04-11-2019, 07:30 PM
(04-11-2019, 07:10 PM)XsandOs Wrote: Agreed.
And trading your only established receiver makes no sense. When Cleveland guaranteed last year that they would beat us if AJ didn't play - they were right. Our pass offense doesn't get much respect without AJ.
This thread makes no sense....
In principle, yes - you do want to trade veterans from whom you can get good value in return and get cap space. But only if you have viable replacement, and that veteran is not the heart of an aspect of your Team.
We have no viable replacement for him on the roster and none in the draft.
You can't replace AJ with Boyd or Ross. Even if could, who would replace them? Isabella? Really?
Again, in principle, the proposed makes sense. But not when it involves losing AJ.
I'm jumping in late and for what it's worth consider a couple possible opposing viewpoints. How many successful teams in the league sign 31 year old receivers that have been recently injured a lot to large long term deals. A contract for AJ will likely be 4 years/ 80 million. Can you use that 20 million more wisely in other areas? Would New England do this? (No). In fact, most successful teams wouldn't do it.
In favor of signing him is the fact that the Bengals spend so little that 20 million of cap space isn't actually a big %/cap for us. But add in a new deal for Boyd (10 Million year) and Ross's deal and the others and we would probably have the largest portion of cap going to receivers. In other words, no, successful teams don't do this. But for the Bengals he so popular and one of the few positives you really can't not do it.
The sensible thing to do is let him ride out this year and see if he stays healthy and then tag him next year if he does well. Now he's 33 and everything changes. Sucks for AJ, but it's what good teams do.
