Trey Hendrickson Update

[J24]

(Yesterday, 01:24 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: To quote James Rapien, I'm more bullish on the OL than most, I still think Fairchild will be great out of the box and if Patrick can hold up in pass protection, we will have a dominant offense again.

RG is the only thing that is concerning, IMO: the rest of the OL is more than fine.

Do you think Rivers can play RG?

[*bfine32*]

(Yesterday, 05:40 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: No one said you need superstars. But a 3rd round rookie, and a battle between Cody Ford and Lucas Patrick does not exactly fill me with confidence. Wish I was as hopeful about the IOL as some of you seem to be.

Time will tell.

It's really not that hard, just be hopeful. Doesn't cost anything and you'll be more optimistic and perhaps happier. 

[Nicomo Cosca]

(8 hours ago)bfine32 Wrote: It's really not that hard, just be hopeful. Doesn't cost anything and you'll be more optimistic and perhaps happier. 

[J24]

(06-16-2025, 05:31 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I, for one, was hoping they would have been more active in FA this past year, signing a better OG instead of Patrick and a different DE to replace Hubbard.

I personally wanted James Daniels instead of Lucas Patrick (or could have added LP as well, just not as a planned contender to start).
Daniels is just as versatile as LP, showing ability to play all IOL spots between college and NFL.
He signed for just 3 years, $24 mill with just $10.75 mill guaranteed.
That could have been swung easily in hindsight seeing how much cap the Bengals ended up having.

I also wanted Chase Young as a Hubbard replacement/insurance if Hendrickson leaves. CY opposite TH would have been arguably a (big) improvement over the question marks they have now.
Young signed for just 3 years, $51 mill with $33 mill guaranteed.
Bengals could have done that instead of using a draft pick on Stewart, instead putting that toward another position like a pass-rushing DT in Derrick Harmon or SAF to replace Stone after this season.

But now we see all this cap sitting around waiting for the Bengals to do something with it, hoping at this point it goes toward Hendrickson because why else did they hold onto it instead of using it to fill out the team better in FA?

They could role it over until next season, maybe?

[Luvnit2]

(8 hours ago)rfaulk34 Wrote: Someone states the offensive line is better than the super bowl line. 

There's no way to know if this iteration will be better than the super bowl line because they haven't played a snap together. Yet, a declarative statement was made that this line is better than the super bowl line. Please show me tangible evidence that this line is better than the super bowl line, even though they've never played a snap, in a real NFL game together. 

This line and my take on the FO screwing the pooch is aples and oranges. One has zero evidence to support it (this line) and one has conclusive, proven evidence (the FO). They are not remotely the same. You should be able to see this fact, that they're not the same, without me having to point it out to you. This is very simple, basic logic. It's doesn't take an advanced degree to understand. 

Can anyone have an opinion other than me and my minions? First off, who are my minions? I wasn't aware i had any. If you're talking about the people that agree with my statements, and you're wondering if anyone who doesn't agree with my opinions and facts can have an opinion of their own...yes they can. If their opinion differes from a statement i present, that's backed by verifiable evidence and facts, then their opinion is going to be patently wrong. 

Lastly, i've already clearly stated that all opinions are not created equal, on more than one occasion, so your question isn't really necessary if you're paying attention to the discussion that is going on. 

NEWS FLASH!!! This coming offensive line could very well be much better than the super bowl line and maybe even one of the best in the NFL. It's possible, not necessarily probable, but possible. But there's no way you can conclusively state that they are better, because they have not played in an official NFL game together yet.

Do you disagree that you can't say they'll be better, since there's no way to measure that?

Lots of words to say his opinion sucks in your world. You do know lots of basis for an opinion, maybe his logic we know the SB OL sucked and probably cost us a win so they have to better. Maybe he knows 3 of the 5 are proven and at least the 2 OT's are already better.

But hey keep up with your superiority on cornering the opinion market.   

[Isaac Curtis: The Real #85]

(Yesterday, 02:21 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: This OL is much much better than the one who played LAR

But the D that played LAR was tons better. D has fallen off WAY more than the O has improved.