Why Not?

[kevin]

(03-08-2022, 08:14 PM)J24 Wrote: Trade Boyd? Don't get me wrong I like him(and would only trade them for good value) as a player but at the same he seems very replaceable. If we trade Boyd we would save nearly 8 Million in cap space.

Case for trading Boyd

1.) Since the 2018 season  this was his first season without 100 targets and his least amount of yards in a season.

2.) He had a poor post season for us  averaging only 28 yards per a game,  only 7 first downs, and 1 TD. Per a 17 game season 476 yards, 30 first downs,  and 4 TDs. Is that 10 million dollars worth production?

3.) We have two elite  Wrs on the roster in Chase and Higgins. Also neither  have hit their prime so their stock is only going to go up. Its going to be tough for Boyd to get his normal production.

3b.) We have 3 seasons left of Higgins 2 under his rookie contract + a franchise tag. If he is to expensive to re-sign in 4 years Boyd still wouldn't be a great option to replace  him . He would be in his thirties + Tee is an outside WR vs Tyler who is a slot.

4.) I think Stanley  Morgan can replace him and I think the Bengals think that as well.  1.) He was a good College player; in his final two seasons he had over 1, 900 yards and 17 Tds, 2.) He had a similar RAS to Boyd as a prospect,  well respected  in the Lockerroom, tough as nails, and he was playing meaningful  Wr snaps later in the season.   Him + Taylor+ a top 100 draft pick should fill the role.

5) He would have a lot of interest on the trade Market. I could see at the very least getting back a 3rd rd pick for him. I could see the Raiders, Packers, Cowboys,  Patriots, Colts, and Bucs(if they trade Goodwin) as potential suitors.

#1 is that NFL Trades are not as easy to pull off as you think

#2 is INJURIES.  Any Injury to Chase and / or Higgins and we will be glad Boyd is still on the team. 

#3 is that Burrow at LSU had a lot of pass catchers to throw to as he took them to National Championship.  Burrow on Bengals had a lot of pass catchers to throw to taking them to Super Bowl.   So the more you would limit Burrow's pass catchers. the less Burrow will Win.   Burrows Game is to make the most of many good pass catchers.  He goes from the progression of his primary receiver on a play, to #2, #3, #4, #5 until he finds the open man to beat defenses.  Burrow NEEDS more pass catchers than a defense can cover, or Burrow can not be Joe Burrow. 

Bengals may lose CJ Uzomah in free agency.  To lose both Uzomah and Boyd would kill return to Super Bowl chances. 

Bengals may let Boyd contract run out in due course, but for now he is more needed than you think.  If all we had was Chase and Higgins, defenses could cover that in their sleep.  Bengals got to Super Bowl in 1981 and 2021 by having more pass catchers than defenses could cover.  

[KillerGoose]

(03-09-2022, 08:41 PM)casear2727 Wrote: I contend Boyd’s production is a direct result of our poor pass blocking causing us to operate solely in a 3-step drop/quick pass offense.

Immediate go routes or underneath quick passes to Boyd covered by a LB.

In my scenario we upgrade the Oline as close as we can in some spots to elite status which vastly opens up the run game and allows for 5-7 drop pass concepts such as deep routes and double moves for Tee & Chase.  WR3 & TE will primarily be check downs minus some slants and seams.

I want to post some data around this because I have seen this message thrown around quite a bit. Cincinnati did not solely operate in a 3-step drop/quick pass offense. It is quite the opposite - Cincinnati was one of the most aggressive teams in pushing the ball down the field. The Bengals ranked 8th in the league in pass attempts that traveled over 25 yards in the air. If you bump that threshold up to 30 yards, they were 5th. So, their aggressiveness in regard to deep passing is evident here, but they did suffer in the intermediate game. Just making this clear, you specifically talk about allowing "deep routes" to come into play when they already are in play. 

Offensive line and WR are difficult topics to try to compare due to the impact that one OL has vs one WR. My initial reaction is to say that I don't agree with your idea. I don't think Cincinnati would have been a better team. Even with a top notch OL, counting on Taylor to compete with Boyd's production is far fetched IMO. You mention more running, which isn't really going to help the offense. The bread and butter of this offense is throwing the ball, so you grab an elite OL to enable Burrow, not Mixon. Where improvement in the running game is necessary is in short-yardage situations, which would be the two areas I focus on (pass protection and short yardage production). Otherwise, the running game value is more or less the same unless you have a back like Chubb/Taylor who are averaging over 5.5 yards per pop, due to their own great OLs for sure. 

I do understand the contractual argument and how his production didn't live up to his pay, however. I also don't think that Boyd fetches much in a trade, though, so it's tough to really do it. What you get back for him won't be of equal value to what he can produce. 

[casear2727]

(03-10-2022, 10:29 AM)Wyche Wrote: We have Awuzie and Hilton. I actually think they bring Apple back too. We don't have to draft a FS, we could've traded for one, get one in FA, etc and probably get the same production for cheaper. I like Jesse a lot, and he played well in the post season....but..... he's not worth being the highest paid safety in the league. In fact, I'd wager you could get very similar production for cheaper. Can you get a sure handed 1000 yd WR that easily? I don't think you can. Zac utilizes WR3 more than any HC in the league. We don't have to have a guy as good as Tyler, but we can't have a scrub either. Trent Taylor is not an option, sorry.

