Who ends up the "3rd WR" at the end of the season ?

[Nicomo Cosca]

(05-20-2020, 01:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Gio is a good receiver, but there is a big difference between a RB as a receiver and  WR.

RBs run very limited routes (screens, swing passes, wheel routes, underneath drag) while WRs work on getting open with precision route running skills or timing patterns.

I am not some huge Erickson fan, but he is cheap and versatile. Plus we have zero depth at WR.  I don't see why we would even consider trading him.

What? AJ, Boyd, Higgins, Ross, Tate, Erickson.

When John Ross, Auden Tate, and Tee Higgins are your #3-5 guys that is good depth.

[fredtoast]

(05-20-2020, 06:19 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: What? AJ, Boyd, Higgins, Ross, Tate, Erickson.

When John Ross, Auden Tate, and Tee Higgins are your #3-5 guys that is good depth.

Since we were talking about trading Erickson I thought it was clear I was talking about guys at his level or lower.  Especially after I said this.

(05-20-2020, 01:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Thomas, Morgan, and Washington = Zero depth.

[Nicomo Cosca]

(05-20-2020, 06:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Since we were talking about trading Erickson I thought it was clear I was talking about guys at his level or lower.  Especially after I said this.

And you think other teams have better depth after their top 5-6 WR’s?

[fredtoast]

(05-20-2020, 06:16 PM)Geno_Can_Dunk Wrote: I said trade, not cut. I wouldn't cut him either. But if we can get sure-fire value, and free up over a million dollars (not a few hundred thousand) it would make sense. If nothing else it can be rolled into next year and used productively, rather than overpaying a guy to ride the bench. If Ross and Green are both down I still don't think having Erickson as the #4 versus Thomas or somebody we get off the waiver wire as the #4 is going to make any real difference. 

Take a second to look at your own argument.

If Erickson is no better than any waiver wire pick up then how the hell could we get anything in trade?

Why would we even carry more than 4 WR if we can always get another one of equal value off the street whenever we need one?

[fredtoast]

(05-20-2020, 06:38 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: And you think other teams have better depth after their top 5-6 WR’s?

I have no idea.

What does that have to do with he Bengals?

All I know is that Erickson is much better than anyone else we have to replace him with.  When we start talking about trading a player we have to consider what we are losing.  I don't mind trading anyone if we have someone just as good to replace him with, but that is not true with Alex.

[Geno_Can_Dunk]

(05-20-2020, 06:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Take a second to look at your own argument.

If Erickson is no better than any waiver wire pick up then how the hell could we get anything in trade?

Why would we even carry more than 4 WR if we can always get another one of equal value off the street whenever we need one?

Try following the thread of the discussion. I started by stating that there were previous rumors that we were offered something for Erickson a year ago, which I'll link below. What I said was that IF that's true and IF it's still the case, then it makes sense now, even if it didn't last year. So your argument that we can't get anything for him is irrelevant... it was all an if/then scenario to begin with. 

So now that the goal posts are back in place, your analysis equates trading to cutting. If it's a trade, you get something in return. And no, I wouldn't trade him for just a conditional 7th rd pick. The question is more "would the return on a trade be more or less than a #6 WR [limited to the slot btw] who makes twice as much as his position will warrant." Of course, if the answer is less, we wouldn't do it. But you sir are ignoring the value received in the hypothetical trade. 

https://www.cincyjungle.com/2019/5/8/18537005/nfl-trade-rumors-bengals-alex-erickson-falcons-mohamed-sanu

[Sled21]

Erickson is a solid possession receiver, and a darn good punt returner. I don't see them letting him go.

[fredtoast]

(05-20-2020, 09:31 PM)Geno_Can_Dunk Wrote: Try following the thread of the discussion. I started by stating that there were previous rumors that we were offered something for Erickson a year ago, which I'll link below. What I said was that IF that's true and IF it's still the case, then it makes sense now, even if it didn't last year. So your argument that we can't get anything for him is irrelevant... it was all an if/then scenario to begin with. 

