Why Not?

[Murdock2420]

Bengals trade Boyd.

Next day, one of the starting WRs is lost for the season with an injury.

The board screams "Why did we trade Boyd?"

This team had an amazing run of luck with injuries last year, no reason to trade away from depth for no reason and $8 million in cap space isn't going to replace the void of a veteran and productive slot WR.

[sabu74]

We need our WR Squad of HBC, so there is no reasonable point to trade Boyd.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-08-2022, 08:19 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: I want some of what you're smoking. 

Yeah man, puff puff pass. I was with the OPs line of thinking until that, lol. There is no one currently on the roster that will/could replace TB. Sure, we have some bodies to trot out there, but not replacements. Joe needs to learn to hit a check down, and look for openings underneath more, and Boyd's production will go up accordingly. Of course, that's a Catch 22, you don't want to stymie too much of Burrow's aggression.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-08-2022, 10:35 PM)casear2727 Wrote: In the Super Bowl, Boyd ran the wrong route and cost us a sack in the redzone when we could have wrapped up the game after the INT. He also dropped a crucial 3rd pass late in the 4th. That is NOT producing when called upon in the most crucial situation.

WR3 is NOT a priority position especially when that spot makes more than 4 starters on the oline combined.

In the SB, Joe Burrow missed wide open receivers in the flat on multiple occasions. Let's trade him too....lol.

[*ochocincos*]

(03-08-2022, 11:02 PM)casear2727 Wrote: I guess it depends on the TE, but the point is still the same - Morgan Moses signed a one year deal with the Jets last year. He is a year older and most likely gets another 1 year deal. He doesnt impact guaranteed money and is stop gap at RT, maybe until Smith is ready?  

I'd give any FA RT at least a 2-year deal. The depth OTs and any potential OT draft pick is likely going to need multiple years development before being ready.
I don't have much faith in Smith doing much of anything this year based on his lack of playing time this past year.
The Bengals gave Isaiah Prince snaps over him, and Prince is not good.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-09-2022, 11:00 AM)ochocincos Wrote: I'd give any FA RT at least a 2-year deal. The depth OTs and any potential OT draft pick is likely going to need multiple years development before being ready.
I don't have much faith in Smith doing much of anything this year based on his lack of playing time this past year.
The Bengals gave Isaiah Prince snaps over him, and Prince is not good.

FA OT market is just brutal this offseason. It's either old, hurt, or old and hurt.

With Orlando Brown tagged there's pretty much only Eric Fisher at LT and Morgan Moses at RT, and even they're both heading into their age 31 seasons.

Really think drafting a RT is the only reasonable path there. Just focus on 3 IOL in FA.

[*ochocincos*]

(03-09-2022, 04:18 AM)Murdock2420 Wrote: Bengals trade Boyd.

Next day, one of the starting WRs is lost for the season with an injury.

The board screams "Why did we trade Boyd?"

This team had an amazing run of luck with injuries last year, no reason to trade away from depth for no reason and $8 million in cap space isn't going to replace the void of a veteran and productive slot WR.

You don't trade Boyd without some contingency in place.
That contingency would have to be either a cheaper vet who has proven to at least be near that production in the past or a promising draft pick (likely Day 2).

[casear2727]

(03-09-2022, 04:18 AM)Murdock2420 Wrote: Bengals trade Boyd.

Next day, one of the starting WRs is lost for the season with an injury.

The board screams "Why did we trade Boyd?"

This team had an amazing run of luck with injuries last year, no reason to trade away from depth for no reason and $8 million in cap space isn't going to replace the void of a veteran and productive slot WR.

This is the best argument to keep Boyd in my opinion. Besides he's not going anywhere.

[*ochocincos*]

(03-09-2022, 11:20 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: FA OT market is just brutal this offseason. It's either old, hurt, or old and hurt.

With Orlando Brown tagged there's pretty much only Eric Fisher at LT and Morgan Moses at RT, and even they're both heading into their age 31 seasons.

Really think drafting a RT is the only reasonable path there. Just focus on 3 IOL in FA.

Have you looked at the draft prospects?
I don't see one realistically at 31 or later that we could have confidence in starting Day 1.

If Bengals can't land Moses, they might need to consider more of a serviceable stopgap like Germain Ifedi while a draft pick develops.
Ifedi shouldn't cost much, and he has RG flexibility too. He's not someone you'd get excited about though.

[fredtoast]

(03-08-2022, 10:41 PM)Au165 Wrote: Cap is not cash, the Bengals underwhelming OL FA haul will have nothing to do with cap and everything to do with cash. I am not sure why people don’t get that cap is not and hasn’t been the problem. Cap wasn’t the problem with Lawson last year, it frankly hasn’t been the issue with most people we don’t get it’s the guaranteed cash.

Tyler Boyd will have absolutely zero impact on what the Bengals can or will potentially do in FA as the inhibitor for the 100th time will be the signing bonuses and guaranteed required to get the players they want.

Damn that stupid Bengal front office for not giving Lawson $40 million guaranteed.

That is why we ended up stuck with Hendrickson.

