Joe Mixon, Jonah Williams show how the Bengals value contracts and commitments

[WeezyBengal]

I remember back when Carson Palmer forced a trade out of Cincinnati, Mike Brown was on record saying "Carson made a commitment to us, and we made a commitment to Carson". They were hell bent on not trading him until they got on offer they couldn't refuse.

It was silly to think the Bengals were going to entertain the idea of cutting Mixon or trading Jonah. That's just not how they operate and it's not how they've ever operated. They value the commitments of players and the contracts that they sign.

Another part of me makes me wonder the kind of message that would have sent if this organization were to cut Mixon. We know the Bengals don't guarantee money, but the essentially guarantee length of contract. They RARELY cut guys before their contract is up (especially star players or larger contracts).

If they were to cut Mixon (VERY liked on the team, outspoken leader), their credibility with holding true to contracts would have been shot. Not great timing when you're trying to sign Higgins and Burrow long term and most likely not offering a ton of guaranteed money (at least to Higgins). I really do think this is a big part of why Mixon wasn't let go.

So, do I think the Bengals wanted to cut Mixon and trade Jonah? Yeah, I do. Especially the first part. I think the Bengals know the kind of message that would have sent to the players in the locker room and around the league, though.

[Stewy]

(05-06-2023, 07:50 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: I remember back when Carson Palmer forced a trade out of Cincinnati, Mike Brown was on record saying "Carson made a commitment to us, and we made a commitment to Carson". They were hell bent on not trading him until they got on offer they couldn't refuse.

It was silly to think the Bengals were going to entertain the idea of cutting Mixon or trading Jonah. That's just not how they operate and it's not how they've ever operated. They value the commitments of players and the contracts that they sign.

Another part of me makes me wonder the kind of message that would have sent if this organization were to cut Mixon. We know the Bengals don't guarantee money, but the essentially guarantee length of contract. They RARELY cut guys before their contract is up (especially star players or larger contracts).

If they were to cut Mixon (VERY liked on the team, outspoken leader), their credibility with holding true to contracts would have been shot. Not great timing when you're trying to sign Higgins and Burrow long term and most likely not offering a ton of guaranteed money (at least to Higgins). I really do think this is a big part of why Mixon wasn't let go.

So, do I think the Bengals wanted to cut Mixon and trade Jonah? Yeah, I do. Especially the first part. I think the Bengals know the kind of message that would have sent to the players in the locker room and around the league, though.

I think that's part of it.  Likely, going hand in hand with this is how careful the Bengals structure contracts.  So as to not get in situations, where they have to restructure deals.  Because the Browns aren't independently wealthy and the team IS their business, they have to be very careful.  Thus it does seem they have old school commitments in a league where most business is ruthless.

Considering the OP and my comments, i think it will be very interesting to see what the key extensions look like going forward.

[Housh]

Bengals organization gets shit on for everything but no one ever talks about how Mike Brown is one of the few owners that try not to cut guys late in their contracts. We’ve done it more recently but for the most part when dudes sign here you can book it that they’ll finish their contract

[Isaac Curtis: The Real #85]

(05-06-2023, 07:50 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: I remember back when Carson Palmer forced a trade out of Cincinnati, Mike Brown was on record saying "Carson made a commitment to us, and we made a commitment to Carson". They were hell bent on not trading him until they got on offer they couldn't refuse.

It was silly to think the Bengals were going to entertain the idea of cutting Mixon or trading Jonah. That's just not how they operate and it's not how they've ever operated. They value the commitments of players and the contracts that they sign.

Another part of me makes me wonder the kind of message that would have sent if this organization were to cut Mixon. We know the Bengals don't guarantee money, but the essentially guarantee length of contract. They RARELY cut guys before their contract is up (especially star players or larger contracts).

If they were to cut Mixon (VERY liked on the team, outspoken leader), their credibility with holding true to contracts would have been shot. Not great timing when you're trying to sign Higgins and Burrow long term and most likely not offering a ton of guaranteed money (at least to Higgins). I really do think this is a big part of why Mixon wasn't let go.

So, do I think the Bengals wanted to cut Mixon and trade Jonah? Yeah, I do. Especially the first part. I think the Bengals know the kind of message that would have sent to the players in the locker room and around the league, though.

Well, they obviously entertained the idea of trading Jonah. They just didn't get a deal they liked. IDK what they entertained on Mixon. So I guess I disagree with the "silly" part of your post. That just isn't true. 

However, I think the rest is spot on. Brown does value contracts. It has to be an extreme case for a guy to be released with years left. It does happen, though (Waynes). To lower level guys all the time. I mean, we re-signed Taylor and it is likely he gets cut, though that isn't a cap thing, he may just get beat out. 

[Soonerpeace]

(05-06-2023, 07:50 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: I remember back when Carson Palmer forced a trade out of Cincinnati, Mike Brown was on record saying "Carson made a commitment to us, and we made a commitment to Carson". They were hell bent on not trading him until they got on offer they couldn't refuse.

