(03-05-2016, 12:29 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Here are the payroll numbers for the two years immediately preceding this new 4 year spending limit:

Detroit Lions | $118,300,000 | -1%
Houston Texans | $118,300,000 | -3%
Atlanta Falcons | $117,200,000 | -4%
San Francisco 49ers | $117,100,000 | 12%
New York Giants | $117,000,000 | -1%
Miami Dolphins | $116,600,000 | -2%
St. Louis Rams | $116,600,000 | -4%
San Diego Chargers | $116,500,000 | -1%
Pittsburgh Steelers | $116,100,000 | -2%
Baltimore Ravens | $115,300,000 | -5%
Dallas Cowboys | $115,300,000 | -1%
Oakland Raiders | $114,600,000 | 0%
Chicago Bears | $114,300,000 | 13%
Washington Redskins | $113,100,000 | 3%
Buffalo Bills | $112,700,000 | 17%
New York Jets | $112,500,000 | -1%
New Orleans Saints | $112,400,000 | -7%
Minnesota Vikings | $111,700,000 | -10%
Carolina Panthers | $111,400,000 | -8%
New England Patriots | $110,600,000 | -2%
Arizona Cardinals | $110,600,000 | 4%
Indianapolis Colts | $110,500,000 | -3%
Denver Broncos | $109,500,000 | 7%
Green Bay Packers | $109,000,000 | 0%
Seattle Seahawks | $107,400,000 | 2%
Cleveland Browns | $107,300,000 | 11%
Tampa Bay Buccaneers | $105,700,000 | 14%
Cincinnati Bengals | $105,400,000 | 13%
Tennessee Titans | $103,600,000 | -11%
Philadelphia Eagles | $100,400,000 | -19%
Kansas City Chiefs | $94,000,000 | 1%
Jacksonville Jaguars | $91,900,000 | -1%

---------------------

2013

Minnesota Vikings | $123,553,646
Philadelphia Eagles| $123,382,065
Atlanta Falcons | $122,188,308
Houston Texans | $121,904,836
St. Louis Rams | $121,835,786
Baltimore Ravens | $121,145,293
New Orleans Saints | $121,042,487
Carolina Panthers | $120,884,226
Detroit Lions | $119,379,953
Pittsburgh Steelers | $118,875,502
Miami Dolphins | $118,447,435
New York Giants | $118,357,838
San Diego Chargers | $117,510,200
Tennessee Titans | $117,037,579
Dallas Cowboys | $116,700,139
Oakland Raiders | $115,063,751
Indianapolis Colts | $114,259,317
New York Jets | $113,688,194
New England Patriots | $113,156,066
Washington Redskins | $109,474,372
Green Bay Packers | $109,198,003
Arizona Cardinals | $105,870,949
Seattle Seahawks | $104,887,632
San Francisco 49ers | $104,604,488
Denver Broncos | $102,627,531
Chicago Bears | $101,032,032
Cleveland Browns | $96,659,589
Buffalo Bills | $96,114,524
Kansas City Chiefs | $93,446,708
Cincinnati Bengals | $93,268,320
Tampa Bay Buccaneers | $92,988,777
Jacksonville Jaguars | $92,768,120

Link?

What are the percentage numbers after the payroll number


And why are you ignoring the current numbers?

Why so obsessed with the past?  

(03-05-2016, 06:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Posts number 1 and 5 in this thread.  Go back and read them.

How do they prove we spend more on payroll than the majority of teams?  Your first doesn't even have a mention of us.  It list the teams at the bottom and the teams the top.  Not to mention it's only over a two year period.  All anyone can take form it is, in that two year stretch, weren't in the bottom 3rd or top 3rd.

How is that spending more than the majority of teams?  Do you even know what majority means?

Again, show me something that supports this claim of yours.  I'll wait.

(03-05-2016, 06:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Link?

What are the percentage numbers after the payroll number


And why are you ignoring the current numbers?

Why so obsessed with the past?  

