(05-17-2016, 01:29 PM)Au165 Wrote: Contracts should be based on future outlook not past performance. You are paying them for what they will do not what they did. Past performance may help them gauge future outlook but they also have information we don't have such as practice performance. As for what he would get in FA he would have gotten close to double the guaranteed money with a decent year. Plus keep in mind Hiney badger is about to sign a massive contract which will reset the safety market.

Would you agree that most Bengals players fulfill their contracts?  When I see a contract for this team, I basically disregard the guaranteed money because the chances are so great the entire contract will be played out.

(05-17-2016, 01:31 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Value?  

They got a premium starter who has shown he can play here.    You act like they just signed some crumb bum.   Plus he is trending up in development.

Seriously... how is someone with four career starts, two career interceptions, and five career passes defensed a "premium starter"??

(05-17-2016, 01:29 PM)Au165 Wrote: 1.) Contracts should be based on future outlook not past performance. 2.) You are paying them for what they will do not what they did. Past performance may help them gauge future outlook but they also have information we don't have such as practice performance. As for what he would get in FA he would have gotten close to double the guaranteed money with a decent year. Plus keep in mind Hiney badger is about to sign a massive contract which will reset the safety market.

1.) No they shouldn't.  They should be based on any number of things beyond potential, and past production is most certainly included. 
2.) This is simply not true.  Previous accomplishments and past results are always going to come into play in negotiations in signing a veteran.

Yes, teams most certainly will, and have, paid handsomely for potential.  But you better believe, that had that potential been backed with previous production, that player would have seen an even greater deal.  You always pay more proven results.  When paying for potential alone, you often see a savings, relative to the risk.

Put it this way:  Take two players of equal skill level, both have a comparable set of attributes, and their ages are similar.  Player A is a 4 year starter with 2 Pro Bowls.  Payer B was on the bench, stuck behind an All Pro veteran.  Both players grade out the same by various teams.  Are you telling me that Player B sees the same contract as player A, simply because they  the same future potential?

(05-17-2016, 01:33 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: Would you agree that most Bengals players fulfill their contracts?  When I see a contract for this team, I basically disregard the guaranteed money because the chances are so great the entire contract will be played out.

I would but I'd argue it often is because we don't make many bad deals. It does give you an out though, if he got injured or had major issues we can get out if needed.

As for TJ Ward that is what he was paid three years ago everything trends upwards. We feel we have a better than average starter who can operate in our system. I don't think a million a year is worth risking him leaving.

As for everyone stuck on Reggie, you want to cut bait with a guy a year to early over a year too late. He may very well have had another year left, but williams may be better. The coaching staff who sees him every day felt williams was not only a suitable replacement but worth paying. Just saying maybe the guys who actually know the players know something on this one.

(05-17-2016, 12:15 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: His deal is very comparable to that of guys like TJ Ward, Mike Mitchell and Antoine Bethea.  It's right below, and not at all far off from guys like Eric Weddle and Morgan Burnett.

It seems like a bit of head scratcher to be in such a rush to pay a play with 4 career starts a TJ Ward level contract. 

To each their own, but I would have rather paid a know commodity in Reggie Nelson for another season, and revaluated Williams's situation after the year. 

They locked up a kid for 5 years with a 1 year guarantee basically. I found this extremely team friendly. The part you are forgetting is the Bengals have watched this guy practice for 3 years so more than just 4 games started. To me the message was clear, they liked Williams and would have likely started him in 2016 over Nelson. Why pay your back up safety (Nelson in 2016) like a good starting safety?

I'm happy with the signing. Illoka, Williams, and now Shaw capable as well back there. Reggie will be missed, but overall the Bengals have reacted fairly well.

(05-17-2016, 01:56 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: They locked up a kid for 5 years with a 1 year guarantee basically. I found this extremely team friendly. The part you are forgetting is the Bengals have watched this guy practice for 3 years so more than just 4 games started. To me the message was clear, they liked Williams and would have likely started him in 2016 over Nelson. Why pay your back up safety (Nelson in 2016) like a good starting safety?

Where do you get that Nelson would have been the backup if he came back?  I remember reading that they had talks for almost a month, but the sticking points were contract length and guaranteed money.

(05-17-2016, 12:41 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: I do not see the rush in making this deal at all.  The guy has four career starts.  In my mind, you see what he can do for a full year before giving him a new deal. I know some are saying that he can be cut if he does not do well.  How often do you see the Bengals cut someone loose before their contract is up?