It was silly to think the Bengals were going to entertain the idea of cutting Mixon or trading Jonah. That's just not how they operate and it's not how they've ever operated. They value the commitments of players and the contracts that they sign.

Another part of me makes me wonder the kind of message that would have sent if this organization were to cut Mixon. We know the Bengals don't guarantee money, but the essentially guarantee length of contract. They RARELY cut guys before their contract is up (especially star players or larger contracts).

If they were to cut Mixon (VERY liked on the team, outspoken leader), their credibility with holding true to contracts would have been shot. Not great timing when you're trying to sign Higgins and Burrow long term and most likely not offering a ton of guaranteed money (at least to Higgins). I really do think this is a big part of why Mixon wasn't let go.

So, do I think the Bengals wanted to cut Mixon and trade Jonah? Yeah, I do. Especially the first part. I think the Bengals know the kind of message that would have sent to the players in the locker room and around the league, though.

They had a deal with the Jags ( as reported) for Jonah but as they haggled the Jags decided to wait until after the draft. Anton Harrison was there at #27 so there went that. Mixon listening to Zac on Solomon Wilcots podcast the other day was never ever in danger. But his contract is an issue. His performance not according to Zac. Zac didn’t say anything about his contract though.

[WeezyBengal]

(05-06-2023, 09:02 PM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: Well, they obviously entertained the idea of trading Jonah. They just didn't get a deal they liked. IDK what they entertained on Mixon. So I guess I disagree with the "silly" part of your post. That just isn't true. 

However, I think the rest is spot on. Brown does value contracts. It has to be an extreme case for a guy to be released with years left. It does happen, though (Waynes). To lower level guys all the time. I mean, we re-signed Taylor and it is likely he gets cut, though that isn't a cap thing, he may just get beat out. 

That is pure speculation on your part. 

[WeezyBengal]

(05-06-2023, 10:17 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: They had a deal with the Jags ( as reported) for Jonah but as they haggled the Jags decided to wait until after the draft. Anton Harrison was there at #27 so there went that. Mixon listening to Zac on Solomon Wilcots podcast the other day was never ever in danger.  But his contract is an issue. His performance not according to Zac. Zac didn’t say anything about his contract though.

First time hearing this. Any credible link you can provide? 

[Soonerpeace]

(05-07-2023, 12:04 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: First time hearing this. Any credible link you can provide? 

I mentioned it on here before this guy as I’d heard about it but here you go.

Pro Football Network's Tony Pauline reports that the Jaguars and Jets have shown interest.

"We could see Cincinnati Bengals offensive tackle Jonah Williams traded this evening," Pauline wrote. "I’m told there have been discussions with several teams. The Jacksonville Jaguars had shown interest before selecting Anton Harrison in the first round yesterday. The offensive tackle-needy New York Jets are also showing interest in Williams, but the team would need about $2 million in additional cap space to accommodate the $12.6 million needed to fit Williams on the roster."

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(05-06-2023, 07:50 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: It was silly to think the Bengals were going to entertain the idea of cutting Mixon or trading Jonah. That's just not how they operate and it's not how they've ever operated. They value the commitments of players and the contracts that they sign.

Another part of me makes me wonder the kind of message that would have sent if this organization were to cut Mixon. We know the Bengals don't guarantee money, but the essentially guarantee length of contract. They RARELY cut guys before their contract is up (especially star players or larger contracts).

Can we please stop peddling this falsehood already? Under Zac Taylor...

Trey Hopkins
Trae Waynes
Geno Atkins
Bobby Hart
Giovani Bernard
Cordy Glenn
BW Webb
Dre Kirkpatrick
Andy Dalton
John Miller
Preston Brown
Vontaze Burfict

....all cut by the Bengals. None of them were league minimum deals or anything where they were expected bubble cuts.

[TecmoBengals]

(05-07-2023, 02:13 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Can we please stop peddling this falsehood already? Under Zac Taylor...

Trey Hopkins
Trae Waynes
Geno Atkins
Bobby Hart
Giovani Bernard
Cordy Glenn
BW Webb
Dre Kirkpatrick
Andy Dalton
John Miller
Preston Brown
Vontaze Burfict

....all cut by the Bengals. None of them were league minimum deals or anything where they were expected bubble cuts.

and to go on a slight tangent, the Bengals are also now major free agent players. Another reality exemplifying your point about things being different under Zac Taylor.

[BenZoo2]

(05-06-2023, 08:59 PM)Housh Wrote: Bengals organization gets shit on for everything but no one ever talks about how Mike Brown is one of the few owners that try not to cut guys late in their contracts. We’ve done it more recently but for the most part when dudes sign here you can book it that they’ll finish their contract

They used to get shit on, and deservedly so, for some things. I think there were several posters that at least gave them credit for that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Soonerpeace]

(05-07-2023, 02:13 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Can we please stop peddling this falsehood already? Under Zac Taylor...

