B.A.B. Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 This guy is like our 6th or 7th option on offense if that. Just...no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coup000 Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 :doh: Because at the 2nd round tender who won't get offers. At the original round tender he will get offers and did, that's why. The 2nd round tender gives him more money and less suitors. He has less incentive to sign a longterm deal. He has more incentive to wait out the year and become an unrestricted free agent in 2014. He would get our offer. Incentive to sign a long term is a $5M check and eliminating the risk of injury or being out of the league next year, whether he has 1 or 400 suitors, it doesn't matter. Somehow declaring that there is no chance that he would be agreebale to a long term deal with us had we given him an extra 800k tender is totally baseless. Players give up freedom later for cash now all the time and that is what he, hypothetically, would have been doing. Someone else made the point that the Bengals wouldn't have been willing to offer him that much had another team not forced them, that is a valid, and interesting, point. But that gets us right back to the original question....did the Bengals value him correctly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatorclaws Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 If Sproles gets released, I'd look at him as an option instead of Hawk.... depending on price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 He would get our offer. Incentive to sign a long term is a $5M check and eliminating the risk of injury or being out of the league next year, whether he has 1 or 400 suitors, it doesn't matter. Somehow declaring that there is no chance that he would be agreebale to a long term deal with us had we given him an extra 800k tender is totally baseless. Players give up freedom later for cash now all the time and that is what he, hypothetically, would have been doing. Someone else made the point that the Bengals wouldn't have been willing to offer him that much had another team not forced them, that is a valid, and interesting, point. But that gets us right back to the original question....did the Bengals value him correctly? Probably not. But what they did do, quite clearly, was let him go ahead and let the market determine the price. The price was higher than they thought, I'd guess (and no thanks from the regularly over-paying Browns), but, all things considered, it sounds like a price they are still willing to pay. So you can infer that they were hoping to pay him less, but they were willing to pay him what he's getting (assuming they're ACTUALLY going to match, which during the funny season is a risky thing to do IMO). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khatmandude Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 He would get our offer. Incentive to sign a long term is a $5M check and eliminating the risk of injury or being out of the league next year, whether he has 1 or 400 suitors, it doesn't matter. Somehow declaring that there is no chance that he would be agreebale to a long term deal with us had we given him an extra 800k tender is totally baseless. Players give up freedom later for cash now all the time and that is what he, hypothetically, would have been doing. Someone else made the point that the Bengals wouldn't have been willing to offer him that much had another team not forced them, that is a valid, and interesting, point. But that gets us right back to the original question....did the Bengals value him correctly? Props to you, you were right that the team may have undervalued Hawkins' market and it seems they did. Now may be forced to match a bad contract for a player, who will not see many balls his way, because it's a division rival. Bad management of the situation if you ask me. And at this point, I let Hawkins walk and sign with Cleveland. I'd rather use that 5mil this year on a more vital player and position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coup000 Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 Probably not. But what they did do, quite clearly, was let him go ahead and let the market determine the price. The price was higher than they thought, I'd guess (and no thanks from the regularly over-paying Browns), but, all things considered, it sounds like a price they are still willing to pay. So you can infer that they were hoping to pay him less, but they were willing to pay him what he's getting (assuming they're ACTUALLY going to match, which during the funny season is a risky thing to do IMO). Completely agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tigre Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 I'd rather use that 5mil this year on a more vital player and position. On who, what, and when? Not singling you out Khat...I have just seen this qualifier by many on multitudinous posts, but have not seen an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 On who, what, and when? Not singling you out Khat...I have just seen this qualifier by many on multitudinous posts, but have not seen an answer. Alex Mack, of course. (when in doubt, he is now the facetious answer to every FA thread question). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 Alex Mack, of course. (when in doubt, he is now the facetious answer to every FA thread question). I miss the days when that answer was "LaVar Arrington". