Wow. I agree...time for a rebuild.

Dalton, Kirkpatrick, AJ Green, Dunlap and Atkins, Cordy Glenn are the top 6 highest paid making over 80 mil on @Bengals roster. 4 aren’t playing. Dunlap & Atkins have been non existent this season. Gut the roster! pic.twitter.com/dT9tSd3Ley

— Nick (@NickTheNitemare) November 16, 2019

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I'm not getting the connection between pass attempts in college, the attempt numbers of current college stars, highest paid not producing, and roster evaluation from a cap perspective.

I think that you might have a good point to make, but it's a bit cloudy at this time.

(11-17-2019, 12:29 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm not getting the connection between pass attempts in college, the attempt numbers of current college stars, highest paid not producing, and roster evaluation from a cap perspective.

I think that you might have a good point to make, but it's a bit cloudy at this time.

Maybe he's showing that we should draft Young and stick with our current QBs because the current crop of QBs hasn't had enough snaps?

(11-17-2019, 12:52 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: Maybe he's showing that we should draft Young and stick with our current QBs because the current crop of QBs hasn't had enough snaps?

Possibly.  It's going to take the rest of the season, in order to determine if Finley is worth building around.  Just a game or two, in the worst possible of situations, won't be very revealing as to his true professional potential.

(11-17-2019, 12:56 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Possibly.  It's going to take the rest of the season, in order to determine if Finley is worth building around.  Just a game or two, in the worst possible of situations, won't be very revealing as to his true professional potential.

I pasted the wrong thing. Sometimes it doesnt copy.

Although...the Bengals do tend to choose QBs that take a lot of college snaps. So that bodes well for Herbert.

(11-17-2019, 12:52 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: Maybe he's showing that we should draft Young and stick with our current QBs because the current crop of QBs hasn't had enough snaps?

Getting Chase Young would be ideal. When was the last time Cincinnati consistently got pressure on an opposing quarterback?

(11-17-2019, 03:51 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: Getting Chase Young would be ideal.  When was the last time Cincinnati  consistently got pressure on an opposing quarterback?

Young is a start. We're more than 1 player away on D.

(11-17-2019, 12:17 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Wow. I agree...time for a rebuild.

Dalton, Kirkpatrick, AJ Green, Dunlap and Atkins, Cordy Glenn are the top 6 highest paid making over 80 mil on @Bengals roster. 4 aren’t playing. Dunlap & Atkins have been non existent this season. Gut the roster! pic.twitter.com/dT9tSd3Ley

— Nick (@NickTheNitemare) November 16, 2019

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

This is a very stupid idea.  If we had young guys who were playing well then it would be fine to get rid of the old guys.

But when ALL THE PLAYERS are doing poorly it is the coaches instead of the players.

Do any of you realize how long it would take to re-create a entire 53 man roster?

(11-17-2019, 04:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is a very stupid idea.  If we had young guys who were playing well then it would be fine to get rid of the old guys.

But when ALL THE PLAYERS are doing poorly it is the coaches instead of the players.

Do any of you realize how long it would take to re-create a entire 53 man roster?

I think getting rid of Dalton, Dre K, Glenn, and Dunlap would be good. I don't think any will offer anything great next year and clear up space. But that also is expecting this team to go after some free agents. Even if the team did, who knows who would even be interested. 

(11-17-2019, 04:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is a very stupid idea.  If we had young guys who were playing well then it would be fine to get rid of the old guys.

But when ALL THE PLAYERS are doing poorly it is the coaches instead of the players.

Do any of you realize how long it would take to re-create a entire 53 man roster?

Where did anyone say anything about replacing an entire 53 man roster?  

How long should they run the same roster out there before they decide that these players are finished?

This team has won zero games this year.  The roster as it is constructed is really bad, despite the protests of the Front Office Avengers.  The big money veterans on defense have failed to get things together under two separate coordinators.  What exactly is keeping the once terrific players doing for us?  What would happen with younger, worse ones?  Would we lose more games?  The answer is no, because that isn't possible.

Who should we fire on staff?  Name some names.  Taylor?  Turner?  Lou?  I seem to recall you saying that they should get a second shot regardless of the results this season.  

I don't get how you can come on here and argue that there's nothing about this staff or roster that warrants personnel change.  You must just want to argue or something.  

They tried to tell us that it was just the coaches when they sucked last year. Coaching changes plus the same roster would bring the "New Dey", lol. How's that going? Maybe they should try to get some better players this time, you think?

(11-17-2019, 03:39 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I pasted the wrong thing. Sometimes it doesnt copy.

Although...the Bengals do tend to choose QBs that take a lot of college snaps. So that bodes well for Herbert.

No, That doesn’t bode well for Herbert. Poor guy gonna waste away in Cincy for the next decade

(11-17-2019, 04:28 PM)samhain Wrote: Where did anyone say anything about replacing an entire 53 man roster?  

