When was the last time...

[grampahol]

(01-17-2018, 04:58 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: MB and company are a lot like some old guys i know.

Don't understand that inflation is a thing. Still stuck in a time long ago and far away...

Recently took my dad to Walmart for a jacket and had to spend an hour convincing him that $24 was cheap for a nice winter coat.. He still thinks he should be able to get a heavy wool coat for under $10.. lol

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(01-17-2018, 06:48 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: but those are the kinda people you want to rent from

Yep haha

(01-17-2018, 06:49 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: yeah but Palmer lobbied for Coles... We gave palmer who he wanted.

True, he wanted the washed up Coles, that was on him i guess.

(01-17-2018, 06:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Except when you look around the NFL you also see expensive free agents that have been complete busts.

That is the problem when you start talking free agency.  Too many people just look at the good deals and completely ignore the bad ones.

Yeah and just cause we failed in the past on most notably Bryant doesn't mean you don't try again forever.

This team needs to put more value in the trenches in FA.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(01-17-2018, 07:02 PM)grampahol Wrote: Recently took my dad to Walmart for a jacket and had to spend an hour convincing him that $24 was cheap for a nice winter coat.. He still thinks he should be able to get a heavy wool coat for under $10.. lol

:andy:

Know a few fellas like this myself lol

Reminds me of Frasier when Martin is in the Frenchie's cheese shop...

[Bengalholic]

(01-17-2018, 06:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But they have signed bigger free agents in the past.  It is not like they have never done it.  The deals they gave Odom and Bryant are the same as $8 million doller deals today.

Reminds me of how often I was told that the Bengals would NEVER draft a TE or an OG in the first round.

I am in no way predicting we will do it for sure this year, but it is not as impossible as you claim.

I don't remember using the words 'never' or 'impossible'. 

[fredtoast]

(01-17-2018, 06:58 PM)bengalsturntup926 Wrote: Actually I'm pretty sure that's how they made the best defense in all time in 2000,I read they added a big free agent every year till they won a ring.

I don't know how many they had, but I know that two of their best players, Rod Woodson and Sam Adams, came from other teams.

[fredtoast]

(01-17-2018, 07:05 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Yeah and just cause we failed in the past on most notably Bryant doesn't mean you don't try again forever.

Just two years after the Bryant fiasco they signed Nate Clements for over $5 million a year, and he worked out very well for us.  

Five million a year is not "top tier", but at least that should get a solid starter.

I really have no idea why the Bengals have not even attempted to sign a decent free agent since Clements.  We had a lot of success that year adding three starers on defense through free agency (Manny Lawson, Thomas Howard, and Clements).

[Bengalholic]

(01-17-2018, 07:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just two years after the Bryant fiasco they signed Nate Clements for over $5 million a year, and he worked out very well for us.  

Five million a year is not "top tier", but at least that should get a solid starter.

I really have no idea why the Bengals have not even attempted to sign a decent free agent since Clements.  We had a lot of success that year adding three starers on defense through free agency.

Yep, they did a pretty good job with acquisitions in 2011 (free agents, trades, waiver claims). The following year was a different story, as they spent some money (Green-Ellis, Newman, Wharton, Anderson, Allen, Bell, Harvey, etc) but struck out on most of them. Ever since, its been an extremely conservative approach with very little risk involved.

[*Synric*]

(01-17-2018, 07:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just two years after the Bryant fiasco they signed Nate Clements for over $5 million a year, and he worked out very well for us.  

Five million a year is not "top tier", but at least that should get a solid starter.

I really have no idea why the Bengals have not even attempted to sign a decent free agent since Clements.  We had a lot of success that year adding three starers on defense through free agency (Manny Lawson, Thomas Howard, and Clements).

It's mostly because they've been dropping big dollars on their own guys since about 2012. Boiling, Geno, Dunlap, Green, Dalton, Gio, Pacman, Williams, Iloka, Hewitt, Kirkpatrick, Burfict. Even Whitworth and Andre Smith got extentions in that time period.

