The Bengals did it right at OT

[Shake n Blake]

(09-17-2017, 01:45 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Yup,

It's a shame we didn't have the cap space to retain Big Whit as a backup plan........wait what ? 

I thought Whit's contract from LA was ridiculous and I was ok with letting him go. That said, what about a younger/cheaper option like Menelik Watson? How about Mike Remmers? Both signed for around $6 million/year. DJ Fluker signed a 1 year, $3 million deal. Kelvin Beachum signed for 3 years/$24 million and has experience at LT in the division (former Steelers starting LT). Cheaper and younger than Whit.

Any of these options would've given us flexibility. Maybe to kick Fisher in to guard or LT. With Beachum, we could've kept Ogbuehi at RT and move Fisher into Zeitler's place (if Og proved he could handle it). People keep bringing up Whit, but he was far from the only option.

[Shake n Blake]

(09-17-2017, 01:50 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: I think it's all part and parcel of the same issue here.
I think it's less about the coaching (in terms of actual coaching) and more about talent evaluation. 
Whether it stems from the draft or stems from poor internal talent evaluation and knowing what we have and how maximize it. 

From the drafting of the offensive tackles to the lack of addressing IOL to the random RB carousel we are playing. 
It's all talent evaluation and we are failing at it right now.

Well the coach (Paul A) has had a very heavy say in the guys we took though...

[RoyleRedlegs]

(09-17-2017, 02:15 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Well the coach (Paul A) has had a very heavy say in the guys we took though...

But that doesn't mean it's a coaching problem. Its about scouting. He sucks at that. But you also shouldn't have to ask your coaches to scout. But we have such a small scouting department. 

[THE PISTONS]

(09-17-2017, 11:53 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: He also claimed they offered him a "lucrative 1 year deal" but that's also BS. They offered him 1yr/$9m. The Rams deal guarantees him $15m, or a little over $170k more than the franchise tag was.

Amazing how the Steelers can come into an offseason with less cap space than the Bengals and give Antonio Brown at $17m/yr extension, sign Stephon Tuitt to a $12m/yr deal, sign Joe Haden to a $9m/yr deal, and STILL franchise tag Le'Veon Bell at $12.75m.... yet the Bengals are constantly poor and out of cap space, so they can't afford to keep one of the best LT in the game, while instead giving the job to one of the worst LT in the game.

Bfine is a well known Mike Brown/Marvin Lewis/Paul Alexander apologist.

Yep. The Bengals have an extremely small scouting department compared to NFL teams. The front office doesn't use free agency. Before slotted rookie deals we had to lead the league in rookie holdouts.

The Bengals were going around the combine telling people that Whitworth was coming back and ended up losing him.

Plus, no playoff wins in 26+ years.

With all of this...it's amazing that some fans still think the Bengals do things the right way. The Bengals want to win. They don't commit all of their resources to winning like other NFL teams do though.

The Steelers as you point out had less cap space than the Bengals and did way more.

[THE PISTONS]

(09-17-2017, 02:12 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I thought Whit's contract from LA was ridiculous and I was ok with letting him go. That said, what about a younger/cheaper option like Menelik Watson? How about Mike Remmers? Both signed for around $6 million/year. DJ Fluker signed a 1 year, $3 million deal. Kelvin Beachum signed for 3 years/$24 million and has experience at LT in the division (former Steelers starting LT). Cheaper and younger than Whit.

Any of these options would've given us flexibility. Maybe to kick Fisher in to guard or LT. With Beachum, we could've kept Ogbuehi at RT and move Fisher into Zeitler's place (if Og proved he could handle it). People keep bringing up Whit, but he was far from the only option.

You hit the nail on the head. There were affordable options out there to upgrade. Even at G a guy like Leary would have been a great replacement for Zeitler.

People say those guys wouldn't come here...but the Bengals NEVER brought them in for a visit.

The Bengals wait until the dust settles during free agency then bring the leftovers in for a visit.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(09-17-2017, 02:12 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I thought Whit's contract from LA was ridiculous and I was ok with letting him go. That said, what about a younger/cheaper option like Menelik Watson? How about Mike Remmers? Both signed for around $6 million/year. DJ Fluker signed a 1 year, $3 million deal. Kelvin Beachum signed for 3 years/$24 million and has experience at LT in the division (former Steelers starting LT). Cheaper and younger than Whit.