Who looks good enough to keep?

Hint, when ALL the players look bad the problem is probably not the players.

(11-17-2019, 04:28 PM)samhain Wrote: I don't get how you can come on here and argue that there's nothing about this staff or roster that warrants personnel change.  You must just want to argue or something.  

I have no clue what you are talking about.  I have been saying all year that we need to bring in more talent on the O-line and LB.  I have also said that we need a new DC and find an experienced OC.

Seems like you are the one who is making stuff up just to start a fight.

This team needs change, but changing EVERYTHING just for the sake of change is stupid.  We have some talented players on this team.

(11-17-2019, 04:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Who looks good enough to keep?

Hint, when ALL the players look bad the problem is probably not the players.




I have no clue what you are talking about.  I have been saying all year that we need to bring in more talent on the O-line and LB.  I have also said that we need a new DC and find an experienced OC.

Seems like you are the one who is making stuff up just to start a fight.

This team needs change, but changing EVERYTHING just for the sake of change is stupid.  We have some talented players on this team.

How do you want to get better players, Fred?  You defend the free agency approach and the non-acquisition of draft picks at the trade deadline.  Are the better players going to fall out of the sky?  

You want to keep Turner and Taylor.  You've said as much.  You want to get on the table for Louie, too?  

Are you saying that this roster is close to adequate with a new staff?  Seems like we tried that already.  

This team is near beyond redeemable without major change.  There's nobody on this roster that's indispensable.  The staff, either.  

(11-17-2019, 04:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Who looks good enough to keep?

Hint, when ALL the players look bad the problem is probably not the players.

I agree with this.  In fact, I made a post in another thread, that alludes to that same point.  All NFL teams are choosing from the same talent pool.  By and large, most players drafted are good enough to be considered "NFL quality", and likely can be developed into reliable veteran players.  There are the exceptionally gifted few, that merit being rated highly over the majority of their contemporaries.

To further drive home the point about it being coaches, rather than players, let's look back a few years.  When Mike Zimmer was the DC, this team was able to pick up players off of the scrap heap and turn them into productive players.  Combine that with smart input on draft day, and the result is the Cincy Defense from 2012-2015, a stingy and disciplined unit to reckon with.  Now, some of those same faces are still on the team, but they perform like mere shadows of their former selves.

(11-17-2019, 04:45 PM)samhain Wrote: How do you want to get better players, Fred?  You defend the free agency approach and the non-acquisition of draft picks at the trade deadline. .  

I have NEVER defended their free agency approach.  Are you high?

As for "non-acqisition of draft picks" we have no idea what drfta picks we could have gotten.  All I have said is that if we have players good enough to be worth a decent draft pick then we are just creating another hole by trading them away.

It cracks me up when people whine about how all our players suck but at the same time whine about why we don't trade them all for high draft picks.

I'd be fine with us trading the #1 overall pick for a bundle of picks, but ALL draft picks are a little like lottery tickets.  So when you do actually get some talented players it is better to hold on to them instead of creating new holes then gambling on draft picks to fill them.

(11-17-2019, 04:45 PM)samhain Wrote:   You want to keep Turner and Taylor.  You've said as much.  You want to get on the table for Louie, too?  

Yes.  When I keep saying we need to get a new DC that is me "getting on the table for Louie, too".

Again, are you high?

I am not really thrilled about keeping Turner and taylor, but if we start firing coaches without giving them any decent talent then we NEVER get any decent coaches to work for them.

(11-17-2019, 04:45 PM)samhain Wrote:  Are you saying that this roster is close to adequate with a new staff?   

No.  I have repeatedly said that our O-line is a horror show. 

I think you must have ne confused with someone else.

(11-17-2019, 04:45 PM)samhain Wrote:  There's nobody on this roster that's indispensable.  The staff, either.  

Okay then.  Now we are back to my original question.  How long does it take to rebuild an entire 53 man roster?

(11-17-2019, 05:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have NEVER defended their free agency approach.  Are you high?

As for "non-acqisition of draft picks" we have no idea what drfta picks we could have gotten.  All I have said is that if we have players good enough to be worth a decent draft pick then we are just creating another hole by trading them away.

It cracks me up when people whine about how all our players suck but at the same time whine about why we don't trade them all for high draft picks.

I'd be fine with us trading the #1 overall pick for a bundle of picks, but ALL draft picks are a little like lottery tickets.  So when you do actually get some talented players it is better to hold on to them instead of creating new holes then gambling on draft picks to fill them.


Yes.  When I keep saying we need to get a new DC that is me "getting on the table for Louie, too".

Again, are you high?

I am not really thrilled about keeping Turner and taylor, but if we start firing coaches without giving them any decent talent then we NEVER get any decent coaches to work for them.



No.  I have repeatedly said that our O-line is a horror show. 

