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

[*ochocincos*]

At some point within the next couple years, Eifert will either get an extension or leave in FA. If he stays, he'll be paid like the #2 target and likely command $8-10 mill a year. If he leaves, the Bengals could potentially bring in some other receiving threat as the #2, and that player could command about $8-10 mill a year.

So I'd like to get everyone's opinion on if the Bengals were to spend $8-10 million a year on a #2 receiving option, would you prefer it go to a WR or TE (could be Eifert)?

WR argument: A good WR2 should be around 1000 yards and hopefully around 6 TDs. They also are more likely to stay healthy given they are going up against CBs, not LBs and safeties as often. However, a WR is most often less involved with blocking compared to a TE, which can be an added benefit to an offense.

TE argument: A receiving TE is usually one of the best options in the red zone because they are such big targets. They add a different wrinkle to an offense by also being pretty difficult to take down in the open field. A good receiving TE is a nice security blanket. However, some drawbacks to a TE being the #2 are that the top TEs are hurt more often compared to WR2's. Guys like Eifert, Gronk, Reed, and Graham have been dinged up a lot during their careers, and their offenses typically suffer when they are out. That is added risk. Last, it's pretty rare that a TE will reach 1000 yards in a season. Last year, only Olsen and Kelce surpassed that milestone, whereas 23 WRs did reach that milestone. Part of this had to do with health though, but that has to always be considered.

So which do you prefer in an ideal scenario?

[corpjet]

I would not spend $8 million Eifert, his injury history would make me gun shy.........I also wouldn't spend it on a #2 WR, Boyd and Core are still cheap and we have Ross on a rookie deal........any excess money this season needs to be spent on O-Lineman

[*ochocincos*]

(09-13-2017, 02:42 PM)corpjet Wrote: I would not spend $8 million Eifert, his injury history would make me gun shy.........I also wouldn't spend it on a #2 WR, Boyd and Core are still cheap and we have Ross on a rookie deal........any excess money this season needs to be spent on O-Lineman

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.

[*ochocincos*]

(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.

Also, Core and Boyd are not ideal #2 options at this time. They are #3 options at best. And they would be entering a contract year in 2019, which means either or both could be extended in 2 years. And AJ Green would also be entering a contract year in 2019 and will be 31 years old when his contract expires, so the top option may not be here within a few years either.

[*SHRacerX*]

Spend half of that on a coach that knows how to use either of them and that would be a good start.

[corpjet]

(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.

Neither waste of money, Eifert doesn't deserve that much and there is no need to spend that much on a #2.............

[*ochocincos*]

(09-13-2017, 03:35 PM)corpjet Wrote: Neither waste of money, Eifert doesn't deserve that much and there is no need to spend that much on a #2.............

Also not an option. There were only two options in the "Would you rather" scenario...WR2 or TE1...

[Bengal Dude]

TE1

[leonardfan40]

We already have a stud WR1, combine that with a top tier TE and we should be able to get by with young guys on rookie deals or guys like Lafell at the 2nd WR spot. Basically you're asking if we'd rather have one pro bowl pass catcher or two. Give me a pro bowl TE over a 2nd WR any day (as long as our WR1 is a star like Green)

[SunsetBengal]

(09-13-2017, 02:40 PM)ochocincos Wrote:  Last year, only Olsen and Kelce surpassed that milestone, whereas 23 WRs did reach that milestone. Part of this had to do with health though, but that has to always be considered.

So which do you prefer in an ideal scenario?

Was that 23 WR2s or just 23 WR in general?  I'd also have to consider a scoring comparison between the top 10 WR2s and the top 10 TEs.  It seems to me that TEs are critical when it comes to moving the chains on 3rd down, or at least they are versus the Bengals.

[*ochocincos*]

(09-13-2017, 04:43 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Was that 23 WR2s or just 23 WR in general?  I'd also have to consider a scoring comparison between the top 10 WR2s and the top 10 TEs.  It seems to me that TEs are critical when it comes to moving the chains on 3rd down, or at least they are versus the Bengals.

23 WRs in general. Add another 8 WR and 1 TE to the 900-999 range, and another 11 WRs and 3 TE in the 800-899 yard range. You're then looking at 42 WRs and 6 TEs with 800+ yards. So at least 10 of those WRs are WR2s.
It should be noted that Eifert has never exceeded 615 receiving yards due to his injuries.

[Beaker]

(09-13-2017, 02:40 PM)ochocincos Wrote: At some point within the next couple years, Eifert will either get an extension or leave in FA. If he stays, he'll be paid like the #2 target and likely command $8-10 mill a year. If he leaves, the Bengals could potentially bring in some other receiving threat as the #2, and that player could command about $8-10 mill a year.

So I'd like to get everyone's opinion on if the Bengals were to spend $8-10 million a year on a #2 receiving option, would you prefer it go to a WR or TE (could be Eifert)?

WR argument: A good WR2 should be around 1000 yards and hopefully around 6 TDs. They also are more likely to stay healthy given they are going up against CBs, not LBs and safeties as often. However, a WR is most often less involved with blocking compared to a TE, which can be an added benefit to an offense.

