Why aren't we using Edmunds to cover TEs?

The better question would be, why aren't we using Matthew Thomas on third downs to cover TEs ?

 

Again. False. Eifert hasn't played meaningful football in 3 years. How can you argue that a player who's season, and most likely career is over is the team's starting tight end? It's just silly. Uzomah has surpassed Kroft this season on both the teams official depth chart, and in playing time.

What you are trying to do is discredit Cam Suttons game by inferring that the tight end he covered was a third stringer. That' not factually true. Sorry if it throws your agenda out of wack.

 

With the injuries to Burnett and Hilton, I don't think they have tried to use Edmunds in the role they envisioned when he was drafted. He has played less hybrid lb/safety and more traditional safety.

 

I think Edmunds did cover TEs in that Ravens, he got beat for 2 TDs I think it was.

 

Eifert started this season. He is still third on the team in receptions and yardage receiving. He is their starting tight end. Uzomah is only starting because Eifert is out. And that depth chart you so happily pointed to has Kroft as a starter, too, so you are wrong there as well.

I don't have an agenda here other than accuracy, and that is an agenda you are clearly working against.

I notice you ignored the statistics I used to point out just how bad Sutton was on Sunday. Yes, he made a couple of decent plays, but Uzomah still managed six receptions for 54 yards after averaging less than two receptions for 23 yards over the first give games of the season. With Sutton on him, Uzomah more than doubled his usual production.

Uzomah did begin the season as a third-stringer and he was elevated by injuries to the two guys ahead of him. I'm sorry that my accuracy disturbs you.

 

Your so full of it its not even funny. Eifert is not the starter. He is on IR. He's done. Finished. Finite. He's not coming back. Once you go on IR, you are no longer the starter. By the way, Tyler Eifert is always on IR. By your twisted logic Mark Brunner must be the starting tight end of the Steelers.

Heres another depth chart for ya from CBS sports.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/teams/depth-chart/CIN/cincinnati-bengals

I'll be sure to let the Bengals front office and CBS know that some dude on a message board said they were wrong.

 

You are as wrong as you were at the start. Uzomah didn't earn his way into a starting job. He got it because two other guys are hurt. That's why I correctly referred to him as a third-string tight end.

Your latest argument is even more ridiculous than what you posted earlier. First of all, the former Steelers tight end's name was Mark Bruener, not Brunner. More importantly, Brunner is retired. I do appreciate your attempt at using hyperbole, but accuracy would be better.

Sutton, a cornerback, made a couple of nice plays, but was mostly on the losing end of his battles with a player who averaged less than two receptions and 23 yards per game before this past Sunday. That player managed six receptions for 54 yards against the Steelers, more than doubling his usual production. That clearly demonstrates that Sutton did not play very well Sunday. He also had a shot to knock down one of the passes to Boyd, but reacted too slowly.

You made a bad point regarding Sutton. I get that it might be embarrassing for you, but doubling down like this really doesn't make you look any better.

 

Let me make this incredibly simple for you. Who was the starting tight end for the Cincinnati Bengals this past Sunday?

 

He kinda IS covering the TE, isn't he? look at these pictures

 

Ok. I wasn't nominating it for a Nobel prize in literature...

 

Let me make this incredibly simple for you. Which guy earned the starting job for the Bengals this season?

Now we'll go back to something slightly more complex because accuracy is more important than your failed attempt at a gotcha. Uzomah is not a starter in the NFL by merit. He's a fill-in for other injured players. His statistics going through the first five games demonstrated that. Then he got to start and play much of the game against Cam Sutton and suddenly his production more than doubled from its usual level. You think that was good work by Sutton. I know better.

 

I get that, but it isn't worth the page click. What little reporting it has was stolen from the Trib and the conclusion is based as much on speculation as fact.

 

Ok from now on I'll be sure to run any links I may decide to post by you first...

 

Just as I suspected. You use a ton of words to hide the fact that you will not answer the question. My question was simple and only has 1 correct answer. Your commentary on how Uzomah became the starter is irrevelant.

Using your own logic, CJ Uzomah was splitting the Tight End duties with Eifert and Kroft earlier in the year. Correct? So being that both Eifert and Kroft were out isn't it reasonable to assume that Uzomah's numbers were up due to that fact that he played all the snaps? You contradict yourself. On one hand you call Uzomah a "third stringer" and on the other hand you blame Cam Sutton for Uzomah's production being up. But if Uzomah is on the field more due to injuries, as you state, then of course his numbers are going to go up. You can't have both ways.

