(02-24-2022, 04:30 PM)Au165 Wrote: That’s because PFF bends the truth on their every player every play claim, especially when it comes to coverage, but also is loose at times at who is qualified to grade things. When I talk to really smart football minds it’s people who’ve been tied to the NFL who watch a lot of tape from a team perspective. I think PFF is a great place for advanced stats but grades you must be VERY VERY careful with. I once talked to a scout who told a story about their grades on a player in a game who was graded really high by PFF was trash because he wasn’t doing what they asked him to do and he fluked into a couple plays because the QB made some dumb decisions.

When people say every team uses PFF it’s a bit misleading, every team uses their advanced stats basically none of them use their grades that fans like to quote.

Thing is, last year PFF was one of the only outlets drumming up Bates as an elite S.  I mean, he was only voted the 7th best S by his peers in the NFL 100.  I don't disagree that their methods for player grades are flawed, but that same method touted him as a football god last year and one of the worst players at his position this year.  If you look at other sources like PFR's Passer Rating Allowed When Targeted or even just his raw stats, every data point you can find indicates that his play dropped off sharply this year.  With any rating or statistic generated by human perception, there will be some margin for error.  Sometimes, that will work against a player, other times it will play to his advantage, but it will typically balance out given a large enough sample size.  

The other reality is that without that PFF rating from last year, he isn't 2nd team All Pro.  How many Bengals games do we really think the writers that voted watched?  It's not like Bates is a flashy highlight machine like Troy Polamalu or putting up crazy interception stats.  In regards to his contract leverage, he has to take the bad with the good from PFF.

Apart from all that, anybody with eyes could tell the Jessie Bates we got in the playoffs was a far cry from the one we got in the regular season.  It's very obvious he tanked it during the regular season.

(02-24-2022, 07:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You tell me I'm talking about two totally different situations but you compare resigning Iloka and Williams to resigning Bates and Bell? Bates will command more than the combined salaries we gave Iloka and Williams.

This is what happens when talks come to re-signing players. You're not willing to re-sign a player before you even know what he's demanding? You don't like him. 

I've said I have 0 problem with signing Williams, but I'd prefer to keep Bell over him. In his short time here he's proved to be the equal player and superior leader to Bates...But I'm sure JuJu Smith-Schuster would prefer we keep Bates instead of Bell in the AFC North

That was 6 years ago things have changed since then. Comparing  salaries from then to now is just plain silly. 

Bates and Bell are the best safety  tandem bin the league  their is zero reason to break them up. I think  both should  get major extensions this season.

(02-25-2022, 12:08 AM)J24 Wrote: That was 6 years ago things have changed since then. Comparing  salaries from then to now is just plain silly. 

Bates and Bell are the best safety  tandem bin the league  their is zero reason to break them up. I think  both should  get major extensions this season.

Okey Dokey. You think signing Iloka and Williams is the same as signing Bell and Bates and I don't. 

(02-24-2022, 10:27 PM)Whatever Wrote: Thing is, last year PFF was one of the only outlets drumming up Bates as an elite S. 

How can that be the case, he was selected to the All-Pro team.

(02-25-2022, 09:10 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: How can that be the case, he was selected to the All-Pro team.

That was addressed in the rest of the post.

(02-25-2022, 09:10 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: How can that be the case, he was selected to the All-Pro team.

*2nd AP team. PFF's 1st team.
Fitzpatrick, Mathieu, and Baker were voted 1st AP team.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2020/allpro.htm

(02-25-2022, 11:03 AM)Whatever Wrote: That was addressed in the rest of the post.

Yes, the rest of the post where you lead up to accusing the man of "tanking".  You say that only PFF gave him any rating, but PFF doesn't select the All-Pro team, sports writers from the entire country do, so obviously many more people that just those at PFF thought very highly of Jessie Bates play.

If you have some sort of bias against Jessie Bates, that's fine by me, but no need to go making stuff up to support a point that isn't even true.

I wish we had some realistic idea what Bates and his agent are wanting. Are they pushing for an Adams level (or more) type deal, or is he willing to take a Baker range deal? That makes a huge difference in terms of getting a new deal done. 

(02-25-2022, 12:41 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: I wish we had some realistic idea what Bates and his agent are wanting. Are they pushing for an Adams level (or more) type deal, or is he willing to take a Baker range deal? That makes a huge difference in terms of getting a new deal done. 

Like always with the Bengals, I’m guessing the issue is the guaranteed money.

(02-25-2022, 12:41 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: I wish we had some realistic idea what Bates and his agent are wanting. Are they pushing for an Adams level (or more) type deal, or is he willing to take a Baker range deal? That makes a huge difference in terms of getting a new deal done. 

Reality is Bates is right there with both Adams and Baker in terms of production.
Bates is a better coverage safety than both Adams and Baker, putting up more PDs and INTs than either guy the past 4 years.
Adams and Baker actually attack the LOS more though, so they get more tackles, sacks, and TFLs.
Bates could probably make an argument that he would too if he were used like that.

Baker signed a 4-year, $59 mill deal. $14.75 mill APY
Adams signed a 4-year, $70 mill deal. $17.5 mill APY

At the end of the day, I see Bates being justifiably in the $15-17 mill range.
So it's probably in the Bengals' best interest to tag him this year ($12.9 mill) to save a bit of $$.

I would post the link to where I saw this if I remembered where it was I saw it. It was a day or two ago but i recall seeing 5 years for 70 mil is what he was seeking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(02-25-2022, 04:01 PM)BenZoo2 Wrote: I would post the link to where I saw this if I remembered where it was I saw it. It was a day or two ago but i recall seeing 5 years for 70 mil is what he was seeking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I saw the same thing. If that’s what they’re looking for, I imagine that we eventually get something done, and they’ll just be working out the final details.

That’s only a bit above what the franchise tag for him would be.

(02-25-2022, 11:49 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yes, the rest of the post where you lead up to accusing the man of "tanking".  You say that only PFF gave him any rating, but PFF doesn't select the All-Pro team, sports writers from the entire country do, so obviously many more people that just those at PFF thought very highly of Jessie Bates play.

If you have some sort of bias against Jessie Bates, that's fine by me, but no need to go making stuff up to support a point that isn't even true.

I never said that PFF was the only outlet pimping him.  I said they were one of the only outlets pimping him.  If you want to play "gotcha" games, that's fine, but you have to respond to what the other person actually said.

Bates himself has all but admitted he tanked the season.  If you need more proof than the man's own words, watch him in the playoffs vs the regular season.  Is anyone seriously going to argue that he gave his best effort in the regular season?  

I don't know Bates at all.  I have nothing for or against him on a personal level.  I'm not a fan of paying top market value for safeties because of their relative ease of replacement.  That said, if Bates played in '21 like he did in '20, his contract demands would be justified and I wouldn't have an issue paying him at an elite level.  He didn't, but he still wants to be paid at an elite level.  

(02-25-2022, 07:11 PM)Whatever Wrote: I never said that PFF was the only outlet pimping him.  I said they were one of the only outlets pimping him.  If you want to play "gotcha" games, that's fine, but you have to respond to what the other person actually said.

Bates himself has all but admitted he tanked the season.  If you need more proof than the man's own words, watch him in the playoffs vs the regular season.  Is anyone seriously going to argue that he gave his best effort in the regular season?  

I don't know Bates at all.  I have nothing for or against him on a personal level.  I'm not a fan of paying top market value for safeties because of their relative ease of replacement.  That said, if Bates played in '21 like he did in '20, his contract demands would be justified and I wouldn't have an issue paying him at an elite level.  He didn't, but he still wants to be paid at an elite level.  

He didn't though.
He said that the contract situation distracted him.
The term "tank" implies intentionally dropping performance.
He didn't intentionally do it, he just lost focus because of the contract situation, and it affected his play.

(02-25-2022, 07:11 PM)Whatever Wrote: I never said that PFF was the only outlet pimping him.  I said they were one of the only outlets pimping him.  If you want to play "gotcha" games, that's fine, but you have to respond to what the other person actually said.

Bates himself has all but admitted he tanked the season.  If you need more proof than the man's own words, watch him in the playoffs vs the regular season.  Is anyone seriously going to argue that he gave his best effort in the regular season?  

I don't know Bates at all.  I have nothing for or against him on a personal level.  I'm not a fan of paying top market value for safeties because of their relative ease of replacement.  That said, if Bates played in '21 like he did in '20, his contract demands would be justified and I wouldn't have an issue paying him at an elite level.  He didn't, but he still wants to be paid at an elite level.  

Quote:Thing is, last year PFF was one of the only outlets drumming up Bates as an elite S. 

If that sentence isn't implying that PFF was the only major source rating Bates highly, I don't know what is.  All I did was simply point out that the All-Pro team is selected by sports writers from across the entire Nation, and not PFF.

Now, you're still clinging to the idea that somehow an elite player, in a contract season, somehow went out there and purposely tried to make the team lose, even going so far as to say that he even said it with his own mouth??  I'm going to cut you some slack, as I don't think that the word "tanked" means what you think it means.

(02-25-2022, 07:22 PM)ochocincos Wrote: He didn't though.
He said that the contract situation distracted him.
The term "tank" implies intentionally dropping performance.
He didn't intentionally do it, he just lost focus because of the contract situation, and it affected his play.

If a movie, stock, etc., "tanked" it doesn't mean it failed deliberately, just that it failed.  I think people are getting hung up on a word that can be used a variety of different ways simply because it's been a buzzword with Flores recently in a different context.  I don't think Bates intentionally tried to sabotage the team, but he played poorly and did not put forth his efforts by his own admission.

(02-25-2022, 08:00 PM)Whatever Wrote: If a movie, stock, etc., "tanked" it doesn't mean it failed deliberately, just that it failed.  I think people are getting hung up on a word that can be used a variety of different ways simply because it's been a buzzword with Flores recently in a different context.  I don't think Bates intentionally tried to sabotage the team, but he played poorly and did not put forth his efforts by his own admission.

Quote:tank
 verb

tanked; tanking; tanks
Definition of tank (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb
1: to make no effort to win : lose intentionallytanked the match

2: to place, store, or treat in a tank

intransitive verb
1: to lose intentionally : give up in competition

2: to suffer rapid decline, failure, or collapsebought a stock that quickly tanked

Updating this since the tag deadline is TOMORROW 3/8 AT 4:00 PM EST

Here is a continually updated list of players tagged.
https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/packers-free-agency-2022/2022/3/7/22965483/2022-nfl-franchise-tags-tracking-the-decisions-ahead-of-march-8-deadline-davante-adams

The absolute SHIT STORM we will see if Bates isn't at least tagged by tomorrow.

(03-07-2022, 02:35 PM)Bengalpool Wrote: The absolute SHIT STORM we will see if Bates isn't at least tagged by tomorrow.

I was told this weekend the tag is coming but they are going to negotiate up until the last minute, or until talks completely break down, to negotiated.