7 hours ago
(Yesterday, 05:54 PM)ERIC1 Wrote: It would appear that the majority of NFL teams did not feel that trey was worth the asking price..and frankly aside from 5-6 games when he accumulates all his sacks..he dissapears..
I think you are flat out drawing the wrong conclusions here.
The Bengals set a price that they knew no team would meet for a player his age. The whole "free to seek a trade" thing had zero to do with wanting to make a trade, and everything to do with attempting to make signing Trey easier by showing him what is true value (trade/$$$) actually is.
Clearly, the Bengals were correct on the 1st round pick park, but wrong on the $$ part. It seems teams were willing to pay Trey more than we are offering (so far), but not willing to pay him AND give up a first. And since we are post-draft and mostly done with FA, the trade ship has sailed.
Now, you seem to be thinking that because no one coughed up a 1st, Trey is somehow not a great player and not worth the money. And hence, the FO is right to play hardball? Now, to my eye test, and every pass rush metric I know of over the last couple years, that is Looney Toons. But, I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
What clearly is NOT Looney Tunes is the fact there were some games he did not dominate, true enough. But the same is true for any great player (Burrow & Chase as well), especially defensive guys. I think that is the wrong standard to use, no one is gonna dominate every game. And you can scheme guys out and the other guys get paid, too.
But if you are gonna let other teams set the value, you are ignoring the fact that there were other teams willing to pay him the $$. Just not the $$ and the pick. His value on the open market is $35 mil, minimum. Hunter money.
