PFF OL rankings entering week 11

[xxlt]

(11-18-2016, 10:42 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Being good 1/5 (20%) of the time isn't even acceptable in baseball. Let alone football.

So Whit is the best or second best tackle in the league 20% of the time?

[xxlt]

(11-18-2016, 11:37 PM)JumboTron Wrote: Dave Shula was also Tim McGee's position coach and then became HC while Anthony Munoz was the LT.  So I suppose he was a good coach too right?

Tim McGee was never the top player at his position from what I recall. Munoz is the only Bengal in the HOF but since the other four lineman who played with him are not, per the logic of the Alexander haters, Jim McNally was also not a good line coach. Whatever.

[xxlt]

For the record, I don't mind the Alexander haters wanting to have it both ways. I want it both ways and with a reach around. Respect. :andy: :paul:

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(11-19-2016, 04:06 AM)xxlt Wrote: So Whit is the best or second best tackle in the league 20% of the time?

One out of five players = 20%

[xxlt]

(11-19-2016, 04:24 AM)Wyche Wrote: One out of five players = 20%

Oh, they were using the new math, lol.

Seriously though, he's coached a lot of pro bowlers or near pro bowlers, and made some near silk purses out of sows ears, so I don't see how people say he is a terrible coach. I agree the line is struggling this year, and I guess all of us would sacrifice a dozen donuts to see Andre Smith's fat jiggling in slow motion at right tackle again, but I am not going to write the guy off over one season.

[Bengalholic]

My biggest problem with Paul Alexander is that he started coaching the O-line when I was 25 years old. I'm now 46!

He's been here for a long, long time. Much like Marvin, I think that amount of time in one place can lead to your message or coaching techniques becoming stale and not being as effective.

I've never thought he was a great coach, but never thought he was terrible either. I just think it's time for some new blood. I don't put all the blame on him for this year's struggles, but he deserves a fair share of the criticism.

22 years as O-line coach is a good run. Maybe it's time to give someone a shot. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-19-2016, 12:56 PM)xxlt Wrote: Oh, they were using the new math, lol.

Seriously though, he's coached a lot of pro bowlers or near pro bowlers, and made some near silk purses out of sows ears, so I don't see how people say he is a terrible coach. I agree the line is struggling this year, and I guess all of us would sacrifice a dozen donuts to see Andre Smith's fat jiggling in slow motion at right tackle again, but I am not going to write the guy off over one season.

Paul Alexander has been OL coach since 1995, or 21 seasons (this season would make 22).

In those 21 seasons, the Bengals have had TWO offensive lineman be Pro Bowlers. Andrew Whitworth and Willie Anderson. That is less than one per DECADE of coaching OL.

I'm not aware what marks someone a "near" Pro Bowler.

[Bengalsrob]

(11-19-2016, 01:57 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Paul Alexander has been OL coach since 1995, or 21 seasons (this season would make 22).

In those 21 seasons, the Bengals have had TWO offensive lineman be Pro Bowlers. Andrew Whitworth and Willie Anderson. That is less than one per DECADE of coaching OL.

I'm not aware what marks someone a "near" Pro Bowler.

A "near" Pro Bowler is the guy behind the guy who went to the Pro Bowl because nobody else wanted to go, something like this scenario:

http://www.cincyjungle.com/2013/1/10/3862426/jermaine-gresham-returns-to-pro-bowl-for-second-consecutive-year

[xxlt]

(11-19-2016, 01:57 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Paul Alexander has been OL coach since 1995, or 21 seasons (this season would make 22).

In those 21 seasons, the Bengals have had TWO offensive lineman be Pro Bowlers. Andrew Whitworth and Willie Anderson. That is less than one per DECADE of coaching OL.

I'm not aware what marks someone a "near" Pro Bowler.

Both players you named had multiple Pro Bowl appearances, so they didn't have "TWO," they had many times two Pro Bowlers. And "near" would be be - brace yourself, difficult concept to grasp - a Pro Bowl alternate or someone who finished near the top of the balloting.

