(06-11-2016, 01:09 PM)BoomerFan Wrote: Perhaps, but I'm worried when I read in the most recent Hobson article:

While {Brandon LaFell} learns the offense, the drops that plagued him late last year in New England have surfaced from time to time this spring, but they think the more he’s in system the more consistent he’ll become . . .


Then you have:


With Pro Bowl tight end Tyler Eifert (ankle) out for training camp, Tyler Kroft and C.J. Uzomah have had very encouraging springs catching the ball and getting open . .. Eastern Kentucky free agent Matt Lengel, who spent all last season on the practice squad, has also shown improvement . . .


OK, why not move Kroft or Uzomah to WR and let Jake Fisher get more reps at TE then. Look, catching the ball is great, but a TE needs to be able block almost as well as a lineman. Winston is apparently doing a great job at right tackle now, so this would seem to solve a lot of problems better than hoping that Lafell will someday learn how to catch a football at the pro-level. 

You cant just move tight ends to receiver. Not even Eifert is going to just become a receiver.

There seems to be a few people who think that just because Zamp wasn't a coordinator before he's incapable now or having been passed up before is a direct reflection on his ability. There are lots of examples of people who have been passed up many times in their lives who go on to greatness when they get the chance and likewise plenty who do not, but without a working crystal ball nobody knows until we actually find out.
Heck, if I could see into the future with uncanny accuracy every time I'd be a multi billionaire and so would the rest of us, but sadly I can't so I'm not.
All we can do is to either have a bit of faith in Zamp or not, but predicting the future based on something that didn't happen until just recently is a fools errand.

(06-12-2016, 03:37 PM)grampahol Wrote: There seems to be a few people who think that just because Zamp wasn't a coordinator before he's incapable now or having been passed up before is a direct reflection on his ability. There are lots of examples of people who have been passed up many times in their lives who go on to greatness when they get the chance and likewise plenty who do not, but without a working crystal ball nobody knows until we actually find out.
Heck,  if I could see into the future with uncanny accuracy every time I'd be a multi billionaire and so would the rest of us, but sadly I can't so I'm not.
All we can do is to either have a bit of faith in Zamp or not, but predicting the future based on something that didn't happen until just recently is a fools errand.

Exactly.  None of us can predict the future so if you're sure Hue Jackson and RGIII can't win the Super Bowl for the Browns you're just full of crap and need to shut up for the next 7 months. Honestly, at this point we have no idea at all if Dalton will throw more TDs in 2016 than Tim Tebow, and we won't KNOW until the 2016 season is in the books.

But seriously, no one here is claiming to be able to predict the future but you can't just disallow off-season speculation that is based upon certain factual information. We had a top-tier offense with an OC who has 7 years experience as an OC and now we have a guy with 0 years experience as an NFL OC...some skepticism is warranted, no?

I think the biggest difference this year for Andy Dalton will be no Hue Jackson as his OC. I'm hoping Zampese (spelling way off prob) his old QB's coach (good sign imo) will be able to help Dalton have success just like Hue did the past 2 years with Dalton.

Hue Jackson knew Daltons strengths & weaknesses and used them perfectly for the most part.

Being his QB coach will help him know what Dalton's strengths are. Let's hope Zampese follows in Hue's footsteps there.

I'd be less concerned about Zampese having no resume as an OC if we had an offensive-minded HC.

(06-10-2016, 08:34 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Sanu was overpaid, where am I denying this? 

Wherever you use the contract size to prove how good a player is.

(06-16-2016, 12:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Wherever you use the contract size to prove how good a player is.

I'd never say contract sized PROVED how good a player is (unless it was by total accident) because that would mean I think Jay Cutler, Kirk Cousins, and Sam Bradford are top-teir QBs and that would just be insane.

I'm saying the fact that the BENGALS offered MLJ a lot more than they offered Lafell seems to indicate (NOT PROVE) that they think MLJ would be more productive in this system.  That's it and that's all.

(06-16-2016, 01:55 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'd never say contract sized PROVED how good a player is (unless it was by total accident) because that would mean I think Jay Cutler, Kirk Cousins, and Sam Bradford are top-teir QBs and that would just be insane.

I'm saying the fact that the BENGALS offered MLJ a lot more than they offered Lafell seems to indicate (NOT PROVE) that they think MLJ would be more productive in this system.  That's it and that's all.

well MLJ has had 4 years in the system coming off one of his best season where he was on the field all 16 games.

Lafell is coming off a bad year / injured year...  and has not been in this system.   So it would make sense why they would think that and Lafell kinda has to prove he can hang here.

(06-16-2016, 02:44 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: well MLJ has had 4 years in the system coming off one of his best season where he was on the field all 16 games.

Lafell is coming off a bad year / injured year...  and has not been in this system.   So it would make sense why they would think that and Lafell kinda has to prove he can hang here.

Right, which why I'm saying the notion that Lafell will be as good if not better than MLJ seems to be based more in off-season optimism than anything else.

(06-16-2016, 03:03 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Right, which why I'm saying the notion that Lafell will be as good if not better than MLJ seems to be based more in off-season optimism than anything else.

Nope, it's based on the fact that LaFell has been more durable and productive than Jones has.

(06-16-2016, 03:20 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Nope, it's based on the fact that LaFell has been more durable and productive than Jones has.

So then you agree the Bengals were idiots to even bother to attempt to get MLJ when Lafell was available for a much lower rate?

(06-16-2016, 12:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Wherever you use the contract size to prove how good a player is.

(06-16-2016, 01:55 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'd never say contract sized PROVED how good a player is (unless it was by total accident) because that would mean I think Jay Cutler, Kirk Cousins, and Sam Bradford are top-teir QBs and that would just be insane.

