Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

(07-29-2025, 11:49 AM)Bengalbug Wrote: [ -> ]Hence why I said 5-10….

If he's 5-10 highest paid and give you top 10 in sacks with good production then im cool with that.

(07-29-2025, 07:51 AM)Sled21 Wrote: [ -> ]Fopr years everyone praised and praised Bill Belicheat for getting rid of players right before they dropped off. Now people are bashing the Bengals for not giving a 30-year-old DE a 3-year guaranteed contract.

I think 3 year guaranteed is crazy. But, Watt and Garrett being similar ages and getting huge extensions kind of form the narrative too.

Let's also face it, IF the Bengals had other star players on the defense, this wouldn't be a big deal. But they don't. Their other pass rushers have been pretty bad outside Trey.

And the Patriots in your comparison could draft guys anywhere in the draft and plug them into the defense and have a good defense. The Bengals have not shown the ability to do that. The Bengals had a great offense last year and a terrible defense which costed them a trip to the playoffs.

(07-28-2025, 11:29 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think many disagree Sooner and Nepa, but I am not sure FO wants to put guaranteed money into year 3. A trade off would be for some guarantee in year 3 in exchange for lower salary in year 2. So far no one has blinked, but I do thing Trey wants to play in Cincy and Bengals want him. This is far cry to how Carson Palmer held out for those bashing Trey. His comments of late have been professional and MB's were as well.

I think they get it done sooner than later. This is a distarction for fans, but not for players or coaches who have too much on their schedule right now to worry about Trey. Many are trying to make a team, climb up depth charts or young guys trying to learn,

I am not in favored of guaranteed money in year 3. Trey turns 31 during the season (December), I would be concerned about production in year 3. But I thought the hang up was guaranteed money in year 2. That I would be in favor of. I think Trey is a vital player, causes havoc for opposing QBs, is a workhorse who outperformed his contract, and if the hang up is guaranteed money in season 2, the Bengals should do that. Trey deserved it, and the Bengals need him.

(07-29-2025, 07:51 AM)Sled21 Wrote: [ -> ]Fopr years everyone praised and praised Bill Belicheat for getting rid of players right before they dropped off. Now people are bashing the Bengals for not giving a 30-year-old DE a 3-year guaranteed contract.

Belichick has 6 SB wins. The Bengals organization has 0.
Folks will start trusting the organization if they can prove they can win the trophy with their strategy.
Until then, opinions will be you need to keep your top talent because they haven't proven in the Taylor era they can develop any DL talent that they drafted.

The latest on the Trey Hendrickson stand-off with #Bengals, and what’s next for Cincinnati if he stays away, on @GetUpESPN pic.twitter.com/HwGAkGzyzK
— Jeremy Fowler (@JFowlerESPN) July 29, 2025

(07-29-2025, 11:55 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: [ -> ]I think 3 year guaranteed is crazy. But, Watt and Garrett being similar ages and getting huge extensions kind of form the narrative too.

Let's also face it, IF the Bengals had other star players on the defense, this wouldn't be a big deal. But they don't. Their other pass rushers have been pretty bad outside Trey.

And the Patriots in your comparison could draft guys anywhere in the draft and plug them into the defense and have a good defense. The Bengals have not shown the ability to do that. The Bengals had a great offense last year and a terrible defense which costed them a trip to the playoffs.

And I think the Garrett guarantee is particularly risky with the problems he already has with his legs. But the Browns are gonna Brown...

(07-29-2025, 12:52 PM)Sled21 Wrote: [ -> ]And I think the Garrett guarantee is particularly risky with the problems he already has with his legs. But the Browns are gonna Brown...

Garrett is a lot younger so yes he had some injury issues, but so did Munoz in college and it worked out. I think he is more deserving of a bigger guarantee than Trey. On Watt, that one is baffling to me. Watt seems to have some wear and tear issues now, with age I think he is a strong candidate for his perfomance to fall off even more so than Trey.

