(02-28-2025, 04:39 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Reader was ranked 57th among IDL against the run, and 62nd against the pass. His solo tackles (and total tackles) were by far the lowest since he played just 4.5 games in 2020, and before that you'd have to go back to his rookie season in 2016. He also wasn't terrific in 2023, had a torn quad, and was heading into his age 30 season.

I think letting Reader leave was the right call. That said I wholeheartedly agree that trying to replace him with a 3-tech was stupid, though.

(02-28-2025, 07:00 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Duke won executive of the year in 2021, so not long ago, he was ranked #1 by the league.

(02-28-2025, 07:00 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Duke won executive of the year in 2021, so not long ago, he was ranked #1 by the league.

(02-28-2025, 12:20 PM)lone bengal Wrote: Personally I think the organization thought by the time Higgins contract was up they would have some young draft picks develop in other positions. Instead of putting all that money into one position like WR for example they would want to spread it around to create a more balanced team. If Cam Britt -Taylor played like a CB1 last season , or if Volson developed into a good starting guard and Murphy was trending in the right direction they would rather pay Chase and then spread the money around. I don’t think they anticipated all these picks playing so poorly. Also I don’t think they value safety that much and would rather spend on extending a DE like Murphy or Cam-Britt, positions they deem more important. Far as the 1st wave of free agency they could spend more with a QB on a rookie deal. If a Zac Carter panned out they wouldn’t have to be signing guys like Rankins. Reader was a different situation because tearing the same Quad in a 3 year span was worrisome.

Quote:Arguably the most pleasant surprise for the Cincinnati Bengals during the 2024 campaign was tight end Mike Gesicki, who was inked to a dirt-cheap one-year, $2.5 million contract in free agency.

That signing paid off big time for Cincinnati, as Gesicki's 665 receiving yards were the most he has finished with since his career-best campaign in 2021. It was a massive bounce-back year for the veteran tight end, who tallied over 400 yards more than the season prior and finished third in receiving yards on the team.

Now, the Bengals are faced with a tough decision, as Gesicki is set to hit free agency and the team already has a trio of stars to extend, a list that includes wide receivers Ja'Marr Chase and Tee Higgins, and edge rusher Trey Hendrickson.

Despite having a ton of work to do with those three players, ESPN's Jeremy Fowler thinks the team could extend Gesicki "in the coming days."

"Don't be surprised if the Bengals try to extend Mike Gesicki in the coming days," Fowler wrote. "Cincinnati is trying to secure a trio of its stars -- Ja'Marr Chase, Tee Higgins and Trey Hendrickson -- but Gesicki is another player they were very happy with last season and would like to pay. Teams are projecting the tight end market could tap out at around $8 million per year. If Gesicki can put up a decent clip in the next seven days, that helps Juwan Johnson, Tyler Conklin and others."

This is just the latest positive update we've seen on Gesicki's hopes of staying with the Bengals.

During the NFL Scouting Combine in Indianapolis this past week, both Zac Taylor and Duke Tobin heaped praise on Gesicki, and Taylor noted that he wants Gesicki back, while Tobin added that he's a "priority guy for us."

"Mike had a tremendous role for us last year," Taylor said. "I think especially as the season evolved and we got to know him better. We were able to use him in a way that best utilized his skills. He and Joe have a great relationship, very productive for us, a really good matchup for us, especially as the year went on. So, really high in Mike Gesicki, and again, that's something we're working through to make sure he's still in the fold."

"We've been pretty good at bringing tight ends in and having them have successful seasons," Tobin added. "Mike was fantastic for us. I think Mike's a priority guy for us. I think he fits with us. I think he found out he fits with us. Tight ends tend to fit with us."

While the Bengals should absolutely be interested in keeping Gesicki around, the price will ultimately decide his fate. While important to the team, he falls fourth in order of importance behind Chase, Hendrickson and Higgins, so if extending him hurts the Bengals' chances at keeping the other three, Cincinnati should avoid.

That said, Spotrac projects Gesicki will receive a one-year, $6.7 million deal in free agency. We think he'll get a multi-year extension from Cincinnati if anything, but at that price, re-signing Gesicki wouldn't preclude the Bengals from keeping the three aforementioned stars.

(02-28-2025, 11:21 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: So, I know it's not that simple and its WILD to think the Bengals are doing TOO much in free agency, but hear me out...

The Brown family is notorious for seeking "value" when it comes to things (I won't say cheap, because I really don't think they are cheap). They want to stretch their dollar as far as possible, not waste money, and want a return on their investment. This is clear.

So, why do they not focus more on re-signing more of their proven quality players rather than rolling the dice with expensive free agents at times? Bates, Reader, Higgins, etc.

I am not against bringing in free agents in the least (you need them to build a quality roster), but you think they'd PRIORITIZE keeping guys that have produced for them rather than spend big on "wild cards".

You'd think that the misses on guys like Trae Waynes, Rankins, Stone, Preston Brown, even going way back to Antonio Bryant would incentivize this team to prioritize the KNOWN commodity. I mean, this team could have literally kept Bates for only a few more million dollars than they gave Sheldon Rankins. You'd think an organization like the Bengals who value comfortability and a "safe" investment would have went down that path.

Again, I know it's not that simple and these are different "positional" signings, but I just found it interesting. In my mind, they should prioritize paying out big to keep their own stars (no matter position), THEN supplimenting through free agency. But they haven't worked that way recently.

(02-28-2025, 11:21 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: So, I know it's not that simple and its WILD to think the Bengals are doing TOO much in free agency, but hear me out...

The Brown family is notorious for seeking "value" when it comes to things (I won't say cheap, because I really don't think they are cheap). They want to stretch their dollar as far as possible, not waste money, and want a return on their investment. This is clear.

So, why do they not focus more on re-signing more of their proven quality players rather than rolling the dice with expensive free agents at times? Bates, Reader, Higgins, etc.

I am not against bringing in free agents in the least (you need them to build a quality roster), but you think they'd PRIORITIZE keeping guys that have produced for them rather than spend big on "wild cards".

You'd think that the misses on guys like Trae Waynes, Rankins, Stone, Preston Brown, even going way back to Antonio Bryant would incentivize this team to prioritize the KNOWN commodity. I mean, this team could have literally kept Bates for only a few more million dollars than they gave Sheldon Rankins. You'd think an organization like the Bengals who value comfortability and a "safe" investment would have went down that path.

Again, I know it's not that simple and these are different "positional" signings, but I just found it interesting. In my mind, they should prioritize paying out big to keep their own stars (no matter position), THEN supplimenting through free agency. But they haven't worked that way recently.

(03-01-2025, 09:54 AM)Ell Prez Wrote: Very good post and I agree. In a perfect world the other players they drafted developed to Tee’s level. They didn’t. The team is void of top end talent. It’s why they’ve missed playoffs 2 years in a row. They need more players at Tee’s level, not less.