derekshank Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 I'm not terribly excited about Kelly Jennings. But I wasn't enamored with Clinton McDonald either.It's seems like a solid move, because it was a necessary move. He is certainly better depth than what the Bengals had. I just hope Zimmer finds a way to use him effectively. It seems like he requires safety help over the top and that doesn't sound like Zimmer's scheme... but we'll see how they utilize him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Ray Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 We're fans and we like to delve into these kinds of things especially when we don't have real games to talk about but the truth is this was a trade of the Seahawks 50th player for our 50th guy. Both of these guys were borderline as to whether they'd even make the team. They represent a spot far, far down on the roster of either team Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonahdsage Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 We're fans and we like to delve into these kinds of things especially when we don't have real games to talk about but the truth is this was a trade of the Seahawks 50th player for our 50th guy. Both of these guys were borderline as to whether they'd even make the team. They represent a spot far, far down on the roster of either teamIt's been said already but bears repeating — we traded a 7th round pick that most felt was a waste of space for a solid, proven, first round STARTER. Clint had two solid PRESEASON games this year . . . and we are desperate for CB help. Why are we so quick to say what an amazing DT he was? Can you have too many solid CB's on your team??? I would say no, you cannot. So was it possible that McDonald would grow into a total stud pro bowler? I suppose so . . . but we had an immediate need that could be filled from a position of depth. Hate on the front office all you want, but in the last two weeks, we've traded 2 seventh round picks for a first round and a second round player. That's pretty freaking sweet in my opinion. Imagine how everyone would have reacted if we traded Simpson for a compensatory 7th round pick the year after we drafted him . . . Jennings may not make your head spin with his play day 1, but his impact will be felt much sooner and much more than Clinton's . . . and it was a BARGAIN deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekshank Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 We're fans and we like to delve into these kinds of things especially when we don't have real games to talk about but the truth is this was a trade of the Seahawks 50th player for our 50th guy. Both of these guys were borderline as to whether they'd even make the team. They represent a spot far, far down on the roster of either teamNot true. This trade is about need. Seattle brought in younger/bigger CBs to fit the new coaching regime. But don't forget that Jennings was a starter all year last year, and that the Seahawks re-signed him less than a month ago. The plan was to use him as a 3rd CB... and a safety net if the young CBs faltered (11 of their 15 DB's are in their 1st or 2nd season in the NFL). The youngsters were going to be on a very short leash... but they've been happy with the play of their young guys so far, so the need to use Jennings as security was lessened.Combine that with the fact that they are extremely shallow at DT... and it was a good move for them.Cincy was in the opposite position. Clinton McDonald is young and has a lot of potential... but Atkins, Sims, and Shirley fit that description as well. Not to mention Dunlap, Fanene, and Rucker who all possess the ability to play DT on passing downs. But with Pacman hurt, Cincy is extremely shallow at CB.McDonald will get a lot of playing time in Seattle, but wouldn't have in Cincy. Jennings will get a lot playing time in Cincy, but wouldn't have in Seattle. These guys have talent... but the make-up of the rosters made this a no-brainer for both teams. Both will be much more than a "50th guy" now that they are on a team that needs them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Ray Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 Not true. This trade is about need...Both will be much more than a "50th guy" now that they are on a team that needs them.It is about need but it's also about depth on the roster. McDonald was no cinch to make the Bengals roster. Ditto for Jennings in Seattle:It was a mild surprise that the Seahawks re-signed Jennings in free agency. He drew the ire of many Seahawks fans by blowing man-coverage on numerous plays that resulted in long completions, and he was likely going to be relegated to a backup role this season behind Walter Thurmond. Rookie Brandon Browner has also made a strong case for playing time and inclusion on the final roster./>http://blog.seattlepi.com/football/2011/08/29/seahawks-trade-cb-kelly-jennings-to-bengals/Seattle may plan on keeping Jennings as a slot sub package, off-coverage and backup corner; he can run and