So now that the goal posts are back in place, your analysis equates trading to cutting. If it's a trade, you get something in return. And no, I wouldn't trade him for just a conditional 7th rd pick. The question is more "would the return on a trade be more or less than a #6 WR [limited to the slot btw] who makes twice as much as his position will warrant." Of course, if the answer is less, we wouldn't do it. But you sir are ignoring the value received in the hypothetical trade. 

https://www.cincyjungle.com/2019/5/8/18537005/nfl-trade-rumors-bengals-alex-erickson-falcons-mohamed-sanu

You are the one who can't follow my logic.

I NEVER said we could not get anything in trade for him.  What I said is we should not trade him because we don't have another player as good to replace him on the roster.

If we had depth at WR with other guys as good as Erickson to take his roster spot then I have no problem with trading him.  If you trade him you may get another player to fill another hole on the roster, but you are creating a new hole at WR.  It is a zero net sum gain.

[yellowxdiscipline]

(05-16-2020, 06:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'd love to see Tate put on a few pounds and become our move TE

I second this. Work on his inline blocking, bulk up, and maybe he'll see the field more. 

[Geno_Can_Dunk]

(05-21-2020, 09:10 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You are the one who can't follow my logic.

I NEVER said we could not get anything in trade for him.  What I said is we should not trade him because we don't have another player as good to replace him on the roster.

If we had depth at WR with other guys as good as Erickson to take his roster spot then I have no problem with trading him.  If you trade him you may get another player to fill another hole on the roster, but you are creating a new hole at WR.  It is a zero net sum gain.

You aren't necessarily creating another hole if you're using that roughly 1.3m of extra space to sign somebody else. It's shifting resources from somebody who will barely see the field to somebody at another position who will see the field. The whole point is to allocate resources where necessary, not a #6 WR whose return ability is redundant with other players (who we didn't have when we extended him). It's as if you're only looking at the subtraction of Erickson and not the addition elsewhere that that enables.

I do agree that we have lots of cap space so it may not be necessary. But I'm also saying if we want to extend Mixon, sign an OL such as Warford, sign a veteran edge, AND have money for injuries and roll-over for next year, some tweaking of the back end of the roster is a possibility. 

[sandwedge]

(05-21-2020, 08:23 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Erickson is a solid possession receiver, and a darn good punt returner. I don't see them letting him go.

I agree. Every year at this time, it's exactly the same thing said, dump Erickson. Wasn't it 2 seasons ago he led the AFC in return yards on KO's? 
He catches everything thrown to him. 

[sandwedge]

(05-21-2020, 11:41 AM)Geno_Can_Dunk Wrote: You aren't necessarily creating another hole if you're using that roughly 1.3m of extra space to sign somebody else. It's shifting resources from somebody who will barely see the field to somebody at another position who will see the field. The whole point is to allocate resources where necessary, not a #6 WR whose return ability is redundant with other players (who we didn't have when we extended him). It's as if you're only looking at the subtraction of Erickson and not the addition elsewhere that that enables.

I do agree that we have lots of cap space so it may not be necessary. But I'm also saying if we want to extend Mixon, sign an OL such as Warford, sign a veteran edge, AND have money for injuries and roll-over for next year, some tweaking of the back end of the roster is a possibility. 

2 of our top 3 WRs are injuring prone, if they get injured again, you are relying on Boyd and Higgins and a bunch of nobodies.

[fredtoast]

(05-21-2020, 11:41 AM)Geno_Can_Dunk Wrote: You aren't necessarily creating another hole if you're using that roughly 1.3m of extra space to sign somebody else. 

Unless you spend the $1.3 million to sign a WR then you are creating a hole.  We don't have anyone as good as Erickson on the roster to replace him and he can't be replaced by just any rookie off the street for $600K.

[Whatever]

(05-21-2020, 08:23 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Erickson is a solid possession receiver, and a darn good punt returner. I don't see them letting him go.

With the injury history of Green, Ross, and Tate, I think the Bengals have to keep 7 WR's.  Erickson is solidly the #6 guy.  If two guys step up and bump him down to 8th and off the roster, so be it, but I don't see it wiith what we have behind him.

