Taylor Expects Starting RT and C back Sunday

[kevin]

Good News to hear from the Head Coach that Reiff and Hopkins will probably play Sunday. Plus Burrow says he is playing.

I saw one thing Sunday. They better keep Reiff next year even if they have to use Franchise Tag. Without the Bookend Tackles of Williams and Reiff, Burrow got hit more. They can't go on a hope and a prayer that they sign or draft someone as good as Reiff. However I'm for drafting more Blockers as the O Line needs more Depth if nothing else.

Good to hear that all starters on The O Line will be back. Having 2 of the 5 starters out against Chargers is a good way to get your franchise QB injured again.

[Sled21]

I suspect the bean counters in Katie's office are already working on a 3 year offer for Reiff.

[*jason*]

Reiff is definitely important, but keeping Trey Hill off the field is a must.

[fredtoast]

(12-09-2021, 09:17 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I suspect the bean counters in Katie's office are already working on a 3 year offer for Reiff.

No more than a two year deal for a guy his age.

Possibly even another 1 year contract.

[kevin]

(12-09-2021, 09:17 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I suspect the bean counters in Katie's office are already working on a 3 year offer for Reiff.

I would like to see them get him resigned for next year now, before end of season. I know Bengals don't like to do contracts during season, but after season and Super Bowl it is too close to Free Agency.  Now you are in a bidding war with other teams that want him.  

I think if you asked Burrow, the O Line Coach, The Head Coach, Mixon, they would all agree they need Reiff back.  Maybe these people go to Reiff and ask him to stay and what do him and his agent want.  Then these same people go to Bengals Front Office and say they want Reiff back and here is what he said he would work for.   It is Burrow who gets killed if Reiff isn't here, not Katie, Tobin or Mike Brown or Paul Brown Jr.  

Sign the dude now, 1 year or more.  Then the Franchise tag can be used on Bates if needed. Otherwise I would use the Franchise Tag on Reiff and we lose Bates to another team.  Of the 2, I would Franchise Tag Reiff over Bates, because Bates does not protect Burrow with Blocking, and they MUST protect Burrow with Blocking.  We saw the difference from the Steelers game great blocking to the awful Chargers game blocking with Reiff and the starting center out. 

It all comes down to Blocking for Burrow.  There was no point drafting Burrow #1 if Bengals Front Office is going to go cheap on blocking, or draft more busts like Ogbuhei.  Again, I'm all for bringing in more O Linemen, but keep the Bookends of Williams and Reiff next year.  The better the Blocking is, the better Burrow and the offense will be. 

THAT ASIDE, Great news to hear the starting O Line is back for 49ers game.  Burrow is the one who gets injured against NFL Defenses when a 2nd string O Line is in there. That would be rough, taking the snap from center with lousy blockers against top notch NFL Defenses.  Glad to hear the Starters are Back. 

[XenoMorph]

(12-09-2021, 09:17 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I suspect the bean counters in Katie's office are already working on a 3 year offer for Reiff.

wouldnt mind keeping him as a backup but would like to look for a long term solution

[northernbengal]

(12-09-2021, 10:25 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: wouldnt mind keeping him as a backup but would like to look for a long term solution

Excellent posts by both of you. I think keep him and getting his replacement while he is on roster is the best solution. We can't afford to not protect our most valuable asset for a season. I think a two year deal where we evaluate Smith and if he does not work drafting another replacement next year is the best option.

[XenoMorph]

(12-09-2021, 10:32 AM)northernbengal Wrote: Excellent posts by both of you. I think keep him and getting his replacement while he is on roster is the best solution. We can't afford to not protect our most valuable asset for a season. I think a two year deal where we evaluate Smith and if he does not work drafting another replacement next year is the best option.

right keeps a quality player on roster in case the replacement doesnt pan out or gets hurt next year

[Rubekahn29]

(12-09-2021, 09:31 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No more than a two year deal for a guy his age.

Possibly even another 1 year contract.

I’d be fine with that. We still need a future RT, but he’s an okay stop gap.

[WeezyBengal]

I'm not franchise tagging Reiff.

Bengals have plenty of money to re-sign him at a reasonable contract. And if he gets away there are other options. Money shouldn't be an issue this off-season.

I do like the option of bringing Reiff back on a one year deal, especially since he played with us this year and has meshed with the OL. I think there is def something to that. They more reps these guys have played together the better they have gotten.

[*pally*]

(12-09-2021, 09:20 AM)jason Wrote: Reiff is definitely important, but keeping Trey Hill off the field is a must.

Actually, other than the penalties, he was screwed by awful games by both guards.  He did some good stuff. The biggest problem seemed to be communication among the 3 interior linemen who were unfamiliar with working together. 

Oh and Zac said that Reiff is more limited than Hopkins so he was hedging his bet a bit. 

