(03-09-2022, 12:35 PM)Au165 Wrote: I’m actually not commenting on the decision but rather the reasoning. Lawson was offered the same contract Hendrickson accepted here and eventually accepted the same contract with more guarantees in NY. Hence me saying that cap isn’t the issue but rather the guarantees we tend to not give out.

Point being is sometimes works in our favor not getting someone we want and sometimes it doesn’t but the structure is the limiting factor in most cases not top line cap numbers.

Lawson had injuries in 2 of his 4 years here. Then missed the year with the Jets. And in college, injuries were a knock on him. As a Bengal, he had over 5.5 sacks once in 4 years.

(03-09-2022, 12:17 PM)SladeX Wrote: I’m ok with TB being gone ONLY if it means we get top notch OL help. Mentioned this at the start of the off season. I’m not convinced this has to happen in order to robustly address the OL, but what I Don’t want to hear is that retaining TB prevented us from getting (insert your stud FA OL here).
I’m not holding his postseason play against him, there’s no need in order to support the argument. But when it comes to addressing the OL, it’s all hands on deck time. Has to happen, one way or another. If that way involves letting TB go, so be it.

I dont disagree and my shitting on Boyd's play in the SB is in response to the argument he is so reliable and a vet, etc. The SB is the true test, thats not when a player runs the wrong route and drops balls - of course Boyd is talented and in my opinion he is over qualified for that spot as it is priority 4 in our offense? He is expensive and has more value right now to other teams.

But he is going no where so its just hypothetical.  But if a team is very serious about going to the SB and has a real need like we do with the oline, with very few but expensive options, we need to take a very serious look at every single spot that is overpaid and make difficult decisions.

We have 1 decent affordable option at RT tackle in T Brown. Tunsil trade may not be realistic but the absolute best. Armstead will be expensive and guaranteed dollars will be high.  We will have to outbid several teams for Jensen or Bozeman at center.  Will we value the guard spot enough to pay for one?

Not to mention we have zero 3-T DT's on the roster, missing a CB and TE as well.  Any spot we overpay for a less priority position impacts higher priorities.  

We agree Oline > WR3, but do we? For every spot? I do. 

What about CB1 or CB2 > WR3?  I do. I think a solid starting CB is more valuable than WR3.

TE is more subjective based upon one's idea of the offense.

(03-09-2022, 01:06 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Lawson had injuries in 2 of his 4 years here. Then missed the year with the Jets. And in college, injuries were a knock on him. As a Bengal, he had over 5.5 sacks once in 4 years.

What’s your point? Hendrickson accepted the same offer we tried to give him, Lawson accepted the same cap number with more guarantees. The context of all my comments have been that we aren’t limited by cap we are limited by our aversion to large guarantees. As a whole, we offer less guarantees across the board beyond year one than nearly any team in the league.

I’m literally not even arguing anything in regards to Lawson, it was just one example about how we are competitive in the top line cap hit number everyone references but fall short in guarantees. As we keep acting like we need to have cap to sign all the OL, they keep missing the real reason we will fall below what people are expecting.

(03-09-2022, 01:34 PM)Au165 Wrote: What’s your point? Hendrickson accepted the same offer we tried to give him, Lawson accepted the same cap number with more guarantees. The context of all my comments have been that we aren’t limited by cap we are limited by our aversion to large guarantees. As a whole, we offer less guarantees across the board beyond year one than nearly any team in the league.

I’m literally not even arguing anything in regards to Lawson, it was just one example about how we are competitive in the top line cap hit number everyone references but fall short in guarantees. As we keep acting like we need to have cap to sign all the OL, they keep missing the real reason we will fall below what people are expecting.

This is very accurate.

That said the cap space is not endless and with some of our key targets headed towards bidding wars, having as much space as possible always helps.


But no doubt the guaranteed aspect kills way more deals for us than annual salary.

