Is that a lot of the "bad" signings turn out like this:

https://www.profootballrumors.com/2019/03/this-date-in-transactions-history-charles-clay-joins-the-bills

Imo, Mike Brown has a good portion of the fan base convinced that free agency is the bogeyman, but terrible deals like Redskins/Albert Haynesworth are pretty rare. Usually 1 guy gets massively overpaid per off-season. Sometimes none. Sometimes people think teams overpaid, but then come to realize the market has changed due to cap increases, etc.

The truth is that the most common "bad" deals look like Charles Clay going to the Bills in hindsight. It didn't turn out great or ideal, but he he plugged that spot for a few years. They probably "overpaid" a bit, but maybe not considering the cost of TE's increased over the duration of the contract.

I'm sure someone will want to chime in with worse deals. Players that got injured or something like the Suh deal in Miami, but those are the exception. When you examine most of these deals in hindsight, they weren't so bad, and sometimes they work out quite well.

(03-23-2019, 12:50 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Is that a lot of the "bad" signings turn out like this:

https://www.profootballrumors.com/2019/03/this-date-in-transactions-history-charles-clay-joins-the-bills

Imo, Mike Brown has a good portion of the fan base convinced that free agency is the bogeyman, but terrible deals like Redskins/Albert Haynesworth are pretty rare. Usually 1 guy gets massively overpaid per off-season. Sometimes none. Sometimes people think teams overpaid, but then come to realize the market has changed due to cap increases, etc.

The truth is that the most common "bad" deals look like Charles Clay going to the Bills in hindsight. It didn't turn out great or ideal, but he he plugged that spot for a few years. They probably "overpaid" a bit, but maybe not considering the cost of TE's increased over the duration of the contract.

I'm sure someone will want to chime in with worse deals. Players that got injured or something like the Suh deal in Miami, but those are the exception. When you examine most of these deals in hindsight, they weren't so bad, and sometimes they work out quite well.

Some teams lose their minds in free agency and that allows some other teams to use it as an excuse to stay out.  Other teams use it wisely and improve their team.

I know people have had a lot to complain about because the Bengals didn't do more.  But the holes on our team and that available players didn't really line up all that well this year.  There were some players we might have gone after but none of them were without question marks.  Hopefully the draft lines up better.

And the real truth is we were not gonna fix our situation in free agency this year.  Maybe next year we'll be close enough to get that one guy who will put us over the top.

(03-23-2019, 01:02 PM)McC Wrote: Some teams lose their minds in free agency and that allows some other teams to use it as an excuse to stay out.  Other teams use it wisely and improve their team.

I know people have had a lot to complain about because the Bengals didn't do more.  But the holes on our team and that available players didn't really line up all that well this year.  There were some players we might have gone after but none of them were without question marks.  Hopefully the draft lines up better.

And the real truth is we were not gonna fix our situation in free agency this year.  Maybe next year we'll be close enough to get that one guy who will put us over the top.

I didn't intend for this thread to be about 2019 specifically. Just our general perception of free agency. 

The bolded is a simple, but accurate statement though. 

(03-23-2019, 12:50 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote:  terrible deals like Redskins/Albert Haynesworth are pretty rare. Usually 1 guy gets massively overpaid per off-season. Sometimes none. Sometimes people think teams overpaid, but then come to realize the market has changed due to cap increases, etc.

 When you examine most of these deals in hindsight, they weren't so bad, and sometimes they work out quite well.

Numbers say you are wrong.  Over half of the players who sign 2 year deals are cut after one season. One-third of players who sign 3 year deals are cut after one year.  One-fourth of players who sign 4 year deals are cut after one season.  A very high percentage of free agents are busts with their new teams.

The Ringer studied every multiyear free-agent contract in Spotrac’s database signed from 2011, the start of the most recent collective bargaining agreement, to 2015—a total of 663 deals. This data focuses solely on contracts signed during free agency, so it doesn’t account for rookie contracts, contract extensions, or players who re-signed with their team before becoming unrestricted free agents. It also excludes one-year free-agent deals.

The results were staggering: A player who signs a five-year deal has better odds of lasting one year (14.7 percent) than he does of lasting five years (13.7 percent). Players who sign four-year contracts in free agency have the exact same odds of lasting one year on the deal (23.1 percent) as lasting four years. Players on three-year contracts have roughly the same odds of the deal ending in one full season or less (34.3 percent) as they do of lasting the full term (36.2 percent). Less than half of players who sign two-year deals last two years (45.8 percent), and one-sixth don’t even make it through the first year. If time is money, in the NFL both are relative.

(03-23-2019, 04:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Numbers say you are wrong.

The Ringer studied every multiyear free-agent contract in Spotrac’s database signed from 2011, the start of the most recent collective bargaining agreement, to 2015—a total of 663 deals. This data focuses solely on contracts signed during free agency, so it doesn’t account for rookie contracts, contract extensions, or players who re-signed with their team before becoming unrestricted free agents. It also excludes one-year free-agent deals.

