Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

The Duke's Projected 53 Man Roster
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Cincinnati Bengals
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
theJ


Moderator
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 19078
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 7:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

INbengalfan wrote:
For those thinking we cut the fullback, i don't buy it. We were horrid in the red zone last year and dropping a FB won't help that improve.
While I see the idea, I can't believe that Marvin will scheme to try to pass it in 80% of the time in goal-to-go situations.

The Bengals went without a FB a few years ago in favor of an H-Back. It went horrendously. I too kind of doubt they cut Pressley.
_________________


Don't follow your passion, take your passion with you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
THE DUKE


Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 15723
Location: Centerville, OH
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

theJ wrote:
INbengalfan wrote:
For those thinking we cut the fullback, i don't buy it. We were horrid in the red zone last year and dropping a FB won't help that improve.
While I see the idea, I can't believe that Marvin will scheme to try to pass it in 80% of the time in goal-to-go situations.

The Bengals went without a FB a few years ago in favor of an H-Back. It went horrendously. I too kind of doubt they cut Pressley.


Pressley may go on the PUP though, then it becomes Alex Smith vs Conner for that roster spot and at least for the time FB vs H-Back. That was also a different OC, Gruden might think he could do it. If Pressley is ready time go though, I fully agree they need to keep him.
_________________

-There are no men like me, only me.
-"Our life is what our thoughts make it" - Marcus Aurelius
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CDub


Joined: 01 Oct 2012
Posts: 543
Location: Iowa
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

theJ wrote:
INbengalfan wrote:
For those thinking we cut the fullback, i don't buy it. We were horrid in the red zone last year and dropping a FB won't help that improve.
While I see the idea, I can't believe that Marvin will scheme to try to pass it in 80% of the time in goal-to-go situations.

The Bengals went without a FB a few years ago in favor of an H-Back. It went horrendously. I too kind of doubt they cut Pressley.


Agreed. Will be very surprised if they end up cutting him.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheVillain112


Moderator
Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 16793
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

theJ wrote:
INbengalfan wrote:
For those thinking we cut the fullback, i don't buy it. We were horrid in the red zone last year and dropping a FB won't help that improve.
While I see the idea, I can't believe that Marvin will scheme to try to pass it in 80% of the time in goal-to-go situations.

The Bengals went without a FB a few years ago in favor of an H-Back. It went horrendously. I too kind of doubt they cut Pressley.


Yeah, but that H-Back was Dan Coats who was horrible. Orson Charles is actually talented...
_________________
Hokie wrote:
Yall remember that one time Burifict made a tackle and didn't have to leave the game? Good times.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johndeere1707


Joined: 01 Apr 2006
Posts: 6064
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheVillain112 wrote:
theJ wrote:
INbengalfan wrote:
For those thinking we cut the fullback, i don't buy it. We were horrid in the red zone last year and dropping a FB won't help that improve.
While I see the idea, I can't believe that Marvin will scheme to try to pass it in 80% of the time in goal-to-go situations.

The Bengals went without a FB a few years ago in favor of an H-Back. It went horrendously. I too kind of doubt they cut Pressley.


Yeah, but that H-Back was Dan Coats who was horrible. Orson Charles is actually talented...

that is just what i was about to say. Stone hands Coats was no better than Pressley at catching. At least Charles would add a threat with his hands and speed.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheVillain112


Moderator
Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 16793
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

johndeere1707 wrote:
TheVillain112 wrote:
theJ wrote:
INbengalfan wrote:
For those thinking we cut the fullback, i don't buy it. We were horrid in the red zone last year and dropping a FB won't help that improve.
While I see the idea, I can't believe that Marvin will scheme to try to pass it in 80% of the time in goal-to-go situations.

The Bengals went without a FB a few years ago in favor of an H-Back. It went horrendously. I too kind of doubt they cut Pressley.


Yeah, but that H-Back was Dan Coats who was horrible. Orson Charles is actually talented...

that is just what i was about to say. Stone hands Coats was no better than Pressley at catching. At least Charles would add a threat with his hands and speed.


