Bryant DIDN'T make progress

[ArmyBengal]

Just my two cents, but Caldwell stays with little to no thought whatsoever.

Go with 5 WR's ?? Sounds pretty stupid all things considered. If they want to make sure they have depth at another position, there are much better places to cut fat. And why the WR corps, which is going to be very unstable after this season ?? If they want to make sure they have depth at the Safety position, they should have drafted one. I can't see any of those guys further down the depth chart being much better than the guy they stick on the practice squad, so why bother when you can just pull a guy up ??

Better yet, get rid of one of the two complete (sorry if this offends) RETARDS that call themselves QB's, backing up Carson ??

Wasn't it the WR corps they were considering carrying 7 not long ago due to not wanting to cut young players ??

Now they want to cut it to 5 ?? No sense in my opinion. If they have such little faith in Simpson, Briscoe takes the 6th spot.

[Kazkal]

I agree Caldwell makes the team just more wondering where he's been this preseason...My guess is they wanted to get the other guys on the bubble as much reps as possible

Go with 5 WR's ?? Sounds pretty stupid all things considered

Agreed,Surprised Reedy called for only 5 too....Then again he had a combination of Skuta & Coats being our FB >_<

of the two complete (sorry if this offends) RETARDS

I don't think Sarah Palin is a Bengals fan.

[HairOnFire]

If they have such little faith in Simpson, Briscoe takes the 6th spot.

Fugdat.

BTW, I haven't seen the Bills game yet, but Simpson has looked pretty good as a gunner on special teams....and the gamethread made it sound like he made another play this week.

Just saying.

[cHaD711Johnson]

It's laughable to me that some of you think that Andre Caldwell is on the bubble to get cut.

[Kazkal]

If they have such little faith in Simpson, Briscoe takes the 6th spot.

Fugdat.

BTW, I haven't seen the Bills game yet, but Simpson has looked pretty good as a gunner on special teams....and the gamethread made it sound like he made another play this week.

Just saying.

Ya on a kickoff returned he plowed the ball carrier,like I was amazed when I heard his name called because i didn't even know they had him on special teams...

Which is good because shows him fighting for his spot

PS,Ooo Caldwell didn't play vs the bills oops

[HairOnFire]

It's laughable to me that some of you think that Andre Caldwell is on the bubble to get cut.

Personally, I don't. But I do admit Caldwell on the bubble seemed a bit more plausible before Bryant was cut.

[bwillycuse]

It's laughable to me that some of you think that Andre Caldwell is on the bubble to get cut.

Im not calling for him to be cut but he hasn't really impressed me much.

I would be very surprised if he got cut.

But I would like to see some improvement. He hasn't done really anything of note since the Ravens game.

Id like to see him make a catch in traffic.

Id like to see some YAC.

Id like to see him jump and catch a ball.

Step up Andre.

[ArmyBengal]

Caldwell, only needs to do two things for me to be happy with him:

#1. Catch balls like he did against the Steelers and Ravens in clutch situations in the endzone.

#2. Don't fumble the ball when the team is driving for a win.

I just think most people are caught up on his fumbles. He makes the team EASILY.

My comment about Simpson and Briscoe is only based upon what they are saying. If in fact they have that little confidence in Simpson and still hold 6, I think Briscoe is that player. Not because of what he's done to this point necessarily, but what they think he will do in the future. Call it potential, but it's only on what they have said.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Better yet, get rid of one of the two complete (sorry if this offends) RETARDS

I think you're in the clear Army, it's not Steeler week.

[ArmyBengal]

Better yet, get rid of one of the two complete (sorry if this offends) RETARDS

I think you're in the clear Army, it's not Steeler week.

Well, in the past there were comments made about not using terminology like that because it could offend people.

That being said and me being honest, I'm really not sorry if anyone is offended by the use, so there's that.

[BengalByTheBay]

Well, in the past there were comments made about not using terminology like that because it could offend people.

That's totally retarded

[HairOnFire]

Well, in the past there were comments made about not using terminology like that because it could offend people.

f**k 'em.

[Sea Ray]

It's laughable to me that some of you think that Andre Caldwell is on the bubble to get cut.

It's a possibility we ought to consider. I'm curious if Marvin's been asked why he hasn't played recently. If not, why?

Personally I think he's too good to cut but I also think the Bengals have misused him. I think he's a wide out, not a slot guy and I'm amazed that they stubbornly keep him inside

[Trevor]

Well,.. I can be accused of saying the word retard... But,.. At the same time I try not to say it because it is offensive to people with family members that are mentally handicapped,.. I'm sure if you guys had a child that was autistic or something along those lines or a worse condition, you wouldnt just call ppl that... Or you'd at least think twice,.. So getting pissed at ppl, who don't like other ppl saying that word which is offensive to them, isn't too nice.

[BengalByTheBay]

Well,.. I can be accused of saying the word retard... But,.. At the same time I try not to say it because it is offensive to people with family members that are mentally handicapped,.. I'm sure if you guys had a child that was autistic or something along those lines or a worse condition, you wouldnt just call ppl that... Or you'd at least think twice,.. So getting pissed at ppl, who don't like other ppl saying that word which is offensive to them, isn't too nice.

