(08-18-2017, 09:23 AM)Hoofhearted Wrote: So what you're saying is we should give the bengals brass a pass for the lost 90s because they drafted shitty players? 

Also, people ***** about the PO losses because winning one playoff game is better than none every day of the week. Even tho we lost the two Super Bowls we represented the AFC in, that's still a huge highlight for this franchise. Same applies here. Winning a playoff game or two would do wonders for the fans and even players.

If we are still dwelling on the lack of success of the 90s, that is a problem.  Why?  What do you possibly get from hanging on to that anger other than depressed?

I agree that they need to win a playoff game, but just because they haven't doesn't put it all on the owner.  Players play, and owners own...they were good enough to get there and win their division at times, but didn't execute when it mattered most.  Coaching, the players, the ownership all take blame here, but not just the owner.  Blaming everything that has happened in terms of not winning a playoff game for a long time on the management is ignorant.  

(08-18-2017, 09:34 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: The biggest thing the rookie wage scale did was make it so the Bengals didn't have to negotiate contracts with rookies...thus ending holdouts. Smith was a long holdout. Justin Smith. Andre Smith. I'm sure there were others.

Rookies need to be in camp on time.

I hope you're right on the comparison to Atlanta.

That is definitely a big part of it, but I would argue the "recover from when you miss" is even bigger.  First round picks are SO much more important now, and they are HUGE values with 5 years under contract.  

(08-17-2017, 10:30 PM)jowczarski Wrote: Everyone has philosophical differences on how they believe teams should be run. To each his own.

I'll state two facts.

1. In my now three years covering the team, I've never heard - not once - anyone in the front office "cry poor," on or off the record. I've never heard from a player, or even an agent, that they were told "we don't have the money." Think about that -- agents! Public perception is what it is and I know the history, but from April, 2015 til now, I've never heard it.

2. Re: releasing "old/bad" players = free up cap space = buy more good players.

Here's the thing: the Bengals pay Leon Hall the final $9M in his last year with a bad back and diminishing ability (and a Peko, and a Maualuga, etc.) for a very good reason. They structure their contracts in a way unlike most NFL teams. They don't give out the giant guarantees and signing bonuses that inflate the cap and make agents look good. And in order to have players take those deals - Dalton, Green, Atkins, Dunlap, Whitworth, etc. - they have to have a good reference point that those players will see nearly every dollar of that deal.

An example to show this. Bear with me:

Julio Jones
Per OverTheCap.com (use them, by the way): "Jones signed a five year, $71.25 million contract extension with the Atlanta Falcons on August 31, 2015. Jones received $47 million in guarantees including $35.5 million in full guarantees. The guarantee consists of a $12 million signing bonus and Jones’ salary that is paid in 2015 and 2016. If Jone is on the roster the 3rd day of the 2016 League Year, his 2017 salary of $11.5 million will become fully guaranteed."

That means it's really a 2-year deal for $35.5.

Take DeMaryius Thomas: "Signed a five year, $70 million contract with the Denver Broncos on July 15, 2015. The contract contains $35 million in fully guaranteed salary and $43.5 million of total guarantees. According to Mike Klis, Thomas received an $11 million signing bonus and will earn a guaranteed roster bonus worth $6.5 million. His $13 million salary in 2016 is fully guaranteed and an $8.5 million salary is injury guaranteed and will vest to fully guaranteed in 2017. There is a $4 million option due in 2017 that will buy back the 2018 and 2019 league year. If the option is not exercised the final two years of the contract will void."

That means it's a 3-year deal for $43 million.

You're kind of getting the point with deals....

Now, A.J. Green - better than Thomas, and I would say he's better than Jones - but that is a worthy argument.

Anyway, Green signed "four year, $60 million contract extension with the Bengals on September 12, 2015. All contracts details are currently from a report on ProFootball Talk that indicates Green received $26.75 million in full guarantees including a $15 million roster bonus paid in 2015...If Green is on the roster on the 3rd day of the 2016 league year he will receive a $6 million roster bonus."

Basically, Green agreed to a 4-year deal for $26.7 million guaranteed.

Now, WHY in the world would A.J. Green do that? Because he knows that he will actually play out this contract. He will play through the 2019 season and collect every penny of the $69.376 of his deal from 2015-19. And he will NEVER be asked to restructure, take less money, or push it forward. And WHY would he believe that? Because guys like Leon Hall, Michael Johnson, Peko, etc. all lived out their contracts.

