***Official Bengals Free Agency Thread***

[Bengalpool]

Jarran Reed anyone? Anyone know much about him?

[CincinnatiBengals55]

(03-25-2021, 08:19 PM)Waite Hoyt Wrote: If I'm the Bengals

Round 1 I take Pitts

I then trade back up in first round at 21 with Indy giving them my 2nd and 3rd and take best offensive linemen available.

We need more picks not less...  absolutely shouldn't be an option to give up our second and third. 

[*pally*]

(03-25-2021, 08:29 PM)Takedown Wrote: Jarran Reed anyone? Anyone know much about him?

6.5 sacks and 14 OB hits last season.  Started all 16 games.  

[Waite Hoyt]

(03-25-2021, 08:33 PM)CincinnatiBengals55 Wrote: We need more picks not less...  absolutely shouldn't be an option to give up our second and third. 

Your giving up a 3rd essentially to ensure you get a second first round talent on the offensive line. I think it would be very well worth the price.

[*ochocincos*]

(03-25-2021, 08:39 PM)Waite Hoyt Wrote: Your giving up a 3rd essentially to ensure you get a second first round talent on the offensive line. I think it would be very well worth the price.

Depends who is available at 21. The only OL talent I would trade up to 21 for would probably be Darrisaw or Vera-Tucker (assuming Slater and Sewell are definitely not available). Otherwise, I'm waiting to see what guy(s) fall to me at 38.

[Waite Hoyt]

(03-25-2021, 08:47 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Depends who is available at 21. The only OL talent I would trade up to 21 for would probably be Darrisaw or Vera-Tucker (assuming Slater and Sewell are definitely not available). Otherwise, I'm waiting to see what guy(s) fall to me at 38.

That certainly can be a condition we make the deal but giving up the third could fill 2 holes. Pitts is a high end talent that can be a game changer and either linemen you mentioned could be a starter as early as next year.

[GreenCornBengal]

(03-25-2021, 08:29 PM)Takedown Wrote: Jarran Reed anyone? Anyone know much about him?

Is this someone we just signed or someone on the market? Can’t tell by your post...

If he’s coming from Seattle he prob isn’t very good. Heard lots of complaints from their fans about their lack of pass rush and is why they traded for Dunlap.

[CincinnatiBengals55]

(03-25-2021, 08:58 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: Is this someone we just signed or someone on the market? Can’t tell by your post...

If he’s coming from Seattle he prob isn’t very good. Heard lots of complaints from their fans about their lack of pass rush and is why they traded for Dunlap.

He's getting released or traded by tomorrow. He's had 20 sacks in the past 3 years so he clearly wasn't the problem with their pass rush. 

[GreenCornBengal]

(03-25-2021, 09:00 PM)CincinnatiBengals55 Wrote: He's getting released or traded by tomorrow. He's had 20 sacks in the past 3 years so he clearly wasn't the problem with their pass rush. 

He might cost a bit, and we have a decent amount of money tied up in DT. Would rather we get an olineman but I understand the appeal.

[Bengalpool]

(03-25-2021, 08:58 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: Is this someone we just signed or someone on the market? Can’t tell by your post...

If he’s coming from Seattle he prob isn’t very good. Heard lots of complaints from their fans about their lack of pass rush and is why they traded for Dunlap.

Sorry. He is soon to be released.

[*Synric*]

Jay Morrison said some interesting things about Free Agency. The Bengals did their homework on Trai Turner but felt Quinton Spain was the better option. They were also in on both Kevin Zeitler and Matt Feiler.

[samhain]

If the Bengals were in on Rankins, who got a decent deal from NYJ, I wouldn't think Reed would be that far out of their range.

[*ochocincos*]

(03-25-2021, 10:14 PM)Synric Wrote: Jay Morrison said some interesting things about Free Agency. The Bengals did their homework on Trai Turner but felt Quinton Spain was the better option. They were also in on both Kevin Zeitler and Matt Feiler.

I really hate when I hear that about the Bengals being interested in someone.
The way it sounds is the Bengals made some mediocre offer, the player got a better one, and the Bengals weren't willing to higher than that.

