Bengals1181 Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 I understand your frustrations. But putting 1/5 (closer to 1/4 actually) of your cap in 3 guys on the dline is a lot, and that's essentially what it would be if you pay mj 12 mil a year. I just think it's tough to justify being that heavily weighted in one position group. Not that I'm against resigning him, just that I'd be okay spending that money elsewhere. I think this is the big thing that people have to come to grips with. It's not that they don't like MJ and not that they don't want to keep their own guys. It's just a matter of positional breakdowns. They chose Levi and Anderson over Steinbach. They chose Hall over Joseph (yes Joseph was up first and they tried to keep him, but it was said they valued Hall more) They chose Dunlap and Atkins over MJ. They chose not to pay Houshmandzadeh #1 money when he wasn't one and they were already paying Chad #1 money. You never WANT to get rid of your big contributors, but sometimes you just have to look at the longterm implications and decide how much money you want to tie up in a single position group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.A.B. Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Yeah, its impossible to keep everyone once you start drafting well. Just gotta hope and rely on them same draft skills that got you there. Hopefully MJ's replacement is already on the team though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 I think this is the big thing that people have to come to grips with. It's not that they don't like MJ and not that they don't want to keep their own guys. It's just a matter of positional breakdowns. They chose Levi and Anderson over Steinbach. They chose Hall over Joseph (yes Joseph was up first and they tried to keep him, but it was said they valued Hall more) They chose Dunlap and Atkins over MJ. They chose not to pay Houshmandzadeh #1 money when he wasn't one and they were already paying Chad #1 money. You never WANT to get rid of your big contributors, but sometimes you just have to look at the longterm implications and decide how much money you want to tie up in a single position group. I guess they have done it more than I was thinking. Housh seems like there were circumstances that I am not remembering, same with Steinbach but all 3 are decent examples. I still don't think it's smart. You probably spend just as much trying to find guys to fit and watching them fall on their face as you would paying your known commodity. Certainly that was true with Housh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Michael Bennett is staying in Seattle. MJ just got more expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 How much did Seattle pay Bennett? He's comparable to MJ in some respects but might have given a hometown discount to stay in Seattle. With their release of Red Bryant, it makes sense for them to pay up for Bennett. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 How much did Seattle pay Bennett? He's comparable to MJ in some respects but might have given a hometown discount to stay in Seattle. With their release of Red Bryant, it makes sense for them to pay up for Bennett. looks like a little more than $8M/per year. 4yrs. Not a bad deal as far as the Bengals are concerned, but the problem is that its one less coveted body in the field. MJ is now one of the top DE's left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 looks like a little more than $8M/per year. 4yrs. Not a bad deal as far as the Bengals are concerned, but the problem is that its one less coveted body in the field. MJ is now one of the top DE's left. He was always one of the top DE on the market if not the top. He might have been the best FA available in the entire market after guys started getting tagged. He is just 27 and nowhere near the peak of what he can do. Plus he is at one of the 4 prime positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 looks like a little more than $8M/per year. 4yrs. Not a bad deal as far as the Bengals are concerned, but the problem is that its one less coveted body in the field. MJ is now one of the top DE's left. I would tend to think that the market is the market, and that all of these players, like Michael Bennett and Everson Griffen, had a very good idea what they would be paid if they went elsewhere as well (there was a lot of chatter today about Bennett to the Bears, but he went back to Seattle, so we can even figure that he may have been a little lower with his starting point. In other words, the market for DE's seems to be hovering in the $8/year range right now, and MJ is probably looking at something just north of that regardless of how many teams are interested. A bidding war could erupt, but we aren't going to see him get insane money, because he simply isn't worth that. Lastly, I do think we could expect a marginal hometown discount for MJ, or at least be allowed to meet the best other offer, which may also be what we saw with Bennett. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 The only way I see the Bengals retaining MJ is if he accepts less than what he was offered last year. I don't see that happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 looks like a little more than $8M/per year. 4yrs. Not a bad deal as far as the Bengals are concerned, but the problem is that its one less coveted body in the field. MJ is now one of the top DE's left. Whatever happens, it's clear MJ is not going to make 10+ per. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 In other words, the market for DE's seems to be hovering in the $8/year range right now, and MJ is probably looking at something just north of that regardless of how many teams are interested. A bidding war could erupt, but we aren't going to see him get insane money, because he simply isn't worth that. Lastly, I do think we could expect a marginal hometown discount for MJ, or at least be allowed to meet the best other offer, which may also be what we saw with Bennett. Exactly. Beat me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 The only way I see the Bengals retaining MJ is if he accepts less than what he was offered last year. I don't see that happening. and actually, if they could get him for that deal it would be a pretty good deal for the Bengals at this point. 