Would you rather: $8-10 mill a year to spend on WR2 or TE1?

[corpjet]

(09-13-2017, 05:43 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: absolutely

all the receiving options in the world can't make a difference, if your QB is in panic mode all day long.

True Story!!!

[leonardfan40]

(09-13-2017, 05:31 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Not necessarily. Probably an easier way to show what I'm asking is to use two players...

Would you rather:
Emmanuel Sanders (averages 1000 yards, 6 TDs) or Eifert (average around 600 yards, 9 TDs)

Trade off more yards and less risk of injury but less TDs vs fewer yards and high risk of injury but more TDs

Eifert if healthy is going to be better/more valuable than any WR we could sign in FA for an equal contract. If we're talking about his injury history, you'll have to wait and see how this season plays out. At this moment I wouldn't give Eifert a contract of $8 plus mil/yr (what he's worth if healthy), I'd sign him for $6-7/yr if he wants to play it safe, then we have the risk. I doubt he would though so id need to see him stay healthy a yr before giving him a mega deal. If healthy I pay him over a WR any day. The difference between Eifert and our other TE's is greater than the difference between a $8-10 mil WR and what we can get out of Lafell or Boyd or Core/Ross/Malone/etc...plus this team just spent the 9th pick on a WR so no way they sign a WR for $8+ plus mil

[*SHRacerX*]

Maybe a better scenario would be would you rather spend that money on Tyler Eifert or Weston Richburg, C?

I would much rather take the C and try to develop Uzomah and Kroft. Our rushing attack, or lack thereof, has been a problem now for way too long.

[*bfine32*]

(09-13-2017, 02:53 PM)ochocincos Wrote: You don't understand how "would you rather" works, eh? You have to pick either WR or TE. OL was intentionally not included in the options.

As a veteran of creating polls and/choices in this forum I can tell you if you create a thread that includes options and you list 536 choices and say PICK ONE OF THESE; within the first 3 posts you will get choices 537 and 538.

Also a common trend is you must caveat every thread with "I understand that Mike Brown and Marvin Lewis are to blame and need to be replaced"

A relatively current trend is "I blame the oline"

Now to answer the question:

I would choose TE1 and it would be a traditional TE that excels at blocking.  

[*ochocincos*]

(09-14-2017, 08:47 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As a veteran of creating polls and/choices in this forum I can tell you if you create a thread that includes options and you list 536 choices and say PICK ONE OF THESE; within the first 3 posts you will get choices 537 and 538.

Also a common trend is you must caveat every thread with "I understand that Mike Brown and Marvin Lewis are to blame and need to be replaced"

A relatively current trend is "I blame the oline"

Now to answer the question:

I would choose TE1 and it would be a traditional TE that excels at blocking.  

Great response bfine. Also, I'm glad you're no longer restricted! Woohoo!

Interesting that you chose TE1 and preferred it be a traditional TE that excels at blocking.
Here is a list of upcoming 2018 free agents at TE. Any one in particular you would sign that fits your preference?
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/tight-end/

I view Eifert as much more of a receiving TE than blocking, so I don't know if you were implying re-signing him or instead finding a different TE.
If a TE that is more of a blocking TE with some pass catching ability, I think the Bengals have some decent options already on the roster and those in FA shouldn't command $8-10 mill a year.
Related note: blocking was a big reason I wanted OJ Howard. He was a good, experienced blocker at Alabama and showed potential as a receiving threat. I thought he'd fit very well in Cincinnati.

Btw, my preference would be to have a stud WR2 over a TE1 and have the top TE being a good blocker that can also catch. If that WR is not already on the roster, then I'd use the money to get one. If that player is on the roster and doesn't command a lot of $$, I'd instead invest that $$ into OL. The best long-term WR already on the Bengals I see as a good WR2 would be Ross, but he needs to prove it over the next 1-2 years first.

[*bfine32*]

(09-14-2017, 10:49 AM)ochocincos Wrote: Great response bfine. Also, I'm glad you're no longer restricted! Woohoo!

Interesting that you chose TE1 and preferred it be a traditional TE that excels at blocking.
Here is a list of upcoming 2018 free agents at TE. Any one in particular you would sign that fits your preference?
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/tight-end/

I view Eifert as much more of a receiving TE than blocking, so I don't know if you were implying re-signing him or instead finding a different TE.
If a TE that is more of a blocking TE with some pass catching ability, I think the Bengals have some decent options already on the roster and those in FA shouldn't command $8-10 mill a year.
Related note: blocking was a big reason I wanted OJ Howard. He was a good, experienced blocker at Alabama and showed potential as a receiving threat. I thought he'd fit very well in Cincinnati.

Btw, my preference would be to have a stud WR2 over a TE1 and have the top TE being a good blocker that can also catch. If that WR is not already on the roster, then I'd use the money to get one. If that player is on the roster and doesn't command a lot of $$, I'd instead invest that $$ into OL. The best long-term WR I see as a good WR2 would be Ross, but he needs to prove it over the next 1-2 years first.

I was a big fan of Troy Niklas coming out of college. Ironically he was Tyler's backup at ND. Injury and Zona's scheme (don't really use a TE as a receiver) has limited his production. But he is talented and at 6'6" 270 he can block.

IDK about options on the team; as all of ours played some or a lot of slot in college.

OJ Howard would have been a fine choice IMO.

...and thanks; I've been suspended so long that I kinda miss the purple. 

[*ochocincos*]

(09-14-2017, 08:30 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Maybe a better scenario would be would you rather spend that money on Tyler Eifert or Weston Richburg, C?

I would much rather take the C and try to develop Uzomah and Kroft.  Our rushing attack, or lack thereof, has been a problem now for way too long.

Interesting about Richburg.
He was the 19th best center in the NFL last year according to PFF. His rating was 75, which was considered average. He's better than Bodine, but most are.
He was better in 2015 though, considered a top 5 C.
We'll see how Richburg ends up after this year. He could become a top 10 center (again?) and deserve to be paid like it.
I never realized it, but the #10 top paid center according to salary is making an average of $7.5 mill a year. So yea, a top 10 center and top 10 TE are about the same cost.

If Richburg does well again this year after a mediocre 2016, I'd let Eifert walk in favor of Richburg and either roll with Kroft/Uzomah as TE1 or draft a TE on Day 2 of the draft. Sure, it's less weapons, but Dalton needs a better line over 5+ weapons.

[*SHRacerX*]

(09-14-2017, 11:34 AM)ochocincos Wrote:  but Dalton needs a better line over 5+ weapons.

This summarizes our situation and just about any QB situation where they tried to just out-weapon teams.  Recent history with the Colts shows a similar outcome.  

[Housh]

What makes you think we'd spend the unused Eifert money on someone else?


What about the injury fund