The official 2010 Bengals depth chart

[oldschooler]

[b]OFFENSE[/b]
[list][*]QB: Carson Palmer, Jordan Palmer, Dan LeFevour[*]RB: Cedric Benson, Bernard Scott, Brian Leonard/Cedric Peerman[*]FB: Brian Leonard[*]WR: Chad Ochocinco, Jerome Simpson, Quan Cosby[*]WR: Terrell Owens, Andre Caldwell, Jordan Shipley[*]C: Kyle Cook, Reggie Stephens[*]LT: Andrew Whitworth, Anthony Collins[*]RT: Dennis Roland, Andre Smith[*]LG: Nate Livings, Evan Mathis[*]RG: Bobbie Williams, Andre Smith[*]TE: Jermaine Gresham, Reggie Kelly, Daniel Coats/Clark Harris[/list]
[b]DEFENSE[/b]
[list][*]LE: Robert Geathers, Jonathan Fanene[*]RE: Antwan Odom, Frostee Rucker, Carlos Dunlap[*]DT: Tank Johnson, Pat Sims[*]NT: Domata Peko, Geno Atkins[*]SLB: Rey Maualuga, Michael Johnson, Dan Skuta[*]MLB: Dhani Jones, Roddrick Muckelroy[*]WLB: Keith Rivers, Brandon Johnson[*]RCB: Leon Hall, Morgan Trent[*]LCB: Johnathan Joseph, Adam Jones, Brandon Ghee[*]SS: Roy Williams, Chinedum Ndukwe[*]FS: Chris Crocker, Reggie Nelson[/list]
[b]SPECIALISTS[/b]
[list][*]P: Kevin Huber[*]PK: Mike Nugent[*]LS: Clark Harris, Dan Skuta[*]H: Kevin Huber, Jordan Shipley[*]PR: Adam Jones, Quan Cosby, Jordan Shipley[*]KR: Bernard Scott, Adam Jones, Andre Caldwell/Quan Cosby[/list]

[-GoBengals-]

fat boy the backup so far eh>?

[|SF2|]

Shipley behind Caldwell? Hopefully, not for long.

Still need a FB.

The safety position concerns me but overall the roster looks better than I have seen in a VERY LONG time.

[-GoBengals-]

[quote name='SF2' timestamp='1283891068' post='915456']
Shipley behind Caldwell? Hopefully, not for long.

Still need a FB.

The safety position concerns me but overall the roster looks better than I have seen in a VERY LONG time.
[/quote]

shipley is a package receiver. not a full time #3...

[mhfinks]

[quote name='GoBengals' timestamp='1283893255' post='915479']
shipley is a package receiver. not a full time #3...
[/quote]

I don't think it will take Shipley long though - we'll see.........

[sois]

[quote name='GoBengals' timestamp='1283893255' post='915479']
shipley is a package receiver. not a full time #3...
[/quote]

Never heard that one before. He's pretty complete IMO.

[JBandJoeyV]

Im pretty sure the reason why Shipley is behind Caldwell is because that is for WR #2 not WR#3. Shipley is the first string WR #3. But if TO were to get hurt, Shipley isnt going to take his spot and start for him, Caldwell would probably. So Caldwell is ahead of him on the depth chart for #2 WR.

But Shipley is the starting slot/#3 WR.

[BBR]

[quote name='sois' timestamp='1283893553' post='915484']
Never heard that one before. He's pretty complete IMO.
[/quote]


I think he meant it as: Caldwell has played in the slot and outside but Shipley has only played in the slot so far. Caldwell can be used in more formations than Shipley can right now. It has nothing to do with whether or not Shipley is a better slot receiver at this point in time.

[BBR]

[quote name='GoBengals' timestamp='1283890929' post='915450']
fat boy the backup so far eh>?
[/quote]


Fat boy will eventually be the Right Guard - possibly next year.... and he'll be a great one just like Shawn Andrews was for the Eagles (before he went batshit crazy).

[Bengals1181]

[quote name='GoBengals' timestamp='1283893255' post='915479']
shipley is a package receiver. not a full time #3...
[/quote]


sure looks like a full time #3 according to the preseason.



In fact, I won't be shocked, if given the chance, if Shipley is the #2 by the end of next year.

[dex]

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1283897387' post='915501']
sure looks like a full time #3 according to the preseason.



In fact, I won't be shocked, if given the chance, if Shipley is the #2 by the end of next year.
[/quote]
Shipley will likely always be a slot receiver. Just like Welker is one, and you see what kind of numbers he puts up in NE. Don't think the Patriots would even think of playing Welker on the outside. Shipley may be a package receiver, but luckily for him it's a package that figures to be used a ton. There is no standard fullback, which increases the odds of them using a lot of no-huddle. So Benson/Chad/TO figure to be on the field all the time, with two of Gresham/Shipley/Coats taking up the rest of the snaps. I'm sure BScott will replace Benson enough in the backfield to keep both guys fresh but also sharp.

