+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (https://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: JUNGLE NOISE (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-2.html)
+--- Thread: Wtf.. (/thread-5509.html)
RE: Wtf.. - RoyleRedlegs - 03-08-2016
(03-08-2016, 09:43 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Thankfully there will always be a team in an unrelated QB hell that is going to spend too much on a FA out of desperation and "prove" free agency doesn't work.
Right. Unless you have Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady leading the huddle, you're gonna need to do work in FA.
Even GB is seemingly going to hit up some FA this year after nearly getting the best QB killed.
RE: Wtf.. - ItsOdellThurman - 03-08-2016
The keys are not to change the distribution of this 15M, but to cut players who can be upgraded for more space. Peko especially.
RE: Wtf.. - Nately120 - 03-09-2016
(03-08-2016, 09:50 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: actually what they did was set themselves back with over paying.. so that is why they are where they are right now... I like your thinking though.. go spend the money and if it does not work out, you are still bad just bad for a few longer years.. sounds like the Browns front office talking..
Yea I'm sure Johnny Fartball, and Tony Romo in an iron lung could have worked some magic without those high-priced free agents bogging them down.
(03-08-2016, 09:54 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Right. Unless you have Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady leading the huddle, you're gonna need to do work in FA.
Even GB is seemingly going to hit up some FA this year after nearly getting the best QB killed.
Interestingly, I was with a buddy of mine who is a Packers fans when I got the Mario Williams to Miami tweet and he was like "Oh, like THOSE signings ever work out." Yes, I get it the Packers don't have to go crazy in free agency (then again, Julius Peppers worked for them and they might snag Matt Forte), but I don't think the Dolphins had about 30 years of uninterrupted HOF QB play lately, either.
RE: Wtf.. - Shake n Blake - 03-09-2016
(03-08-2016, 09:54 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Right. Unless you have Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady leading the huddle, you're gonna need to do work in FA.
Even GB is seemingly going to hit up some FA this year after nearly getting the best QB killed.
McCarthy sounded pretty PO'd about the Packers approach to FA, and now it looks like they'll be changing their ways for now.
The Bengals are getting pretty lonely with the way they approach FA. I guess they'll always be able to bring up the Steelers.
RE: Wtf.. - Wes Mantooth - 03-09-2016
(03-08-2016, 07:43 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Really work well for teams like Tampa Bay and dallas last year
![[Image: Super+Bowl+XLVIII+Preview+jObTaif6YJFl.jpg]](http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Super+Bowl+XLVIII+Preview+jObTaif6YJFl.jpg)
RE: Wtf.. - RoyleRedlegs - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 12:31 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: McCarthy sounded pretty PO'd about the Packers approach to FA, and now it looks like they'll be changing their ways for now.
The Bengals are getting pretty lonely with the way they approach FA. I guess they'll always be able to bring up the Steelers.
They realize how much time last year took from Rodgers. They know the time to win is in the next 3-4.
RE: Wtf.. - fredtoast - 03-09-2016
(03-08-2016, 09:35 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Yeah, I'm sure those two teams would have been awesome in 2015 had they done nothing in free agency.
(03-08-2016, 09:41 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Shhh. They need to use the ultimate extreme examples to placate themselves with the other extreme.
There is nothing extreme about these examples. They are just being realistic. When you look at all free agents it is clear that the big deals fail to work out much more often than they work out. Form '00 to '05 only EIGHT PERCENT of free agents that signed 5 year or longer contracts played out the full deal, and the average number of years played on a five year deal was LESS THAN THREE.
People claim that free agency is not as big of a gamble as the draft because "you know what you are getting". And while the success rate for free agents is probably better than the draft it is far from a sure thing and you are gambling with tens of millions of dollars with a free agent instead of hundreds of thousands with draft picks.
RE: Wtf.. - fredtoast - 03-09-2016
(03-08-2016, 11:09 PM)ItsOdellThurman Wrote: The keys are not to change the distribution of this 15M, but to cut players who can be upgraded for more space. Peko especially.
Peko is only making $3.7 million this year. He is a bargain at that price.
RE: Wtf.. - Wes Mantooth - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 10:30 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 1.) When you look at all free agents it is clear that the big deals fail to work out much more often than they work out.
