(02-28-2017, 03:44 PM)McC Wrote: I gotta say, Iloka looked a whole lot more replaceable without Reggie back there.

Reggie was really good in pass coverage. Iloka and Williams are more run stopping safeties. Iloka is better in coverage than Williams though...but I wouldn't call him great.

Our pass rush kind of declined this past season too. We can't get pressure from just the front 4 anymore.

(02-28-2017, 03:56 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Reggie was really good in pass coverage. Iloka and Williams are more run stopping safeties. Iloka is better in coverage than Williams though...but I wouldn't call him great.

Our pass rush kind of declined this past season too. We can't get pressure from just the front 4 anymore.

Yep.  And Reggie had that Steeler thing too.

Most of our issues start with the lines. The defensive line struggles to get consistent pressure so we blitz and play weak zone coverage. The offensive line can't pass protect and their blocking in the run game has been terrible.

lol I'm seriously on the edge of being done with this organization, this is basically them telling us fans they don't give a crap about winning and are just happy getting paid millions. Part me me hopes Hamilton county will eventually have enough and force this terrible organization to leave.

I hope Malik Hooker is gone before the 9th pick because he is exactly what we've needed and could never quite find. But I know they'll pass on him after paying Iloka and Williams (They won't have 3 high priced safeties). Which will just infuriate me.

(to the missing Reggie discussion).

(02-28-2017, 03:28 PM)Au165 Wrote: Availability is the best ability. If he isn't on the field it doesn't matter. Lafell was there and Jones wasn't, which has been his MO most his career. Even if he had played 16 the stats don't justify paying 4x for Jones over Lafell.

So your point is the Bengals were stupid for offering Jones the "same" deal which would have paid him 4x more than LaFell, but Jones' refusal to re-sign saved them from their own stupidity?

(02-28-2017, 03:40 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Once again...the Bengals wanted to retain Jones and offerred him the same deal as the Lions offerred him. Jones chose to sign with the Lions to be the #1.

The Bengals didn't have some grand strategy to let Jones walk and replace him with Lafell. They were forced to.

Their plan was to retain Jones and let Iloka walk. Who they would have replaced Iloka with? I don't know.

I agree, but this was more of a string of discussion with someone else in this thread who claims he doesn't believe they offered him the same money. So if they don't believe he did then it is fair to say they didn't for a reason and did well in not retaining him . Not really directed at your or the idea that they necessarily wanted to move on without him (reports have said otherwise), more of saying you can't hate them for both.

(02-28-2017, 04:03 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So your point is the Bengals were stupid for offering Jones the "same" deal which would have paid him 4x more than LaFell, but Jones' refusal to re-sign saved them from their own stupidity?

Nope see post below. A person said he didn't believe they did offer the same, so my point is if they didn't as he claims then he must give them credit for not doing so and coming out ahead otherwise he needs to give them credit for being willing to spend the same money. Some around here try to work both sides of it saying they did nothing right either way.

I am okay with either belief. I believe they tried to sign him he wanted to be a #1 and we lucked into similar production for less money.

(02-28-2017, 04:06 PM)Au165 Wrote: Nope see post below. A person said he didn't believe they did offer the same, so my point is if they didn't as he claims then he must give them credit for not doing so and coming out ahead otherwise he needs to give them credit for being willing to spend the same money. Some around here try to work both sides of it saying they did nothing right either way.

You're missing the main point: They offerred Jones that money...but would have let Iloka walk.

Jones walked, so they signed Iloka.

Good teams figure out how to retain both Jones AND Iloka...

I believe they offered Jones the same or close to it but only after they let him get treated like royalty by the Lions. Kinda like J.Joe. They lowball their players, and treat them like they are dispensable (Big Z), then when they go visit another team and see that they provide towels that fit, don't have a limit on Gatorade, don't have to bring their own cable cords, pillows etc to camp, have indoor practice facilities they then try to match the offer. Too late then. Then they feed us the line that they tried and the player chose elsewhere.

Last I read they hadn't even spoken to Z's representatives. What kind of treatment is that. Truth is once our players hit free agency there's no getting them back. This FO must extend them a year before their contract is up if they want to keep players around here.

Even Whit said they need to step up their game. Meaning they've lowballed him. Whit of all people!

(02-28-2017, 04:08 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: You're missing the main point: They offerred Jones that money...but would have let Iloka walk.

Jones walked, so they signed Iloka.

Good teams figure out how to retain both Jones AND Iloka...

Your missing the point ,that wasn't even the point of the discussion before you jumped on it haha. My whole discussion was around a guys idea they didn't give him the same deal as reported. To your point, they offered the man the same deal they can't make the guy sign. It was already a bad deal you can't demand they make an even worse one just because. Good teams find replacements and we did for far less money. Jones and even Nelson for that matter aren't the reason we lost this year, it was the offensive line play and running game.