TE argument: A receiving TE is usually one of the best options in the red zone because they are such big targets. They add a different wrinkle to an offense by also being pretty difficult to take down in the open field. A good receiving TE is a nice security blanket. However, some drawbacks to a TE being the #2 are that the top TEs are hurt more often compared to WR2's. Guys like Eifert, Gronk, Reed, and Graham have been dinged up a lot during their careers, and their offenses typically suffer when they are out. That is added risk. Last, it's pretty rare that a TE will reach 1000 yards in a season. Last year, only Olsen and Kelce surpassed that milestone, whereas 23 WRs did reach that milestone. Part of this had to do with health though, but that has to always be considered.

So which do you prefer in an ideal scenario?

Screw receiving options...we have plenty. Spend the money on the O line.

[*ochocincos*]

(09-13-2017, 05:18 PM)Beaker Wrote: Screw receiving options...we have plenty. Spend the money on the O line.

Another person who doesn't understand how "Would you rather" works...

[*ochocincos*]

(09-13-2017, 04:21 PM)leonardfan40 Wrote: We already have a stud WR1, combine that with a top tier TE and we should be able to get by with young guys on rookie deals or guys like Lafell at the 2nd WR spot. Basically you're asking if we'd rather have one pro bowl pass catcher or two. Give me a pro bowl TE over a 2nd WR any day (as long as our WR1 is a star like Green)

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

[Beaker]

(09-13-2017, 05:23 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Another person who doesn't understand how "Would you rather" works...

Because hypotheticals are so intellectually stimulating.

[*ochocincos*]

(09-13-2017, 05:32 PM)Beaker Wrote: Because hypotheticals are so intellectually stimulating.

Ok, well then let's look at your preference. So from your response of investing $8-10 million in OL over WR2 or TE1, you are saying you'd like to see Eifert not get tagged and walk, and instead using that money on OL? So the receivers would be Green, LaFell, Ross, Boyd, and Core, and the TEs would be Kroft, Uzomah, Hewitt, and maybe a draft pick at TE? Do you think that $8-10 mill spent on OL (assume C or OT) would improve the team more than Eifert or a different receiving threat as 2nd receiving option?

[Beaker]

(09-13-2017, 05:37 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Ok, well then let's look at your preference. So from your response of investing $8-10 million in OL over WR2 or TE1, you are saying you'd like to see Eifert not get tagged and walk, and instead using that money on OL? So the receivers would be Green, LaFell, Ross, Boyd, and Core, and the TEs would be Kroft, Uzomah, Hewitt, and maybe a draft pick at TE? Do you think that $8-10 mill spent on OL (assume C or OT) would improve the team more than Eifert or a different receiving threat as 2nd receiving option?

I am fine with the 7 WRs we have now. I am also fine with using a draft pick to get another TE. I am also fine with offering Eifert a fair deal, but not tagging him, then letting him walk if he does not want the deal. He hasn't stayed healthy enough to elicit elite TE money. I am not fine with the current state of the O line which I feel is the weak link in any Bengals success. I think any and all effort should be applied there first before worrying about anymore "weapons". Championship teams are built from the trenches out.

[SunsetBengal]

(09-13-2017, 05:37 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Ok, well then let's look at your preference. So from your response of investing $8-10 million in OL over WR2 or TE1, you are saying you'd like to see Eifert not get tagged and walk, and instead using that money on OL? So the receivers would be Green, LaFell, Ross, Boyd, and Core, and the TEs would be Kroft, Uzomah, Hewitt, and maybe a draft pick at TE? Do you think that $8-10 mill spent on OL (assume C or OT) would improve the team more than Eifert or a different receiving threat as 2nd receiving option?

absolutely

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

[*ochocincos*]

(09-13-2017, 05:42 PM)Beaker Wrote: I am fine with the 7 WRs we have now. I am also fine with using a draft pick to get another TE. I am also fine with offering Eifert a fair deal, but not tagging him, then letting him walk if he does not want the deal. He hasn't stayed healthy enough to elicit elite TE money. I am not fine with the current state of the O line which I feel is the weak link in any Bengals success. I think any and all effort should be applied there first before worrying about anymore "weapons". Championship teams are built from the trenches out.

Understood.

Here are the upcoming 2018 free agents for OL:
LT - http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/left-tackle/
C - http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/center/
G - http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/guard/

Which OL from that list do you think would most improve the team in 2018 and can be had for $8-10 mill? Can choose up to two that total $10 mill if you think that's better than just one player.

[corpjet]

(09-13-2017, 05:37 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Ok, well then let's look at your preference. So from your response of investing $8-10 million in OL over WR2 or TE1, you are saying you'd like to see Eifert not get tagged and walk, and instead using that money on OL? So the receivers would be Green, LaFell, Ross, Boyd, and Core, and the TEs would be Kroft, Uzomah, Hewitt, and maybe a draft pick at TE? Do you think that $8-10 mill spent on OL (assume C or OT) would improve the team more than Eifert or a different receiving threat as 2nd receiving option?

Yup, without a doubt