(01-24-2022, 11:37 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Shrodinger's Waynes?

Yes... he exists yet is simultaneously non-existent.

(01-24-2022, 11:55 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Apple has done more than enough for them to bring him back. This season would have been totally lost if not for him stepping up like did from right around the bye on.

He basically forced the team to keep a CB making 15 million dollars a year on the bench.

Isn't it also fair to say that the season would have been perfectly fine if he wasn't playing like such hot trash prior to the bye? (AKA, the majority of the regular season.) They had 3 games before the bye they lost by 3 points each, which you can't help but wonder if a guy who wasn't playing like the worst CB in the league was there, would it have been a W instead?

I'm pretty sure Waynes is on the bench because he's not good. He got the start Week 15 when he came back and put up a 47.4 PFF grade. His making $15m/yr has about as much to do with his ability as it did when Fred would bring up the FA contract the Cowboys gave to Nate Livings.

I guess I am trying to say... if you hit .200 for half of the season, and .270 for the other half of the season, you're not a .270 hitter... you're a .235 hitter, which just means you're a bad hitter that had a good stretch of play.

(01-24-2022, 10:46 PM)PAjwPhilly Wrote: We have Trae Waynes on the roster... so there still is another CB

Who do we have at OT... Prince.

Trae Waynes > Isaiah Prince

Therefore Reiff fills a bigger gap over Apple to Waynes

Not sure I understand this.    But cut Waynes n we have lots more money to spend  .   Reiff is hurt   I'll pass on him n every other Viking from now on   

(01-25-2022, 12:31 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Isn't it also fair to say that the season would have been perfectly fine if he wasn't playing like such hot trash prior to the bye? (AKA, the majority of the regular season.) They had 3 games before the bye they lost by 3 points each, which you can't help but wonder if a guy who wasn't playing like the worst CB in the league was there, would it have been a W instead?

I'm pretty sure Waynes is on the bench because he's not good. He got the start Week 15 when he came back and put up a 47.4 PFF grade. His making $15m/yr has about as much to do with his ability as it did when Fred would bring up the FA contract the Cowboys gave to Nate Livings.

I guess I am trying to say... if you hit .200 for half of the season, and .270 for the other half of the season, you're not a .270 hitter... you're a .235 hitter, which just means you're a bad hitter that had a good stretch of play.

He was our 4/5th CB when the season started. We had no one better. Just joined a new team and quickly found himself as a starter. I think it’s very reasonable for a guy in that situation to take some time to get comfortable in the defense, comfortable with the other starters, with the coaches, etc. players can improve. Would not be the first time a DB turned their career around in Cincy.

This isn’t Todd Frazier being amazing until the all star break every year and then turning into a scrub down the stretch. It’s a guy who’s been here one season, was viewed as a total bust coming in, then turning his career around as the year went on.

I’d also say your comparison doesn’t really work well in this case. Hitters in baseball are often very streaky. Defenders in football don’t show the same inconsistencies. They may have a bad game here or there, play injured, end up in the wrong system and struggle or get beat by a WR who’s just hands down better (Chase/Jefferson/Lamb/etc), but we really don’t see the wild swings over extended periods of time very often that would support your comparison in the NFL.

(01-25-2022, 12:31 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Isn't it also fair to say that the season would have been perfectly fine if he wasn't playing like such hot trash prior to the bye? (AKA, the majority of the regular season.) They had 3 games before the bye they lost by 3 points each, which you can't help but wonder if a guy who wasn't playing like the worst CB in the league was there, would it have been a W instead?

I'm pretty sure Waynes is on the bench because he's not good. He got the start Week 15 when he came back and put up a 47.4 PFF grade. His making $15m/yr has about as much to do with his ability as it did when Fred would bring up the FA contract the Cowboys gave to Nate Livings.

I guess I am trying to say... if you hit .200 for half of the season, and .270 for the other half of the season, you're not a .270 hitter... you're a .235 hitter, which just means you're a bad hitter that had a good stretch of play.

Did you vote or just share your opine? 

Just get a new right tackle in the draft or FA.. Apple is staying...

(01-25-2022, 12:31 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Isn't it also fair to say that the season would have been perfectly fine if he wasn't playing like such hot trash prior to the bye? (AKA, the majority of the regular season.) They had 3 games before the bye they lost by 3 points each, which you can't help but wonder if a guy who wasn't playing like the worst CB in the league was there, would it have been a W instead?

