Building the trenches

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(Yesterday, 02:29 PM)Lucius Cincinnatus Wrote: You think I'm negative because we went back and forth this offseason because I argued there was zero reason to think our rush defense would be better (and I think you said significantly better) than last season when looking at our additions and departures. 

Is it being negative, or is it realistic? 

Once again, you've created a strawman argument and claiming I'm saying things I'm not. I would never argue against our DT position being injured. I would argue that we weren't missing 5 DTs and using that as an excuse doesn't make sense given how poor our rush defense was with our two starters. 

Kind of hard for my argument to stick with 4 of our DT's out and Cam Sample who played DT at times also out for the year.

To act like these weren't alarming losses is absurd.

[Bengalbug]

(Yesterday, 10:14 AM)Synric Wrote: How much money the DL is making is a bad argument. It's always more expensive to build an entire starting DL in free agency but if you look at the contracts all but Trey are making middle of the pack money. 

We have two of the top 31 highest paid DTs in the league. Maybe you consider it middle of the pack, but combined with Hendrickson and Hubbard, we spend a ton of money on those 4. Coupled with unproven and middling production behind them, it’s not getting it done.

Hopefully rankins and hill get healthy and turn this around, but the fact is we have the second highest paid defensive line in the nfl. The bengals are not close to being top at stopping the run, or bringing pressure.

There are 64 starting DTs in the nfl. 64 makes around 3,000,000. When you consider most teams carry 4-5, that makes 150ish DTs. We are not paying middle of the pack. We might have middle of the pack DTs, but they are not paid as such.

[*ochocincos*]

When looking at positional spending, note that some teams may be higher or lower because of their normal alignment.
For example, Bengals are 2nd on the list at $60 mill on the DL, but PIT is far lower.
Looking closer, it's because Watt and Highsmith are grouped with the LBs, not the DL, as they run a 3-4.

However, if we look at the defense overall, the Bengals have the 5th highest cap for 2024 at $106 mill.
For offense, they are also 5th highest at $126 mill.
OL specifically they are 8th highest at $44 mill.

Bengals are not getting their money's worth at DL and defense as a whole, arguably also OL.

I get that the Bengals don't have the top-tier-priced guys on their DL or OL, but couldn't one argue they might be better if they paid for just one (more) elite talent instead of a group of mid-tier dudes?

[*Synric*]

(8 hours ago)Bengalbug Wrote: We have two of the top 31 highest paid DTs in the league. Maybe you consider it middle of the pack, but combined with Hendrickson and Hubbard, we spend a ton of money on those 4.  Coupled with unproven and middling production behind them, it’s not getting it done.

Hopefully rankins and hill get healthy and turn this around, but the fact is we have the second highest paid defensive line in the nfl.  The bengals are not close to being top at stopping the run, or bringing pressure.  

There are 64 starting DTs in the nfl. 64 makes around 3,000,000. When you consider most teams carry 4-5, that makes 150ish DTs.  We are not paying middle of the pack.  We might have middle of the pack DTs, but they are not paid as such.

You forgot to take out all DTs still on a rookie contracts. The top of the DT Market is 22m to 27m (31 for Chris Jones isn't an outlier).

Rankins and Hill are being paid around the 3rd teir along with guys like David Onyemata, Grover Stewart, Malik Collins, Zach Sieler. That is middle of the pack DT and Money wise for Free Agent Defensive Tackles.