I just have to say it does not seem like good business to undermine your efforts to improve your product to a level that will make a lot of money by insisting on pushing a manipulation of the CBA that has already been made to create a loophole for violating it.

It will just lower the value of your product and create all sorts of bad PR in marketing your brand.

They've gone from Super Bowl contending team with exotic uniform appeal with a potential hall of fame cadre of players who do what it takes to win to miserly, backwards, small minded poops who are more interested in picking their noses than winning.

(10 hours ago)Luvnit2 Wrote: Nice mature post. Thought you were better than this BS. 

Lighten up, it was all in good humor. No personal offense intended. 

(10 hours ago)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: I am not placing 100% of the blame on the Bengals. Some of the blame has to be with Trey's agent and Trey not signing the offer they gave
if it was fair. But we don't know if the offer was fair or not, only rumors.

Just saying that if the Bengals truly wanted to save money they would try to get these deals done before other players set the market.

This has happened over and over again with player after player. The one consistent is the Bengals here.


Have to take into consideration his age. But still, Twatt is older and just signed a monster deal. This doesn't help with Trey is all I am saying.

Have to bump my reply to Luvnit and Eric1 buried at the bottom of the last page....

(Yesterday, 03:18 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: Show me they dont pay the lowest. That wasn't the main point of my response but you can't prove that theyre not the lowest and I can't prove they are. But they are the bottom 5.

Their total cash due for 2025 ranks 23rd in the NFL. Not to hard to figure guarantees are low as well. But let's see what we can find...

Of the top 300 players in the NFL, with the highest guarantees, the Bengals have:
1. Burrow - (#4) $219M
2. Chase - (#17) $112M
3. Higgins - (#110) $41M
4. Brown - (#169) $31M
Four players - $403M total with Burrow being more than half of that total. 

By contrast:
The Eagles have 11 players in the top 300 for a total of $589M.
The Chiefs have 9 players in the top 300 for a total of $502M. 
The Bills have 11 players in the top 300 for a total of $551M. 
The Ravens have 8 players in the top 300 for a total of $514M.

That's just a few teams that consider themselves SB contenders. 

What about a team like Detroit?
The Lions have 10 players in the top 300 for a total of $558M.

Miami?
The Dolphins have 7 players in the top 300 for a total of $412M

So, we've seen how the richie rich's live. What about the lowlifes that have no shot?

The NYG have 13 players in the top 300 for a total of $492M.

The lowest of the low...
The Titans have 9 players in the top 300 for a total of $393M. 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/player/_/year/2025/sort/contract_guaranteed

Pretty easy to reason that if the Bengals are so low in cash and this list shows they're low compared to a small sample size of teams...they're probably near the bottom in total guaranteed money, i.e., CHEAP. 

(11 hours ago)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Counterpoint..... he really really REAAAAAAALLY wants to ride once on Mike's golf cart.  

FAN OF THE YEAR IS STILL UP FOR GRABS!!!   

(10 hours ago)rfaulk34 Wrote: Their total cash due for 2025 ranks 23rd in the NFL. Not to hard to figure guarantees are low as well. But let's see what we can find...

Of the top 300 players in the NFL, with the highest guarantees, the Bengals have:
1. Burrow - (#4) $219M
2. Chase - (#17) $112M
3. Higgins - (#110) $41M
4. Brown - (#169) $31M
Four players - $403M total with Burrow being more than half of that total. 

By contrast:
The Eagles have 11 players in the top 300 for a total of $589M.
The Chiefs have 9 players in the top 300 for a total of $502M. 
The Bills have 11 players in the top 300 for a total of $551M. 
The Ravens have 8 players in the top 300 for a total of $514M.

That's just a few teams that consider themselves SB contenders. 

What about a team like Detroit?
The Lions have 10 players in the top 300 for a total of $558M.

Miami?
The Dolphins have 7 players in the top 300 for a total of $412M

So, we've seen how the richie rich's live. What about the lowlifes that have no shot?

The NYG have 13 players in the top 300 for a total of $492M.

The lowest of the low...
The Titans have 9 players in the top 300 for a total of $393M. 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/player/_/year/2025/sort/contract_guaranteed

Pretty easy to reason that if the Bengals are so low in cash and this list shows they're low compared to a small sample size of teams...they're probably near the bottom in total guaranteed money, i.e., CHEAP. 

bUt THeY sPEnT a ZiLLiOn dOLLaRS!