[-GoBengals-]

[quote name='CJandTO' timestamp='1283894143' post='915488']
Im pretty sure the reason why Shipley is behind Caldwell is because that is for WR #2 not WR#3. Shipley is the first string WR #3. But if TO were to get hurt, Shipley isnt going to take his spot and start for him, Caldwell would probably. So Caldwell is ahead of him on the depth chart for #2 WR.

But Shipley is the starting slot/#3 WR.
[/quote]


[quote name='BBR' timestamp='1283894255' post='915491']
I think he meant it as: Caldwell has played in the slot and outside but Shipley has only played in the slot so far. Caldwell can be used in more formations than Shipley can right now. It has nothing to do with whether or not Shipley is a better slot receiver at this point in time.
[/quote]

mostly this.. shipley has a set of plays, but caldwell is the actual depth guy. like also mentioned above.. theyll both have packages i assume..

[JBandJoeyV]

[quote name='GoBengals' timestamp='1283903547' post='915520']
mostly this.. shipley has a set of plays, but caldwell is the actual depth guy. like also mentioned above.. theyll both have packages i assume..
[/quote]

I hope Simpson shows enough on ST this year that they consider activating him. Ive said this time and time again, but id love to see him on the field with Chad and TO and even Gresham at the same time. Give him specific routes to run and with all the attention on those other 3 guys it could let Simpson get the opportunity to beat a saftey or something deep.

I want Shipley as the main 3rd WR and even some Caldwell, but Simpson maybe 5 plays a game or something would be nice too.

Unfortunately he probably wont be active.

[Bengals1181]

[quote name='dex' timestamp='1283901622' post='915513']
Shipley will likely always be a slot receiver. Just like Welker is one, and you see what kind of numbers he puts up in NE. Don't think the Patriots would even think of playing Welker on the outside. Shipley may be a package receiver, but luckily for him it's a package that figures to be used a ton. There is no standard fullback, which increases the odds of them using a lot of no-huddle. So Benson/Chad/TO figure to be on the field all the time, with two of Gresham/Shipley/Coats taking up the rest of the snaps. I'm sure BScott will replace Benson enough in the backfield to keep both guys fresh but also sharp.
[/quote]


I don't think anyone would say that Welker isn't at least the #2 in New England.



Also, Welker lines up on the outside quite a bit.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='dex' timestamp='1283901622' post='915513']
Shipley will likely always be a slot receiver. Just like Welker is one, and you see what kind of numbers he puts up in NE. Don't think the Patriots would even think of playing Welker on the outside. Shipley may be a package receiver, but luckily for him it's a package that figures to be used a ton. There is no standard fullback, which increases the odds of them using a lot of no-huddle. So Benson/Chad/TO figure to be on the field all the time, with two of Gresham/Shipley/Coats taking up the rest of the snaps. I'm sure BScott will replace Benson enough in the backfield to keep both guys fresh but also sharp.
[/quote]

1181 already pointed out the error about Welker, so I just want to say this: why can't we just run a one-back offense? Or have Benson and Scott on the field at the same time? I realize what you are losing for a lead blocker, especially on up the gut plays, but the potential for confusing the defense goes way up, particularly with a 2 back backfield of Scott and Benson. I don't understand why the two have to be mutually exclusive, ie, why Benson always has to leave on 3rd down, Scott only lines up on 3rd down, etc. I understand the difference in packages and formations for certain situations, but I still think we could shake things up a bit by being more creative.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1283905256' post='915528']
1181 already pointed out the error about Welker, so I just want to say this: why can't we just run a one-back offense? Or have Benson and Scott on the field at the same time? I realize what you are losing for a lead blocker, especially on up the gut plays, but the potential for confusing the defense goes way up, particularly with a 2 back backfield of Scott and Benson. I don't understand why the two have to be mutually exclusive, ie, why Benson always has to leave on 3rd down, Scott only lines up on 3rd down, etc. I understand the difference in packages and formations for certain situations, but I still think we could shake things up a bit by being more creative.
[/quote]
I was thinking/fantasizing just the other day that it would be nice to have that combo in the backfield every now and again, kind of a modern version of Hornung/Taylor of the Packers glory days. Chad and TO as receivers, Gresham at TE and those two in the backfield. How do you defend that?

