(03-10-2017, 02:23 PM)treee Wrote: It's funny. A lot of the same people who are saying the FO is loyal to a fault are bashing them for not throwing giant stacks of cash at a 35 y/o tackle. 

I'm less upset about losing Whit and more upset that (a) they didn't have another tackle in mind and (b) they kept the coach responsible for the current predicament (Alexander).

(03-10-2017, 02:38 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I'm less upset about losing Whit and more upset that (a) they didn't have another tackle in mind and (b) they kept the coach responsible for the current predicament (Alexander).

And that^^^..is the real issue here.

also, Fandom

(03-10-2017, 02:38 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I'm less upset about losing Whit and more upset that (a) they didn't have another tackle in mind and (b) they kept the coach responsible for the current predicament (Alexander).

EXACTLY.

(03-10-2017, 02:44 PM)Wyche Wrote: EXACTLY.

There you go again hating on Alexander the Great. You're such a hater. He's the complete package. Loyal to Mike Brown, can't identify talent, can't coach up players, and can tickle the ivory like no one's business! Oh, I forgot, he guest speaks and shit too.

(03-10-2017, 02:38 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I'm less upset about losing Whit and more upset that (a) they didn't have another tackle in mind and (b) they kept the coach responsible for the current predicament (Alexander).

You'll get no argument from me about Alexander, but I'm thinking they're looking for some cap casualties to start emerging. It's way too easy to get worked up the first few days of FA.

(03-10-2017, 02:33 PM)Atomic Orange Wrote: Pacmans unknown status has certainly put the team in a bind. They should have cut him the day the tape surfaced. It probably would have helped with negotiations for both players but then again it appears the Bengals didn't want to commit to 36 year old Whit long term and rightfully so IMO. So yeah, they could have made room by cutting fat for sure but the Rams deal proved Whit wanted more. I'm interested in seeing if they made the right move.

I completely agree that Pacman should be on the streets. Every day that Hobson keeps saying he's staying pisses me off a little more. I get they don't like dead money, but how do you justify keeping this guy after yet another embarrassment. I get not wanting to cut Pac before signing Dre because it would only give Dre more leverage, but if cutting Pac would've let them keep Dre and Whit, it's even a bigger mistake to keep Pac on the roster.

(03-10-2017, 02:19 PM)Atomic Orange Wrote: I believe the DeCastro deal messed all of that up. Both sides knew right then and there the Bengals weren't going to pay the kind of money Z eventually commanded. So, i blame the Steelers.

This is true, but I don't think anything stopped them from inking Z before DeCastro, I could be wrong.  If I'm right, they just sat on their hands and waited for the chance at a cheap deal.  Then, they had no backup plan, unless you call a guy that wasn't good enough to spell an injured Clint Boling a backup plan.  Think about it, Boling was better with one arm than Westerman.  That's scary.

(03-10-2017, 02:46 PM)muskiesfan Wrote: There you go again hating on Alexander the Great. You're such a hater. He's the complete package. Loyal to Mike Brown, can't identify talent, can't coach up players, and can tickle the ivory like no one's business! Oh, I forgot, he guest speaks and shit too.

I'm pretty sure PA tickle's Mike's pickle as well.

(03-10-2017, 02:46 PM)treee Wrote: You'll get no argument from me about Alexander, but I'm thinking they're looking for some cap casualties to start emerging. It's way too easy to get worked up the first few days of FA.

I sure hope so. I have no interest in pushing all chips in on Ogbuehi.

To me, the word that best describes the Bengals' strategy is 'Arrogance'. As in Mike Brown's belief that his way is THE way. Everything we have witnessed for so many years is a direct result of this. While not meaning to overlook the deficiencies in coaching or player talent, the over-riding factor is that all involved are at the mercy of Mike Brown's philosophies on how to run the franchise. And without really knowing, I'll be damned if I believe it will be much different when Katie takes over. All one can do is hope it will.

Meanwhile, the best way I know how to remain a fan is take interest in watching how well the young players develop into good NFL-quality players, and any 'team-building' that occurs as a result. Here's hoping no one suffers any career-ending injuries as a result.

(03-10-2017, 04:31 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: To me, the word that best describes the Bengals' strategy is 'Arrogance'. As in Mike Brown's belief that his way is THE way. Everything we have witnessed for so many years is a direct result of this. While not meaning to overlook the deficiencies in coaching or player talent, the over-riding factor is that all involved are at the mercy of Mike Brown's philosophies on how to run the franchise. And without really knowing, I'll be damned if I believe it will be much different when Katie takes over. All one can do is hope it will.