I'm pretty sure Waynes is on the bench because he's not good. He got the start Week 15 when he came back and put up a 47.4 PFF grade. His making $15m/yr has about as much to do with his ability as it did when Fred would bring up the FA contract the Cowboys gave to Nate Livings.

I guess I am trying to say... if you hit .200 for half of the season, and .270 for the other half of the season, you're not a .270 hitter... you're a .235 hitter, which just means you're a bad hitter that had a good stretch of play.

What have you done for me lately. And lately Eli Apple has been playing really well.

(01-25-2022, 01:06 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Did you vote or just share your opine? 

No, because you don't have a neither option.

(01-25-2022, 01:15 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: What have you done for me lately. And lately Eli Apple has been playing really well.

Sure, but if you pay him in FA like he is the second half of the season guy, very high chance you regret it.

(01-25-2022, 01:46 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: No, because you don't have a neither option.

Got it. Not everyone understands how "pick one" works. 

Apple on a 1 year deal to keep him motivated.

He was playing like trash until we brought in Hargreaves and Zac started talking like we were gonna get Vernon ready, then he'd have a chance to start.

Suddenly, Apple started playing at a borderline pro-bowl level. It was night and day. For that reason, I wouldn't trust him on a long deal.

As for Riley, we can do better.

(01-25-2022, 01:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Got it. Not everyone understands how "pick one" works. 

Not everyone wants to choose the lesser of two bad choices.

(01-25-2022, 01:54 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not everyone wants to choose the lesser of two bad choices.

Exactly. As I said: Not everyone understand the concept of "pick one". 

(01-25-2022, 12:31 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Isn't it also fair to say that the season would have been perfectly fine if he wasn't playing like such hot trash prior to the bye? (AKA, the majority of the regular season.) They had 3 games before the bye they lost by 3 points each, which you can't help but wonder if a guy who wasn't playing like the worst CB in the league was there, would it have been a W instead?

I'm pretty sure Waynes is on the bench because he's not good. He got the start Week 15 when he came back and put up a 47.4 PFF grade. His making $15m/yr has about as much to do with his ability as it did when Fred would bring up the FA contract the Cowboys gave to Nate Livings.

I guess I am trying to say... if you hit .200 for half of the season, and .270 for the other half of the season, you're not a .270 hitter... you're a .235 hitter, which just means you're a bad hitter that had a good stretch of play.

Or you could be a good hitter that got off to a rough start?

(01-25-2022, 05:59 AM)SladeX Wrote: Or you could be a good hitter that got off to a rough start?

Not after you have been a .235 hitter for the previous 6 years of your career.

Just saying don't buy on the peak when it has been nothing but a 6.5 year dip prior.

(01-25-2022, 01:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Exactly. As I said: Not everyone understand the concept of "pick one". 

Yes, but the thread title states that you get to re-sign one, not you have to re-sign one.

(01-24-2022, 10:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Mikey here again. A couple months back I asked you if I could only sign either Q. Spain or Larry O. who do I sign. You guys chose Q.

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-You-get-to-Re-Sign-One

Now I need your help again. I gotta pick between Eli Apple and Riley Reiff. So who you got?

Apple all day. Apple is former first rounder who is ascending on our team in our system at a young age. Reiff was better than Bobby hart when he was in. Gimme Apple

(01-24-2022, 11:11 PM)BengalsRocker Wrote: He exists on the roster.  Just not on the field.

Soooooooooooo

(01-25-2022, 01:54 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not everyone wants to choose the lesser of two bad choices.

Yep.

It's worth noting ESPN doesn't have Apple in their top 50 FAs or even in their honorable mentions section.  We shouldn't be content with Apple and we should be hoping we upgrade this offseason.  This isn't necessarily me hating on him but more emphasizing we should be realistic and recognize he's been filling a gap.  He's not a long term solution.  

https://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/story/_/id/33133108/top-nfl-free-agents-2022-ranking-best-50-players-potentially-market-offseason

I voted for the guy who isn't a tool.

(01-24-2022, 11:36 PM)Murdock2420 Wrote: Continue to be hurt.

3 straight seasons for him now with missed time due to injury.

Yeah, wouldn't mind seeing Reiff back as a swing T, but we need a long term answer.