(03-09-2022, 01:34 PM)Au165 Wrote: What’s your point? Hendrickson accepted the same offer we tried to give him, he accepted the same cap number with more guarantees. The context of all my comments have been that we aren’t limited by cap we are limited by our aversion to large guarantees. As a whole, we offer less guarantees across the board beyond year one than nearly any team in the league.

I’m literally not even arguing anything in regards to Lawson, it was just one example about how we are competitive in the top line cap hit number everyone references but fall short in guarantees. As we keep acting like we need to have cap to sign all the OL, they keep missing the real reason we will fall below what people are expecting.

Lawson is really the main example of the Bengals losing out on a player over guarantees.  There are a lot more high profile examples of them losing out over APY, like Whit, Zeitler, and Thuney.  

It's been pointed out before by former players that despite the Bengals not handing out a ton of guaranteed money, most players make more money in the long haul due to the team managing the cap well and it's reluctance to cut veterans who may be underperforming a bit.  However, if you're as injury prone as Lawson was, I can see why you'd want a ton of money guaranteed at signing.

(03-09-2022, 12:00 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Boyd averaged 28 yds a game in the playoffs and 4 receptions a gm this year there are many who could match those numbers but he is a good player.

By the end of the season Joe didnt have any time for check downs and to look for other WRs, this was pretty obvious to even nonfootball fans. Hopefully that changes this season as one of his attributes is finding the open receiver and making he right decision.

Name one 2021 rookie WR who did better in the playoffs not named Ja’marr Chase. It’s a short list: no one.

Name the 2021 rookie WRs who matched or exceeded Boyd’s regular season stats. It’s a little longer: Ja’marr Chase, Jaylen Waddle, Devonta Smith, and Amon-Ra St. Brown. Only one was drafted outside of the Top 10.

Including playoffs, Boyd had 82 receptions and 1 drop. Or he dropped 1.2% of passes that hit his hands. If the ball hits a receiver’s hands only one of two outcomes are going to happen; he’ll catch it or drop it. Kinda like a coin toss. Heads or tails. 50/50. Boyd had 81 consecutive receptions before his only drop. The odds of flipping a coin and getting 82 consecutive heads before the first tails is 1 in 4.8 septillion. I didn’t even know what a number with 24 zeros was called. Had to look it up. And that coin wasn’t being covered by an NFL DB like Boyd.

I don’t think the team should cut a starter because you want to ignore 81% of last year’s sample size due to conformational bias to support a predetermined outcome.

(03-09-2022, 01:52 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Name one 2021 rookie WR who did better in the playoffs not named Ja’marr Chase. It’s a short list: no one.

Name the 2021 rookie WRs who matched or exceeded Boyd’s regular season stats. It’s a little longer: Ja’marr Chase, Jaylen Waddle, Devonta Smith, and Amon-Ra St. Brown. Only one was drafted outside of the Top 10.

Including playoffs, Boyd had 82 receptions and 1 drop. Or he dropped 1.2% of passes that hit his hands. If the ball hits a receiver’s hands only one of two outcomes are going to happen; he’ll catch it or drop it. Kinda like a coin toss. Heads or tails. 50/50. Boyd had 81 consecutive receptions before his only drop. The odds of flipping a coin and getting 82 consecutive heads before the first tails is 1 in 4.8 septillion. I didn’t even know what a number with 24 zeros was called. Had to look it up. And that coin wasn’t being covered by an NFL DB like Boyd.

I don’t think the team should cut a starter because you want to ignore 81% of last year’s sample size due to conformational bias to support a predetermined outcome.

I think you are still not understanding my point.  It is all about improving the oline so the other pieces are better.

1)  A $10M RG and Trent Taylor at slot most likely wins us that Super Bowl.  (This should be enough)

2)  Boyd is very talented, over-qualified for the value of his position in this offense.  (Having Von Miller at edge would be great but if he is the 3rd option and we still have a shitty oline why sign him?)

3) Boyd will never be as valuable as he is today with his production this season and TWO years on his contract.  So max value is now.

