Fans Won't Like The Player Cuts

[kevin]

Some Fan Favorites will be cut, you can see it coming. It's a numbers game now. I would like to keep all the defensive line players, we are that deep at D Line, but it just can't be done. ....The question is : Who will get us to Play-Off Wins and Super Bowl...Burkhead for example is on the team because he was good on special teams and has now shown he can do many things on offense. The more a player can do, the more he makes the team. Some Fans are going to be upset that some players they love and may even have a jersey of are gone by the Oakland game. I wish we could keep all the D Linemen, but we can't. ....I do look for Zimmer and other coaches to grab up D Linemen we cut, because they all have game, we just can't keep them all.

I did see some players step up with linebacker number uniforms. We needed that. We were in dire need of players stepping up with linebacker uniform numbers this summer. There is more depth than last summer at LB and WR. I think they are planning on a return by Burfict at some point also. ...We may not have to keep a small slot receiver if Burkhead fills the bill. ....These will not be easy cuts, but cuts must be made.

[Daddy-O]

(08-30-2015, 11:12 AM)kevin Wrote: Some Fan Favorites will be cut, you can see it coming. It's a numbers game now. I would like to keep all the defensive line players, we are that deep at D Line, but it just can't be done. ....The question is : Who will get us to Play-Off Wins and Super Bowl...Burkhead for example is on the team because he was good on special teams and has now shown he can do many things on offense. The more a player can do, the more he makes the team.  Some Fans are going to be upset that some players they love and may even have a jersey of are gone by the Oakland game. I wish we could keep all the D Linemen, but we can't. ....I do look for Zimmer and other coaches to grab up D Linemen we cut, because they all have game, we just can't keep them all.

There will be some difficult cuts, that's for sure.  And that's not a bad thing!

[CJD]

There are worse problems than having more than 53 good players on your team.

[Rattler]

Definitely be some wearing a different color uni in the coming weeks - hopefully no one goes to a AFC-North team.

[*bfine32*]

Got to be down to 75 by Tuesday. Here is my list of the first casualties:

Michael Bennett
Tevin Reese
Jake Smith
John Peters
Mark Weisman
Sam Montgomery
Trevor Roach
Shiloh Keo
Devon Still
Desmond Lawrence
Kwame Geathers
Brandon Ghee
Cedric Peerman

[Luvnit2]

(08-30-2015, 11:12 AM)kevin Wrote: Some Fan Favorites will be cut, you can see it coming. It's a numbers game now. I would like to keep all the defensive line players, we are that deep at D Line, but it just can't be done. ....The question is : Who will get us to Play-Off Wins and Super Bowl...Burkhead for example is on the team because he was good on special teams and has now shown he can do many things on offense. The more a player can do, the more he makes the team.  Some Fans are going to be upset that some players they love and may even have a jersey of are gone by the Oakland game. I wish we could keep all the D Linemen, but we can't. ....I do look for Zimmer and other coaches to grab up D Linemen we cut, because they all have game, we just can't keep them all.

I did see some players step up with linebacker number uniforms. We needed that. We were in dire need of players stepping up with linebacker uniform numbers this summer. There is more depth than last summer at LB and WR. I think they are planning on a return by Burfict at some point also. ...We may not have to keep a small slot receiver if Burkhead fills the bill. ....These will not be easy cuts, but cuts must be made.

I don't see the big name cuts needed until next week when they go from 75 to 53.

I also think this would be a great opportunity to trade a couple of these guys versus cutting them. We could argue why would a team trade if they can just grab a cut from waivers, but the issue is the waiver process in some cases would make team compete with 30 other teams to grab a guy cut.

There are teams like Carolina who need a DE so Hunt may be a great trade for them. The Giants are decimated in the secondary and we cave CB's and safeties they may want.

Call me crazy, but I would love to see us trade for Patterson from the Vikings to replace Tate as our 5th or 6th receiver and tale over his punt and kickoff duties. We could trade them Tate and another potential cut player who is NFL ready since we have a few available. Zimmer is also a coach familiar with some of these guys.

[TSwigZ]

(08-30-2015, 01:02 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I don't see the big name cuts needed until next week when they go from 75 to 53.

I also think this would be a great opportunity to trade a couple of these guys versus cutting them. We could argue why would a team trade if they can just grab a cut from waivers, but the issue is the waiver process in some cases would make team compete with 30 other teams to grab a guy cut.

There are teams like Carolina who need a DE so Hunt may be a great trade for them. The Giants are decimated in the secondary and we cave CB's and safeties they may want.

Call me crazy, but I would love to see us trade for Patterson from the Vikings to replace Tate as our 5th or 6th receiver and tale over his punt and kickoff duties. We could trade them Tate and another potential cut player who is NFL ready since we have a few available. Zimmer is also a coach familiar with some of these guys.

You're crazy but nothin wrong with dreamin

[ItsOdellThurman]

No team is going to give up a 5th rounder for an "extra guy" the Bengals plan on cutting. Even if he goes on waivers, it's not like the entire league would want him. The Bengals aren't the only team who will be making difficult cuts. In fact, probably 2/3 of the teams will be doing so. If there was a trade, it would more than likely be for a player likely to make the team and the team getting the pick having depth to fill that spot with a guy they were going to cut.