2.) Form '00 to '05 only EIGHT PERCENT of free agents that signed 5 year or longer contracts played out the full deal, and the average number of years played on a five year deal was LESS THAN THREE.
People claim that free agency is not as big of a gamble as the draft because "you know what you are getting". And while the success rate for free agents is probably better than the draft it is far from a sure thing and 3.) you are gambling with tens of millions of dollars with a free agent instead of hundreds of thousands with draft picks.
1.) Who is calling for big deals? Better, what exactly is consider a big deal nowadays? Obviously some guys are getting up to 90 mil on the open market. You see a lot of contracts with the guarantees set at 40 mil and up.
So is a 30 million dollar deal still a big deal? What about 20? 15? .....
I think a lot of people are calling for deals that help this roster/put us over the hump. And I think more often that not, the players being mentioned are costing a fraction of what actually constitutes a big signing.
2.) What about from '05-16? And how does this compare to other 5 year deals? What percentage of in house 5 year deals seen to their conclusion? (I'm guessing a low percentage) What percentage of free agent deals are inked at 5 years and up?
I'm not sure how this is relevant to wanting outside help, without more context.
3.) Again, who is calling for us to spend tens of millions of dollars on a single signing? And aren't all deals a gamble?
Pretending like an outside Free Agent is that much more a gamble than an in-house Free Agent seems dishonest. They're all a gamble. Whenever you commit to spending there's a risk involved. The more money, the greater the risk.
Adding help to your roster doesn't automatically mean you need to hand out 5 year 60 million dollar deals. And shelling out 20 million for a free agent is the same risk whether they've worn stripes before or not. It's not like players outside the city are more injury prone, or more likely to bust/decline.
RE: Wtf.. - fredtoast - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 10:43 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: And aren't all deals a shelling out 20 million for a free agent is the same risk whether they've worn stripes before or not. It's not like players outside the city are more injury prone, or more likely to bust/decline.
Actually players that change teams flop MUCH more often than players that re-sign. It may take me a while to find the nubers, but I think most people here who follow the NFL would agree. It is mostly due to the fact that the players teams choose to keep are usually better than the ones thye let walk, but overall the bust rate is much higher for players switching teams.
This year we have 6 starters that are going into free agency. If you could have it any way you wanted would you rather keep all of them or let them all walk and replace them with players coming from other teams?
RE: Wtf.. - fredtoast - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 10:43 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: 2.) What about from '05-16? And how does this compare to other 5 year deals? What percentage of in house 5 year deals seen to their conclusion? (I'm guessing a low percentage) What percentage of free agent deals are inked at 5 years and up?I didn't pick the parameters. I was just quoting a study I read. I doubt if that 5 year period was any sort of outlier when it comes to free agent contracts.
RE: Wtf.. - fredtoast - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 10:43 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I think a lot of people are calling for deals that help this roster/put us over the hump. And I think more often that not, the players being mentioned are costing a fraction of what actually constitutes a big signing.
And the Bengals have done this before. They re-built the defense by bringing three free agent starters in '11. the defense improved from 24th to 9th and we made the playoffs.
Yet too many people here keep claiming the Bengals never do anything like this.
What are you actually predicting the Bengals will do this year? Do you really think they let all six starters walk and not sign a signle replacement. Let me hear what you really predict they will do.
RE: Wtf.. - ochocincos - 03-09-2016
(03-08-2016, 05:27 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: A couple things:
$15 million, but let's think this through:
When have we ever needed $7 million for injuries? That number is outrageous. Nobody needs a $7 million cap space for injuries considering nearly anyone that signs during the season or camp is most always coming on a vet minimum type contract.
Where's the rollover number of $8 million?
Add those 2 numbers back in, and you have $30 million in space.
I agree with you, but the Bengals always say they reserve that much for injuries. I like to refer to it as a rainy day fund.
The rollover number of $8 million is already factored into the $38 million. The team will likely still reserve that $7-8 million to spend on the number of upcoming set of FAs for next year that they want to extend.
RE: Wtf.. - Nately120 - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 10:30 AM)fredtoast Wrote: There is nothing extreme about these examples. They are just being realistic. When you look at all free agents it is clear that the big deals fail to work out much more often than they work out. Form '00 to '05 only EIGHT PERCENT of free agents that signed 5 year or longer contracts played out the full deal, and the average number of years played on a five year deal was LESS THAN THREE.
