Trey Hendrickson Update

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(Yesterday, 05:52 PM)Nepa Wrote: My favorite memory of Fred was when he made a statement so obviously wrong that he was called on it and then, rather than concede the argument, decided to redefine one of the terms in his statement to a meaning that no one would ever use -- indeed, was opposite of what the term actually meant. Fred never lost an argument that I remember. He just created new definitions for terms. His saving grace is that he kept the conversations going in the off-season. Never a dull moment with Fred. Ditto for Joe from Florence.

Edit: That was really off-tangent. But when a thread reaches 75 pages and still the issue remains the same as in the first page, then I guess we should have liberty to open up the conversation.

You nailed my thoughts on Fred, he could never admit he was wrong. I think I got him to admit he was wrong one time in all of the years.

That was like pulling the short and curly's too....

[*jason*]

(8 hours ago)Soonerpeace Wrote: The organization has a strictly bottom line mentality. That’s not what the vast majority of owners are today. They act scared and frugal most of the time but not necessarily wholly impractical. They signed Tee because Joe and Chase wanted it. They signed Chase because of Joe. But they’d rather miss out on renewing a player than get stuck with an aging one. It’s just huge conservatism. I’m not saying anything you don’t know mind you. But some ownerships just simply are about winning and competing. Many have done it in business and it transcends. The Brown’s love having a team and Paul Brown’s legacy. But winning a SB isn’t an obsession.

It was honestly surreal to see Mike Brown on the podium holding the AFC championship trophy almost 4 years ago.

[THE PISTONS]

(9 hours ago)Essex Johnson Wrote: Or what Bengals will do with the $$ if Tre sits out all year

He would sit out most of the year and report at the last chance he could to still count for a year of service.

Likely they work this out though.

[THE PISTONS]

(8 hours ago)Ell Prez Wrote: I think MB wants to win a Super Bowl. He just doesn’t know how. He thinks he’s right, all the time. Hes a smart man, and a good business man. But in sports you can’t always look at just the numbers if you want to win. But winning super bowls = more money. And he knows it, he just thinks his way of running a football team is best.

I think his main priority is ensuring the Bengals stay in his family's ownership for a long time. If you analyze the decisions they make, it aligns to that. And there's nothing wrong with that. Likely we'd all want the same thing.

I think every owner wants to win a SB.

I think he also has strong views that the Bengals are a small market team vs large market teams and align accordingly.

[*ochocincos*]

(9 hours ago)Sled21 Wrote: And that's fine it that's the position people want to take. But if you take that position, you can't turn around and complain about the Bengals keeping aging players to long. History said Whitworth was close to done. He was an outlier. History says DE's fall off after 30, Trey may or may not be an outlier. But if a person is for keeping him (I am, just not a 3 or 4 year guarantee), then don't complain when we are paying him for no production. 

I'm ok with trying to limit additional years down from 3-4 to 2-3 to factor age in, but I am also completely ok taking risk on a 30 year old player as long as they aren't already showing decline. Also if the team is/should be in win-now mode would impact my decision on signing a 30 year old to an extension and for how much.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(Today, 07:53 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Chase- 25 years old
Higgins- 26 years old
Hendrickson- 30 years old, and at a position where at that age production usually drops

Chase: 1st Team All-Pro Triple Crown WR
Higgins: 0x Pro Bowler, last had 1k yards 3 years ago, can't stay healthy
Hendrickson: 1st Team All-Pro Sack King

[Essex Johnson]

(9 hours ago)ochocincos Wrote: Look, I get the argument, but it's really coming down to risk.
If you don't want to assume the risk of having to pay someone more for playing only part on their contract, you risk really impacting your team's future for the next few years while trying to find a replacement.
And the Bengals have notoriously not been able to find good replacements for their key higher-priced, elite (ish) players in recent years like Bates, Reader, and now potentially Hendrickson. How many years did it take to finally get competent LT play after Whitworth left? 7 years?

