The_Next_Big_Thing Posted August 17, 2005 Report Share Posted August 17, 2005 Of course, the Pats weren't relying on Watson at TE as much as the Bengals are on Pollack. THE BENGALS ARE NOT RELYING ON DAVID POLLACK. We have at least 3 starting linebackers without him. David Pollack is not a starter, he is a 3rd string backup right now. Pay attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC_Bengals_Fan Posted August 17, 2005 Report Share Posted August 17, 2005 THE BENGALS ARE NOT RELYING ON DAVID POLLACK. We have at least 3 starting linebackers without him. David Pollack is not a starter, he is a 3rd string backup right now. Pay attention.They're not relying on him now, but they were. Fact is, they thought Pollack was good enough that the team, overall, would be better in 2005 with him as a starter. And that third-string stuff was just Marvin sending a message. Obviously they're moving on now, but his holdout really weakens the LB position early in the season. LJ is solid, but doesn't have the upside Pollack does, Thurman's a rookie playing probably the most cerebral defensive position, and Simmons is getting a little old. Having 4 legit starters is something they really needed and something they won't have for the first half of the season (until Pollack gets up to speed), and that assumes no serious injuries.If Simmons is as slow as he's looked early, if Thurman can't get up to speed fast, then LJ - a guy who was going to be benched for Pollack - will be the best LB, and they're in trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schweinhart Posted August 17, 2005 Report Share Posted August 17, 2005 Of course, the Pats weren't relying on Watson at TE as much as the Bengals are on Pollack.THE BENGALS ARE NOT RELYING ON DAVID POLLACK. We have at least 3 starting linebackers without him. David Pollack is not a starter, he is a 3rd string backup right now. Pay attention. You pay attention to what happens on the strongside on Friday, then tell me who the Bengals are relying on at that position. Actually, though, if push came to shove, the Bengals should be managable at SSLB regardless of Pollack. It might take a vet minimum signing but could also work out by shifting LBs around if Landon can't shed blocks vs. run or pass rush better. So far he doesn't look like he'll be able to very effectively. Daniel Graham ate him up last week. Landon's greatest strength is operating in open area where he can angle and knife. Not in close quarters or, vs. the run, playing against a sideline on stretch plays where blockers can wash him out like the Jets did last year when he went in for an ineffective Caleb Miller w/ B. Simmons out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted August 17, 2005 Report Share Posted August 17, 2005 Well well well. Guess it kinda DOES run both ways in assigning blame, huh? Watson was at the tail end of the first round and Condon couldn't get him in either, and had to get fired before it was done. Hmmmm. What a saint Condon is. And a tool. Be fair, it's pretty obvious the Patriots aren't interested in winning. That team is only concerned with making a profit, buying every Chevy Lumina that hits the used car market, hiring third cousins to run their scouting department, etc. 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.