Are the bengals really that cheap?

[fredtoast]

(03-04-2016, 07:12 PM)J24 Wrote: Hayward is better than Kirkpatrick, Mclain is a cheaper version of Rey M, and a draft pick would cost much less than Hall. How is our defense worse?

Hayward may be better than Dre, but not by a lot. Maualuga is better than McClain, and leon Hall played very well and was on the field for 70% of the defensive snaps.  I doubt we get a rookie to step in and perform as well as he did.  You don't have a top 5 pass defense if two of your 3 starting CBs are below average.

[Shake n Blake]

(03-04-2016, 04:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I think overly cautious is more like it.  A lot of big time FAs are busts, but that's often a result of signing for the sake of signing. But sometimes there is a guy that can really help.   And how is it every single year that the Bengals have little cap space?  There is a perception that other teams say, "We are going to do what we have to do", and the Bengals say, "Wish we could, but nothing we can do about it.  See.  Hands tied."

This right here. I guess the Bengals have been "middle of the pack" lately in spending. My frustration isn't so much with that, it's more with the fact that I've never seen this team be proactive in FA unless they're replacing someone that was more expensive.

Antwan Odom? Replaced Justin Smith at a fraction of what the 49ers paid for him.
Lavernues Coles? Replaced Housh for less than what the Seahawks paid.
Antonio Bryant? Still trying to replace Housh.
Nate Clements? Replaced JJo at a fraction of the cost.
Jason Allen? Still trying to fill the void left by JJo.
Benny? Replacing Benson.
Benson? Total desperation after cutting Rudi and Perry looking like turd.

The Bengals seem to view FA as a last resort type of thing and it's really unfortunate.

[Atomic Orange]

All I know is Iloka, MLJ, Nelson, and Pacman are more valuable to this team than DreK, Peko, Nugent, Hawk and Rey M. (I'd restructure Rey M)

[BengalChris]

(03-04-2016, 12:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Are the bengals really that cheap?

When all is said and done? Yes

[magikod]

Talk is cheap!

[Housh]

You play devils advocate a lot Fredtoast lol

Bengals are conservative in FA but they take care of their own. I can't imagine Rey M and Leon Hall and Peko getting the deals they've gotten with us with any other team.


I honestly like that strategy because if you wanna know annoying, then think about how annoying it was to lose Michael Johnson. That was a huge failure for us and the board was more demoralized for that move than anything

[fredtoast]

(03-05-2016, 09:52 AM)Housh Wrote:  I can't imagine Rey M and Leon Hall and Peko getting the deals they've gotten with us with any other team.

So your complaints are based on nothing but your imagination? 

[fredtoast]

(03-05-2016, 12:08 AM)BengalChris Wrote: When all is said and done? Yes

Even though they are spending more on players than a majority of the league?

[BengalChris]

(03-05-2016, 11:01 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Even though they are spending more on players than a majority of the league?

Gotta take everything into account.

[fredtoast]

(03-05-2016, 11:08 AM)BengalChris Wrote: Gotta take everything into account.

I don't.

I enjoy watching the team on the field.  It make no difference to me how much gatorade they get to take home, or how big their towels are.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-04-2016, 01:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The same way I get tired of the annual threads byt the same few people around here who do nothing but squeal about how the Bengals are the cheapest team in the league and Mike Brown just laughs at the fans while pocketing all the profits.

Could the Bengals spend more in free agency?   Yes.

Are they among the cheapest teams in the league?  No.  Not even close.

This is such a stupid argument now.
The latest CBA will not allow a team to spend pennies fielding a team. There are minimums that have to be met. Katie/Troy/MB would still be doing things the cheap way if they had a choice.