We'll see in 2019 if Jones or Thomas or Dez Bryant have A) have been cut B) have been asked to restructure and take less C) played it out and earned every dollar.

Maybe they will. But I can nearly 100% guarantee you Green will.

Long way to explain that, but hopefully it helps.

I can't speak to whether that's the "best way" to do things. Or the "right way." But If you want to sign a talent like Green for basically half of his market value in guaranteed dollars ... you better have some equity with agents and players that you'll live up to your end of the contract.

EDIT: Oh, the rollover/unused cap space. I also can't speak to if that's the best way, or the right way, or if they should max the cap every single year or not. It's football management theory. But I'll tell you this, not every team you see winning "goes all in" and maxes to the cap. They don't. Some might in certain years. But most don't. Trust me and the NFLPA, which tracks this stuff to the dollar, other teams have hoarded more cash over the years than the Bengals have.

My issues are:

1) Their decision making on which player(s) to sign in FA. They sign some mediocre role players rather than going for what many would consider high-impact players or they end up extending an aging subpar player an extra year or two because they don't have a "proven" player to take his spot. The team is not often willing to stick a young player in as a starter and instead have some somewhat serviceable veteran start instead until somehow that young player proves he's better? And in the rare occasion where they do actually try that (e.g. Ogbuehi), it appears (so far anyway) that they picked someone who was either bad and/or not ready.

2) They always seem to be planning for future signings, some of which end up not coming to fruition and biting them in the butt (e.g. Whitworth and Marvin Jones). What's wrong with being aggressive once in awhile and accepting that you might have some down years? If the finances aren't hurting, there shouldn't be such apprehension to being more aggressive occasionally. It just seems this team is more worried about reverting "back to the 90's" rather than trying to change some things up to improve.

3) They put too much stock into the players they draft over outside players. IIRC, they have the most drafted players on their roster compared to other teams, but it's not achieved what the fans want to see now...a playoff victory.

4) They need to invest more into scouting and cycle in some new staff every now and then if things get stagnant (like now).

5) They seem out of touch with their fan base and/or think they know better than the fans.

(08-17-2017, 10:30 PM)jowczarski Wrote: Everyone has philosophical differences on how they believe teams should be run. To each his own.

I'll state two facts.

1. In my now three years covering the team, I've never heard - not once - anyone in the front office "cry poor," on or off the record. I've never heard from a player, or even an agent, that they were told "we don't have the money." Think about that -- agents! Public perception is what it is and I know the history, but from April, 2015 til now, I've never heard it.

2. Re: releasing "old/bad" players = free up cap space = buy more good players.

Here's the thing: the Bengals pay Leon Hall the final $9M in his last year with a bad back and diminishing ability (and a Peko, and a Maualuga, etc.) for a very good reason. They structure their contracts in a way unlike most NFL teams. They don't give out the giant guarantees and signing bonuses that inflate the cap and make agents look good. And in order to have players take those deals - Dalton, Green, Atkins, Dunlap, Whitworth, etc. - they have to have a good reference point that those players will see nearly every dollar of that deal.

An example to show this. Bear with me:

Julio Jones
Per OverTheCap.com (use them, by the way): "Jones signed a five year, $71.25 million contract extension with the Atlanta Falcons on August 31, 2015. Jones received $47 million in guarantees including $35.5 million in full guarantees. The guarantee consists of a $12 million signing bonus and Jones’ salary that is paid in 2015 and 2016. If Jone is on the roster the 3rd day of the 2016 League Year, his 2017 salary of $11.5 million will become fully guaranteed."

That means it's really a 2-year deal for $35.5.

Take DeMaryius Thomas: "Signed a five year, $70 million contract with the Denver Broncos on July 15, 2015. The contract contains $35 million in fully guaranteed salary and $43.5 million of total guarantees. According to Mike Klis, Thomas received an $11 million signing bonus and will earn a guaranteed roster bonus worth $6.5 million. His $13 million salary in 2016 is fully guaranteed and an $8.5 million salary is injury guaranteed and will vest to fully guaranteed in 2017. There is a $4 million option due in 2017 that will buy back the 2018 and 2019 league year. If the option is not exercised the final two years of the contract will void."