Any of these options would've given us flexibility. Maybe to kick Fisher in to guard or LT. With Beachum, we could've kept Ogbuehi at RT and move Fisher into Zeitler's place (if Og proved he could handle it). People keep bringing up Whit, but he was far from the only option.

On average, Whitworth is still only the 10th highest paid LT in the league in LA.

[Shake n Blake]

(09-17-2017, 02:26 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: But that doesn't mean it's a coaching problem. Its about scouting. He sucks at that. But you also shouldn't have to ask your coaches to scout. But we have such a small scouting department. 

Oh I wasn't saying it meant coaching problem (although you and I definitely disagree on Paul as a coach). I was just trying to see if you think Paul has made mistakes with lobbying for these guys, and if you think our coaches should have maybe a little less influence on who we take. Right now it seems certain coaches (particularly the more tenured ones) have a lot of pull in the draft room. Pull they probably shouldn't have.

Now that's not me saying that coaches shouldn't have any say, that's just me saying that Paul A shouldn't be able to say "I want this guy" and we take that guy simply because Paul liked how his butt looked.

(09-17-2017, 02:51 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: You hit the nail on the head. There were affordable options out there to upgrade. Even at G a guy like Leary would have been a great replacement for Zeitler.

People say those guys wouldn't come here...but the Bengals NEVER brought them in for a visit.

The Bengals wait until the dust settles during free agency then bring the leftovers in for a visit.

The Bengals (lets be honest...Mike Brown) simply don't like free agency. The popular excuse they've provided lately is that they love compensatory picks. While that may be true, this is a relatively recent narrative for a problem that's been around since the advent of free agency. Even when they've made a move for a mid-tier or slightly bigger signing (Odom, Coles and Antonio Bryant are really the only guys that fit that description), the Bengals only made those moves to replace a departed player that signed for more elsewhere than the incoming player. 

Odom was cheaper than what the 49ers paid Justin Smith
Coles was $1 million cheaper (per) than what the Seahawks paid Housh
Bryant was also cheaper than Housh.

In short, Mike Brown loathes free agency with every fiber of his being, and only uses it for a "break glass" emergency. Sometimes not even then. He does love bargains, so he's willing to throw small money at troubled players, aging players and former 1st round busts, but rarely will you see him going after quality players that demand fair market value prices. 

The compensatory picks are just icing on the cake and only further encourage him to do what he'd normally do anyway.

[Shake n Blake]

(09-17-2017, 03:00 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: On average, Whitworth is still only the 10th highest paid LT in the league in LA.

It was mainly the years that bothered me on that deal. Whit won't be the same player in 2-3 years. 

That said, it's possible the Rams set up that contract to be easily escapable in a year or two. If that's the case, I would've been for it.

[wolfkaosaun]

They did it right by drafting, they just didn't do it right by WHO they drafted.

Ogbuehi was never going to be a LT. I never understood why people say LT is his natural position because, guess what, it isn't. Ogbuehi started out at OG and did well there. He then moved to RT and also did well there. When he moved to LT, that's when he struggled. He did well in the beginning. But then against actual NFL talent against Ole Miss, Mississippi State, and Alabama he gave up 5 sacks in those games along with multiple QB hits and pressures. They ended up moving Ogbuehi back to RT because of how much he struggled.

LT is not Ogbuehi's natural position and he never had sustained success there. He also lacked strength and couldn't sustain blocks. SUre, those are coachable, but he's not getting it.

Fisher I liked better at RT. However, just like Ogbuehi, he lacked strength. Bull rushers and stronger opponents had his number. Fisher is a fighter, but he's not a strong one. He also moved around a lot as well in college, so he had to keep learning different angles.

So the Bengals took two OT prospects who both struggle with power. Both don't have great strength. And both moved around the offensive line throughout their college career.

They had no backup plans for if neither one worked out. Sure, they tried Whitworth but once he was gone they didn't even try to bring anyone else in. They thought they could do well with what they had, and even Eric WInston was so bad they had to cut him. Their plan wasn't to have Andre Smith play OT either. He just got outplayed by someone else for OG. And even then, Andre Smith was TERRIBLE last season.