The results were staggering: A player who signs a five-year deal has better odds of lasting one year (14.7 percent) than he does of lasting five years (13.7 percent). Players who sign four-year contracts in free agency have the exact same odds of lasting one year on the deal (23.1 percent) as lasting four years. Players on three-year contracts have roughly the same odds of the deal ending in one full season or less (34.3 percent) as they do of lasting the full term (36.2 percent). Less than half of players who sign two-year deals last two years (45.8 percent), and one-sixth don’t even make it through the first year. If time is money, in the NFL both are relative.

How does this prove teams overpaid? Did they post the same stats for ALL players signed to 3-4-5 year deals? That way we can compare external free agents to those retained by their own team?

Were there "easy outs" in these contracts? For example, we recently had a string of 2-3 year deals that were really 1 year deals when you peeled all the layers back. That often happens in free agent deals. The years are inflated to make the agents happy, but those 5 year deals rarely last that long. A lot can change in that amount of time.

In short, showing that teams didn't keep players for the duration of the contract doesn't specifically show that they overpaid.  

We had our own issues in free agency. The Antonio Bryant signing was a disaster for example


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, are we talking about the truth :andy:

Or, the truth.. :paul:

People tend to lump free agency into either:

1 ) Spending top dollar on 1 player like Albert Haynesworth.
2 ) Signing depth guy scrubs and drafting players.

There is a vast middle ground to this and I think the middleground is what several of us advocate. But, for some it's hard to realize that the Bengals strategy of free agency doesn't work as they know it isn't likely to change anytime soon. When you are an extreme outlier (no playoff wins for 27+ years) while other teams have all won atleast 1 game and most 5+ over that span, you have to be using an unusually poor strategy.

The truth is, for our model to work we have to hit on an abnormally high amount of draft picks over 5-6 years witch several being Pro Bowl level. With our small scouting staff, that isn't likely. We've had what I would consider rosters worth of winning a playoff game maybe 2-3 times over the past 27 years. That's insanely low.

And the thing about the draft is: EVERY Team drafts and expects to get better thru the draft. With our small scouting department, it's not some advantage we have over them.

(03-23-2019, 06:54 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: People tend to lump free agency into either:

1 ) Spending top dollar on 1 player like Albert Haynesworth.
2 ) Signing depth guy scrubs and drafting players.

There is a vast middle ground to this and I think the middleground is what several of us advocate. But, for some it's hard to realize that the Bengals strategy of free agency doesn't work as they know it isn't likely to change anytime soon. When you are an extreme outlier (no playoff wins for 27+ years) while other teams have all won atleast 1 game and most 5+ over that span, you have to be using an unusually poor strategy.

The truth is, for our model to work we have to hit on an abnormally high amount of draft picks over 5-6 years witch several being Pro Bowl level. With our small scouting staff, that isn't likely. We've had what I would consider rosters worth of winning a playoff game maybe 2-3 times over the past 27 years. That's insanely low.

This year, there haven't been a lot of middle ground signings by anybody.  Lotta high end signings, a few lower deals for some older than dirt guys.  This year's crop was, on the whole, pretty weak.

I think the fact that so few top guys go to free agency, the middle class gets bumped up and you see those guys get overpaid. You almost have to avoid the first wave of signings, then pick and choose after that to find discounts and smart deal.

(03-23-2019, 04:41 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: In short, showing that teams didn't keep players for the duration of the contract doesn't specifically show that they overpaid.  

Yes it does. Players are not cut if they are earning their pay.

(03-23-2019, 06:54 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: People tend to lump free agency into either:

1 ) Spending top dollar on 1 player like Albert Haynesworth.
2 ) Signing depth guy scrubs and drafting players.

There is a vast middle ground to this and I think the middleground is what several of us advocate. But, for some it's hard to realize that the Bengals strategy of free agency doesn't work as they know it isn't likely to change anytime soon. When you are an extreme outlier (no playoff wins for 27+ years) while other teams have all won atleast 1 game and most 5+ over that span, you have to be using an unusually poor strategy.

The truth is, for our model to work we have to hit on an abnormally high amount of draft picks over 5-6 years witch several being Pro Bowl level. With our small scouting staff, that isn't likely. We've had what I would consider rosters worth of winning a playoff game maybe 2-3 times over the past 27 years. That's insanely low.

The middle ground is where the successful orgs augment their rosters. Going full Redskins is not the answer, not is full Mike Brown. Every year we watch the Pats full out the roster with mid-level signings and then put them in position to succeed. Last year the Rams signed several mid-level contracts to bolster their roster. Augmenting the draft with strategic improvements in FA is the way to go.

(03-23-2019, 06:22 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: We had our own issues in free agency. The Antonio Bryant signing was a disaster for example


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That was 15 years ago. It’s beyond pathetic if the FO still thinks about Bryant, beyond learning to hire a better medical staff.

(03-23-2019, 06:22 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: We had our own issues in free agency. The Antonio Bryant signing was a disaster for example

No one said there were no tales of free agent flops (especially health related ones). Just that it's not the norm.

