+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Cincinnati-Bengals-NFL)
+--- Forum: JUNGLE NOISE (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-JUNGLE-NOISE)
+--- Thread: Bobby Hart Re-Signed (/Thread-Bobby-Hart-Re-Signed)
RE: Bobby Hart Re-Signed - Schmitbuck - 03-12-2019
(03-12-2019, 09:36 AM)ochocincos Wrote: What if...Hart is moved to RG?
I looked back at NFL.com's scouting report of him and they thought he'd be best off if he was moved to OG.
If this is the plan, $5-7 mill ($21 mill is with incentives) for a starting OG isn't bad.
It's also worth pointing out that Hart only has 33.0" arms, which probably contributes to his poor ability to defend the edge.
It would certainly make me feel a little better about the signing. We'll probably know the answer after our first round pick.
RE: Bobby Hart Re-Signed - jj22 - 03-12-2019
(03-12-2019, 09:30 AM)Whatever Wrote: Hart got current market value for a below average starting T in the current FA market. Juwan James, a solid but not great RT, just got $13 mil a year. To put that in perspective, Earl Thomas is looking for $14 mil a year. It's just the current cost of doing business. If gas goes over $3/gallon, it's ridiculous too, but what are you going to do, take the bus?
You can replace a RT as bad as Hart by signing someone who spent time on a practice squad last year.
RE: Bobby Hart Re-Signed - Gamma Ray Tan - 03-12-2019
I'm beginning to think the TANK FOR TREVOR campaign is in full effect. Taylor knows these next 2 years are basically throw away seasons and not expecting to sniff the playoffs. After the 3-13 2020 season, Hopefully we are in the #1 Draft slot and the REAL Zac Taylor era begins.
RE: Bobby Hart Re-Signed - Hoofhearted - 03-12-2019
Fun fact: Hart had more false starts (9) than the entire steelers team (8).
RE: Bobby Hart Re-Signed - Whatever - 03-12-2019
(03-12-2019, 09:33 AM)Au165 Wrote: Well you could argue that any player left over after FA would have been as good as Hart and they would have accepted a 1 year minimum or close to minimum deal. That I think is what frustrates most. I am just breaking down the contract and putting it in perspective.
Yeah, I get that. However, do you really want to be down at the bottom of the FA pool and going "Alright guys, do we go with Erick Flowers or Cedric Ogbuehi?"
As bad as Hart was, there are tons of worse guys out there. I mean, we had two of them. The league is so desperate for T's right now that an average starter just became the highest paid RT in the league.
RE: Bobby Hart Re-Signed - Au165 - 03-12-2019
(03-12-2019, 09:36 AM)ochocincos Wrote: What if...Hart is moved to RG?
I looked back at NFL.com's scouting report of him and they thought he'd be best off if he was moved to OG.
If this is the plan, $5-7 mill ($21 mill is with incentives) for a starting OG isn't bad.
It's also worth pointing out that Hart only has 33.0" arms, which probably contributes to his poor ability to defend the edge.
I think that would make more sense if we didn't also tender Hopkins. Maybe they will let them compete, or maybe Hart will be the 6th O linemen capable of playing guard or Tackle? Who knows, but there is something to be said for the fact we have no tackles on the team beyond Glenn.
RE: Bobby Hart Re-Signed - Au165 - 03-12-2019
(03-12-2019, 09:57 AM)Whatever Wrote: Yeah, I get that. However, do you really want to be down at the bottom of the FA pool and going "Alright guys, do we go with Erick Flowers or Cedric Ogbuehi?"
As bad as Hart was, there are tons of worse guys out there. I mean, we had two of them. The league is so desperate for T's right now that an average starter just became the highest paid RT in the league.
Maybe, my issue is that there are guys out there who would be available for less who we don't know are the worst starting RT in the league versus paying a lot of money to the guy who we know is bad. Heck, I think we could have given Mike Remmer the same money since he was just cut by the Vikings and he has versatility to play guard and tackle.
