(09-13-2017, 02:42 PM)corpjet Wrote: I would not spend $8 million Eifert, his injury history would make me gun shy.........I also wouldn't spend it on a #2 WR, Boyd and Core are still cheap and we have Ross on a rookie deal........any excess money this season needs to be spent on O-Lineman

(09-13-2017, 02:53 PM)ochocincos Wrote: You don't understand how "would you rather" works, eh? You have to pick either WR or TE. OL was intentionally not included in the options.

(09-13-2017, 02:53 PM)ochocincos Wrote: You don't understand how "would you rather" works, eh? You have to pick either WR or TE. OL was intentionally not included in the options.

(09-13-2017, 03:35 PM)corpjet Wrote: Neither waste of money, Eifert doesn't deserve that much and there is no need to spend that much on a #2.............

(09-13-2017, 02:40 PM)ochocincos Wrote:  Last year, only Olsen and Kelce surpassed that milestone, whereas 23 WRs did reach that milestone. Part of this had to do with health though, but that has to always be considered.

So which do you prefer in an ideal scenario?

(09-13-2017, 04:43 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Was that 23 WR2s or just 23 WR in general?  I'd also have to consider a scoring comparison between the top 10 WR2s and the top 10 TEs.  It seems to me that TEs are critical when it comes to moving the chains on 3rd down, or at least they are versus the Bengals.

(09-13-2017, 02:40 PM)ochocincos Wrote: At some point within the next couple years, Eifert will either get an extension or leave in FA. If he stays, he'll be paid like the #2 target and likely command $8-10 mill a year. If he leaves, the Bengals could potentially bring in some other receiving threat as the #2, and that player could command about $8-10 mill a year.

So I'd like to get everyone's opinion on if the Bengals were to spend $8-10 million a year on a #2 receiving option, would you prefer it go to a WR or TE (could be Eifert)?

WR argument: A good WR2 should be around 1000 yards and hopefully around 6 TDs. They also are more likely to stay healthy given they are going up against CBs, not LBs and safeties as often. However, a WR is most often less involved with blocking compared to a TE, which can be an added benefit to an offense.

TE argument: A receiving TE is usually one of the best options in the red zone because they are such big targets. They add a different wrinkle to an offense by also being pretty difficult to take down in the open field. A good receiving TE is a nice security blanket. However, some drawbacks to a TE being the #2 are that the top TEs are hurt more often compared to WR2's. Guys like Eifert, Gronk, Reed, and Graham have been dinged up a lot during their careers, and their offenses typically suffer when they are out. That is added risk. Last, it's pretty rare that a TE will reach 1000 yards in a season. Last year, only Olsen and Kelce surpassed that milestone, whereas 23 WRs did reach that milestone. Part of this had to do with health though, but that has to always be considered.

So which do you prefer in an ideal scenario?

(09-13-2017, 05:18 PM)Beaker Wrote: Screw receiving options...we have plenty. Spend the money on the O line.

(09-13-2017, 04:21 PM)leonardfan40 Wrote: We already have a stud WR1, combine that with a top tier TE and we should be able to get by with young guys on rookie deals or guys like Lafell at the 2nd WR spot. Basically you're asking if we'd rather have one pro bowl pass catcher or two. Give me a pro bowl TE over a 2nd WR any day (as long as our WR1 is a star like Green)

(09-13-2017, 05:23 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Another person who doesn't understand how "Would you rather" works...

(09-13-2017, 05:32 PM)Beaker Wrote: Because hypotheticals are so intellectually stimulating.

(09-13-2017, 05:37 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Ok, well then let's look at your preference. So from your response of investing $8-10 million in OL over WR2 or TE1, you are saying you'd like to see Eifert not get tagged and walk, and instead using that money on OL? So the receivers would be Green, LaFell, Ross, Boyd, and Core, and the TEs would be Kroft, Uzomah, Hewitt, and maybe a draft pick at TE? Do you think that $8-10 mill spent on OL (assume C or OT) would improve the team more than Eifert or a different receiving threat as 2nd receiving option?

(09-13-2017, 05:37 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Ok, well then let's look at your preference. So from your response of investing $8-10 million in OL over WR2 or TE1, you are saying you'd like to see Eifert not get tagged and walk, and instead using that money on OL? So the receivers would be Green, LaFell, Ross, Boyd, and Core, and the TEs would be Kroft, Uzomah, Hewitt, and maybe a draft pick at TE? Do you think that $8-10 mill spent on OL (assume C or OT) would improve the team more than Eifert or a different receiving threat as 2nd receiving option?

(09-13-2017, 05:42 PM)Beaker Wrote: I am fine with the 7 WRs we have now. I am also fine with using a draft pick to get another TE. I am also fine with offering Eifert a fair deal, but not tagging him, then letting him walk if he does not want the deal. He hasn't stayed healthy enough to elicit elite TE money. I am not fine with the current state of the O line which I feel is the weak link in any Bengals success. I think any and all effort should be applied there first before worrying about anymore "weapons". Championship teams are built from the trenches out.

(09-13-2017, 05:37 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Ok, well then let's look at your preference. So from your response of investing $8-10 million in OL over WR2 or TE1, you are saying you'd like to see Eifert not get tagged and walk, and instead using that money on OL? So the receivers would be Green, LaFell, Ross, Boyd, and Core, and the TEs would be Kroft, Uzomah, Hewitt, and maybe a draft pick at TE? Do you think that $8-10 mill spent on OL (assume C or OT) would improve the team more than Eifert or a different receiving threat as 2nd receiving option?