[xxlt]

(11-19-2016, 01:31 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: My biggest problem with Paul Alexander is that he started coaching the O-line when I was 25 years old. I'm now 46!

He's been here for a long, long time. Much like Marvin, I think that amount of time in one place can lead to your message or coaching techniques becoming stale and not being as effective.

I've never thought he was a great coach, but never thought he was terrible either. I just think it's time for some new blood. I don't put all the blame on him for this year's struggles, but he deserves a fair share of the criticism.

22 years as O-line coach is a good run. Maybe it's time to give someone a shot. 

Well, thank goodness UCLA didn't take that approach with coach Wooden.

Maybe 21 years in one place means that every person who has been a HC has thought, yeah, this guy knows what he is doing and we would be hard pressed to find someone better, so let's not give the job to someone less competent just for the sake of change.

[Bengalholic]

(11-19-2016, 09:48 PM)xxlt Wrote: Well, thank goodness UCLA didn't take that approach with coach Wooden.

Maybe 21 years in one place means that every person who has been a HC has thought, yeah, this guy knows what he is doing and we would be hard pressed to find someone better, so let's not give the job to someone less competent just for the sake of change.

Wooden's longevity was a result of being one of the very best coaches in sports history. Not sure how that has any relevance in a discussion about Paul Alexander's longevity with the Bengals. 

To your point of 'we would be hard pressed to find someone better' - if that's the case then they might as well just give him a lifetime deal and be done with it, correct? Same goes for Marvin. Why ever look to improve on or become better than you currently are/have been?

[fredtoast]

(11-19-2016, 10:22 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: To your point of 'we would be hard pressed to find someone better' - if that's the case then they might as well just give him a lifetime deal and be done with it, correct?

No, not correct at all.

What it means is that PA has been doing a good job for a long time.  That is why he has not been replaced.  When someone is doing a good job y9u don't just say "Get rid of him just because he has been here a long time."

[Bengalholic]

(11-19-2016, 11:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No, not correct at all.

What it means is that PA has been doing a good job for a long time.  That is why he has not been replaced.  When someone is doing a good job y9u don't just say "Get rid of him just because he has been here a long time."

As I stated, if the reasoning behind not making a change is 'we would be hard pressed to find someone better' then why ever make a change? Just give him a deal that allows him to coach as long as he wants.

His unit is terrible this year...but I'm assuming that you don't think he should be replaced because, in your estimation, he's been doing a good job for a long time'?

I'm curious, would there ever be a time when he could be replaced? Give me a scenario where you think Paul could/should be replaced.

[*bfine32*]

(11-19-2016, 01:57 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Paul Alexander has been OL coach since 1995, or 21 seasons (this season would make 22).

In those 21 seasons, the Bengals have had TWO offensive lineman be Pro Bowlers. Andrew Whitworth and Willie Anderson. That is less than one per DECADE of coaching OL.

I'm not aware what marks someone a "near" Pro Bowler.

Well 2 can be a lot.

[fredtoast]

(11-20-2016, 12:22 AM)Bengalholic Wrote: As I stated, if the reasoning behind not making a change is 'we would be hard pressed to find someone better' then why ever make a change? Just give him a deal that allows him to coach as long as he wants. 

His unit is terrible this year...but I'm assuming that you don't think he should be replaced because, in your estimation, he's been doing a good job for a long time'? 

I'm curious, would there ever be a time when he could be replaced? Give me a scenario where you think Paul could/should be replaced.

Now you are trying to change the argument.

You originally tries to argue that the only reason to get rid of him was because he has been around a long time.  Your sais your biggest problem was not how the line was playing this year, but instead it was the fact that Paul had been here so long.  And that is not a good reason to replace anyone.

[Bengalholic]

(11-20-2016, 12:34 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Now you are trying to change the argument.

You originally tries to argue that the only reason to get rid of him was because he has been around a long time.  Your sais your biggest problem was not how the line was playing this year, but instead it was the fact that Paul had been here so long.  And that is not a good reason to replace anyone.