I know fans don't like to hear that but it's true.

Forgot about guys like: Peko Johnson Gilberry...Didn't Leon Hall get a huge contract around then too?

[jowczarski]

(01-17-2018, 06:22 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Seeing that Marvin has some newly acquired "powers" as pseudo-defacto part-time GM input adder, perhaps he can convince the money keeper that it's been long enough and that he can pick players worth the money? 

Not sure where you would see that since it's not really a thing. 

The only thing Marvin Lewis noted re: free agency was not "more activity" or even "spending more" but it's about finding better players from other teams. That's a fair point to make when you look at Hawk-Dansby-LaFell-Minter not really tearing things up. 

[SunsetBengal]

(01-17-2018, 08:34 PM)jowczarski Wrote: Not sure where you would see that since it's not really a thing. 

The only thing Marvin Lewis noted re: free agency was not "more activity" or even "spending more" but it's about finding better players from other teams. That's a fair point to make when you look at Hawk-Dansby-LaFell-Minter not really tearing things up. 

TBCH, that comment was meant to be tongue in cheek.  I guess I could have done a better job showing the sarcasm. 

I, as well as several others on here, have a moderate to fair understanding of how volatile over spending in free agency can be.  The last few times that it appeared that the Bengals went big on a particular player, it didn't really pan out.  I completely understand the Management's philosophy of building primarily through the draft, keeping the best homegrown players that they can, and supplementing efficiently through free agency.

When Marvin commented on doing better in free agency (along those lines), I might have taken that as a hope that they might be a little more active, or go after some of the higher quality players on the market.  As an avid fan, I see the needs on this team to be more than one draft alone can remedy.  Sure, all of the positional needs can be addressed, but the chances of all players drafted being ready to be competent starters on day one is pretty slim.  This is where free agency should come in.

For example, I see the need for 2, possibly 3 starting quality additions on the OL, in order for Andy and the skill players to have a legitimate shot at competing for a championship.  I can't imagine the odds of landing 3 starting quality OL in the same draft, so they need to add competent starting quality through free agency.  Starting quality doesn't typically come cheap.  So, in order for free agency to land higher quality players than they have in recent years, they will have to bid on those players services a little more competitively. 

[jorev5]

I do like the idea of rewarding your own players with bigger deals. It sends a message to the locker that the big payday could come. Think about it. If you're a Bengal player, and a free agent signs a big deal to come to the Bengals, to do your job about as good as you or maybe a little better, but he's making much more than you. I wouldn't be too happy with that.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(01-17-2018, 05:40 PM)Socal Bengals fan Wrote: If the goal is not to reach the Superbowl then keep doing what we are doing for the last 26 years.  Otherwise let's try a different approach n sign someone worth a damn..

Doesn't get much more cut and dry than this.

[samhain]

(01-17-2018, 08:34 PM)jowczarski Wrote: Not sure where you would see that since it's not really a thing. 

The only thing Marvin Lewis noted re: free agency was not "more activity" or even "spending more" but it's about finding better players from other teams. That's a fair point to make when you look at Hawk-Dansby-LaFell-Minter not really tearing things up. 

So it was typical Marvin lip service, really.  No change in how they spend or view the outside FA process whatsoever.  That's hilarious and fairly insulting to people who watch this team if that was his intended message.  They knew how pissed the entire fanbase was about the rehire, so they basically threw that bone out there to give some hope and then tear it down with Bengalsplaining a few weeks later.  Very cynical on their part, but not surprising.

Are we supposed to think they just weren't trying hard enough in evaluation when they signed their annual linebacker?  Or that their intentions and warm feelings about the process just weren't adequate?  It ain't rocket science.  Better players cost more money and disappear before we enter the outside FA market.  When you shop for garage-sale caliber guys, you should temper expectations.   Maybe try something new if you want better results. No new scouts, same people making the calls at the top, same result expected.   