4) Our oline targets prices are rising fast due to the limited numbers, an extra 10M is huge to sign add 3M more to 3 different guys potential contracts or 4 to two, whatever.  This gets us top tier linemen.  (Going by salary not guaranteed $ aspects)

5) We can draft an electric slot guy that runs way faster than Boyd and is a danger each time he touches the ball, for $9M less, and we may lose the sure hands of Boyd during the season (not the SB).

6)  I believe that in order to be annual contenders we must be very focused on paying selective priority positions to get the best players in those positions.  QB, Oline, WR1, WR2



The only legitimate argument that I have seen is Boyd being the best insurance policy if we lose Chase or Higgins.  But Von Miller would be a hell of an insurance policy if we lost Hubbard or Hendrickson and we dont want him.

It is not happening, so not sure how long you want to. keep up this hypothetical argument?  Unless you just enjoy the debate which is fine with me, I can get you to come around.

(03-09-2022, 01:50 PM)Whatever Wrote: Lawson is really the main example of the Bengals losing out on a player over guarantees.  There are a lot more high profile examples of them losing out over APY, like Whit, Zeitler, and Thuney.  

It's been pointed out before by former players that despite the Bengals not handing out a ton of guaranteed money, most players make more money in the long haul due to the team managing the cap well and it's reluctance to cut veterans who may be underperforming a bit.  However, if you're as injury prone as Lawson was, I can see why you'd want a ton of money guaranteed at signing.

There are actually a lot of examples of them from FA's that refused to come here because of it but it's not usually publicized because they simply sign somewhere else and move on. Agents steer their clients away because of this approach in a lot of cases. It was literally just brought up by agents this past weekend at the combine, players want to come here but agents are skeptical of the Bengals contract structure. 

As to saying you get why for a guy like Lawson...it literally was the same deal Trey took with no injury concerns. Point is, this is how we do deals and it is WELL known around the league. Now that isn't saying Burrow and this team can't overcome that issue and be a destination but this is not a one off issue.

(03-09-2022, 01:14 PM)casear2727 Wrote: I dont disagree and my shitting on Boyd's play in the SB is in response to the argument he is so reliable and a vet, etc. The SB is the true test, thats not when a player runs the wrong route and drops balls - of course Boyd is talented and in my opinion he is over qualified for that spot as it is priority 4 in our offense? He is expensive and has more value right now to other teams.

But he is going no where so its just hypothetical.  But if a team is very serious about going to the SB and has a real need like we do with the oline, with very few but expensive options, we need to take a very serious look at every single spot that is overpaid and make difficult decisions.

We have 1 decent affordable option at RT tackle in T Brown. Tunsil trade may not be realistic but the absolute best. Armstead will be expensive and guaranteed dollars will be high.  We will have to outbid several teams for Jensen or Bozeman at center.  Will we value the guard spot enough to pay for one?

Not to mention we have zero 3-T DT's on the roster, missing a CB and TE as well.  Any spot we overpay for a less priority position impacts higher priorities.  

We agree Oline > WR3, but do we? For every spot? I do. 

What about CB1 or CB2 > WR3?  I do. I think a solid starting CB is more valuable than WR3.

TE is more subjective based upon one's idea of the offense.

I am myopically indifferent to addressing any other position group than the OL.

(03-09-2022, 02:31 PM)SladeX Wrote: I am myopically indifferent to addressing any other position group than the OL.

I dont disagree, but CB and DT are real holes, I may start a post on the DT issue no one is discussing.

"I was trying to be realistic with our current situation of Boyd already tagged and no other safeties on the roster"


Uh, does the name Vonn Bell ring any bells? The other staring safety? Brandon Wilson and Trayvon Henderson are depth pieces that are under contract that could be upgraded.  So three safeties on the roster. And I suggested tagging and trading (if possible) Bates then drafting his replacement with a high round pick. Not a late round pick WR to replace a starter.

"Whoever, just dont trutst a rookie to be the man his 1st season"

Don't count on a rookie his first season, except for a starting WR with a late round rookie WR instead of a first round rookie safety? Like Jesse Bates during his rookie season? Can you imagine the Bengals starting a rookie FS? Well, since Jesse Bates in 2018, I can't. I don't need to imagine it because it actually happened.

