Why hasn't Paul Alexander been interviewed for HC?

[fredtoast]

(01-18-2016, 12:08 PM)Wyche Wrote: Kyle Cook = very good center?  Are you serious?

Yes I am serious.  Cook played at a high level here before he was injured.  If you claim he was bad then this is more proof that you do not know much about Offensive line play.

[fredtoast]

(01-18-2016, 12:08 PM)Wyche Wrote: Clint Boling = AS has been mentioned numerous times, was one of the top guard prospects in his class.


http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/clint-boling?id=2495123

http://www.sbnation.com/2011/4/8/2096982/clint-boling-nfl-draft-scouting-report


http://www.nepatriotsdraft.com/2010/05/clint-boling-scouting-report.html



Nice try.....

Then Alexander is clearly smarter than every other NFL O-line coach by selecting Boling when no one else wanted him.  If he was such a highly rated prospect why did every other team in the league pass on him?

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(01-18-2016, 12:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  You are wrong.  he would be asked to speak anyway.

Before this season started ProFootballFocus had been ranking Offensive lines for 8 years.  Over that 8 year period the bengals ranked NUMBER ONE IN THE ENTIRE LEAGUE IN PASS PROTECTION, and they had been very consistent by finishing in the top 6 every year except one.

O-line coaches would love to hear from an O-line coach who had accomplished this.  They don't care if some message board people think it is funny that he plays the piano.  That type of criticism may carry a lot of weight on a middle school playground, but not so much among professionals who want to get better at their job.

Pure conjecture.

Yeah?  Then AJM showed us all what Andy Dalton's quick release does for that line.  Jeremy Hill can't run without an unbalanced set and fullback, same as Cedric Benson, or should we all just forget that?  Bernard makes them look better than they are with his elusiveness and ability to get lost among the big bodies due to his stature.....kinda like a guy that wore 20 up in Detroit a few years ago......or are we to believe that line was stellar based off of an individual's ability?

Aside from Big Whit....this line is overrated, and was exposed as such with AJM at the helm getting sacked 12 times in 4 games......two of which were against 5-11 teams.

[fredtoast]

(01-18-2016, 12:08 PM)Wyche Wrote: Anthony Collins = serviceable backup that a desperate Bucs team overpaid for.  Where is this "developed stud" these days?

He has struggled under a lesser coach.  That is a good way to judge coaches.  See how players perform under them compared to coaches from other teams.

[fredtoast]

(01-18-2016, 12:08 PM)Wyche Wrote: Nate Livings = a desperate and dumb Cowboys FO.  He sucked here, and he sucked there.

Nate Livings was not the only free agent OG on the market when the Cowboys signed him.  No way you can call it a "desperate" move.  They had lots of other choices.

[fredtoast]

(01-18-2016, 12:13 PM)Wyche Wrote: Pure conjecture.

Exactly the same ass your claim that he is just asked for convenience sake.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(01-18-2016, 12:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes I am serious.  Cook played at a high level here before he was injured.  If you claim he was bad then this is more proof that you do not know much about Offensive line play.

Was Cook an improvement of Guicheck? Yup, but that wouldn't take very much (another late rounder ol Paul couldn't coach up).  Was he "very good"? No.  He was such an improvement over the turd before him, it made him look better.  Average at best, and I know enough.

(01-18-2016, 12:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then Alexander is clearly smarter than every other NFL O-line coach by selecting Boling when no one else wanted him.  If he was such a highly rated prospect why did every other team in the league pass on him?

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(01-18-2016, 12:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Nate Livings was not the only free agent OG on the market when the Cowboys signed him.  No way you can call it a "desperate" move.  They had lots of other choices.

Then we'll stick with dumb.  Livings was a turnstile.

(01-18-2016, 12:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Exactly the same ass your claim that he is just asked for convenience sake.

.....but it's rational conjecture, all things considered.

[fredtoast]

(01-18-2016, 12:13 PM)Wyche Wrote:  Jeremy Hill can't run without an unbalanced set and fullback, same as Cedric Benson, or should we all just forget that? 

This is getting silly.  Hill has over 900 yards and a 4.3 average running as a lone set back.  He has almost 600 yards and a 5.1 average running from the shotgun formation.

Basically you are cvlaiming that whenever the O-line does not allow any sacks it is because of the QB, but when the line does allow sacks it is because of the O-line.  That just is not true.  McCarron holds the ball too long which leads to more sacks.  that is his mistake, not the O-lines's.  Plus the O-lines history of excellent pass blocking goes back to before Dalton was even here.

[fredtoast]

(01-18-2016, 12:17 PM)Wyche Wrote: Was Cook an improvement of Guicheck? Yup, but that wouldn't take very much (another late rounder ol Paul couldn't coach up).  Was he "very good"? No.  He was such an improvement over the turd before him, it made him look better.  Average at best, and I know enough.

Many experts considered him a Pro Bowl level player and he was excellent in pass protection.

You do not have a clue.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(01-18-2016, 12:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is getting silly.  Hill has over 900 yards and a 4.3 average running as a lone set back.  He has almost 600 yards and a 5.1 average running from the shotgun formation.

Basically you are cvlaiming that whenever the O-line does not allow any sacks it is because of the QB, but when the line does allow sacks it is because of the O-line.  That just is not true.  McCarron holds the ball too long which leads to more sacks.  that is his mistake, not the O-lines's.  Plus the O-lines history of excellent pass blocking goes back to before Dalton was even here.