[Luvnit2]

(08-30-2015, 01:20 PM)ItsOdellThurman Wrote: No team is going to give up a 5th rounder for an "extra guy" the Bengals plan on cutting.  Even if he goes on waivers, it's not like the entire league would want him.  The Bengals aren't the only team who will be making difficult cuts.  In fact, probably 2/3 of the teams will be doing so.  If there was a trade, it would more than likely be for a player likely to make the team and the team getting the pick having depth to fill that spot with a guy they were going to cut.

I don't recall stating a 5th rounder. As far as other players, again I look at it all the same for trades and every man is available.

Also, look around there have been trades for picks being made in the NFL all pre-season so why should it stop now. If a team likes a specific player, they will go after them is my point.

[*SHRacerX*]

(08-30-2015, 01:02 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Call me crazy, but I would love to see us trade for Patterson from the Vikings to replace Tate as our 5th or 6th receiver and tale over his punt and kickoff duties. We could trade them Tate and another potential cut player who is NFL ready since we have a few available. Zimmer is also a coach familiar with some of these guys.

Patterson was a pretty high draft pick, but I would love this.  I doubt Tate would get the deal done, but if there is a DT they may covet?  Patterson is the definition of a player that needs a change of scenery. 

[*SHRacerX*]

(08-30-2015, 01:20 PM)ItsOdellThurman Wrote: No team is going to give up a 5th rounder for an "extra guy" the Bengals plan on cutting.  Even if he goes on waivers, it's not like the entire league would want him.  The Bengals aren't the only team who will be making difficult cuts.  In fact, probably 2/3 of the teams will be doing so.  If there was a trade, it would more than likely be for a player likely to make the team and the team getting the pick having depth to fill that spot with a guy they were going to cut.

Did you mean to say 1st rounder?

[ItsOdellThurman]

I would think it's much less common after the first cuts are due. I guess it's possible, but barring an injury in the last game of the pre-season, it's hard to imagine a team would give up a draft pick for an unproven guy who may get cut on another team.

Yes, I agree with you that everyone should be available, but it's just not typical Bengals to make a move like that this late. I mean I'd love a team to swoop in and trade us something for Peko or Rey, because I feel we could replace that easily in-house and have an extra spot to give a deserved roster spot to, and get a late pick.

[bengal kitten uk]

Veterans cut on deadline day traditionally struggle to get a contract anywhere until week two because contracts become fully guaranteed for vets on the roster during week one.

Your trades would need to be for 100% certain starters elsewhere or for younger players that would have to go through waivers.

Of our big names that could be cut, only Hunt (I think) is eligible for the waiver wire.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(08-30-2015, 01:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Got to be down to 75 by Tuesday. Here is my list of the first casualties:

Michael Bennett
Tevin Reese
Jake Smith
John Peters
Mark Weisman
Sam Montgomery
Trevor Roach
Shiloh Keo
Devon Still
Desmond Lawrence
Kwame Geathers
Brandon Ghee
Cedric Peerman

Swap DiManche for Roach and I'm down

[Luvnit2]

(08-30-2015, 01:37 PM)ItsOdellThurman Wrote: I would think it's much less common after the first cuts are due.  I guess it's possible, but barring an injury in the last game of the pre-season, it's hard to imagine a team would give up a draft pick for an unproven guy who may get cut on another team.

Yes, I agree with you that everyone should be available, but it's just not typical Bengals to make a move like that this late.  I mean I'd love a team to swoop in and trade us something for Peko or Rey, because I feel we could replace that easily in-house and have an extra spot to give a deserved roster spot to, and get a late pick.

I thought we went and got Jennings (starting CB) for McDonald years ago from Seattle. I know that was a player for player, but we do it. Nelson for David Jones I think was another one in recent history.

[ItsOdellThurman]

I am not sure of the specifics of the Jennings deal, but I don't recall him lasting much. The Nelson deal was definitely an exception (a good one for us), but we bought high on that one given his talent and Jones was a fringe guy. Essentially, there had to have been a communication between the teams basically stating each would be cutting their guy and might as well make the deal.

Speaks volumes about the Jags though...Nelson has been All-Pro caliber...

[RoyleRedlegs]

(08-30-2015, 01:39 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I thought we went and got Jennings (starting CB) for McDonald years ago from Seattle. I know that was a player for player, but we do it. Nelson for David Jones I think was another one in recent history.

Leonard for Harris
Then signed Harris back. 

[tigershrimp]

Unless they want draft picks, there's no reason for trades. There's no area of need on the roster. This is the difference a healthy preseason makes.....!

(Hells bells. I just jinxed it, didn't I? Oh my damn.)

[J24]

(08-30-2015, 01:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Got to be down to 75 by Tuesday. Here is my list of the first casualties:

Michael Bennett
Tevin Reese
Jake Smith
John Peters
Mark Weisman
Sam Montgomery
Trevor Roach
Shiloh Keo
Devon Still
Desmond Lawrence
Kwame Geathers
Brandon Ghee
Cedric Peerman

There not cutting Peerman, Keo, or still that early. I think they will eventually cut Keo and Still but not this early.

[jfkbengals]

(08-30-2015, 02:18 PM)tigershrimp Wrote: Unless they want draft picks, there's no reason for trades. There's no area of need on the roster. This is the difference a healthy preseason makes.....!

(Hells bells. I just jinxed it, didn't I? Oh my damn.)

One could argue the backup spot at center, but I would still agree with you.