(07-29-2025, 12:46 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: [ -> ]
The latest on the Trey Hendrickson stand-off with #Bengals, and what’s next for Cincinnati if he stays away, on @GetUpESPN pic.twitter.com/HwGAkGzyzK
— Jeremy Fowler (@JFowlerESPN) July 29, 2025

Thank you. Interesting. And sobering.

(07-29-2025, 12:56 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: [ -> ]Garrett is a lot younger so yes he had some injury issues, but so did Munoz in college and it worked out. I think he is more deserving of a bigger guarantee than Trey. On Watt, that one is baffling to me. Watt seems to have some wear and tear issues now, with age I think he is a strong candidate for his perfomance to fall off even more so than Trey.

No he’s not. They’re literally 1 year apart.

Trey - 12/94
Garrett - 12/95

(07-29-2025, 01:10 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: [ -> ]No he’s not. They’re literally 1 year apart.

Trey - 12/94
Garrett - 12/95

TY, you are correct and 1 year in football age is big, but I thought he was 2 years younger.

(07-29-2025, 12:56 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: [ -> ]Garrett is a lot younger so yes he had some injury issues, but so did Munoz in college and it worked out. I think he is more deserving of a bigger guarantee than Trey. On Watt, that one is baffling to me. Watt seems to have some wear and tear issues now, with age I think he is a strong candidate for his perfomance to fall off even more so than Trey.

Myles Garrett turns 30 in December, Hendrickson turns 31 in December.
They are just a year apart.

Regardless, other teams being willing to give these guys these types of deals does affect the Bengals, as Hendrickson rightfully should now be looking for around the same.
You can't realistically think Hendrickson should take significantly less just because Garrett and Watt may have been overpaid for the risk.

If there's anyone to be mad at about the situation, it's the other teams giving out these really high contracts for DEs aged 29+.
If Bengals are ok with calling Hendrickson's bluff or even just fine letting him leave, that's on them to figure out how to replace his production.

(07-29-2025, 12:56 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: [ -> ]Garrett is a lot younger so yes he had some injury issues, but so did Munoz in college and it worked out. I think he is more deserving of a bigger guarantee than Trey. On Watt, that one is baffling to me. Watt seems to have some wear and tear issues now, with age I think he is a strong candidate for his perfomance to fall off even more so than Trey.

Garrett, Hendrickson and Watt are all within 15 months of each other in terms of age. Garrett is the youngest with a birthday of December 29, 1995, but Hendrickson is just over a year older than him, born December 5, 1994 and Watt is the senior of the three, but only about 2 months older than Hendrickson, born October 11, 1994.

After those two got their contracts, Hendrickson has every right to get almost as much, if not just as much, money as them considering statistical performance and age. Which is why the Bengals should have extended him last off season when he asked for it.

I personally think Garrett's contract was a bad idea. With a team as far away from contention as the Browns, they could have gotten multiple high picks from trading him and officially starting their rebuild in earnest.

The Bengals are in a different boat. We are a decent defense away from being one of the three best teams in the NFL. Hendrickson is infinitely more valuable to us than Garrett is to the Browns.

It's a shame it all had to happen this way. The Bengals consistently sign players 1 off season later than they should, and it always costs them a ton of money. Imagine the contracts that Higgins would have accepted in the 2023 off season compared to what he signed. Imagine the contract that Chase would have accepted in the 2024 off season compared to what he signed. Now imagine the contract that Hendrickson would have accepted in the 2024 off season had the Bengals just signed him. The highest paid pass rusher 12 months ago was Nick Bosa, making 34 M AAV (5 yr, 170M). The next two below him were Josh Hines-Allen and Brian Burns, each making about 28M AAV. You could make the argument that Hendrickson wouldn't get Bosa money, but you could have probably sold him on a 29M or maybe 30M AAV contract.

Since then, 4 players have signed for 35.5, 35.6, 40 and 41M AAV (Crosby, Hunter, Garrett, Watt).

I don't know what we'll end up giving Hendrickson (who I do believe we'll eventually sign), but I doubt the AAV begins with a 2. I am now worried it will begin with a 4...

