I'd bring him in for a workout.
Sure, he would be a boost to the defense, but would he cost too much? If I were a guessing man, I'd say the reason he was released from Cleveland was to open up cap space, as he was on a 5 year/40M deal.
Dansby should talk him in to coming here for cheap.
2.5 sacks is still 1.0 more sacks than Hunt has put up in 3 years. Lol
If we could get him for the vet minimum we would probably try. Im guessing he will find more.
(08-29-2016, 06:23 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: [ -> ]If we could get him for the vet minimum we would probably try. Im guessing he will find more.
A guy used to making 8M isn't signing with anyone for the vet minimum..
We need an edge rusher that can come in as a situational pass rusher. Would be all for this!!!
PFT reporting that he will be visiting the Saints and Chiefs today. I thought the Saints were in a pretty tough cap situation, but I could be wrong.
(08-29-2016, 11:26 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: [ -> ]Sure, he would be a boost to the defense, but would he cost too much? If I were a guessing man, I'd say the reason he was released from Cleveland was to open up cap space, as he was on a 5 year/40M deal.
who is Cleveland saving cap space for?
(08-30-2016, 10:25 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: [ -> ]who is Cleveland saving cap space for?
They're clearing out space for something, that's for sure. Mingo, and now Krueger? After letting Dansby walk to us, those are wholesale changes to what was a pretty good defense.
(08-30-2016, 10:32 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: [ -> ]those are wholesale changes to what was a pretty good defense.
Browns defense was horrible last year. 29th in scoring and 27th in yards.
(08-30-2016, 10:39 AM)fredtoast Wrote: [ -> ]Browns defense was horrible last year. 29th in scoring and 27th in yards.
Those numbers don't lie. However, do you think that is a result of the quality of players on that defense, or more a result of being on the field all the time, because of an impotent offense?
(08-30-2016, 10:44 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: [ -> ]Those numbers don't lie. However, do you think that is a result of the quality of players on that defense, or more a result of being on the field all the time, because of an impotent offense?
because the offense couldn't stay on the field makes it tough for a defense.
(08-29-2016, 04:53 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: [ -> ]2.5 sacks is still 1.0 more sacks than Hunt has put up in 3 years. Lol
LOL, the pathetic numbers from Hunt still surprise me. I don't know why but they do.
I keep thinking the coaches must still see something in Hunt to have kept him around this long, I just can't quite see what it is that they see though.
(08-31-2016, 11:25 AM)BengalChris Wrote: [ -> ]LOL, the pathetic numbers from Hunt still surprise me. I don't know why but they do.
I keep thinking the coaches must still see something in Hunt to have kept him around this long, I just can't quite see what it is that they see though.
I would guess a lot of Hunts limit snaps didn't come in passing situations we got other guys for that