turningpoint Posted January 3, 2005 Report Share Posted January 3, 2005 Here's My idea of what it should look like.RCB- Tory James______________________SS/FS- Madieu WillaimsRDE- Justin Smith____ ROLB-Brian SimmonsRDT-DRAFT/FA _______MLB-Nate WebsterLDT-John Thorton ______ LOLB- Landon JohnsonLDE-Jumpy Geathers/CLemonsLCB- Deltha O'neal_____________________SS/FS- DRAFT/FAThe safties are kinda interchangable, so i just put both down.Tell me what you guys think.In the nickle package, Kiewan comes in and Landon or Nate leaves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted January 3, 2005 Report Share Posted January 3, 2005 Here's my outlook.DE - GeathersDE - SmithDT - ANYONE BUT WHO WE HAVE!DT - ANYONE BUT WHO WE HAVE!OLB - SimmonsMLB - WebsterOLB - Landon Johnson (not sure, just experimenting with our ever-changing love of taking players out of their natural position)CB - Tory CB - DelthaSS - MadieuFS - ANYONE BUT WHO WE HAVE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turningpoint Posted January 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2005 pretty muc hte same thing, but i think thorton is stil a force as a pass rusher he lead the afc a year ago, i think he just needs an equal fellow DT or even better PAT WILLIAMS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalboomer7 Posted January 3, 2005 Report Share Posted January 3, 2005 With all the guys we have a dline anyway I'm not sure Marvin's gonna go get one. Don't get me wrong I really wish he would, but I think he's going to see how Askew turns out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted January 3, 2005 Report Share Posted January 3, 2005 pretty muc hte same thing, but i think thorton is stil a force as a pass rusher he lead the afc a year ago, i think he just needs an equal fellow DT or even better PAT WILLIAMS! Too much $$$ for little results. I like Thornton and all -- I think he truly loves the fans and his appreciation is awesome -- but I honestly don't think he's in consideration for the future of this team IF we want to improve our rush defense. IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 pretty muc hte same thing, but i think thorton is stil a force as a pass rusher he lead the afc a year ago, i think he just needs an equal fellow DT or even better PAT WILLIAMS!Too much $$$ for little results. I like Thornton and all -- I think he truly loves the fans and his appreciation is awesome -- but I honestly don't think he's in consideration for the future of this team IF we want to improve our rush defense. IMHO. John Thornton is a STUD.Warren Sapp who was offered $4 million a year to play here had 42 tackles and 2.5 sacks this season.John Thronton had 57 tackles and 3 sacks.I keep hearing how we should sign Pat Williams from theBills. BUT John Thronton had BETTER Numbers. Pat Williams had 52 tackles with 2.5 sacks.AND Warren Sapp has Ted Washington playing beside him,and Pat Williams has Sam Adams. Put a BIG FAT ASS besideThornton and watch him make the Pro Bowl. http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/4214 (Sapp`s Player page)http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/133434 (Thronton`s)http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/4539 (Pat Williams Page) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesbrooks21 Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 pretty muc hte same thing, but i think thorton is stil a force as a pass rusher he lead the afc a year ago, i think he just needs an equal fellow DT or even better PAT WILLIAMS!Too much $$$ for little results. I like Thornton and all -- I think he truly loves the fans and his appreciation is awesome -- but I honestly don't think he's in consideration for the future of this team IF we want to improve our rush defense. IMHO. John Thornton is a STUD.Warren Sapp who was offered $4 million a year to play here had 42 tackles and 2.5 sacks this season.John Thronton had 57 tackles and 3 sacks.I keep hearing how we should sign Pat Williams from theBills. BUT John Thronton had BETTER Numbers. Pat Williams had 52 tackles with 2.5 sacks.AND Warren Sapp has Ted Washington playing beside him,and Pat Williams has Sam Adams. Put a BIG FAT ASS besideThornton and watch him make the Pro Bowl. http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/4214 (Sapp`s Player page)http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/133434 (Thronton`s)http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/4539 (Pat Williams Page) I agree 100 % Thornton is definitely not the problem. He is the best Dlineman we have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 John Thornton is a STUD.Put a BIG FAT ASS beside Thornton and watch him make the Pro Bowl. I wouldn't label him a stud, he's been OK. I agree that he needs a bigger 2-gap guy next to him to be truly effective (and that was clearly the plan with the attempts to sign Sapp and Gardener). In large part because he doesn't have that guy, he hasn't been the difference-maker everyone hoped he would be when they signed him. I would say that the Bengals wasted their money signing him, not because he's a bad player, but because he wasn't the player they needed at that spot. Hopefully the Bengals have better luck this offseason finding someone (or developing someone in-house, like Askew) to pair with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turningpoint Posted January 4, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 Smith(99) looked great next to him (not justin) , he also looked to have made some back field tackles. Thorton's number's from the year before were also very good, he lead the AFC in Sacks for DT's in 2003 with 6.Anyways I remember seeing an Interview with Warren Sapp, and him saying how he didn't want to go to Cincy because Carson Palmer wasn't going to lead him anywhere. LOL I bet he wishes he could have his last 10 month's back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalboomer7 Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 Teah I remember taht crap, it was on ESPN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jditty47 Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 i wouldnt mind seeing a completely new front 4.TOTAL RUSHING YARDS OPPONENTS VS BENGALS : 2062.thats pathetic. oh and i hope hardy retires or gets demoted to a down pass rusher on 3rd downs. webster in the middle will help us out and move landon to the strong side. get him ready throughout training camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 One thing to remember before we hurl players out the door willy-nilly: for all it's faults, the D was better in 2004 than in 2003.Last year, we were 28th in points and yards allowed. This year we were 21st and 19th, respectively. That's more improvement than I thought we'd see back at the start of the season, given that we didn't get the big run-stuffing DT we needed.We actually gave up fewer points than last year, in a year when scoring was up overall.2,062 yards given up on the ground stinks. But it's better than the 2,218 we allowed in '03. We allowed 3,303 through the air this season, versus 3,598 last year. That's 450 fewer yards total. As to points, passing was actually a bigger problem. We ranked 12th in rushing TDs allowed, versus 17th in passing scores allowed.Obviously that isn't good enough but we need to make sure we don't throw out what worked while we're trying to keep improving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jditty47 Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 im not saying throw thornton and smith away, demote them if u can get someone better. or trade em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 John Thornton is a STUD.Put a BIG FAT ASS beside Thornton and watch him make the Pro Bowl. I wouldn't label him a stud, he's been OK. I agree that he needs a bigger 2-gap guy next to him to be truly effective (and that was clearly the plan with the attempts to sign Sapp and Gardener). In large part because he doesn't have that guy, he hasn't been the difference-maker everyone hoped he would be when they signed him. I would say that the Bengals wasted their money signing him, not because he's a bad player, but because he wasn't the player they needed at that spot. Hopefully the Bengals have better luck this offseason finding someone (or developing someone in-house, like Askew) to pair with him. Who would you consider a "STUD" then ? I would say Shaun Rogers in the most dominate DT in the NFL. And the BIGGEST STUD. But JT does a helluva job all things considered. He had comparable numbers last year to Sam Adams this year.Sam Adams has 41 tackles | 5 sacks this year.John Thornton had 30 tackles and 6 sack last year.This year John Thornton has 16 more tackles and2 less sacks than Adams. Yet Sam Adams is going to the Pro Bowl.I`d say considering Adams has played with a force besidehim like Ted Washinton last year and Pat Williams this year.While Thornton had Tony Williams and Langston Moore thatJohn Thornton IS a STUD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schweinhart Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 Sam Adams has 41 tackles | 5 sacks this year.John Thornton had 30 tackles and 6 sack last year.This year John Thornton has 16 more tackles and2 less sacks than Adams. Yet Sam Adams is going to the Pro Bowl. The stats do not tell the whole value of Sam Adams because Adams isn't moved quite as readily as Thornton, which means there's no gap where Adams should be.Thornton got a lot more PT this year w/ no OG and Steele, which will push him further next year. He's a solid player and has good speed for a DT in run pursuit but he'll never overpower anyone and doesn't warrant being doubled.The bigger problem to me seems the other DT for the Bengals. But I liked what little I saw of Terrance Martin and Shaun Smith to fit w/ Langston Moore in a rotation. Each of the 3 brings something different to the table that the other team's O has to gameplan for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turningpoint Posted January 4, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 im not saying throw thornton and smith away, demote them if u can get someone better. or trade em. dude smith had a huge amount of tackels and 8 sacks...there's really not that many players with more then 8sacks. I know it't not 17 sacks, but kearse only had 7.5 sacks for the season..