walzav29 Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 I think the Bengals early success relies heavily on the signings of our top 2 picks. If they are holdouts and fall behind, we may find ourselves in the same swiss cheese defense mold. I hope that doesn't turn into agent logic to demand more money. We do need these guys, more than we needed Perry laste year. I hope we hurry up and sign them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsfan2 Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 I agree that it's important to get these and all the other guys signed and in camp. On the other hand if the success or failure of our defense hinges on the performance of 2 rookies. then we are definitely up a creek with no paddle in sight.This was alluded to on another thread. the expectations being placed on these two young guys are bordering real close to unrealistic. They are rookies and will make rookie mistakes ...... one of them is playing a position that he's never played before, and that's going to compound the problem.They're good players ..... maybe even exceptional players, and they'll do well. Hopefully ( like Palmer ) they'll be showing the level of play that we hope for by the last 3 or 4 games of the season, but till then we and they are just going to have to put up with the growing pains*. * Without yelling " Bust " at every understandable mistake in the mean time. But thats just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schweinhart Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 The Pollack signing seems the more crucial because a lot is hinging on him to start at SSLB. Hobson ain't sweating the signing since it's a #17.Still, w/o a cap in 2007, teams got to go 5 yrs on the contract, which hampers spreading out bonus money better. I don't think teams can even go 6 years void to 5 the way they've been going 7 void to 6.I seriously doubt there'll be a Pollack holdout, but if he doesn't come in until later in pre-season, the Bengals will have to rely on Larry Stevens and Marcus Wilkins at SSLB. IMO Stevens is the better suited of the 2 to play the position. Either that or Landon but he'd be more prone to get jammed up there than in the middle. Maybe Odell can make a go of it at strong side.Whatever happens with Pollack, it does raise a question as to whether or not the Bengals should consider a backup SSLB who has experience as a NFL starter.Like Kevin Hardy? He did start all the games last year but I'd rather see somebody else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LABengalsFan09 Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Wouldn't Landon Johnson fill in until Pollack caught up anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schweinhart Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Landon proly would but there'd be a lot more traffic for him to deal on that side where he'd have to keep from getting washed out, which I think he'd struggled with. The guy is better suited to knife and angle w/ space around him. It'd make some sense to have Odell at SSLB w/ Landon in the middle if Pollack can't go because of that and the coverage abilities of Landon, especially down the seam vs. faster TEs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CantStop85 Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Wasn't OLB Landon's original position before he got moved to MLB? There's no doubt he would take Pollack's place if the need arised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Next_Big_Thing Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Pollack and Thurman will probably be at camp even without contracts rather than holding out. Both are fired up to make the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalboomer7 Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Strong Side LB and Weak side LB have different responsibilities. I agree with Schweiny, Landon would struggle a little over there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalboomer7 Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 And any kind of holdout or if they don't get in to camp close to on time would probably affect both of their starting status(Pollack less), but because they are both middle of the round guys signing them soon shouldn't be too much of a problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Aye more so for thurman because competeing for his job where pollack more or less already has it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckj414 Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 I agree that it's important to get these and all the other guys signed and in camp. On the other hand if the success or failure of our defense hinges on the performance of 2 rookies. then we are definitely up a creek with no paddle in sight.This was alluded to on another thread. the expectations being placed on these two young guys are bordering real close to unrealistic. They are rookies and will make rookie mistakes ...... one of them is playing a position that he's never played before, and that's going to compound the problem.They're good players ..... maybe even exceptional players, and they'll do well. Hopefully ( like Palmer ) they'll be showing the level of play that we hope for by the last 3 or 4 games of the season, but till then we and they are just going to have to put up with the growing pains*. * Without yelling " Bust " at every understandable mistake in the mean time. But thats just me. Good post, I 100% agree.I for one think both of them are players though. But you're right redsfan, its not fair to expect to see it until later in the season. If they play well early on, thats just gravy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckj414 Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Pollack and Thurman will probably be at camp even without contracts rather than holding out. Both are fired up to make the difference. Unsigned rookies can't report to training camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengal_Brad Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Both will be signed either immediately before training camp