I noted earlier, and it never got noticed, you point to having Taylor and a RG vs Boyd as being a sure thing we win the SB. I would counter with this....do we even make the Bowl without the clutch performance in critical situations by TB? No one, that's right...no one, in the league has been as good on 3rd and 4th down as Tyler Boyd over the last few years. You're kinda glossing over that fact. 

As I mentioned, I'd be game with trading him so long as the return was worth losing him. I'd rather have traded Bates. However, neither are going anywhere.

I appreciate the good points.

Awuzie and Hilton fill 2 out of the 3 CB spots - as of right now one is open with the most likely option being Eli Apple - thus I say Bates is crucial.  An upgrade here lessens this of course.  But my thoughts are based on current roster and the risk of replacing a player.  FS replacement, especially with a rookie is way riskier than replacing WR3 with a rookie.

I am absolutely against Bates being the highest paid Safety - he hasnt earned that, but again as of today this is simply position priority with current roster over the actual player.

"do we even make the Bowl without the clutch performance in critical situations by TB?"

If we had a $10M RG and Trent Taylor, or whoever, I would say yes of course we do.  Boyd averaged 28 yds in the playoffs.  His 800 yards during the season is very productive but my theory is that we were forced to play the short/quick pass game.  Improved blocking opens up the run game and we are able to actual incorporate 5-7 drop pass concepts.  Our offense was quick hitches/slants due to so much pressure and these plays benefit the WR3 with LB coverage.  

If we get the oline help we need this league hasnt seen what our offense can really do. We led the league in every long pass category and we literally ran one quick go route for each of them.  Imagine the deep posts and double moves with Higgins & Chase?   This offense does not need a 10M guy at WR3, we can draft a guy everyone will love that is dangerous every time he touches the ball with 4.3 speed or just a good hands guy.  If we keep both Higgins and Chase, while we have Mixon, the WR3 and TE become check downs.  We need to dispense with fan favs and direct dollars to the most crucial positions.  Just my opinion.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-10-2022, 12:50 AM)casear2727 Wrote: You're special, argue with someone else, I should have taken the advice of others when this started. Your reputation proceeds you.

You say that as if you think I give a shit.

I'm going to summarize the differences between this debate.

I have shown you this offense uses 3 WR sets (11 personnel) more than any other team in the NFL over the past three seasons. The team which uses 11 personnel the 2nd most is the Rams.  Which is where Zac's offense come from. It's a 3 WR base offense. Boyd was targeted more than any other WR3 in the NFL last season.  He was targeted the 3rd most on the team.  Not 4th. WR3 was targeted more than TE1 or RB1.  WR3 was targeted more than the entire TE group combined. WR3 was targeted more than RB1 and RB2 combined.  RB1, RB2, and RB3 combined were only targeted 2 more times than WR3. WR3 played more snaps than WR2, TE1, and RB1. WR3 had more receptions and yards than TE1 or RB1. WR3 had same amount of TDs as TE1 and more rec TDs than RB1. WR3 catch percentage was greater than WR1 or WR2. WR3 had less drops than WR1, WR2, TE1, and RB1. Improving the offensive line is not going to make the WR3 less important in a 3 WR base offense.  Especially when the offense uses WR3 more than any other team the past 3 seasons.

When you analyze the numbers the painfully obvious conclusion is claiming Boyd is a non-priority 4th option is completely subjective, unsupported by data, and not grounded in reality. Which is a kind way of explaining it is complete and utter bullshit.

While you have offered Bates is not elite.  Bates will be overpaid. Bates is important to this defense because of poor CB play. When I suggested ways to increase cap space to sign a top tier CB your retort was you didn't see JC Jackson walking in the Bengals door only to inexplicably start a thread about how the Bengals can sign JC Jackson.  You haven't offered a single opinion supported by anything.  If you claim Bates is important to this defense because of poor CBs then prove it.  Instead of telling me about your feelings. I'm not going to believe 1+1=3 unless you prove it. Thus far you have failed miserably.

[casear2727]

(03-10-2022, 10:49 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: I want to post some data around this because I have seen this message thrown around quite a bit. Cincinnati did not solely operate in a 3-step drop/quick pass offense. It is quite the opposite - Cincinnati was one of the most aggressive teams in pushing the ball down the field. The Bengals ranked 8th in the league in pass attempts that traveled over 25 yards in the air. If you bump that threshold up to 30 yards, they were 5th. So, their aggressiveness in regard to deep passing is evident here, but they did suffer in the intermediate game. Just making this clear, you specifically talk about allowing "deep routes" to come into play when they already are in play. 

Offensive line and WR are difficult topics to try to compare due to the impact that one OL has vs one WR. My initial reaction is to say that I don't agree with your idea. I don't think Cincinnati would have been a better team. Even with a top notch OL, counting on Taylor to compete with Boyd's production is far fetched IMO. You mention more running, which isn't really going to help the offense. The bread and butter of this offense is throwing the ball, so you grab an elite OL to enable Burrow, not Mixon. Where improvement in the running game is necessary is in short-yardage situations, which would be the two areas I focus on (pass protection and short yardage production). Otherwise, the running game value is more or less the same unless you have a back like Chubb/Taylor who are averaging over 5.5 yards per pop, due to their own great OLs for sure. 