[Wes Mantooth]

Here are the payroll numbers for the two years immediately preceding this new 4 year spending limit:

Detroit Lions | $118,300,000 | -1%
Houston Texans | $118,300,000 | -3%
Atlanta Falcons | $117,200,000 | -4%
San Francisco 49ers | $117,100,000 | 12%
New York Giants | $117,000,000 | -1%
Miami Dolphins | $116,600,000 | -2%
St. Louis Rams | $116,600,000 | -4%
San Diego Chargers | $116,500,000 | -1%
Pittsburgh Steelers | $116,100,000 | -2%
Baltimore Ravens | $115,300,000 | -5%
Dallas Cowboys | $115,300,000 | -1%
Oakland Raiders | $114,600,000 | 0%
Chicago Bears | $114,300,000 | 13%
Washington Redskins | $113,100,000 | 3%
Buffalo Bills | $112,700,000 | 17%
New York Jets | $112,500,000 | -1%
New Orleans Saints | $112,400,000 | -7%
Minnesota Vikings | $111,700,000 | -10%
Carolina Panthers | $111,400,000 | -8%
New England Patriots | $110,600,000 | -2%
Arizona Cardinals | $110,600,000 | 4%
Indianapolis Colts | $110,500,000 | -3%
Denver Broncos | $109,500,000 | 7%
Green Bay Packers | $109,000,000 | 0%
Seattle Seahawks | $107,400,000 | 2%
Cleveland Browns | $107,300,000 | 11%
Tampa Bay Buccaneers | $105,700,000 | 14%
Cincinnati Bengals | $105,400,000 | 13%
Tennessee Titans | $103,600,000 | -11%
Philadelphia Eagles | $100,400,000 | -19%
Kansas City Chiefs | $94,000,000 | 1%
Jacksonville Jaguars | $91,900,000 | -1%

---------------------

2013

Minnesota Vikings | $123,553,646
Philadelphia Eagles| $123,382,065
Atlanta Falcons | $122,188,308
Houston Texans | $121,904,836
St. Louis Rams | $121,835,786
Baltimore Ravens | $121,145,293
New Orleans Saints | $121,042,487
Carolina Panthers | $120,884,226
Detroit Lions | $119,379,953
Pittsburgh Steelers | $118,875,502
Miami Dolphins | $118,447,435
New York Giants | $118,357,838
San Diego Chargers | $117,510,200
Tennessee Titans | $117,037,579
Dallas Cowboys | $116,700,139
Oakland Raiders | $115,063,751
Indianapolis Colts | $114,259,317
New York Jets | $113,688,194
New England Patriots | $113,156,066
Washington Redskins | $109,474,372
Green Bay Packers | $109,198,003
Arizona Cardinals | $105,870,949
Seattle Seahawks | $104,887,632
San Francisco 49ers | $104,604,488
Denver Broncos | $102,627,531
Chicago Bears | $101,032,032
Cleveland Browns | $96,659,589
Buffalo Bills | $96,114,524
Kansas City Chiefs | $93,446,708
Cincinnati Bengals | $93,268,320
Tampa Bay Buccaneers | $92,988,777
Jacksonville Jaguars | $92,768,120

[Wes Mantooth]

So, of course the Bengals had to spend someone more in 2013 and onward. Look how much cap space they hoarded the years prior. No ONE carried over more money into the new spending term

Remember, they only have to get to 89% of the league cap, not the league cap + rollover, from prior to the 2013 season.

[Wes Mantooth]

(03-05-2016, 11:01 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Even though they are spending more on players than a majority of the league?

Based on what?  A single season?  Multiple seasons?  Do yo have a link to back any of this up?

[BengalChris]

(03-05-2016, 11:17 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't.

I enjoy watching the team on the field.  It make no difference to me how much gatorade they get to take home, or how big their towels are.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think the Bengals are the cheapest team in the league. They have turned things around and put a good product on the field for the last 5 years.

But, I also look and see that the team has gotten to the point where it's going to take a little more financial effort to improve it so that it reaches the next level, which would be a SB caliber team. And no, they were not a SB caliber team in 2015 as we all witnessed by how it lost that playoff game.

When you look at the effort it's taken to get the team to this point, how do you then tighten it down financially and not go that extra step to finish it off?

It's not like the team we field in 2016 is going to be the same team as 2015. Four or Five highly productive starters are going to be gone and possibly a number high contributors off the bench. These are not going to be replaced by better players in free agency. Let's face it, the Bengals are not going to find someone better than Marvin Jones or Adam Jones in its annual bargain hunt in July. We do have Williams waiting in the wings for Iloka, but Iloka was clearly a level above Williams. Dennard may be good, but is he good enough to make up for an almost entirely new secondary? We are all expecting Og to be better than Andre Smith and some might argue that.