"We need both but since we have oline on the roster, we are definitely signing oline and you are cutting Bates there may be more pressure on the Safety spot."


We do need both.  You listed Oline as a more important priority than a FS and that is because they protect the franchise QB and open holes (hopefully) for Mixon.


Bates has had one great season, one good season, and two meh seasons.  That doesn't make him elite.  That makes him inconsistent and just as likely to deliver a meh season as a great season.


So protecting the franchise QB and improving the run game takes priority over a inconsistent, disgruntled FS who you admit will be overpaid. Plus, I planned on addressing both.  The Oline with free agents.  FS with a high draft pick. Since Top 5 FA IOL generally cost less than Top 5 FA S the plan also saves cap space (and possible cash.)


"I dont disagree thats why  I was ok keeping Bates at a reasonable price."


A long term deal for Bates will mostly likely be 4yrs/$60M.  That's not reasonable.  Paying a one year rental $12M instead of applying the money to a long term solution at another position (Oline) is a poor investment.


"WR3 doesnt take much when the vast majority of passes are going to Chase and Higgins. Again I think we win the Super Bowl with Trent Taylor at the slot and a 10M RG instead of Boyd.  I never said rely on an olineman I am simply dealing with reality as to how the Bengals have always operated. We may get 2 oline free agents, who they end up signing will result in most likely 2 spots to be filled by on roster guys & rookies."


That's ignoring 81% of Boyd's 2021 sample size. My idea addresses the Oline.  Specifically mentioned RG. 


What's the reality of how the Bengals operated during the last two seasons?  Are they an outlier like Bates' one great year. Or are they the new norm? I'd say the sample size is too small to determine.


"You really dont want to over pay Bates and I agree the OP made a suggestion regarding Boyd and you took this thing down a billion paths because of Bates.  While in reality Bates will be here and so will Boyd.  It was a hypothetical."


I suggested tagging and trading Bates to improve the Oline and save money overall.  Then you dragged the argument in about how Bates is worth more because of crappy CBs. Again, that is false.  The CBs are still more valuable than a FS.  If you have crappy CBs, release Waynes, don't tag Bates and those two moves frees up $22-23M for a top tier CB.  But, don't claim you have to overpay a FS because the CBs suck when you can prioritize the CBs over the FS.


I don't even want to talk about this again because you opened this can of worms, not me.

(03-09-2022, 02:34 PM)casear2727 Wrote: I dont disagree, but CB and DT are real holes, I may start a post on the DT issue no one is discussing.

Yeah, no one is discussing it.

(03-09-2022, 03:43 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I do want to spend a 1st or a 2nd to replace Bates whom I don’t want to over pay. Because I’d rather have a rookie FS than a rookie Olineman. And I don’t want to draft a WR high, either. Because after getting a FS I’d rather draft a 3T to improve the interior pass rush. Rather than replace a WR that outperformed 97% of the WRs drafted after the Top 10. Because it will be easier to replace Bates in the 1st round during this years draft than replace Boyd with a late round pick.

I don't think the value for Tyler Boyd is there now.... 2 years ago would have been the time to trade him at the start of the rebuild.

Might be able to get a 4th rounder for him now. He's worth more in the offense than he is in trade value now. Doesnt mean they shouldnt be looking at replacements very soon.

Ceasar....I understand your point about a RG and Taylor wins the SB vs Tyler Boyd. That said, do we make the Bowl without those clutch 3rd and 4th down conversions Boyd has been instrumental in converting? Something to add to the convo. Statistically speaking, I don't think anyone in the league has been as clutch in critical situations as 83.

(03-09-2022, 02:05 PM)casear2727 Wrote: I think you are still not understanding my point.  It is all about improving the oline so the other pieces are better.

1)  A $10M RG and Trent Taylor at slot most likely wins us that Super Bowl.  (This should be enough)

You keep repeating this false narrative so I'm going to put an end to it now.