I do understand the contractual argument and how his production didn't live up to his pay, however. I also don't think that Boyd fetches much in a trade, though, so it's tough to really do it. What you get back for him won't be of equal value to what he can produce. 

At the end of the season and during the playoffs we were almost exclusively 3 step drop.  We led the league in every long pass category, but think about each one... straight go routes. No deep posts, no double moves.  We didnt have 30 yard crossing patterns like you see from a D Adams at GB.

Not sure how many times I need to repeat this, I dont care about Boyds production in this forced offense. We do not want to run this dink and dunk offense with the random go route and no running game.  We have so much more capability with a better line.

We dont need the WR3 to provide Boyds production with an improved oline as the running game will expand greatly and the ability to run better, longer routes to our primary receivers increase.

Boyd could get us a draft pick and we can use 10M to help secure the very few higher tier guys available.   Paying 10M to WR3 while 4 guys on the oline make 9M combined is a joke.

If we used Boyds money to add a million or two to 2-3 guys that ensure an upper level blocker I think it is worth it.  I also like the thought of a speedy, dangerous guy getting the ball a few times each game or one we can slide outside and bring Chase in the slot more where he wants to be. 

My opinion is that an improved oline totally changes the capabilities of the offense with more focus on the wideouts and RB than the slot.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-10-2022, 10:19 AM)casear2727 Wrote: I get it but career stats mean nothing today.  WR3 is the 4th option, sometime 5th is the TE is having a big day, in this offense.

This is more about the position than the player, some really have a hard time distinguishing this aspect.

Already proven false.

Quote:We have 2 better receivers than Boyd, and his position is not a priority.

False. It's a 3WR base offense.

Quote:It is much, much easier replacing a WR3 than any other position other than maybe RB.  We could easily draft a much faster, more electrifying WR next month or pick up a sure handed guy in FA.

Except that didn't happen with 33/34 WRs drafted last year.

 

Quote:With a solid line our focus should be on the 2 wideouts and expanded running game while we still have Mixon.

That's not the offense Zac Taylor runs.

Quote:The other aspect is our current roster.  Getting rid of Bates, unless it involves a really good trade in some way, is much riskier as we only have Bell on our roster.  We have 2 safety spots that require 3-4 guys and this would leave us with only 1.

False. The Bengals have Bell and two other safeties currently under contract which provides at least the bare minimum in depth.

Bates was brought in to start as a rookie without anyone a FS and the sky didn't fall. He can be replaced with a cheap vet and a high draft pick (Hall, Cine, Brisker, maybe even Pitre). Or sign someone like Q. Diggs for less.

Quote:As to the comparison of each player Bates had a very average season but played out huge in the playoffs and in the Super Bowl. Boyd played solid in the regular season and hurt us in the Super Bowl in crucial moments.

You gotta play solid during the regular season to even reach the playoffs or the Super Bowl.  Boyd has been consistent.  Bates has not.

Quote:But the gist of my argument is that WR3 will never, ever, ever be a top 2 paid position in this offense again with Burrow at QB. 4 receptions per game does not warrant getting paid 10M per year while 4 starters on the oline make 9M combined resulting in half of our playbook throw out the window and Burrow getting killed.

Top 5 WRs contracts start at an average of $20M/yr.  Top 5 S contracts start at an average of $14.6M.  Or 27% less. WRs get paid more than S because of the nature of the position. And a WR3 in a 3 WR based offense that is targeted more than any other WR3 in the league and 3rd most on the team is not, and I repeat, not a 4th or 5th non-priority option despite how many times you want to repeat that false claim.

Quote:We have not developed any depth whatsoever at safety and with only Awuzie at CB, Bates is a millions times more essential - pre-free agency and pre-draft.  If we had a guy on the roster behind Bates I'd be ok with him going as well if we have a plan for a high draft pick to replace him.

False.  Mike Hilton is an excellent NCB. Which means the Bengals have a minimum of two really good CBs.

It's really easy to just make shit up.

[casear2727]

(03-10-2022, 11:14 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You say that as if you think I give a shit.

I'm going to summarize the differences between this debate.

I have shown you this offense uses 3 WR sets (11 personnel) more than any other team in the NFL over the past three seasons. The team which uses 11 personnel the 2nd most is the Rams.  Which is where Zac's offense come from. It's a 3 WR base offense. Boyd was targeted more than any other WR3 in the NFL last season.  He was targeted the 3rd most on the team.  Not 4th. WR3 was targeted more than TE1 or RB1.  WR3 was targeted more than the entire TE group combined. WR3 was targeted more than RB1 and RB2 combined.  RB1, RB2, and RB3 combined were only targeted 2 more times than WR3. WR3 played more snaps than WR2, TE1, and RB1. WR3 had more receptions and yards than TE1 or RB1. WR3 had same amount of TDs as TE1 and more rec TDs than RB1. WR3 catch percentage was greater than WR1 or WR2. WR3 had less drops than WR1, WR2, TE1, and RB1. Improving the offensive line is not going to make the WR3 less important in a 3 WR base offense.  Especially when the offense uses WR3 more than any other team the past 3 seasons.