That means it's a 3-year deal for $43 million.

You're kind of getting the point with deals....

Now, A.J. Green - better than Thomas, and I would say he's better than Jones - but that is a worthy argument.

Anyway, Green signed "four year, $60 million contract extension with the Bengals on September 12, 2015. All contracts details are currently from a report on ProFootball Talk that indicates Green received $26.75 million in full guarantees including a $15 million roster bonus paid in 2015...If Green is on the roster on the 3rd day of the 2016 league year he will receive a $6 million roster bonus."

Basically, Green agreed to a 4-year deal for $26.7 million guaranteed.

Now, WHY in the world would A.J. Green do that? Because he knows that he will actually play out this contract. He will play through the 2019 season and collect every penny of the $69.376 of his deal from 2015-19. And he will NEVER be asked to restructure, take less money, or push it forward. And WHY would he believe that? Because guys like Leon Hall, Michael Johnson, Peko, etc. all lived out their contracts.

We'll see in 2019 if Jones or Thomas or Dez Bryant have A) have been cut B) have been asked to restructure and take less C) played it out and earned every dollar.

Maybe they will. But I can nearly 100% guarantee you Green will.

Long way to explain that, but hopefully it helps.

I can't speak to whether that's the "best way" to do things. Or the "right way." But If you want to sign a talent like Green for basically half of his market value in guaranteed dollars ... you better have some equity with agents and players that you'll live up to your end of the contract.

EDIT: Oh, the rollover/unused cap space. I also can't speak to if that's the best way, or the right way, or if they should max the cap every single year or not. It's football management theory. But I'll tell you this, not every team you see winning "goes all in" and maxes to the cap. They don't. Some might in certain years. But most don't. Trust me and the NFLPA, which tracks this stuff to the dollar, other teams have hoarded more cash over the years than the Bengals have.

Nice post Jim, thanks for sharing. I will add this. And I'm not trying to play psychiatrist here. Mike brown seems to very much value loyalty. Employees to team and vice versa, honoring contracts etc. I think that was partly what lead to the Carson situation. I wonder how much of this was caused by Paul perhaps feeling betrayed by the Browns. Just a thought.

I will say though, as a fan who has not seen a playoff win under his watch, that sitting on a lot of cap room with a potentially glaring need at left tackle (possibly but with no real backup plan) doesn't scream "trying to win a championship" to me.

Perhaps I've just become too jaded. But I see other teams exhausting all means to improve their teams and this one seems to only want to improve it's way.

I will give them credit in that at least their way doesn't lead to a bunch of cap issues. So there's that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(08-18-2017, 01:22 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: If we are still dwelling on the lack of success of the 90s, that is a problem.  Why?  What do you possibly get from hanging on to that anger other than depressed?

I agree that they need to win a playoff game, but just because they haven't doesn't put it all on the owner.  Players play, and owners own...they were good enough to get there and win their division at times, but didn't execute when it mattered most.  Coaching, the players, the ownership all take blame here, but not just the owner.  Blaming everything that has happened in terms of not winning a playoff game for a long time on the management is ignorant.  

I'm not sure why you're implying I'm angry or depressed about a sports team not winning. I'm simply stating facts. If that bothers you, I'm not sure what to tell you. But do me a favor and not assume something I'm not.
But it's extremely valid if you really take into consideration what happened then. And what's happened (or not happened) since then. I'll give you the respect to form your own conclusions and that's your provocative.

(08-18-2017, 02:38 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: I'm not sure why you're implying I'm angry or depressed about a sports team not winning. I'm simply stating facts. If that bothers you, I'm not sure what to tell you. But do me a favor and not assume something I'm not.
But it's extremely valid if you really take into consideration what happened then. And what's happened (or not happened) since then. I'll give you the respect to form your own conclusions and that's your provocative.

Since we've last won a playoff games...23 teams have been to the Super Bowl. 23 eams!

We'll be celebrating like there's no tomorrow from 1 playoff win...but 26 teams have been to the Super Bowl over that span!

(08-18-2017, 02:49 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Since we've last won a playoff games...23 teams have been to the Super Bowl. 23 eams!

We'll be celebrating like there's no tomorrow from 1 playoff win...but 26 teams have been to the Super Bowl over that span!