A $10M RG and Trent Taylor at slot would not have won the Bengals the Super Bowl because it was the LG that gave up the pressure to Aaron Donald so Burrow couldn't complete the pass to Chase running open down the side line because Ramsey fell which essentially ended the game.

(03-09-2022, 02:35 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: "I was trying to be realistic with our current situation of Boyd already tagged and no other safeties on the roster"


Uh, does the name Vonn Bell ring any bells? The other staring safety? Brandon Wilson and Trayvon Henderson are depth pieces that are under contract that could be upgraded.  So three safeties on the roster. And I suggested tagging and trading (if possible) Bates then drafting his replacement with a high round pick. Not a late round pick WR to replace a starter.

"Whoever, just dont trutst a rookie to be the man his 1st season"

Don't count on a rookie his first season, except for a starting WR with a late round rookie WR instead of a first round rookie safety? Like Jesse Bates during his rookie season? Can you imagine the Bengals starting a rookie FS? Well, since Jesse Bates in 2018, I can't. I don't need to imagine it because it actually happened.

"We need both but since we have oline on the roster, we are definitely signing oline and you are cutting Bates there may be more pressure on the Safety spot."


We do need both.  You listed Oline as a more important priority than a FS and that is because they protect the franchise QB and open holes (hopefully) for Mixon.


Bates has had one great season, one good season, and two meh seasons.  That doesn't make him elite.  That makes him inconsistent and just as likely to deliver a meh season as a great season.


So protecting the franchise QB and improving the run game takes priority over a inconsistent, disgruntled FS who you admit will be overpaid. Plus, I planned on addressing both.  The Oline with free agents.  FS with a high draft pick. Since Top 5 FA IOL generally cost less than Top 5 FA S the plan also saves cap space (and possible cash.)


"I dont disagree thats why  I was ok keeping Bates at a reasonable price."


A long term deal for Bates will mostly likely be 4yrs/$60M.  That's not reasonable.  Paying a one year rental $12M instead of applying the money to a long term solution at another position (Oline) is a poor investment.


"WR3 doesnt take much when the vast majority of passes are going to Chase and Higgins. Again I think we win the Super Bowl with Trent Taylor at the slot and a 10M RG instead of Boyd.  I never said rely on an olineman I am simply dealing with reality as to how the Bengals have always operated. We may get 2 oline free agents, who they end up signing will result in most likely 2 spots to be filled by on roster guys & rookies."


That's ignoring 81% of Boyd's 2021 sample size. My idea addresses the Oline.  Specifically mentioned RG. 


What's the reality of how the Bengals operated during the last two seasons?  Are they an outlier like Bates' one great year. Or are they the new norm? I'd say the sample size is too small to determine.


"You really dont want to over pay Bates and I agree the OP made a suggestion regarding Boyd and you took this thing down a billion paths because of Bates.  While in reality Bates will be here and so will Boyd.  It was a hypothetical."


I suggested tagging and trading Bates to improve the Oline and save money overall.  Then you dragged the argument in about how Bates is worth more because of crappy CBs. Again, that is false.  The CBs are still more valuable than a FS.  If you have crappy CBs, release Waynes, don't tag Bates and those two moves frees up $22-23M for a top tier CB.  But, don't claim you have to overpay a FS because the CBs suck when you can prioritize the CBs over the FS.


I don't even want to talk about this again because you opened this can of worms, not me.

Getting rid of Bates this season just seems like an unnecessary risk.  We have no one behind him or Bell.   We also are missing a starting CB so with that up in the air letting him go would be dangerous - we have no idea what value a trade could bring.

Losing Bates is a million times riskier than losing Boyd - as mentioned above we have no one else.  We can survive with Trent Taylor if our oline is excellent and upgrades at slot are available in the draft. WR3/4 and RB have more available players than other position in football.

I do agree that Bates is not elite.  Can he be? Possibly.  Do I care this season?  Not really, Im more concerned over creating a hole at that spot much more than the 4th option on offense.

Does letting Bates go create more cap space?  Cut yes, trade for a draft pick - yes/for a player - obviously not as much.  