[casear2727]

(03-09-2022, 05:58 AM)Wyche Wrote: Yeah man, puff puff pass. I was with the OPs line of thinking until that, lol. There is no one currently on the roster that will/could replace TB. Sure, we have some bodies to trot out there, but not replacements. Joe needs to learn to hit a check down, and look for openings underneath more, and Boyd's production will go up accordingly. Of course, that's a Catch 22, you don't want to stymie too much of Burrow's aggression.

Boyd averaged 28 yds a game in the playoffs and 4 receptions a gm this year there are many who could match those numbers but he is a good player.

By the end of the season Joe didnt have any time for check downs and to look for other WRs, this was pretty obvious to even nonfootball fans. Hopefully that changes this season as one of his attributes is finding the open receiver and making he right decision.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-09-2022, 12:00 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Boyd averaged 28 yds a game in the playoffs and 4 receptions a gm this year there are many who could match those numbers but he is a good player.

By the end of the season Joe didnt have any time for check downs and to look for other WRs, this was pretty obvious to even nonfootball fans. Hopefully that changes this season as one of his attributes is finding the open receiver and making he right decision.

The point is valid, but our home run hitter wasn't exactly looking for those options early when Reiff was playing either. As I mentioned though, it's a fine line to straddle. You don't want to take that out of Joe's game, but there were plays where he had time and took a sack looking for the big play when he had options that were open. Including Tyler Boyd. If we were to sign a player better than the depth behind Tyler, or draft one, I think it would be a much more viable scenario. Or, if a team were to offer us an upper tier OL for him, then yeah, pull the trigger. Otherwise, I'd keep him at least this season. 

[casear2727]

(03-09-2022, 04:14 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Paying a Top 5 IOL is cheaper than paying a Top 5 S thus you need less in escrow.

I was trying to be realistic with our current situation of Bates already tagged and no other safeties on the roster


Draft Bates’ replacement in round 1 or 2.  Draft a S late for depth + 1 cheap FA. Or two cheap FAs for depth.

Yes...


Probably affordable if he is ready. Reid from the Texans is a cheaper option who isn’t 29 and coming back from an Achilles rupture in November.

Whoever, just dont trutst a rookie to be the man his 1st season.


And if they draft an Olineman they will also need to hit a home run. They need to hit a home run regardless of position. Do you want a rookie Olineman or a rookie FS? I would say there is more pressure to hit a home run on an Olineman than a FS. And you’re probably waiting a year for them to develop. You want to wait on an Olineman or a FS?  I’d rather wait on a FS.

We need both but since we have oline on the roster, we are definitely signing oline and you are cutting Bates there may be more pressure on the Safety spot.


You’re not going to find a great CB who is cheap.

I dont disagree thats why  I was ok keeping Bates at a reasonable price.


Williams from the Rams or Reed from the Seahawks might be brought in as a #2 without breaking the bank.

Possibly


Sure. Over pay Bates. Cut Boyd and hope you draft the one rookie WR outside of the Top 10 who might match his production. Rely on a rookie Olineman to protect Burrow instead of a veteran that doesn’t need to adjust to the NFL. While saving less money for other upgrades.

WR3 doesnt take much when the vast majority of passes are going to Chase and Higgins. Again I think we win the Super Bowl with Trent Taylor at the slot and a 10M RG instead of Boyd.  I never said rely on an olineman I am simply dealing with reality as to how the Bengals have always operated. We may get 2 oline free agents, who they end up signing will result in most likely 2 spots to be filled by on roster guys & rookies.


No hope or speculation there.

You really dont want to over pay Bates and I agree the OP made a suggestion regarding Boyd and you took this thing down a billion paths because of Bates.  While in reality Bates will be here and so will Boyd.  It was a hypothetical.

[casear2727]

(03-09-2022, 11:00 AM)ochocincos Wrote: I'd give any FA RT at least a 2-year deal. The depth OTs and any potential OT draft pick is likely going to need multiple years development before being ready.
I don't have much faith in Smith doing much of anything this year based on his lack of playing time this past year.
The Bengals gave Isaiah Prince snaps over him, and Prince is not good.

I absolutely agree.  I'm just trying to be optimistic regarding how we operate and the tidbits coming from the building.

It would be fantastic if Carmen and Smith take that next step and become solid starters... I dont believe it will happen this season but I know there is hope from the FO and assumably the staff...

[SladeX]

I’m ok with TB being gone ONLY if it means we get top notch OL help. Mentioned this at the start of the off season. I’m not convinced this has to happen in order to robustly address the OL, but what I Don’t want to hear is that retaining TB prevented us from getting (insert your stud FA OL here).
I’m not holding his postseason play against him, there’s no need in order to support the argument. But when it comes to addressing the OL, it’s all hands on deck time. Has to happen, one way or another. If that way involves letting TB go, so be it.