cover versus smaller receivers. With Walter Thurmond now back at practice and Roy Lewis recovering on the PUP list, it's unclear where Jennings ultimately will stand. >http://bleacherreport.com/articles/817861-seattle-seahawks-4-veterans-who-have-disappointed-this-preseason#/articles/817861-seattle-seahawks-4-veterans-who-have-disappointed-this-preseason/page/4This sure sounds like a guy fighting for a roster spot to me and that's the definition of a 50th player on a 53 man roster.So tell me, what did I say that wasn't true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyline Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 Not true. This trade is about need...Both will be much more than a "50th guy" now that they are on a team that needs them.It is about need but it's also about depth on the roster. McDonald was no cinch to make the Bengals roster. Ditto for Jennings in Seattle:It was a mild surprise that the Seahawks re-signed Jennings in free agency. He drew the ire of many Seahawks fans by blowing man-coverage on numerous plays that resulted in long completions, and he was likely going to be relegated to a backup role this season behind Walter Thurmond. Rookie Brandon Browner has also made a strong case for playing time and inclusion on the final roster.http://blog.seattlep...ngs-to-bengals/Seattle may plan on keeping Jennings as a slot sub package, off-coverage and backup corner; he can run and cover versus smaller receivers. With Walter Thurmond now back at practice and Roy Lewis recovering on the PUP list, it's unclear where Jennings ultimately will stand. http://bleacherrepor...reseason/page/4This sure sounds like a guy fighting for a roster spot to me and that's the definition of a 50th player on a 53 man roster.So tell me, what did I say that wasn't true?It doesn't matter where Jennings ranked on Seattle's roster. It matters where he ranks on OUR roster, which is most likely at 3rd CB.And, like others have said, Jennings is a first round pick that played as a starter for more than one year. He fell out of favor in Seattle wtht he new coaching regime that favors taller/bigger CBs, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have starter potential. The Bengals did well with the Reggie Nelson trade, and here's hoping they do the same here. Trade away a player that wouldn't contribute and get a player that possibly will. Again...what could possibly be wrong with this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekshank Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 So tell me, what did I say that wasn't true?Well... first of all, he wasn't fighting for a roster spot. He was fighting for playing time. The only reason he wouldn't have been their 3rd CB would have been because they didn't want to pay his salary... not because of his talent level.I thought your "50th guy" comment was suggesting that the Bengals traded for a player that was barely going to make the active roster. And that's what isn't true. He's the 3rd most talented CB on the roster, and Marvin said he'll likely play 500 snaps. Guys who are on the bubble, don't get 500 snaps. If I misunderstood your point... My bad. But if that is your point... you're wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingwilly Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 Just browsing the waiver wire:BEEFCAKE!!! DT Montavious Stanley was cut bu the Lions.Two Buckeyes were cut, obviously Gholston (bears) and also Youbouty (from TB). I also read that the Cowboys will probably cut Igor Olshansky, the huge 5 technique DE/DT. Maybe he's worth a look.Who are you going to replace on our d-line to bring one of those guys in? We actually have depth at that position, which is why McDonald was traded in the first place.I'm really pleased with this trade. Yes, we lost what appears to be a great guy, but we exchange someone who would most likely be wearing street clothes every Sunday, for a player that can get on the field and help now. It's hard to be upset with this one.I would consider Olshansky in front of Rucker or Shirley. Shirely has barely stayed healthy, and Olshansky is superior to Rucker.The D-line can add a body if they carry 2 qb's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Ray Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 So tell me, what did I say that wasn't true?Well... first of all, he wasn't fighting for a roster spot. He was fighting for playing time. The only reason he wouldn't have been their 3rd CB would have been because they didn't want to pay his salary... not because of his talent level.I thought your "50th guy" comment was suggesting that the Bengals traded for a player that was barely going to make the active roster. And that's what isn't true. He's the 3rd most talented CB on the roster, and Marvin said he'll likely play 500 snaps. Guys who are on the bubble, don't get 500 snaps. If I misunderstood your point... My bad. But if that is your point... you're wrong.I think my point was clear in that we were receiving Seattle's 50th best player for our 50th best