Volson Renegotiates Contract

[Southpaw Frerotte]

This, along with the other contract renegotiations, needs to be a precursor for another move. At this point, if that move is either re-upping Trey or bringing in a credible starting guard, I don't really have a preference, just as long as the Blackburns aren't pocketing the money. Hoping your front office actually spends to the cap...talk about a low bar we have with this front office.

[PCB Bengal Fan]

(7 hours ago)TheLeonardLeap Wrote:

LOL

[*rfaulk34*]

(11 hours ago)Sled21 Wrote: You keep throwing out that false equivalency. A contract says a player will play for a certain franchise for a certain number of years, and right there in the contract it tells the player what the contract guarantees. Money guarantees, no cut clauses, etc. If a team has paid the player all his monetary guarantees, and there is no "no cut" clause, and then they renegotiate or cut the player, the team has lived up to it's part of the bargain. 

No they didn't. If they write a contract, any change in that contract is not living up to it.

Whether it's Trey asking for more money or years, or if it's the Bengals taking money back. It's the EXACT same thing. You can't twist and contort it to fit your narrative. If you want Trey to fulfill the contract he signed, as it was written, then you need to say the Bengals need to pay out that contract, as it was written. 

[*bfine32*]

Great news, Glad to have him around as a backup at a reduced rate. I assume he's also happy about any job security the new deal provides him.

[schroomytunes]

I'm ok with him being around as a backup/spot starter. The one thing about him is that he's available on game days. On a scale of 1-10 I place him at a 5. He's a decent run blocker/ horrible pass blocker, so maybe Peters can coach him up a bit, and at a reduced rate hopefully they add that to keeping Trey around. I still think we jettison Pratt and sign a vet LB/ Safety to accommodate getting a deal done with Trey.

[*rfaulk34*]

Gonna have to disagree. Him taking a pay cut is not the cut i'd prefer. 

If someone were to get hurt, he's right back on the field, right where i don't want him. You could literally scan the FA field and find someone who couldn't possibly be any worse than him, to be a backup. 

The fact he makes less, does not make him suck less.

[Sled21]

(6 hours ago)rfaulk34 Wrote: No they didn't. If they write a contract, any change in that contract is not living up to it.

Whether it's Trey asking for more money or years, or if it's the Bengals taking money back. It's the EXACT same thing. You can't twist and contort it to fit your narrative. If you want Trey to fulfill the contract he signed, as it was written, then you need to say the Bengals need to pay out that contract, as it was written. 

And I believe the Bengals are doing just that, and even offered him 12 million more than his contract said. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(5 hours ago)Sled21 Wrote: And I believe the Bengals are doing just that, and even offered him 12 million more than his contract said. 

Of course they're doing that with him, because he's underpaid compared to his production. They don't and haven't done it with others when they perform worse. So they don't "live up to their end of the bargain" in every case. 

If a player underperforms, they want money back or you get cut. The way it should be.
But they don't want to pay more (at least market more) when a player overperforms...because "you signed the contract!!". 

[CJD]

Even more cap space to do...something with.

I'm happy to not spend 4 million dollars on a back up guard, but this does seem like they believe Volson will stay on the team as a back up. Makes me think they are not likely to sign Scherff or Risner (which we basically already knew anyway, unfortunately).

It still perplexes me why this team is not interested in building to win now.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(5 hours ago)rfaulk34 Wrote: If a player underperforms, they want money back or you get cut.

I mean, it's effective, because you have them over a barrel at that point, but then you can't look shocked when players don't want to play under their current contracts they're outperforming and want guaranteed money and long term assurances as their primary motivator.

The slightly dirty part is waiting until after the FA spending frenzy and after the draft, and THEN wanting money back, because the player knows they have almost no chance of getting a starting job or a multi-year contract elsewhere. 

Cappa got cut prior to FA and found a home on a 2-year deal quickly. I think very little of Volson, but he would have found a job somewhere if he was cut 3-4 months ago.

[samhain]

(7 hours ago)THE PISTONS Wrote: Volson has starting experience. We waived the other Guard.

Did we bring in 2 other guys that are better starters?

We drafted a Guard in what the 4th Round. Not sure he'd be better than Volson Day 1.

We brought in that long-time backup from the Saints. He may be able to start.

Then, you have like Cody Ford.

It's not like we're flush with options. Volson may still be the best option.

It's been said that Volson is favored by the staff.  This was true of Pollack for sure and probably extends up the chain.  I heard Rapien talk about it the other day.  He's the type of player that keeps his head down, doesn't run his mouth, and works his butt off.  

This is bad IMO.  His talent level is still below average.  He's got literally everything you want except talent.  Sometimes the off-field and intangible stuff are overrated.  It seems like a forest for trees thing with the staff.  He's really great at every aspect of being a pro football player without actually being good at football.  