Yea but I'm not angry, bitter or depressed about that. It's a direct representation of the Bengals - not me.

(08-17-2017, 10:30 PM)jowczarski Wrote: Everyone has philosophical differences on how they believe teams should be run. To each his own.

I'll state two facts.

1. In my now three years covering the team, I've never heard - not once - anyone in the front office "cry poor," on or off the record. I've never heard from a player, or even an agent, that they were told "we don't have the money." Think about that -- agents! Public perception is what it is and I know the history, but from April, 2015 til now, I've never heard it.

2. Re: releasing "old/bad" players = free up cap space = buy more good players.

Here's the thing: the Bengals pay Leon Hall the final $9M in his last year with a bad back and diminishing ability (and a Peko, and a Maualuga, etc.) for a very good reason. They structure their contracts in a way unlike most NFL teams. They don't give out the giant guarantees and signing bonuses that inflate the cap and make agents look good. And in order to have players take those deals - Dalton, Green, Atkins, Dunlap, Whitworth, etc. - they have to have a good reference point that those players will see nearly every dollar of that deal.

An example to show this. Bear with me:

Julio Jones
Per OverTheCap.com (use them, by the way): "Jones signed a five year, $71.25 million contract extension with the Atlanta Falcons on August 31, 2015. Jones received $47 million in guarantees including $35.5 million in full guarantees. The guarantee consists of a $12 million signing bonus and Jones’ salary that is paid in 2015 and 2016. If Jone is on the roster the 3rd day of the 2016 League Year, his 2017 salary of $11.5 million will become fully guaranteed."

That means it's really a 2-year deal for $35.5.

Take DeMaryius Thomas: "Signed a five year, $70 million contract with the Denver Broncos on July 15, 2015. The contract contains $35 million in fully guaranteed salary and $43.5 million of total guarantees. According to Mike Klis, Thomas received an $11 million signing bonus and will earn a guaranteed roster bonus worth $6.5 million. His $13 million salary in 2016 is fully guaranteed and an $8.5 million salary is injury guaranteed and will vest to fully guaranteed in 2017. There is a $4 million option due in 2017 that will buy back the 2018 and 2019 league year. If the option is not exercised the final two years of the contract will void."

That means it's a 3-year deal for $43 million.

You're kind of getting the point with deals....

Now, A.J. Green - better than Thomas, and I would say he's better than Jones - but that is a worthy argument.

Anyway, Green signed "four year, $60 million contract extension with the Bengals on September 12, 2015. All contracts details are currently from a report on ProFootball Talk that indicates Green received $26.75 million in full guarantees including a $15 million roster bonus paid in 2015...If Green is on the roster on the 3rd day of the 2016 league year he will receive a $6 million roster bonus."

Basically, Green agreed to a 4-year deal for $26.7 million guaranteed.

Now, WHY in the world would A.J. Green do that? Because he knows that he will actually play out this contract. He will play through the 2019 season and collect every penny of the $69.376 of his deal from 2015-19. And he will NEVER be asked to restructure, take less money, or push it forward. And WHY would he believe that? Because guys like Leon Hall, Michael Johnson, Peko, etc. all lived out their contracts.

We'll see in 2019 if Jones or Thomas or Dez Bryant have A) have been cut B) have been asked to restructure and take less C) played it out and earned every dollar.

Maybe they will. But I can nearly 100% guarantee you Green will.

Long way to explain that, but hopefully it helps.

I can't speak to whether that's the "best way" to do things. Or the "right way." But If you want to sign a talent like Green for basically half of his market value in guaranteed dollars ... you better have some equity with agents and players that you'll live up to your end of the contract.

EDIT: Oh, the rollover/unused cap space. I also can't speak to if that's the best way, or the right way, or if they should max the cap every single year or not. It's football management theory. But I'll tell you this, not every team you see winning "goes all in" and maxes to the cap. They don't. Some might in certain years. But most don't. Trust me and the NFLPA, which tracks this stuff to the dollar, other teams have hoarded more cash over the years than the Bengals have.