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 I miss the days when that answer was "LaVar Arrington". That got beat to death so badly it became funny all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tigre Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 Alex Mack, of course. (when in doubt, he is now the facetious answer to every FA thread question). With McFadden on deck and Blount in the hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 But seriously... A line of Whit-Pollak-Mack-Zeitler-Andre would be a SERIOUS upgrade to what we've had around here for a while. Speaking of which, I'm still HUGELY in favor of taking a powerful LG, even as high as the first round, if Hue thinks Pollak (or Robinson, or TJ Johnson, or anyone but Cook (YAY!!) will work at Center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khatmandude Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 On who, what, and when? Not singling you out Khat...I have just seen this qualifier by many on multitudinous posts, but have not seen an answer. I haven't thought that far ahead :lol: But to spend 5mil this year on your 5th or so option on offense is a little silly IMO and unwise use of resources. Can use the money towards extending Burfict, or Green, there are a variety of things that can be done with not having to match a bad contract on Hawkins. Hawkins making 5million this year and 7.1mil over 2 yrs? That's a bit much IMO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 But seriously... A line of Whit-Pollak-Mack-Zeitler-Andre would be a SERIOUS upgrade to what we've had around here for a while. Speaking of which, I'm still HUGELY in favor of taking a powerful LG, even as high as the first round, if Hue thinks Pollak (or Robinson, or TJ Johnson, or anyone but Cook (YAY!!) will work at Center. One of the CBS guys mocked http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1664298/xavier-su#146;a-filo Xavier Su'a Filo to us. Who I know very little about. It's an interesting idea but seems unlikely. I think Whits destined to be the LG sooner than later and for locker room and on field purposes filling that spot doesn't make a ton of sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 One of the CBS guys mocked http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1664298/xavier-su#146;a-filo Xavier Su'a Filo to us. Who I know very little about. It's an interesting idea but seems unlikely. I think Whits destined to be the LG sooner than later and for locker room and on field purposes filling that spot doesn't make a ton of sense. Unless you can't find a suitable LT prospect in the draft, which at 24 is likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|SF2| Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 Getting more touches to Hawkins means less touches to guys like Gresh, Eifert and Sanu. Just can't justify it to be honest. My only reason for matching Cleveland would be to keep him off of an AFC North rival who desperately needs options at WR unlike us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 Unless you can't find a suitable LT prospect in the draft, which at 24 is likely. Agreed. With Collins looking to be moving on Whit will be the full time LT this season no matter what happens in the draft. I do think we need to be looking for a down the road replacement however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 Unless you can't find a suitable LT prospect in the draft, which at 24 is likely. But then you are drafting for a position that you expect your LT to be at within the next few years. Seems as redundant as a Tyler Eifert choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalsCat Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 Honestly I dont think hawk is a gimmick. I think hes the type of dynamic reciever that we were looking for when we drafted peter warrick. The offer sheet is a bit much for him as our slot/4th wr but not so much that I would let him go to the stains Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcarpenter62 Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 Getting more touches to Hawkins means less touches to guys like Gresh, Eifert and Sanu. Just can't justify it to be honest. My only reason for matching Cleveland would be to keep him off of an AFC North rival who desperately needs options at WR unlike us. I disagree re: the number of touches. Hawkins = another weapon on a given play that has to be accounted for... and a weapon that is a mismatch for defenses. That = more first downs for the offense period. I truly believe that Hawkins is a matchup nightmare b/c he can be used in so many ways that "normal" wideouts aren't. The think I like so much about it is that he and Gio at the same time give 2 of those type options. It is tough to account for when you need to pay so much attention to AJ on every play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 This guy is like our 6th or 7th option on offense if that. Just...no. He was under Gruden. Because he started the year hurt. Hue values speed. If he stays healthy all year, it would not surprise me at all if he is option 3 or 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 Getting more touches to Hawkins means less touches to guys like Gresh, Eifert and Sanu. Just can't justify it to be honest. My only reason for matching Cleveland would be to keep him off of an AFC North rival who desperately needs options at WR unlike us. Maybe this will help. No one else on the team has more ability to turn a 5 yard pass into a 70 yard TD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|SF2| Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 Maybe this will help. No one else on the team has more ability to turn a 5 yard pass into a 70 yard TD. While true, I thought the goal was to run the ball more this year. If we actually PLAN to use Hawkins more than so be it but 12 receptions in 8 games doesn't equal what Cleveland is willing to pay him regardless of his explosive abilities. If we do match then I think we know the answer. Never said the guy couldn't be a heck of a weapon, just didn't like the fact we failed to do so very often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcarpenter62 Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 Maybe this will help. No one else on the team has more ability to turn a 5 yard pass into a 70 yard TD. Agreed... and he also is far and away the most likely (of the WR/TE's) to take the quick dump pass to avoid a sack on 3rd and a bunch and turn it into a first down (or at least better field position). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 While true, I thought the goal was to run the ball more this year. If we actually PLAN to use Hawkins more than so be it but 12 receptions in 8 games doesn't equal what Cleveland is willing to pay him regardless of his explosive abilities. If we do match then I think we know the answer. Never said the guy couldn't be a heck of a weapon, just didn't like the fact we failed to do so very often. Yeah, they need to use him more. I think they planned to last year before he got hurt. By the time he was back the offense was in something of a rhythm. And I also know Hue puts a premium on speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.