[casear2727]

(03-09-2022, 12:05 PM)Wyche Wrote: The point is valid, but our home run hitter wasn't exactly looking for those options early when Reiff was playing either. As I mentioned though, it's a fine line to straddle. You don't want to take that out of Joe's game, but there were plays where he had time and took a sack looking for the big play when he had options that were open. Including Tyler Boyd. If we were to sign a player better than the depth behind Tyler, or draft one, I think it would be a much more viable scenario. Or, if a team were to offer us an upper tier OL for him, then yeah, pull the trigger. Otherwise, I'd keep him at least this season. 

Good point.  I think we over value Tyler due to his play prior to the other 2 guys arrival.  We dont need a WR3 to be as talented or experienced as him if the oline is working well.  We need to find places to save money and in my opinion that is WR3, TE and RB - Mixon's contract is such that he will be here 2 more seasons then cut or whatever in 2024. Which I believe puts more emphasis on saving on the other 2 and investing in the oline.

Keeping Boyd one more season decreases his value for trade in my opinion as he would only have one season left on his contract. He is at his highest value now with 2.  This was all hypothetical and Boyd isnt going anywhere, we are not the Patriots we will never be that cut throat thirsty for rings.  We have always kept players too long in my opinion unless they are excellent linemen.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-09-2022, 12:19 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Good point.  I think we over value Tyler due to his play prior to the other 2 guys arrival.  We dont need a WR3 to be as talented or experienced as him if the oline is working well.  We need to find places to save money and in my opinion that is WR3, TE and RB - Mixon's contract is such that he will be here 2 more seasons then cut or whatever in 2024. Which I believe puts more emphasis on saving on the other 2 and investing in the oline.

Keeping Boyd one more season decreases his value for trade in my opinion as he would only have one season left on his contract. He is at his highest value now with 2.  This was all hypothetical and Boyd isnt going anywhere, we are not the Patriots we will never be that cut throat thirsty for rings.  We have always kept players too long in my opinion unless they are excellent linemen.

I would agree with just about all of this. It's been mentioned, but if Tee or Ja'Marr were to get hurt, Tyler becomes a lot more valuable to the team. However, your point stands, and you can't base this stuff off of hypothetical scenarios. As I mentioned in my first reply in this thread, I'm all for it, so long as the return is worth it, and we find a comparable player to replace Boyd. Morgan, Mike Thomas, etc are not that player. If the line gets fixed, Mixon may start being one of our main threats. Offensively speaking, I would agree that those three positions are the most expendable. 

[Au165]

(03-09-2022, 11:56 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Damn that stupid Bengal front office for not giving Lawson $40 million guaranteed.

That is why we ended up stuck with Hendrickson.

I’m actually not commenting on the decision but rather the reasoning. Lawson was offered the same contract Hendrickson accepted here and eventually accepted the same contract with more guarantees in NY. Hence me saying that cap isn’t the issue but rather the guarantees we tend to not give out.

Point being is sometimes works in our favor not getting someone we want and sometimes it doesn’t but the structure is the limiting factor in most cases not top line cap numbers.

[casear2727]

(03-09-2022, 12:31 PM)Wyche Wrote: I would agree with just about all of this. It's been mentioned, but if Tee or Ja'Marr were to get hurt, Tyler becomes a lot more valuable to the team. However, your point stands, and you can't base this stuff off of hypothetical scenarios. As I mentioned in my first reply in this thread, I'm all for it, so long as the return is worth it, and we find a comparable player to replace Boyd. Morgan, Mike Thomas, etc are not that player. If the line gets fixed, Mixon may start being one of our main threats. Offensively speaking, I would agree that those three positions are the most expendable. 

This is correct in so many ways. We would need to draft a speedy guy who is a threat every time he touches the ball but we lose the catch every pass (except in SB) and we definitely are at more risk if Chase or Higgins are hurt. 

And yes with a solid Oline what could Mixon really do? I think he was hit more times prior to the line of scrimmage or gained yards on more run block fails (one of these or both) than any other back in the league this year.

If our running game really got going, the WRs would eat and the slot and TE would be check downs options only. 

But like our fans the team has favorites and they can be loyal to a fault which sounds good but really isnt. Because it is inconsistent, many guys will be cut because "it's a business" and others kept too long as fan favs. The FO should focus on how do we get to the SB every single season we have Burrow moving forward. Period.  (just my opinion)

[casear2727]

(03-09-2022, 12:35 PM)Au165 Wrote: I’m actually not commenting on the decision but rather the reasoning. Lawson was offered the same contract Hendrickson accepted here and eventually accepted the same contract with more guarantees in NY. Hence me saying that cap isn’t the issue but rather the guarantees we tend to not give out.

Point being is sometimes works in our favor not getting someone we want and sometimes it doesn’t but the structure is the limiting factor in most cases not top line cap numbers.

Excellent take.  Even with the revenues soaring in the future we will still be at a disadvantage cash-wise and every cent of guaranteed money (less 2M per) must be escrowed regardless of the year it is to be guaranteed in and 35% of salaries - thats a lot of cash.  When revenues do rise so will contracts.  The Burrow smash will be real.

And like you said we never know who is going to produce any given year. Hendrickson, Awuzie, Apple, Hill were all excellent surprises in my opinion.