[jj22]

(03-25-2021, 10:14 PM)Synric Wrote: Jay Morrison said some interesting things about Free Agency. The Bengals did their homework on Trai Turner but felt Quinton Spain was the better option. They were also in on both Kevin Zeitler and Matt Feiler.

Something tells me this is why they felt Spain was the better option (and Zeitler/Feiler ignored their calls).

Quinton Spain (Bengals) one year, $1.127M, $137,500 signing bonus, $990K base salary

How much of it had to do with salary?

[Nicomo Cosca]

(03-26-2021, 09:45 AM)ochocincos Wrote: I really hate when I hear that about the Bengals being interested in someone.
The way it sounds is the Bengals made some mediocre offer, the player got a better one, and the Bengals weren't willing to higher than that.

The Chargers didn’t even pay that much for Feiler (3 years 21m), so our offer was either the typical Bengals lowball, or he just really wanted to play in California or something.

We also almost always offer less guaranteed money than other teams.

[Au165]

(03-26-2021, 10:59 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: The Chargers didn’t even pay that much for Feiler (3x21), so our offer was either the typical Bengals lowball, or he just really wanted to play in California or something.

...or it was a guaranteed money issue similar to what we have seen all FA. Feiler had 66% of his contract guaranteed, the organization usually tries to limit their exposure to guarantees on multi-year deals to give them flexibility. The Bengals are usually in the neighborhood of 25%-30% on guarantees in multi-year contracts. I am sure they were willing to meet the total money demands of all of the guys we have seen all FA, heck we essentially gave Hendrickson the same value as Lawson, but the difference is structure and specifically guaranteed money. 

[Nicomo Cosca]

(03-26-2021, 11:02 AM)Au165 Wrote: ...or it was a guaranteed money issue similar to what we have seen all FA. Feiler had 66% of his contract guaranteed, the organization usually tries to limit their exposure to guarantees on multi-year deals to give them flexability. I am sure they were willing to meet the total money demands of all of the guys we have seen all FA, heck we essentially gave Hendrickson the same value as Lawson, but the difference is structure and specifically guaranteed money. 

Yeah, I just edited my post. That’s probably exactly what it was. And that’s why we keep losing out on guys.

[*ochocincos*]

(03-26-2021, 11:02 AM)Au165 Wrote: ...or it was a guaranteed money issue similar to what we have seen all FA. Feiler had 66% of his contract guaranteed, the organization usually tries to limit their exposure to guarantees on multi-year deals to give them flexibility. The Bengals are usually in the neighborhood of 25%-30% on guarantees in multi-year contracts. I am sure they were willing to meet the total money demands of all of the guys we have seen all FA, heck we essentially gave Hendrickson the same value as Lawson, but the difference is structure and specifically guaranteed money. 

If I recall correctly, the Bengals' argument for not offering as much guaranteed money is that they are more likely to keep players through most/all of their contracts compared to other teams, so the total money is essentially mostly guaranteed.
But players don't like that approach, and now they are seeing the Bengals cut players early, so guaranteed money becomes more important.

[Au165]

(03-26-2021, 12:16 PM)ochocincos Wrote: If I recall correctly, the Bengals' argument for not offering as much guaranteed money is that they are more likely to keep players through most/all of their contracts compared to other teams, so the total money is essentially mostly guaranteed.
But players don't like that approach, and now they are seeing the Bengals cut players early, so guaranteed money becomes more important.

Yea, I think it is an issue of not all of their past practices have come forward. As you described, we are now in the business of cutting guys which means we will have to bring along our philosophy on guaranteed money now. That said, if the choice is to do it this way or sign no one until the second or third wave of FA I'll take this. 

[XenoMorph]

(03-26-2021, 12:16 PM)ochocincos Wrote: If I recall correctly, the Bengals' argument for not offering as much guaranteed money is that they are more likely to keep players through most/all of their contracts compared to other teams, so the total money is essentially mostly guaranteed.
But players don't like that approach, and now they are seeing the Bengals cut players early, so guaranteed money becomes more important.

dont know if that was the bengals arguement but something some of us mentioned about free agents signing overpriced contracts elsewhere is that there were extremely unlikely to see the big money years at the end. (we generally structure big money years to the front if we can from what ive seen)