Meh were not breaking the bank on him.. Low risk high reward potential move here. Just saves us from over spending to keep him in the event that he balls out next year.

(05-17-2016, 12:15 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: His deal is very comparable to that of guys like TJ Ward, Mike Mitchell and Antoine Bethea.  It's right below, and not at all far off from guys like Eric Weddle and Morgan Burnett.

It seems like a bit of head scratcher to be in such a rush to pay a play with 4 career starts a TJ Ward level contract. 

To each their own, but I would have rather paid a know commodity in Reggie Nelson for another season, and revaluated Williams's situation after the year. 

Here is the problem with that thought,, Nelson was not signing a 1 year deal with us or  anyone... also we only see players in a game, an organization sees players everyday and on the practice field... They are in game situations in practice outside of tackling... their evaluation is more than just game tape in the end they really like Williams and probably feel after this season, he price would go up so lock him in now... I would not say it is a rush signing but one that they wanted to do and feel it will benefit them in the long runb.

I'm glad they extended him. He's locked up through 2020 and he's on a team friendly deal. It was clear that he was projected as the long term replacement to Reggie Nelson.

(05-17-2016, 01:24 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: Reggie Nelson just led the NFL in interceptions, went to the Pro Bowl, and was second team All Pro.  Both he and Mitchell have done significantly more in their careers than Williams.  I like Shawn Williams, and hopefully this works out great, but the guy has four career starts.  Why not see what he can do over an entire season??

Reggie Nelson is 32 years old and didn't wanna take the deal we offered him which from reports was more than fair. 

As for TJ Ward and Mike Mitchell, both of these guys are average players. Average players get the kind of contracts Shawn Williams just got, while he has done very little the coaches who have seen him in practice and how well he has done while on the field feel that it was worth the risk. 

The odds of Shawn Williams being an average to above average player are probably higher than him being terrible from what we have seen so if he ends up being average its a solid contract, if he is above average the contract is great value and if he is terrible then he only has 4 mil guaranteed and would be easy to move on from.

People keep bringing up Derron Smith, yea we all loved the pick when it was made and even with some success in later rounds the last couple years it is crazy to depend on a 6th round pick to step up. Everybody saying we should have waited a year because Smith could step up, yea he could and that would be great for depth but what if he didn't and Shawn Williams steps into Nelson's role and plays incredible? Then we have to try and get Williams signed to a decent contract while also dealing with Zeitler, Whit, Kirk and Gio. 

Yea this is a bit of a risk but its a safer risk than waiting until next off-season where a big season by Williams could have cost us another player or Williams himself. Now we have him locked up with very little guaranteed and a contract that would be fair for a solid Safety.

I agree with the skeptics: why not wait until after preseason?

Shawn was originally brought in to take the spot lloka usurped from him in camp. What if someone like Shaw would light a fire and at least compete with him for the job?

(05-17-2016, 01:31 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Exactly. 

And just to add another name, TJ Ward:

-All rookie team
-2 time Pro Bowler
-2nd team All-Pro
-Superbowl Champ, 2x AFC Champ

This is close to where they set Shawn Williams market value.

Why, exactly?  Where is the fire?

Here are some guys who all signed contracts with a larger average annual salary than Williams in the last few years. And this is only guys who changed teams.

2014
Jarius Byrd
Donte Whitner
TJ Ward
Antoine Bethea
Malcolm Jenkins
Mike Mitchell
Corey Graham
2015
Da'Norris Searcy
Nate Allen
Marcus Gilchrist
Ron Parker
Rahim Moore
2016
Tashaun Gipson
Rodney McLeod
Eric Weddle
Isa Abdul-Quddus
Reggie Nelson
Tyvon Branch

And if the 4 million guarantee is right. He got less in guaranteed money than all of them but Reggie Nelson and Rahim Moore who each matched the 4 mi.

We paid him as an average starting safety. Well he is a starter. And we locked him up for his prime years. So it really isn't a bad deal. Locking a guy up before he hits the open market should easily save us money. Derron Smith or Fejedelem aren't turning into to starters anytime soon.

If we would have locked up Sanu or MLJ with a contract of this size at this time last year people would have complained. In hindsight we would have gotten a great deal.

(05-17-2016, 04:06 PM)BobJones4980 Wrote: Reggie Nelson is 32 years old and didn't wanna take the deal we offered him which from reports was more than fair. 