When you analyze the numbers the painfully obvious conclusion is claiming Boyd is a non-priority 4th option is completely subjective, unsupported by data, and not grounded in reality. Which is a kind way of explaining it is complete and utter bullshit.

While you have offered Bates is not elite.  Bates will be overpaid. Bates is important to this defense because of poor CB play. When I suggested ways to increase cap space to sign a top tier CB your retort was you didn't see JC Jackson walking in the Bengals door only to inexplicably start a thread about how the Bengals can sign JC Jackson.  You haven't offered a single opinion supported by anything.  If you claim Bates is important to this defense because of poor CBs then prove it.  Instead of telling me about your feelings. I'm not going to believe 1+1=3 unless you prove it. Thus far you have failed miserably.

Because you dont understand context.

With our roster WR3 is not as crucial as FS - doesnt matter who the players are - but you cant comprehend this.

The offense uses WR3 now because we have no oline to block for wide out pass patterns - a better oline provides increased rushing and deeper routes with the WR3 being a check down instead of this dink and dunk and occasional go route offense we have been forced into. But you cant grasp this for some reason.

Bates pay has nothing to do with this argument - there is no replacement for Bates right now. WR3 is the easiest position in football to fill other than maybe RB.  It is a million times easier to fill than FS and a million times less important.  FS is the very last line of defense it has more responsibility to prevent points than WR3 does in scoring points.  I do prefer great CBs over FS but we are not in that position currently.

I do not believe the Bengals will sign JC for the reasons mentioned, I simply provided the way that they could do it with their free cash, but again you are limited mentally so I understand this is yet another point that you have tremendous difficulty in comprehending.


But as I said previously, neither player is going anywhere so this hypothetical isnt worth arguing about. It is good to know what a moron you are for future purposes. At least know that I did not simply accept the warnings from others that you arent very bright and difficult, I let you prove it yourself.

[KillerGoose]

(03-10-2022, 11:22 AM)casear2727 Wrote: We dont need the WR3 to provide Boyds production with an improved oline as the running game will expand greatly and the ability to run better, longer routes to our primary receivers increase.

There is a lot to unpack here, so I am trying to avoid a giant wall of text. You are greatly overstating how important a run game is. Running the ball provides balance and ambiguity to an offense, but that is about it. It's a very poor predictor of points scored and overall team success, so getting rid of a WR and using the justification of "well our run game will improve" is essentially worthless. Being able to convert short yardage situations is very important and a running game is very valuable there, but it is all passing otherwise. The justification would be to keep Burrow upright and improve short yardage performance. I think there are likely genuine arguments for trading Boyd, but using "run game improvements" as a justification is silly. 

And no, they weren't exclusively three-step at the end of the season. From week 13 on through the Super Bowl, Cincinnati was right in the middle of the league of deep passing %. They weren't as aggressive, but they weren't conservative, either. 

[casear2727]

(03-10-2022, 11:34 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Already proven false.


False. It's a 3WR base offense.


Except that didn't happen with 33/34 WRs drafted last year.

 

That's not the offense Zac Taylor runs.



False. The Bengals have Bell and two other safeties currently under contract which provides at least the bare minimum in depth.

Bates was brought in to start as a rookie without anyone a FS and the sky didn't fall. He can be replaced with a cheap vet and a high draft pick (Hall, Cine, Brisker, maybe even Pitre). Or sign someone like Q. Diggs for less.



You gotta play solid during the regular season to even reach the playoffs or the Super Bowl.  Boyd has been consistent.  Bates has not.



Top 5 WRs contracts start at an average of $20M/yr.  Top 5 S contracts start at an average of $14.6M.  Or 27% less. WRs get paid more than S because of the nature of the position. And a WR3 in a 3 WR based offense that is targeted more than any other WR3 in the league and 3rd most on the team is not, and I repeat, not a 4th or 5th non-priority option despite how many times you want to repeat that false claim.


False.  Mike Hilton is an excellent NCB. Which means the Bengals have a minimum of two really good CBs.

It's really easy to just make shit up.

I dont know why I even entertain your stupidity.

Chase, Higgins and Mixon are our top 3 priorities on offense.  Doesnt matter that we run a 3WR base, we also run a 2TE, and other formations. Priorities dont change.

WR3 is the easiest position to replace in football, RB could be close or easier.

We cant run the offense Zac wants to run due to a terrible line, 4 of which have combined salaries less than our WR3.

Who are the 2 other Safeties other than Bell and Bates?

Bates play vs Boyds in he regular season has zero bearing on this debate but you are simply too dumb to understand this...

Mike Hilton is a nickel, not CB1 or CB2 there is a difference.


Again this isnt happening why keep the argument going and looking foolish?  But do tell me who we signed at safety?

[casear2727]

(03-10-2022, 11:45 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: There is a lot to unpack here, so I am trying to avoid a giant wall of text. You are greatly overstating how important a run game is. Running the ball provides balance and ambiguity to an offense, but that is about it. It's a very poor predictor of points scored and overall team success, so getting rid of a WR and using the justification of "well our run game will improve" is essentially worthless. Being able to convert short yardage situations is very important and a running game is very valuable there, but it is all passing otherwise. The justification would be to keep Burrow upright and improve short yardage performance. I think there are likely genuine arguments for trading Boyd, but using "run game improvements" as a justification is silly. 