....and some people get upset when you use the word "handicapped" rather than "challenged." So, somebody's gonna get pissed about just about anything. You can't please all the people all the time, so you pick & choose. Good for you trying to be sensitive to others, even though you admit you haven't always done so. IMO people spend way too much time thinking up things to get pissed about.

PS - If I had a child who was autistic or "challenged" I doubt I would assume that somebody using the term "retarded" was trying to insult my child...just me.

[HoosierCat]

That said, when I followed the link to Hobson's 2-minute drill I was mildly suprised to see it didn't say a thing about drafting a wideout next season. (Edited later for stupidity, perhaps?)

Nah, it's at the end of the 4th paragraph:

But now there is no wondering about this: The Bengals have to take a wide receiver in the first round next year.

Like I said, waaayyyy too premature. Maybe we should see how the current WRs perform, and figure out what to do about (in no particular order) RB (Benson is scheduled to be a FA), the secondary (safety still a need, JJ may be a FA) and the offensive line (still needs upgrading) before we set a first round wideout in stone, Geoff.

[HoosierCat]

Nope, bad guess by Reedy. They will keep six at WR, they have to.

I don't think that there's any "have to" about it. Jermaine Gresham's abilities in the passing game give them the option of going "light" at WR.

To me, the problem is at TE. Gresham is a lock and I doubt they are ready to give up on Coffman. They normally keep 3 TEs, but the trouble is that Reggie Kelly is starting to look his age and Coats is arguably a better blocking TE now. But...Kelly is a favorite of Carson Palmer, and the Bengals have a history of bending over backward to keep No. 9 happy.

That said, I think the odds still favor 6 at WR. But going with 5 wouldn't surprise me.

[Kazkal]

I feel little bit safer with Reggie catching the ball instead coats too ...

[HairOnFire]

That said, when I followed the link to Hobson's 2-minute drill I was mildly suprised to see it didn't say a thing about drafting a wideout next season. (Edited later for stupidity, perhaps?)

Nah, it's at the end of the 4th paragraph:

But now there is no wondering about this: The Bengals have to take a wide receiver in the first round next year.

Very well.

So here's the violent puking you requested.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Well, in the past there were comments made about not using terminology like that because it could offend people.

f**k 'em.

I think that's illegal in most states.

[HairOnFire]

Well, in the past there were comments made about not using terminology like that because it could offend people.

f**k 'em.

I think that's illegal in most states.

Actually, I think f**king the retarded is illegal in ALL states as they're considered incapable of granting proper consent.

Still, it's always polite to ask.

Rather, I say f**k the people who say you can't call a class of people a name specifically chosen for it's benign definition in a dictionary. And there's the rub because the dictionary defines the word as offensive only when SOMETIMES used in it's shortened form. Thus, saying retarded is proper. Saying retard, less so....but only in certain circumstances where the intent is to deliberately offend.

As for the backup QB's previously mentioned, if their IQ falls below 70, and RunPee.com suggests they might be, then they're officially considered retarded and can be referred to properly as retarded.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Actually, I think f**king the retarded is illegal in ALL states as they're considered incapable of granting proper consent.

Sounds like you've done some research on the matter. Have you tried Poland? I hear 'tards (is that offensive?) are accepted there.

Still, it's always polite to ask.

I dare say the problem is in interpreting the response.

if their IQ falls below 70, and RunPee.com suggests they might be

You're just jealous you didn't think of it. Besides, it still doesn't explain JT O'Suckivan. Unless he has the RunPoop.com companion site?

[ArmyBengal]

Wow, this is what I love about this board. Even when making a faint hearted attempt at being PC, it goes off the beaten path.

Yeah, I'm sick and love those types of jokes. Carry on.

When people find time to be offended about everything there is to be offended about instead of picking and choosing what they want to be offended about, I'll start giving a sh*t about it offending them. If my child was challenged mentally or physically in any way, I doubt highly that I would go out of my way to find other people to be pissed off at.

All that being said, yeah, f*ck em...

[Kazkal]

Awww I'll never hate on you army <3

Wow, this is what I love about this board. Even when making a faint hearted attempt at being PC, it goes off the beaten path.

Yeah, I'm sick and love those types of jokes. Carry on

Guesss I was wrong and Sarah Palin does post on this forum ...How I personally view the matter is like south park episode (go figure) where they get the word Fag re defined to mean Bikers instead gay people...I'd never call a disabled or special needs retarded because theres names for their conditions...How ever if some dickhead douchecanoe is acting like a Ass I'll Just call him a Retard =P...Like 90% of Steeler fans I see on forums are Retarded.

[redsbengalsbucks]

Nope, bad guess by Reedy. They will keep six at WR, they have to.

I don't think that there's any "have to" about it. Jermaine Gresham's abilities in the passing game give them the option of going "light" at WR.

To me, the problem is at TE. Gresham is a lock and I doubt they are ready to give up on Coffman. They normally keep 3 TEs, but the trouble is that Reggie Kelly is starting to look his age and Coats is arguably a better blocking TE now. But...Kelly is a favorite of Carson Palmer, and the Bengals have a history of bending over backward to keep No. 9 happy.

That said, I think the odds still favor 6 at WR. But going with 5 wouldn't surprise me.

Munoz was gushing over Kelly during the Bills game, saying he was back to 100%.