Meanwhile, the best way I know how to remain a fan is take interest in watching how well the young players develop into good NFL-quality players, and any 'team-building' that occurs as a result. Here's hoping no one suffers any career-ending injuries as a result.

Maybe it's arrogance, maybe it's not.  I just think it's an extremely skewed organizational philosophy that somehow found it's way into a business full of mostly hyper-competitive owners.  What they view as success and what, say John Elway views as success are two different things.  Some see a season and want to get better the next season, in a logical sequence of events.  The Bengals see a bad season and want to get better, as long as it doesn't negatively impact them 4 years later or cost them dead money.  

Basically, they don't give a shit about winning.  If winning is a byproduct of their philosophy as it is applied, then that's a nice feather in the cap.  If not, well, they've obviously been through worse and they're willing to deal with failure and all that comes with it if that's what the company model bears out.  They're constantly trying to run a marathon against teams that are sprinting.  

They are not alarmed about this o-line and unfortunately, I now truly believe, as mind-numbing as it may be, that they really are going to start the guys they say they are on opening day.  it would be a giant booster to their wavering "draft and retain" then do whatever you want regardless of conventional wisdom philosophy if it worked out.  It's obviously a huge risk, but after watching the Ogbuehi/Nugent scenarios last year, it's safe to say they'll take it without thinking twice.  They'd rather trust their organizational  philosophy than their own eyes when evalutating players.

Sorry for the rant reply, but those two failures really killed a lot of their credibility in my eyes.  They seriously just did not give a **** about paying the price for two players being on the field that were clearly hurting the team in a major way.  The stubbornness and refusal to change until it was too late was telling about urgency and desire to win here.   they earned credibility over the years, but they squandered a lot of it last year with those two decisions/non-decisions.  I don't trust them to evaluate talent or diagnose issues that are clearly injurious to the team's chances any longer.

(03-10-2017, 02:51 PM)Wyche Wrote: This is true, but I don't think anything stopped them from inking Z before DeCastro, I could be wrong.  If I'm right, they just sat on their hands and waited for the chance at a cheap deal.  Then, they had no backup plan, unless you call a guy that wasn't good enough to spell an injured Clint Boling a backup plan.  Think about it, Boling was better with one arm than Westerman.  That's scary.

I was reading the article about what went wrong with the Zeitler negotiations. It sounds like the Bengals were offering a little more than what Boling got. Z thought it was low and decided against a deal so they picked up his 5th year option. They started negotiations again with a little more money and DeCastro's deal put a stop to that. The Bengals simply don't value guards.


The issue I have is that they took a 1st round guard and never planned on giving him a deal that great guards get. I don't want to see this team ever draft a 1st round guard ever again. If they do, then we can expect him to leave in 5 years. If he signs an extension in the Bengals price range, then that means he probably isn't playing like a 1st rounder. It's a joke.

(03-10-2017, 11:29 AM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: ...and off tackle too.

HA! Nice one.

(03-10-2017, 05:23 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: I was reading the article about what went wrong with the Zeitler negotiations. It sounds like the Bengals were offering a little more than what Boling got. Z thought it was low and decided against a deal so they picked up his 5th year option. They started negotiations again with a little more money and DeCastro's deal put a stop to that. The Bengals simply don't value guards.


The issue I have is that they took a 1st round guard and never planned on giving him a deal that great guards get. I don't want to see this team ever draft a 1st round guard ever again. If they do, then we can expect him to leave in 5 years. If he signs an extension in the Bengals price range, then that means he probably isn't playing like a 1st rounder. It's a joke.

Thanks for the insight on that deal....so it stands to reason that if they had offered him 9-10 mil when the deal COULD have, and should have been done, this fiasco never happens.  

That's the same issues I have with all of this.  It's a sick, cruel joke.

(03-10-2017, 05:23 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: I was reading the article about what went wrong with the Zeitler negotiations. It sounds like the Bengals were offering a little more than what Boling got. Z thought it was low and decided against a deal so they picked up his 5th year option. They started negotiations again with a little more money and DeCastro's deal put a stop to that. The Bengals simply don't value guards.


The issue I have is that they took a 1st round guard and never planned on giving him a deal that great guards get. I don't want to see this team ever draft a 1st round guard ever again. If they do, then we can expect him to leave in 5 years. If he signs an extension in the Bengals price range, then that means he probably isn't playing like a 1st rounder. It's a joke.