And no, they weren't exclusively three-step at the end of the season. From week 13 on through the Super Bowl, Cincinnati was right in the middle of the league of deep passing %. They weren't as aggressive, but they weren't conservative, either. 

Deep passing stats doesnt necessarily correlate with drops, please provide us any deep routes that were not simple go routes....  we have so much more we could do downfield..  Our stats simply show Joe can be accurate and we have 2 guys that get the ball, very promising.  But no deep posts or down the field double moves...

We cant say that the running game is not important and then pay our running back 11-13M.  I would bet a lot that Zac and Brian would say they would love for the running game to be a threat and not just provide provides balance and ambiguity to an offense, especially while we have Mixon.

I do agree that will be the case once Mixon is gone and we dont pay a RB that kind of money ever again with Burrow.

I am not getting rid of a WR, I am replacing the WR with a younger, faster and 9M cheaper version, with an added draft pick, and millions to add to improving the oline.  

As this debate tends to stray from position to player I repeat that I love Boyd, he may be too talented for the priority we give him in this offense, but if we are to be critical and not fanboys, we can see that 4 receptions per game, 28 yds in the playoffs, a crucial blunder in the redzone that could have sealed the SB, his only dropped pass late in the 4th Qtr of the SB do not warrant him making more than 4 oline starters combined.

I think Boyd will be here the next 2 years and this is just us guys talking, but if we were serious like the Patriots we would trim the fat everywhere and put the money into the places that are most crucial to contending every year.  WR3 and RB are at the bottom of the priority list on offense in my opinion, but of course the highest paid on my beloved Bengals.

Again I appreciate your cordiality and explaining your points.

[fredtoast]

(03-10-2022, 11:47 AM)casear2727 Wrote: We cant run the offense Zac wants to run due to a terrible line, 4 of which have combined salaries less than our WR3

You keep saying this over and over again.


I'll make you a sign bet right now that Boyd won't make more money than 4 of our starting O-lineman this year.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-10-2022, 11:08 AM)casear2727 Wrote: I appreciate the good points.

Awuzie and Hilton fill 2 out of the 3 CB spots - as of right now one is open with the most likely option being Eli Apple - thus I say Bates is crucial.  An upgrade here lessens this of course.  But my thoughts are based on current roster and the risk of replacing a player.  FS replacement, especially with a rookie is way riskier than replacing WR3 with a rookie.

I am absolutely against Bates being the highest paid Safety - he hasnt earned that, but again as of today this is simply position priority with current roster over the actual player.

"do we even make the Bowl without the clutch performance in critical situations by TB?"

If we had a $10M RG and Trent Taylor, or whoever, I would say yes of course we do.  Boyd averaged 28 yds in the playoffs.  His 800 yards during the season is very productive but my theory is that we were forced to play the short/quick pass game.  Improved blocking opens up the run game and we are able to actual incorporate 5-7 drop pass concepts.  Our offense was quick hitches/slants due to so much pressure and these plays benefit the WR3 with LB coverage.  

If we get the oline help we need this league hasnt seen what our offense can really do. We led the league in every long pass category and we literally ran one quick go route for each of them.  Imagine the deep posts and double moves with Higgins & Chase?   This offense does not need a 10M guy at WR3, we can draft a guy everyone will love that is dangerous every time he touches the ball with 4.3 speed or just a good hands guy.  If we keep both Higgins and Chase, while we have Mixon, the WR3 and TE become check downs.  We need to dispense with fan favs and direct dollars to the most crucial positions.  Just my opinion.

Right, it's just each of our opinions, lol. I understand your point, and it has merit as well. I guess where I'm stuck, is that we're paying Bates 2 million more a year for hit or miss production. Minus the gaffes in the SB, Boyd has steady, and sometimes very good, production. So, say we let Bates walk, we have money for that guard, and a replacement for 30. 

In reality, Bates and Boyd are both fan favs. I certainly am not trying to diminish Jesse, he's been a good player. What I am saying is that there is more than one way to skin this cat. Our secondary was actually pretty good last year, and those guys don't miss tackles. Bates has in the past. Honestly, I think the sure tackling of our CBs is grossly overlooked. In years past, they have been terrible in run support. That wasn't the case last year, and I believe that was as big a part of our run defense being much improved as having Reader healthy and solid rotation up front. Hell, Apple saved the game in KC coming up and putting a hat on Hill and stopping him dead in his tracks. The last few years, I'm not sure anyone makes that play from our secondary. Vonn Bell has played very well also. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-10-2022, 11:08 AM)casear2727 Wrote: I appreciate the good points.

Awuzie and Hilton fill 2 out of the 3 CB spots - as of right now one is open with the most likely option being Eli Apple - thus I say Bates is crucial.  An upgrade here lessens this of course.  But my thoughts are based on current roster and the risk of replacing a player.  FS replacement, especially with a rookie is way riskier than replacing WR3 with a rookie.

Then upgrade the more important position instead of overpaying a FS.

