Uh oh Joe Mixon

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-11-2023, 01:25 AM)Eraserhead Wrote: Guy, you're the one who said the Bengals TOLD Samaje that Joe was going to be the #1. You said that. Now you're saying of course they wouldn't tell him because they don't know.

Whether they told him or not, who's the No 1 RB in Cincinnati? Some of you are acting like his insider source is telling you things you can't deduce on  your own.

[Graphicguy]

Perine was our back up. He even said he knew because of the contract of Mixon. No one had to tell him anything. The Bengals valued Perine. They offered him the same amount as Denver did.

Denver said they would give him more of a featured role. Whether they do or don’t do that remains to be seen.

Every person wants to be “the guy” in any job. We all want to be the “main man”. I’m sure Perine is no different.

I personally do not think the Bengals would have made Samaje the feathered back, ever. Neither will Denver.

They’ll draft the next RB #1. If it ain’t Mixon on a reduced contract, it will be some other FA still out there as RB#2 (maybe RB 1.5).

[*rfaulk34*]

(04-10-2023, 11:45 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Not only that, but Joe was still under contract for at least another year. One could guess that with Joe's age he'd likely sign another deal, probably an extension and in the mean time, Perine would still be the 3rd down guy as Joe's the #1. Then Perine is stuck for another few years and wasting his prime to be a spot starter/3rd down guy. With what Perine said, it's clear he wants a shot to be THE MAN, not the role he's doing in Cincinnati. 

Not overly sure why people have such a hard time understanding things. 

Everyone else's argument seems to be based on that JM will be cut. I'm not really sure what Bengals team you are following, but the Bengals model is to usually let their starters finish their contracts, barring unusual circumstances.

Then the usual off seasons, if they are planning to cut a player they typically do it as early as possible so the player can land with another team. So based on their past, if JM's not cut yet, then he's likely not going to get cut and will finish his contract. 

As far as i can tell, the Bengals haven't really deviated from that yet. 

EDIT:
Anyways, his source isn't telling us anything that most of us can't figure out. It's just not what most of you want to hear.

No. His "source" is just (possibly) some random person whose 'opinion' doesn't amount to anything more than any other human beings opinion, so it's a waste of time to cite it because it implies that someone knows more than the regular guy on the street...while he still stresses that it's 'this person's' "opinion". 

Who gives a **** about some random dude that's giving an opinion that changes from day to day?

[*rfaulk34*]

(04-11-2023, 06:54 AM)grampahol Wrote: My opinion is that I'm just going to make up some nonsense that makes zero sense because it's much better than being dead wrong 100% of the time. Nobody takes my opinions serious anyway. Just you wait and see. They're going to trade Burrow, Chase and Higgins for unlimited 7th round picks and Mixon and Williams for a hot melt glue stick!  

Just remember to play both sides of the coin and hedge your bets. Nothing like a good all around approach so you can't be wrong. 

[SunsetBengal]

(04-11-2023, 08:48 AM)George Cantstandya Wrote: Spotrac states this on the page under the Projected Draft Pool Cap heading, "Estimated cap dollars necessary to sign upcoming draft picks (not included in the cap figure yet)".  

Not to further derail this thread (as if that needed any of my help..), but maybe you could help answer a question that I have.  When a contract is said to have 'void years' included, so that the team can spread the cap hit over time.  Does that mean that those 'extra' years can indeed be voided, the player moves on, yet the team still has to deal with cap hit from the original contract? 

[Bengalholic]

(04-12-2023, 12:41 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Not to further derail this thread (as if that needed any of my help..), but maybe you could help answer a question that I have.  When a contract is said to have 'void years' included, so that the team can spread the cap hit over time.  Does that mean that those 'extra' years can indeed be voided, the player moves on, yet the team still has to deal with cap hit from the original contract? 

Take when they signed Reiff. He signed a 1 yr- 7.5m deal, with a 5.5m signing bonus and a void year. That allowed them to split the signing bonus over 2 years instead of 1, and reduce his cap hit to 4.75m instead of 7.5. Then they had a cap hit of 2.75 the next year even though he wasn't on the team.

Or say they wanted to reduce Boyd's 10.3m cap number this year. They could add 2 void years, converting say 6m of his 8.45m base salary to a signing bonus. That would reduce his cap hit 5.85m this year, but would still have cap hits of 2m in '24 and '25 even though his contract expires after this season.

[*bfine32*]

JM pleds Not Guilty to menacing charges:
https://www.fox23.com/sports/bengals-joe-mixon-pleads-not-guilty-to-menacing-charge/article_d62b3f54-90d4-5177-a2ac-8e58cbb4ce6e.html

Quote:Cincinnati Bengals running back Joe Mixon pleaded not guilty Wednesday to a misdemeanor charge of aggravated menacing over allegations that he threatened and pointed a gun at a woman in Cincinnati earlier this year.

[*ochocincos*]

(04-20-2023, 03:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: JM pleds Not Guilty to menacing charges:
https://www.fox23.com/sports/bengals-joe-mixon-pleads-not-guilty-to-menacing-charge/article_d62b3f54-90d4-5177-a2ac-8e58cbb4ce6e.html

Note that I'm not meaning to make light about what actually happened, just the term "menacing."
But that term makes me think of this movie from the 90's.

[*Nately120*]

(04-20-2023, 05:08 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Note that I'm not meaning to make light about what actually happened, just the term "menacing."
But that term makes me think of this movie from the 90's.

Makes me think of watching reruns of this old piece of crap on Nickelodeon when I was a kid.