They did the right thing planning for Whit and Smith leaving. They did the wrong thing is basically drafting the same player, having no backup plan, and betting this entire season on Paul Alexander's draft evaluation of the two and coaching them up. They are Alexander's guys, so he deserves as much criticism as anyone else.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(09-17-2017, 03:11 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Oh I wasn't saying it meant coaching problem (although you and I definitely disagree on Paul as a coach). I was just trying to see if you think Paul has made mistakes with lobbying for these guys, and if you think our coaches should have maybe a little less influence on who we take. Right now it seems certain coaches (particularly the more tenured ones) have a lot of pull in the draft room. Pull they probably shouldn't have.

Now that's not me saying that coaches shouldn't have any say, that's just me saying that Paul A shouldn't be able to say "I want this guy" and we take that guy simply because Paul liked how his butt looked.

I think we are on the same page. I just think his issues as coach stem from the problems with talent evaluation. 
You just can't make a bad football player good. But coaches have egos that need fueled...

[McC]

Well, when we're picking first, second or third in next year's draft, will there be a LT there and worth the pick? And, if so, will we take one?

[Pat5775]

(09-17-2017, 03:54 PM)McC Wrote: Well, when we're picking first, second or third in next year's draft, will there be a LT there and worth the pick?  And, if so, will we take one?

Nope. We'll be taking either Rosen or Darnold 

[McC]

(09-17-2017, 03:57 PM)Pat5775 Wrote: Nope. We'll be taking either Rosen or Darnold 

Oh, good.  Yet another QB to ruin.  A million dollar house built on quicksand.  

BTW, I watched Rosen yesterday. He can really spin it. OTOH, he does make some Bad Andy-like decisions at times.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(09-17-2017, 04:00 PM)McC Wrote: Oh, good.  Yet another QB to ruin.  A million dollar house built on quicksand.  

BTW, I watched Rosen yesterday.  He can really spin it.  OTOH, he does make some Bad Andy-like decisions at times.

He's got better arm talent...so he's Eli Manning who is basically just Andy with better arm talent 

[Pat5775]

(09-17-2017, 04:00 PM)McC Wrote: Oh, good.  Yet another QB to ruin.  A million dollar house built on quicksand.  

BTW, I watched Rosen yesterday.  He can really spin it.  OTOH, he does make some Bad Andy-like decisions at times.

Id rather have Darnold, personally. The USC offensive line did nothing to impress me either and the kid still found a way to win them the game when it counted. I think there was under 45 seconds to go when Texas took a 3 point lead. Darnold drove them down for a game tying FG effortlessly. Even after the beating he took. Not to open a huge can of worms but would Dalton have done the same under those circumstances? I still like Andy but when he faces pressure and takes a beating he folds up quick. 

If we pick in the top 3 and Darnold is there we'd have to take him. The offensive line can (and should) be rebuilt via free agency and the mid-rounds of the draft.

[McC]

(09-17-2017, 04:20 PM)Pat5775 Wrote: Id rather have Darnold, personally. The USC offensive line did nothing to impress me either and the kid still found a way to win them the game when it counted. I think there was under 45 seconds to go when Texas took a 3 point lead. Darnold drove them down for a game tying FG effortlessly. Even after the beating he took. Not to open a huge can of worms but would Dalton have done the same under those circumstances? I still like Andy but when he faces pressure and takes a beating he folds up quick. 

If we pick in the top 3 and Darnold is there we'd have to take him. The offensive line can (and should) be rebuilt via free agency and the mid-rounds of the draft.

Two things--first, hard to imagine we won't be picking in the top three.

Second, when do we use free agency beyond a cheapie here or there?

[Pat5775]

(09-17-2017, 04:26 PM)McC Wrote: Two things--first, hard to imagine we won't be picking in the top three.

Second, when do we use free agency beyond a cheapie here or there?

1 Good point. It's just a matter of can we suck worse than the jets and colts

2 True, it's not in our history to spend in free agency. But after a full season suffering with this shitstorm of an offensive line? I don't think they have much of a choice... Plus I'm starting to let myself believe Marv's days are numbered. If we bring in a new coach I think a lot of things will change. I think Marvin has more control than most people think, and the Mike has taken enough steps back that he's almost a non factor. We just have to hope Katie let's the next HC have as much control as Marv does 

[Whatever]

(09-17-2017, 12:26 PM)Go Cards Wrote: If any player in recent history deserved to be paid and loyal to it was Whit.

