(01-15-2019, 10:33 AM)Wyche Wrote: [ -> ]This is EXACTLY what I'd like to see them do. :andy:
Yeah, you're not losing enough games with AD & group to get him. Better start the tank a little sooner
(01-15-2019, 12:53 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, you're not losing enough games with AD & group to get him. Better start the tank a little sooner
It depends on who is sitting at the top of the draft. You could be looking at several of the teams that have just drafted QBs, or ones that are going to this season. KC got Mahommes at #10....and they moved up 17 spots to do it via trade.
(01-15-2019, 01:03 PM)Wyche Wrote: [ -> ]It depends on who is sitting at the top of the draft. You could be looking at several of the teams that have just drafted QBs, or ones that are going to this season. KC got Mahommes at #10....and they moved up 17 spots to do it via trade.
Any trade for the number 1 pick - especially with a franchise QB sitting there - is going to take a Kings Ransom. KC got Mahomes because he played in the BIG12 where Defense is optional. That's why he slid.
(01-14-2019, 03:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: [ -> ]Carr averaged 7.3.YPA this year.Andy averaged 7.0. (of course some folks watch Andy through orange colored glasses)
Dalton averaged almost a full yard more per completion than Carr (11.4 to 10.6)
But some people look at Dalton through shitstained glasses. How else can you explain being willing to pay an extra $11 million for a QB who had 19 td in 16 games to replace a QB who had 21 in just 11 games?
(01-15-2019, 01:36 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: [ -> ]Any trade for the number 1 pick - especially with a franchise QB sitting there - is going to take a Kings Ransom. KC got Mahomes because he played in the BIG12 where Defense is optional. That's why he slid.
It's quite the conundrum......but if the team is stacked over the next couple of drafts, you may just pay that ransom.
(01-15-2019, 11:52 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: [ -> ]If we really wanted to tank for Trevor we would have hired Hue lol
Spit my coffee out reading that post..good one
In the NHL this year, the consensus #1 pick is Jack Hughes so in many cities with bad teams fans are bring banners that say "Lose for Hughes"
(01-15-2019, 12:53 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, you're not losing enough games with AD & group to get him. Better start the tank a little sooner
I never said tank, I said trade. Time to start stockpiling a few picks so we can trade up for him....
(01-15-2019, 03:57 PM)Sled21 Wrote: [ -> ]I never said tank, I said trade. Time to start stockpiling a few picks so we can trade up for him....
I know. I would rather tank for Trevor than trade our future away for many years. It would probably take two firsts and a mid-round pick judging by the draft pick calculator. That's not even considering how that team dealing from a position strength with I am sure bidding wars going on. Not impossible, but the price will be crazy high.
There will be several QB options in the draft over the next couple of years.
(01-14-2019, 04:23 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: [ -> ]I watched how he played and saw that the PFF rating matched what we all saw. Then I peeped the price tag, saw his age, compared his price to other tackles around the league, looked at our needs and arrived at a pretty logical conclusion. A $9.25 million dollar tackle shouldn't need a plethora of excuses. You think a guy like Whit would need excuses?
I won't be mad if we keep him...hopefully he can turn it around, but we can also get similar tackle play at a much cheaper rate. At this point, we just have to hope that if we keep him, he miraculously improves. I'm a bit worn on hoping crappy players suddenly get better though. Excuses are also getting pretty tiring.
I could not agree more. We hang onto to those types of players for far too long.
(01-15-2019, 01:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: [ -> ]Dalton averaged almost a full yard more per completion than Carr (11.4 to 10.6)
But some people look at Dalton through shitstained glasses. How else can you explain being willing to pay an extra $11 million for a QB who had 19 td in 16 games to replace a QB who had 21 in just 11 games?
You really should try to keep up instead of just looking for things to disagree with.
Dude said Carr was "Captain Checkdown" I slurred no one simply pointed out that his YPA was better than the guy he was praising.
IDK where this $11 Mil more comes from. Derek is scheduled to make less that $4 Mil more than Andy next year and just over $1 Mil more in 2020. So my math has it right around $5 Mil over the next 2 years. And that's assuming Andy doesn't want to renegotiate in his last year.