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schweinhart Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 im not saying throw thornton and smith away, demote them if u can get someone better. or trade em.dude smith had a huge amount of tackels and 8 sacks...there's really not that many players with more then 8sacks. I know it't not 17 sacks, but kearse only had 7.5 sacks for the season..... Justin gets an unfair rap IMO.Last I checked he was tied for 2nd in NLF in combined tackles by D-linemen who had at least 7 sacks.True, Justin ain't the speed rusher that Freeney is and that was obvious in the trouble Ogden had w/ Freeney comapred to the way he pretty much handled Justin. But Justin has different gear speed in run pursuit off the line, which is important and lacking at the other DE when Big Duane is in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 Justin gets an unfair rap IMO. With the money he makes, and the crappy rush defense along with the always down sack totals, he deserves the rap. He's a fine player, too much $$ for too little results -- isn't that the whole mantra of the Bengals d-line? Smith is horrible at containing the outside run, but if you run right at him, he can stop a truck if he gains enough steam. And MOST of his sacks come on either coverage sacks or botched plays. Who would you consider a "STUD" then ?A stud -- for a DT -- is a guy that can't be supported with a baseball mentality of stats. Geat defensive linemen -- stud if you will -- are those that don't have a lot of stats to support their worth. They are the one's with the intention, and ability, of holding up offensive linemen so the linebackers can roam free. That's good, responsibility football. Our guys are undersized to use that model right now, and looking at the 2000 Baltimore defense -- one Marvin is given tons of credit for -- he'd like to return to that model. Sacks, tackles, rushes; they are nice stats to have for a d-tackles, but not primary stats. They need to keep the o-line in the first level to prevent our undersized and "speed" linebackers from getting blocked -- there are no stats for that.If we keep the DT's, then we need better linebackers or the rush defense will continue to suffer IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 Who would you consider a "STUD" then ?A stud -- for a DT -- is a guy that can't be supported with a baseball mentality of stats. Geat defensive linemen -- stud if you will -- are those that don't have a lot of stats to support their worth. They are the one's with the intention, and ability, of holding up offensive linemen so the linebackers can roam free. That's good, responsibility football. Our guys are undersized to use that model right now, and looking at the 2000 Baltimore defense -- one Marvin is given tons of credit for -- he'd like to return to that model. Sacks, tackles, rushes; they are nice stats to have for a d-tackles, but not primary stats. They need to keep the o-line in the first level to prevent our undersized and "speed" linebackers from getting blocked -- there are no stats for that.If we keep the DT's, then we need better linebackers or the rush defense will continue to suffer IMHO.Sam Adams plays for the Bills. And is going to the Pro Bowl.LB`s that play behind him are London Fletcher and Takeo Spikes.Fletcher has 142 tackles and Takeo Spikes has 96 tackles.Marcus Stroud plays for the Jags and is going to the Pro Bowl.LB`s that play behind him are Mike Peterson and Akin Ayodele.Peterson has 126 tackles and Ayodele has 92 tackles.Shaun Rogers is going to the Pro Bowl.LB`s that play behind him are Earl Holmes and Teddy Lehman.Holmes has 111 tackles and Lehman has 102.John Thronton who is an "average" DT hasLandon Johnson and Brian Simmons playing behind him.Landon Johnson has 133 tackles and Simmons has 104 tackles.Rookie linebacker Landon Johnson, who started in Webster's absence, led the team with 133 tackles.http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...SPT02/501040380It`s obvious that he isn`t worth a f**k or the LB`s behind him would have alot of tackles !!!! Oh wait.......................