Lets do this which of these puts less pressure on the team:

A very good OT or OG or C instead of Boyd - all day, every day, easy spot to replace with a much improved oline

A very good OT or OG or C instead of Bates - normally yes, but we have no one to replace him and it is much more difficult


To me there is no comparison.  Bates is way more vital to the defense this season.  Replacing him would be much more up in the air as he has so much more responsibilities.   WR3 could be anyone and. I would take a great olineman over that position every single time.


Having a really good free safety on a team with average CBs is just common sense.  A top tier CB like JC not only is a huge cap hit but also the guaranteed money is insane, way more than a free safety. People keep forgetting this aspect.  

If we had some depth behind Bates, I could get more on board, maybe we draft a stud safety and do this next year? Im cool with that, too risky this season (unless we knew we could get a Maye or some other vet at a very low price) and Boyd is at max trade value now with little risk assuming his salary went to upgrade the oline.

(03-09-2022, 01:14 PM)casear2727 Wrote: I dont disagree and my shitting on Boyd's play in the SB is in response to the argument he is so reliable and a vet, etc. The SB is the true test, thats not when a player runs the wrong route and drops balls - of course Boyd is talented and in my opinion he is over qualified for that spot as it is priority 4 in our offense? He is expensive and has more value right now to other teams.

But he is going no where so its just hypothetical.  But if a team is very serious about going to the SB and has a real need like we do with the oline, with very few but expensive options, we need to take a very serious look at every single spot that is overpaid and make difficult decisions.

We have 1 decent affordable option at RT tackle in T Brown. Tunsil trade may not be realistic but the absolute best. Armstead will be expensive and guaranteed dollars will be high.  We will have to outbid several teams for Jensen or Bozeman at center.  Will we value the guard spot enough to pay for one?

Not to mention we have zero 3-T DT's on the roster, missing a CB and TE as well.  Any spot we overpay for a less priority position impacts higher priorities.  

We agree Oline > WR3, but do we? For every spot? I do. 

What about CB1 or CB2 > WR3?  I do. I think a solid starting CB is more valuable than WR3.

TE is more subjective based upon one's idea of the offense.

And a CB1 or CB2 > than overpriced FS on franchise tag and releasing/trading him save at least $5.6M more than releasing/trading WR3. And there was only one rookie WR capable of replacing his production after pick # 10 overall.  Including all the speedy guys similar to Wan'dale Robinson, but projected to go higher.

(03-09-2022, 01:45 PM)casear2727 Wrote: This is very accurate.

That said the cap space is not endless and with some of our key targets headed towards bidding wars, having as much space as possible always helps.


But no doubt the guaranteed aspect kills way more deals for us than annual salary.

Like an extra $5.6M extra?

(03-09-2022, 03:17 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: And a CB1 or CB2 > than overpriced FS on franchise tag and releasing/trading him save at least $5.6M more than releasing/trading WR3. And there was only one rookie WR capable of replacing his production after pick # 10 overall.  Including all the speedy guys similar to Wan'dale Robinson, but projected to go higher.

#1 Stop with Boyds production, the entire offense changes with a much better oline. More running and more 5-7 drop concepts for our 2 wideouts.  Saying a decent slot cant replace our 4th option who averaged 28yds in the playoffs is silly.

#2. You couldnt be further off base with your draft predictions and this repeated top 10 draft pick silliness.  

#3. You have zero case for Boyd other than his ability to replace Chase or Higgins if injured, which i agree with.


Now tell me the deal you will get with trading Bates under the tag, along with your plan with the CB situation, this could be intriguing, if realistic.

But Im done with Boyd its too obvious.

(03-09-2022, 03:14 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Getting rid of Bates this season just seems like an unnecessary risk.  We have no one behind him or Bell.   We also are missing a starting CB so with that up in the air letting him go would be dangerous - we have no idea what value a trade could bring.

Replacing a starter with a 1st round pick is less of a risk than replacing a starter with a late round pick or a bottom of the roster Trent Taylor.

