bengalboomer7 Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 I'll take Spencer over Brown, but those three would put a smile on my face! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalNation1281 Posted February 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 Pollack/Shazor/Spencer would be perfect. I think Pollack will do some damage in the pros, even if there are many who think he is undersized. He has energy to make up for his current lack of size, and he can always get bigger.BN1281 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 I'm sorry, and it's already been mentioned, but this fellow is too small to handle the power running in the AFC North and will not get consideration by the Bengals on draft day.He sounds like a great player, just not a fit here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalPappaw Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 NOT BIG enough -- SO WHAT!! You are NOT going to have 300+ DE to stop the run. Suggs was not big enough -- Freeney is not big enough but teams have to account for them on every play, because of their hustle and speed.Watch him play against the best tackles in the conference -- he will consistently beat them and make tackles! He makes tackles on runs as well as pass plays.IMO Pollack would be ideal for the Bengals. If they want to switch to the 3-4 at times. He can be a big OLB.I'd much rather have production of Pollack than "size" and inconsistent play of "Spectator" Spears.I'd love to see the Bengals get Pollack in 1st; Shazor in the second and Spencer in third. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobcat Bengal Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 There's plenty of undersized players in the Pro's that make the Pro Bowl's.Uhm, Edwards the LB, Zach Thomas the LB, Jason Taylor DE, Antoine Winfield CB, LaRoi GLover LB (who won the strongest player award)I mean, if safeties and CB's have to stop the run, what's wrong with this guy?But, on the other hand, he seems a LITTLE too spaztastic for my liking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakq27 Posted February 24, 2005 Report Share Posted February 24, 2005 I haven't heard Pollack mentioned much for the Bengals in the 1st, so I was wondering what your thoughts were about him and if you would be upset or overjoyed if we took him.I wouldn't mind it, but at this point I want Shazor, so I just wondered what the rest of you think.BN1281A Justin Smith clone? High motor, not enough lead in his ass? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 NOT BIG enough -- SO WHAT!! You are NOT going to have 300+ DE to stop the run.Huh? why not? it seems to me that a 300 pound guy is harder to move aside than a 255 pound guy. Laws of Physics and all that. Help me out. Suggs was not big enough -- Freeney is not big enough but teams have to account for them on every play, because of their hustle and speed.You're talking about exceptions rather than rules. I'll add that those two are known mainly for pass rushign rather than run stopping, which is what I am talking about.Watch him play against the best tackles in the conference -- he will consistently beat them and make tackles! He makes tackles on runs as well as pass plays.College game is different than NFL. IMO Pollack would be ideal for the Bengals.I think we'll need to agree to disagree :-)If they want to switch to the 3-4 at times. He can be a big OLB.Don't see the Bengals even mulling full time 3-4. Every team employs it situationally.I'd much rather have production of Pollack than "size" and inconsistent play of "Spectator" Spears.I'd much rather have production. I'd take S Cody over Spears, btw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schweinhart Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 Short of trading down or out of 1st round to get Alex Smith at TE, I'm going with Pollack in the 1st at this point. Speed at DE would improve contain vs. run in addition to pass rush. Plus speed at DE for Bengals is more suitable than bigger, slower size at DE as long as D stunts as much as it does.If you don't know how a 255-pound DE could be more effective at stopping run than a 300-pound DE then you missed what Derrick Burgess did to Michael Vick on a bootleg in the NFC title game. The 300 pounders need to be in the middle gaps in a 4-3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalPappaw Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 NOT BIG enough -- SO Laws of Physics and all that. Help me out. Okay -- here's the first physics lesson. Mass is NOT what is important in football (if it were, all the players would look like sumo wrestlers -- on second thought, some of them do!) --- Momentum is what is important. Momentum is mass x velocity. So you need to bring some momentum to the game. That is why Marvin is trying to add speed to the team. Speed with a decent mass provides the momentum to stop guards, tackles, TE and most importantly running backs. A 300# DE that doesn't move does NOT provide run defense. Good blockers (moving with speed) will nullify a big DE. IMO Quickness and speed provide better defense against the run. Stopping a running back in the backfield is much better than letting them get a running start. AND, that means speed. If you want size -- put it at one of the DT positions. 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.