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 Here's my changes to your lineup:RCB- Keiwan Ratliff______________________SS/FS- Madieu WillaimsRDE- Justin Smith____ ROLB-Brian SimmonsRDT-DRAFT/FA _______MLB-Nate WebsterLDT-John Thorton ______ LOLB- Landon JohnsonLDE-Jumpy Geathers/ClemonsLCB- Deltha O'neal_____________________SS/FS- Tory James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 Total tackles won't tell you much here; the question is how well did the line hold, allowing the backers to penetrate and make plays? You need to look at tackles for loss.Landon/Simmons: 5.5 (Webster had none in his 3 games)Fletcher/Spikes: 11Holmes/Lehman: 9.5Our LBs make as many tackles as theirs, but we make more beyond the line of scrimmage because our weak d-line can't hold the point of attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 I guess our rush defense is just fine then, wouldn't you agree? What would you suggest we change anything? Perhaps our corners give up too much room. Fact is, not since Oakland in 1980, has a team had a defense ranked worse than 10th and won the Super Bowl. We are not going to have that defense right now with the talent we have. The Bengals were second worst in the league giving up 123 first downs from the rushing game. That's around 7-8 per game. The best in the league gave up 74 less first downs by rushing.Oh, that added to the fact the Bengals ranked 26th against the rush; including the third longest allowed rushing attempt for the entire season. Is Thornton the problem? No. He commands a ton of money though that could be used for other, more prime players, and that develops my problem with his results. Thornton is not a stud. If he were a stud, our rush defense would have actually been good.BTW - had did the enquirer find 50 phantom tackles by Landon? ESPN lists him with 84, NFL.com with 87, FoxSports with 84, Yahoo with 89. I would look up Bengals.com but they link you to the NFL.com site -- which is the official statbook for the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 Total tackles won't tell you much here; the question is how well did the line hold, allowing the backers to penetrate and make plays? You need to look at tackles for loss.Landon/Simmons: 5.5 (Webster had none in his 3 games)Fletcher/Spikes: 11Holmes/Lehman: 9.5Our LBs make as many tackles as theirs, but we make more beyond the line of scrimmage because our weak d-line can't hold the point of attack. By that way of thinking if a LB misses a tackle fora loss or a safety then it was the D-lines fault ? I`m not saying or have I ever said that our D-line is great.But JT is a damn good player. His motor is always running and he makes plays. The D-line DOES need some new blood. But seeing how they have to replace Tony Williams,then I think that is all the new blood they need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 And yeah as far as our Run Defense it wasn`t very good.But considering we had so many rookies playing key rolesand that we started out the season dead last in the NFL averaging166 yards a game against the run. Then I`d say finishing the year allowing an average of 128 a game was pretty damn good !!! Starting with the Dallas game. Bengals were 3-5 and went on to win 5 of their last 8 games.Dallas 109 yards allowed.Redskins 87 yards allowed. Steelers 151 yards allowed. (#2 in the NFL averaging 154 yards a game)Browns 76 yards allowed.Ravens 192 yards allowed (BUT the Bengals only allowed 1 Offensive TD and WON)Patriots 94 yards allowed (they average 133 yards a game)Bills 43 yards rushing allowed Giants 142 yards allowed. Eagles 80 yards rushing allowed.For an average of 121.75 a game the last 8 games. That average for the season would have put them at 19th overall against the run. Rather than 26th. Not bad considering all the injuries and rookies that were forced to play.Stuff a solid DT in there via Free Agency and I think that wouldbe enough to make them a top 10 defense. (they are 19th overall now) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakq27 Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 The Bengals were second worst in the league giving up 123 first downs from the rushing game. That's around 7-8 per game. The best in the league gave up 74 less first downs by rushing. I'd like to know the YPP for first, second and third down for the Bengals. It always seemed like when we did make a good play on first or second, we got beat for a long one on third down. Our ends always got pushed wide and the tackles never seemed to be able to collapse the pocket. If we blitzed DB's, we always seemed to be a step too late. Maybe I am generalizing too much but we need to stop giving up the big third down plays. Too much rushing only four and dropping 7 with little pressure. 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.