Big Alice Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 Per PFT. Link coming shortly http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/11/bucs-cut-michael-johnson-a-year-after-signing-him/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 Come on home son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBengal Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 Chances of MJ returning? It's got to be like 75% right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turningpoint Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 Chances of MJ returning? It's got to be like 75% right? I'd say 90%, what team wants a guy who only recorded 4 sacks making $9million a year. He'll be lucky to get $5-6 million I think and i believe the bengals would be willing to offer that. I think it will go up to 97% if Fairley leaves without a contract. MJ93 will become their scapegoat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnickyCat Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 I'd say 90%, what team wants a guy who only recorded 4 sacks making $9million a year. He'll be lucky to get $5-6 million I think and i believe the bengals would be willing to offer that. I think it will go up to 97% if Fairley leaves without a contract. MJ93 will become their scapegoat. I think they very well could get Fairley and MJ93. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_dish Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 Sweet. Bring those 3.5 sacks per year back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThurmanMunster Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 I think they only sign 1 or the other not both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Alice Posted March 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 Sweet. Bring those 3.5 sacks per year back Sigh... The masses are pining for Derrick Morgan (4.6 sacks/year) and Jabaal Sheard (5.75 sacks/year), but turn your nose up at Michael Johnson (5.1 sacks/year). It's also worth noting that Johnson has one more double digit sack year than the other two combined. Yeah, I understand the logic. Perfectly. Or not. Especially since there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT he'll be the cheapest of the bunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dautcom08 Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 If they sign Fairley I don't see what the point of Peko is with Thompson in the rooster too. Could sign both if cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 The St. Paul Pioneer Press reports the Vikings will be in the running for free agent DE Michael Johnson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Hopeful Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 We can get Fairley and MJ. Just cut/restructure Hall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 Hall = 7.8 Peko = 3.7 V. Rey = 2.6 Gilberry = 1.85 Total = 15.95M That's a lot of fat to cut loose, and when you start talking about making sacrifices to bring in other guys, not as painful to think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Alice Posted March 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 If they sign Fairley I don't see what the point of Peko is with Thompson in the rooster too. Could sign both if cut. I don't think you're suggesting the Bengals should cut Brandon Thompson. Or are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Alice Posted March 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 The St. Paul Pioneer Press reports the Vikings will be in the running for free agent DE Michael Johnson. I have no doubt they'll be sniffing around. They haven't managed to poach anyone yet. I hope it doesn't start now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_dish Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 Sigh... The masses are pining for Derrick Morgan (4.6 sacks/year) and Jabaal Sheard (5.75 sacks/year), but turn your nose up at Michael Johnson (5.1 sacks/year). It's also worth noting that Johnson has one more double digit sack year than the other two combined. Yeah, I understand the logic. Perfectly. Or not. Especially since there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT he'll be the cheapest of the bunch. I'm not saying I would hate it, I'm saying bring those 3.5 sacks here. And, it shouldn't be about the cheapest anymore for a team trying to win a playoff game finally. It should be about the biggest impact. And of those three, I personally think MJ has the least impact- and we've seen it. I would rather go with pass rush upside over pass rush mediocrity, but it's not my money so, whatever. Adding guys that were never special back to the team doesn't get them over the hump. MJ is not much different than Rey Maualuga. Decent at this job but not a playmaker or game changer. The other guys, and Hardy, have much more upside as far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Alice Posted March 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 I'm not saying I would hate it, I'm saying bring those 3.5 sacks here. And, it shouldn't be about the cheapest anymore for a team trying to win a playoff game finally. It should be about the biggest impact. And of those three, I personally think MJ has the least impact- and we've seen it. I would rather go with pass rush upside over pass rush mediocrity, but it's not my money so, whatever. Adding guys that were never special back to the team doesn't get them over the hump. MJ is not much different than Rey Maualuga. Decent at this job but not a playmaker or game changer. The other guys, and Hardy, have much more upside as far as I'm concerned. I don't