(03-11-2016, 03:26 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: If the Bengals offered $8+ million per to MLJ, then why couldn't they offer $5 million per (on a short 3 year deal) to Rishard Matthews?

Because we have signed other players since we offered to match that contract.

(03-11-2016, 04:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because we have signed other players since we offered to match that contract.

I was under the impression from Jim O. that we still would've signed Iloka, Pacman etc even had we signed Marvin Jones.

(03-11-2016, 09:02 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I was under the impression from Jim O. that we still would've signed Iloka, Pacman etc even had we signed Marvin Jones.

This was my understanding as well . They went all in .

(03-11-2016, 01:40 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: 3rd or 4th round picks next year would be Better than both of those guys.

Dude, i will say that is BS most likely.

Proven NFL players Travis and Rishard are...

These two could be #1's easily next year and good luck finding two 3rd or 4th's next year that will be that...

(03-12-2016, 01:13 AM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Dude, i will say that is BS most likely.

Proven NFL players Travis and Rishard are...

These two could be #1's easily next year and good luck finding two 3rd or 4th's next year that will be that...

Sanu was a 3. And Jones and Iloka were 5's. Williams was around there as well.

I bet we get out WR in round 1 this year. And maybe another in round 3 given how thin the group. That is unless some crazy talent drops to us. All these teams signing the Mathews and Benjamin's of the world just means less teams will go for WR's now. Not many except for Minnesota that may be looking for them.

(03-12-2016, 09:02 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Sanu was a 3.   And Jones and Iloka were 5's.   Williams was  around there as well.  

I bet we get out WR in round 1 this year.   And maybe another in round 3 given how thin the group.    That is unless some crazy talent drops to us.     All these teams signing the Mathews and Benjamin's of the world just means less teams will go for WR's now.   Not many except for Minnesota that may be looking for them.

Yes, and Simpson was a 2 and Caldwell was a 3. I'm not sure how any of that has to do with anything though because past drafting doesn't indicate future results.


....Also, that aside, it took Sanu 3 years to be helpful, and it took 2 years for Jones. Iloka took 2 years to be helpful, 3 to be good. Williams is only just now being truly helpful in his 4th year.

Just because you can find the eventual talent/production doesn't mean it'll be immediate, and that's what the Bengals need. Immediate talent to win now while their window is still open.

(03-12-2016, 10:17 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yes, and Simpson was a 2 and Caldwell was a 3. I'm not sure how any of that has to do with anything though because past drafting doesn't indicate future results.


....Also, that aside, it took Sanu 3 years to be helpful, and it took 2 years for Jones. Iloka took 2 years to be helpful, 3 to be good. Williams is only just now being truly helpful in his 4th year.

Just because you can find the eventual talent/production doesn't mean it'll be immediate, and that's what the Bengals need. Immediate talent to win now while their window is still open.

Which is why I said it almost a guarantee we take one in round 1.

(03-12-2016, 10:28 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Which is why I said it almost a guarantee we take one in round 1.

Not sure there's any worth taking that will be available then, but even if there is, and they're ready to start Day 1, that still leaves you with no #3 and absolutely zero depth at WR. They need to get over this fake salary cap they put themselves in and at least get one veteran who can help a little.

(03-12-2016, 10:49 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not sure there's any worth taking that will be available then, but even if there is, and they're ready to start Day 1, that still leaves you with no #3 and absolutely zero depth at WR. They need to get over this fake salary cap they put themselves in and at least get one veteran who can help a little.

I agree we need help.   But our #3 is basically a 4.    Braxton Miller could fill Sanu's role for example.  

Also with all these WR's being signed the better chance they fall To us in the draft.    Charles Davis for example has Treadwell falling to us.     The Vikings are basically the only potential team to grab a WR before us.      

Coleman, Treadwell, Fuller .... One or more of them will be there for us.      Then we look for another later.

I don't have a lot of confidence in vet WR.

(03-10-2016, 12:47 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: It's like people forget what 2012 was like, when we had Binns starting and a couple rookies barely contributed. It was a mess.

In 2014 we had a couple injuries and it was a mess again. Without Jones and Sanu, we're needle thin at WR, yet people think we can just plug in a couple rookies without missing a beat. What if AJ or Eifert miss time (which has happened) and we have a couple of raw rookies on the bench? No thanks.

Not all of these FA's are going to be overpaid. After the first few days, you start seeing more realistic deals. Honestly, I think a lot of people just don't want to advocate FA in any way shape or form.

And more importantly in 2012, AD was a 2nd year player. He's a vet now, so I would expect him to be able to do more in terms of helping a rookie Wr now than back then. 

(03-12-2016, 12:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And more importantly in 2012, AD was a 2nd year player. He's a vet now, so I would expect him to be able to do more in terms of helping a rookie Wr now than back then. 

