What would you give for Russell?

[Tiger Teeth]

Give them Mike Brown.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(04-16-2019, 08:58 AM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: Give them Mike Brown.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

Andy and a 3rd this year, 1st next year, or some other combo of futures.  As much as I'd really like to have him, he can't play LB, and no one else, save for Brown, on this team really can either.  So, no way I'd mortgage the 1st two picks in a draft so heavy in D talent when my D set NFL records in futility......but I damn sure would give them a third and some future picks.


EDIT: Nevermind, he signed......for unbelievable money.

[impactplaya]

looks like Wilson is staying with the Hawks.thank god. we can stop with the unrealistic trade scenarios.

[Stewy]

Quote:What would you give for Russell?

Not what they paid......

[CKwi88]

With Russell getting his monster contract it's all moot.

If we were just a QB away I would have gone all-in on Russell. This team needs a few more pieces than just QB though, and trading away draft capital and giving up massive salary cap space would have been worse for the team in the long run.

[PAjwPhilly]

When players get that kind of contract it just limits the other star players on their team... I want to see if they make the playoffs in the next 4 years... 4 years 140 million 65 million bonus (30-year old QB)

[fredtoast]

Seahawks would have taken Dalton and a second round pick for Wilson.

[XenoMorph]

nothing close to what seattle just did

[*Nately120*]

Russel Wilson is pretty much a 2015 Andy Dalton every year plus he never gets hurt and has shown he can play behind a terrible o-line. Thank god he isn't here!

[2MinutesHate]

It's just crazy that he got that kind of money.  I think this ends up a bad deal for the Seahawks as he's already 30 and you can't run forever.  Just look at Vick.  I think once Wilson stops running, he'll become a limited passer.  Perhaps that's why it's just a four year deal and the Seahawks already think this as well?

[*Nately120*]

(04-16-2019, 11:11 AM)2MinutesHate Wrote: It's just crazy that he got that kind of money.  I think this ends up a bad deal for the Seahawks as he's already 30 and you can't run forever.  Just look at Vick.  I think once Wilson stops running, he'll become a limited passer.  Perhaps that's why it's just a four year deal and the Seahawks already think this as well?

Yeah, but have you seen Seattle's o-line?  If they let Wilson walk they are going to put either a rookie or a FA QB another team let go behind an o-line that is (by our standards) bad enough to make multiple losing seasons in a row understandable.  

This is what happens when a QB is really good and wins the SB and can put most of the offense directly on his own shoulders.  If Dalton wins the SB this year and makes the SB next year we aren't going to be getting a team-friendly deal anymore...just a heads up, there.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(04-16-2019, 09:43 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: With Russell getting his monster contract it's all moot.

If we were just a QB away I would have gone all-in on Russell. This team needs a few more pieces than just QB though, and trading away draft capital and giving up massive salary cap space would have been worse for the team in the long run.

After looking at the numbers, you're exactly right.  The cap hit will eventually sink them, unless they nail the drafts in future years. Look what happened in GB.

[kevin]

(04-16-2019, 03:24 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Not it’s not. He went 10-6 last season with an absolutely terrible OL. They gave up 3.1 sacks per game. In comparison we gave up 2.3.

OK then.  No law says you need 11 players on the field.  You can't have over 11, but you can have under.   Lets see Russell Wilson walk up to the line with no O-Line players.  He just walks up and picks up the ball. I don't think you have to snap the ball.  He can just walk up all by his lonesome and pick up the ball and start the play that way in front of the defensive players.  Lets see how great he does.  We are told here that he is so great he doesn't need an offensive line.  Let's see him play a game then with no offensive line and see how great he does.  

Instead of trying to find ways to win without fixing the Bengals Offensive Line, why not fix the Bengals Offensive Line.  I remember Bengals drafting a running back saying he would make our lousy O-Line look good.  He got destroyed early in first preseason due to no blocking, Ki Jana Carter. So much for how QB's and RBs don't need blocking, that idea never works.  Another example is Knute Rockne saw the 4 horseman were getting swelled heads, so he started his worst O Line players. The 4 horseman did nothing the first half. Rockne at halftime let them know there is more to the team than just them at QB, RB, WR. Once he put starting O Line in second half, they came back and won. Bengals need to build a good O Line instead of looking for ways to win without one.

