(02-26-2016, 12:38 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: We really don't have any money at all after $10 million for the "rookie pool", $20 million for signing our own, a $5 million "injury buffer" blah blah blah.

Don't worry though, we'll kick the tires on at least 5-6 crappy free agents who will come for a visit and promptly leave with no deal.


Sure it "works" if you're content with 5 straight playoff "appearances". Some of us just think their formula could be tweaked to work better. 

Maybe instead of stalling out at the same point every single year like we're stuck in the movie Groundhog's Day, we could actually spend a little more (just once) in an attempt to get over that hump. Maybe we should be looking at how New England and Denver approach things. How much money have they carried over every year? Are they signing higher quality free agents than us?

(02-26-2016, 03:21 PM)grampahol Wrote: Oh yeah...conspiracy.. That eye over the pyramid on the dollar bill?  Mike Brown's eye.
I usually have a few bucks leftover from my monthly social security check and it's all because of Mike Brown and our conspiracy to lose the playoffs every year. It's so Mike and me can go party with hookers once a year and laugh at the rest of the fan base.
Hey! I might have EIGHT BUCKS rolling over this month. I could spend it all on a super bowl winning team, but I prefer to lose and feel crappy about it 11 months out of the year..

(02-26-2016, 10:53 AM)Rhinocero23 Wrote: He does understand how it works. The less spent on the "work force" the more the owner keeps. It is that simple. Some on here would like to make it more complex but that is the net sum of it.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/

The link above (from the same source already used) shows that once again the Bengals are in the top 10 in cap space (ie...money not spent). Take a look at the teams in the top 10...none were contenders. 

The real issues is teams like the 49er's and the Giants will fix the issue and spend on players that will give them the depth necessary to truly compete. They do not live in the "top 10 in UNSPENT cap" year after year...the Bengals do. Hence one huge reason they have the longest playoff win drought in the league. Do you really think it is just happenstance all the teams in the top 10 in UNSPENT cap combined for ZERO playoff wins?? SMFH!

No matter how you would like to spin it. Temas that bank payroll do not have a very good success rate in terms of championships. Fact!

(02-26-2016, 12:38 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: We really don't have any money at all after $10 million for the "rookie pool", $20 million for signing our own, a $5 million "injury buffer" blah blah blah.

Don't worry though, we'll kick the tires on at least 5-6 crappy free agents who will come for a visit and promptly leave with no deal.


Sure it "works" if you're content with 5 straight playoff "appearances". Some of us just think their formula could be tweaked to work better. 

Maybe instead of stalling out at the same point every single year like we're stuck in the movie Groundhog's Day, we could actually spend a little more (just once) in an attempt to get over that hump. Maybe we should be looking at how New England and Denver approach things. How much money have they carried over every year? Are they signing higher quality free agents than us?

(02-26-2016, 05:41 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: Hobson's cap articles are starting to become one of my favorite moments of the offseason.

Remember when we had around $30 million a couple of years ago, but he basically said that we only had around $7 million to spend in free agency? It seems that we're obsessed with making sure we have no chance of falling into any kind of cap hit. I appreciate that we have the lowest dead money hit of any team, but I'd gladly watch this team take some bigger cap hits if it translated into ANY postseason success.

(02-26-2016, 05:41 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: Hobson's cap articles are starting to become one of my favorite moments of the offseason.

Remember when we had around $30 million a couple of years ago, but he basically said that we only had around $7 million to spend in free agency? It seems that we're obsessed with making sure we have no chance of falling into any kind of cap hit. I appreciate that we have the lowest dead money hit of any team, but I'd gladly watch this team take some bigger cap hits if it translated into ANY postseason success.

(02-26-2016, 07:13 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Exactly. I actually like how they do things, but I'd like to see them "go for it" at some point while this core is still in their primes. And by "go for it", I don't mean to splurge on $80 million dollar free agents and risk losing key guys that we've drafted and developed. 

(02-25-2016, 10:06 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: That can't be right, can it?  I was told that the we were saving money for Andy and AJ.  That was the money was carried over for.  So now that we've signed both there shouldn't be any unspent.

Keep in mind, we started carrying over money in 2011.  2-0-1-1.  Five freaking years ago.  We carried over money from 2011 to 2012, then from 2012 to 2013, then from 2013 to 2014, then from 2014 to 2015.  And now we're carrying over money from 2015 into 2016.

Let than sink in...

Money that is carried over is simply unspent money from the year prior.  Unused cap space.  Sure, every team at some point will most likely have a year where they don't spend to cap.  For any number of reasons.  Young roster in a rebuild, clearing of cap space, saving for a push the following year, cleaning house, etc.

But why would a team have unused money for FIVE STRAIGHT YEARS?  Why?  Again, we were told we were setting aside for Andy and AJ. For Geno.  For Carlos.  All of them are now signed.  Does anyone honestly believe that we were saving money in 2011 for a Geoge Iloka contract in 2016?  He wasn't even drafted until 2012.  Marvin Jones, Sanu, were they budgeted in for while they were still in college?

Every year we rollover more money from the last, which only means we continue to have unspent money from the previous year.  Every year we're near the top in space.  Every single year.  We cry about expiring deals, and injury pools, and rookie deals.  Yet it never gets spent.  Never.

Tens of millions of dollars that goes directly it the pockets of the Brown family.  Tens of millions of dollars that other teams have and will try to use to better their respective teams.  And here we stand, with the longest playoff win drought in professional football.  With 5 straight one and dones.  No closer to a Superbowl now than were in 2011, or 2009, or 2005.