I never argued the 'only reason' to replace him was because he's been around a long time. That's simply dishonest on your part. Here's what I did say:

(11-19-2016, 01:31 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: My biggest problem with Paul Alexander is that he started coaching the O-line when I was 25 years old. I'm now 46!

I went on to explain what I mean:

(11-19-2016, 01:31 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: He's been here for a long, long time. Much like Marvin, I think that amount of time in one place can lead to your message or coaching techniques becoming stale and not being as effective.

I also said:

(11-19-2016, 01:31 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: I've never thought he was a great coach, but never thought he was terrible either. I just think it's time for some new blood. I don't put all the blame on him for this year's struggles, but he deserves a fair share of the criticism.

Take the time to read the entire post next time. 

I'll ask again, would there ever be a scenario where you would support replacing Alexander?

[fredtoast]

(11-20-2016, 12:45 AM)Bengalholic Wrote: I'll ask again, would there ever be a scenario where you would support replacing Alexander?

Yes, but it would take more than just one down year.

However if we bring in a new HC he should be allowed to pick his own O-line coach.

[phil413]

(11-17-2016, 03:13 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Being bad at RT doesn't mean you'll be bad at LT. LT and RT typically require different skill sets. LT is usually the more athletic, RT is more the power road grader.
Ogbuehi was praised for his outstanding athleticism coming out of Texas A&M but criticized for his lack of strength and anchor...both of which are needed to really succeed at RT.
He might be able to handle LT better, especially if the rushers are more speed oriented rather than powerful.


Either way, he really can't be trusted to start next year and needs to be a backup to get another year of grooming and add strength.

I agree with this.  The OL is in flux as their star is getting even older, the young guys aren't there yet and their impending FA may be out the door.  You need stability.  There are a lot of solid Free agent Right Tackles (don't try to abbreviate it) out there, and I'll get to that.  Rather than risk Andy's career or AJ mentally burning out they'll need to change their practices.  They'll get some comp picks from Jones, Sanu and Co. so this is the year to realize you made a mistake, solidify RT and let the youngsters fight (for a roster spot at least) over the athletic positions like long term LT or LG even.

Whit needs retained, period.  What they do with him starts the domino effect.  He still grades with PFF as one of the best, you tell him he's welcome to stay as long as he can keep up even, and if a position move benefits him or the team so be it.  Zeitler is under-achieving in his contract year, but may be one of the top guards on the market so he will get paid elsewhere.  Bodine's best position is LG, but could move to RG if needed.  Westerman should be up to speed and competing for a job in the interior.  There is a lot of shuffling that could go on next year, but I'd shy from doing it and making Andy even more vulnerable no matter how bad things get this year.  

So this is my prediction for next year's line, for better or worse: 
LT: Fisher/Ogbuehi  LG: Boling  C: Westerman  RG: Whitworth  RT: Rick Wagner   Backups: mid round G, Bodine (if not cut), journeyman vet like Winston

RT: Wagner is an ideal fit.  He has strong hands, anchors well for a RT but won't let a guy run around him.  He'd weaken a rival, is a mean Big Ten guy, just do it.  
RG: They make the proactive move to extend Whit's career and form a totally stable right side.
C:  Westerman could eventually be a weapon inside, ideally they draft a center by the 3rd or sign an average vet though.  
LG: With so many parts moving for the better long term, Bodine secures LG but could even lose his job if enough youngsters produce.
LT: Fisher has looked good in sample sizes.  It is very possible he's their 4th or 5th best OL, but won't play as he's a true LT instead of the super sub we hope'd he'd be.  I'll take an average LT that excels in keeping speed rushers from the QB but won't gain ground (but won't get blown up) in the run game.  I agree with Ocho even that Ogbuehi shouldn't be given anything.  OT depth is hard to find, so if he can improve some he's at least a backup swing tackle.  Point is though, if Fisher looks descent now, then it's not such a terrible thing to think that these two competing for a starting job is a bad plan.