It's more that they're trying to pay 2012 prices for players in 2017. The salary cap has risen $47 million since 2012!

Boling would be making $7-8 million a year now easily if he were a free agent.

Hey guys, long time lurker first time poster

I was in Sears today (dont ask why) and it reminded me of the Bengals. Basically an organization so completely unwilling to adapt to the times. While the rest of the world passes them by, they remain completely steadfast in a model that had marginal success at one point, but is not longer viable in today's environment.

For the Bengals it looks like this:
Marvin Lewis is Craftsman tools, half of our roster is the crap on the discontinued/expired table, Zampeze is the confusing strange smell, Duke Tobin is the Store Manager trying desperately to keep his store afloat...and all the while Mike has his POS Chevy parked in the only handicapped spot.

It's going to be really hard to find something to get excited about this season...

Think this just goes to show you how small NFL windows really are. And you have to wonder which players would have stayed if Marvin would have left.

I mean, Zeitler already said a big reason he went to Cleveland was because of Hue and he believes in what he's doing.

We have lost 8 starters from that 2015 team.
Marvin Jones, Mohamed Sanu, Kevin Zeitler, Andrew Whitworth, Reggie Nelson, Domata Peko, Andre Smith, AJ Hawk/Emmanuel Lamur.

I'm all for moving on from older players that are declining. But we lost Jones and Sanu. Jones was 25, Sanu was 26.
Zeitler just turned 27.

Nelson was a key contributor the the defense and still was a turnover machine in Oakland. Meanwhile they give Williams a contract when he had started in only 4 games.

The saying that the Bengals take care of their own isn't even real anymore. We lost key contributors when we had the money to keep them.

(03-10-2017, 06:10 PM)wolfkaosaun Wrote: Think this just goes to show you how small NFL windows really are. And you have to wonder which players would have stayed if Marvin would have left.

I mean, Zeitler already said a big reason he went to Cleveland was because of Hue and he believes in what he's doing.

We have lost 8 starters from that 2015 team.
Marvin Jones, Mohamed Sanu, Kevin Zeitler, Andrew Whitworth, Reggie Nelson, Domata Peko, Andre Smith, AJ Hawk/Emmanuel Lamur.

I'm all for moving on from older players that are declining. But we lost Jones and Sanu. Jones was 25, Sanu was 26.
Zeitler just turned 27.

Nelson was a key contributor the the defense and still was a turnover machine in Oakland. Meanwhile they give Williams a contract when he had started in only 4 games.

The saying that the Bengals take care of their own isn't even real anymore. We lost key contributors when we had the money to keep them.

Exactly why my level of disgust is so high right now.

Also, there were several of us, going back to the old boards, that were always pushing for a top tier FA or two along the way to help push us over the hump because we felt that window would close sooner than others did.  I guess we are all offspring of Nostradamus?  No, it was just using a bit of common sense, something not so common at PBS apparently.....

(03-10-2017, 06:17 PM)Wyche Wrote: Exactly why my level of disgust is so high right now.

Also, there were several of us, going back to the old boards, that were always pushing for a top tier FA or two along the way to help push us over the hump because we felt that window would close sooner than others did.  I guess we are all offspring of Nostradamus?  No, it was just using a bit of common sense, something not so common at PBS apparently.....

And we have the money to do it.

The Ravens had just $10 million, they cut players that were making big money, and resigned one of their best and signed Tony Jefferson.

Eagles did the same thing. Now they have Jeffrey, Warmack, and Torrey Smith

(03-10-2017, 11:15 AM)Bengalholic Wrote: This was posted by Jeff Ruby this morning on his Twitter account. What do you think?

Uh, yeah.  

(03-10-2017, 06:00 PM)skycruiser Wrote: Hey guys, long time lurker first time poster

I was in Sears today (dont ask why) and it reminded me of the Bengals. Basically an organization so completely unwilling to adapt to the times. While the rest of the world passes them by, they remain completely steadfast in a model that had marginal success at one point, but is not longer viable in today's environment.

For the Bengals it looks like this:
Marvin Lewis is Craftsman tools, half of our roster is the crap on the discontinued/expired table, Zampeze is the confusing strange smell,  Duke Tobin is the Store Manager trying desperately to keep his store afloat...and all the while Mike has his POS Chevy parked in the only handicapped spot.

It's going to be really hard to find something to get excited about this season...

Lowered expectations.  Mike thrives on it.