It's the same story, we watch this some movie every single damn year.  If you're cool with doing less, and investing less resources into our product than others then that's fine.  But please, save all the bologna that we're only saving for future deals, or that we're simply being conservative.

We don't spend what we can.  Our peers invest more.  Period.  Pretending that this witholding of future cap space is part of some master plan is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

Rant over...  

(02-26-2016, 10:53 AM)Rhinocero23 Wrote: He does understand how it works. The less spent on the "work force" the more the owner keeps. It is that simple. Some on here would like to make it more complex but that is the net sum of it.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/

The link above (from the same source already used) shows that once again the Bengals are in the top 10 in cap space (ie...money not spent). Take a look at the teams in the top 10...none were contenders. 

The real issues is teams like the 49er's and the Giants will fix the issue and spend on players that will give them the depth necessary to truly compete. They do not live in the "top 10 in UNSPENT cap" year after year...the Bengals do. Hence one huge reason they have the longest playoff win drought in the league. Do you really think it is just happenstance all the teams in the top 10 in UNSPENT cap combined for ZERO playoff wins?? SMFH!

No matter how you would like to spin it. Temas that bank payroll do not have a very good success rate in terms of championships. Fact!

(02-27-2016, 11:38 AM)Daddy-O Wrote: What don't you understand?  Spending money on non-productive players, just to be spending cap money, does not make you more successful.  You're assuming that by spending more money that you hit on the best players.  It's just doesn't equate to success like you indicate.  Denver is one of the rarities and it worked out really well for them with Demarcus Ware and Aquib Talib, but outside of Denver most free agents getting the big bucks don't pan out.  Using the the 49er's and Giants to prove a point unvalidates the point.  

The lack of playoff wins has nothing to do with unspent cap money, rather execution.  The fact that they (Bengals) are even in the playoffs consistently indicates they are successfully managing the business operations.  Playoff games are less than 10% of an NFL season.  If your consistent 90 plus percent of the time I'd say the formula works.  Unless you are a glass half empty person!

(02-26-2016, 04:33 PM)J24 Wrote: There is no reason from a financial reason why they can't keep there main free agents this offseason. They have a ton of money  available and could have more to spend if they cut a couple of players.

(02-27-2016, 11:52 AM)BengalChris Wrote: 1. No, no, no. No one is saying spend it on non-productive players.

Why wouldn't you spend it on productive players?

Can't the team tell by now that Hunt and Clarke are not a productive players and Marvin Jones is? I've never given Mike Brown much credit in the IQ department, but a blind man can see the difference in production that is this far apart.

2. Not true at all. We've spent the big bucks on AJ Green, Atkins, Dunlap and Dalton. They've worked out well.

Denver didn't get lucky with those two guys, they evaluate talent well.

Cleveland doesn't evaluate talent well. And every free agent big payday that failed was a mis-evaluation of that player's ability, attitude or fit with the team.

(02-27-2016, 12:04 PM)Daddy-O Wrote: I think you've hit on the whole strategy, pay the top talent and try to sign the others to their fair market value.  The problem is guys like Jones and Sanu will want top talent money and may get that elsewhere because teams might be weaker at those position groups.  You make them generous offers within their tier range, Jones #2 money, Sanu #3 money.  If they don't sign it doesn't mean the Bengals are cheap, rather other teams value the player more than the league standard for that talent.  

Andrew Hawkins is a perfect example.  The Browns paid him more than the Bengals were willing to pay for his talent range.  It didn't make the Browns more successful by doing so.  It could be argued that it strapped them more, making it more difficult to retain their better talent, like TJ Ward, ect.  It's a cycle and somewhat simple formula, if you do it right (and not overpay) you will generally be better with the dollars every year.

(02-26-2016, 05:11 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: What you linked does nothing for your arguement. Ok so we have a lot of cap space for 2016. We also have a lot of free agents. And we havent even started spending yet. How about those studs on the other end of the spectrum. The Ravens dolphins and saints dont have shit to spend and didnt even make the playoffs. We are considered by many to have one of the best rosters in the league. And we also have a ton to spend. This isnt a bad thing. Ask any NFL GM if they would like to have one of the best rosters and have more money to spend than most of the other teams. Common sense. There is no spin on my end. 

They do their job. We had a loaded team that played their ass off. They didnt hurt Dalton or make Joey porter go on the field and the refs give our playoff win away. 

And like I said earlier. If they wanted to keep the money they wouldnt roll it over. They dont have to roll anything over. And if Iloka would have signed the extension we offered last year we wouldnt be rolling over nearly as much if any.

Simple shit here guys. At least complain about something that makes sense.

Daddy-O:
What don't you understand?  Spending money on non-productive players, just to be spending cap money, does not make you more successful.  You're assuming that by spending more money that you hit on the best players.  It's just doesn't equate to success like you indicate.  Denver is one of the rarities and it worked out really well for them with Demarcus Ware and Aquib Talib, but outside of Denver most free agents getting the big bucks don't pan out.  Using the the 49er's and Giants to prove a point unvalidates the point.  


The lack of playoff wins has nothing to do with unspent cap money, rather execution.  The fact that they (Bengals) are even in the playoffs consistently indicates they are successfully managing the business operations.  Playoff games are less than 10% of an NFL season.  If your consistent 90 plus percent of the time I'd say the formula works.  Unless you are a glass half empty person!

(02-27-2016, 09:20 AM)tlotharw Wrote: Mike Brown didn't fumble away the sure playoff win over the Steelers, one of his well paid players did.

(02-27-2016, 09:20 AM)tlotharw Wrote: Mike Brown didn't fumble away the sure playoff win over the Steelers, one of his well paid players did.