I'm saying the fact that the BENGALS offered MLJ a lot more than they offered Lafell seems to indicate (NOT PROVE) that they think MLJ would be more productive in this system.  That's it and that's all.

Well excuse me Mr. Semantics.  I should have said "Wherever you use the contract size to INDICATE how good a player is."

(06-16-2016, 11:36 PM)Nately120 Wrote: So then you agree the Bengals were idiots to even bother to attempt to get MLJ when Lafell was available for a much lower rate?

No, because MLJ is younger and the Bengals knew more about him because he has been on the team 4 years.

(06-16-2016, 11:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No, because MLJ is younger and the Bengals knew more about him because he has been on the team 4 years.

So based upon the contract offered would it be reasonable to assume the Bengals valued MLJ more than Lafell? I guess I'm just wondering why Lafell is clearly so much better to us the message board fans and he wasn't so clearly better to the Bengals.

I think the age argument that Lafell is a better prospect than MLJ, yet MLJ received much more attention in FA is a valid one.

However, I don't understand how there wasn't some other team out there willing to pay more than we did for Lafell. Granted, maybe Lafell told his agent he wanted to be with a contender. Maybe Lafell was picky. Still, it's hard to believe that no other team would offer him a larger contract based on his career.

It's a one year, prove it sort of deal, so maybe the Bengals were his best shot to put up some stats and land a larger contract next year. Still, I feel like teams like KC, Balt, Cleveland, 49ers, Oakland etc etc could use a guy like Lafell. So why did he slip through the cracks?

Perhaps the timing was perfect, and I'm sure there plenty of beneath the surface reasons as to why Lafell ended up here, but its interesting he missed out on a mid tier contract for a WR needy team.

(06-16-2016, 11:53 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: I think the age argument that Lafell is a better prospect than MLJ, yet MLJ received much more attention in FA is a valid one.

However, I don't understand how there wasn't some other team out there willing to pay more than we did for Lafell. Granted, maybe Lafell told his agent he wanted to be with a contender. Maybe Lafell was picky. Still, it's hard to believe that no other team would offer him a larger contract based on his career.

It's a one year, prove it sort of deal, so maybe the Bengals were his best shot to put up some stats and land a larger contract next year. Still, I feel like teams like KC, Balt, Cleveland, 49ers, Oakland etc etc could use a guy like Lafell. So why did he slip through the cracks?

Perhaps the timing was perfect, and I'm sure there plenty of beneath the surface reasons as to why Lafell ended up here, but its interesting he missed out on a mid tier contract for a WR needy team.

Hell if I know.  I'm just stating my skepticism about Lafell being no different, or better than MLJ is all.  A year ago Fred and I were debating on whether or not another 1-year FA WR (Denarius Moore) was going to return to his prior form after a bad year and be a slam-dunk gem of a FA find or not.

(06-16-2016, 11:50 PM)Nately120 Wrote: So based upon the contract offered would it be reasonable to assume the Bengals valued MLJ more than Lafell?  I guess I'm just wondering why Lafell is clearly so much better to us the message board fans and he wasn't so clearly better to the Bengals.

Supply and demand. Demand was almost nonexistent after Jones was signed, so LaFells price went way down. If he hit free agency earlier, or other teams were wanting to sign a free agent WR he would have got more money.

(06-17-2016, 12:25 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Supply and demand. Demand was almost nonexistent after Jones was signed, so LaFells price went way down. If he hit free agency earlier, or other teams were wanting to sign a free agent WR he would have got more money.

I'll admit Lafell may have gotten more money and a longer contract had he not been one of the later known FA WRs to be claimed BUT it's hard to deny he wasn't our first choice, nor likely the first choice of a number of other teams despite being available at the same time.

Lafell and MLJ were both available at the same time and we tried to sign MLJ.  Once he was gone we gave Lafell a low-ball offer, and it's hard for me to get behind that as an upgrade until I see some on-the-field success.  I think that's pretty reasonable.  I don't think Lafell is going to be bad, but the main reason Lafell wasn't a top-priority signing for us falls on his shoulders.  We shall see.

Again, last year we signed Denarius Moore on a low-risk, hoping that his most recent year was an anomaly and he would return to his past averages.  He didn't, we moved on.  We've sunk more into Lafell, but we may very well have given him more because we lost 2 WRs this off-season.  Hell, we may have over-paid Lafell because we were over a barrel trying to replace 2 vet WRs.  That could be a bit much, but it's semi-plausible.

(06-16-2016, 11:36 PM)Nately120 Wrote: So then you agree the Bengals were idiots to even bother to attempt to get MLJ when Lafell was available for a much lower rate?

Actually I do think they were idiots for offering MLJ 9+ million per (if that actually happened). I realize I'm just a lowly fan, but I just don't see why you'd pay a guy THAT much for 65-800-4 production when we've gotten that type of production out of Jerome friggin Simpson when Dalton was a rook.

I'll take 700 yards and 2-3 more drops to save 6 million this year and several million over the next few seasons. The potential positives outweigh the potential negatives by far IMO.

It's possible we wouldn't have extended Gio had MLJ received such a ridiculous contract here. Maybe we let Eifert walk. Dansby probably isn't here.

I almost understand the Lions paying him that, because they pass more than any other team and MLJ's role will probably match the contract size. In Cincy though, he was good for 700-800 yards as (arguably) the 3rd option. It just wasn't smart money to pay $9 million per for that.

That's not me trying to justify losing him after the fact, either. I would've said the same thing in February. MLJ may be slightly better, but no way in heck is he $6 million per better. LaFell looks like a way better value to me, and hopefully Boyd is ready to take over next year. I love how things turned out.