I think you must have ne confused with someone else.



Okay then.  Now we are back to my original question.  How long does it take to rebuild an entire 53 man roster?

This team acquires talent through the draft.  that's it with the one exception you love to trumpet about trading for Cordy Glenn that happened one time in a half decade.  If they don't have a multitude of high picks, then they don't get better players.

The player we have that may be enticing to other teams would provide help to already solid rosters.  Here they get us 0-9.  Why stick with solid over 30 players that won't be here when the roster finally becomes viable through the draft and organic player development?  What does that get us?  Some guys that are already in decline that will be shells of their prime selves in 3 or 4 seasons when the blind squirrel finally finds a nut in a draft or 2?

You'll get a coach if you want one bad enough and let them have control.  Saying that firing after a season would prevent that is a total figment of your imagination.  There are 32 NFL head coaching jobs on the planet.  Somebody that's not a HC will always want back in the game for the right arrangement.  Did Arizona go without a HC this year?  

As for draft picks being "lottery tickets", you know what''s not a lottery ticket?  A demonstrably awful roster full of players that have contributed to abject failure over the fairly large sample size of 2 seasons.  We know they suck as a group.  We've seen them suck for a long time now.  How much longer do they have to show us that they aren't good enough before it's okay to let a few players go?  A lottery ticket beats an aging player that's unable to help a failing roster and makes at or over 10 mil per season.  Let them help on a team where they aren't needed to do everything.

How long to build a roster?  Maybe 3-5 years?  7-10 with this management?  It's irrelevant if they continue to ignore the fact that they need to replace these once good players with new, younger ones or compliment them with legit outside free agents?

Either way, it still would take less time than it would to build a time machine and go back to the year 2015, which was the last year that this core of players was enough to win them anything.

Maybe Tua falls to the 2nd round now because of his injury? Can you imagine taking Young in the 1st and Tua in the 2nd?? Still a bunch of LB's and OL's away from being good, but that would be a great start.

Of all teams the bengals would be the idiots who keep a tackle making 9 mil a year on the roster and hes inactive

(11-17-2019, 05:57 PM)samhain Wrote: This team acquires talent through the draft.  that's it with the one exception you love to trumpet about trading for Cordy Glenn that happened one time in a half decade.  

What about '11 when we rebuilt our defense by signing three new starters in free agency?  Or when they signed Preston Brown the same year they traded for Glenn just 2 seasons ago

(11-17-2019, 05:57 PM)samhain Wrote:  If they don't have a multitude of high picks, then they don't get better players.

This is why we need to trade down from the #1 pick to get multiple selections.  When you trade one player for one pick all you do is create a new hole that has to be filled with that pick.

(11-17-2019, 05:57 PM)samhain Wrote: The player we have that may be enticing to other teams would provide help to already solid rosters.  Here they get us 0-9.  Why stick with solid over 30 players that won't be here when the roster finally becomes viable through the draft and organic player development?  What does that get us?  Some guys that are already in decline that will be shells of their prime selves in 3 or 4 seasons when the blind squirrel finally finds a nut in a draft or 2?

There is no such thing as a 3 to 4 year rebuild in the NFL.  You get just a couple of years to turn it aroiund.  After 4 years you are already losing the first guys you drafted to start the re-build.  And you won't be signing any free agents this year to 5-6 year deals.  We have to rebuild faster than that.

So we keep guys that will still be soloid players in 2 more years.  We just won't have enough picks to turnover the entire roster, and free agents cost ten times as much as rookies.

(11-17-2019, 05:57 PM)samhain Wrote:   Saying that firing after a season would prevent that is a total figment of your imagination. 

  Did Arizona go without a HC this year?  

I said a "decent coach".

You really aspire to be a 3 win team like the Cardinals?

(11-18-2019, 11:29 AM)fredtoast Wrote: What about '11 when we rebuilt our defense by signing three new starters in free agency?  Or when they signed Preston Brown the same year they traded for Glenn just 2 seasons ago



This is why we need to trade down from the #1 pick to get multiple selections.  When you trade one player for one pick all you do is create a new hole that has to be filled with that pick.



There is no such thing as a 3 to 4 year rebuild in the NFL.  You get just a couple of years to turn it aroiund.  After 4 years you are already losing the first guys you drafted to start the re-build.  And you won't be signing any free agents this year to 5-6 year deals.  We have to rebuild faster than that.

So we keep guys that will still be soloid players in 2 more years.  We just won't have enough picks to turnover the entire roster, and free agents cost ten times as much as rookies.



I said a "decent coach".

You really want to be like the Cardinals?

I feel like trading down to say 5 and taking Herbert and getting a bunch more picks could be a decent route...assuming they like Herbert more than Burrow. Herbert definitely has a strong arm. Burrow doesn't. Burrow might be more a product of a great staff/supporting cast/offensive system.