[*bfine32*]

(04-17-2019, 01:04 AM)kevin Wrote: OK then.  No law says you need 11 players on the field.  You can't have over 11, but you can have under.   Lets see Russell Wilson walk up to the line with no O-Line players.  He just walks up and picks up the ball. I don't think you have to snap the ball.  He can just walk up all by his lonesome and pick up the ball and start the play that way in front of the defensive players.  Lets see how great he does.  We are told here that he is so great he doesn't need an offensive line.  Let's see him play a game then with no offensive line and see how great he does.  

Instead of trying to find ways to win without fixing the Bengals Offensive Line, why not fix the Bengals Offensive Line.  I remember Bengals drafting a running back saying he would make our lousy O-Line look good.  He got destroyed early in first preseason due to no blocking, Ki Jana Carter. So much for how QB's and RBs don't need blocking, that idea never works. 

Your choice to take the phrase "no offensive line" to mean someone suggested the team line up with 6 players is silly. I can only hope you knew the meaning behind the phrase, but who knows.  

[kevin]

(04-17-2019, 01:09 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Your choice to take the phrase "no offensive line" to mean someone suggested the team line up with 6 players is silly. I can only hope you knew the meaning behind the phrase, but who knows.  

Oh no, Wilson is so great he doesn't need an offensive line.  I said nonsense.  Then stats were thrown at me to prove he doesn't need an offensive line.   What is " silly" is saying he is so great he doesn't need an offensive line in any form of meaning.  We don't need Wilson.  Someday Bengals will replace Dalton, but I hope with a younger QB than Wilson.  The good thing is this trade will never happen and Wilson will never be a Bengal. Bengals need to fix the O Line because there are no gimmick ways to win without good blocking. 

I'm also paying respect to O Linemen. They only get their names called when they make a mistake. The other players get to do touchdown dances in the end zone as if they are such superstars. If it wasn't for blocking, no runners or receivers would ever get in the end zone. So, I'm giving some much needed respect to the O Line here. The idea that some players are so good that they don't need blocking is nonsense.

[Hoofhearted]

AD plus a first doesn't get you Russell. There was rumors that he trade value was three first round picks. You'd probably have to add another first in there for them to start talking.

[XenoMorph]

(04-16-2019, 11:08 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Russel Wilson is pretty much a 2015 Andy Dalton every year plus he never gets hurt and has shown he can play behind a terrible o-line.  Thank god he isn't here!

At the price he got? yes thank god he isn't here.

[*Nately120*]

(04-17-2019, 03:56 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: At the price he got? yes thank god he isn't here.

This is the most interesting aspect of all this.  We want to win the SB, but we also thank god that we don't have to deal with paying a QB who has won the SB.  I guess if Dalton doesn't win a SB in the next 2 years we've really dodged a bullet!

[KillerGoose]

(04-17-2019, 01:04 AM)kevin Wrote: OK then.  No law says you need 11 players on the field.  You can't have over 11, but you can have under.   Lets see Russell Wilson walk up to the line with no O-Line players.  He just walks up and picks up the ball. I don't think you have to snap the ball.  He can just walk up all by his lonesome and pick up the ball and start the play that way in front of the defensive players.  Lets see how great he does.  We are told here that he is so great he doesn't need an offensive line.  Let's see him play a game then with no offensive line and see how great he does.  

Instead of trying to find ways to win without fixing the Bengals Offensive Line, why not fix the Bengals Offensive Line.  I remember Bengals drafting a running back saying he would make our lousy O-Line look good.  He got destroyed early in first preseason due to no blocking, Ki Jana Carter. So much for how QB's and RBs don't need blocking, that idea never works.  Another example is Knute Rockne saw the 4 horseman were getting swelled heads, so he started his worst O Line players. The 4 horseman did nothing the first half. Rockne at halftime let them know there is more to the team than just them at QB, RB, WR. Once he put starting O Line in second half, they came back and won. Bengals need to build a good O Line instead of looking for ways to win without one.

There is technically a rule for minimum players on offense. You have to have seven players lined up on the LOS for a legal snap, so you need at least eight players on the field.

That’s not your point, though, and I agree with what you’re saying. A fundamentally strong offensive line will help Dalton perform better and it will help a rookie/other QB play better. I am all for improving the trenches.