(03-23-2019, 12:50 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Is that a lot of the "bad" signings turn out like this:

https://www.profootballrumors.com/2019/03/this-date-in-transactions-history-charles-clay-joins-the-bills

Imo, Mike Brown has a good portion of the fan base convinced that free agency is the bogeyman, but terrible deals like Redskins/Albert Haynesworth are pretty rare. Usually 1 guy gets massively overpaid per off-season. Sometimes none. Sometimes people think teams overpaid, but then come to realize the market has changed due to cap increases, etc.

The truth is that the most common "bad" deals look like Charles Clay going to the Bills in hindsight. It didn't turn out great or ideal, but he he plugged that spot for a few years. They probably "overpaid" a bit, but maybe not considering the cost of TE's increased over the duration of the contract.

I'm sure someone will want to chime in with worse deals. Players that got injured or something like the Suh deal in Miami, but those are the exception. When you examine most of these deals in hindsight, they weren't so bad, and sometimes they work out quite well.

(03-23-2019, 01:02 PM)McC Wrote: Some teams lose their minds in free agency and that allows some other teams to use it as an excuse to stay out.  Other teams use it wisely and improve their team.

I know people have had a lot to complain about because the Bengals didn't do more.  But the holes on our team and that available players didn't really line up all that well this year.  There were some players we might have gone after but none of them were without question marks.  Hopefully the draft lines up better.

And the real truth is we were not gonna fix our situation in free agency this year.  Maybe next year we'll be close enough to get that one guy who will put us over the top.

(03-23-2019, 12:50 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote:  terrible deals like Redskins/Albert Haynesworth are pretty rare. Usually 1 guy gets massively overpaid per off-season. Sometimes none. Sometimes people think teams overpaid, but then come to realize the market has changed due to cap increases, etc.

 When you examine most of these deals in hindsight, they weren't so bad, and sometimes they work out quite well.

(03-23-2019, 04:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Numbers say you are wrong.

The Ringer studied every multiyear free-agent contract in Spotrac’s database signed from 2011, the start of the most recent collective bargaining agreement, to 2015—a total of 663 deals. This data focuses solely on contracts signed during free agency, so it doesn’t account for rookie contracts, contract extensions, or players who re-signed with their team before becoming unrestricted free agents. It also excludes one-year free-agent deals.

The results were staggering: A player who signs a five-year deal has better odds of lasting one year (14.7 percent) than he does of lasting five years (13.7 percent). Players who sign four-year contracts in free agency have the exact same odds of lasting one year on the deal (23.1 percent) as lasting four years. Players on three-year contracts have roughly the same odds of the deal ending in one full season or less (34.3 percent) as they do of lasting the full term (36.2 percent). Less than half of players who sign two-year deals last two years (45.8 percent), and one-sixth don’t even make it through the first year. If time is money, in the NFL both are relative.

(03-23-2019, 06:54 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: People tend to lump free agency into either:

1 ) Spending top dollar on 1 player like Albert Haynesworth.
2 ) Signing depth guy scrubs and drafting players.

There is a vast middle ground to this and I think the middleground is what several of us advocate. But, for some it's hard to realize that the Bengals strategy of free agency doesn't work as they know it isn't likely to change anytime soon. When you are an extreme outlier (no playoff wins for 27+ years) while other teams have all won atleast 1 game and most 5+ over that span, you have to be using an unusually poor strategy.

The truth is, for our model to work we have to hit on an abnormally high amount of draft picks over 5-6 years witch several being Pro Bowl level. With our small scouting staff, that isn't likely. We've had what I would consider rosters worth of winning a playoff game maybe 2-3 times over the past 27 years. That's insanely low.

(03-23-2019, 04:41 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: In short, showing that teams didn't keep players for the duration of the contract doesn't specifically show that they overpaid.  

(03-23-2019, 06:54 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: People tend to lump free agency into either:

1 ) Spending top dollar on 1 player like Albert Haynesworth.
2 ) Signing depth guy scrubs and drafting players.

There is a vast middle ground to this and I think the middleground is what several of us advocate. But, for some it's hard to realize that the Bengals strategy of free agency doesn't work as they know it isn't likely to change anytime soon. When you are an extreme outlier (no playoff wins for 27+ years) while other teams have all won atleast 1 game and most 5+ over that span, you have to be using an unusually poor strategy.

The truth is, for our model to work we have to hit on an abnormally high amount of draft picks over 5-6 years witch several being Pro Bowl level. With our small scouting staff, that isn't likely. We've had what I would consider rosters worth of winning a playoff game maybe 2-3 times over the past 27 years. That's insanely low.

(03-23-2019, 06:22 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: We had our own issues in free agency. The Antonio Bryant signing was a disaster for example


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03-23-2019, 06:22 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: We had our own issues in free agency. The Antonio Bryant signing was a disaster for example

(03-23-2019, 08:00 PM)PikesPeakUC Wrote: I think the fact that so few top guys go to free agency, the middle class gets bumped up and you see those guys get overpaid. You almost have to avoid the first wave of signings, then pick and choose after that to find discounts and smart deal.

(03-23-2019, 08:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes it does. Players are not cut if they are earning their pay.

(03-23-2019, 09:48 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: No one said there were no tales of free agent flops (especially health related ones). Just that it's not the norm.


I think that was more true before, but free agency has evolved recently with the window to talk with agents. Most of the deals come through in the first day, and I don't see many massive overpayments like the Suh deal. Teams are less prone to overreact, as they have plenty of time to talk with agents before FA starts.

The mid-range guys actually get paid like mid-range guys (usually). Something that I think confuses people is that the salary cap constantly goes up and people see some of these deals and think they're crazy, but as other players start getting re-signed, it starts to make sense.

Heck, we're looking at some of our own deals (Hart) like that right now.


Fake news. Players are cut for a myriad of reasons. Salary cap issues. Scheme/coaching changes. Off-field issues. Sometimes they're cut at their own request. 

- The Cards cut Tyrann Matthieu for whatever reason. He's just as fantastic now as he's been through his career.
- The Packers cut Josh Sitton after he made a Pro Bowl at 29 years old. 
- Desean Jackson was cut after a career year (1332 yards)
- DeMarcus Ware was cut at 31 years old due to big salary cap issues, he went on to make 2 more Pro Bowls
- Darrelle Revis was cut in his prime by the Buccaneers. He went on to be a key player for the champ Patriots the following year.
- Peyton Manning. Sure he had the neck issue, but it was pretty clear he'd be back.
- Jerry Rice was cut by the 49ers while still performing at a high level.
- The Steelers cut James Harrison for salary cap purposes while he was still producing.
- The Falcons cut Tony Gonzalez after a Pro Bowl season. He wound up retiring.

That's just some of the bigger names. Producing players get cut pretty much every year. 

(03-23-2019, 10:20 PM)Synric Wrote: Exceptions dont make a rule. More players are cut because they aren't producing than cap casualties.

Players that are producing are more likely to be traded even if it's for late picks.

(03-23-2019, 08:21 PM)t3r3e3 Wrote: That was 15 years ago.  It’s beyond pathetic if the FO still thinks about Bryant, beyond learning to hire a better medical staff.

(03-23-2019, 08:21 PM)t3r3e3 Wrote: That was 15 years ago. It’s beyond pathetic if the FO still thinks about Bryant, beyond learning to hire a better medical staff.

(03-23-2019, 06:22 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: We had our own issues in free agency. The Antonio Bryant signing was a disaster for example


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk