(03-13-2017, 01:16 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: If the Bengals thought so highly of Andrews, why didn't they keep him?

(03-14-2017, 08:58 AM)fredtoast Wrote: They tried, but Willie refused to take a pay cut for the Bengals.  

However he signed for a greatly reduced price with the Ravens.

If willie was so great why did the Ravens pay him about a third of what he was due under the Bengals contract?

Willie Anderson showed up for the '08 training camp unable to play.  he actually had somesort of surgical procedure done during traiing camp.  It was doubtful if he w9uld be able to play effectively ever again, let alone by the start of the season.  the bengals did what every other team does in this situation.  They offered him a chance to come back at a reduced rate or else they release him.  Then he signed for a lot less with the Ravens. 

(03-14-2017, 09:31 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Total and complete lie.

Andrews played for the Bengals under the franchise tag in 2008. Willie was released before the 2008 season. Meaning Willie wasn't even on the god damn team while Bengals could negotiate a long term deal with Andrews.

You don't know Willie Anderson's diagnosis or the medical procedure which means you sure as shit don't know his prognosis. You're just parroting the bullshit Hobson regurgitates for the team. The same team that claimed Braham's tibial plateau fracture was a "bone bruise."

Fred, you just can't make up lies out of thin air and pretend they're facts. LOL

(03-14-2017, 09:53 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Willie's salary for his last year was $3.15 million. He signed a 3 year, $11 million contract with the Ravens. Average salary of 3.67 million. So by "greatly reduced price", did you actually mean "pay raise"?

Willie received interest from the Ravens, Chargers, Bears, Rams, Bucs and Giants according to Rotoworld. 20% of the league was interested...and this is right before the season. Those teams wouldn't have been interested if they thought Willie was washed up. You are greatly exaggerating the seriousness of any injury or surgery that Willie had. I remember Willie playing that preseason, and Rotoworld mentions nothing of any surgery. He wound up starting 11 games (beginning in week 3...he had to get up to speed) for the Ravens. They even tried to convince him not to retire, wanting him back in 2009 at 34 years old.

Look...I understand that Andrews was viewed back then as having potential, but it's clear looking back that the Bengals made the wrong call there. They franchise tagged Andrews and that surely played a role in Willie's release. The line was terrible that year, and this - along with sticking with Ghiaciuc at Center, was among the biggest mistakes.

(03-14-2017, 01:16 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You claimed the Bengals tried to re-sign Andrews because they liked him so much, but couldn't because Willie wouldn't take a pay cut.  Willie wasn't even on the team during Andrews' franchise year while the Bengals could still negotiate an extension with Andrews.  Willie had nothing to do with not re-signing Andrews.

You're either wrong or a liar.  Which is it?

(03-14-2017, 01:21 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Here you go, Fred. You lied about (a) not being able to resign Andrews due to Willie not restructuring his contract and (b) Willie "signing at a greatly reduced price" with the Ravens. You've also misled - at the very least - about the seriousness of Willie's injury.

(03-14-2017, 01:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If the Eagles recognized their mistake after just one years then why did they pay Andrews $14.8 million over TWO seasons.  The Bengals paid him a lot less than that over 5 years

(03-14-2017, 01:21 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Here you go, Fred. You lied about (a) not being able to resign Andrews due to Willie not restructuring his contract

(03-14-2017, 01:27 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: They traded him away after a single season, genius.  They benched him in Week 2 of 2009.  In March 2010, they forced him to restructure his contract or be cut.  They traded him in September 2010 before their Week 1 opener.

(03-14-2017, 01:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I see now.  I misread "Andrews" as "Anderson".

I never meant to suggest that the Bengals did not sign Stacy long term because of Willie.

That was my mistake.


What happend was the Bengals tagged Stacy becayuse they did not know if Willie was going to recover.  They did not wnat to sign Stacy Long term if Willie was going to recover, but they were also afraid to let Stacy walk if Willie was not going to be able to play in '08.

(03-14-2017, 01:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I see now.  I misread "Andrews" as "Anderson".

I never meant to suggest that the Bengals did not sign Stacy long term because of Willie.

That was my mistake.


What happend was the Bengals tagged Stacy becayuse they did not know if Willie was going to recover.  They did not wnat to sign Stacy Long term if Willie was going to recover, but they were also afraid to let Stacy walk if Willie was not going to be able to play in '08.