[*PhilHos*]

(12-09-2021, 09:17 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I suspect the bean counters in Katie's office are already working on a 3 year offer for Reiff.

If we make the playoffs and even win a game or three, it'll be a lot easier to bring him back on less money and/or for less years.

[kevin]

(12-09-2021, 10:52 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: I'm not franchise tagging Reiff.

Bengals have plenty of money to re-sign him at a reasonable contract. And if he gets away there are other options. Money shouldn't be an issue this off-season.

I do like the option of bringing Reiff back on a one year deal, especially since he played with us this year and has meshed with the OL. I think there is def something to that. They more reps these guys have played together the better they have gotten.

That's basic football.  I've heard it for decades.  Teams that have kept good O Lines together are feared in The NFL because they are no longer 5 Individuals, but a solid Team of Blockers that know each other.   Most of this O Line they should want to bring back in 2022, and that includes Reiff.  I will add Rieff is more than a stop gap, he has been the best right tackle Bengals have had in a long time. Williams and Reiff are the first solid bookend tackles Bengals have had in a long time.  Maybe the last was the play-offs of Whitworth and Smith.  

Yes, teams bring back their good O Linemen the next year makes the team better.  Yes, the O Line gets better the more reps they play together, and if they have seasons of reps, they become Super Bowl O Lines.  Munoz and Montoya for example. 

[Tomcat]

(12-09-2021, 09:31 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No more than a two year deal for a guy his age.

Possibly even another 1 year contract.

Andrew Whitworth says Hi...Sign the guy for 2-3 years at 7-8 million and concentrate on LB, CB and IOL in FA and the draft!

[Au165]

(12-09-2021, 09:31 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No more than a two year deal for a guy his age.

Possibly even another 1 year contract.

I would go one year and still be open to other opportunities for a tackle that may arise via trade/draft/etc.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(12-09-2021, 11:33 AM)Tomcat Wrote: Andrew Whitworth says Hi...How did that work out for us on not signing a guy at his age?

As I have written 50 billion times on this messageboard, he is an absolute anomaly.

He is the first LT in HISTORY, to be starting *1* game at 40 years old or older and you can be sure he'll be starting many more.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/andrew-whitworth-will-be-nfls-first-40-year-old-starting-left-tackle-doesnt-plan-to-retire/ar-AAREd5h?ocid=uxbndlbing

For the 90 billionth time, not signing Whitworth was only a bad move in hindsight; you had just drafted 2 tackles that you were all-in on, your great LT (going by NFL history) was 35 and probably only had 2-3 years left, so you offered him a 2 year deal at a modest salary and he bet on himself... and he won (because he's a winner).

At the time, wise business decision. In hindsight, a horrible decision.

[*jason*]

(12-09-2021, 10:57 AM)pally Wrote: Actually, other than the penalties, he was screwed by awful games by both guards.  He did some good stuff. The biggest problem seemed to be communication among the 3 interior linemen who were unfamiliar with working together. 

Oh and Zac said that Reiff is more limited than Hopkins so he was hedging his bet a bit. 

Yeah. Sunday wasn't great, but Hill looked awful when he came in for Carman earlier, and his penalties have been very noticable on a team that hasn't been flagged a lot. I know he's not a finished product, but it's scary how thin they are up front.

[Tomcat]

(12-09-2021, 11:57 AM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: As I have written 50 billion times on this messageboard, he is an absolute anomaly.

He is the first LT in HISTORY, to be starting *1* game at 40 years old or older and you can be sure he'll be starting many more.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/andrew-whitworth-will-be-nfls-first-40-year-old-starting-left-tackle-doesnt-plan-to-retire/ar-AAREd5h?ocid=uxbndlbing

For the 90 billionth time, not signing Whitworth was only a bad move in hindsight; you had just drafted 2 tackles that you were all-in on, your great LT (going by NFL history) was 35 and probably only had 2-3 years left, so you offered him a 2 year deal at a modest salary and he bet on himself... and he won (because he's a winner).

At the time, wise business decision. In hindsight, a horrible decision.

Okay, so we have a solid experienced RT, lets not make another potential bad decision and not sign him! 

[fredtoast]

(12-09-2021, 11:57 AM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: At the time, wise business decision. In hindsight, a horrible decision.

Many of the same people who complain about us not siging Whitworth to a long term deal at 35 also complain about us not dumping Dunlap, Atkins, and Green when they were only 29-30.


Everyone is a genius GM with the benefit of hindsight.

[Sled21]

(12-09-2021, 09:31 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No more than a two year deal for a guy his age.

Possibly even another 1 year contract.

I highly doubt we get him to sign another 1 year deal. He's proven his worth for a three year deal. Now, there is no reason that deal can't be structured in such a way that year 3 is mostly incentive laden so if he continues to perform he gets paid, but if he slides off we can let him go.