How a team structures contracts and honors its obligations is one thing, but whom they give those contracts to and when in my opinion are much more of an important issue with this front office. We can take a number of free agents that have left the organization in the past couple of years, but locking up important young players a year before they hit free agency isn't exactly the strong suit of the Bengals organization. Take Zeitler for example, they could have locked him up, when the Steelers chose to sign DeCastro for a similar deal at about 5 years and 10 million per. With the Bengals FO not doing this a year ahead and the timing of things, doesn't this show signs of disrespect to the player? Anyway the FO, tries to gamble by letting their players hit the free market, and what happens, RECORD SETTING CONTRACTS that pull these players away all because the Bengals were not on top of it a year ahead.I feel that is was the case in Whitworth's deal, Zeitler's, Marvin Jones's, and Reggie Nelson's recently.

Now if you want to talk about the organizations perception of being cheap, here are few thoughts on that topic. The talk that comes from former players who leave for FA on how they are treated in Cincy compared to their new destinations. Paul Brown Stadium, many things to say here. Are they the only team to not sell off their Stadium Naming rights? Who Cares really?The absolute screwing over of Hamilton county tax payers to pay for the stadium and maintenance, not to mention the mismanagement of lack of events held their to help pay for it.They have to go to the University of Cincinnati to practice in substandard cold weather as they are the most northern team without a practice bubble or facility.Where do they have training camp again? ohhh yes in PBS. They literally have the smallest scoreboards in the league, its awful. Finally after 50 years, they are finally acknowledging past players? No ring of honor or much of respecting past greats around the Stadium. Just a note about finances, the Oakland Raiders, LA RAMs, and LA Chargers are paying the NFL Owners over a Billion dollars in "relocation fees" to be split among the owners. Would a million dollar practice bubble break the bank? How about a Munoz, Boomer, or Anderson statue tribute? How about selling the naming rights to great American to help pay for some decent scoreboards inside the stadium. You dont have to cry poor, but sometimes its the little things that really do matter. 

(08-18-2017, 03:33 PM)bambino5130 Wrote: Now if you want to talk about the organizations perception of being cheap, here are few thoughts on that topic. The talk that comes from former players who leave for FA on how they are treated in Cincy compared to their new destinations. Paul Brown Stadium, many things to say here. Are they the only team to not sell off their Stadium Naming rights? Who Cares really?The absolute screwing over of Hamilton county tax payers to pay for the stadium and maintenance

Tax payers help pay for all NFL stadiums PBS isn't the only one. At last time I've heard since 2000 the tax payers have a lil over 900 million in stadium and maintenence. Now look at the Falcons new stadium tax payers already have over 600 Million in the stadium and I don't even think it's open yet...

I agree it happens other places Synric...but it's bad no matter how you slice it.

Think of the poor state healthcare and other programs are in. That money could be invested and used for other things.

$900 million of tax dollars. 0 playoff wins. That's a TERRIBLE return on investment!

(08-18-2017, 01:46 PM)ochocincos Wrote: My issues are:

1) Their decision making on which player(s) to sign in FA. They sign some mediocre role players rather than going for what many would consider high-impact players or they end up extending an aging subpar player an extra year or two because they don't have a "proven" player to take his spot. The team is not often willing to stick a young player in as a starter and instead have some somewhat serviceable veteran start instead until somehow that young player proves he's better? And in the rare occasion where they do actually try that (e.g. Ogbuehi), it appears (so far anyway) that they picked someone who was either bad and/or not ready.

2) They always seem to be planning for future signings, some of which end up not coming to fruition and biting them in the butt (e.g. Whitworth and Marvin Jones). What's wrong with being aggressive once in awhile and accepting that you might have some down years? If the finances aren't hurting, there shouldn't be such apprehension to being more aggressive occasionally. It just seems this team is more worried about reverting "back to the 90's" rather than trying to change some things up to improve.

3) They put too much stock into the players they draft over outside players. IIRC, they have the most drafted players on their roster compared to other teams, but it's not achieved what the fans want to see now...a playoff victory.

4) They need to invest more into scouting and cycle in some new staff every now and then if things get stagnant (like now).

5) They seem out of touch with their fan base and/or think they know better than the fans.

Ok your #5 point is a little out there.. 

(08-18-2017, 04:18 PM)sandwedge Wrote: Ok your #5 point is a little out there.. 

How so?

(08-18-2017, 04:19 PM)ochocincos Wrote: How so?

You have won the exact same amount of playoff games as the Bengals GM over the past 26+ years!

(08-18-2017, 04:28 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: You have won the exact same amount of playoff games as the Bengals GM over the past 26+ years!