(07-29-2025, 12:46 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: [ -> ]
The latest on the Trey Hendrickson stand-off with #Bengals, and what’s next for Cincinnati if he stays away, on @GetUpESPN pic.twitter.com/HwGAkGzyzK
— Jeremy Fowler (@JFowlerESPN) July 29, 2025

This is not as bad to me as it sounds. I think the FO and Trey have agreed to the dollars in the deal, that in itself is a huge hurdle. I think if both sides compromise, then it gets done. I hope it gets done.

But let's say they can't get it done. Trey is paying the Bengals 50K a day to miss TC. That number goes to 950K a week if he misses a game. They could trade Trey and probably get at least a 2nd round pick for him minimum, maybe a 2nd and a 5th.

If they trade him, they get back 15.9 million in cap space + any fines which are already at 398K. The fines for missing TC and any games can't be waived. Right now available are Clowney and Smith who are not Trey, but are pass rushers who could be had for likely 8 million a year or maybe less. In the end, Trey would be helping the team pay for his replacement if they decided to add a vet if Trey is traded.

If Trey misses week 1, they could add the vet and not have to guarantee the salary so that is also a possibility.

Many think the FO has no options, but as I look at it, they have more and better options that Trey has sitting out, no guaranteed money in 2025 and amassing huge fines daily.

(07-29-2025, 01:23 PM)CJD Wrote: [ -> ]Garrett, Hendrickson and Watt are all within 15 months of each other in terms of age. Garrett is the youngest with a birthday of December 29, 1995, but Hendrickson is just over a year older than him, born December 5, 1994 and Watt is the senior of the three, but only about 2 months older than Hendrickson, born October 11, 1994.

After those two got their contracts, Hendrickson has every right to get almost as much, if not just as much, money as them considering statistical performance and age. Which is why the Bengals should have extended him last off season when he asked for it.

I personally think Garrett's contract was a bad idea. With a team as far away from contention as the Browns, they could have gotten multiple high picks from trading him and officially starting their rebuild in earnest.

The Bengals are in a different boat. We are a decent defense away from being one of the three best teams in the NFL. Hendrickson is infinitely more valuable to us than Garrett is to the Browns.

It's a shame it all had to happen this way. The Bengals consistently sign players 1 off season later than they should, and it always costs them a ton of money. Imagine the contracts that Higgins would have accepted in the 2023 off season compared to what he signed. Imagine the contract that Chase would have accepted in the 2024 off season compared to what he signed. Now imagine the contract that Hendrickson would have accepted in the 2024 off season had the Bengals just signed him. The highest paid pass rusher 12 months ago was Nick Bosa, making 34 M AAV (5 yr, 170M). The next two below him were Josh Hines-Allen and Brian Burns, each making about 28M AAV. You could make the argument that Hendrickson wouldn't get Bosa money, but you could have probably sold him on a 29M or maybe 30M AAV contract.

Since then, 4 players have signed for 35.5, 35.6, 40 and 41M AAV (Crosby, Hunter, Garrett, Watt).

I don't know what we'll end up giving Hendrickson (who I do believe we'll eventually sign), but I doubt the AAV begins with a 2. I am now worried it will begin with a 4...

I think you left something out. Trey has zero guaranteed money, not the case with Garrett as he had guaranteed money in 2025 and I think 2026 as well. I also don't like the use of Trey has a right. As of today, he has a right at playing in 2025 for 15.9 dollars, none of it guaranteed. I do thnk he has a right to ask and try and get a better deal, he has earned the right to ask based on his last 2 years of production.

(07-29-2025, 01:28 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: [ -> ]This is not as bad to me as it sounds. I think the FO and Trey have agreed to the dollars in the deal, that in itself is a huge hurdle. I think if both sides compromise, then it gets done. I hope it gets done.

But let's say they can't get it done. Trey is paying the Bengals 50K a day to miss TC. That number goes to 950K a week if he misses a game. They could trade Trey and probably get at least a 2nd round pick for him minimum, maybe a 2nd and a 5th.

