TigerCub

TigerCub - Ed Oliver - 102

While I agree that they paid too much for Bobby Hart (especially based on how he played last year), I am actually not completely against it either. After all, he is only 24 years old and has started most of his career. I believe that the Bengals signed him solely based on his potential and not his production. If he does not reach that potential, they can cut him after the first year and I believe, only cost them around $7M, which is more than some current backups make at the position. While I'm not in love with this signing, I'm actually not all bent out of shape over it either. I think it is blown out of proportion a bit considering that it is not a fully guaranteed 3 year contract at $21M, like it seems to be advertised as in the media. Especially if they wind up drafting a tackle that can compete with him this year and take the position next year.

The Bengals website is reporting it is only a 1 year deal. Anyone know for certain if that is accurate, or if it is a 3 year deal?

According to CincyJungle.com: In 571 pass blocking snaps in 2015, Russell Bodine allowed 3 sacks and 27 QB hurries for a pass blocking efficiency of 95.9. That was 25th out of the 29 qualifying centers this year. And ProFootballFocus (posted 2/25/2017): Nathan Jahnke@PFF_NateJahnke Nick Mangold hasn't given up a sack in his last 33 games. The best center of the past decade. Sorry, I'd still rather have Nick Mangold who has not been credited with giving up a sack in 33 games as opposed to a center who gave up 3 sacks and 27 QB hurries in 16 games over a single season. Here are the links: Bodine: http://www.cincyjungle.com/2016/8/19/12552658/russell-bodine-is-awful-pff-agrees http://www.cincyjungle.com/2016/1/12/10753484/bengals-pro-football-focus-grades-and-analysis-from-wild-card-loss-to Mangold: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2694947-nick-mangold-released-by-new-york-jets I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I will take a center who hasn't given up a sack in the last 33 games he has played in any day of the week.

I think Nick Mangold is still available as well...Definitely an upgrade to what we have.

I'm going to assume that you are kidding...It can be hard to tell in this form. The issue is that someone new would simply see the error and go to another sight. You won't be able to attract new visitors to the site and they won't necessarily know that it will work for them once they create an account and login. I assume this site wants to grow its user base.

I am noticing that the site only works if you are logged in. It says "Something went wrong. Please try again." if you are not logged in. Anyone else see this? Once you log in, the page comes up just fine.

TigerCub - Josh Doctson - 117

Why was the clock moving on the last Bengals field goal? The previous play went out of bounds.

I have been a member of this board for a very long time, and do not post a lot.  I do, however, visit this site and read other posts almost daily.  I feel like I should make a suggestion that may solve many the issues that are being discussed.     I believe someone needs to establish a written policy for all of the Moderators to follow on how they filter posts and/or ban posters. An example would be that if someone posts something that a Moderator disagrees with, filter out the post and give the poster one chance to edit the post to be more appropriate.  If they modify it appropriately, then the moderator will allow the post and it will be re-displayed to all.  If they fail to modify it to the Moderator's satisfaction, then the post remains filtered out, permanently, end of discussion.  I would think that the majority of posters on this site would understand and even agree to this type of policy, if known ahead of time.  After so many posts being filtered out, then the poster is at risk of being banned.  To make it even more fair, I would suggest that banning a poster would require more than 1 Moderator to accomplish.  This policy is something that new (and even existing) members should have to agree to this before posting any new messages.   I may be over-simplifying this, but if there was a policy written and posted in an obvious way that was clear and concise, that much of this should go away.  I apologize if this type of policy already exists.   Feel free to offer any other suggestions, or tell me I'm totally clueless.

They could be moving Michael Johnson back to LB as well. As a matter of fact, I would not doubt a move of Geno Atkins to starting DE with the additions from the 2nd and 3rd rounds this year.

[quote name='BlackJesus' timestamp='1335649851' post='1126461'] [b]What happened to our 7th rd pick again?[/b] [/quote] I believe it was used to trade for Reggie Nelson with David Jones trade. I believe we also don't have a 7th rounder next year due to Taylor Mays.

Not to argue the point, but I personally don't think that it the main reason for games not selling out is bandwagon fans. I'm sure it does affect the attendance somewhat, but not to the extent to cause the games not to sellout. Bandwagon fans attend games when the team is winning and do not attend games when the team is losing. The Bengals sold out every game despite the team losing for a long, long time. It wasn't until the last few years the the games did not sell out. That says that they did not have too many Bandwagon fans back then, and I don't think there are many more now. I think if the team had a winning record more often than not, and then every so often had a losing record (say 2 years winning and 1 year losing), I would argue that during the losing year, the games would still sell out. I think it is the perpetual losing that has led to the decrease in attendance. Many of us have lost hope that this team will ever be good again, so we decide not to attend until we have reason to believe that there is hope for a winning organization in the future. This team has done nothing recently to provide us that hope. Two playoff appearances with no playoff wins in 25+ years, in addition to only having 2 or 3 winning seasons causes us to lose that hope. Heck, the local media even tries to soften the blow by saying that the Bengals have had 4 or 5 non-losing seasons. In my opinion, 8-8 is not a good record, so I should not be proud of that. That's why I count Winning Seasons! This is just my opinion.

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1313980730' post='1018958'] I'm not sure how one comes to that conclusion at all. [/quote] Sorry, I meant to say at times (like against the Jets last year), Palmer has only looked slightly better. I did not mean to infer that Dalton is right now almost as good as Palmer was for us.

I for one am neither encouraged or discouraged. If he continues to play the way he has played so far, then I see Andrew Luck in our future. I do see enough flashes from him to think that he could be an above average quarterback, but I don't believe he will be ever a star, by any stretch. I hope I am wrong. The one thing that I think it demonstrates is how bad Palmer has been for us that last couple of years. Palmer has only been slightly better the last couple of year than Andy Dalton has been this pre-season. At least Andy is a rookie and "should" only get better. That's actually the one positive here is that he really can only get better at this point. I don't think he will look as bad as he has looked so far all year, and he has not looked like he is totally lost which is encouraging, especially coming from a "smaller" school.