(11 hours ago)SunsetBengal Wrote: According to data I viewed on Pro Football Reference, 9 of the 10 greatest DEs of all time played well into their mid and later 30s. Trey was just named 1st team All Pro last season, it's not like he's going to nosedive off the cliff this year, or even likely next.

(05-13-2025, 05:15 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I remember the Dunlap/Atkins contract and decline. 

If the Bengals simply hadn't botched the extension in '23, they would most likely be fine now and with a 3 yr extension, they'd have him this year and next, with relatively little loss, minus any kind of injury. 

I don't doubt the 30+ decline with pass rushers, when it takes everyone into account. The elite pass rushers are usually more productive for longer. If you look at the top 20 sack leaders, here's the number of double digit sack seasons they had from age 30 year to retirement. 
7, 6, 3, 7, 4, 3, 5, 5, 2, 4, 3, 3, 2, 3, 4, 2, 3, 4, 5, 3.  All but three had at least 3 seasons of double digit sacks in their 30+ years. The three that didn't were LT, Demarcus Ware and Jared Allen, who retired in their 34, 34 and 33 year seasons, respectively. The rest of them played to their 35-40 year old season. 

Trey just had a double digit sack season in his 30 year old season and i don't think it's out of the question to expect him to have at least 2 more good to great years before you see a noticible dip. 

Knowing the way the Bengals operate, he'll probably go to another team and end up with 40 more sacks before he hangs them up, along with some All Pro honors and maybe a ring, ala Whitworth.

Now look at where they stand for cash flow - not high. Remember that just this offseason they have laid out well north of 160 million in cash. Remember the Funding Rule. They're probably having to do gymnastics to figure out how to work in even more money to escrow for Trey.

And with Trey remember he signed an extension then started asking for more the very next offseason. The Bengals said no in part because by league rules they could not do another extension that quickly after the last one. I get Trey feels he is worth more than he is getting and hopefully they can get it done but his behavior here is actually refuting the argument for extending players early to shield against the market moving - if they're just going to hold out for more money anyway what's the point?

(10 hours ago)SunsetBengal Wrote: Lighten up, it was all in good humor. No personal offense intended. 

I am an optimist, but not getting at least Knight signed by now has made me knarly today.

(10 hours ago)rfaulk34 Wrote: Their total cash due for 2025 ranks 23rd in the NFL. Not to hard to figure guarantees are low as well. But let's see what we can find...

Of the top 300 players in the NFL, with the highest guarantees, the Bengals have:
1. Burrow - (#4) $219M
2. Chase - (#17) $112M
3. Higgins - (#110) $41M
4. Brown - (#169) $31M
Four players - $403M total with Burrow being more than half of that total. 

By contrast:
The Eagles have 11 players in the top 300 for a total of $589M.
The Chiefs have 9 players in the top 300 for a total of $502M. 
The Bills have 11 players in the top 300 for a total of $551M. 
The Ravens have 8 players in the top 300 for a total of $514M.

That's just a few teams that consider themselves SB contenders. 

What about a team like Detroit?
The Lions have 10 players in the top 300 for a total of $558M.

Miami?
The Dolphins have 7 players in the top 300 for a total of $412M

So, we've seen how the richie rich's live. What about the lowlifes that have no shot?

The NYG have 13 players in the top 300 for a total of $492M.

The lowest of the low...
The Titans have 9 players in the top 300 for a total of $393M. 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/player/_/year/2025/sort/contract_guaranteed

Pretty easy to reason that if the Bengals are so low in cash and this list shows they're low compared to a small sample size of teams...they're probably near the bottom in total guaranteed money, i.e., CHEAP. 

Why did you only post 4 Bengals and then go for 7 to 13 for other teams. I get where you are going, but I dont agree to discount how we give a lot to Burrow and that is a bad thing.

4 players = 400+ million for Bengals

Then the next 6 guys average around 12 million (and Trey is excluded and he was over 40 million when he signed in 2023 the extension) so minimum of 475 million in our top 10 as well which puts us close or above others you mentioned.

 I just don't see we are much lower in guarantees when all of them are counted like was said earlier by another poster that we were the worst. Not even close to being the worst.

I would argue some teams you listed are very poor managing money as well like the Dolphins who zilch to show for that huge spend in guarantees. Simply, it is one piece of the puzzle. I believe in effeciency. One issue we have is our drafts have been poor, this has caused us effeciency in every way.