Exactly. I can't be any worse, right?

(08-18-2017, 04:05 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I agree it happens other places Synric...but it's bad no matter how you slice it.

Think of the poor state healthcare and other programs are in. That money could be invested and used for other things.

$900 million of tax dollars. 0 playoff wins. That's a TERRIBLE return on investment!

Lol that's getting into the realm of politics which I try to stay clear of most of the time lol. 



I just know if a city wants an NFL team tax payers foot part of the Bill. That's the reason my state of WV doesn't have an NFL team is because of the low cost of living lower wage scale and low population doesn't put out as much in taxes. 

(08-18-2017, 04:35 PM)Synric Wrote: Lol that's getting into the realm of politics which I try to stay clear of most of the time lol. 



I just know if a city wants an NFL team tax payers foot part of the Bill. That's the reason my state of WV doesn't have an NFL team is because of the low cost of living lower wage scale and low population doesn't put out as much in taxes. 

You have the Texans there for part of their training camp though. That counts for something right?

(08-18-2017, 04:43 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: You have the Texans there for part of their training camp though. That counts for something right?

Lol the Patriots were also at the Greenbriar for joint practices. My friend in I debated on going we joked about throwing beer at Tom Brady but decided we would probably be tried convicted and hung as traitors.

Sadly we will never know which is the right way because do not see management spending the total amount any year to find out.

Oh well, it is what it is.

@ochocincos
Personnel moves/decisions can be debated in every city. But the fact is you can’t sign everyone. They’ve retained / extended the best players they’ve had since what, 2011? (And Whit is not really a good example of someone they didn’t want to retain. Dude spent a decade here with multiple extensions.) If you knock them for not keeping a second or third receiver, then do they get extra credit for locking up Atkins and Dunlap, a HOF-track DT and a Pro Bowl pass rusher? There is a cap and 53 guys – and Jones and Sanu got over $72.5 million. I mean, you’re going to pay three wide receivers a total of $145 million over the length of their deals? It’s just not feasible. And the Bengals did match Detroit’s offer – Marvin just chose to leave to be a No. 1. That was his right.

I can’t argue with being more flexible in free agency or changing that thinking. As for the most-drafted players on a roster thing – but the Patriots and Packers and Steelers consistently rank in the top third of the league, along with the Bengals, in number of homegrown players on rosters. There are many ways to roster build, but the way the math works is you need starters playing four years on a rookie contract to help pay for stars elsewhere.

I’ll agree on scouting. And think about it – the staff has cycled. They’ve had three offensive coordinators and defensive coordinators since 2013. New position coaches came in in 2014 on defense with Matt Burke and Vance Joseph, and entire positional grouping on defense changed before 2016. I think you’re pointing more to the head coach?

@ThePistons – great point on the teams that have been to the Super Bowl since ’88. It’s been too long at this point, regardless of the positives that have happened since 2003.

@bambino5130 - Take Zeitler for example, they could have locked him up, when the Steelers chose to sign DeCastro for a similar deal at about 5 years and 10 million per

They could not have. I knew that situation very, very well – Zeitler was going to be the highest paid guard in football. The Bengals don’t believe guard is a $10M per year position. Frankly, neither do I. Trust me when I say Zeitler didn’t feel disrespected. He gambled on himself and it paid off.

Again, Whitworth doesn’t count IMO. At some point you gotta cut the cord and the Rams had to pay him that. He was paid handsomely over many years with many extensions. Reggie Nelson? Old and same kinda deal as Whit. You had Shawn William sitting there. Marvin Jones’ deal was matched, to the dollar, but he chose to go to Detroit. He also gambled on himself. Would you have paid Marvin $40 million after missing all of 2014 with a foot injury? No one would have. Didn't hear a peep from anyone saying they should extend him in my first camp in '15. And he wasn't feeling disrespected, either. Hindsight is always 20-20.

Hindsight...but if you don't think Guard is a premium position in the NFL and you know you won't pay a guy as a free agent...why draft him in the 1st Round?

Also, the Bengals have somewhere near $18 million in cap space now - instead of paying a guy like Andre Smith over $3 million a year who has NEVER played Guard...why not sign an actual good Guard like Ronald Leary?

Jim - Have you heard anything on Eifert or Burfict extensions? Or even talks?