Business decision equals MB being cheap and saving cap money. Whit was almost like having an extra coach with his experience. That is very valuable with the piano man being the coach. He commanded respect as well. These players do not grow on trees.

Which should have been the plan, match offer by Rams (because the plan blew up in our face already costing Bengals to miss playoffs for first time in a minute) let him play until he is not serviceable anymore and then take Alexanders coaching spot, and by force if necessary.

Or quit saying you run organization like steelers when the main staple of steelers have been to pay their interior O-linemen and MB goes on the cheap here.

There is a lot of irony in me not wanting to draft OL that year because I always want early picks used on trench players and especially OL. But our window was closing and it was time to play for that year and roll dice in lieu of what we always do that never pays with positive postseason results.

P.S. if anybody can play until they are 38 it is Whit.

Yes and no.  Loyalty is a two way street.  The Bengals could have offered Whit more.  Whit could have taken less to stay.  You see players take less money to stay with a team all the time.  If you have to hand a guy a blank check to get him to stay, then he obviously doesn't have much loyalty to you or your organization.  I like Whit as much as the next guy, but the first chance he got, he ran outta town to the highest bidder. The first time he was going into a season without a contract extension, he griped about it in the media. I don't hold that against him.  He made his choice based on his priorities.  

[BengalChris]

(09-17-2017, 11:23 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Obviously a lot of talk about the oline and everyone can see it is a work in progress. However, the one constant comment I see that doesn't seem to be based on reality is that the Bengals didn't "address" the oline.

In 2015 we realized that Whit was getting a little long in the tooth and Andre Smith was on the final year of his contract. So we draft 2 OTs in each of the first 2 rounds of the draft. Despite the amateur experts in this forum both were considered high draft choices and great prospects. Both were All Americans their final year (Walter Camp/Football writers).

The plan was perfect. Give Ced a "red shirt" year to heal while we didn't need him and let Jake get experience all along the oline. Andre leaves in 2016 and Ced is ready to get his feet wet at RT. He's not ready and gets benched. Understanding that their top prospect may not be ready for primetime they offer a 35 year old Whit a lucrative 1 year deal; unfortunately, LA was willing to employ him until he was 38. The Bengals could not wait that long to try and get return on their investments.

Will Ced and Jake work out? Who knows. But sometimes you have to crack a couple eggs to make an omelet.

Wow, that's an interesting take on the mess that is our oline.

I do agree that the team taking two OTs in the 2015 draft was not a complete and total surprise, but the team really failed in 2016 to recognize that the two OTs they did select may very well not pan out.

The team did NOTHING in the off-season to account for the possibility that Og or Fisher or both may just be no better than they were last year. Bringing back Andre Smith, who clearly has little left, was just a cheap option for Mike Brown.

Giving up 5 sacks to the Ravens is abysmal. Eight sacks given up in 2 games is awful bad and makes this look like a long ugly season ahead.

It really doesn't matter how old Whit is, he's better than another player we have along the OL and to point to his age as a reason to accept subpar young guys is rather idiotic. Of course, "idiotic" and "Mike Brown" are pretty much synonyms.

Why is Alexander still a coach on this team?

[THE PISTONS]

(09-17-2017, 04:46 PM)Whatever Wrote: Yes and no.  Loyalty is a two way street.  The Bengals could have offered Whit more.  Whit could have taken less to stay.  You see players take less money to stay with a team all the time.  If you have to hand a guy a blank check to get him to stay, then he obviously doesn't have much loyalty to you or your organization.  I like Whit as much as the next guy, but the first chance he got, he ran outta town to the highest bidder. The first time he was going into a season without a contract extension, he griped about it in the media. I don't hold that against him.  He made his choice based on his priorities.  

Honestly, why would a player take less money to come here?

Generally players take less money to go somewhere to chase a Super Bowl. That's not happening here.

One could argue that the Rams are a better chance to win. They had a bad year last year and FIRED THEIR COACH. ie Ownership wasn't complacent and made a change to try to win. Their defense is every bit as good as ours.

The have a #1 pick at QB. Their RB in Gurley is better than any RB on our roster. They just need an offensive line.