[*bfine32*]

(5 hours ago)rfaulk34 Wrote: Gonna have to disagree. Him taking a pay cut is not the cut i'd prefer. 

If someone were to get hurt, he's right back on the field, right where i don't want him. You could literally scan the FA field and find someone who couldn't possibly be any worse than him, to be a backup. 

The fact he makes less, does not make him suck less.

I remember when Max Scharling was supposed to be one such FA. he made Volson look like Ron Yeary

[SunsetBengal]

(2 hours ago)samhain Wrote: It's been said that Volson is favored by the staff.  This was true of Pollack for sure and probably extends up the chain.  I heard Rapien talk about it the other day.  He's the type of player that keeps his head down, doesn't run his mouth, and works his butt off.  

This is bad IMO.  His talent level is still below average.  He's got literally everything you want except talent.  Sometimes the off-field and intangible stuff are overrated.  It seems like a forest for trees thing with the staff.  He's really great at every aspect of being a pro football player without actually being good at football.  

It's also been mentioned that Pollack wasn't a teacher of technique, but more of a schemes coach, while Peters is definitely more of teacher of technique as it applies to hand placement, footwork, movement and leverages. A scheme guy will draw it up and tell you "You are supposed to be here on this play, blocking that guy", while a technique guy will not only point out the man who is your target and show you how to remove him from the play using steps A,B and C. So maybe there is a little hope for the fair to middling guys on the OL roster to take a step forward. Not counting on miracles, just hoping for a little development.

[Isaac Curtis: The Real #85]

I am not a big believer in the ability of coach Peters to turn mediocrity into magnificence. NE sucked last year, their OL sucked, and he got fired.

Fairchild + Patrick with Ford, Volson, & Rivers as backups could be better than last year, but not by much.

And OT depth is actually worse with Brown gone.

Now, we are certainly healthier at some spots (CB), but not all (TE).

On paper, atm, most improved: NT, LB, RB, DE, OG, C depth.

Same: QB, WR, PK P, LS.

Worse: CB (better health, worse depth), S depth, OT depth, 3T, TE (All injury).

Now, I get we are counting on some improvement from some younger players (Iosivas, Burton, Jenkins, Jackson, D. Hill, Turner, Newton, Battle), and scheme/coaching cjanges to help us, but I really don't think we improved much roster-wise.

Our biggest "gains" have been in signing our own FA's (Higgins, Hill, Gesicki, Ossai, Ford, C. Sample, Rehkow, Adomitis), and extensions (Chase, D. Hill 5th year).

Not a big fan of any of the salary cutting renegotiations. Stone is the most understandable, as he is a starter AND has a productive NFL history, and we have zero S depth. But Moss & Volson are backups..Much rather have had the full $$ and turned that into another G, or S, or paying Trey. Perhaps 2 of 3.

[Isaac Curtis: The Real #85]

In the flip side, Volson has some starting experience and was our best run blocker last year.

As a backup, he is fine/good. Though he lacks positional versatility.

The other upside of these guys playing out their contracts is the possibility if them helping to generate comp picks for us if they move on after this season.

[*rfaulk34*]

(2 hours ago)bfine32 Wrote: I remember when Max Scharling was supposed to be one such FA. he made Volson look like Ron Yeary

Then he's def not the "someone" you want to get. 

[*pally*]

We will find out if he really just isn't good enough or was poorly coached. During the combine, Scott Peters had some very complimentary things to say about Cordell. He said nothing about Alex Cappa. A few weeks later Cappa was gone

[schroomytunes]

I disagree I think the line is much more improved over last year. Is it a top end unit? No but I do think it is in that 15ish range. IMO. Brown only played 3 games last year so I really don't even count him.

Starters: OBJ, Fairchild, Karras, Patrick, Mims

Backups: Ford, Lee, Volson, Rivers, Cochran

PS/PUP: Kirkland, McLaughlin, Etienne, Steuber

FA: Jedrick Wills- he's still young, maybe not a great fit in Cleveland. he could be a guy to take a gamble on and see on a 1 yr deal

[Stewy]

(7 hours ago)THE PISTONS Wrote: Volson has starting experience. We waived the other Guard.

Did we bring in 2 other guys that are better starters?

We drafted a Guard in what the 4th Round. Not sure he'd be better than Volson Day 1.

We brought in that long-time backup from the Saints. He may be able to start.

Then, you have like Cody Ford.

It's not like we're flush with options. Volson may still be the best option.

Firstly we drafted two guards - 3rd and 5th rounds - 3rd rounds guard has been running with the 1's.
Brought in a FA, that looks to start at RG.


Volson is Guard 3 at best right now.