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]

(Yesterday, 11:03 PM)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]

(Yesterday, 10:49 PM)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. 

[NUGDUKWE]

(Yesterday, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's really not that hard, just be hopeful. Doesn't cost anything and you'll be more optimistic and perhaps happier. 

2020 gives me reservations and even 2021 when we didn't do enough to fix the problems. If I had an ounce of belief that this team would fix a problem they see in training camp or preseason I would be a bit more hopeful. 
I mean we appeared to avoid anyone with injuries in the draft yet we pencil in Patrick as the starter who played mostly as a backup and is coming off an ACL practicing with a giant brace on his leg as a starter. 

[Sled21]

(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.

Ford actually played well last year.

[Sled21]

(Yesterday, 09:15 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Hyperbole again. Literally no one has ever said that.

No one.

Say what you want, post histories says different.

[Sled21]

(Yesterday, 10:49 PM)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?

So since this line has never played together and there is no way to say they're better than the Super Bowl line, then how can one say "We aren't winning the Super Bowl with this line? If one is an unknown, certainly the other is as well. 

[SunsetBengal]

(3 hours ago)Sled21 Wrote: Ford actually played well last year.

He looked decent when filling for Brown at Tackle, he was worse than Volson at Guard.

[Soonerpeace]

(11 hours ago)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: But the D that played LAR was tons better. D has fallen off WAY more than the O has improved. 

I was responding to Nate who was responding to someone else. The gist is this OL is better than the one’s that won us 1 AFC title and played in another. But the defense looks worse I agree. 

[Nicomo Cosca]

(3 hours ago)Sled21 Wrote: Ford actually played well last year.

At tackle. He’s not nearly as good at guard.

[Soonerpeace]

(3 hours ago)Sled21 Wrote: So since this line has never played together and there is no way to say they're better than the Super Bowl line, then how can one say "We aren't winning the Super Bowl with this line? If one is an unknown, certainly the other is as well. 

Excellent response to rfaulk. I’ve been on here 4-5 years and the negativity surprises me after signing Tee & Chase. I get Trey & Stewart but I don’t know what’s the major source of it. I have no problem with rfaulk’s comments. It’s his opinion and he backs it up well. There’s no question the OL optimism could be ill founded. But I think this OL is better than the one in the SB which isn’t hard. As good of as poster rfaulk is Karras>Hopkins OBJ > Jonah Mims> Reiff. Anybody>Carman. And if memory serves me some didn’t play in SB due to injury.

[Soonerpeace]

(2 hours ago)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: At tackle. He’s not nearly as good at guard.

Guard is his natural position trust me as he’s a Sooner. 

[Nicomo Cosca]

(1 hour ago)Soonerpeace Wrote: Guard is his natural position trust me as he’s a Sooner. 

Again, he wasn’t good at guard last season. I don’t really care about what he did in college.

[Essex Johnson]

(Yesterday, 10:11 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: They've never played a snap together. How do you know they're better?

Yes they have ,  you have four players on the line that played together last year,

[Essex Johnson]

(Yesterday, 10:49 PM)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?

Four have played together, how about you show me tangible evidence of each position of expected starter in 2025 vs SB oline and prove at least 3 starters from SB team are better than 3 from expected 2025.... or do you think every year a player starts with a clean slate so you can't really compare them ?   Not sure where this went away from Tre but I welcome your response and will stop on this issue and refocus on Trey.

[Nicomo Cosca]

(30 minutes ago)Essex Johnson Wrote: Yes they have ,  you have four players on the line that played together last year,

The projected starting 5 are:

OBJ - Fairchild - Karras - Patrick - Mims

So no, the starters have not played together yet. It’s literally 2 brand new guards.

[*rfaulk34*]

(3 hours ago)Sled21 Wrote: Say what you want, post histories says different.

Correct. And no one, other that yours, has that language in it.