Google payroll spending in 2011 and 2012.  It should come right up.

The "obsession" is simply an observation that, because we carried over so much cap space from before the four year period, it affects payroll.

ie You better come close to the league cap of 132 when you just rolled over 15 mil and can spend up to 147.  Spending 131 isn't a sign of spending more than most.  It's still leaving significant space on the table.

Here, knock yourself out:

http://www.osmguy.com/2011/12/2011-nfl-payrolls-by-team/

http://www.osmguy.com/2012/09/2012-nfl-salaries-by-team/

(03-05-2016, 06:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then explain why we are spending more money than so many other teams oin the league.

If the Bengals were as cheap as possible then why are they no where near the bottom of money over the last three years?


Funny that it seems that some of you are actually getting mad to discover that the Bengals are not as cheap as you claim.  

The last 3 years is all you got?
Typically when we have a big player of our own to sign we pay more that year. In the last 3 years we have forked out hig money for a de, qb and wr.

(03-05-2016, 06:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not true at all.

bengals have always psid good money to keep their own players.  Don't know what everyone think we are now going to let every single free agent walk.

It just isn't going to happen.

Not sure what you mean by let. What are we going to do to stop them?

Seriously, Marvin Jones thinks of himself as a #1 WR and he happens to be the top WR in free agency. Since we don't see him signing what the team is offering, he and/or his agent believe he's going to get a better offer. Same is true for Iloka and Adam Jones. Although I'm not exactly sure if we've even offered Adam Jones anything or not.

We might get Sanu to think about staying by overpaying him, but how is that better than paying a little extra to keep Marvin Jones?

Sanu is a slot guy and just doesn't have the speed needed to play opposite AJ. So, ok, we overpay some to keep Sanu (our #5 receiving target from 2015) to replace Jones (out #2 receiving target from 2015), but then what? How is that an improvement? Eifert was the #3 target (by catches and yards), maybe he catches more or is injured less. But still, how has the team improved?

I do get that the entire off season has to be taken as a whole and the draft hasn't happened yet, but the fact that none of our free agents have signed an offer from the team isn't a good sign. [Tate doesn't freakin' count cause he's one foot from being out of the league and the Bengals are basically his only shot. At least he was smart enough to grab the money when it was offered. Now if we can get him to be smart enough to know when and when not to come out of the endzone we might be on to something.]

(03-05-2016, 06:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why so obsessed with the past?  

So let me get this straight.  When you bring up past payroll numbers to support your stance you're simply proving a point, or doing whatever it is you do.  But when I bring up the payroll numbers, immediately preceding the numbers you just referenced, I'm living in the past?

To recap: In determining the Bengals level of cheapness, years 2013 and 2014 are ok to discuss, now, in 2016.  But for some reason 2011 and 2012 aren't relative, and a brought only as a result from those who live in the past.

Lance McAllister does something all the time, and it drives me nuts.  When supporting his stance that Bengals are great or whatever he'll of say they've made the playoffs 5 straight years!!!  As if this should silence the opposition.  But the minute someone says something about losing in the first round 5 straight years he'll say something snarky like "But we're talking about now, why are you so concerned with the past."

It's bs.  Some of you are so quick to use the past when it benefits you, then you try to turn around and give others shit for doing it when it doesn't fit your argument.

If you can bring up 2013 and up, why the hell can't I bring up 2012?  Who gets to decide the cutoff for a conversation about whether or not they're cheap?

(03-05-2016, 07:04 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: How do they prove we spend more on payroll than the majority of teams?  Your first doesn't even have a mention of us.  It list the teams at the bottom and the teams the top.  Not to mention it's only over a two year period.  All anyone can take form it is, in that two year stretch, weren't in the bottom 3rd or top 3rd.

How is that spending more than the majority of teams?  Do you even know what majority means?

Again, show me something that supports this claim of yours.  I'll wait.

Math lesson for you.

12th in payroll last year places the Bengals ahead of a majority of the NFL.

