Clay Matthews was not offered a contract in 2019 after playing 10 years and 6 pro bowls for the Packers.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001044378/article/clay-matthews-heartwarming-homecoming-he-never-saw-coming?3

We have some guys coming up soon (AJ and Dalton to name 2) and others who have big contracts (Geno and Carlos).

How would you react if MB suddenly showed no loyalty to aging stars? BTW, Clay signed with the Rams and will be playing where he played in college and close to home again. Whitt is a team mate.

Cuts are coming. Trades are possible. Should FO and MB choose loyalty over winning?

(08-26-2019, 09:24 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Clay Matthews was not offered a contract in 2019 after playing 10 years and 6 pro bowls for the Packers.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001044378/article/clay-matthews-heartwarming-homecoming-he-never-saw-coming?3

We have some guys coming up soon (AJ and Dalton to name 2) and others who have big contracts (Geno and Carlos).

How would you react if MB suddenly showed no loyalty to aging stars? BTW, Clay signed with the Rams and will be playing where he played in college and close to home again. Whitt is a team mate.

Cuts are coming. Trades are possible. Should FO and MB choose loyalty over winning?

The Bengals have been burnt in both directions. They showed loyalty to an older Willie Anderson (letting Steinbach leave IIRC) and it soon became pretty clear he was done. They let an older Whitworth walk and have struggled at the position since while he's continued to play at a high level for LA.

(08-26-2019, 09:34 AM)NKURyan Wrote: The Bengals have been burnt in both directions. They showed loyalty to an older Willie Anderson (letting Steinbach leave IIRC) and it soon became pretty clear he was done. They let an older Whitworth walk and have struggled at the position since while he's continued to play at a high level for LA.

In Matthew's case, they did not make him an offer. We made Whitt a healthy offer so not the same, he chose to leave and reject our offer.

Should we be loyal to aging players under contract? You mentioned some bad in the past. I see other teams do it, good franchises like Packers and they are not bashed for it.

(08-26-2019, 10:07 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: In Matthew's case, they did not make him an offer. We made Whitt a healthy offer so not the same, he chose to leave and reject our offer.

Should be loyal to aging players under contract? You mentioned some bad in the past. I see other teams do it, good franchises like Packers and they are not bashed for it.

You keep a guy as long as he has value. Offering a market contract for anyone is what teams should do, however they shouldn't over pay for loyalty. 

Side note, the Packers roster management and construction hasn't been viewed as "good" in recent years. In fact they have come under more and more fire for relying on a HoF caliber QB to cover up their flaws.

(08-26-2019, 09:24 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Clay Matthews was not offered a contract in 2019 after playing 10 years and 6 pro bowls for the Packers.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001044378/article/clay-matthews-heartwarming-homecoming-he-never-saw-coming?3

We have some guys coming up soon (AJ and Dalton to name 2) and others who have big contracts (Geno and Carlos).

How would you react if MB suddenly showed no loyalty to aging stars? BTW, Clay signed with the Rams and will be playing where he played in college and close to home again. Whitt is a team mate.

Cuts are coming. Trades are possible. Should FO and MB choose loyalty over winning?

when production no longer meets $$$$ value then you move on or require a paycut.

(08-26-2019, 10:07 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: In Matthew's case, they did not make him an offer. We made Whitt a healthy offer so not the same, he chose to leave and reject our offer.

Should we be loyal to aging players under contract? You mentioned some bad in the past. I see other teams do it, good franchises like Packers and they are not bashed for it.

Your right. However, we have a very volatile fan base here while some other franchises do not.

Ever since Johnny Unitas ran out the clock with the Chargers, it's been been standard for long-standing vets to part ways with their "one true" home and cash in on one final contract where they get to wear a uniform that looks weird on them. Most of the time they fizzle out and people tend to forget this stuff. The whole Luck retirement thing has me thinking how there was a good chance Manning going to the Broncos could have been a one-n-done overlooked footnote because his neck was so bad.