Yeah, back when Munoz was here.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(01-18-2016, 12:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Many experts considered him a Pro Bowl level player and he was excellent in pass protection.

You do not have a clue.

What "experts"?

http://www.cincyjungle.com/2012/7/15/3159266/examining-why-kyle-cook-ranked-as-the-4th-worst-center-in-the-league

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(01-18-2016, 12:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is getting silly.  Hill has over 900 yards and a 4.3 average running as a lone set back.  He has almost 600 yards and a 5.1 average running from the shotgun formation.

Basically you are cvlaiming that whenever the O-line does not allow any sacks it is because of the QB, but when the line does allow sacks it is because of the O-line.  That just is not true.  McCarron holds the ball too long which leads to more sacks.  that is his mistake, not the O-lines's.  Plus the O-lines history of excellent pass blocking goes back to before Dalton was even here.

Link?

I recall Hill looking pretty good behind Hewitt last season, but could be wrong.  I'd like to see those numbers, and a comparison behind a lead back, and whether or not we were running an unbalanced set.

.....and no, that's not what I'm saying at all.  I'm saying that guys like Dalton and Brady (the two fastest release times in the entire league) help inflate numbers.  By comparison, AJMs inability shows that the line is not as good as advertised.  

[fredtoast]

(01-18-2016, 12:47 PM)Wyche Wrote: What "experts"?

http://www.cincyjungle.com/2012/7/15/3159266/examining-why-kyle-cook-ranked-as-the-4th-worst-center-in-the-league

Here is the conclusion from that article.  But even this is subject to dispute


Put that all together and you can statistically prove (at least through the eyes of Pro Football Focus) that Kyle Cook is a below average pass blocker, and an above average run blocker. All from an undrafted player who had the much criticized Nate Livings as hisright left hand man.





But even this is subject to dispute.  Especially since this same PFF analysis had the Steelers Pro Bowl center Maurkice Pouncey ranked dead last as the worst in the league


Before the 2012 season Pat Kirwan had him projected as a Pro Bowl player


http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/19869729/keep-eye-on-these-offensive-linemen-who-may-deserve-pro-bowl-shots



1. Kyle Cook, Cincinnati Bengals: Offensive line coach Paul Alexander knew he found a very good player when the undrafted rookie free agent was signed from Michigan State in 2008. Four years and 48 starts later, Cook has given up one sack every 12 games..

[fredtoast]

(01-18-2016, 12:52 PM)Wyche Wrote: Link?

ESPN player stats.  Look at the "splits".

[fredtoast]

(01-18-2016, 12:44 PM)Wyche Wrote: Yeah, back when Munoz was here.

Going into this season PFF had them ranked number one over the lsast eight years.

I realize that your knowledge of the Bengals is limited, but Dalton has not been here that long.

[Wes Mantooth]

(01-18-2016, 12:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then Alexander is clearly smarter than every other NFL O-line coach by selecting Boling when no one else wanted him.  If he was such a highly rated prospect why did every other team in the league pass on him?

Wasn't Boling drafted near the top of the 4th round?  And he plays a position, that barring an elite level of talent, usually doesn't get chosen until day 2.

How does this mean "no one wanted him" or "that every other team passed"?  Yeah, no one wanted him before round 4.  Everyone passed before round 4.  That doesn't mean no one wanted him period. 

That's like saying no one wanted Gio Bernard because everyone had a chance to draft him.

If you were to go and average out the rounds in which each team's starting guards were drafted I'd be willing to bet that it would come up somewhere between rounds 3-5.  Developing a mid round guard to be an adequate starter isn't all that unique.  In fact, it's probably commonplace.

Holding up Boling as some huge accomplishment seems very, very desperate to me.

[fredtoast]

(01-18-2016, 02:48 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Wasn't Boling drafted near the top of the 4th round?  And he plays a position, that barring an elite level of talent, usually doesn't get chosen until day 2.

How does this mean "no one wanted him" or "that every other team passed"?  Yeah, no one wanted him before round 4.  Everyone passed before round 4.  That doesn't mean no one wanted him period. 

That's like saying no one wanted Gio Bernard because everyone had a chance to draft him.

If you were to go and average out the rounds in which each team's starting guards were drafted I'd be willing to bet that it would come up somewhere between rounds 3-5.  Developing a mid round guard to be an adequate starter isn't all that unique.  In fact, it's probably commonplace.

Holding up Boling as some huge accomplishment seems very, very desperate to me.

Boling has started more career games than the combined total of the three guards chosen immediately before him.

Funny how people try to rip Paul for not developing middle round picks, but then act like it doesn't matter when he does.

[fredtoast]

(01-18-2016, 02:48 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: If you were to go and average out the rounds in which each team's starting guards were drafted I'd be willing to bet that it would come up somewhere between rounds 3-5.  Developing a mid round guard to be an adequate starter isn't all that unique.  In fact, it's probably commonplace.

I don't think you should make that bet without educating yourself a little better.

Accoring to ProFootballReference.com here are the number of combined "seasons as a starter" by OGs taken in the draft since 2010.  The first column is the OGs taken in the first three rounds.  The second column is the number by OGs taken later in the draft.

2015............4.......0
2014............7.......1
2013............14.....0
2012............16.....3
2011............9.......6 (4 of which are Boling)
2010............20.....3

So if you remove Boling from the numbers, OGs taken in the first three rounds have accumulated 70 seasons as starters while players taken in the 4th round and later have 9.

[CageTheBengal]

Because unfortunately sweat suits aren't an acceptable form of attire to wear to a job interview.