ArmyBengal Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 This was my biggest concern, the D-line. I see another long road ahead as far as stopping the run, without seeing how the new guys work out. Another concern with no help on the D-line is how are we going to free up our undersized LB's (Webster) if we can stop anybody at the line ?? I'm looking for big things from Webster, but our D-line is a HUGE concern. Here's to hoping !!WHODEY !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barbarian Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Doesn't look like Gardener is headed to Detroit if he's going to be headed anywhere this year.ML made no move for Bell, but what about Stubblefield for 1 year for a 5-man DT rotation?I don't see it happening. After all, if they wanted an aging DT with injury issues, they could have signed Gardener last week. The plan now appears to be...uh...well, since billy objects to a certain B-word, let's call it the "Classic Bengals" strategy of "going to war with what we have." A Post article a day or two ago said the DT lineup would likely be Williams-Thornton-Moore-Askew. Color me unimpressed. Williams and Thornton struggled against the run last year, Moore's allegedly a run-stuffer, but we've yet to see him in action, and Askew is realistically at least a year from being a force. And for depth we've got McLeary (who?) and undersized Lewis pet Powell. Ugh.On the bright side, I think our pass defense has a chance to rate No. 1 in the league, given how little need there will be for opponents to throw the ball... Here--I'll say it for you then--Classic Bungle-itis. Sorry Bill--I'll rephrase that since you've been cool....Classic Mike Brown stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Doesn't look like Gardener is headed to Detroit if he's going to be headed anywhere this year.ML made no move for Bell, but what about Stubblefield for 1 year for a 5-man DT rotation?I don't see it happening. After all, if they wanted an aging DT with injury issues, they could have signed Gardener last week. The plan now appears to be...uh...well, since billy objects to a certain B-word, let's call it the "Classic Bengals" strategy of "going to war with what we have." A Post article a day or two ago said the DT lineup would likely be Williams-Thornton-Moore-Askew. Color me unimpressed. Williams and Thornton struggled against the run last year, Moore's allegedly a run-stuffer, but we've yet to see him in action, and Askew is realistically at least a year from being a force. And for depth we've got McLeary (who?) and undersized Lewis pet Powell. Ugh.On the bright side, I think our pass defense has a chance to rate No. 1 in the league, given how little need there will be for opponents to throw the ball... I agree with Joisey and was about to say the same thing until he chimmed in. The Defensive tackles spot is very suspect and I'll be more concerned if little or no progress is made from training camps toward preseason games. I thought going into the off-season in '03 that the DT spot is in the most need of improvement.. we really haven't done much with it since..But RUDI is right also, we should just hold on because we never know if someone may just take everyone by surprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Joisey, sounds like you have an acute case of Barbaraitis... Not at all. Looking at the team, I think you can argue they're improved everywhere...except for the defensive line. My issue is that I'm a firm believer in the "games are won in the trenches" theory of football. Bad play on the line will sabotage the rest of the D. If the line can't at least slow up an oncoming RB, for example, the LBs aren't going to have a chance to make a play; instead, they'll be grasping at the guy's ankles five yards past the line of scrimmage. And if they bring up a corner or safety to stack the box, obviously they weaken the secondary. Fortunately, within the division, they may be able to get away with that, since only the Browns have a real threat at QB, but against a balanced offense they're in deep doo-doo. IMHO, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 To add onto Joiseys point, the defense is forced to blitz the linebackers more than usual because of the lack of pass rushing forcing everyone in the secondary to go man on man and safties, especially the strong saftey aren't good enough to cover one-on-one for the most part. That's why they aren't cornerbacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishcovga Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Back problems or no Back problems, this is news because we didn't draft properly. I like Askew, and hope he'll be fine, etc, but we had several chances to draft big men with good ratings in the second and third rounds. * I personally don't want to see Tony Williams get pushed 10 yards off the ball anymore do you..?