Maybe they're just assuming Andy won't get paid in 2021 and 2022. They should have more trust in Andy.
(01-14-2019, 04:23 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: [ -> ] I'm a bit worn on hoping crappy players suddenly get better though. Excuses are also getting pretty tiring.
A fan's patience with a player's rate of development is directly proportional to how the fan felt about the player when he was drafted. And "fans" includes me. But here is a general rule I try to follow, and I think most NFL teams feel about the same way I do.
1. Never write off any player after just one season. Way too many examples of good players who did nothing as rookies.
2. Most picks from the first three rounds will get a full second year. Unless a player has been injured or moved around in different positions or schemes you should have a pretty good idea of what kind of player you have after two seasons. He may not be a finished product after two seasons, but you should be able to see a significant level of improvement from year one to 2.
3. Unless a pick is a total disaster it is better to keep them for their full rookie contracts. It is hard to replace rookie scale players in free agency, and cutting a guy on his rookie contract is like losing a draft pick. Since you can't really keep all of your draft picks every year anyway most players cut still on rookie contracts are replaced by true rookies.
It seems that if a high draft pick flounders his first coiuple of seasons it sours the fan base on him and it is hard for the player to get any respect even when he does play well.
And sometimes it turns out that those "crappy players" may not have been so crappy after all. People mocked Margus Hunt like he was a joke. He was only a backup with the Bengals but this year he started 15 games for the Colts and only 12 defensive linemen had more tackles for loss than Hunt's 13. Russell Bodine also went to a starting job with another team. I am not saying those guys were great players here, but they were not the garbage that some claimed. If it was so easy to just draft better players every year guys like Hunt and Bodine would not still be playing.
Im very excited to roll out a new offense for dalton green mixin and boyd. Cant wait
(01-16-2019, 12:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: [ -> ]I asked Fred where this figure comes from as he quoted the same amount.
Everything I read shows Andy making $16.2 Mil next year and Derek making $20.0 Mil. Andy jumps up to $17.7 Mil in 2021 while Derek drops to $19 mil
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cincinnati-bengals/andy-dalton-7750/
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/oakland-raiders/derek-carr-14445/
Admittedly I'm no math major; but I don't see how that's $11 mil/year more.
My guess is it's due to Carr having 2 years more on his contract than Dalton. Carr playing 'til his contract runs out will cost the Bengals more from this current point than Dalton playing til his contract runs out.
That said, by my math difference still isn't $11 mil, but actually a lot more.
(01-15-2019, 01:36 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: [ -> ]Any trade for the number 1 pick - especially with a franchise QB sitting there - is going to take a Kings Ransom. KC got Mahomes because he played in the BIG12 where Defense is optional. That's why he slid.
Mahomes is far from the only great QB taken 10th overall or later.
Mahomes - 10th
Pig Ben - 11th
Watson - 12th
Rodgers - 24th
Brees - 2nd round
Carr - 2nd round
Wilson - 3rd round
Brady - 6th round
That's most of the best QB's in the NFL right now, with the exception of Carr (who is still very solid).
(01-15-2019, 11:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: [ -> ]You really should try to keep up instead of just looking for things to disagree with.
Dude said Carr was "Captain Checkdown" I slurred no one simply pointed out that his YPA was better than the guy he was praising.
IDK where this $11 Mil more comes from. Derek is scheduled to make less that $4 Mil more than Andy next year and just over $1 Mil more in 2020. So my math has it right around $5 Mil over the next 2 years. And that's assuming Andy doesn't want to renegotiate in his last year.
Maybe they're just assuming Andy won't get paid in 2021 and 2022. They should have more trust in Andy.
If you're going to look at a stat to confirm whether or not a guy is "captain checkdown", yards per completion (the stat Fred used) is the stat to look at.
Yards per attempt (the stat you used) is affected by both completion percentage AND yards per attempt.
Derek Carr's completion % high (68.6%) and his yards/completion is very low (10.6 - which ranked 27th out of 33). This indicates that he is indeed a dink n dunker.