player:We're fans and we like to delve into these kinds of things especially when we don't have real games to talk about but the truth is this was a trade of the Seahawks 50th player for our 50th guyIt doesn't mean that Jennings is our 50th best, or vise versa with McDonald on the Seahawks. These guys were questionable as to whether they'd make the 53 man rosters of their teams before the trade. Since depth varies within these two teams, they may move up the depth chart after the trade. It remains to be seen if Jennings is the 3rd best CB on this roster. Morgan Trent may outplay him and Pacman may come back making Jennings the 5th best and ironically puts him down at the bottom of our 53 man roster. It's too early to say how he fits in here.Put another way these two teams exchanged players at the bottom of their rosters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Ray Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 The Bengals did well with the Reggie Nelson trade, and here's hoping they do the same here. Trade away a player that wouldn't contribute and get a player that possibly will. Again...what could possibly be wrong with this?Reggie Nelson is a good example and that's exactly what they're hoping will happen here. I do like the trade but I understand it's like debating with Reds fans whether the 25th spot should go to Paul Janish or Edgar Renteria. In the grand scheme of things it isn't a big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekshank Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 I think my point was clear in that we were receiving Seattle's 50th best player for our 50th best player...It remains to be seen if Jennings is the 3rd best CB on this roster. Morgan Trent may outplay him and Pacman may come back making Jennings the 5th best and ironically puts him down at the bottom of our 53 man roster. So with one breath you tell me I misunderstood your point, and in the next reinforce the point I was arguing against.Jennings may not be a "complete" CB because of his size... but he has something the other CBs on the roster lack. Speed. He will play 30-35 snaps/game... thus, not the bottom of the roster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
princeton Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 I'm hoping that Toast Jennings gets many fewer than 500 snaps this season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Ray Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 I think my point was clear in that we were receiving Seattle's 50th best player for our 50th best player...It remains to be seen if Jennings is the 3rd best CB on this roster. Morgan Trent may outplay him and Pacman may come back making Jennings the 5th best and ironically puts him down at the bottom of our 53 man roster. So with one breath you tell me I misunderstood your point, and in the next reinforce the point I was arguing against.Jennings may not be a "complete" CB because of his size... but he has something the other CBs on the roster lack. Speed. He will play 30-35 snaps/game... thus, not the bottom of the roster.My point is it remains to be seen if Jennings ends up at the bottom of our roster but he definitely was at the bottom of Seattle's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cHaD711Johnson Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 So tell me, what did I say that wasn't true?Well... first of all, he wasn't fighting for a roster spot. He was fighting for playing time. The only reason he wouldn't have been their 3rd CB would have been because they didn't want to pay his salary... not because of his talent level.I thought your "50th guy" comment was suggesting that the Bengals traded for a player that was barely going to make the active roster. And that's what isn't true. He's the 3rd most talented CB on the roster, and Marvin said he'll likely play 500 snaps. Guys who are on the bubble, don't get 500 snaps. If I misunderstood your point... My bad. But if that is your point... you're wrong.I think my point was clear in that we were receiving Seattle's 50th best player for our 50th best player:We're fans and we like to delve into these kinds of things especially when we don't have real games to talk about but the truth is this was a trade of the Seahawks 50th player for our 50th guyPretty confident saying that Trent will not outplay Kelly Jennings.It doesn't mean that Jennings is our 50th best, or vise versa with McDonald on the Seahawks. These guys were questionable as to whether they'd make the 53 man rosters of their teams before the trade. Since depth varies within these two teams, they may move up the depth chart after the trade. It remains to be seen if Jennings is the 3rd best CB on this roster. Morgan Trent may outplay him and Pacman may come back making Jennings the 5th best and ironically puts him down at the bottom of our 53 man roster. It's too early to say how he fits in here.Put another way these two teams exchanged players at the bottom of their rosters 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.