(03-24-2019, 12:22 AM)BengalChris Wrote: That signing was due to poor scouting. Guy was signed while he had a serious injury. He never played down.

Actually he re-injured the knee after the Bengals signed him.  At the end of the '09 season he was playing and even putting up 100 yd games.

(03-23-2019, 09:48 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: 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. 

The only "fake news" is that you think 9 examples over thirty years proves your point.  Those are the outliers.  The overwhelming majority of the time a player is not cut if he is earning his salary.

And the fact that you mention guys getting cut for "salary cap reasons" proves that they are overpaid.  If you sign a guy to a contract you can not afford to pay then that is "over paying".

If they were not overpaid they would get traded instead of cut.

(03-23-2019, 11:44 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: 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

It’s definitely best to learn from mistakes. That said, a single mistake should not prohibit the team from pursuing difference making FA’s in the tier above the bargain bin. Bryant’s issues were medical, and such that a top tier medical staff would have been waving red flags at the FO. The FO has to perform due diligence when screening any signee, be they draft picks or FA’s. They whiffed royally on Bryant. Learn from the lack of medical diagnosis, upgrade the medical staff, and move on.

(03-24-2019, 10:33 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The only "fake news" is that you think 9 examples over thirty years proves your point.  Those are the outliers.  The overwhelming majority of the time a player is not cut if he is earning his salary.

And the fact that you mention guys getting cut for "salary cap reasons" proves that they are overpaid.  If you sign a guy to a contract you can not afford to pay then that is "over paying".

If they were not overpaid they would get traded instead of cut.

Cap issues result in multiple players getting cut across the league each year. Most often they are mid-level players. Often, a cap cut occurs with a new staff implementing new schemes that may not fit a productive player. A good example is changing defensive alignment. And yes, a good bit of the time a player is not performing to the level of their contract

(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.

I was responding to this post by Fred:

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

(03-24-2019, 10:33 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The only "fake news" is that you think 9 examples over thirty years proves your point.  Those are the outliers.  The overwhelming majority of the time a player is not cut if he is earning his salary.

And the fact that you mention guys getting cut for "salary cap reasons" proves that they are overpaid.  If you sign a guy to a contract you can not afford to pay then that is "over paying".

If they were not overpaid they would get traded instead of cut.

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

Sorry, you seemed to be saying that players never get cut if they're earning their pay, so I just provided you with a slew of examples to disprove that statement. Do either of you guys have stats to back up this notion that the "overwhelming majority" of cuts are specifically due to underperforming the contract? Not the various reasons I listed?

And no, a player being cut for salary cap purposes doesn't prove that player is overpaid. There's a lot to consider when making a trade. Namely, is the player/agent even open to being traded? Perhaps other teams don't like the structure or length of the contract. 

You are making claims that you can't possibly prove. 

You'd think that after seeing a team use the same strategy for 27+ years and not yield a single playoff win...that fans would realize we need to change things up. Nope. Stay the course is some's response.

For our strategy to work, we're going to need to string 3-4-5 good to great drafts together in a row and even at that, the success will be short-lived as we saw as we won't be able to afford to keep all the players and would need to have more great drafts to replace them.

You have to be able to sign mid-tier free agents who are upgrades to supplement a roster.

(03-24-2019, 01:43 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I was responding to this post by Fred:



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

Sorry, you seemed to be saying that players never get cut if they're earning their pay, so I just provided you with a slew of examples to disprove that statement. Do either of you guys have stats to back up this notion that the "overwhelming majority" of cuts are specifically due to underperforming the contract? Not the various reasons I listed?

And no, a player being cut for salary cap purposes doesn't prove that player is overpaid. There's a lot to consider when making a trade. Namely, is the player/agent even open to being traded? Perhaps other teams don't like the structure or length of the contract. 

You are making claims that you can't possibly prove. 

It's funny because in other arguments Fred will talk about how the Bengals do sign free agents like Nate Clements and Dewayne Clemons and that was the catalyst for some of our success early in the Dalton era.

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

Fred you can't make it that simple because it's not ! Everything doesn't just fit into a neat little box. Players are cut for a myriad of reasons.

I believe one of the simple reasons MB has avoided free agency so much is they aren't part of "the family". They're not part of the club, the loyalty thing.

And getting burnt with some bad picks had further cemented his avoidance.

(03-24-2019, 10:27 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually he re-injured the knee after the Bengals signed him.  At the end of the '09 season he was playing and even putting up 100 yd games.

Never played down for the Bengals. Practiced one day for the Bengals, but came into that practice injured.

(03-24-2019, 03:43 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: You'd think that after seeing a team use the same strategy for 27+ years and not yield a single playoff win...that fans would realize we need to change things up. Nope. Stay the course is some's response.

