Chris Baker cut, more vets to come?

[Socal Bengals fan]

(08-25-2018, 08:08 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I agree that it was a failed signing. He should've been good enough to earn a spot in the rotation, but he didn't.

That said, kudos to the FO for trimming the fat this year, rather than rolling with vets that aren't hacking it.

I agree. The front since signing Marvin Lewis has made money decisions. I like the war they are trimming the fat n how they had a great draft. I think our defense will be top 10 for sure. But our offense line is a year away

[Luvnit2]

(08-25-2018, 08:28 PM)Socal Bengals fan Wrote: I agree.   The front since signing Marvin Lewis has made money decisions.  I like the war they are trimming the fat n how they had a great draft. I think our defense will be top 10 for sure.  But our offense line is a year away

I don't disagree about our OL and thus our offense possibly struggling early. The questions becomes is can our defense keep us in and win games the first half of the season while our OL gels and hopefully gets better each week. If so, if we could go 6-2 the back half of the schedule showing improvement weekly by playoff time, our OL would technically had the benefit of 16 games so an entire year.

[*ochocincos*]

I never thought I'd see George Iloka and Chris Baker cut before Michael Johnson, especially when the DL has Lawson, Willis, and newly-drafted Hubbard.

[Shake n Blake]

(08-25-2018, 08:28 PM)Socal Bengals fan Wrote: I agree.   The front since signing Marvin Lewis has made money decisions.  I like the war they are trimming the fat n how they had a great draft. I think our defense will be top 10 for sure.  But our offense line is a year away

Kinda my fear at the moment.

[*ochocincos*]

(08-25-2018, 08:28 PM)Socal Bengals fan Wrote: I agree.   The front since signing Marvin Lewis has made money decisions.  I like the war they are trimming the fat n how they had a great draft. I think our defense will be top 10 for sure.  But our offense line is a year away

Agreed. Especially the right side. And specifically RT.
To be fair, the RT market this past FA was pretty bad. And here's next year's FA crop - https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2019/all/right-tackle/
There are some pretty solid RT prospects expected to enter next year's draft, so if the Bengals don't like the FAs, they could go RT early.

[I_C_DeadPeople]

Our OL is at the very LEAST a year away.

[Essex Johnson]

(08-25-2018, 07:28 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm not sure that I agree that MJ will be a "backup plan".  As long as he's still on his current deal, it's tough to see them putting him on the bench and player cheaper players.  I haven't heard any rumors of any contract restructuring, but I have seen much speculation as to him being on the chopping block.

Plug and play does not mean a backup it means you are a moving piece along the line, this adds value to your roster spot not takes away.  As for playing cheaper players, I really don;t see that as a whole when this or other organizations are making playing time decisions, sure it might come in to cutting a player a bit more than how much playing time... MJ could be cut if they feel they still need cap space to sign Geno or Dunlap or both... but  they also could see enough value in the "Win Now" mentality to keep him this year.   As for speculation, rumors with this Organization are usually rare.. did we hear anything or much about Lafell or Ioka before they cut

[fredtoast]

To be honest I had no idea who Chris baker was when we signed him.

But I want to thank him for making me remember Chet Baker and what a great CD "Chet Baker Sings" is. I had not listened to that for a long time until we signed Chris.


BTE to all of you amazed that Michael johnson is still around, he is simply better than you think he is. Much like peko was considered complet trash by a large portion of this board when he was still a very solid player. I would have no problem if MJ is cut. It would mean that our young guys are looking very good, but I am not going to complain if we keep him either.

[jfkbengals]

(08-25-2018, 11:17 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I never thought I'd see George Iloka and Chris Baker cut before Michael Johnson, especially when the DL has Lawson, Willis, and newly-drafted Hubbard.

The number of ends has nothing to do with the release of a tackle, especially considering we regularly keep 5 ends for rotation.  One of our best defenses ever had 5 ends in Dunlap, MJ, Gilberry, Hunt, and Clarke.

Billings had a major injury as a rookie and, while healthy enough to play last season, was not very effective.  Baker was brought in as a starting nose tackle insurance policy in case Billings did not return to form.  Had Billings not taken significant strides, I believe the plan would have been to give him one more year as the backup to Baker in order to spell and show improvement, with the winner of Brown vs. Tupou getting a spot on PS.  With Billings showing he is returning to form, he has won the starting position, and now the loser of Brown vs. Tupou goes to the PS, winner being Billings' backup.

[fredtoast]

(08-26-2018, 12:11 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: The number of ends has nothing to do with the release of a tackle, especially considering we regularly keep 5 ends for rotation.  One of our best defenses ever had 5 ends in Dunlap, MJ, Gilberry, Hunt, and Clarke.

