03-19-2018, 09:18 AM
(03-18-2018, 11:48 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Because they have to put back money for the Rookie contracts, to cover additions/settlements for injuries, and it is most definitely wise to keep a fund available to bargain with existing players on extensions.
What other team talks about setting aside money for a "rookie pool"? Rookies have to take a roster spot (and a salary) away from someone who was on the team a year prior, so the money is always mostly accounted for automatically. I realize it can be a bit more complicated than that, but the rookie pool stuff is BS. After we draft these guys, we will be cutting more players to get the roster back to 53.
I've been watching and reading about NFL football for 25 years and I've never seen talk of a "rookie pool" from anyone other than Hobson. Not saying that no article has ever mentioned that for any other team ever, but I've never seen it.
I'm fine with keeping a little under for injuries, but usually the players you sign as replacements off the street are minimum salary guys. So you don't need much. $2-3 million should be plenty.
(03-19-2018, 03:01 AM)XsandOs Wrote: Sunset, I will understand if there is a need for cap space to extend current players. That would be the only reason.
The 18+ mil is more than enough for rookie contracts and possible injury settlements.
This. I realize everyone we're all in a good mood because the Bengals were very active in the first week of FA, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start accepting the Hobspin drivel. I like holding back some to extend players, when we actually have good players to extend. This year we do, and that's the only reason I would excuse a salary dump. Well that or signing some more good players to shore up a weakness.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