RE: Bobby Hart Re-Signed - ochocincos - 03-12-2019
(03-12-2019, 09:58 AM)Au165 Wrote: I think that would make more sense if we didn't also tender Hopkins. Maybe they will let them compete, or maybe Hart will be the 6th O linemen capable of playing guard or Tackle? Who knows, but there is something to be said for the fact we have no tackles on the team beyond Glenn.
I'm trying to find any silver lining to this terrible signing lol.
EDIT - This also could be a good indication of a true rebuild too. Hart is only 24 years old. The coaches might think he can be coached up due to his young age and willing to live through the growing pains. If there isn't a better FA signing than this, I'm prepared for full rebuild mode and having zero expectations for 2019.
RE: Bobby Hart Re-Signed - Au165 - 03-12-2019
(03-12-2019, 10:00 AM)ochocincos Wrote: I'm trying to find any silver lining to this terrible signing lol.
To me it is that no long term guaranteed money and the money goes down as the deal goes on meaning he isn't the long term plan unless he performs which is where the incentives kick in. It's a stop gap move, just hopefully not one that costs us Dennard.
RE: Bobby Hart Re-Signed - Au165 - 03-12-2019
(03-12-2019, 10:00 AM)ochocincos Wrote: I'm trying to find any silver lining to this terrible signing lol.
EDIT - This also could be a good indication of a true rebuild too. Hart is only 24 years old. The coaches might think he can be coached up due to his young age and willing to live through the growing pains. If there isn't a better FA signing than this, I'm prepared for full rebuild mode and having zero expectations for 2019.
If this were the case I'd call Oakland to see about moving Dunlap's deal. Guenther needs pass rushers and we actually have enough young depth there to make due during a rebuild.
RE: Bobby Hart Re-Signed - Fullrock - 03-12-2019
I guess it's time to revive the old "Bobby Hart whiffs more than" thread since we get the pleasure of seeing it for at least another year!
RE: Bobby Hart Re-Signed - Whatever - 03-12-2019
(03-12-2019, 09:42 AM)jj22 Wrote: You can replace a RT as bad as Hart by signing someone who spent time on a practice squad last year.
Hart wasn't even the worst starting T in the league last year.
He's not good, by any stretch, but the "any scrub would be better" narrative isn't based in reality.
RE: Bobby Hart Re-Signed - Hoofhearted - 03-12-2019
(03-12-2019, 10:07 AM)Fullrock Wrote: I guess it's time to revive the old "Bobby Hart whiffs more than" thread since we get the pleasure of seeing it for at least another year!
![[Image: 200.webp?cid=3640f6095c87afdc326a656a328f6e7f]](https://media2.giphy.com/media/3o7Zesyac4CuSN5rsA/200.webp?cid=3640f6095c87afdc326a656a328f6e7f)
RE: Bobby Hart Re-Signed - Yojimbo - 03-12-2019
Bill Barnwell of ESPN:
Bobby Hart, T, Cincinnati Bengals
The deal: Three years, $21 million
Grade: D-
It's difficult to find a silver lining in Cincinnati's move to re-sign Hart, who was cut by the Giants last year amid concerns that he had quit on the team. (Hart would later deny those claims.) The 24-year-old cleared waivers and went to injured reserve before signing a one-year deal during the offseason with the Bengals, who eventually installed the Florida State product as their starting right tackle.
Here's where would I normally say things went well and led the Bengals to sign Hart to a long-term deal. That isn't really what happened. Hart appears to have played pretty poorly in his debut season with the Bengals. While he stayed healthy and started all 16 games for the first time in his pro career, the former seventh-round pick allowed 11.5 sacks, per Stats LLC. Hart also committed 14 penalties, which tied him for fourth in the league. Nine of those penalties were false starts, which you can spin in either direction; a Hart supporter could suggest that Hart will cut out the false starts with experience, while a detractor might find it frustrating that Hart can't manage to line up and get off the snap on time on a regular basis.