Billings had a major injury as a rookie and, while healthy enough to play last season, was not very effective.  Baker was brought in as a starting nose tackle insurance policy in case Billings did not return to form.  Had Billings not taken significant strides, I believe the plan would have been to give him one more year as the backup to Baker in order to spell and show improvement, with the winner of Brown vs. Tupou getting a spot on PS.  With Billings showing he is returning to form, he has won the starting position, and now the loser of Brown vs. Tupou goes to the PS, winner being Billings' backup.

This.


Rep

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(08-24-2018, 07:07 PM)N_B Wrote: We don’t have years to wait given how old our core is

That may very well be true .....but I don't know that this team is a legit contender just yet.

[*ochocincos*]

(08-26-2018, 12:11 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: The number of ends has nothing to do with the release of a tackle, especially considering we regularly keep 5 ends for rotation.  One of our best defenses ever had 5 ends in Dunlap, MJ, Gilberry, Hunt, and Clarke.

Billings had a major injury as a rookie and, while healthy enough to play last season, was not very effective.  Baker was brought in as a starting nose tackle insurance policy in case Billings did not return to form.  Had Billings not taken significant strides, I believe the plan would have been to give him one more year as the backup to Baker in order to spell and show improvement, with the winner of Brown vs. Tupou getting a spot on PS.  With Billings showing he is returning to form, he has won the starting position, and now the loser of Brown vs. Tupou goes to the PS, winner being Billings' backup.

Yes, I understand DE and DT are not the same. My point was I thought there was less quality depth with DT and safety compared to DE, and that’s why I thought MJ was more expendable. Plus, add in MJ didn’t have much of a cap hit in the final year of his contract, and I saw him being a cap casualty, especially over Iloka.

Also, Brown will not be Billings’ backup. He’s a 3T or emergency DE given he played DE in college. He’d be a backup to Atkins if anything. Backup to Billings will be Tupou or Glasgow if Tupou doesn’t make it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sled21]

Another thing to consider, along with the fact when MJ plays tackle he's tall enough to bat down passes and make it hard for the QB to see downfield, is the intangible that Dunlap likes playing with him on the opposite end. When he talks line, it's always Mike and me, or me and Mike.... they've played together for a long time, and keeping Dunlap happy does a lot to keep him here.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(08-27-2018, 10:21 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Another thing to consider, along with the fact when MJ plays tackle he's tall enough to bat down passes and make it hard for the QB to see downfield, is the intangible that Dunlap likes playing with him on the opposite end. When he talks line, it's always Mike and me, or me and Mike.... they've played together for a long time, and keeping Dunlap happy does a lot to keep him here.

That is a great point i have honestly never thought about.

Have to keep Dunlap happy and pay the man.

[I_C_DeadPeople]

(08-27-2018, 10:21 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Another thing to consider, along with the fact when MJ plays tackle he's tall enough to bat down passes and make it hard for the QB to see downfield, is the intangible that Dunlap likes playing with him on the opposite end. When he talks line, it's always Mike and me, or me and Mike.... they've played together for a long time, and keeping Dunlap happy does a lot to keep him here.

That is all nice but not relevant. Players come and go for all teams all the time so you play with whomever. You don't keep MJ because he is buds with Dunlap.

MJ has value, no one disputes that, but he is not worth the amount we are paying him. If a younger guy can perform close to him and has more upside for 1/3rd or less of the cost it is a no-brainer. 

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(08-27-2018, 04:35 PM)I_C_DeadPeople Wrote: That is all nice but not relevant. Players come and go for all teams all the time so you play with whomever. You don't keep MJ because he is buds with Dunlap.

MJ has value, no one disputes that, but he is not worth the amount we are paying him. If a younger guy can perform close to him and has more upside for 1/3rd or less of the cost it is a no-brainer. 

Hard to argue with any of this.

If we keep him around we should atleast restructure MJ's contract.

[Sled21]

(08-27-2018, 04:35 PM)I_C_DeadPeople Wrote: That is all nice but not relevant. Players come and go for all teams all the time so you play with whomever. You don't keep MJ because he is buds with Dunlap.

MJ has value, no one disputes that, but he is not worth the amount we are paying him. If a younger guy can perform close to him and has more upside for 1/3rd or less of the cost it is a no-brainer. 

Keeping an intact unit with happy players is not irrelevant when you are trying to resign them. I don't disagree he might need to restructure, but MJ is good enough to plug in anywhere on the line, and if keeping him here keeps Dunlap wanting to be here, that is helpful. Dunlap already has life changing money, so the other intangibles are important. I don't think it's that important to Geno, but MJ and Carlos are tight.