People claim that free agency is not as big of a gamble as the draft because "you know what you are getting". And while the success rate for free agents is probably better than the draft it is far from a sure thing and you are gambling with tens of millions of dollars with a free agent instead of hundreds of thousands with draft picks.
I don't disagree entirely, but that guy cited the Browns and the Cowboys. The Browns are as much "proof" that building through the draft is stupid as they are proof that free agency is stupid, so I don't think the Browns should ever be used as a comparison. The Cowboys had their starting QB in pieces most of the year. I think the Bengals could have gone 4-12 with Matt Cassell and Brandon Weeden under center, too. Again, not about free agents.
Every year there will be teams who are bad who HAVE to overpay for free agents (because they are bad teams) that are used as examples that free agency doesn't work.
The Jaguars have like a zillion dollars in space they MUST fill this year, and while they are on the upswing I'm sure they'll sign some big FA's and then win 5-8 games and provide further "proof" free agents make teams worse for years to come. The Rams are probably going to start the season with Case Keenum as their QB and Fisher hasn't cracked what....7 wins there yet. They'll sign some FA and THAT will be the reason they only won 7 games, etc.
I'm just saying people tend to put the cart before the horse...desperate and bad teams overpay free agents, signing free agents doesn't make a team desperate and bad, per se.
RE: Wtf.. - OrlandoBengal - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 01:05 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I don't disagree entirely, but that guy cited the Browns and the Cowboys. The Browns are as much "proof" that building through the draft is stupid as they are proof that free agency is stupid, so I don't think the Browns should ever be used as a comparison. The Cowboys had their starting QB in pieces most of the year. I think the Bengals could have gone 4-12 with Matt Cassell and Brandon Weeden under center, too. Again, not about free agents.
Every year there will be teams who are bad who HAVE to overpay for free agents (because they are bad teams) that are used as examples that free agency doesn't work.
The Jaguars have like a zillion dollars in space they MUST fill this year, and while they are on the upswing I'm sure they'll sign some big FA's and then win 5-8 games and provide further "proof" free agents make teams worse for years to come. The Rams are probably going to start the season with Case Keenum as their QB and Fisher hasn't cracked what....7 wins there yet. They'll sign some FA and THAT will be the reason they only won 7 games, etc.
I'm just saying people tend to put the cart before the horse...desperate and bad teams overpay free agents, signing free agents doesn't make a team desperate and bad, per se.
People don't realize that for a bad team, making a big free agent splash is more than a football decision. It is a business decision. It builds excitement in your fan base that leads to ticket, advertising, and merchandise sales.
RE: Wtf.. - yellowxdiscipline - 03-09-2016
Could be more money if we would cut some people who need to be cut.
RE: Wtf.. - Nately120 - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 01:13 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: People don't realize that for a bad team, making a big free agent splash is more than a football decision. It is a business decision. It builds excitement in your fan base that leads to ticket, advertising, and merchandise sales.
Right, GMs and HCs make all sort of panic decisions in an attempt to make something happen, because they'll lose their jobs if they do nothing and/or take too long (even if they are doing the right thing). I remember in 2014 when Mark Trestman was obviously going to lose his HC job for the Bears and he actually benched Jay Cutler for Jimmy Claussen on some hail mary hope that Claussen could have a few good games and "prove" that Cutler was the reason they were losing, not him!
Look at the Dolphins...they have an underwhelming QB that they have to overpay because any QB who can find his ass with both hands gets 15 million these days, and they've been surrounding him with free agents on both sides of the ball in an attempt to break their 6-8 win certainty for years.
RE: Wtf.. - fredtoast - 03-15-2016
(03-08-2016, 09:22 PM)Sled21 Wrote: All this hand wringing and yet the Bengals have one of the best rosters in the league....
Yep. For example. . .
(03-08-2016, 09:40 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Yeah. So good they can afford to lose a 26 year old rising star safety who is among the best in the league
RE: Wtf.. - RoyleRedlegs - 03-15-2016
(03-15-2016, 01:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yep. For example. . .
Out of context fred-douche quoting of the week.....
RE: Wtf.. - milksheikh - 03-15-2016
Looking back at this, I think we resigned the ones that I thought were the most important..
Now, we just need to sign a veteran WR or a decent WR in FA and draft a WR and I'll be pretty happy going into next season.