Either way, Hart hasn't shown much suggesting he's even a competent NFL tackle. Incoming offensive line coach Jim Turner hand-waved away the concerns about sacks and pressures by talking about how Hart has played with passion, but the bottoms of NFL rosters and practice squads are full of players who have passion. It's not hard to find a player who cares. The Bengals are paying Hart to be an effective NFL lineman, and he simply isn't one. I can't imagine that Cincinnati guaranteed more than one season to Hart as part of this three-year pact. Since he is just 24, the Bengals would be in position to keep Hart around if he does break out, but this doesn't appear to solve Cincinnati's offensive line woes. If anything, the signing solidifies them.
RE: Bobby Hart Re-Signed - Gamma Ray Tan - 03-12-2019
(03-12-2019, 10:07 AM)Whatever Wrote: Hart wasn't even the worst starting T in the league last year.Hart was rated 75 out of 80 Tackles in league. There are only 64 STARTING tackles in the whole league....do the math my friend.
He's not good, by any stretch, but the "any scrub would be better" narrative isn't based in reality.
RE: Bobby Hart Re-Signed - Whatever - 03-12-2019
(03-12-2019, 10:00 AM)Au165 Wrote: Maybe, my issue is that there are guys out there who would be available for less who we don't know are the worst starting RT in the league versus paying a lot of money to the guy who we know is bad. Heck, I think we could have given Mike Remmer the same money since he was just cut by the Vikings and he has versatility to play guard and tackle.
Remmers was basically as bad at RG last year as Hart was at RT. I'm all for upgrades, but that's trading a scrub for a scrub.
RE: Bobby Hart Re-Signed - THE PISTONS - 03-12-2019
(03-12-2019, 12:04 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Ida know...I think there is more to argue that Taylor and Turner were behind the Hart contract than Mike Brown going full tyrant and doing it. I do see how the optimistic view involves blaming the guy who, on average, should be on his 6th year in the grave right now.
Absolutely. The Bengals.com article talks about how Taylor really liked Hart and is happy he's back.
RE: Bobby Hart Re-Signed - Synric - 03-12-2019
(03-12-2019, 08:12 AM)Au165 Wrote: Well, I am going to try and talk everyone off the ledge here. Hart is getting 16.15 over 3, 21 is with incentives. The first year he is making 7.4, which means on the backside incentives aside his base pay is 4.3 (in line with the current back up market). This deal signals to me we will be taking a tackle in this draft but it could be a round 2 or 3 tackle that may need one year to take over. I could see a guy like Tytus Howard from Alabama State who has looked good leading into the draft but still may take a year to adjust to the level of competition in the NFL.
Yea 3 years 16.15 5.3 mil average is a better deal.
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cincinnati-bengals/bobby-hart-16952/
This is basically an insurance deal because they will be drafting a tackle.
RE: Bobby Hart Re-Signed - Au165 - 03-12-2019
(03-12-2019, 10:24 AM)Whatever Wrote: Remmers was basically as bad at RG last year as Hart was at RT. I'm all for upgrades, but that's trading a scrub for a scrub.
He he was the 48th Guard ( versus Hart being the 70th tackle). Not sure that is basically as bad. In 2017 while playing Tackle for Minnesota he was the 36 rated Tackle in the league. That is a huge upgrade from Hart as both a tackle and swing linemen who could play guard at a serviceable level.
RE: Bobby Hart Re-Signed - Socal Bengals fan - 03-12-2019
(03-12-2019, 10:15 AM)Gamma Ray Tan Wrote: Hart was rated 75 out of 80 Tackles in league. There are only 64 STARTING tackles in the whole league....do the math my friend.
Leave it to the Bengal apologists to make the Hart signing as anything but Horrible. He was horrible as a giant. He was cut. He was horrible as a Bengal. He’s just not very good at all. If the plan is to suck for next 2 years then we are headed in the right direction