(03-23-2019, 08:00 PM)PikesPeakUC Wrote: I think the fact that so few top guys go to free agency, the middle class gets bumped up and you see those guys get overpaid. You almost have to avoid the first wave of signings, then pick and choose after that to find discounts and smart deal.

I think that was more true before, but free agency has evolved recently with the window to talk with agents. Most of the deals come through in the first day, and I don't see many massive overpayments like the Suh deal. Teams are less prone to overreact, as they have plenty of time to talk with agents before FA starts.

The mid-range guys actually get paid like mid-range guys (usually). Something that I think confuses people is that the salary cap constantly goes up and people see some of these deals and think they're crazy, but as other players start getting re-signed, it starts to make sense.

Heck, we're looking at some of our own deals (Hart) like that right now.

(03-23-2019, 08:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes it does. Players are not cut if they are earning their pay.

Fake news. Players are cut for a myriad of reasons. Salary cap issues. Scheme/coaching changes. Off-field issues. Sometimes they're cut at their own request. 

- The Cards cut Tyrann Matthieu for whatever reason. He's just as fantastic now as he's been through his career.
- The Packers cut Josh Sitton after he made a Pro Bowl at 29 years old. 
- Desean Jackson was cut after a career year (1332 yards)
- DeMarcus Ware was cut at 31 years old due to big salary cap issues, he went on to make 2 more Pro Bowls
- Darrelle Revis was cut in his prime by the Buccaneers. He went on to be a key player for the champ Patriots the following year.
- Peyton Manning. Sure he had the neck issue, but it was pretty clear he'd be back.
- Jerry Rice was cut by the 49ers while still performing at a high level.
- The Steelers cut James Harrison for salary cap purposes while he was still producing.
- The Falcons cut Tony Gonzalez after a Pro Bowl season. He wound up retiring.

That's just some of the bigger names. Producing players get cut pretty much every year. 

(03-23-2019, 09:48 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: No one said there were no tales of free agent flops (especially health related ones). Just that it's not the norm.


I think that was more true before, but free agency has evolved recently with the window to talk with agents. Most of the deals come through in the first day, and I don't see many massive overpayments like the Suh deal. Teams are less prone to overreact, as they have plenty of time to talk with agents before FA starts.

The mid-range guys actually get paid like mid-range guys (usually). Something that I think confuses people is that the salary cap constantly goes up and people see some of these deals and think they're crazy, but as other players start getting re-signed, it starts to make sense.

Heck, we're looking at some of our own deals (Hart) like that right now.


Fake news. Players are cut for a myriad of reasons. Salary cap issues. Scheme/coaching changes. Off-field issues. Sometimes they're cut at their own request. 

- The Cards cut Tyrann Matthieu for whatever reason. He's just as fantastic now as he's been through his career.
- The Packers cut Josh Sitton after he made a Pro Bowl at 29 years old. 
- Desean Jackson was cut after a career year (1332 yards)
- DeMarcus Ware was cut at 31 years old due to big salary cap issues, he went on to make 2 more Pro Bowls
- Darrelle Revis was cut in his prime by the Buccaneers. He went on to be a key player for the champ Patriots the following year.
- Peyton Manning. Sure he had the neck issue, but it was pretty clear he'd be back.
- Jerry Rice was cut by the 49ers while still performing at a high level.
- The Steelers cut James Harrison for salary cap purposes while he was still producing.
- The Falcons cut Tony Gonzalez after a Pro Bowl season. He wound up retiring.

That's just some of the bigger names. Producing players get cut pretty much every year. 

Exceptions dont make a rule. More players are cut because they aren't producing than cap casualties.

Players that are producing are more likely to be traded even if it's for late picks.

(03-23-2019, 10:20 PM)Synric Wrote: Exceptions dont make a rule. More players are cut because they aren't producing than cap casualties.

Players that are producing are more likely to be traded even if it's for late picks.

Yeah...good thing the draft is a sure thing. Oh wait...out of a given draft, a team is lucky to have 1 quality starter Day 1.

With free agents, you atleast can see them on film against other NFL players.

(03-23-2019, 08:21 PM)t3r3e3 Wrote: That was 15 years ago.  It’s beyond pathetic if the FO still thinks about Bryant, beyond learning to hire a better medical staff.

Good thing they go for sure thing signings like giving Bobby Hart a 3 year contract for up to $21 million.

The best part of the signing according to some fans on here is they can waive him after Year 1 with little cap hit. That's really an inspiring signing for the team!

(03-23-2019, 08:21 PM)t3r3e3 Wrote: That was 15 years ago. It’s beyond pathetic if the FO still thinks about Bryant, beyond learning to hire a better medical staff.

It was actually 9 years ago. In 2010. And it’s best to learn from your mistakes whenever you make them, no matter how long ago it was

(03-23-2019, 06:22 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: We had our own issues in free agency. The Antonio Bryant signing was a disaster for example


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That signing was due to poor scouting. Guy was signed while he had a serious injury. He never played down.