Bengals re-sign Mike Gesicki

[Essex Johnson]

Well we sign offensive but not defense, hell looks like our defense might get worse not better in offseason and that is what is preventing us in making playoffs..

[J24]

(Yesterday, 02:48 PM)jj22 Wrote: 1 year 8-9 million. His career wasn’t necessarily trending up when we signed him. Plus his age. And not knowing if they need more money for these extensions….

This may mean Tee is gone.

If not I get back of the roster guys signing that won’t make it out of camp but extending Mike for 3 years before Hill or Hilton if you are talking priorityish free agents is surprising. 

How does this mean Tee isn't come back?

[J24]

(Yesterday, 02:49 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Well we sign offensive but not defense, hell looks like our defense might get worse not better in offseason and that is what is preventing us in making playoffs..

Outside of Trey; Who is deserving of a big contract on defense?

[jj22]

(Yesterday, 02:53 PM)J24 Wrote: How does this mean Tee isn't come back?

Would you use that 12m to bridge the gap on Tee or give it to Mike this soon?

Mike mainly got snaps when Tee was out. We do need a TE. Do we really need a big bodied 30yr receiver if Tee is in the future plans. 

[Luvnit2]

(Yesterday, 02:49 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Well we sign offensive but not defense, hell looks like our defense might get worse not better in offseason and that is what is preventing us in making playoffs..

Maybe a little early to evaluate our roster. FA has not started. Draft is 7 weeks away.

It appears to me the FO has a plan by getting rid of 3 big contracts priot to FA.

[jj22]

Hudson is a similar player and maybe more bang for the buck given the contract and lack of real focus on TE in this offense.

I would have gave 12m to a vet slot receiver which this offense would use more consistently. 

[J24]

(Yesterday, 02:59 PM)jj22 Wrote: Would you use that 12m to bridge the gap on Tee or give it to Mike this soon?

Mike mainly got snaps when Tee was out. We do need a TE. Do we really need a big bodied 30yr receiver if Tee is in the future plans. 

Mikes deal has nothing to do with Tee and Mike isn't A Tee replacement either.  He's A better version of Hurst and UZ.

[Luvnit2]

(Yesterday, 03:02 PM)jj22 Wrote: Hudson is a similar player and maybe more bang for the buck given the contract and lack of real focus on TE in this offense.

I would have gave 12m to a vet slot receiver which this offense would use more consistently. 

Who is this vet WR we could get for 3 years 25.5 million with only 13 million or so guaranteed?

I feel Joe and Mike needed a half year to figure it out. In 2025, no learning curb we would need from a new slot receiver.

[Frank Booth]

(Yesterday, 02:49 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Well we sign offensive but not defense, hell looks like our defense might get worse not better in offseason and that is what is preventing us in making playoffs..

well thy want to make joe happy. and joe wants his offense

defense be damned I guess

[QueenCity]

Surprised to see some not like this deal.

He's super reliable looks like he's only missed 1 game in his entire 7 year career. Remember he's essentially a TE/3WR. I'm not sure how the deal is structured but I think it's going to be team friendly with most of the deal locked up in year 1.

Welcome back and WHO DEY!

[Clark W Griswold]

Well at least that clears up one spot and that’s not a ton of money but a nice raise and a good deal for the player.
Still want to see Chase signed then go from there.
I know he’s under contract/tag for a couple years but he is also their best player (yeah I said it - Joes the most valuable but Chase is the best) so he should be the priority. He will also take up the most cap room.

[Luvnit2]

(Yesterday, 03:06 PM)Clark W Griswold Wrote: Still want to see Chase signed then go from there. He will also take up the most cap room.

Future cap room. Less cap room in 2025.

[Soonerpeace]

(Yesterday, 03:05 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Who is this vet WR we could get for 3 years 25.5 million with only 13 million or so guaranteed?

I feel Joe and Mike needed a half year to figure it out. In 2025, no learning curb we would need from a new slot receiver.

With Gesicki, Chase, Tee, and Isovias that’s solid. They think Isovias will make a huge leap this year. Losing All was devastating 

[Luvnit2]

(Yesterday, 03:09 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: With Gesicki, Chase, Tee, and Isovias that’s solid. They think Isovias will make a huge leap this year. Losing All was devastating 

I agree.

Sign a top 15 to 20 OG and they all get open more often.

[*rfaulk34*]

(Yesterday, 02:41 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Sample?

Sample's reported blocking ability is a bit overstated and not on All's level. 

[NATI BENGALS]

Solid move imo. Basically knocked the TE need out in two moves. Gesicki, Sample, Hudson, Grandy, and Mclachlan is a solid group. Hope Mclachlan takes a step in his development.

[CJD]

Nice.

I think the Bengals are telling us they aren't going to be able to invest a pick in TE this draft haha. Tanner, Mike and Drew are probably the trio we're going into camp with, unless someone significant falls in the draft.

[Luvnit2]

(Yesterday, 03:16 PM)CJD Wrote: Nice.

I think the Bengals are telling us they aren't going to be able to invest a pick in TE this draft haha. Tanner, Mike and Drew are probably the trio we're going into camp with, unless someone significant falls in the draft.

If we look at need, we are weak at OG (2) and DL (need 2 or 3 if Trey leaves).

I hope our 1st and 2nd round picks address the trenches.

[NUGDUKWE]

(Yesterday, 02:59 PM)jj22 Wrote: Would you use that 12m to bridge the gap on Tee or give it to Mike this soon?

Mike mainly got snaps when Tee was out. We do need a TE. Do we really need a big bodied 30yr receiver if Tee is in the future plans. 

I like Gesicki but it does seem a bit odd. But hopefully it means more like Hilton and Hill are gone not that I like that a whole lot but better than Tee. Need to see his and/or Chases deal.

[*rfaulk34*]

Good signing. I think Gs potential is more than what he produced last year.