(05-10-2020, 01:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am pretty sure the $11 million estimate for rookies already takes into account the salaries replaced.

I know Sportec came up with about $11 million for rookies and that included a $610 saving for every player replaced.

(05-10-2020, 01:57 PM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: More on Warford:

https://www.battleredblog.com/2020-nfl-free-agency/2020/5/8/21252864/2020-nfl-free-agency-rumors-texans-reportedly-interested-in-larry-warford

Apparently, he graded out as an excellent run blocker, 7th among all qualified guards. But also allowed a team high 32 QB pressures.

(05-10-2020, 02:10 PM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: I would still prefer Peters to Warford (though neither may want to play here). For a couple reasons:

1) I think he is a better player, even at his advanced age. The PFF grades support this.

2) I think he may come cheaper.

3) I prefer a short term (1-2 year) over a long term investment at this point. Think Warford may want a longer term deal. We have so many unanswered questions along the line that I kind of prefer a stopgap until we know who works out and who does not.

If the scheme adjustment carries over, the whole unit should be better. Plus, if Jordan plays like the guy from the second half of last year, and XSF is a fit for our scheme, and Price makes a leap mow that he is healthy, we likely do not need help at guard, and that is not even considering Johnson played G in college, Adejini, and Redmond.

At tackle, we certainly hope Jonah is the deal at LT, but he has not played a down yet. We hope Hart continues to improve and that Johnson is a starter level guy, but we do not know. And if any of those guys struggle at tackle, they are guard options. Which brings us to #4

4) Our iffy/unproven tackles could move inside to guard if they struggle, but the reverse is not true. Hence, I'd prefer OT reinforcements to guard.

(05-10-2020, 02:14 PM)Geno_Can_Dunk Wrote: Not positive but I don't think that's true. Instead of spotrac go here: https://overthecap.com/draft/

It gives the salary of every pick, which for us adds up to around 11.8. If you subtract seven salaries of 610k each, it then comes down to about 7.6. So I think 11.8 is before displacement. 

(05-10-2020, 07:30 PM)yellowxdiscipline Wrote: Bengals can afford to sign Warford.

(05-10-2020, 09:36 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: ???????

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29151914/saints-cut-guard-larry-warford-3-pro-bowl-seasons

(05-10-2020, 09:15 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Umm...you do know there’s a difference between being a Pro Bowler and All Pro right?

(05-10-2020, 08:27 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Sure, they can afford to, but do they WANT to??  They have broken a lot of the typical norms that we have grown accustomed to seeing in offseason activity, but they still haven't shown that will spend righteous money on interior OL.

(05-10-2020, 09:17 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Evidently, some fans think that the Pro Bowl is a highest honor, when in comparison to All-Pro, it's like being named to the "B" honor role in school.

(05-11-2020, 11:49 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: And some think they know it all. What is your point and cheap shot all about?

Are you saying anyone who makes the pro bowl is undeserving or just the ones your opinion they are deserving/undeserving?

Did any of our OG's make the pro bowl in 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016?

Would Warford be an upgrade? If so, why are you dismissing him as a possibility?

(05-11-2020, 03:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: On Pro Bowl v All Pro

All Pro is a much higher honor because there is only one "first team" selected out of the entire NFL while the Pro Bowl could cover 80 to 90 players.

However it is a cop out to claim the Pro Bowl is just a "popularity contest".  Both All Pro and Pro Bowl are selected by votes so both are popularity contests.  And two-thirds of from Pro Bowl votes are from NFL players and coaches.  So being selected to the Pro Bowl is still an honor.

I see a lot of people here try to claim the Pro Bowl is "meaningless", but that is just not true.  It is still an honor to be selected and I don't see any real bad players getting selected.

(05-10-2020, 04:23 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Should Warford (and/or Peters) help the Bengals? Most would agree yes.
Do the Bengals have enough to sign an OL? Yes.

However, the Bengals might be viewing their remaining cap space as money for extensions to multiple players who hit FA next year.
The "big 3" are Mixon, Green, and WJ3.
You also have Alexander, Lawson, Tate, Ross, and Shawn Williams, all guys who saw a quality number of snaps last year in the games they played.

The Bengals currently look to have ~$80 mill in cap space for 2021, which will get eaten up quickly if/when a few of these guys get extended.

If the Bengals were to sign Warford, it might mean losing (at least) one of Mixon, Green, or WJ3.
Would fans be ok with that?

(05-12-2020, 09:45 AM)Au165 Wrote: The issue however is so many people "opt out" that guys who are the 3rd/4th/5th option are considered "Pro Bowlers" where as with All Pro you don't have opting out. If you accept your invitation as an alternate you are considered a Pro Bowler. Perfect example of this was Xavier Rhodes last year. Xavier Rhodes had such a bad season his own team benched him...he made the pro bowl after a ton of people backed out. In no world was Xavier Rhodes even a good starting corner in the NFL last year, but he was a Pro Bowler.

To your point there was a time it meant more, but players have been so disinterested in going for years it has killed what it actually means to be a Pro Bowler.