I think the organization needs to have a win-now mentality now that they finally have a team that could/should be super bowl worthy and have the focus be on winning a super bowl within the next 2-3 years.
Losing Hendrickson potentially even starting this year and having to rely on the likes of Ossai, Murphy, and Stewart is only going to lower those chances, as none of those guys are really even half as good as Hendrickson.

That fine ro have your view , I also believe what many said in offseason the ability to sign on 3 to high $$ contracts was a low probability which is playing out, 2 out 3 seemed the way this was going especially with Tre under contract

[Sled21]

(7 hours ago)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Chase: 1st Team All-Pro Triple Crown WR
Higgins: 0x Pro Bowler, last had 1k yards 3 years ago, can't stay healthy
Hendrickson: 1st Team All-Pro Sack King

Does not negate his age.

Quote:Defensive ends in the NFL typically start to show signs of decline in their late 20s, with a more noticeable drop-off after age 30. While some players can maintain high performance levels into their early 30s, the overall trend indicates a peak in their early to mid-20s, followed by a gradual decline. 



Here's a more detailed breakdown: 

• Early Decline (Late 20s):
  Many defensive ends start to experience a decline in their overall performance, including speed and agility, in their late 20s.
• Sharper Decline (30+):
  After age 30, the decline becomes more pronounced, with many players experiencing a more significant drop in their effectiveness and durability.
• Individual Variation:
  While the general trend is towards decline, some players are able to maintain a high level of play well into their 30s due to factors like exceptional talent, meticulous training, and injury history.
• Peak Performance:
  Most defensive ends reach their peak performance in their early to mid-20s, with their athleticism and production peaking around age 26 according to Sports Info Solutions.
  

Therefore, while some defensive ends can defy the aging curve, most will experience a decline in their performance as they approach and enter their 30s

You cannot deny signing him to a 3 or 4 year deal is a huge gamble with a lot of money.

[higgy100]

(8 hours ago)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: You nailed my thoughts on Fred, he could never admit he was wrong. I think I got him to admit he was wrong one time in all of the years.

That was like pulling the short and curly's too....

Ya ,he was definitely a right fighter. That's simply not a good place to be as a human being. Just suck it up sometimes.

[George Cantstandya]

(5 hours ago)Sled21 Wrote: Does not negate his age.

You cannot deny signing him to a 3 or 4 year deal is a huge gamble with a lot of money.

I'm not saying players don't decline with age but is what you quoted above from one of those Goolge AI responses because the link at the end, "according to Sports Info Solutions", is an article that is an excerpt form a book called The Fielding Bible – Volume V and is about baseball players. 

[Nicomo Cosca]

(5 hours ago)Sled21 Wrote: You cannot deny signing him to a 3 or 4 year deal is a huge gamble with a lot of money.

If the time to gamble isn’t when you have Joe ***** Burrow in his absolute prime (dude is already 28) then there will never be a better time. They can either just play it safe and prioritize winning contract negotiations, or they can push the chips all the way in and try to actually win a SB. Something this almost 60 year old franchise has never done, and will never have a better chance to do after Burrow is gone

[Sled21]

(4 hours ago)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: If the time to gamble isn’t when you have Joe ***** Burrow in his absolute prime (dude is already 28) then there will never be a better time. They can either just play it safe and prioritize winning contract negotiations, or they can push the chips all the way in and try to actually win a SB. Something this almost 60 year old franchise has never done, and will never have a better chance to do after Burrow is gone

Is all that money better spent on an aging player who "may be great" again for one, maybe two seasons, or upgrading several positions across the defense with the same money? 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(5 hours ago)Sled21 Wrote: You cannot deny signing him to a 3 or 4 year deal is a huge gamble with a lot of money.

A bigger gamble... is not paying him, going into a year with Joseph Ossai and Myles Murphy as your starting DEs, and telling all of your defensive players and outside FAs that they will not be paid here.

Not even really a gamble, honestly. It'll be the third straight year of missing the playoffs. Just pissing Joe Burrow's career away.

