So he had 11.5 sacks when he was 25 which was his 4th year in the league. That was his contract year.

Then, after that he landed a big contract with the Bucs and:

After:
3.5, 4, 5, 3.5, 5.5, .5 sacks.

Before:
3, 2.5, 6 sacks.

ie Tampa Bay paid him based on a career year. They realized their mistake and moved on. We then re-acquired him.

Yea, not uncommon. The issue in general is most analytic dudes will tell you not to judge guys on sacks, especially in paying the, because sacks are some what of a stat of opportunity. The better stat to judge is pressures because guys holding the ball longer than they should, or simply running into a defender can make sack numbers look better than they should be. The real unforgotten stat is tackle for loss because it is the run equivalent to the sack. For some reason people get caught up on a sack but a sack for a loss of 3 is the same as a tackle for loss of 3 on a run.

MJ was a good player for the majority of the time he was here. He was never supposed to be a top edge pass rusher on the team but more of a set the edge type of player.

(12-20-2018, 03:11 PM)Jakeypoo Wrote: MJ was a good player for the majority of the time he was here. He was never supposed to be a top edge pass rusher on the team but more of a set the edge type of player.

There in lies the issue. He was paid based on his career high year...and he was more of a solid role player. The last 2 years or so, he's generally been bad at times.

(12-20-2018, 05:39 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: There in lies the issue. He was paid based on his career high year...and he was more of a solid role player. The last 2 years or so, he's generally been bad at times.

He is making 4.5 this year, that is not being paid for his career high that is simply being paid like a veteran edge defender in the league.

(12-20-2018, 05:42 PM)Au165 Wrote: He is making 4.5 this year, that is not being paid for his career high that is simply being paid like a veteran edge defender in the league.

Tampa Bay paid him a huge contract after his career high, then waived him after a year...then we picked him up and gave him a fairly healthy contract.

Honestly, the way he's playing this year...paying him anything is overpaying.

(12-20-2018, 05:44 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Tampa Bay paid him a huge contract after his career high, then waived him after a year...then we picked him up and gave him a fairly healthy contract.

Honestly, the way he's playing this year...paying him anything is overpaying.

When we picked him up we paid him the going rate for a veteran Defensive End, not a guy coming off a 10 sack season. 4-5 million a year is what average veteran Defensive Ends in the league make. Tampa was paying him like 8.25ish a year, so we essentially paid him half.

As for this year, doesn't really matter he is gone after this year and the money this year was a sunk cost no real use for it at this point.

I'll argue that we'd be better off using that $4.5 million on signing a Guard than having a DE who grades out as the 93rd ranked Edge Defender.

(12-20-2018, 05:39 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: There in lies the issue. He was paid based on his career high year...and he was more of a solid role player. The last 2 years or so, he's generally been bad at times.

Not really he was asked to do a job and he did it for the most part. The problem to me was for a long time we didn't have a speed edge rushers on roster and that forced Johnson to play a role he wasn't ment  for. He thrived last season as an interior player for us.

(12-20-2018, 05:57 PM)Jakeypoo Wrote: Not really he was asked to do a job and he did it for the most part. The problem to me was for a long time we didn't have a speed edge rushers on roster and that forced Johnson to play a role he wasn't ment  for. He thrived last season as an interior player for us.

You and I have a different definition of 'thriving' as he was ranked really low last year.

(12-20-2018, 06:07 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: You and I have a different definition of 'thriving' as he was ranked really low last year.

He had 5 sacks and 11TFL(second on team) last season. Also had 49 tackles which was most on the line last season. 

(12-20-2018, 02:37 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: So he had 11.5 sacks when he was 25 which was his 4th year in the league. That was his contract year.

Then, after that he landed a big contract with the Bucs and:

After:
3.5, 4, 5, 3.5, 5.5, .5 sacks.

Before:
3, 2.5, 6 sacks.

ie Tampa Bay paid him based on a career year. They realized their mistake and moved on. We then re-acquired him.

TB expected him to continue that upward trend, but it was an anomaly. They cut bait with him quickly.
Cincinnati had more faith in him given they had more familiarity and they have stuck with him because of that.

MJ is very near useless out there this season.

He straight garbage on the field. Just watch him for a bit. He does absolutely nothing. Waste of space.

(12-20-2018, 05:49 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I'll argue that we'd be better off using that $4.5 million on signing a Guard than having a DE who grades out as the 93rd ranked Edge Defender.