At any rate, fans get uppity for a year or so while the guy is "the enemy" and then he retires and people go back to seeing him as being only a member of his main team and such is life. Only when you need some amusement do you find pictures of Franco Harris as a Seahawk, Oj Simpson as a 49er, Ken Stabler as an Oiler, Joe Namath as Ram and so on.

So it's more like the main team is loyal and we will welcome you back in our history but we will also let you take some poor sucker franchise to the cleaners for one last payday first. Free, free...set them free (to paraphrase Sting paraphrasing someone else).

It's simple for most Bengals fans.... simply wait to see if the Front Office offers a contract or not, then criticize the decision.

(08-26-2019, 10:31 AM)Sled21 Wrote: It's simple for most Bengals fans.... simply wait to see if the Front Office offers a contract or not, then criticize the decision.

Pre-emptive criticism is the new thing. 

(08-26-2019, 09:24 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Clay Matthews was not offered a contract in 2019 after playing 10 years and 6 pro bowls for the Packers.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001044378/article/clay-matthews-heartwarming-homecoming-he-never-saw-coming?3

We have some guys coming up soon (AJ and Dalton to name 2) and others who have big contracts (Geno and Carlos).

How would you react if MB suddenly showed no loyalty to aging stars? BTW, Clay signed with the Rams and will be playing where he played in college and close to home again. Whitt is a team mate.

Cuts are coming. Trades are possible. Should FO and MB choose loyalty over winning?

People have argued the Bengals are too loyal.
The argument for why the Bengals are loyal is to help draw and retain talent.
The worry is that if the Bengals stop being loyal, it will become more difficult to draw talent to Cincinnati.
At the end of the day, winning is what will draw the talent the best.
Field a perennial winner and the talent will come.

(08-26-2019, 10:36 AM)Bengalitis Wrote: Pre-emptive criticism is the new thing. 

In all fairness, people who wait until something is over to give an opinion can be seen as spineless or just lazy.  Taken to the extreme we may as well not predict the 2019 season and we should just talk about the past lest we make a prediction or criticism that is *gasp* wrong!

If someone asks me what I think the BEngals record will be in 2019 I'm not going to say "I don't know...I can't see the future, but I do know they went 7-9 in 1985 and I can assure you of that one!"

(08-26-2019, 10:29 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Ever since Johnny Unitas ran out the clock with the Chargers, it's been been standard for long-standing vets to part ways with their "one true" home and cash in on one final contract where they get to wear a uniform that looks weird on them. Most of the time they fizzle out and people tend to forget this stuff. The whole Luck retirement thing has me thinking how there was a good chance Manning going to the Broncos could have been a one-n-done overlooked footnote because his neck was so bad.

At any rate, fans get uppity for a year or so while the guy is "the enemy" and then he retires and people go back to seeing him as being only a member of his main team and such is life. Only when you need some amusement do you find pictures of Franco Harris as a Seahawk, Oj Simpson as a 49er, Ken Stabler as an Oiler, Joe Namath as Ram and so on.

So it's more like the main team is loyal and we will welcome you back in our history but we will also let you take some poor sucker franchise to the cleaners for one last payday first. Free, free...set them free (to paraphrase Sting paraphrasing someone else).

I still can’t see a photo of Anthony Munoz in a Buccaneer uniform without feeling a gut punch.

(08-26-2019, 10:56 AM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: I still can’t see a photo of Anthony Munoz in a Buccaneer uniform without feeling a gut punch.

To each his own, I say good on him.  Fandom is interesting...we have fans (not you, just saying) who want players to not "quit" but then hate the idea of their favorites playing in a different shirt.  I saw this with Steeler fans when Hines Ward retired.  They would only be happy if when the Steelers cut him he simply retired.  THey love the guy, but if he tries to keep playing football with another team we're gonna be sooooooo mad!

Rooting for laundry, they are!

(08-26-2019, 11:00 AM)Nately120 Wrote: To each his own, I say good on him.  Fandom is interesting...we have fans (not you, just saying) who want players to not "quit" but then hate the idea of their favorites playing in a different shirt.  I saw this with Steeler fans when Hines Ward retired.  They would only be happy if when the Steelers cut him he simply retired.  THey love the guy, but if he tries to keep playing football with another team we're gonna be sooooooo mad!