(03-05-2016, 09:58 PM)BengalChris Wrote: Not sure what you mean by let. What are we going to do to stop them?

Seriously, Marvin Jones thinks of himself as a #1 WR and he happens to be the top WR in free agency. Since we don't see him signing what the team is offering, he and/or his agent believe he's going to get a better offer. Same is true for Iloka and Adam Jones. Although I'm not exactly sure if we've even offered Adam Jones anything or not.

We might get Sanu to think about staying by overpaying him, but how is that better than paying a little extra to keep Marvin Jones?

Sanu is a slot guy and just doesn't have the speed needed to play opposite AJ. So, ok, we overpay some to keep Sanu (our #5 receiving target from 2015) to replace Jones (out #2 receiving target from 2015), but then what? How is that an improvement? Eifert was the #3 target (by catches and yards), maybe he catches more or is injured less. But still, how has the team improved?

I do get that the entire off season has to be taken as a whole and the draft hasn't happened yet, but the fact that none of our free agents have signed an offer from the team isn't a good sign. [Tate doesn't freakin' count cause he's one foot from being out of the league and the Bengals are basically his only shot. At least he was smart enough to grab the money when it was offered. Now if we can get him to be smart enough to know when and when not to come out of the endzone we might be on to something.]

If it happens that we lose every single free agent starter then i will be right there with yoiu.

i just think you are wrong about what is going to happen.  I have seen a lot of people over the years "guarantee" that they knew what was going to happen only to end up looking stupid.

It might happen and it might not.  we will see.  But based on the history of the Bengals stepping up to keep most of their best players I believe they will not let all five "starters" (Nelson, Iloka, Hall, Jones, Sanu) walk away in free agency.

(03-05-2016, 10:18 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: So let me get this straight.  When you bring up past payroll numbers to support your stance you're simply proving a point, or doing whatever it is you do.  But when I bring up the payroll numbers, immediately preceding the numbers you just referenced, I'm living in the past?

To recap: In determining the Bengals level of cheapness, years 2013 and 2014 are ok to discuss, now, in 2016.  But for some reason 2011 and 2012 aren't relative, and a brought only as a result from those who live in the past.

Lance McAllister does something all the time, and it drives me nuts.  When supporting his stance that Bengals are great or whatever he'll of say they've made the playoffs 5 straight years!!!  As if this should silence the opposition.  But the minute someone says something about losing in the first round 5 straight years he'll say something snarky like "But we're talking about now, why are you so concerned with the past."

It's bs.  Some of you are so quick to use the past when it benefits you, then you try to turn around and give others shit for doing it when it doesn't fit your argument.

If you can bring up 2013 and up, why the hell can't I bring up 2012?  Who gets to decide the cutoff for a conversation about whether or not they're cheap?

Sorry, but I choose to live in the present instead of dedicating my life to crying about the past.  The Bengals have not been near the bottom of the league in player spending for a few years now, so I don't see what the point is in constantly squealing about it now. 

We just look at life differently I guess.

In 2011 I was so mad at Mike Brown for being cheap in free agency that I refused to pay for e ticket to PBS that year.  The Bengals pretty much admitted they needed help at guard when the signed Duce Latui.  But when thet deal fell apart they never made a move to sign anyone else.  But I am over that now.  I believe that holding a grudge is like taking poison yourself in order to punish the person who angered you.

If the Bengals cheap out this offseason then i will complain.  but I am not going to start crying now because of what happened 5 years ago.  That is pointless.

(03-05-2016, 07:09 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Here, knock yourself out:

http://www.osmguy.com/2011/12/2011-nfl-payrolls-by-team/

http://www.osmguy.com/2012/09/2012-nfl-salaries-by-team/

Thanks.

2013 Bengals 7th in the league in payroll

(03-06-2016, 12:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Math lesson for you.

12th in payroll last year places the Bengals ahead of a majority of the NFL.

That's one year.  Being, barely above average, in one season, doesn't mean you spend more than majority of teams.  What an ignorant statement.

