(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.

(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. 

(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

(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.

(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.

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.

(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. 

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

(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.

(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.

(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. 

(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.

(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.

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

(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.

(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.

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

(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.

(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.