(08-30-2016, 01:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote:

Yeah, right.  If only the Bengals were ran as well as the Browns.



I mean an extra first and 2 extra 2nd round picks over the next two years are actually "double the draft picks in each round for the next 2 years".

They've got far more than that. Enough for 4 drafts the next two years. 2 of each round (and more).

(08-30-2016, 04:49 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: Very doubtful that we're trading AJ to Vikings. The only guy to backup Andy would be Wenning, unless we go out and find some scrap heap vet. Also, if they did trade for him, it's not going to be a lot in return for compensation. AJ would get one year and go right back to being a backup because Teddy is the Minnesota starter. Zimmer and Spielman picked him to guide their franchise so they're going to give him time.

While i agree with this br i dgewater is a mobile qb which means his leg will need more time to heal and the vikings have sb hopes this year so in that mindset they may give up more than hes worth bc they want to win now 

(08-30-2016, 05:18 PM)Jpoore Wrote: While i agree with this br i dgewater is a mobile qb which means his leg will need more time to heal and the vikings have sb hopes this year so in that mindset they may give up more than hes worth bc they want to win now 

Pretty racist to call him a mobile QB. 

(08-30-2016, 04:00 PM)John Shaft Wrote: [quote pid='253443' dateline='1472572055']
Tell me about their "savvy" when they stop embarrasing themselves on Sundays. 
Many Browns fans are not happy with their FO analytical approach. Trading two Porshes for six Chargers. 
Remember Bill Beans analytical money ball Oakland teams were ok but never won a pennant.

You guys can slam me all you want, but the "deepest team in the league" can't trade anyone, while the pitiful Browns can clean up from players like Bark, and Lee etc. That's all I'm saying. Seems like we could if we were supposedly so deep. Clearly we're not.

(08-30-2016, 05:23 PM)jj22 Wrote: You guys can slam me all you want, but the "deepest team in the league" can't trade anyone, while the pitiful Browns can clean up on players like Bark, and Lee etc.

The pitiful Browns can afford to trade away players because THEY DON'T EXPECT TO WIN FOR SEVERAL YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WE on the other hand have realistic hopes of winning the Super Bowl...that means we have a different team building mentality.  We want EVERY position to be the best it can be....and that includes our back up QB...you know the one we had to use last year to even make the playoffs

These players they are trading are bums! Mingo?! Really. a 4th for a Punter?! These players wouldn't even make our squad. But we would have cut them. Not been able to (or tried) to trade them.

Browns would have got a 4th for Tate.

They probably would have gotten a 4th for Dimanche too...

Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet · 5m5 minutes ago

The #Lions claimed and were awarded #Bengals LB Jayson Dimanche, source said. That’ll help.

a 4th for DiManche? what are you smoking? A player who has been off rosters as often as on one. No one is going to waste a draft pick on someone like that.

(08-30-2016, 04:49 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: Very doubtful that we're trading AJ to Vikings. The only guy to backup Andy would be Wenning, unless we go out and find some scrap heap vet. Also, if they did trade for him, it's not going to be a lot in return for compensation. AJ would get one year and go right back to being a backup because Teddy is the Minnesota starter. Zimmer and Spielman picked him to guide their franchise so they're going to give him time.

Chargers waived Zach Mettenberger, who the Bengals tried to claim this offseason.

Assuming they do offer a big trade for McCarron, I would imagine Mettenberger would be the Bengals first choice. Heck, he can't be worse than the couple years the Bengals had Gradkowski and Campbell, and they were fine those years.

People pretend like McCarron came in and saved the season from disaster, but he beat the Blaine Gabbert 49ers and the Ryan Mallett Ravens.

(08-30-2016, 05:39 PM)pally Wrote: a 4th for DiManche?  what are you smoking?  A player who has been off rosters as often as on one.  No one is going to waste a draft pick on someone like that.

I would have said the same about Mingo. Lee.

(08-30-2016, 05:20 PM)The Real Deal Wrote: Pretty racist to call him a mobile QB. 

