HoosierCat Posted July 27, 2004 Report Share Posted July 27, 2004 According to bengals.com the team is hoping to sign TE James Whalen in the next day or two. Here's the guy's numbers, what few of them he has: http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1876795th round choice out of Kentucky a few years back, billed as a pass-catcher with size (244). Has missed time due to an Achilles injury. Is apparently being pushed by Greg Seamon and Bruce Coslet, who both coached the kid in '02 with the 'Pokes.Frankly, the fact that Coslet likes him is enough reason for me to hope it doesn't happen. Not to beat a proverbial dead horse, but why are we bringing in TEs and punters when what we really need is a run-stuffing DT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyline Posted July 27, 2004 Report Share Posted July 27, 2004 These guys they're bringing in aren't going to stop us from getting a DT if one becomes available. They are just coming in at little to nothing to challenge the people already here. If they don't work out (which it sounds like neither the punter nor the TE will), then they're gone. Not a big deal... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalszoneBilly Posted July 27, 2004 Report Share Posted July 27, 2004 Not to beat a proverbial dead horse, but why are we bringing in TEs and punters when what we really need is a run-stuffing DT? Evidently Head Coach Marvin Lewis doesn't feel the need to be as great as most of the population here at the 'Zone. In fact I can't say he felt it at the draft either, otherwise he would have addressed it then, don't you think?Right now, due to the turn around he engineered last season, I have total faith in Marvin, but...IF THE BENGALS DEFENSE BECOMES A PUCHINGBAG FOR OPPOSING TEAMS RUNNINGBACKS LIKE LAST YEAR, AND THEY CONVERT 3RD DOWNS AT WILL, THEN MY FAITH WILL DIMINISH.Truthfully, Marvins coaching history does not make me think this is likely. His defensive record at Baltimore, then Washington suggest an improvement. We shall see... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalsfan33 Posted July 27, 2004 Report Share Posted July 27, 2004 We need defense not offense. Please quit signing these crappy no names Bengals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schweinhart Posted July 27, 2004 Report Share Posted July 27, 2004 Once again.. a Reggie Kelly cut should chop of about $1.5 mill for 2004 cap provided the remainder $1.5 mill pro rate on his bonus for his 4-year deal is deferred until 2005. This money could fund a DT if one falls from the sky. Schobel, Stewart, and Hayes or Whalen sounds fine at TE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IfItsBrownFlushItDown Posted July 28, 2004 Report Share Posted July 28, 2004 Whalen is not a bad player. Back in his UK days the kid played on a broken leg. Marvin wants the guys with the passion for the game, and Whalen's got it. And as mentioned before Schobel, Stewart, and Hayes or Whalen sounds good with me. Or, is it possible that Schobel would be cut? I guess we didn't sign Reggie and Tony for nothing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richmond_mat Posted July 28, 2004 Report Share Posted July 28, 2004 Not to beat a proverbial dead horse, but why are we bringing in TEs and punters when what we really need is a run-stuffing DT? Because wishy wyche syaeth"score thirty points every week and you'll win more than you lose" And a decent punter shouldn't cost much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsfan2 Posted July 28, 2004 Report Share Posted July 28, 2004 Not to beat a proverbial dead horse, but why are we bringing in TEs and punters when what we really need is a run-stuffing DT? Because wishy wyche syaeth"score thirty points every week and you'll win more than you lose" And a decent punter shouldn't cost much. Yeah .... he said a lot of things. He got fired Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richmond_mat Posted July 28, 2004 Report Share Posted July 28, 2004 Not to beat a proverbial dead horse, but why are we bringing in TEs and punters when what we really need is a run-stuffing DT? Because wishy wyche syaeth"score thirty points every week and you'll win more than you lose" And a decent punter shouldn't cost much. Yeah .... he said a lot of things. He got fired Yes he did, but I'd call it an acrimonious divorse. He wanted more control (ala Parcells) and the Browns would not cede it. DAMN MIKEY. He went to Tampa and drafted the core of their super bowl champion roster. Got chumped over and lost his voice.GO SAM! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted July 28, 2004 Report Share Posted July 28, 2004 Why again are we considering signing a fifth TE? Much less, one that really doesn't justify signing with the TEs we have now? This is a dumb pick-up, if it happens. However, if there is a redistribution of TEs -- meaning we actually use a primary TE for all circumstances, not just block OR catch TEs -- then I'm all for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted July 28, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2004 skyline:If they don't work out (which it sounds like neither the punter nor the TE will), then they're gone. Not a big deal...Oh, I know, they're just extra tackling dummies for camp, despite the breathless hype Hobson pours on each one, I'd just like to see them stir the pot where it needs stirrin' the most.billy:In fact I can't say he felt it at the draft either, otherwise he would have addressed it then, don't you think?DT may have dropped in priority in the draft because, at that point, they thought they had Gardener coming in. For my part, I place Marvin's comments about how he's satisfied with the d-line in the "bovine excrement" category; his actions, namely the pursuit of not one but two high-profile DTs, speak louder than his words. But that's just me, others are free to feel differently.schweinhart:Once again.. a Reggie Kelly cut should chop of about $1.5 mill for 2004 cap provided the remainder $1.5 mill pro rate on his bonus for his 4-year deal is deferred until 2005. This money could fund a DT if one falls from the sky.I'll take your word on the numbers, they sound right, but they already freed up seven figures when they released Ross, and it's hard to see them needing big bucks to sign any DT that shakes loose at this point (still holding out hope for Big Sam, huh? )richmond:"score thirty points every week and you'll win more than you lose"Â Yup, and that's pretty much how we won -- and failed to win -- last year. But I'd argue that TE wasn't the big problem when we had trouble scoring. Usually it was breakdowns by the o-line, the QB, or the running game (or a combination of all three).Kirk:However, if there is a redistribution of TEs -- meaning we actually use a primary TE for all circumstances, not just block OR catch TEs -- then I'm all for it.I'm with ya. I'm still hopeful we already have that guy in Reggie Kelley, tho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barbarian Posted July 28, 2004 Report Share Posted July 28, 2004 skyline:If they don't work out (which it sounds like neither the punter nor the TE will), then they're gone. Not a big deal...Oh, I know, they're just extra tackling dummies for camp, despite the breathless hype Hobson pours on each one, I'd just like to see them stir the pot where it needs stirrin' the most.billy:In fact I can't say he felt it at the draft either, otherwise he would have addressed it then, don't you think?DT may have dropped in priority in the draft because, at that point, they thought they had Gardener coming in. For my part, I place Marvin's comments about how he's satisfied with the d-line in the "bovine excrement" category; his actions, namely the pursuit of not one but two high-profile DTs, speak louder than his words. But that's just me, others are free to feel differently.schweinhart:Once again.. a Reggie Kelly cut should chop of about $1.5 mill for 2004 cap provided the remainder $1.5 mill pro rate on his bonus for his 4-year deal is deferred until 2005. This money could fund a DT if one falls from the sky.I'll take your word on the numbers, they sound right, but they already freed up seven figures when they released Ross, and it's hard to see them needing big bucks to sign any DT that shakes loose at this point (still holding out hope for Big Sam, huh? )richmond:"score thirty points every week and you'll win more than you lose"Â Yup, and that's pretty much how we won -- and failed to win -- last year. But I'd argue that TE wasn't the big problem when we had trouble scoring. Usually it was breakdowns by the o-line, the QB, or the running game (or a combination of all three).Kirk:However, if there is a redistribution of TEs -- meaning we actually use a primary TE for all circumstances, not just block OR catch TEs -- then I'm all for it.I'm with ya. I'm still hopeful we already have that guy in Reggie Kelley, tho. Joisey,This is irrelevant to the thread--but are you celebrating the 35th-year old anniversary of the moon landing with the avatar???Now relevant to the thread:WTF ARE THE BROWNS DOING??? SIGNING ANOTHER TE IS f**king STUPID!!! FIND A DAMNED ROADBLOCK (DT or FATASS) OR KISS MINI-ME (Nate Webster) GOODBYE IN WEEK 3. Guys, Nate Webster's not going to last very long if the Bungles don't find some fresh meat to go in front of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted July 28, 2004 Report Share Posted July 28, 2004 Guys, Nate Webster's not going to last very long if the Bungles don't find some fresh meat to go in front of him. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted July 28, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2004 This is irrelevant to the thread--but are you celebrating the 35th-year old anniversary of the moon landing with the avatar??? You betcha. And it's about time this country got off its ass and went back. To stay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted July 28, 2004 Report Share Posted July 28, 2004 This is irrelevant to the thread--but are you celebrating the 35th-year old anniversary of the moon landing with the avatar???You betcha. And it's about time this country got off its ass and went back. To stay. Maybe we can send Barb up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barbarian Posted July 28, 2004 Report Share Posted July 28, 2004 This is irrelevant to the thread--but are you celebrating the 35th-year old anniversary of the moon landing with the avatar???You betcha. And it's about time this country got off its ass and went back. To stay. Maybe we can send Barb up... I'd volunteer in a heartbeat.No joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted July 28, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2004 They signed Whalen to a 1-year deal today. Long write-up on him on bengals.com; bottom line is he's a heavier Matt Schobel: might be something if he could stay off the injury report.Maurice Mann signed as well. 2 down, 9 to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian5562 Posted July 28, 2004 Report Share Posted July 28, 2004 IF we wanted to sign any dline men out there we should have got our hands on Brock Lesnar. Wait I just heard the Undertaker was available. Come on we are bringing in these guys for competion and if we see a D linemen that can make us better we will bring him in. Relax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Stripes Posted July 28, 2004 Report Share Posted July 28, 2004 lesnar signed with minnesota today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted July 28, 2004 Report Share Posted July 28, 2004 So we have 5 TEs now? Did you know that our roster has 5 DTs also on staff (as defined on our wonderful Bengals.com website)? I'm curious to the reasoning for this.. I don't understand it at all. Maybe Marvin should be a little more open on his agenda so his fans (i.e customers) can understand what's the reasoning for this. One, or two, tight ends better be released before regular season kickoff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals44 Posted July 29, 2004 Report Share Posted July 29, 2004 James Whalen does not drop the football and he runs precise patterns... If Schlobel is not healthy, this makes perfect sense... What we really need is an all-around TE that is a threat (and therefore plays) every down, but we do not have that now and Whalen has some size to block (he wasn't asked to block in college, yet he has the tools) and can catch the ball better than any TE we have on our roster, including Matt!! I'm not saying Whalen is an every down NFL TE (able to block and run), but he could be and we already know that Stewart seems to be the only TE on our current roster that can do both - the others have their strengths, but do not combine both skills... It's possible that Kelly is better than we know as he was injured last year... I love Schlobel catching the ball, but he will never be able to play every down due to his inept blocking ability ... I have no problem w/ this signing at all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted July 29, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2004 I have to correct my earlier post, Whalen is actually more of a lighter version of Schobel (I screwed up & read Patrick Johnson's weight as his; PJ is listed right above MS on the bengals.com roster). Matt's actually got about 20 lbs. on the guy.As to his blocking abilities, he didn't have anything to speak of coming out of college (see the first question here -- http://www.saintsreport.com/columns/mikede...ike090100.shtml ) but as to where they stand now, I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHO DEY AGAIN? Posted July 29, 2004 Report Share Posted July 29, 2004 This is a good signing in my book. It doesn't matter how many TEs we have now anyway. It only matters going into week 1. Sure we need a DT but there are not any quality DT to sign. This kid has talent but has been injured. Since when is trying to improve the team a bad thing? The kid can play, it's too bad most of you haven't watched him play. If you had you might change your mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted July 29, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2004 Since when is trying to improve the team a bad thing? It isn't...but I would rather they spent their coin on guys who actually would've had a shot at i improving the team (like, say, Warren Sapp) vs. third-tier castoffs who won't make it out of camp. Haven't we seen enough of that over the past 10 or 15 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian5562 Posted July 29, 2004 Report Share Posted July 29, 2004 IF he makes the team because he proves better than one of our exsisting TE's than it is a great signing. 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.