As for Sutton, I don't think anyone is saying that Cam put on a coverage clinic on Sunday. But he did a damn fine job covering a much larger man. Cam gives up a few inches and about 80 pounds to Uzomah. I rewatched the first half of the game on NFL Network last night. The first catch Uzomah had, Cam had near perfect coverage and Uzomah made the catch anyway. He was immediately brought down by Cam. The second catch was at the sideline. Cam had good coverage on the play, and Uzomah clearly pushed off. He should have been called for OPI because he gained about 2 yards of separation after the push. I have a hard time blaming Cam for that play. I didn't re-watch the second half. But I will repeat what I wrote earlier. No one is accusing Cam Sutton of being the next Rod Woodson. But he did do his job effectively on Sunday. Maybe my expectations are low, but like I said. Baby steps.

 

STEELERS NEWS PFF Grades Rookie Terrell Edmunds 6 Weeks Into First Season
https://steelersdepot.com/2018/10/pff-grades-rookie-terrell-edmunds-6-weeks-into-first-season/

The site (PFF) has given him a grade of 62 so far, which has been an upward trend for him after having a lot more struggles over the course of the first four weeks of the season.
A grade of 62, by the way, is between average and above average. He ranks 44th among safeties who have played at least half of their team’s defensive snaps. For the record, since people will inevitably be wondering, the site has Sean Davis listed as the 18th-best safety with an overall grade of 74. It’s the second-highest grade of any safety in the AFC North.

 

Who is the highest graded safety in the AFC North?

 

That would probably be the best approach.

 

Your question is irrelevant to my point. The current chart does not reflect who is the Bengals' best tight end. It does have their No. 2 tight end, Kroft, listed as a starter. By the way, you claimed otherwise and you were incorrect.

I'm not contradicting myself at all. That Uzomah had done so little the first five games supports my point that he is a third-string tight end being forced into first-string snaps. I blame Sutton for not being able to consistently handle a third-string tight end, something an NFL cornerback should be able to do. My points are absolutely consistent. Once again, you made a claim that is clearly false.

You made a bad point. You thought you had a gotcha and you don't. Just be wrong in your wrongness and get on with life already.

 

Spoken like a true English teacher....

 

Don't know who PFF has as #1 in the AFC North but I believe a good guess would be Eric Weddle, Ravens.

 

Does it matter who it is if he's mediocre at best? He was only the starting TE because 2 other guys got injured. This year when he was healthy, Eifert was clearly the #1 TE. Last year when Eifert was hurt, Kroft was clearly the #1 TE. With neither of them healthy, of course they are going to start the next guy in line, what choice do they have?

It's not like if AB and Juju go down that suddenly Justin Hunter is going to be considered our #1 WR. He's still going to be a useless backup thrust into a starting job due to injuries. That doesn't make him good, nor does it make the DB good that shuts him down. Uzomah was a late round draft pick that has been a backup his whole career. He'll always be a backup, although due to injuries, he may get thrust into a starting role every now and then (which is the job of a backup, hence the name).

I can absolutely get behind your baby steps comment though. You can only compete against who is in front of you. So you can't crucify Sutton because he didn't go against Gronk last week, but at the same time, I'm not going to be super optimistic about his chances vs the better TE's in the league based on what I saw.

 

I'm not crucifying Sutton, but he hasn't been good. This began in the opener, when the Browns beat him for two big plays after Haden was injured. It continued Sunday, when a player who had done very little through the first five games suddenly became a factor for the Bengals and caught six passes.

 

I have provided links to two different sites. One is CBS Sportsline. One is the Bengals official website. One lists Uzomah as the starter. The other lists both he and Kroft as the starters, with Uzomah listed first, which would indicate Kroft would start in two tight end sets. I will trust these two sources over your bogus, misleading, assessment of the Bengals depth chart. You seem to be an expert in alternative facts.

Sutton played just fine by way. Your assessment of both Sutton and Uzomah is laughable. Both players are better than you are giving them credit for.

 

By the way, neither site had Uzomah listed as a "third stringer". I'm sorry you would prefer to use a 2016 depth chart to prove your point. I'll go by the one that's most recent.

 

He will be alright, still only 6 games in. The Te should be the safety's responsibility