(03-14-2017, 01:39 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Bullshit, fred.  You claimed the Bengals couldn't re-sign Andrews because Wille wouldn't take a pay cut.  That statement can't be explained by simply misreading "Andrews" as "Anderson."

But, let's try it anyway: The Bengals wanted to re-sign "Anderson," but couldn't because "Andrews" wouldn't take a pay cut.


See? Your explanation is bullshit.  And your explanation of your explanation is . . .

(03-14-2017, 01:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I never said anything about not re-signing Andrews because of Willie's contract.

As for the seriousness of Willie's injury I don't think players have surgical procedures during training camp unless they have a serious problem.  When willie went to the Ravens it was as a back up.  He only got to start because of an injury.  Then he walked away from several million dollars and never played again after that season.  "Crippled" may have been an extreme term, but I will 100% stand behind the claim that Willie had very serious injury issues that kept him from playing at an eliote level in '08 and also cause him to walk away from several millions dollars and retire.

Quote:Anderson did not undergo surgery, but rather had some manner of electroshock therapy by a specialist in Atlanta, designed to promote healing.

(03-14-2017, 01:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This makes the Eagles look even dumber because they paid him his $4.1 million bonus for 2010 even though he did not play for them.

(03-12-2017, 01:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We just have to have faith and trust Paul "The Process" Alexander.

In over 20 years as an O-line coach he has never had a a first or second round draft pick flop. So based in history both Cedric and Jake should develop into at least solid NFL starters.

We should also remember '09 when Paul's O-line featured....A second year undrafted free agent at center with zero NFL starts (Cook)...a second year undrafted free agent at guard with 6 career starts (Livings)... a journeyman OG who had been cut by the Panthers and was on his 3rd team in 3 years (Mathis)...a second year fourth round pick at OT with 6 career starts (Anthony Collins)...and a second year undrafted free agent with one career start at OT (Roland). They also had Bobbie williams and whitworth, but that team was coming off a 4 win season. No one expected them to sweep the division with that pile of scraps making up the O-line. But when you have a guru like Paul Alexander running the O-line anything is possible.

I have stated before that it would be scary if we lost both Whit and Zeitler.  I have not changed my mind.  But I just have to trust "The Process".

(03-14-2017, 01:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It was a mistake.  I admit it.  I explained why the Bengals did not keep "Anderson" when someone actually asked why they did not keep "Andrews".  Not really that hard to understand.

Are you seriously going to argue with me even when I admit I made a mistake?

(03-14-2017, 01:52 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm just going to refer you back to my previous statement as to why your explanation doesn't make sense.

(03-14-2017, 01:49 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You're going to have to show me the contracts because I have zero confidence in your ability to present facts.

(03-14-2017, 02:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I was asked why they didn't keep "Andrews".  I responded with why they didn't keep "Anderson".  Don't know why you think it is impossible for me to make the simple mistake of mis-reading "Andrews" as "Anderson".

(03-14-2017, 11:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So basically every player who suceeds gets all the credit himself and every player who fails the blame goes to the coach.

Make an assumption based on nothing but your own beliefs then dismiss any evidence that shows you are wrong.

"If a player sucks it is the fault of the bad Benglas coaches, but if a player is good the coach gets no credit because it is all about the player."

(03-12-2017, 01:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We just have to have faith and trust Paul "The Process" Alexander.

In over 20 years as an O-line coach he has never had a a first or second round draft pick flop. So based in history both Cedric and Jake should develop into at least solid NFL starters.

We should also remember '09 when Paul's O-line featured....A second year undrafted free agent at center with zero NFL starts (Cook)...a second year undrafted free agent at guard with 6 career starts (Livings)... a journeyman OG who had been cut by the Panthers and was on his 3rd team in 3 years (Mathis)...a second year fourth round pick at OT with 6 career starts (Anthony Collins)...and a second year undrafted free agent with one career start at OT (Roland). They also had Bobbie williams and whitworth, but that team was coming off a 4 win season. No one expected them to sweep the division with that pile of scraps making up the O-line. But when you have a guru like Paul Alexander running the O-line anything is possible.

I have stated before that it would be scary if we lost both Whit and Zeitler. I have not changed my mind. But I just have to trust "The Process".