While 2015 Dalton certainly would have helped 2012 WRs, I don't think it would have made a huge amount of difference. After all, you can't polish a turd, and that's exactly what a WR corp where Tate and Binns are your #2 is. Lol

(03-12-2016, 12:39 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: While 2015 Dalton certainly would have helped 2012 WRs, I don't think it would have made a huge amount of difference. After all, you can't polish a turd, and that's exactly what a WR corp where Tate and Binns are your #2 is. Lol

As i stated before.. we have our #2 WR that will be Eiffert.. I believe part of the plan last year was drafting two TE's with anticipation that Eiffert would be much more split out this year than ever.   I could see them taking a Wr with #1 pick this year.. if Fuller is still there I could see them drafting him.  

I love how the consensus on the boards seemed to be that Eifert is made of glass. Now that we lose a couple WR's, it's "no worries...we have Eifert."

What do people have against free agency? If the Bengals were willing to drop $9 million per on MLJ, what do we have against signing someone like Mike Wallace, Andre Johnson or Andre Holmes for 2-3 million? It'd open up our draft (we need replacements for Peko and Hall) and it would give us a proven producer at the WR position in case we draft some raw rookies.

Where is the downside?

(03-12-2016, 01:51 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I love how the consensus on the boards seemed to be that Eifert is made of glass. Now that we lose a couple WR's, it's "no worries...we have Eifert."

What do people have against free agency? If the Bengals were willing to drop $9 million per on MLJ, what do we have against signing someone like Mike Wallace, Andre Johnson or Andre Holmes for 2-3 million? It'd open up our draft (we need replacements for Peko and Hall) and it would give us a proven producer at the WR position in case we draft some raw rookies.

Where is the downside?

There is no downside and should be done. 

(03-12-2016, 01:51 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I love how the consensus on the boards seemed to be that Eifert is made of glass. Now that we lose a couple WR's, it's "no worries...we have Eifert."

What do people have against free agency? If the Bengals were willing to drop $9 million per on MLJ, what do we have against signing someone like Mike Wallace, Andre Johnson or Andre Holmes for 2-3 million? It'd open up our draft (we need replacements for Peko and Hall) and it would give us a proven producer at the WR position in case we draft some raw rookies.

Where is the downside?

You know I'm on your side of this, so I'll answer that for you.

Fear of losing compensatory picks.
Fear of paying for an overrated player.
Fear of him not fitting the system.
Fear of not having enough money afterwards to pay our own.

Seems to me it has something to do with fear.

(03-12-2016, 01:51 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: what do we have against signing someone like Mike Wallace, Andre Johnson or Andre Holmes for 2-3 million?
Where is the downside?

I don't know of a single person who said they were against something like this.

(03-12-2016, 01:58 PM)Stormborn Wrote: You know I'm on your side of this, so I'll answer that for you.

Fear of losing compensatory picks.
Fear of paying for an overrated player.
Fear of him not fitting the system.
Fear of not having enough money afterwards to pay our own.

Seems to me it has something to do with fear.

Well. If you say that acknowleding reality is fear then, yes.

Smart businesses are controlled by fear if this is the way you define "fear".

(03-12-2016, 02:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Well. If you say that acknowleding reality is fear then, yes.

Smart businesses are controlled by fear if this is the way you define "fear".

There is nothing wrong with having fear control rash decisions.

The problem is when fear dictates you to an extent when you refuse to risk getting better.

Where's necessary progress without a little risk here and there?

(03-12-2016, 02:05 PM)Stormborn Wrote: There is nothing wrong with having fear control rash decisions.

The problem is when fear dictates you to an extent when you refuse to risk getting better.

Where's necessary progress without a little risk here and there?

We do take risks.

Believe it or not it is possible for the team to do something you don't agree with without it being 100% a mistake.  Reminds me of the old trope where a fan claim that if the team does not agree with him 100% then the only possible explanation is that the team does not want to win.  Because it is impossible for the fan to ever be wrong. 

(03-12-2016, 02:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We do take risks.

Believe it or not it is possible for the team to do something you don't agree with without it being 100% a mistake.  Reminds me of the old trope where a fan claim that if the team does not agree with him 100% then the only possible explanation is that the team does not want to win.  Because it is impossible for the fan to ever be wrong. 

Outside of signing veteran role players to 1-2 year deals... what "risks" do we take exactly?

Forget the talent of the team's core, it's great, we all know that. It still hasn't done enough to get past an early exit. What risks have we taken to progress the team forward?

Allow me to clarify quickly, are A.J. Hawk, Marshall Newhouse, Eric Winston, Shiloh Keo the risks that we should be praising?