(03-06-2016, 12:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Thanks.

2013 Bengals 7th in the league in payroll

Fwiw, the average of those 4 years is 20th. (29, 30, 7, 12)

I think what some people are missing is that cash spent is not the same as cap spent. The Bengals are amazing at making sure they front load deals to eat up cash spent while saving cap money that could be used.

Example, if the Bengals re-signed Iloka and gave him a $10 million bonus, they could count that entire $10 million towards their 2016 cash spent even though that money will be spread across the life of the contract and have a lower cap hit. That's one of the reasons they Bengals love to front load. They can eat up a bunch of cash spent money and be above the floor while still being able to kick cap money down the road.

You can keep throwing around how well the Bengals are doing by outspending the league, but those numbers are skewed. Cap space is a better year-by-year than cash spent. Why the NFL bases the floor off of cash spent is beyond me. It allows people like Mike Brown to count signing bonuses in 1 year, while saving cap space each year.

At the end of the day, every NFL team has to deal with the draft, injuries, practice squads salaries, bonuses, etc, etc. Most teams have X amount of cap space and do everything they can to get as close to that as possible, even with all of the other things listed. The Bengals immediately lower their cap space and try to spend below it. Do they really need to kick $8-10 million down the road every year? Their franchise QB, #1 WR, and 2 top DL are locked up. Why are they still saving that money? Is it to re-sign this years draft picks? It makes no sense.

(03-06-2016, 01:33 PM)muskiesfan Wrote: You can keep throwing around how well the Bengals are doing by outspending the league, but those numbers are skewed. Cap space is a better year-by-year than cash spent. Why the NFL bases the floor off of cash spent is beyond me. It allows people like Mike Brown to count signing bonuses in 1 year, while saving cap space each year.

Actually it is the cap number that is skewed.  A team can brag that they are using the entire $120 million cap space in a year when they are only paying the team $100 million with the other $20 million being bonus money to players that has already been paid including bonus money paid to players that are not even on the team.  


So would you be happier if the Bengals were actually paying the roster less but getting credit for millions of dollars of bonuses paid to players who are not even still with the team?

(03-06-2016, 01:29 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Fwiw, the average of those 4 years is 20th. (29, 30, 7, 12)

What four years?

(03-06-2016, 03:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually it is the cap number that is skewed.  A team can brag that they are using the entire $120 million cap space in a year when they are only paying the team $100 million with the other $20 million being bonus money to players that has already been paid including bonus money paid to players that are not even on the team.  


So would you be happier if the Bengals were actually paying the roster less but getting credit for millions of dollars of bonuses paid to players who are not even still with the team?

Yes. That is exactly what I said. I want the Bengals to pay bonuses to players not on the team. I never once made a mention of that. I never insinuated it, but that was the point of my post.

Some teams make bad deals. I didn't say I wanted the Bengals to sign bad deals. I want them to spend more of their cap than constantly rolling over money for tomorrow. Eventually, tomorrow has to come, right?

(03-06-2016, 05:20 PM)muskiesfan Wrote: Yes. That is exactly what I said. I want the Bengals to pay bonuses to players not on the team. I never once made a mention of that. I never insinuated it, but that was the point of my post.

You claimed that cap values were more accurate on what a team was spending than "cash spent".  I used the dead money issue to prove how wrong you were.

(03-06-2016, 05:20 PM)muskiesfan Wrote: Some teams make bad deals. I didn't say I wanted the Bengals to sign bad deals. I want them to spend more of their cap than constantly rolling over money for tomorrow. Eventually, tomorrow has to come, right?

The NFL salary cap last year was $143.3 million.  The Bengals were able to spend OVER that cap amount ($146.5) because they had rolled over cap space from the year before.  That also explains why the Bengals were not able to roll over as much this year as they did last year.

And finally, rolling over cap space is voluntary.  This year the Broncos, Saints, and Rams all chose pocket money instead of rolling it over as cap space.