6yr/$40M, $6.67M per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texbengal Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Michael Bennett is staying in Seattle. MJ just got more expensive. That's funny. Before he landed in Seattle, Bennett was with Tampa. Now, Tampa supposedly will spend mightily for MJ. I love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 That's funny. Before he landed in Seattle, Bennett was with Tampa. Now, Tampa supposedly will spend mightily for MJ. I love it. To be fair, TB did just have a shake-up but you're right. Any Given Offseason. To add: that's why continuity and a clear vision are so critical. A lot of franchises just don't get that. The "lost era" Bengals included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Letting Michael Johnson go doesn't jive with how we normally do things. The only star player we have let go without a kung fu grip was Jonathan Joseph. Everyone else we have opened the check book for. I'm not a big lets go sign a bunch of other team's free agents guy, I think we play things right there. I am a big lets re-sign our own blue chip players in their prime at nearly any cost guy. That's my frustration with this situation. But your frustration is based on the mistaken belief that MJ is a "star player." He is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texbengal Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 To be fair, TB did just have a shake-up but you're right. Any Given Offseason. Bennett was really good from what I saw in Tampa. Shook my head when he walked from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Housh is actually the perfect analogy to MJ 1181. Props. A good player, but one who's highest value was probably right here. Someone else bought the hype, and he went to chase the money, and poof, his career evaporated before we knew it. The greatest reassurance I take into this whole thing is that MJ knows the value of where he's been, and places a premium on that. Like Michael Bennett, he probably sees a better chance for him to keep winning (not to mention fitting in a system, and being part of an already established fraternity) right here at home. I'm guessing he'd be willing to take a little less for that. On the flip-side, like Housh, I'd say that MJ is worth more HERE than anywhere else, and I'm guessing we might normally pay a little more for him for that. The problem may again come down to finances and whether or not the Bengals even think he's worth the $8M/year others are getting FOR THEM. My guess is they told him last year, after he didn't take the deal, well, come back and we'll offer the same deal. Perhaps he could expect to see a little bump from the cap hike, but I'd be shocked if he got $9M plus here, and wouldn't be at all surprised to see him accepting a long term deal here for 7.2 or something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Bennett was really good from what I saw in Tampa. Shook my head when he walked from there. Especially for the, rather modest, contract he signed with SEA. TB must have been toxic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 HA! And right on cue... Bennett turned down more money from two other teams Posted by Mike Florio on March 10, 2014, 4:14 PM EDT Getty Images Last year, defensive end Michael Bennett signed a one-year, $5 million deal in Seattle. This year, he’ll be making a lot more. But he could have made even more. Per a league source, Bennett turned down more money from two teams to re-sign with the Seahawks. One team is believed to be the Bears. The other team currently isn’t known. Bennett will make $28.5 million over four years. He gets $10 million in 2014, $16 million through the first two years, and $21 million over three. Of the total, $16 million is guaranteed. It’s unclear how much is fully guaranteed beyond the first year. It’s an average of $7.125 million per year, less than the $8.5 million average the Vikings paid to defensive end Everson Griffen on a five-year deal. Griffen has one career start, and 17.5 career sacks, all in the last three seasons. Bennett has 23.5 sacks over the last three years. Still, Bennett played in only 57 percent of the snaps last year. The Seahawks presumably intend to keep his workload at the same level. And his compensation likely is based on the idea that he won’t be on the field every down of every drive. Regardless of his workload, Bennett becomes the first Seahawk to take less in order to stay in Seattle. If more do the same, the Seahawks will be well positioned to win more Super Bowls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 IMO, the Bennett signing is much more in line with Reality, and that Vikings deal is starting to look more and more like one of those head-scratchers to start off FA that does little more than confuse people - but that teams end up ignoring as an anomaly. A four year deal might also be a good template for MJ, because that would still give him the chance to sign another 3-4 year deal when it's up (he's pretty young). Reading the PFT article above, it's also intersting to see their notion that he will continue to play a reduced role, whcih is something we hear they are going to do with MJ every year to keep him fresh and primed for pass-rushing, but because of injjuries or whatever never seems to happen. Even if we did get MJ back, it makes a swing DT/DE prospect like Tuitt or even Aaron Donald make good sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 looks like Bennett did indeed take less money to stay in Seattle. Also, DE Jason Babin has voided the last 2 years of his deal in Jacksonville, and is now a free agent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 IMO, the Bennett signing is much more in line with Reality, and that Vikings deal is starting to look more and more like one of those head-scratchers to start off FA that does little more than confuse people - but that teams end up ignoring as an anomaly. A four year deal might also be a good template for MJ, because that would still give him the chance to sign another 3-4 year deal when it's up (he's pretty young). Reading the PFT article above, it's also intersting to see their notion that he will continue to play a reduced role, whcih is something we hear they are going to do with MJ every year to keep him fresh and primed for pass-rushing, but because of injjuries or whatever never seems to happen. Even if we did get MJ back, it makes a swing DT/DE prospect like Tuitt or even Aaron Donald make good sense. Coming out of college Griffen was a project with undeniable athletic ability. It's not so much a "head scratcher" as a "fut14". As we know, Zimmer can spot defensive talent. As for the rest of your post, stack the lines and good things happen. We got dominated there by SD when it mattered. Why not take Tuitt or Donald even if we sign MJ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 As for the rest of your post, stack the lines and good things happen. We got dominated there by SD when it mattered. Why not take Tuitt or Donald even if we sign MJ? I've been saying it all off-season. Draft to your strengths (although I'd agree with you that we weren't quite as strong as we were supposed to be, especially when it counted). In fact, in general, I could be pretty happy with a focus on the lines first draft philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange 'n Black Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 I've been saying it all off-season. Draft to your strengths (although I'd agree with you that we weren't quite as strong as we were supposed to be, especially when it counted). In fact, in general, I could be pretty happy with a focus on the lines first draft philosophy. I'd be real happy with a Donald pick. We're not getting a shot at a top CB, so there's a ton of ways we could go with our first rounder, and why not bolster a strength? Get this guy on the field with Geno, Dunlap, and Hunt/Gilberry/Harrison… who do you block? As far as MJ, I love him too, but the nail in the coffin is that Geathers/Gilberry/Hunt can give you at least 80% of what MJ does for half the price. And Hunt certainly has the potential to give more on his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 PFT now reporting that the bears are looking to trade Julius Peppers and will likely release him if they cant find a partner (they won't at his $$). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.