For our strategy to work, we're going to need to string 3-4-5 good to great drafts together in a row and even at that, the success will be short-lived as we saw as we won't be able to afford to keep all the players and would need to have more great drafts to replace them.

You have to be able to sign mid-tier free agents who are upgrades to supplement a roster.

Spot on!!!! You need to use it to upgrade and fill spots with better talent. That does not mean top 5 high priced free agents and does not mean you have to over pay your own trash either.

(03-24-2019, 01:43 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I was responding to this post by Fred:



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

Sorry, you seemed to be saying that players never get cut if they're earning their pay, so I just provided you with a slew of examples to disprove that statement. Do either of you guys have stats to back up this notion that the "overwhelming majority" of cuts are specifically due to underperforming the contract? Not the various reasons I listed?

And no, a player being cut for salary cap purposes doesn't prove that player is overpaid. There's a lot to consider when making a trade. Namely, is the player/agent even open to being traded? Perhaps other teams don't like the structure or length of the contract. 

You are making claims that you can't possibly prove. 

And at time players just don't fit the culture.

Sometimes, the coach and the GM are in conflict and the player gets stuck in the middle.

Sometimes, the Team and the player agree on a one year contract, but the Team draws a two or three year deal, to spread the bonus. Cap purposes.

Lastly, a Team's vision for the player doesn't match the player. Teams will sign a player and hope to get something out of them that they haven't shown in the league. They base it on their college scouting. But once the player is signed, they just don't deliver.

The last example occurs when a Team misses out on the player during the draft, and hope they can get it right the second time around.

(03-23-2019, 04:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

I think that teams sometimes pony up with a multi year deal just to get a stopgap until they can draft the right guy. It’s really all about how each contract is drawn up. Free Agency is a gamble though, just like the draft. Most teams use a balance of both. The Bengals overpay for guys that they already have and are afraid to gamble on well regarded, outside free agents.

(03-24-2019, 04:37 PM)BengalChris Wrote: Never played down for the Bengals. Practiced one day for the Bengals, but came into that practice injured.

Exactly.

A player does not go from having 100 yd receiving games to not even being able to play a single down without some sort of NEW injury.  Too many people claim Bryant was injured and not playing at the end of the '09 season when he became a free agent. 

(03-24-2019, 01:43 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote:  I just provided you with a slew of examples to disprove that statement. 

You provided 9 examples over a 30 year period.

(03-24-2019, 03:44 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: It's funny because in other arguments Fred will talk about how the Bengals do sign free agents like Nate Clements and Dewayne Clemons and that was the catalyst for some of our success early in the Dalton era.

What is "funny" about that?

I always note that none of the guys who have helped us have been the top tier highest paid free agents.  It is much less likely for those type of free agents to be grossly overpaid.

(03-24-2019, 03:43 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: You'd think that after seeing a team use the same strategy for 27+ years and not yield a single playoff win...that fans would realize we need to change things up. Nope. Stay the course is some's response.

But I thought the proof of how bad of a coach Marvin was was the fact that he had "the best roster in the league".  And the only Reason Dalton was ever any good was because of the "amazing amount of talent around him".

How about we start punting on first down.  I mean we have been waiting for fourth down to punt, but that strategy has not produced a playoff win in 27 years, so we have to change it, correct?

Mack was a massive FA deal that transformed that Bears defense. Cooks was another good signing. So not every big signing is a waste, but most are cut due for a myriad of reasons. If you look at the way they structure contracts, I actually expect a majority of players to be cut before their contract is up. Dee Ford signed a huge contract and can be cut after two years with a 4.8 million dollar dead cap hit and save almost 50 million dollars. Also have to take into consideration that teams also benefit from grossly underpaying players on their rookie deals. So it usually balances itself out. But producing at a 15 mil dollar a year level (ELITE!) is very, very hard since you're talking about challenging the 1% and not the 99%. You pay for the elite years and cut after they start dropping off and not a second after since you can get a rookie to fill that spot with far less money and similar production.

(03-25-2019, 04:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You provided 9 examples over a 30 year period.

To disprove this statement...

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

1 example would've sufficed. Your statement was false. 9 was overkill.

(03-26-2019, 12:55 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: To disprove this statement...

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

1 example would've sufficed. Your statement was false. 9 was overkill.

Okay.  You got me.  So let me start over.

In the overwhelming majority of cases a player is not cut if he is earning his salary.

(03-26-2019, 03:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Okay.  You got me.  So let me start over.

In the overwhelming majority of cases a player is not cut if he is earning his salary.

You're a lawyer Fred, you should know technicalities are important.