Dennard, Kirkpatrick and Shaw as the corners is just the bare minimum to run this complex defense. The defense is predicated on having 4 quality corners and a 5th guys who knows the system who can pinch hit in case of injury.

Further, recent defensive draft selections have been largely disappointing. There's no one waiting in the wings to replace Peko, Dunlap, MJ and Atkins or even Gilberry who was the 1st guy off the bench and there's a need for cover LB, which has been a hole for awhile and is still a hole.

We have this discussion every year and every year we go one and done.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-04-2016, 02:09 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: 1.) How many teams don't have indoor practice facilities?  How many cold weather teams?  Is that not a reflection on spending?

2.) How many teams enjoy a better stadium deal?  If you were to rank each team, 1-32, in terms of money spent on the construction, upkeep, and upgrades to their respective stadium, where would we rank?  Again, would this not be another way top evaluate their overall spending?

3.) David Flucher - Paid pop machine.  Tony Siragusa - Coach ticket.  Kijana Carter - Paid for lineman's towels.  J-Joe - Gatorade and Pert Plus.  Training Camp - HDMI cord rentals.  There have been rumors out there for a long time that follow this team and it's cheapness.  Whether you choose to believe all of them or not, they do exist.  Just some food for thought, when looking at the big picture.

4.) Where do we rank in terms of front office and scouting payroll?  Again, if we're judging the team on it's spending, this is part of the puzzle.

5.) Is rollover money not unused cap space?  Is it not money that we could have theoritically spent the year prior?  Because, if this is true, is it not fair to say that we have left money on the table every single year, these last 5 years?

I don't know, to each their own, but I see a team that opens almost every single free agency period in the top half of the league in cap space.  Many times in the top 5.  I see a team who has rolled over a significant amount of money every single it was implemented.  I see a team that should have an indoor facility, that chooses not to spend in an area where everyone else does.  Many college and high schools even.  I see a team who pays less for their stadium itself.  I see a team who rarely, if ever, makes a splash in FA.  I see a team who employs one of the smallest front offices in the game.I've heard countless rumors throughout the years detailing their cheapness, etc, etc. etc....

Do any of these one things make them cheap?  Perhaps not.  But, Jesus, collectively it has to.  How could it not?  You would have to be a damn fool to look at everything surrounding this team now, in the past, and most likely in the future, and not come away with the impression that they spend less than most of their peers.

So rather than asking the question of if are they cheap or not, I think the better one may be:  How crazy do you have to be to not acknowledge the fact this team spends significantly less?

We don't need an indoor practice faciity. They literally would use it maybe 10 times a year. And since the field is heated the stadium is sufficient.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-05-2016, 11:52 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: This is such a stupid argument now.
The latest CBA will not allow a team to spend pennies fielding a team. There are minimums that have to be met. Katie/Troy/MB would still be doing things the cheap way if they had a choice.

90's mike brown would. It took him a while to adjust to free agency. Marvin came in and really moved us into the modern era. Katie pushed hard for marvin and it's no wonder she works the cap well. We are in good hands. It's still the steady approach and we won't be flashy. I watch all my dolphins fans friends here go nuts in the offseason only to be quiet once the second month starts.

[fredtoast]

(03-05-2016, 02:28 PM)BengalChris Wrote:  Four or Five highly productive starters are going to be gone and possibly a number high contributors off the bench.

Not true at all.

bengals have always psid good money to keep their own players.  Don't know what everyone think we are now going to let every single free agent walk.

It just isn't going to happen.

[fredtoast]

(03-05-2016, 12:33 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Based on what?  A single season?  Multiple seasons?  Do yo have a link to back any of this up?

Posts number 1 and 5 in this thread.  Go back and read them.

[fredtoast]

(03-05-2016, 11:52 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: This is such a stupid argument now.
The latest CBA will not allow a team to spend pennies fielding a team. There are minimums that have to be met. Katie/Troy/MB would still be doing things the cheap way if they had a choice.

Then explain why we are spending more money than so many other teams oin the league.

If the Bengals were as cheap as possible then why are they no where near the bottom of money over the last three years?


Funny that it seems that some of you are actually getting mad to discover that the Bengals are not as cheap as you claim.