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-17-2018, 07:55 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Yep, they did a pretty good job with acquisitions in 2011 (free agents, trades, waiver claims). The following year was a different story, as they spent some money (Green-Ellis, Newman, Wharton, Anderson, Allen, Bell, Harvey, etc) but struck out on most of them. Ever since, its been an extremely conservative approach with very little risk involved.

Bleh.

That reminds me of back when they let JJo leave over guaranteed money/signing bonus. They ended up spending more money on 7 CBs during that time than they would have if they had just paid JJo what he wanted.

Brandon Ghee (3rd round pick + 4yr/$2.44m)
Dre Kirkpatrick (1st round pick + 4yr/$8.6m)
Shaun Prater (5th round pick + 4yr/$2.212 )
Kelly Jennings (1yr/$2m)
Nate Clements (2yr/$10.5m)
Jason Allen (2yr/$8.2m)
Terrence Newman (1yr/$825k)

....were the Bengals attempts to fill JJo's gap in the 2 years following his departure. A 1st, 3rd, 5th round picks, and $34.777m in contracts.... to avoid giving JJo more guaranteed money on a 5yr/$48.75m deal. You figure JJo got $9.75m/yr, so $19.5m in those first two years and those 7 players total $28.151m for those same two years.

So a 1st, 3rd, and 5th round pick, plus $8.651m more than JJo would have cost, to do a lesser job than JJo would have done.

THAT is the Bengals way.

(01-17-2018, 08:34 PM)jowczarski Wrote: Not sure where you would see that since it's not really a thing. 

The only thing Marvin Lewis noted re: free agency was not "more activity" or even "spending more" but it's about finding better players from other teams. That's a fair point to make when you look at Hawk-Dansby-LaFell-Minter not really tearing things up. 

I had legitimately already forgotten he was ever a Bengal until you just now mentioned it and I went "oh yeah".

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(01-17-2018, 06:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Except when you look around the NFL you also see expensive free agents that have been complete busts.

That is the problem when you start talking free agency.  Too many people just look at the good deals and completely ignore the bad ones.

......or, too many look at the busts, and ignore the successes.

[*ochocincos*]

(01-18-2018, 10:57 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Bleh.

That reminds me of back when they let JJo leave over guaranteed money/signing bonus. They ended up spending more money on 7 CBs during that time than they would have if they had just paid JJo what he wanted.

Brandon Ghee (3rd round pick + 4yr/$2.44m)
Dre Kirkpatrick (1st round pick + 4yr/$8.6m)
Shaun Prater (5th round pick + 4yr/$2.212 )
Kelly Jennings (1yr/$2m)
Nate Clements (2yr/$10.5m)
Jason Allen (2yr/$8.2m)
Terrence Newman (1yr/$825k)

....were the Bengals attempts to fill JJo's gap in the 2 years following his departure. A 1st, 3rd, 5th round picks, and $34.777m in contracts.... to avoid giving JJo more guaranteed money on a 5yr/$48.75m deal. You figure JJo got $9.75m/yr, so $19.5m in those first two years and those 7 players total $28.151m for those same two years.

So a 1st, 3rd, and 5th round pick, plus $8.651m more than JJo would have cost, to do a lesser job than JJo would have done.

THAT is the Bengals way.




I had legitimately already forgotten he was ever a Bengal until you just now mentioned it and I went "oh yeah".

Great point IMO.
By letting a high-priced FA leave or removing those external ones from the market before even "kicking the tires", you increase the risk of not finding a quality replacement and have to keep trying to use draft picks and/or middle-tier FAs to replace them. And in the end it could end up costing more than if you had just kept/signed the upper-tier guy to begin with.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(01-18-2018, 11:26 AM)ochocincos Wrote: Great point IMO.
By letting a high-priced FA leave or removing those external ones from the market before even "kicking the tires", you increase the risk of not finding a quality replacement and have to keep trying to use draft picks and/or middle-tier FAs to replace them. And in the end it could end up costing more than if you had just kept/signed the upper-tier guy to begin with.