Rooting for laundry, they are!

For me it was just Anthony Munoz, arguably the best left tackle to ever play the game. It didn’t bother me seeing Carson Palmer in black and silver or red and white and my blood pressure doesn’t increase one mmHg knowing Vontaze Burfict is in Oakland.

(08-26-2019, 10:44 AM)ochocincos Wrote: People have argued the Bengals are too loyal.
The argument for why the Bengals are loyal is to help draw and retain talent.
The worry is that if the Bengals stop being loyal, it will become more difficult to draw talent to Cincinnati.
At the end of the day, winning is what will draw the talent the best.
Field a perennial winner and the talent will come.

Mikey is overly loyal but he also seems to think that players should or will play for less as a result of this loyalty. Mikey always prefers making money over winning, we know this and that is a difficult structure under which you can build loyalty. 

(08-26-2019, 10:54 AM)Nately120 Wrote: In all fairness, people who wait until something is over to give an opinion can be seen as spineless or just lazy.  Taken to the extreme we may as well not predict the 2019 season and we should just talk about the past lest we make a prediction or criticism that is *gasp* wrong!

If someone asks me what I think the BEngals record will be in 2019 I'm not going to say "I don't know...I can't see the future, but I do know they went 7-9 in 1985 and I can assure you of that one!"

in all fairness people who bash decisions that haven't even happened or even being considered are just wasting oxygen lol

(08-26-2019, 10:44 AM)ochocincos Wrote: People have argued the Bengals are too loyal.
The argument for why the Bengals are loyal is to help draw and retain talent.
The worry is that if the Bengals stop being loyal, it will become more difficult to draw talent to Cincinnati.
At the end of the day, winning is what will draw the talent the best.
Field a perennial winner and the talent will come.

I have argued MB is too loyal.

But, I do not see FA's flocking to Cincinnati because Mb is loyal.

I think a winning culture creates FA's desire in conjunction with big bucks to go to a team in FA over another team.

(08-26-2019, 10:14 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: when production no longer meets $$$$ value then you move on or require a paycut.

In the modern NFL this is the only way.

A team can renegotiate the contract which gives the player more up front money and easier to release with less of a cap hit.

Player production along with the player's position factor into contract size.

Loyalty in my eyes should only push the team to come in with a competitive contract.

However if the team reviews available FA players, or doesn't have potential equivalent talent already in the fold, then they should pay a higher value.

The problem with the Bengals is that they are the Bengals.

They might have to pay a higher value because they'll get "the grass is always greener" syndrome.

TJ Houshmenzadeh admits he fell victim to that and also the promise to go from being WR2 to WR1.

It's easy to criticize the Bengals for letting both Whitworth and Zeitler go.

Whit is kind of a freak for his age and injuries.  They put up a competitive offer and hoped his loyalty would save them from overpaying.

It backfired of course.  There were claims that management and coaches pretty much thought it was a done deal.

For all we know that confident swagger that Whit would take less could have poisoned the deal.

Zeitler was going to do what other past Bengals did and go to the Browns to be overpaid.

I was more pissed that they completely struck out in the high draft selections for O-Line.

Hopefully that trend is not going to continue

(08-26-2019, 11:09 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: in all fairness people who bash decisions that haven't even happened or even being considered are just wasting oxygen lol

That and it's more just realizing that we are on here making predictions and assumptions without thinking that we can see the future or are 100% right.  I always point out, when you analyze or predict you are going to be wrong about stuff, that's just the way it is.  Anyone can look at any record/QB tier/etc prediction and see flaws emerge when the dust settles.

Players can move fairly freely from team to team these days and the teams themselves can cut players freely as well. I think it is known in the league circles that the Bengals tend to honor contracts signed. That is about as much loyalty as there can be. If the team ever combined this with the desire to win they may be on to something. Until then, it is groundhog day.