Trust.

XSF plays one game for us a RG and does very well. Quinton Spain is a career LG with flexibility.

So the next time both are on the field let's play XSF at LG and Spain at RG. 

[WhodeyRay]

(12-14-2020, 01:22 PM)ElkValleyBengal Wrote: Lapham insinuated he got benched because he caused Williams' fumble by stopping on a pull block.  I only listened to the game so I didn't see the play.  But Lapham emphasized it was football 101 that you keep moving and looking for targets when pulling.

He was engaged with a defender in the hole and got pulled for the RB trying to be a human butt plug. Sounds about like Zac logic to me.

[*rfaulk34*]

(12-14-2020, 11:00 AM)Whatever Wrote: So it's better to bench guys that have played well and helped you get to a winning record when they make mistakes than it is to bench guys that have played poorly all year and contributed to a losing record for making mistakes?

I mean, Taylor obviously needs to go at this point, but pretty soon we're going to be treading into "He went with bagel over the danish?  EVERYONE KNOWS YOU TAKE THE DANISH OVER THE BAGEL EVERY SINGLE TIME!". territory.

I'm a little confused because i don't remember saying anything like that. 

Pretty much what everyone wants is consistency and what they don't want is coaches pet projects. If you're going to demand performance, do it from the start and make changes when necessary. Not late in year two, when it reeks of desperation. 

You don't need to yank guys and berate them, call them out, all that shit. If someone is struggling, take them out, make sure they get individual attention along with team film and that shit. Work to make them better and when the situation arises late, maybe they play better. 

If someone is playing well and they screw up, or start screwing up...then you try to figure out what's going on and maybe sitting down for a quarter, or a half, or a game is what they need. Or depending on the player and their track record, you let them play through it. You don't need to yank a guy just because he messed up a time or few. It's a case by case situation. There is no 'one size fits all'.