(10 hours ago)Joelist Wrote: Now look at where they stand for cash flow - not high. Remember that just this offseason they have laid out well north of 160 million in cash. Remember the Funding Rule. They're probably having to do gymnastics to figure out how to work in even more money to escrow for Trey.

And with Trey remember he signed an extension then started asking for more the very next offseason. The Bengals said no in part because by league rules they could not do another extension that quickly after the last one. I get Trey feels he is worth more than he is getting and hopefully they can get it done but his behavior here is actually refuting the argument for extending players early to shield against the market moving - if they're just going to hold out for more money anyway what's the point?

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cash/_/year/2023
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cash/_/year/2024
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cash/_/year/2025

The Bengals in 2023 were 12th in cash spend, in 2024 were 13th and this far in 2025 are 23rd with Trey extension and 1st and 2nd round picks not signed yet). They will leap Baltimore if they sign Stewart and will jump others if they extend Trey.

Average out and the Bengals are 16th worst case scenario or middle of the NFL, far from cheap as some claim. 16th is technically top 50% in the league.

(9 hours ago)Luvnit2 Wrote: Why did you only post 4 Bengals and then go for 7 to 13 for other teams. I get where you are going

Because the Bengals are disproportionally distributing the money. Spending all of that money on offensive weapons leaves nothing left to build a strong defense and OL from. As rfaulk illustrated, that number should be closer to $500M, spread evenly over the various position groups.

(9 hours ago)SunsetBengal Wrote: Because the Bengals are disproportionally distributing the money. Spending all of that money on offensive weapons leaves nothing left to build a strong defense and OL from. As rfaulk illustrated, that number should be closer to $500M, spread evenly over the various position groups.

Only one way that would happen and not sign Higgins.

They was a huge debate. In time we will see if we should have spent Tee guaraneed money on Trey in 2025?

There is no doubt, we spend more guaranteed money on the offense. I would have to look at others like the Ravens to see where they put their guarantees or another team with a top 5 paid QB to see f others have done the same.

Teams with low paid QB's or WR's simply don't apply in the research.

(9 hours ago)SunsetBengal Wrote: Because the Bengals are disproportionally distributing the money. Spending all of that money on offensive weapons leaves nothing left to build a strong defense and OL from. As rfaulk illustrated, that number should be closer to $500M, spread evenly over the various position groups.

Most NFL teams ..with a few exceptions like Pittsburgh..spend more on offense than defense..nothing disproptionate about the bengals

(9 hours ago)SunsetBengal Wrote: Because the Bengals are disproportionally distributing the money. Spending all of that money on offensive weapons leaves nothing left to build a strong defense and OL from. As rfaulk illustrated, that number should be closer to $500M, spread evenly over the various position groups.

We like to put all of our eggs in one basket...  

(8 hours ago)ERIC1 Wrote: Most NFL teams ..with a few exceptions like Pittsburgh..spend more on offense than defense..nothing disproptionate about the bengals

Do you have any stats to back that up, or are you just making shit up again?

(8 hours ago)ERIC1 Wrote: Most NFL teams ..with a few exceptions like Pittsburgh..spend more on offense than defense..nothing disproptionate about the bengals

True, according to this chart (if it is accurate) that shows only 9 teams (and most strongly for the Steelers) spend more on their defensive units than their offensive units. 

The Rams are even worse than the Bengals, but the Bengals are lopsided in this regard.

https://overthecap.com/positional-spending

(8 hours ago)SunsetBengal Wrote: Do you have any stats to back that up, or are you just making shit up again?

Actually after reading your post I did research... google is your friend sunset... only 7-8 out of 32 teams spend more on defensive players

(8 hours ago)Nepa Wrote: True, according to this chart (if it is accurate) that shows only 9 teams (and most strongly for the Steelers) spend more on their defensive units than their offensive units. 

The Rams are even worse than the Bengals, but the Bengals are lopsided in this regard.

https://overthecap.com/positional-spending

How can the bengals be lopsided if the majority of nfl teams do the same..for the most part offensive players in the nfl make the most money..it is what it us.....just like the nonsense that mike brown is cheap..the bengals are right in the middle of the pack specific to cap spending allocations

(8 hours ago)ERIC1 Wrote: Actually after reading your post I did research... google is your  friend sunset.

Damn, you're back from a round of Golf already?? Why aren't you on the PGA?