Peko, Scott out = ? in

by featherman on Dec 5, 2009 2:42 PM EST

With two starters likely inactive for the game against the Lions I think it's time to let Simpson, Coffman or both be active.

I appreciate the Bengals run offense, steady STs, and stingy defense that has gotten these boys to an 8-3 record so far but the Lion's game may be the time to dust off our "premier' passing attack. The benefits would be to get Coffman and Simpson a taste, letting the coaches see what they may be able to give the offense, and giving our next opponents more film to study and prepare for. The Lions defense (or lack there of) is a perfect match to experiment a little.

Poll

Who should we activate for the Lion's game?

Simpson

10 votes

Coffman

16 votes

Simpson and Coffman

18 votes

Neither

5 votes

49 votes | Poll has closed

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Cincy Jungle's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Cincy Jungle's writers or editors.

Tweet Comment 10 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I’m hearing a lot of talk about our offense being shaky this week, and I certainly agree with that assessment. I have a feeling that Brat and Lewis don’t mind all the chatter that’s going on.
At the beginning of the year, we all thought this team was different somehow, and most of us believed it was for the better. I’m sticking with that opinion until I am proved wrong.

This is our year!

by Paul Cannon on Dec 5, 2009 4:17 PM EST reply actions

orien harris in for peko
cedric benson in for Scott

"Ghiaciuc's play was a distraction"

by Joe Goodberry on Dec 5, 2009 5:18 PM EST via mobile reply actions

agreed

Ensuring depth at the relevant position is the first order of business, not giving a project player a look-see.

by Mr. X on Dec 5, 2009 5:50 PM EST up reply actions

agree with above

Coffman is active if he can play DT.

I want to see those guys on the field as much as the next guy but I don’t think their absence is the cause of our offensive sluggishness.

by goffchile on Dec 5, 2009 6:25 PM EST via mobile reply actions

Dumb

Am I the only one who thinks it is dumb that only 45 players are active on gameday? I mean you are paying 53 guys. So why not dress 53 guys? I mean if someone is hurt fine, but it just seems dumb to me that you have to have eight inactives every week. And while I am ranting about it, with all the NFL’s concerns with injuries, they should probably think about expanding the active rosters to like 57 or 58 players.

by Kabash on Dec 5, 2009 8:46 PM EST reply actions

agreed

not sure about 57 but I think all 53 guys should be active. I’m sure then we would get to see guys like Chase and Simpson get some snaps

by smoormandiddy on Dec 5, 2009 9:08 PM EST up reply actions

i think the 8 inactives rule has to do with injuries on the active roster. the league believes it would create an unfair advantage if four of one team’s 53-man-roster were injured and couldn’t play but the other team had all of theirs available, so they just made it that each team must deactivate 8 guys to prevent that sort of thing.

i'm going to go america all over your ass!

by Raging Clue on Dec 6, 2009 9:51 AM EST up reply actions

I think it also helps prevent injured players from playing. If you have some guys that are pretty questionable, but you don’t have to sit anyone, they’re generally not going to sit. If you have to sit 8 guys anyway, the hurt guys are more likely to get some rest.

by indesignkat on Dec 6, 2009 11:51 AM EST up reply actions