Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 3.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Argument for and against Sewell.
(12-03-2020, 12:17 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Jpoore may be right if they prioritize signing most of their internal FAs, especially WJ3 and Lawson. If they allow Lawson and/or WJ3 to leave in favor of someone like Thuney who is expected to cost $14-15 mill a year, it essentially just closes one gap (OL) but creates another (CB/DL).

I would be surprised to see the Bengals spend $10+ mill a year on an IOL player, but maybe it happens. We have a young OL and are on the lower end of positional spending for OL, so it would make sense to spend on 1-2 OL.

Thing is, Lawson and WJIII are solid, but not great starters.  Their PFF grades are 70.2 and 69.7, respectively.  Lawson has 5 sacks and WJIII has 1 pick.  These are not guys that we should break the bank to resign, but many are budgeting Pro Bowler type money to retain them.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote





Messages In This Thread
Argument for and against Sewell. - Jpoore - 11-27-2020, 04:06 AM
RE: Argument for and against Sewell. - J24 - 11-27-2020, 06:15 PM
RE: Argument for and against Sewell. - J24 - 11-27-2020, 06:06 PM
Argument for and against Sewell. - BenZoo2 - 11-29-2020, 01:20 AM
Argument for and against Sewell. - BenZoo2 - 11-29-2020, 02:38 PM
Argument for and against Sewell. - BenZoo2 - 11-29-2020, 07:40 PM
RE: Argument for and against Sewell. - J24 - 11-29-2020, 10:56 PM
RE: Argument for and against Sewell. - J24 - 12-01-2020, 01:21 AM
RE: Argument for and against Sewell. - Whatever - 12-03-2020, 12:51 PM
Argument for and against Sewell. - BenZoo2 - 12-03-2020, 12:31 PM
RE: Argument for and against Sewell. - J24 - 12-13-2020, 09:50 PM
RE: Argument for and against Sewell. - J24 - 12-18-2020, 02:30 AM
RE: Argument for and against Sewell. - J24 - 12-17-2020, 10:48 PM
RE: Argument for and against Sewell. - J24 - 12-22-2020, 07:22 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 13 Guest(s)