You're projecting replacing Boyd with someone else because you believe Bates is a higher priority.  Well, do a different projection because you already admitted CB is a higher priority than FS. You're completely inconsistent in your logic.

Quote:I am absolutely against Bates being the highest paid Safety - he hasnt earned that, but again as of today this is simply position priority with current roster over the actual player.

If that is true and you're argument is consistent with your own logic supporting your position, you should be prioritizing CB over FS and WR3. But, your argument doesn't follow your own logic. It's scattershot at best.

Quote:"do we even make the Bowl without the clutch performance in critical situations by TB?"

If we had a $10M RG and Trent Taylor, or whoever, I would say yes of course we do.  Boyd averaged 28 yds in the playoffs.  His 800 yards during the season is very productive but my theory is that we were forced to play the short/quick pass game.  Improved blocking opens up the run game and we are able to actual incorporate 5-7 drop pass concepts.  Our offense was quick hitches/slants due to so much pressure and these plays benefit the WR3 with LB coverage.  

1. Why isn't the opposing defense in nickel vs 3 WRs?

2. Do only WR3s run hitches or slants? If that's true maybe the offense shouldn't be so predictable.

Quote:If we get the oline help we need this league hasnt seen what our offense can really do. We led the league in every long pass category and we literally ran one quick go route for each of them.  Imagine the deep posts and double moves with Higgins & Chase?   This offense does not need a 10M guy at WR3, we can draft a guy everyone will love that is dangerous every time he touches the ball with 4.3 speed or just a good hands guy.  If we keep both Higgins and Chase, while we have Mixon, the WR3 and TE become check downs.

This is another ridiculous subjective statement not grounded in reality.

Last draft there were nine WRs that meet just your speed requirement of 4.3s.  Only one matched or exceeded Boyd's production as a WR3 and that was Ja'marr Chase as a WR1.  The only other two that even came close were R. Moore and E. Moore both of which were drafted in the second round. The other six WRs with 4.3s speed combined didn't match Boyd's production. It would take those six WRs combined with either R. Moore or E. Moore to get more production out of a rookie WR than Boyd.  And unless you're willing to spend a 1st or 2nd round pick on that type of receiver to replace Boyd at WR3, you're living in a fantasy. We both know you aren't suggesting spending a 1st or 2nd round pick on a new WR3. But, if you have some info that suggests otherwise, show me. I'd love to see it.

Quote:We need to dispense with fan favs and direct dollars to the most crucial positions.  Just my opinion.

Then by your own logic and assessment of the roster, you should be directing dollars to improve CB instead of FS or WR3. But, you don't follow your own logic.

[casear2727]

(03-10-2022, 12:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You keep saying this over and over again.


I'll make you a sign bet right now that Boyd won't make more money than 4 of our starting O-lineman this year.

I was really really disappointed with the mismanagement of the line this season.  I get the cap space issue you tout often but there so many other items.  Im hoping to get over it this offseason.

[casear2727]

(03-10-2022, 12:40 PM)Wyche Wrote: Right, it's just each of our opinions, lol. I understand your point, and it has merit as well. I guess where I'm stuck, is that we're paying Bates 2 million more a year for hit or miss production. Minus the gaffes in the SB, Boyd has steady, and sometimes very good, production. So, say we let Bates walk, we have money for that guard, and a replacement for 30. 

In reality, Bates and Boyd are both fan favs. I certainly am not trying to diminish Jesse, he's been a good player. What I am saying is that there is more than one way to skin this cat. Our secondary was actually pretty good last year, and those guys don't miss tackles. Bates has in the past. Honestly, I think the sure tackling of our CBs is grossly overlooked. In years past, they have been terrible in run support. That wasn't the case last year, and I believe that was as big a part of our run defense being much improved as having Reader healthy and solid rotation up front. Hell, Apple saved the game in KC coming up and putting a hat on Hill and stopping him dead in his tracks. The last few years, I'm not sure anyone makes that play from our secondary. Vonn Bell has played very well also. 

I agree with much of this. 

Im not equating Bates & Boyds production.  I agree Bates played poorly this season, but we with our current roster missing a CB and not knowing the replacement and zero depth Im much more concerned about the FS replacement than who will play the 3rd wide receiver.  If we had a replacement or plan in place this part would be negligible.

I dont want the WR3 or FS to be the highest guy on either side of the ball whatsoever.

My preference to spend high dollars on O: QB, WR1, OLINE, WR2.  On D: DE, CB, DT

Solid oline the WR's and Mixon should get the bulk of the load. I dont see Mixon here in 2024 with his cap hit. Upgrade the line again and any RB can hit an open hole, any WR3 and TE can be check downs if we still have Higgins

Defense: Stop the run, rush the passer, defend dangerous receivers.  Great CBs dont need a great FS, I would prefer this method.

NFL salaries make no secret the valued positions.

[casear2727]

(03-10-2022, 01:08 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Then upgrade the more important position instead of overpaying a FS.

You're projecting replacing Boyd with someone else because you believe Bates is a higher priority.  Well, do a different projection because you already admitted CB is a higher priority than FS. You're completely inconsistent in your logic.


If that is true and you're argument is consistent with your own logic supporting your position, you should be prioritizing CB over FS and WR3. But, your argument doesn't follow your own logic. It's scattershot at best.