The defense was back in form before the mid point the offense continued to be a shit show with the O line, which Jones and Nelson had nothing to do with.

AU has fought the good fight. I'll give em that.

(02-28-2017, 04:12 PM)jj22 Wrote: AU has fought the good fight. I'll give em that.

The problem is people are arguing different things in here. I am arguing they have spent the money, I am not arguing they have spent it wisely (for the most part that is). I have argued they have made attempts to keep their own when they could, but not at the price of overpaying (see Sanu). I think some here don't understand all contracts have multiple year implications and use the crutch of one year cap figures to justify excessive spending. Last year only 5 teams in the Playoffs really spent more than us. It is bad coaching and pad play more than anything that has cost this team in recent history not the lack of spending. That 5 Millions roll over may have gotten us one guy last year, but we weren't one guy away last year. People need to look big picture.

(02-28-2017, 10:16 AM)ochocincos Wrote: In Hobson's latest article on Bengals.com titled "How fine is nine?", there is a section called Whit's Worth. Inside, the following quote...


Full article here - http://www.bengals.com/news/article-1/How-fine-is-nine-Bengals-alive-and-kicking-with-Simmons-at-helm/f9b88411-55bb-4c61-a69e-f281a1cd8a6d

Normally, Hobson would spout off reasons why the full $43 million cannot be spent. This time, he just flat out says "Bengals can only spend X" and leaves it at that. Probably because he knows giving any kind of reasoning will be ridiculed. We all know how the breakdown should be and that the Bengals should have somewhere in the low $30 millions to spend. Saying only $15 million is immediately saying this franchise is not going to win a playoff game.

Its all propaganda to try to insult the intelligence of Bengals fans. They used to be able to get away with this shit when there was no internet, but we all know better now. We all know how much space there is and how much money they have to spend. 

I just wish these guys had the balls to come out and say that they are running this organization like they are in the 20's and they dont care what we think about it. Geoff Hobson is Mike Brown's puppet and everyone knows it.You see what happens when someone in the hometown media says anything to challenge him .(Andy Furman)

(02-28-2017, 04:05 PM)Au165 Wrote: I agree, but this was more of a string of discussion with someone else in this thread who claims he doesn't believe they offered him the same money. So if they don't believe he did then it is fair to say they didn't for a reason and did well in not retaining him . Not really directed at your or the idea that they necessarily wanted to move on without him (reports have said otherwise), more of saying you can't hate them for both.

Hobson reported the Bengals offered Joseph the same deal he accepted in Houston, but according to Joseph Houston offered him more guaranteed money.  When one team offers more guaranteed money than another team; both offers aren't the same.  They're different.

So why should I believe the Bengals when I've already heard the same false BS before?  This is what Hobson reported:

Quote:Initial reports had the Jones deal at $8 million per year, a number that the Bengals believed to be comfortable with and were in range with it. But they couldn’t offer him the same amount of chances as a potential No. 1 target now teamed with Golden Tate and not Green and Eifert. They were so in sync with the numbers that they thought they were close to a deal Tuesday night.

According to NFL Network, the deal is for $40 million, $17 million guaranteed and a $9 million average in the first three years. That's a page out of the Bengals book, which typically front loads money and has declining salaries on the back end

Hobson didn't report what the Bengals offered in the form of guaranteed money.  Guaranteed money is, in general, the most important factor with any NFL contract.  Because a NFL player can be released or sustain a career ending injury and they will never see the remaining money contained in their contract.

If you believe they offered him the same money, I would like to see an apples to apples comparison which includes the amount of guaranteed money the Bengals offered rather than an estimate of the average yearly salary which doesn't include anything about the guaranteed money.  When I'm able to compare and the offer is in fact the same, then I will believe.  But, from what Hobson reported there is no evidence the offer is the same because he (deliberately) left out important information to determine Jones did, in fact, turn down the same offer or an offer that included less guaranteed money.

If you have a $40 million, $17 million guaranteed, $9 million average in first three years and a $40 million, $20 million guaranteed, $9million average in the first three years, I'm taking the contract that guarantees me an extra $3 million.  Total money is the same, but a $3 million difference in guaranteed money is a significant difference.

(02-28-2017, 04:33 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Hobson reported the Bengals offered Joseph the same deal he accepted in Houston, but according to Joseph Houston offered him more guaranteed money.  When one team offers more guaranteed money than another team; both offers aren't the same.  They're different.