[Oldcat]

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1283905256' post='915528']
1181 already pointed out the error about Welker, so I just want to say this: why can't we just run a one-back offense? Or have Benson and Scott on the field at the same time? I realize what you are losing for a lead blocker, especially on up the gut plays, but the potential for confusing the defense goes way up, particularly with a 2 back backfield of Scott and Benson. I don't understand why the two have to be mutually exclusive, ie, why Benson always has to leave on 3rd down, Scott only lines up on 3rd down, etc. I understand the difference in packages and formations for certain situations, but I still think we could shake things up a bit by being more creative.
[/quote]

Well one thing having a third down back helps with is giving Benson a breather.

[dex]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1283907600' post='915542']
I was thinking/fantasizing just the other day that it would be nice to have that combo in the backfield every now and again, kind of a modern version of Hornung/Taylor of the Packers glory days. Chad and TO as receivers, Gresham at TE and those two in the backfield. How do you defend that?
[/quote]
There's a reason why no one in the NFL does this with their skill players. You always will need some mobile blockers. I swear, I think some fans would play offense with 1 QB and 10 wide receivers/running backs if they were allowed to coach the team.

[ThurmanMunster]

[quote name='GoBengals' timestamp='1283903547' post='915520']
mostly this.. shipley has a set of plays, but caldwell is the actual depth guy. like also mentioned above.. theyll [b]both have packages[/b] i assume..
[/quote]

seeing caldwell play at times he may not have a package.

[The Scales]

My thought


"that this defense is the badness . . . why don't they run more 3-4 ?"



They got two nt . . . sims and peko.



Check this package


Sims. Peko. Atkins.

Johnson. Rey "Boom Boom" . Dr. Jones/Muck . Rivers.

???


or


Fanene. Tank. Robert/Dunlap

Johnsnon. Johnson. Rey. Rivers



???


It boggles the mind.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='dex' timestamp='1283908919' post='915555']
There's a reason why no one in the NFL does this with their skill players. You always will need some mobile blockers. I swear, I think some fans would play offense with 1 QB and 10 wide receivers/running backs if they were allowed to coach the team.
[/quote]
Benson and/or Scott aren't allowed to throw an occasional block? Or are you arguing that they would be ineffective blockers when compared to a player whose major role is to block, but rarely/never carry the ball? Seems to me that if there were four or five plays in the playbook with a formation I describe--maybe a couple that were passes and and couple that were runs--then it would be hard to defend. Or perhaps better said, harder to predict just which is being called--a run or a pass.

What's changed about the game since the mid 60s that precludes such options?

[scharm]

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1283905256' post='915528']
1181 already pointed out the error about Welker, so I just want to say this: why can't we just run a one-back offense? Or have Benson and Scott on the field at the same time? I realize what you are losing for a lead blocker, especially on up the gut plays, but the potential for confusing the defense goes way up, particularly with a 2 back backfield of Scott and Benson. I don't understand why the two have to be mutually exclusive, ie, why Benson always has to leave on 3rd down, Scott only lines up on 3rd down, etc. I understand the difference in packages and formations for certain situations, but I still think we could shake things up a bit by being more creative.
[/quote]

I think they are moving in the direction of 1 back offense. Maybe by default because of the injury situation at FB. I think you'll see alot of 2 TE, 1 back, 2WR, Gresham will be the swing man from hand on the ground TE to slot WR.


2 HB offense you can run at times but I think a steady diet of it would make it hard to run losing the extra TE or FB.

[scharm]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1283944421' post='915638']
Benson and/or Scott aren't allowed to throw an occasional block? Or are you arguing that they would be ineffective blockers when compared to a player whose major role is to block, but rarely/never carry the ball? Seems to me that if there were four or five plays in the playbook with a formation I describe--maybe a couple that were passes and and couple that were runs--then it would be hard to defend. Or perhaps better said, harder to predict just which is being called--a run or a pass.

What's changed about the game since the mid 60s that precludes such options?
[/quote]

They do run that. They ran inverted wishbone several times last year. I believe Benson had a big gain out of it against Denver.

I think the response was pointed at more against making a 2 HB system more of a base offense.

[Inigo Montoya]

The #2 defense is looking good. Probably the deepest defensive unit Marvin has ever assembled.


DT - Pat Sims, Geno Atkins
DE - Jonathan Fanene, Frostee Rucker
LB - Brandon Johnson, Michael Johnson, Rod Muckleroy
S - Chinny Ndukwe, Reggie Nelson
CB - Adam Jones, Morgan Trent

Leftovers - Carlos Dunlap, Dan Skuta, Brandon Ghee

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='dex' timestamp='1283908919' post='915555']
There's a reason why no one in the NFL does this with their skill players. You always will need some mobile blockers. I swear, I think some fans would play offense with 1 QB and 10 wide receivers/running backs if they were allowed to coach the team.
[/quote]

Nobody is suggesting that, and your claim is ridiculous. There's certainly no wrong in exploring the possibilities of a 2 back set with Benson and Scott on certain plays.