Exactly.....it's like they can't see past their noses.  All they see is the money NOW, and not looking further down the road at how it could potentially cost you more in the long run.  Very bizarre, considering how they preach "future" when they give us the FA savings schpiel, and when they let some vets walk out the door......like a JJo, or Whit.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-18-2018, 11:26 AM)ochocincos Wrote: Great point IMO.
By letting a high-priced FA leave or removing those external ones from the market before even "kicking the tires", you increase the risk of not finding a quality replacement and have to keep trying to use draft picks and/or middle-tier FAs to replace them. And in the end it could end up costing more than if you had just kept/signed the upper-tier guy to begin with.

We're in the middle of Part 2 of this happening with Marvin Jones leaving. Jones left after '15, and the Bengals have....

Tyler Boyd (2nd round + 4yr/$4.25m)
Cody Core (6th round + 4yr/$2.46m)
John Ross (9th overall + 4yr/$17.1m)
Josh Malone (4th round + 4yr/$2.99m)
Brandon LaFell (1yr/$2.5m + 2yr/$9m)

...as their replacement attempts at #2 WR, and they're heading into 2018 and STILL don't have that answered. They went the predictable Bengals route of going for a meh LaFell at $2.5m rather than a Mike Wallace (2yr/$11.5m) or Rishard Matthews (3yr/$15m) and then doubled down by giving more money to LaFell because at that point he was one of their guys, and wasting more draft picks. Yet those four draft picks and LaFell still haven't been able to fill the #2 WR role like Wallace or Matthews could have, and at quite a reasonable salary, too.


(Part 3 will be in another year or two when we fully realize how much resources was wasted on trying to replace Whit.)

[*ochocincos*]

(01-18-2018, 11:46 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: We're in the middle of Part 2 of this happening with Marvin Jones leaving. Jones left after '15, and the Bengals have....

Tyler Boyd (2nd round + 4yr/$4.25m)
Cody Core (6th round + 4yr/$2.46m)
John Ross (9th overall + 4yr/$17.1m)
Josh Malone (4th round + 4yr/$2.99m)
Brandon LaFell (1yr/$2.5m + 2yr/$9m)

...as their replacement attempts at #2 WR, and they're heading into 2018 and STILL don't have that answered. They went the predictable Bengals route of going for a meh LaFell at $2.5m rather than a Mike Wallace (2yr/$11.5m) or Rishard Matthews (3yr/$15m) and then doubled down by giving more money to LaFell because at that point he was one of their guys, and wasting more draft picks. Yet those four draft picks and LaFell still haven't been able to fill the #2 WR role like Wallace or Matthews could have, and at quite a reasonable salary, too.


(Part 3 will be in another year or two when we fully realize how much resources was wasted on trying to replace Whit.)

LaFell's contract was actually two-year, $9 mill ($5 mill in 2017, $4 mill in 2018). $2.5 mill is just the base salary.

I hate the strategy of throwing a bunch of draft picks against the wall and seeing which one sticks.

And Tennessee got a heck of a deal with Matthews. $5 mill average per year for a receiver who has put up 1740 yards and 13 TDs in the past two years? On a run-oriented team no less.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-18-2018, 12:24 PM)ochocincos Wrote: LaFell's contract was actually two-year, $9 mill ($5 mill in 2017, $4 mill in 2018). $2.5 mill is just the base salary.

I hate the strategy of throwing a bunch of draft picks against the wall and seeing which one sticks.

And Tennessee got a heck of a deal with Matthews. $5 mill average per year for a receiver who has put up 1740 yards and 13 TDs in the past two years? On a run-oriented team no less.

Quote:Brandon LaFell (1yr/$2.5m + 2yr/$9m)

He got a 1yr/$2.5m deal for 2016, put up okay-ish stats, only because he was force-fed the ball with AJ Green injured. Both Wallace and Matthews were available instead.

Then 2017 rolled around and they gave him the 2yr/$9m deal and he completely unsurprisingly turded it up.

That's why I listed both LaFell contracts.