1. Why isn't the opposing defense in nickel vs 3 WRs?

2. Do only WR3s run hitches or slants? If that's true maybe the offense shouldn't be so predictable.


This is another ridiculous subjective statement not grounded in reality.

Last draft there were nine WRs that meet just your speed requirement of 4.3s.  Only one matched or exceeded Boyd's production as a WR3 and that was Ja'marr Chase as a WR1.  The only other two that even came close were R. Moore and E. Moore both of which were drafted in the second round. The other six WRs with 4.3s speed combined didn't match Boyd's production. It would take those six WRs combined with either R. Moore or E. Moore to get more production out of a rookie WR than Boyd.  And unless you're willing to spend a 1st or 2nd round pick on that type of receiver to replace Boyd at WR3, you're living in a fantasy. We both know you aren't suggesting spending a 1st or 2nd round pick on a new WR3. But, if you have some info that suggests otherwise, show me. I'd love to see it.


Then by your own logic and assessment of the roster, you should be directing dollars to improve CB instead of FS or WR3. But, you don't follow your own logic.

I have no issue upgrading CB over FS.  But CB is a huge cost vs a rookie replacement at WR3 and we still need a replacement at FS so you are adding 2 players. And both the CB & FS must be solid or we are screwed. WR3 is low risk.



You're projecting replacing Boyd with someone else because you believe Bates is a higher priority.  Well, do a different projection because you already admitted CB is a higher priority than FS. You're completely inconsistent in your logic.

Again, I hate calling you names but it is so frustrating when you refuse to even try to comprehend the message.  CB is higher priority than FS but as I said 50 f-ing times Im going by our current roster.  We need to pay big for a CB that isnt here yet. We would need to replace Bates with a player that isnt here yet.  Both of these guys must be solid.  I can replace WR3 with a rookie at low cost and if he isnt great that isnt a huge loss if our oline is much improved.



These questions mean nothing - Im not getting rid of WR3 simply adding a less expensive, younger, faster player.
1. Why isn't the opposing defense in nickel vs 3 WRs?

2. Do only WR3s run hitches or slants? If that's true maybe the offense shouldn't be so predictable.







Last draft there were nine WRs that meet just your speed requirement of 4.3s.  Only one matched or exceeded Boyd's production as a WR3 

Again, for the 500th time, I dont care about Boyds production in an offense running half the playbook forced into dink and dunk situations due to a terrible oline in which the WR3 is a good option due to coverage by a LB.

Let me type this slowly, maybe it will help... IN MY OPINION with a much improved oline we become a better rushing offense which keeps LBs at home and provides more time for deeper route concepts geared for Chase & Higgins. We still have a WR3 and TE but without as much reliance.  This is an explosive and sustainable offense, again IN MY OPINION.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-10-2022, 11:22 AM)casear2727 Wrote: At the end of the season and during the playoffs we were almost exclusively 3 step drop.  We led the league in every long pass category, but think about each one... straight go routes. No deep posts, no double moves.  We didnt have 30 yard crossing patterns like you see from a D Adams at GB.

1. At the end of the season, starting RG and RT were injured and replaced by Adeniji and Prince.

2. Show me what percentage of pass plays were 3 step drops at the beginning and end of season. And give me a breakdown of the routes run that show no deep posts or double moves were run.

Quote:Not sure how many times I need to repeat this, I dont care about Boyds production in this forced offense. We do not want to run this dink and dunk offense with the random go route and no running game.  We have so much more capability with a better line.

We dont need the WR3 to provide Boyds production with an improved oline as the running game will expand greatly and the ability to run better, longer routes to our primary receivers increase.

Improving the Oline is not going to change Zac Taylor's scheme or how often he utilizes 3 WRs.  You're talking about a more traditional offense and that isn't what Zac Taylor or Sean McVay run.

The Rams used 11 personnel 84% of the time.  They passed 63% from this personnel package. They ran 37%.
The Bengals used 11 personnel 77% of the time. They passed 67% from this personnel package.  They ran 33%.

Kupp 1024 snaps, 191 targets, 145 rec, 8 drops
R. Woods (7 games) 543 snaps, 69 targets, 45 rec, 3 drops
O. Beckham, Jr (9 games) 376 snaps, 48 targets, 27 rec, 2 drops
V. Jefferson 875 snaps, 89 targets, 50 rec, 6 drops (2020 2nd round pick who had 19 rec rookie year)
Offensive line ranked #7 by PFF

Chase 939 snaps, 128 targets, 81 rec, 11 drops (most in NFL)
Higgins 710 snaps, 110 targets, 74 rec, 5 drops
Boyd 804 snaps, 94 targets, 67 rec, 0 drops
Offensive line ranked #20 by PFF

Despite having a much higher ranked Oline, the Rams ran the ball only 4% more than the Bengals and utilized the WR3 about the same.  They had to sign OBJ mid-season to replace Woods who was injured because they need three legit WRs to run this style of offense. The Rams were extremely lucky because WRs of OBJ's quality usually aren't released in mid-season. Van Jefferson was a second round pick that approached Boyd's production in his second season.  Are you going to draft a WR3 in the 2nd round like the Rams? No.

Quote:Boyd could get us a draft pick and we can use 10M to help secure the very few higher tier guys available.   Paying 10M to WR3 while 4 guys on the oline make 9M combined is a joke.

Bates could get a draft pick and trading him adds an additional $12.9M to cap.  Releasing/trading Boyd adds $7.3M to cap.  Trading Bates arguably gets you a higher draft pick in a trade, but undeniable adds an extra $5.6M to the cap which goes at least half way to signing an additional veteran FA Olineman.

Quote:If we used Boyds money to add a million or two to 2-3 guys that ensure an upper level blocker I think it is worth it.

Then I bet you're salivating at the idea of an extra $5.6M to ensure an additional upper level blocker to improve the Oline at two positions.

Quote:I also like the thought of a speedy, dangerous guy getting the ball a few times each game or one we can slide outside and bring Chase in the slot more where he wants to be. 

Except as shown multiple times, that would require a 1st or 2nd round draft pick when you only want to spend a late round draft pick on a WR3.

Quote:My opinion is that an improved oline totally changes the capabilities of the offense with more focus on the wideouts and RB than the slot.

Except I just showed you how the same offense with a better Oline doesn't change the scheme or usage of WR3.

I really wish you would put in a bare minimum of effort to research before you post.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-10-2022, 11:37 AM)casear2727 Wrote: Because you dont understand context.

With our roster WR3 is not as crucial as FS - doesnt matter who the players are - but you cant comprehend this.

The offense uses WR3 now because we have no oline to block for wide out pass patterns - a better oline provides increased rushing and deeper routes with the WR3 being a check down instead of this dink and dunk and occasional go route offense we have been forced into. But you cant grasp this for some reason.

Bates pay has nothing to do with this argument - there is no replacement for Bates right now. WR3 is the easiest position in football to fill other than maybe RB.  It is a million times easier to fill than FS and a million times less important.  FS is the very last line of defense it has more responsibility to prevent points than WR3 does in scoring points.  I do prefer great CBs over FS but we are not in that position currently.

I do not believe the Bengals will sign JC for the reasons mentioned, I simply provided the way that they could do it with their free cash, but again you are limited mentally so I understand this is yet another point that you have tremendous difficulty in comprehending.


But as I said previously, neither player is going anywhere so this hypothetical isnt worth arguing about. It is good to know what a moron you are for future purposes. At least know that I did not simply accept the warnings from others that you arent very bright and difficult, I let you prove it yourself.

I just provided a fact based, data driven explanation of why your conclusion isn't accurate.

I invite you to do the same to prove me wrong.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-10-2022, 11:47 AM)casear2727 Wrote: I dont know why I even entertain your stupidity.

Chase, Higgins and Mixon are our top 3 priorities on offense.  Doesnt matter that we run a 3WR base, we also run a 2TE, and other formations. Priorities dont change.

WR3 is the easiest position to replace in football, RB could be close or easier.

We cant run the offense Zac wants to run due to a terrible line, 4 of which have combined salaries less than our WR3.

Who are the 2 other Safeties other than Bell and Bates?

Bates play vs Boyds in he regular season has zero bearing on this debate but you are simply too dumb to understand this...

Mike Hilton is a nickel, not CB1 or CB2 there is a difference.


Again this isnt happening why keep the argument going and looking foolish?  But do tell me who we signed at safety?

18% of the time they are on offense.  And it doesn't change any of those stats I provided.

Feel free to provide me data that indicates otherwise.  You want to change my mind? Give me data.  Not unsupported opinions.

Yeah, no shit a NCB isn't a CB1 or CB2. Which is exactly why I indicated he was a NCB instead of a CB1 or CB2.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-10-2022, 12:02 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Deep passing stats doesnt necessarily correlate with drops, please provide us any deep routes that were not simple go routes....  we have so much more we could do downfield..  Our stats simply show Joe can be accurate and we have 2 guys that get the ball, very promising.  But no deep posts or down the field double moves...

We cant say that the running game is not important and then pay our running back 11-13M.  I would bet a lot that Zac and Brian would say they would love for the running game to be a threat and not just provide provides balance and ambiguity to an offense, especially while we have Mixon.

I do agree that will be the case once Mixon is gone and we dont pay a RB that kind of money ever again with Burrow.

I am not getting rid of a WR, I am replacing the WR with a younger, faster and 9M cheaper version, with an added draft pick, and millions to add to improving the oline.  

As this debate tends to stray from position to player I repeat that I love Boyd, he may be too talented for the priority we give him in this offense, but if we are to be critical and not fanboys, we can see that 4 receptions per game, 28 yds in the playoffs, a crucial blunder in the redzone that could have sealed the SB, his only dropped pass late in the 4th Qtr of the SB do not warrant him making more than 4 oline starters combined.

I think Boyd will be here the next 2 years and this is just us guys talking, but if we were serious like the Patriots we would trim the fat everywhere and put the money into the places that are most crucial to contending every year.  WR3 and RB are at the bottom of the priority list on offense in my opinion, but of course the highest paid on my beloved Bengals.

Again I appreciate your cordiality and explaining your points.

How about you provide ANY information to support ANY of your claims.

I have yet to read ONE.