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Back problems or no Back problems, this is news because we didn't draft properly. Yes and no. We certainly could have snagged a top d-lineman at several points on day one, but that guy could have just as easily been another Gerard Warren or Big Duddy (and, as you noted, how Askew pans out remains to be seen). I fault them more for ignoring the DT position through nearly all of free agency -- choosing instead to fruitlessly pursue aging CB Troy Vincent, who never excited me very much -- and then botching the Sapp deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schweinhart Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 June 16 11:01 a.m.Mark Maske--Washington Post"Bengals, Gardener Working on DealA source familiar with negotiations between the Cincinnati Bengals and free-agent defensive tackle Daryl Gardener said the two sides remain hopeful of completing a deal and the parties should know within the next couple weeks whether they'll be able to do so. Gardener lined up a four-year, $9.3-million deal with the Bengals after Denver gave him permission to speak to other teams in anticipation of his June release by the Broncos. But the agreement has been on hold since Gardener, who has a history of back problems, underwent a physical for the Bengals. . . ."Maske's usually pretty good about his unnamed sources. What pops out is both sides "hopeful" and "able to do so" a deal. It sounds like there's a league decision involved about whether Gardener will pass as physically fit to play or a steroids issue. This makes it sound a lot less like the Bengals or Gardener are opposed to the deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevnz Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Maske's usually pretty good about his unnamed sources. What pops out is both sides "hopeful" and "able to do so" a deal. It sounds like there's a league decision involved about whether Gardener will pass as physically fit to play or a steroids issue. This makes it sound a lot less like the Bengals or Gardener are opposed to the deal. Garnder will either be a Bengal or he won't be playing at all this year. The only way I see him playing for another team is that by the time his back is right the Bengals move on and another team's d-line loses more than one player and a team signs him as a desperation type move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barbarian Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 Maske's usually pretty good about his unnamed sources. What pops out is both sides "hopeful" and "able to do so" a deal. It sounds like there's a league decision involved about whether Gardener will pass as physically fit to play or a steroids issue. This makes it sound a lot less like the Bengals or Gardener are opposed to the deal.Garnder will either be a Bengal or he won't be playing at all this year. The only way I see him playing for another team is that by the time his back is right the Bengals move on and another team's d-line loses more than one player and a team signs him as a desperation type move. Does anybody else find it curious that the Bungles are the only ones talking with Gardener???Just wondering. I think this may be another classic example of the Bungles signing a player that no one else wants. He f**ked up in Denver sooo bad that I could see that.I would bet that Gardener knows that this is his last chance to make some $$$$ and the Bungles are sucker enough to sign him on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTBengalsFan Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 $50 says he failed his physical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denverbengal Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 Maske's usually pretty good about his unnamed sources. What pops out is both sides "hopeful" and "able to do so" a deal. It sounds like there's a league decision involved about whether Gardener will pass as physically fit to play or a steroids issue. This makes it sound a lot less like the Bengals or Gardener are opposed to the deal.Garnder will either be a Bengal or he won't be playing at all this year. The only way I see him playing for another team is that by the time his back is right the Bengals move on and another team's d-line loses more than one player and a team signs him as a desperation type move. Does anybody else find it curious that the Bungles are the only ones talking with Gardener???Just wondering. I think this may be another classic example of the Bungles signing a player that no one else wants. He f**ked up in Denver sooo bad that I could see that.I would bet that Gardener knows that this is his last chance to make some $$$$ and the Bungles are sucker enough to sign him on.Before the start of the 2003 season, Gardener signed a 7 year $34 million contract with the Broncos. That leads me to believe that he's a talented player with the potential to be dominant. The Broncos wouldn't have agreed to such a contract with someone they felt wasn't worth that kind of money.The reason no other teams are pursuing him (we don't really know this for sure) is because he wants to play for ML and nobody else. He knows what to expect from ML and vise versa, and I think he wants to avoid playing for another coach with a super-ego like ShannaRat who's going to put him in his "doghouse" every time he speaks his mind. And just because ShannaRat couldn't handle his off-field antics, and radio comments, doesn't mean that ML won't be able to curtail that. I honestly think Gardener has much more respect for ML than he did ShannaRat, and I can't say that I blame him. The Bengals aren't really taking much of a risk because if he doesn't pan out, they won't be out much $$$. If he does pan out, they've got a $34 mil run-stuffing DT for an excellent price Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.