So why should I believe the Bengals when I've already heard the same false BS before?  This is what Hobson reported:


Hobson didn't report what the Bengals offered in the form of guaranteed money.  Guaranteed money is, in general, the most important factor with any NFL contract.  Because a NFL player can be released or sustain a career ending injury and they will never see the remaining money contained in their contract.

If you believe they offered him the same money, I would like to see an apples to apples comparison which includes the amount of guaranteed money the Bengals offered rather than an estimate of the average yearly salary which doesn't include anything about the guaranteed money.  When I'm able to compare and the offer is in fact the same, then I will believe.  But, from what Hobson reported there is no evidence the offer is the same because he (deliberately) left out important information to determine Jones did, in fact, turn down the same offer or an offer that included less guaranteed money.

If you have a $40 million, $17 million guaranteed, $9 million average in first three years and a $40 million, $20 million guaranteed, $9million average in the first three years, I'm taking the contract that guarantees me an extra $3 million.  Total money is the same, but a $3 million difference in guaranteed money is a significant difference.

...then back to my other point that really wasn't even the point of the thread. If they didn't offer him the same money they made the right call not overpaying him and found an equal option for far less money. Luck or not, looking back we came out on the right side of the whole exchange.

The thread is about Hobson's "creative accounting". I have show that it's not that creative compared to what the Bengals have done. Even if you want to point to the 5-8 million left at the end of the years they rolled over, they have still spent the league average or so and have spent far more than most will admit. As I pointed out 5 teams in the playoffs last year spent more than us, the rest spent less.

We could have a whole other thread, which we have many times, regarding the decisions themselves. I don't think all decisions made have been great, but I do think in the last 5 years they have committed financially to being competitive.

(02-28-2017, 04:14 PM)Au165 Wrote: The problem is people are arguing different things in here. I am arguing they have spent the money, I am not arguing they have spent it wisely (for the most part that is). I have argued they have made attempts to keep their own when they could, but not at the price of overpaying (see Sanu). I think some here don't understand all contracts have multiple year implications and use the crutch of one year cap figures to justify excessive spending. Last year only 5 teams in the Playoffs really spent more than us. It is bad coaching and pad play more than anything that has cost this team in recent history not the lack of spending. That 5 Millions roll over may have gotten us one guy last year, but we weren't one guy away last year. People need to look big picture.

The big picture is 0 playoff wins in 26+ years...and you on here defending that the Bengals spending.

(02-28-2017, 04:46 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: The big picture is 0 playoff wins in 26+ years...and you on here defending that the Bengals spending.

There are many reasons to be mad about the last 5 years, honestly I wouldn't put spending in the top 3. I'd put lack of control and accountability, bad coaching, and poor drafting recently as the top 3 issues. This thread is about spending and they have spent league average or so for a while now other than one year they prepped for the Dalton deal. Honestly, the thread is about the way Hobson portrays our cap situation. When looking at the numbers, it isn't as farfetched as people like to think but most never look at actual cap numbers.

(02-28-2017, 04:14 PM)Au165 Wrote: The problem is people are arguing different things in here. I am arguing they have spent the money, I am not arguing they have spent it wisely (for the most part that is). I have argued they have made attempts to keep their own when they could, but not at the price of overpaying (see Sanu). I think some here don't understand all contracts have multiple year implications and use the crutch of one year cap figures to justify excessive spending. Last year only 5 teams in the Playoffs really spent more than us. It is bad coaching and pad play more than anything that has cost this team in recent history not the lack of spending. That 5 Millions roll over may have gotten us one guy last year, but we weren't one guy away last year. People need to look big picture.

Rey Maualuga's contract


Basically, 3yr $15mil/yr.

Inside LBer contracts

You take the $5mil/yr the Bengals are paying Maualuga and $5mil/yr of the $7-8mil/yr they have rolled over each of the past 4 years and they could afford Bobby Wagner.

Boby Wagner's contract

Just one example.

And they still have $2-3mil/yr unspent for "injuries."

(02-28-2017, 11:10 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: The only thing I can figure is he's subtracting out rollover space that we carried forward from not spending at the cap as that isn't recurring.

We have about $44.5 cap space.
- $6.5 million that we rolled over. (In reality this can be used for signing bonuses, etc. and the cap should keep rising each year.)
-------------------------------------------
$38 million
-9.2 million - Our rookie pool is around $9.2 million. (https://overthecap.com/draft/)
--------------------------------------------
$28.8 million

All I can figure is that he is saving money for a Burfict extension or something like that. He allocated for that with Dalton and Green.

The sad part? If you cut Pacman and Maualuga (which is needed for both), you gain an extra $10+ million. Maualuga is getting $3.15 million this year. The most he would make in his contract.

Pacman is making $6.3 million. Next year he's making $5.3 million.