Anyone notice whit's poor play yesterday

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-20-2017, 11:44 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: You are talking cap hits, I am talking actual paid money to Whittworth over 2 years even though he plays one year. He will be paid 18.5 million in bonuses and salary regardless whether he takes one snap in 2018 for the Rams. So, my common sense tells me the deal the Bengals offered is not close to the one offered by the Rams. The Bengals offered a 1 year guaranteed contract for around 12 million.

According to his contract, if he is cut after one season he gets the guaranteed money or $12.5 million and that's it. He does not get $18.5 million if he is cut. Explain how you think he gets $18.5 million for not playing next season.

[Aquapod770]

(09-19-2017, 06:18 PM)BengalsBong Wrote: He played LT in college and he was drafted to be our LT so why would you determine if he could play LT by playing RT??

Answer my question. 

[Whatever]

(09-20-2017, 01:27 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: And prorated it's $3 million a year = 1 fat ass, oft injured Andre Smith past his prime retread.  Plus the salary cap went up $12 million this season just like it does every year. So $3 million of $167 million isn't a lot.


That's not my logic at all. My logic is I'd rather have Whitworth and Ogbuehi than Ogbuehi and Andre Smith.  Why? Because Whitworth is better than both of them, he would have fit under the cap, and if his play suddenly was as bad as Ogbuehi, they could cut him and the only thing the team would miss out on would be signing a shitty free agent like Andre Smith.

I'm not going to hazard a guess as to your logic bacause I don't really care.

And I've already pointed out that you can get better players than Andre Smith in FA for $3 million and that $3 million can be the difference between signing or not signing a higher tier player.  You just keep repeating that line because you don't have a leg to stand on, so you're trying to use Andre as an example in an effort to spin the numbers to seem more negligible than they actually are. 

You realize the cap goes up for every team, and losing cap space to dead money puts you at a competitive disadvantage in a competitive market?  The cap went up last year, and $3 mil on one contract is still more dead money than 1/4 of the teams in the league.  Furthermore, the tv deals are the league's #1 revenue stream by a wide margin, and tv ratings for the NFL are on a steady decline.  The indicators are already there that the cap will not keep escalating at the current rate, and gambling that it will against those indicators isn't particularly smart.  This is like buying a house you can't afford banking on future raises, then losing it when those raises don't come.

That's not even the point we were discussing.  You're backtracking because it's pretty clear that your position that it wasn't a bad contract for the Rams is untenable based on the facts provided.  So, you're basically saying if you can afford it, it's not overpaying, which is completely false.  Just because you can afford to spend $20k on a $15k car doesn't mean it wasn't a bad deal.

[muskiesfan]

Arguing the salary cap in regards to the Bengals is absolutely pointless. They will sign some of their own and then sign the cheapest possible free agents. They will not make a play for a true impact player because it would prevent them from getting another useless compensatory pick. Yes, I know the Bengals have had instances where they paid their own well, but that's it. The Mike Brown way is to do things the absolute cheapest way possible so that he can maximize profit. Had that dumb **** used free agency properly, we might've broke through our playoff drought. Instead, it's sign garbage and rely on the smallest scouting department in the NFL to knock every draft out of the park. That's going to be the story next year and the year after and the year after and the year after until the worst owner/GM in professional sports is no longer in charge. Unfortunately, I'm not so sure his daughter is going to do a whole lot better.

[Socal Bengals fan]

(09-20-2017, 03:55 PM)muskiesfan Wrote: Arguing the salary cap in regards to the Bengals is absolutely pointless. They will sign some of their own and then sign the cheapest possible free agents. They will not make a play for a true impact player because it would prevent them from getting another useless compensatory pick. Yes, I know the Bengals have had instances where they paid their own well, but that's it. The Mike Brown way is to do things the absolute cheapest way possible so that he can maximize profit. Had that dumb **** used free agency properly, we might've broke through our playoff drought. Instead, it's sign garbage and rely on the smallest scouting department in the NFL to knock every draft out of the park. That's going to be the story next year and the year after and the year after and the year after until the worst owner/GM in professional sports is no longer in charge. Unfortunately, I'm not so sure his daughter is going to do a whole lot better.

Agree 100%

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-20-2017, 03:47 PM)Whatever Wrote: And I've already pointed out that you can get better players than Andre Smith in FA for $3 million and that $3 million can be the difference between signing or not signing a higher tier player.  You just keep repeating that line because you don't have a leg to stand on, so you're trying to use Andre as an example in an effort to spin the numbers to seem more negligible than they actually are. 

You realize the cap goes up for every team, and losing cap space to dead money puts you at a competitive disadvantage in a competitive market?  The cap went up last year, and $3 mil on one contract is still more dead money than 1/4 of the teams in the league.  Furthermore, the tv deals are the league's #1 revenue stream by a wide margin, and tv ratings for the NFL are on a steady decline.  The indicators are already there that the cap will not keep escalating at the current rate, and gambling that it will against those indicators isn't particularly smart.  This is like buying a house you can't afford banking on future raises, then losing it when those raises don't come.

That's not even the point we were discussing.  You're backtracking because it's pretty clear that your position that it wasn't a bad contract for the Rams is untenable based on the facts provided.  So, you're basically saying if you can afford it, it's not overpaying, which is completely false.  Just because you can afford to spend $20k on a $15k car doesn't mean it wasn't a bad deal.

Facts provided? Give me a ***** break. Prove your opinion that Whitworth's play is the equivalent of a $15K car is a fact. God, I'm gonna love watching that.

[Luvnit2]

(09-20-2017, 12:31 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: According to his contract, if he is cut after one season he gets the guaranteed money or $12.5 million and that's it. He does not get $18.5 million if he is cut. Explain how you think he gets $18.5 million for not playing next season.

