(03-07-2016, 04:13 PM)Wyche Wrote: Wasn't that the year Grubbs and Nicks were on the market?

I think so, but you would have been REALLY mad if we signed them considering both were wildly disappointing. 
Grubbs got moved for a 5th after underwhelming in NOLA.
Nicks never really played much in TB before having to retire

(03-06-2016, 11:00 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: I've always thought Marvin's 1st free agent class was by far his best (Kelly, Hardy, James, Clemons, Thornton). But, that free agent class was required out of necessity. The Bengals desperately needed new blood to begin a new era. Since then, it's been a very mixed bag. Green-Ellis was a decent player, but pretty average. Other guys like Dhani, Benson and Crocker (all initially added during the season), became productive, steady players for the majority of their time here. Others like Adams, Coles, Bryant and Utecht turned out to be terrible signings for different reasons. The signings of Allen, Anderson and Wharton in the same offseason ended up to be a complete disaster (including Wharton playing well for Carolina after we cut him).

For whatever reason, many of the Bengals most 'productive' signings have come from other teams cast offs, reclamation projects, low risk or inexpensive deals, etc (like Crocker, Benson, Pacman, Newman and Gilberry). I'm starting to think that they are much more competent with those types of moves than they are with anything requiring a real financial risk/investment in free agency. 

I get as frustrated as anyone at their free agent approach at times, but we have to be realistic in terms of what they actually do well. While I would love to land a big name/impact type player...I'm not sure I trust this front office to make that decision. I'm much more confident in their ability to find another team's reject, a former high round bust, or a vet minimum sort of guy...and turn them into productive players. 

I guess I'm criticizing and praising the front office at the same time, but it's just how I see things right now when it comes to their abilities in the (outside) free agent market. 

When I think back to that 2012 free agency class, I can't help but shake my head. The awful Hobson articles trying to get us excited over Derrick Harvey and Jamaal Anderson. Him telling us how angry Marvin was back in 07 on missing out on Harvey while Zimmer argued for Anderson. Then what happens in the end? Harvey sucked (surprise) and was cut after camp. Anderson looked completely ineffective in the 2 games he played before the injury ended his season.

(03-07-2016, 01:00 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Unless I'm misrembering (is that a word?) I think we signed Dhani Jones off the street during the season.  We had a rash of injuries and plucked him off his couch in like week 2 or something.

So it's not as if we combed through the entire free agent market and identified him as the perfect fit.  It more, "Holy shit, we don't have any linebackers.  Hey, let's call this guy, I've actually heard of him."

Regardless, Dhani Jones was average at best.  If pointing to an old vet, signed off his couch for the the vet minimum, like Dhani freaking Jones, comes up in a free agency conversation then it only further illustrates just how bad we are at bringing in outside help.  Dhani Jones shouldn't be on your "great signing" list.  Nor should Thomas Howard or Nate Clements or Manny Lawson.  None of them were that good.

Our LB situation in 07 was not surprising considering the lead up. Remember our key FA signing that year? Ed Hartwell, who was pumped up because of him playing one year with Marvin in Baltimore. Of course we didn't sign him right away. We wanted to see if we could select in LB in the draft. We lined up 3 potential players to select in the 3rd round and then watched all 3 get selected right before our pick. Suddenly we signed Hartwell and people were all hyped up for it.

Hartwell looked good in camp and then was cut before the season. Why was he cut? He wouldn't play ST since Ahmad Brooks won the Mike job. Couldn't draft a LB and couldn't get our "prized" signing to play ST. That should've told us right away that the LB position was going to be a problem that year.

(03-07-2016, 04:15 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: I think so, but you would have been REALLY mad if we signed them considering both were wildly disappointing. 
Grubbs got moved for a 5th after underwhelming in NOLA.
Nicks never really played much in TB before having to retire

Yeah, with hindsight, it would have been a bad call, although Nicks played well when he was out there......Grubbs just stunk.

(03-07-2016, 04:18 PM)Wyche Wrote: Yeah, with hindsight, it would have been a bad call, although Nicks played well when he was out there......Grubbs just stunk.

All 9 games in 2 years lol.
that Staph infection really wrecked his career.

Remember kids, CLEAN YOUR DAMN PADS

(03-07-2016, 04:21 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: All 9 games in 2 years lol.
that Staph infection really wrecked his career.

Remember kids, CLEAN YOUR DAMN PADS

Maybe he doesn't get the staph in Cincy.....

(03-07-2016, 04:25 PM)Wyche Wrote: Maybe he doesn't get the staph in Cincy.....

Maybe. But other injuries played a role in it too.
Pretty sure he played damn near every snap for the Saints, I think he just wore himself out.