Trey Hopkins
Trae Waynes
Geno Atkins
Bobby Hart
Giovani Bernard
Cordy Glenn
BW Webb
Dre Kirkpatrick
Andy Dalton
John Miller
Preston Brown
Vontaze Burfict

....all cut by the Bengals. None of them were league minimum deals or anything where they were expected bubble cuts.

But it’d be a huge surprise after his Solomon Wilcots podcast last week and Zac’s effusive detailed praise of Mixon after a perplexed Solomon said many NFL coaches always rave to him about Mixon. Zac would have just said he’s an important part of the team and left it at that.

[Frank Booth]

(05-07-2023, 03:37 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: But it’d be a huge surprise after his Solomon Wilcots podcast last week and Zac’s effusive detailed praise of Mixon after a perplexed Solomon said many NFL coaches always rave to him about Mixon. Zac would have just said he’s an important part of the team and left it at that.

You just started rooting for this team a year and a half ago.

[Soonerpeace]

(05-07-2023, 05:00 PM)Frank Booth Wrote: You just started rooting for this team a year and a half ago.

Negatory. I became a fan 2-4-19 and it means absolutely nothing in the scheme of things. Plenty of LSU fans have joined as well as Clemson fans and Michigan fans. Your comment a nothing burger.

[*ochocincos*]

(05-06-2023, 07:50 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: I remember back when Carson Palmer forced a trade out of Cincinnati, Mike Brown was on record saying "Carson made a commitment to us, and we made a commitment to Carson". They were hell bent on not trading him until they got on offer they couldn't refuse.

It was silly to think the Bengals were going to entertain the idea of cutting Mixon or trading Jonah. That's just not how they operate and it's not how they've ever operated. They value the commitments of players and the contracts that they sign.

Another part of me makes me wonder the kind of message that would have sent if this organization were to cut Mixon. We know the Bengals don't guarantee money, but the essentially guarantee length of contract. They RARELY cut guys before their contract is up (especially star players or larger contracts).

If they were to cut Mixon (VERY liked on the team, outspoken leader), their credibility with holding true to contracts would have been shot. Not great timing when you're trying to sign Higgins and Burrow long term and most likely not offering a ton of guaranteed money (at least to Higgins). I really do think this is a big part of why Mixon wasn't let go.

So, do I think the Bengals wanted to cut Mixon and trade Jonah? Yeah, I do. Especially the first part. I think the Bengals know the kind of message that would have sent to the players in the locker room and around the league, though.

Just because the Bengals didn't actually cut Mixon or trade Jonah doesn't mean they didn't entertain.
It could be they didn't get a RB they felt was good enough to start in Mixon's place immediately, and/or they couldn't get enough compensation for Jonah that they wanted. 

[007BengalsFan]

This idea the Bengals dont get rid of players under contract is nonsense. As already pointed out with the posted list of players, its just not true. In fact Jonah nearly got traded a couple weeks ago during the draft. It didnt work out but the Bengals may trade him at some point in the coming weeks if someone offers the right trade. Dont be surprised.

[Isaac Curtis: The Real #85]

(05-07-2023, 02:13 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Can we please stop peddling this falsehood already? Under Zac Taylor...

Trey Hopkins
Trae Waynes
Geno Atkins
Bobby Hart
Giovani Bernard
Cordy Glenn
BW Webb
Dre Kirkpatrick
Andy Dalton
John Miller
Preston Brown
Vontaze Burfict

....all cut by the Bengals. None of them were league minimum deals or anything where they were expected bubble cuts.

Good post. Your memory on this is better than mine. And the list is longer than I'd have thought. 

As for Jonah/Mixon, I think it is more about the fact that the way the draft broke and the level of offer received, it did not make the team better to let them go. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-06-2023, 10:17 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: They had a deal with the Jags ( as reported) for Jonah but as they haggled the Jags decided to wait until after the draft. Anton Harrison was there at #27 so there went that. Mixon listening to Zac on Solomon Wilcots podcast the other day was never ever in danger. But his contract is an issue. His performance not according to Zac. Zac didn’t say anything about his contract though.

There is no deal until the haggling is complete.

This is almost as funny as you refuting Mixon is a RB who only gets the yards that are blocked for him by blaming his struggles on the offensive line.

[*bfine32*]

(05-07-2023, 11:06 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: There is no deal until the haggling is complete.

This is almost as funny as you refuting Mixon is a RB who only gets the yards that are blocked for him by blaming his struggles on the offensive line.

They had a deal until they started dealing. 

[Soonerpeace]

(05-07-2023, 11:06 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: There is no deal until the haggling is complete.

This is almost as funny as you refuting Mixon is a RB who only gets the yards that are blocked for him by blaming his struggles on the offensive line.

You are right. There is no deal until there is a deal. They came close to a deal.