OK, I looked at the contract. He is only guaranteed 12.5 million (not 18.5 million) so I misunderstood base on you telling me his dead money was 6 million, when in reality his dead money is 3.3 million if he is cut. So in essence they creatively gave him a 3 year contract they can easily get out for 12.5 million.

But if they decide to keep him, then he gets an additional 2.5 million roster bonus on March 5, 2018 so that part would also be guaranteed even if they cut him prior to start of the regular season.

Sorry for all of the confusion, I should have just looked it up immediately versus interpreting what you were saying.

[Circleville Guy]

The more than obvious moves last off-season for this line were: 1. Tag Whit, this was an obvious example of why the league has a Franchise Tag. 2. Let Big Z walk, it was too much money. 3. Sign 2 decent free agents not named Moobs. 4. Draft a lineman or 2 between rounds 3-7. This may not be the best plan out there but it's much better than what they did.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-20-2017, 05:21 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: OK, I looked at the contract. He is only guaranteed 12.5 million (not 18.5 million) so I misunderstood base on you telling me his dead money was 6 million, when in reality his dead money is 3.3 million if he is cut. So in essence they creatively gave him a 3 year contract they can easily get out for 12.5 million.

But if they decide to keep him, then he gets an additional 2.5 million roster bonus on March 5, 2018 so that part would also be guaranteed even if they cut him prior to start of the regular season.

Sorry for all of the confusion, I should have just looked it up immediately versus interpreting what you were saying.

That's my impression,also.

[grampahol]

It was a Washington Generals move. We had been winning too many games making it harder for the Squeelers to just run over us every game and to be even more cynical just wait till they don't retain VB when his contract is up. It's not enough to just suspend him, but somehow I have a feeling he'll get a season long suspension if we beat the Squeelers while he's playing. If he gets anywhere near Rottenbooger it'll be a 15 yard penalty and a year off for good behavior. Hell, if nothing they'll cook up some phony story about him beating his wife, kids and both grandmothers. 
As for Witt, IF old father time has caught up with him LA will cut him and we'll have a MJ story 2.0..

[Socal Bengals fan]

Whit played another poor game, as the Rams scored 41 points with Goff as their quarterback . Meanwhile in Cincinnati Ogbuehi n the boys are still Td less

[THE PISTONS]

(09-21-2017, 01:25 AM)grampahol Wrote: It was a Washington Generals move. We had been winning too many games making it harder for the Squeelers to just run over us every game and to be even more cynical just wait till they don't retain VB when his contract is up. It's not enough to just suspend him, but somehow I have a feeling he'll get a season long suspension if we beat the Squeelers while he's playing. If he gets anywhere near Rottenbooger it'll be a 15 yard penalty and a year off for good behavior. Hell, if nothing they'll cook up some phony story about him beating his wife, kids and both grandmothers. 
As for Witt, IF old father time has caught up with him LA will cut him and we'll have a MJ story 2.0..

Dude...the Steelers OWN us. We're something like 7-19 against the Steelers since Marvin has been here.

[masonbengals fan]

Whitt's poor play would be better than CO's best day. At least at the moment.

[bambino5130]

Anyone notice the Rams just put up 40+ points Led by an awesome LT performance?

When do you think the Bengals offense will get to scoring 40 points all season?

A Franchise tag of one year would have been nice right about now

[THE PISTONS]

(09-22-2017, 12:41 PM)bambino5130 Wrote: Anyone notice the Rams just put up 40+ points Led by an awesome LT performance?

When do you think the Bengals offense will get to scoring 40 points all season?

A Franchise tag of one year would have been nice right about now

Some people are desperate to shift the narrative towards every move the Bengals make being correct. That's just not the case.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-22-2017, 12:41 PM)bambino5130 Wrote: Anyone notice the Rams just put up 40+ points Led by an awesome LT performance?

When do you think the Bengals offense will get to scoring 40 points all season?

A Franchise tag of one year would have been nice right about now

Sure did!  Even the announcers were praising Whitworth during and after the game.  I thought he played great last night!

[Bengal Dude]

(09-22-2017, 01:32 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Sure did!  Even the announcers were praising Whitworth during and after the game.  I thought he played great last night!

One pressure given up in 3 games. Meanwhile, Ced gives up 3 pressures during one play.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(09-22-2017, 12:41 PM)bambino5130 Wrote: Anyone notice the Rams just put up 40+ points Led by an awesome LT performance?

When do you think the Bengals offense will get to scoring 40 points all season?

A Franchise tag of one year would have been nice right about now

(09-22-2017, 01:32 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Sure did!  Even the announcers were praising Whitworth during and after the game.  I thought he played great last night!

Sounds like we made the wrong choice then. I watched the game last week and he didn't look good at all but him
bouncing back and playing great shows we should of atleast tagged him even if it would of made him mad i guess.

[The Caped Crusader]

(09-22-2017, 03:52 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: One pressure given up in 3 games. Meanwhile, Ced gives up 3 pressures during one play.

[wolfkaosaun]

(09-19-2017, 06:18 PM)BengalsBong Wrote: He played LT in college and he was drafted to be our LT so why would you determine if he could play LT by playing RT??

He never played a full season at LT in college. In fact, his senior year was the only time he did play LT. He had decent games in the beginning, but then he was TERRIBLE. He gave up 6 sacks in 3 games against Ole Miss, Mississippi State, and Alabama. Gave up multiple pressures and QB hits, some of which turned the course of those games.

They ended up moving him back to RT because of how poorly he was playing.

He has played a full season at RT. He has played a full season playing offensive guard. LT is not his natural position and he was bad at it in college. I don't see where people get this thought from that he would get better at LT. He was never good there.