AJ Green contract floor has been set. 70 milion

[Luvnit2]

(07-16-2015, 09:16 AM)djs7685 Wrote: 1. There's more to being a good WR than career average yards and TDs. I'm sure you've watched alll 3 play in their respective schemes and I'd hope anyone with eyes could see that it's tough to make the claim that any of these guys are obviously better than the others. Now, in my opinion, it goes Dez > A.J. > DT. It's absolutely arguable to switch those around though. Since 2012, all 3 of these guys have been in the top 15 in yards per pass routes run with about 50 eligible receivers each year. Since 2011, all 3 guys have each been near the top of deep ball catching rates at least once. With the exception of 2011 where Dez only dropped 1 pass, all 3 guys have surprisingly been right around each other in drop rate each year.

2 & 3. So in statement 2 you don't know what their criteria will be but in statement 3 you do know that they don't give contracts for potential? Very interesting, please tell me more about how you don't know but you do know what the Bengals do.

4. Some people on here wish that Andy resigned, but he actually re-signed. Anyway, with this logic, any team that re-signs any player means said team feels he is "very good"?? That's quite the leap from reality and a nice spin to try and prop up Andy. Unfortunately, we all know that players are re-signed, signed, released, and traded for many, many reasons. A guy getting re-signed hardly automatically makes them "very good". The Bengals know what they have. They have a guy that is average that has shown flashes of greatness and also flashes of quite the opposite. His contract proves quite the opposite of them believing he's "very good", it shows they have a guy that could be considered a franchise QB so he's not bad, but he isn't "very good" either. Low guaranteed money, outs in the contract, escalators for improvement, and below market value cap hits for the first couple/few years of the deal prove exactly what they think of him. I'm not saying they re-signed him because they think he sucks, please don't get confused by my points, I'm simply stating that the assumption that they "re-signed him because they feel he's very good" is extremely off-base if you're willing to look at the facts of the situation.

"2 & 3. So in statement 2 you don't know what their criteria will be but in statement 3 you do know that they don't give contracts for potential? Very interesting, please tell me more about how you don't know but you do know what the Bengals do".

It is obvious I did not mean what I said about knowing the Bengals not using potential    Everyone always posts things they don't mean 100% according to you. Why would you take what someone said out of context?

My bad on the bad grammar, I forget this football message board is full of literary genius.

And yes I am confident our team would have not re-signed our QB to a long term contract paying big dollars if they thought he was a bad QB when they had other options on the table back then.

As far as your answer to #1 above, you must have missed the part where I said everything was on the table and never said it was all about stats.