[Geno_Can_Dunk]

(05-21-2020, 12:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Unless you spend the $1.3 million to sign a WR then you are creating a hole.  We don't have anyone as good as Erickson on the roster to replace him and he can't be replaced by just any rookie off the street for $600K.

You're making false comparisons again. It's not switching one hole for another if it's switching your #6 WR for say a #4 edge rusher who can spell Geno inside, or part of the salary of a starting OL such as Warford. AND getting some draft capital in return. 

We claimed Pharoah Cooper off waivers last year, and he was fine if we just could've kept him. He had a great catch against us when we played the Cards. You assume a "rookie off the street", but when you're first in the claim order at 53 man cut time, there are plenty of guys out there for #6 WR, but there are NOT plenty of #4 pass rushers or starting OL out there. Sure we MIGHT need Erickson later in the season, but we will SURELY need another DL and OL. Play the odds. 

[Geno_Can_Dunk]

(05-21-2020, 11:45 AM)sandwedge Wrote: I agree. Every year at this time, it's exactly the same thing said, dump Erickson. Wasn't it 2 seasons ago he led the AFC in return yards on KO's? 
He catches everything thrown to him. 

Nobody advocated that we "dump" Erickson, that's just how Fred keeps twisting things. Only that we trade him if we can get equal compensation. Remember he's in the last year of his deal, and unlikely that we'll resign him. Frees up resources to build elsewhere. So yes we might need him down the line, but in the meantime we have other needs to address. 

BTW, there was a 'sandwedge' on some other board I used to post to a few years ago. At the time I posted as Bengali. Couldn't find that board when I tried to go back to it so migrated here. 

[sandwedge]

(05-21-2020, 08:20 PM)Geno_Can_Dunk Wrote: Nobody advocated that we "dump" Erickson, that's just how Fred keeps twisting things. Only that we trade him if we can get equal compensation. Remember he's in the last year of his deal, and unlikely that we'll resign him. Frees up resources to build elsewhere. So yes we might need him down the line, but in the meantime we have other needs to address. 

BTW, there was a 'sandwedge' on some other board I used to post to a few years ago. At the time I posted as Bengali. Couldn't find that board when I tried to go back to it so migrated here. 

That was me. I do remember a Bengali also. Yeah it went down and I think googled boards and found this board. Thankful for it too!

[fredtoast]

(05-21-2020, 08:13 PM)Geno_Can_Dunk Wrote:  You assume a "rookie off the street", but when you're first in the claim order at 53 man cut time, there are plenty of guys out there for #6 WR, 

I assume a rookie off the street because you can't sign a vet for $600K.

A vet like Cooper will cost $1 million and he is not as good as Erickson.

$900K is not going to make ANY difference in us signing a #4 D-lineman or a staring O-lineman.  We are not that tight against the cap.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

Tee Higgins I think ends up backing up all the spots and taking over in case of injuries. If Ross is healthy he should start
on the outside early with Boyd in the Slot and Green at the X spot. Ross is the Z cause of his speed. One thing Ross better
improve on is catching the ball or Higgins could take his spot. Could see this happening, gotta catch the damn ball.

Tee has great hands along with AJ, Boyd and Auden. Use Auden in the Red Zone is what I want to see more of.

[jfkbengals]

(05-22-2020, 01:51 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Tee Higgins I think ends up backing up all the spots and taking over in case of injuries. If Ross is healthy he should start
on the outside early with Boyd in the Slot and Green at the X spot. Ross is the Z cause of his speed. One thing Ross better
improve on is catching the ball or Higgins could take his spot. Could see this happening, gotta catch the damn ball.

Tee has great hands along with AJ, Boyd and Auden. Use Auden in the Red Zone is what I want to see more of.

Probably not this season.

With the lack of OTAs and only virtual classwork, there is no way to get a rookie up to speed to play 3 positions.  They need to put him in one spot and keep him there.  My guess is he will line up as the Z when he is on the field this season.