or slightly after training camp begins. Remember this time of year when we heard agents saying things like 'The Bengals just play hard-ball and don't understand the procedure'. Remember when agents publicly stated that they hated dealing with the Bengals? That hasn't happened for several years now. Katie Blackburn seems like she does the right thing for the team and the player every year. The contracts are "slotted", meaning that the contract is in proportion to where the player was chosen in the draft. When other players around Pollack and Thurman start to sign, so will "our guys". I'm not worried about it. There will be a rash of signings throughout the league in the next 6-days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ickey44 Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 I thought Landon was already pencilled in as the starter for MLB. Did I miss something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsbengalsbucks Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 I agree that it's important to get these and all the other guys signed and in camp. On the other hand if the success or failure of our defense hinges on the performance of 2 rookies. then we are definitely up a creek with no paddle in sight.This was alluded to on another thread. the expectations being placed on these two young guys are bordering real close to unrealistic. They are rookies and will make rookie mistakes ...... one of them is playing a position that he's never played before, and that's going to compound the problem.They're good players ..... maybe even exceptional players, and they'll do well. Hopefully ( like Palmer ) they'll be showing the level of play that we hope for by the last 3 or 4 games of the season, but till then we and they are just going to have to put up with the growing pains*. * Without yelling " Bust " at every understandable mistake in the mean time. But thats just me.Good post, I 100% agree.I for one think both of them are players though. But you're right redsfan, its not fair to expect to see it until later in the season. If they play well early on, thats just gravy. ditto cudoos from me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 I thought Landon was already pencilled in as the starter for MLB. Did I miss something? Odell by all early indications is now the starter at MLB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who? Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 I thought Johnson did a pretty good job last year for being a rookie, why should Thurman be starting already? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPW Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 I thought Johnson did a pretty good job last year for being a rookie, why should Thurman be starting already?LINK ...Camp battles: AFC North July 19, 2005By Pete PriscoCBS SportsLine.com Senior Writer Cincinnati Bengals Landon Johnson vs. Odell Thurman, middle linebacker When Nate Webster went down with an injury, Johnson stepped in and played well in the middle of the Cincinnati defense. But at 227 pounds, he's a little small to be taking on blockers in the middle. He's also coming off shoulder surgery that didn't have him cleared to go during offseason workouts. The Bengals used a second-round pick on Thurman, who would have been a first-round pick if it weren't for off-field issues at Georgia. This kid is special. He plays with a nasty streak in the Ray Lewis mold. Cincinnati has a future star in Thurman. Edge: Johnson. Familiarity with the defense is key for a middle linebacker. Opening-day starter: Thurman. The Cincinnati coaches have been raving about this kid since they drafted him. He's fierce and he plays smart. He will be the starter from the opening kickoff.And ... Since you seem to be one Browns' Fan, who actually Likes to talk Football, I'll throw this in just for you Who.Cleveland Browns Reuben Droughns vs. Lee Suggs, running back When was the last time the Browns had a runner go over 1,000 yards? In 1985, which is the longest streak in the league. Suggs showed well late last season, but that didn't stop the Browns from acquiring Droughns from Denver in a trade. Droughns rushed for 1,240 yards last season. He is big and strong, but he doesn't have the burst of Suggs, who can give the Browns the home-run threat. Edge: Suggs. Speed kills in this league, and he has it. Opening-day starter: Suggs. He does need to stay away from the injury bug, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Next_Big_Thing Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Pollack and Thurman will probably be at camp even without contracts rather than holding out. Both are fired up to make the difference.Unsigned rookies can't report to training camp. I thought they could but most agents wouldn't let them for fear of injury? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengal4life Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 No NFL rules states that rookie players can't participate in camp until they are signed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CantStop85 Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Pollack and Thurman will probably be at camp even without contracts rather than holding out. Both are fired up to make the difference.Unsigned rookies can't report to training camp. I thought they could but most agents wouldn't let them for fear of injury? Nope, they can't report to training camp without being signed...it's like playing games without being signed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish Bengal Posted July 22, 2005 Report Share Posted July 22, 2005 I think the only reason Thurman is the starter is because Landon is coming back from a shoulder injury and there not sure if he'll be ready. Am I the only one that thinks Landon derseves the job for his play on the field last year ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who? Posted July 22, 2005 Report Share Posted July 22, 2005 Really Bengal4Life? I thought that was why most of them missed camp and preseason, well because they weren't signed yet. 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.