(01-15-2019, 11:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: [ -> ]A fan's patience with a player's rate of development is directly proportional to how the fan felt about the player when he was drafted. And "fans" includes me. But here is a general rule I try to follow, and I think most NFL teams feel about the same way I do.
1. Never write off any player after just one season. Way too many examples of good players who did nothing as rookies.
2. Most picks from the first three rounds will get a full second year. Unless a player has been injured or moved around in different positions or schemes you should have a pretty good idea of what kind of player you have after two seasons. He may not be a finished product after two seasons, but you should be able to see a significant level of improvement from year one to 2.
3. Unless a pick is a total disaster it is better to keep them for their full rookie contracts. It is hard to replace rookie scale players in free agency, and cutting a guy on his rookie contract is like losing a draft pick. Since you can't really keep all of your draft picks every year anyway most players cut still on rookie contracts are replaced by true rookies.
It seems that if a high draft pick flounders his first coiuple of seasons it sours the fan base on him and it is hard for the player to get any respect even when he does play well.
And sometimes it turns out that those "crappy players" may not have been so crappy after all. People mocked Margus Hunt like he was a joke. He was only a backup with the Bengals but this year he started 15 games for the Colts and only 12 defensive linemen had more tackles for loss than Hunt's 13. Russell Bodine also went to a starting job with another team. I am not saying those guys were great players here, but they were not the garbage that some claimed. If it was so easy to just draft better players every year guys like Hunt and Bodine would not still be playing.
Generally, I think you're right. But I loved the Glenn trade, so my initial thoughts haven't affected my overall opinion. Same with Brandon LaFell. Same with John Ross.
(01-14-2019, 04:23 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: [ -> ]I watched how he played and saw that the PFF rating matched what we all saw. Then I peeped the price tag, saw his age, compared his price to other tackles around the league, looked at our needs and arrived at a pretty logical conclusion. A $9.25 million dollar tackle shouldn't need a plethora of excuses. You think a guy like Whit would need excuses?
I won't be mad if we keep him...hopefully he can turn it around, but we can also get similar tackle play at a much cheaper rate. At this point, we just have to hope that if we keep him, he miraculously improves. I'm a bit worn on hoping crappy players suddenly get better though. Excuses are also getting pretty tiring.
Have to agree 100%. If we look at the players who have the most excuses being created for them we can see who the players are that haven't lived up to our expectations.
I'd rather admit being wrong about a player than to continue to accept mediocre or, in some cases, down right piss poor play from them. Move them out and bring in some new blood who hopefully won't underachieve, but rather will surprise us with some overachievingness.
I think with the new coaching staff the excuses will no longer be accepted on the team itself.
Personally I'm hoping all of our underachievers come to life, but in reality that's just not going to happen. We could see some interesting cuts and trades this off season and come training camp.
(01-16-2019, 04:11 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: [ -> ]If you're going to look at a stat to confirm whether or not a guy is "captain checkdown", yards per completion (the stat Fred used) is the stat to look at.
Yards per attempt (the stat you used) is affected by both completion percentage AND yards per attempt.
Which is the stat yours truly INITIALLY used.
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-I-expect-the-coaching-changes-to-give-Dalton-a-new-lease-on-his-Bengals-life?pid=668717#pid668717
Quote:I don't watch through anything....I watched 3 Raiders games, and saw a bunch of dump offs. Which, is what a few people I know that are Raiders fans complain about. Dalton had 11.4 YPC, Carr had 10.6, what's your point? Dalton usually has a long of around 80, Carr has one season where his long was above 80. Dalton also had 2 more TDs, and played in 4 fewer games.
(01-16-2019, 12:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: [ -> ]Admittedly I'm no math major; but I don't see how that's $11 mil/year more.
So it is only $5 million more instead of $11. My point still stands. Why pay more for a QB who is not any better than Dalton?
Carr's career numbers are not any better than Dalton's, but Dalton's ceiling (best season) is higher. Carr is also a fumble machine who has put the ball on the ground almost TWICE as often as Dalton over the last 5 years (45 to 23). Carr has only one rushing TD in his five year career while Dalton has 11 over the same period.
So what exactly is the reason you would agree to trade Dalton for Carr?