[Nepa]

(5 hours ago)George Cantstandya Wrote: I'm not saying players don't decline with age but is what you quoted above from one of those Goolge AI responses because the link at the end, "according to Sports Info Solutions", is an article that is an excerpt form a book called The Fielding Bible – Volume V and is about baseball players. 

it really reads like an AI response. Particularly after a brief summary, the words: "Here's a more detailed breakdown."

I find some of the AI stuff to be so far off. I got in an argument with AI about the verb tense it used in a sentence, it gave a detailed explanation of why that verb tense was correct, I asked some more questions, it finally realized its error, and I said, "so, you lied?" AI then responded, "Yes, I lied."

[WeezyBengal]

(4 hours ago)Sled21 Wrote: Is all that money better spent on an aging player who "may be great" again for one, maybe two seasons, or upgrading several positions across the defense with the same money? 

You are acting like doing this isn't a risk as well. 

We've tried to do this in recent years by bringing in guys like Geno Stone, Sheldon Rankins, etc. Plugging holes from the outside from guys that left (Bates, Reader). It didn't work. 

I'd rather take a risk on Trey and that's really all there is to it. We all know Treys make up by now...the guy is a dog and I have no doubt he's got 2-3 more years left in the tank. 

[Sled21]

(4 hours ago)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: A bigger gamble... is not paying him, going into a year with Joseph Ossai and Myles Murphy as your starting DEs, and telling all of your defensive players and outside FAs that they will not be paid here.

Not even really a gamble, honestly. It'll be the third straight year of missing the playoffs. Just pissing Joe Burrow's career away.

You act like he's the difference between making the playoffs or not making the playoffs. He was here the last two years we missed them, so how does that work? I'm just spitballing here, but maybe we would be better off using his money to upgrade several other positions and picking up someone else's DE that will be waived at camp...

[Nicomo Cosca]

(4 hours ago)Sled21 Wrote: Is all that money better spent on an aging player who "may be great" again for one, maybe two seasons, or upgrading several positions across the defense with the same money?

Because they do that so often and so well?

They’ve had exactly 2 decent free agencies in all the years it’s existed. 20 & 21. That’s it. The rest have ranged from mediocre to abysmal.

It’s pretty simple: if a team doesn’t particularly draft well, and also never goes big game hunting in FA, then they should probably prioritize paying the guys that are actually worth the money (see Whit & Bates).

[NotBigzo]

(4 hours ago)Sled21 Wrote: You act like he's the difference between making the playoffs or not making the playoffs. He was here the last two years we missed them, so how does that work? I'm just spitballing here, but maybe we would be better off using his money to upgrade several other positions and picking up someone else's DE that will be waived at camp...

I can name a few games where he sealed the game winning sack. 

Pitt, Dallas. 

If he had other players that even had half the production he did and the FO doesn't piss around with Chase, he would've been the difference maker.


No camp casualty DE is going to be close to Trey's talent. if this was the plan, it should've been executed 6 months ago. 

[George Cantstandya]

(4 hours ago)Nepa Wrote: it really reads like an AI response. Particularly after a brief summary, the words: "Here's a more detailed breakdown."

I find some of the AI stuff to be so far off. I got in an argument with AI about the verb tense it used in a sentence, it gave a detailed explanation of why that verb tense was correct, I asked some more questions, it finally realized its error, and I said, "so, you lied?" AI then responded, "Yes, I lied."

Yeah I think the first paragraph of the article linked is what trigged the AI response in that last part with the link:

Quote:It is understood that as a player ages, his performance weakens, but just how does that happen on the defensive end? In looking at the history of Defensive Runs Saved, an aging curve was generated. It showed that a player’s defensive peak is his age 26 season, with a steady decline for the rest of his career, including a more substantial decline beyond his age 30 season.

To be fair I can see where an honest misunderstanding can be made.  I use AI a bit but mostly to generate leads toward source information.  I always try to double check the sources provided because as seen they can be a bit whacky at times.   :)

[Sled21]

It may have been AI, I don't know, I'm at work and just quickly googled the age NFL DE's decline. Who cares if it's AI or not, is the information wrong???????
I trust AI about as much as I trust sports writers, so have at it.