As for TJ Ward and Mike Mitchell, both of these guys are average players. Average players get the kind of contracts Shawn Williams just got, while he has done very little the coaches who have seen him in practice and how well he has done while on the field feel that it was worth the risk. 

The odds of Shawn Williams being an average to above average player are probably higher than him being terrible from what we have seen so if he ends up being average its a solid contract, if he is above average the contract is great value and if he is terrible then he only has 4 mil guaranteed and would be easy to move on from.

People keep bringing up Derron Smith, yea we all loved the pick when it was made and even with some success in later rounds the last couple years it is crazy to depend on a 6th round pick to step up. Everybody saying we should have waited a year because Smith could step up, yea he could and that would be great for depth but what if he didn't and Shawn Williams steps into Nelson's role and plays incredible? Then we have to try and get Williams signed to a decent contract while also dealing with Zeitler, Whit, Kirk and Gio. 

Yea this is a bit of a risk but its a safer risk than waiting until next off-season where a big season by Williams could have cost us another player or Williams himself. Now we have him locked up with very little guaranteed and a contract that would be fair for a solid Safety.

The fact that the team continued to go after Nelson even after signing Ioloka should tell you something about their feelings towards Williams.  If they were really that sold on him, they would have simply let Nelson walk away.

(05-17-2016, 04:15 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: The fact that the team continued to go after Nelson even after signing Ioloka should tell you something about their feelings towards Williams.  If they were really that sold on him, they would have simply let Nelson walk away.

Or you know this team is pretty loyal to their own players so they tried to keep a veteran that was playing at a high level, it should also tell you something that when they made an offer to Nelson that they felt was fair and he didn't they moved on pretty quickly.

(05-17-2016, 04:09 PM)TGISunday Wrote: I agree with the skeptics: why not wait until after preseason?  

Shawn was originally brought in to take the spot lloka usurped from him in camp.  What if someone like Shaw would light a fire and at least compete with him for the job?

Williams wasn't brought in to start in 2013. Iloka was being mentioned as a starter when he first got here, since we were still starting Crocker.

(05-17-2016, 02:05 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: Where do you get that Nelson would have been the backup if he came back?  I remember reading that they had talks for almost a month, but the sticking points were contract length and guaranteed money.

Nelson wouldn't have been a backup, and that actually is where the problem would lie. Nelson and Iloka would have been the starters, keeping Williams on the bench. By keeping Williams on the bench, you never find out if he's actually a good player or truly developing.

You have to have a turnover of talent occasionally even if it's not always comfortable in order to see what your new faces can actually do.

(05-17-2016, 04:06 PM)BobJones4980 Wrote: Reggie Nelson is 32 years old and didn't wanna take the deal we offered him which from reports was more than fair.

Reports started by Hobson, a Bengals shill/employee. Lol... most reliable source ever for unbiased opinions on how the Bengals operate.

(05-17-2016, 04:36 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Nelson wouldn't have been a backup, and that actually is where the problem would lie. Nelson and Iloka would have been the starters, keeping Williams on the bench. By keeping Williams on the bench, you never find out if he's actually a good player or truly developing.

You have to have a turnover of talent occasionally even if it's not always comfortable in order to see what your new faces can actually do.

I agree with you.  I just think you need to find out if that new player is what you think he is before you give him a four year extension.

(05-17-2016, 04:42 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Reports started by Hobson, a Bengals shill/employee. Lol... most reliable source ever for unbiased opinions on how the Bengals operate.

Everything I saw was Dave Lapham saying we offered similar contract figures to what Iloka got but didn't wanna give him the guaranteed or the number of years Iloka got.

Is it really the Bengals fault Nelson and his agent wanted the Bengals to shell out a ton of money for a 32 year old safety when they have a guy that has shown flashes when he could get on the field ?

People are constantly bitching about not getting Nelson back but in the end Nelson was on the market for a long time and when he finally did sign it was a short term contract for 2 years 8.5 mil with 4 mil guaranteed, this is from the organization that was just throwing money at players this off-season and that is the best he could get. So if that was the best offer he was getting do you really believe that the Bengals didn't offer something pretty damn close to that early on?

I think you and many others are vastly overrating what Nelson is worth(including his agent) and considering how long it took for a team to offer him that small short term contract I don't think NFL teams rate him as high as many of you.