I'm beyond annoyed with the overpay a FS because of bad CBs when you have admitted repeatedly CBs are more important than FS.  If you need a starting CB, prioritize that position instead of overpaying a FS.

If you don't have any idea what Bates' value is then you don't know Boyd's trade value, either.

Quote:Losing Bates is a million times riskier than losing Boyd - as mentioned above we have no one else.  We can survive with Trent Taylor if our oline is excellent and upgrades at slot are available in the draft. WR3/4 and RB have more available players than other position in football.

Wrong.  Replacing a starter with a first round pick is less risky than replacing a starter with a late round pick or 5'8", 178lbs, 4.63 forty Trent Taylor and his two receptions last season. And we have already agreed a rookie FS might develop behind a vet his first year. If you don't think a first round rookie FS is ready to start I don't understand why you think a later round rookie WR is ready to start and play 74% of the offensive snaps.

Quote:I do agree that Bates is not elite.  Can he be? Possibly.  Do I care this season?  Not really, Im more concerned over creating a hole at that spot much more than the 4th option on offense.

You knew Burrow was elite his first season.  Why? Because he is elite.  After four seasons you know Bates isn't, because he isn't.  That hole is covered by a cheap vet and a high draft pick.

Quote:Does letting Bates go create more cap space?  Cut yes, trade for a draft pick - yes/for a player - obviously not as much.

You could have ended with, "Yes."  Why? Because you have already stated multiple times every little bit of cap space helps the team improves other positions. 

Quote:Lets do this which of these puts less pressure on the team:

A very good OT or OG or C instead of Boyd - all day, every day, easy spot to replace with a much improved oline

A very good OT or OG or C instead of Bates - normally yes, but we have no one to replace him and it is much more difficult

This is pure fantasy.  Taylor has never duplicated Boyd's production and only 1 of 33 WRs from last year's draft, including all the ones that run faster, did.

I'm confident a first round rookie FS can come in and not be elite just like Bates.

Quote:To me there is no comparison.  Bates is way more vital to the defense this season.  Replacing him would be much more up in the air as he has so much more responsibilities.   WR3 could be anyone and. I would take a great olineman over that position every single time.

And I would take a great Olineman, an additional $5.6M to apply to another player, a starter at WR3, and the ability to draft a FS and 3T in the first two rounds of the draft. However many times you keep repeating Boyd is easily replaced the stats prove you wrong. And the Bengals are one injury away from Taylor and Morgan as two starters at WR. So you're one injury away from a position of strength turning into a position of weakness.  Same situation at FS.

Quote:Having a really good free safety on a team with average CBs is just common sense.  A top tier CB like JC not only is a huge cap hit but also the guaranteed money is insane, way more than a free safety. People keep forgetting this aspect.  

This is a silly argument.  If your CBs suck, don't over pay a FS.  Pay a CB instead, sign an average FS. No one is forgetting a huge cap hit.  No one.  Matter of fact, I've repeatedly reminded you a Top 5 IOL is generally cheaper than a Top 5 FS. So if you want to try to work the huge cap hit angle, then don't overpay an inconsistent FS when NOT overpaying him is the fiscally conservative and responsible move.

Quote:If we had some depth behind Bates, I could get more on board, maybe we draft a stud safety and do this next year? Im cool with that, too risky this season (unless we knew we could get a Maye or some other vet at a very low price) and Boyd is at max trade value now with little risk assuming his salary went to upgrade the oline.

If you move on from Bates, FS is addressed with a high draft pick and a cheap FA vet so depth is addressed.  If you get rid of Boyd, you're depth is Taylor, Morgan, Irwin, and Washington if the last three are tendered.

If you spend $12M on a FS that won't be here next year, that's $12M you can't use to sign Olineman to 3 year contracts. Remember when you stated every bit of cap space helps? Then start walking the walk instead of just talking it. Why pay Mercedes prices on a new 1 year lease for a Toyota Camry when you already have a Honda Accord for 2 years for less money which allows you to buy other stuff?