03-08-2025, 11:10 PM
(03-08-2025, 10:59 PM)007BengalsFan Wrote: That factoid is completely meaningless. You want to discount the massive contract the Bengals gave Burrow when other teams arent paying their QB like the Bengals. You cant pretend the Burrow contract doesnt exist when that is part of the overall amount of money the Bengals are spending on their players. When you have a QB that takes so much of the pie, that leaves less for the rest of the team. Of course other team can spend more money on non QBs when they arent paying their QB 55 million per year. You also have to consider the Bengals have a bunch of guys on on their first contracts. Once Chase, Higgins sign their extensions and the Bengals bring in free agents and/or re-sign Hendrickson, they wont be close to last even when you look at non QBs. When you add the QB to total spending, they will be even higher.
The chart that Isaac Curtis is likely referencing is the one publicized by Goodberry (from Reinhard) that shows that even with Burrow the Bengals were 7th from the bottom in terms of money committed to players overall. And some of those teams below the Bengals, such as Pittsburgh, did not even have a QB as part of their numbers. But it probably is irrelevant, as you note, as this will change soon with contracts to Chase, Higgins, and Hendrickson (fingers crossed).
Goodberry's point was that the Bengals have plenty of money to spend on players.
https://www.cincyjungle.com/2025/2/18/24367819/bengals-on-the-hook-for-7th-lowest-amount-of-cash-in-nfl#:~:text=The%20Bengals%20have%20the%20seventh,that%20aren't%20the%20QB.
