| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
theJ
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 23192
|
 Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 7:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
If you're not in over your head, how do you know how tall you are?
~T.S. Eliot |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
THE DUKE
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 17840
Location: Centerville, OH
|
| Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
CDub
Joined: 01 Oct 2012
Posts: 543
Location: Iowa
|
| Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
TheVillain112
Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 21750
|
| Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndeere1707
Joined: 01 Apr 2006
Posts: 7302
|
| Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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.
_________________
Thanks to mike23md for the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheVillain112
Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 21750
|
| Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ochocinco4pres
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 26420
Location: Indianapolis Indiana
|
| Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
ark23
Joined: 04 Dec 2012
Posts: 1976
Location: Columbus, Ohio
|
| Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
INbengalfan
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 7808
Location: Richmond, IN
|
| Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
johndeere1707
Joined: 01 Apr 2006
Posts: 7302
|
| Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
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?
_________________
Thanks to mike23md for the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THE DUKE
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 17840
Location: Centerville, OH
|
| Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
theJ
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 23192
|
| Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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.
_________________
If you're not in over your head, how do you know how tall you are?
~T.S. Eliot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ochocinco4pres
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 26420
Location: Indianapolis Indiana
|
| Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