If they trade him, they get back 15.9 million in cap space + any fines which are already at 398K. The fines for missing TC and any games can't be waived. Right now available are Clowney and Smith who are not Trey, but are pass rushers who could be had for likely 8 million a year or maybe less. In the end, Trey would be helping the team pay for his replacement if they decided to add a vet if Trey is traded.

If Trey misses week 1, they could add the vet and not have to guarantee the salary so that is also a possibility.

Many think the FO has no options, but as I look at it, they have more and better options that Trey has sitting out, no guaranteed money in 2025 and amassing huge fines daily.

I'm with you. This doesn't sound as bad as the ESPN guys were making it seem.

Someone mentioned it was over 6-10 million in guaranteed money. That's not a lot to me. They will compromise and get it done.

(07-29-2025, 01:32 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: [ -> ]I think you left something out. Trey has zero guaranteed money, not the case with Garrett as he had guaranteed money in 2025 and I think 2026 as well. I also don't like the use of Trey has a right. As of today, he has a right at playing in 2025 for 15.9 dollars, none of it guaranteed. I do thnk he has a right to ask and try and get a better deal, he has earned the right to ask based on his last 2 years of production.

That's fair. Allow me to rephrase to say, given their age and production, it is reasonable for Trey to believe his value lines up with Watt and Garrett.

(07-29-2025, 01:48 PM)CJD Wrote: [ -> ]That's fair. Allow me to rephrase to say, given their age and production, it is reasonable for Trey to believe his value lines up with Watt and Garrett.

I agree and hope they get a deal signed ASAP

(07-29-2025, 01:32 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: [ -> ]I think you left something out. Trey has zero guaranteed money, not the case with Garrett as he had guaranteed money in 2025 and I think 2026 as well. I also don't like the use of Trey has a right. As of today, he has a right at playing in 2025 for 15.9 dollars, none of it guaranteed. I do thnk he has a right to ask and try and get a better deal, he has earned the right to ask based on his last 2 years of production.

so
the issue i have , he started asking for a better contract year or so into his last deal, im sure if he had a bad 1st year after his contract, he would be unhappy if the bengals wanted to change his contract for less money ... he is under contract if he decides to sit out or play out his contract so be it if they can;t compromise on a new one.

(07-29-2025, 03:47 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: [ -> ]so
the issue i have , he started asking for a better contract year or so into his last deal, im sure if he had a bad 1st year after his contract, he would be unhappy if the bengals wanted to change his contract for less money ... he is under contract if he decides to sit out or play out his contract so be it if they can;t compromise on a new one.

I think the Bengals have options if he does not show up and misses game #1, they will have almost 3 million dollars saved from Trye fines to use on adding a vet edge rusher if they feel the combo of Ossai, Murphy, Stewart, Sample and Johnson is not strong enough without Trey

I want him signed, but I still think our defense is going to improve without him, but obviously bigger improvement with him

(07-29-2025, 10:44 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: [ -> ]Trey starting to pay MB and the Bengals to sit in Florida. Fine will increase to 950,000 per game once season starts if he fails to report.

Mandtory camp missed = 98K
Day 1 TC = 50K (mandatory and can't be waived by team) Money also goes back into Bengals 2025 cap space
Day 2 TC = 50K (mandatory and can't be waived by team) Money also goes back into Bengals 2025 cap space
Day 3 TC = 50K (mandatory and can't be waived by team) Money also goes back into Bengals 2025 cap space
Day 4 TC = 50K (mandatory and can't be waived by team) Money also goes back into Bengals 2025 cap space
Day 5 TC = 50K (mandatory and can't be waived by team) Money also goes back into Bengals 2025 cap space
Day 6 TC = 50K (mandatory and can't be waived by team) Money also goes back into Bengals 2025 cap space

Total - 398K

Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise

WeezyBengal

THE PISTONS

Nepa

ochocincos

Soonerpeace

Sled21

Luvnit2

Nepa

Nicomo Cosca

Luvnit2

ochocincos

CJD

Luvnit2

Luvnit2

WeezyBengal

CJD

Luvnit2

Essex Johnson

Luvnit2

rfaulk34