The good news is that the Bengals will get their chance to do just that, as his contract expires at the end of the season.  

Several of us were hoping that he wouldn't make the team this season, some others tried to make us out as horrible fans and people for thinking that way, and then another few folks reminded us how Mike Brown likes to honor contracts and how MJ was a strong locker room presence and respected team leader.


Kind of funny how the Bengals let a career Bengal Great like Whitworth go to the highest bidder, but they chose to honor the full contract of the guy who took the money and ran, the first opportunity he got.  

(12-20-2018, 07:22 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The good news is that the Bengals will get their chance to do just that, as his contract expires at the end of the season.  

Several of us were hoping that he wouldn't make the team this season, some others tried to make us out as horrible fans and people for thinking that way, and then another few folks reminded us how Mike Brown likes to honor contracts and how MJ was a strong locker room presence and respected team leader.


Kind of funny how the Bengals let a career Bengal Great like Whitworth go to the highest bidder, but they chose to honor the full contract of the guy who took the money and ran, the first opportunity he got.  

Great stuff!

There are also several people on this board who overrate underperforming Bengals players and minimize losses in free agency.

ie Letting Zeitler and Whitworth walk is smart! (Like the Bengals invested that money wisely in other areas.)

ie Guys like MJ do things that don't show up on the stat sheet, like set the edge. (We're a historically bad run defense! We don't set the edge!)

(12-20-2018, 07:45 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Great stuff!

There are also several people on this board who overrate underperforming Bengals players and minimize losses in free agency.

ie Letting Zeitler and Whitworth walk is smart! (Like the Bengals invested that money wisely in other areas.)

ie Guys like MJ do things that don't show up on the stat sheet, like set the edge. (We're a historically bad run defense! We don't set the edge!)

Yeah, letting Zeitler walk was probably smart, but not Andrew Whitworth.  Good performing Guards can be found for significantly less than what Zeitler netted, but Duracell OTs like Whitworth are a commodity that is hard to replace.  What did that "savings" by not signing Whitworth gain, aside from a couple games from Eifert this year and about 6-10 losses that could have been wins..

(12-20-2018, 07:50 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yeah, letting Zeitler walk was probably smart, but not Andrew Whitworth.  Good performing Guards can be found for significantly less than what Zeitler netted, but Duracell OTs like Whitworth are a commodity that is hard to replace.  What did that "savings" by not signing Whitworth gain, aside from a couple games from Eifert this year and about 6-10 losses that could have been wins..

Yep. I'd argue that keeping Zeitler would have been smart too. You know he could perform here. Then you draft Price and he's playing between 2 good Guards.

Then, this year all you have to do is draft a Tackle and your line is solid.

(12-20-2018, 10:13 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Yep. I'd argue that keeping Zeitler would have been smart too. You know he could perform here. Then you draft Price and he's playing between 2 good Guards.

Then, this year all you have to do is draft a Tackle and your line is solid.

Hmm, that's a tough one to ponder.  We had Bodine between two good Guards, didn't seem to help him from getting bullrushed.  But then again, he was showing great work in Buffalo, before he got injured.  So, I guess coaching comes into play.  As it is now, Price is starting to settle in, after the injury, and he's got a coach that helped select him in the draft.  Price was looking alright before the injury, but struggled upon his return.  That is understandable for a rookie, as his development was stunted.  But, he seems to have gotten back into the learning curve lately, and should be just fine.

However, it's tough to justify paying Zeitler what Cleveland did, and have any hopes of resigning the guys on the DL that they recently did.

(12-20-2018, 10:26 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Hmm, that's a tough one to ponder.  We had Bodine between two good Guards, didn't seem to help him from getting bullrushed.  But then again, he was showing great work in Buffalo, before he got injured.  So, I guess coaching comes into play.  As it is now, Price is starting to settle in, after the injury, and he's got a coach that helped select him in the draft.  Price was looking alright before the injury, but struggled upon his return.  That is understandable for a rookie, as his development was stunted.  But, he seems to have gotten back into the learning curve lately, and should be just fine.

However, it's tough to justify paying Zeitler what Cleveland did, and have any hopes of resigning the guys on the DL that they recently did.

I would have waived MJ to create some space.

If it came down to Zeitler in his prime or Glenn after 3 years of injuries, I would have taken Zeitler.