Plus he can block, which coats couldn't do either. Coats was the offensive equivalent of Geathers...
_________________
Hokie wrote:
Yall remember that one time Burifict made a tackle and didn't have to leave the game? Good times.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ochocinco4pres


Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 23470
Location: Indianapolis Indiana
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheVillain112 wrote:
theJ wrote:
INbengalfan wrote:
For those thinking we cut the fullback, i don't buy it. We were horrid in the red zone last year and dropping a FB won't help that improve.
While I see the idea, I can't believe that Marvin will scheme to try to pass it in 80% of the time in goal-to-go situations.

The Bengals went without a FB a few years ago in favor of an H-Back. It went horrendously. I too kind of doubt they cut Pressley.


Yeah, but that H-Back was Dan Coats who was horrible. Orson Charles is actually talented...


Agreed Coats was awful. But I am not sure I would be for going H- back and no FB. While it would be nice for Pressley to catch better, I think it would a disaster to go no FB. In our division we want to pound the ball and not having a true FB could be a big mistake
_________________


Big thanks to kacymcbryant18 for the sig....^^
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ark23


Joined: 04 Dec 2012
Posts: 1559
Location: Columbus, Ohio
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ochocinco4pres wrote:
TheVillain112 wrote:
theJ wrote:
INbengalfan wrote:
For those thinking we cut the fullback, i don't buy it. We were horrid in the red zone last year and dropping a FB won't help that improve.
While I see the idea, I can't believe that Marvin will scheme to try to pass it in 80% of the time in goal-to-go situations.

The Bengals went without a FB a few years ago in favor of an H-Back. It went horrendously. I too kind of doubt they cut Pressley.


Yeah, but that H-Back was Dan Coats who was horrible. Orson Charles is actually talented...


Agreed Coats was awful. But I am not sure I would be for going H- back and no FB. While it would be nice for Pressley to catch better, I think it would a disaster to go no FB. In our division we want to pound the ball and not having a true FB could be a big mistake
I tend to agree with this. Unfortunately though keeping a fullback may mean someone like Boom Herron loses a spot despite his special teams value.

I do think Charles will be a joker/h-back for us this year, used in a variety of ways. Which means the fullback, whether it's Connor or Pressley, will be losing some snaps. But I think they have value on our team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
INbengalfan


Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 5674
Location: Richmond, IN
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 7:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I may be alone in this thinking, but as i look at the potential roster, I can see keeping the extra TE over a sixth WR. But really, what does Alex Smith bring that the other three don't, other than experience?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johndeere1707


Joined: 01 Apr 2006
Posts: 6064
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

if i remember correctly, didnt we run out of single back sets most of the year last year anyways? if you are running two TE sets more frequently, why would you have a FB unless you are in a goal line situation?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
THE DUKE


Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 15723
Location: Centerville, OH
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 7:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

johndeere1707 wrote:
if i remember correctly, didnt we run out of single back sets most of the year last year anyways? if you are running two TE sets more frequently, why would you have a FB unless you are in a goal line situation?


That was my initial thought of why we might not carry a traditional fullback, and use both Charles and Smith in a hybrid role for depth.
_________________

-There are no men like me, only me.
-"Our life is what our thoughts make it" - Marcus Aurelius
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
theJ


Moderator
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 19078
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

johndeere1707 wrote:
if i remember correctly, didnt we run out of single back sets most of the year last year anyways? if you are running two TE sets more frequently, why would you have a FB unless you are in a goal line situation?

I saw this post and initially thought: "i have to prove this wrong". So i looked up snap counts from last year.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/snapcounts

Pressley played 245 snaps last year. 184 offensive snaps. That was only 17% of the offensive snaps.

I might be a convert. Get rid of him and use Eifert/Gresham/Charles to block. Gresh and Eifert are willing and able blockers, so maybe it won't hurt the offense too much.

*Shrugs* Guess we'll find out in a few months what the coaching staff has planned.
_________________


Don't follow your passion, take your passion with you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ochocinco4pres


Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 23470
Location: Indianapolis Indiana
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

johndeere1707 wrote:
if i remember correctly, didnt we run out of single back sets most of the year last year anyways? if you are running two TE sets more frequently, why would you have a FB unless you are in a goal line situation?


I guess I remember that too. And for Goal Line we like to put in Peko to be that FB. It is just hard for me to imagine not having a FB with the ground and pound style Marvin likes
_________________


Big thanks to kacymcbryant18 for the sig....^^
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Cincinnati Bengals All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group