When u have attempted only 900 passes in your carreer thats what you are

(08-30-2016, 04:30 PM)Bengalbug Wrote: Bridgwater may have tore his ACL today, would go to IR and maybe a potential landing spot to AJM?

I think they will go with Shawn Hill because AJM would need a new deal next year (and a big one at that) and they would have given up a lot for a one year rent-a-qb.  I think a more realistic scenario is a team like the 49ers realize they don't have a franchise QB and want him while they release Kaep and Gabbert. 

Update on bridgewater schefty reporting compound fracture uan rappaport reportung torn acl

(08-30-2016, 05:23 PM)jj22 Wrote: You guys can slam me all you want, but the "deepest team in the league" can't trade anyone, while the pitiful Browns can clean up from players like Bark, and Lee etc. That's all I'm saying. Seems like we could if we were supposedly so deep. Clearly we're not.

You do realize the Bengals will have extra picks in the 2017 draft? They got those picks by being very smart in their approach to free agency. They don't need to operate in a constant state of desperation...ala Cleveland. 

While I still have minor complaints from time to time, I've come to really trust the decision making of this front office.

(08-30-2016, 05:39 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Chargers waived Zach Mettenberger, who the Bengals tried to claim this offseason.

Assuming they do offer a big trade for McCarron, I would imagine Mettenberger would be the Bengals first choice. Heck, he can't be worse than the couple years the Bengals had Gradkowski and Campbell, and they were fine those years.

People pretend like McCarron came in and saved the season from disaster, but he beat the Blaine Gabbert 49ers and the Ryan Mallett Ravens.

Didn't Mallett beat the Steelers?

(08-30-2016, 06:01 PM)BengalFanInNJ Wrote: Didn't Mallett beat the Steelers?

Honestly didn't know that, that's pretty sad for the Steelers. I guess they were the 31st ranked passing defense for a reason.

If anything, that proves my point that McCarron isn't required as a backup if the Bengals get a good enough offer. Lost twice to a team that Ryan Mallett and the 5-11 Ravens beat.

I think they will go with Shawn Hill because AJM would need a new deal next year (and a big one at that) and they would have given up a lot for a one year rent-a-qb.  I think a more realistic scenario is a team like the 49ers realize they don't have a franchise QB and want him while they release Kaep and Gabbert. 
[/quote]
Just saw that shaun hill is 36 i personally am not trusting a 36 year old backup to take my team to the playoffs

(08-30-2016, 06:06 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Honestly didn't know that, that's pretty sad for the Steelers. I guess they were the 31st ranked passing defense for a reason.

If anything, that proves my point that McCarron isn't required as a backup if the Bengals get a good enough offer. Lost twice to a team that Ryan Mallett and the 5-11 Ravens beat.

Unless a team is willing to overpay greatly, I think it would be crazy to trade McCarron this year. 

AJ is as good an insurance policy at QB as there is in the NFL right now, at least IMO. He knows the system, he can step right in if needed, and he's got valuable regular and postseason experience under his belt. You can't just deal that away. If Andy should go down for a period of time, I would feel much more confident knowing AJ would be manning the helm. 

(08-30-2016, 06:12 PM)Jpoore Wrote: I think they will go with Shawn Hill because AJM would need a new deal next year (and a big one at that) and they would have given up a lot for a one year rent-a-qb.  I think a more realistic scenario is a team like the 49ers realize they don't have a franchise QB and want him while they release Kaep and Gabbert. 

Why would McCarron need a new deal next year? He's under contract for a $690,000 base salary in 2017.

(08-30-2016, 05:58 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: You do realize the Bengals will have extra picks in the 2017 draft? They got those picks by being very smart in their approach to free agency. They don't need to operate in a constant state of desperation...ala Cleveland. 

While I still have minor complaints from time to time, I've come to really trust the decision making of this front office.

I wasn't even counting Cleveland's comp picks. Forgive me if I'm shocked we can't trade anybody from the deepest roster in the league before we cut them. Not even for a conditional 7th in 2018!

(08-30-2016, 05:13 PM)jj22 Wrote: They've got far more than that. Enough for 4 drafts the next two years. 2 of each round (and more).

And their war room will still only find 3 starters with all of them...