completely disagree. However, when the best options available are Morgan and Sheard, I'll take Michael Johnson. Frankly if they weren't free agents this year, how many fans would even know these guys' names. None of the three are world beaters. We've flogged the Greg Hardy horse... That fucker is dead. The Bengals don't seem interested in signing him today, and weren't yesterday. Or the day before. That leads me to believe they're not ever going to be willing to look past his off the field issues. Every team has got to consider the guy as a "yes/no" proposition. It looks like the Bengals fall into the "no" camp. It's hard to argue with that. After all, not only will he always be on thin ice, he's still facing a suspension from the league. I said before that I'd be the guy's biggest fan if he was a Bengal. I have no doubt about his ability. I also have no doubt that he's a fucking idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 We've flogged the Greg Hardy horse... That fucker is dead. The Bengals don't seem interested in signing him today, and weren't yesterday. Or the day before. 6 teams are reportedly interested and yet he hasn't visited and we don't know which teams. In other words, you are jumping to conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluhartz Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 6 teams are reportedly interested and yet he hasn't visited and we don't know which teams. In other words, you are jumping to conclusions. best game ever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 6 teams are reportedly interested and yet he hasn't visited and we don't know which teams. In other words, you are jumping to conclusions. no bigger a jump than thinking the Bengals are interested. I'm all for Hardy but the Bengals haven't been on the interest list so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 When Geno was healthy an MJ played a lot he had 10 sacks. Healthy Geno and Fairley? I think MJ does well. Plus he does all the other DE stuff quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 When Geno was healthy an MJ played a lot he had 10 sacks. Healthy Geno and Fairley? I think MJ does well. Plus he does all the other DE stuff quite well. He probably destroys the world being paired with those two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Alice Posted March 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 6 teams are reportedly interested and yet he hasn't visited and we don't know which teams. In other words, you are jumping to conclusions. So there's 6 teams in the "yes" category? OK. What conclusion have I jumped to? That the Bengals aren't one of them? I'm not stating it as fact - just speaking as a dude that's watched this team operate for 43 years. Mike Brown doesn't like opening the checkbook for free agents in the first place. Add to that the fact that he'll have to deal with a shit ton of negative press AND a suspension that he KNOWS is coming... I don't see it. Let me be 100% clear. I'll be the happiest MFer here if I'm wrong. Still... I don't see it. no bigger a jump than thinking the Bengals are interested. Holy shit! Did you just defend me? Is it my friggin' birthday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkansas Bengal Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 Mike Johnson cut loose as Bengals crunch numbers Posted 3 minutes ago Geoff Hobson Editor Bengals.com As soon as the Bengals announced their raft of signings Wednesday, the Buccaneers released right end Michael Johnson but that doesn’t automatically mean his return to stripes. It’s believed both sides are interested in a re-union after Johnson’s one-year hiatus in Tampa Bay that cost the Bucs $16 million. This is a mutual admiration society, but now that Johnson is on the open market he’ll have other suitors and the Bengals have to work through some numbers in the wake of Wednesday’s activities. It would appear they are down to one more signing after they announced their deals with left guard Clint Boling and linebacker A.J. Hawk. Boling’s numbers have been reported at five years, $26 million with a salary cap hit this year believed to be about $5.5 million. Linebacker A.J. Hawk is at $3.75 million for two years with a cap hit of $1.8 million for 2015, reports say. That is on top of deals for middle linebacker Rey Maualuga (reported as $6.8 million cap hit), kicker Mike Nugent ($2 million) and offensive tackle Eric Winston ($1 million). Those signings represent a cap hit of about $17 million, about what the Bengals had budgeted to spend in free agency. So figure they’ve got room for one more player, but it can’t be at an exorbitant price that is usually reserved for the first week of free agency. Former mates have said Johnson would love to return to Cincinnati after a rough year in Tampa with just four sacks. But with other clubs now involved, it remains to be seen how it plays out. The Bengals certainly can’t get into the $7 million per year neighborhood, which is where they were before he opted for Tampa a year. The Bengals hosted Lions defensive tackle Nick Fairley Wednesday, but it looks like the brakes are on until they can figure out if they can re-sign Johnson. Although Johnson had just 3.5 sacks in his last of five seasons in Cincinnati in 2013, the Bengals missed his 90-percent play-time at right end that allowed other players to excel in complementary roles. http://www.bengals.com/news/article-1/Mike-Johnson-cut-loose-as-Bengals-crunch-numbers/97bcd0d0-5281-41fe-ab40-679e800e19f0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 no bigger a jump than thinking the Bengals are interested. I'm all for Hardy but the Bengals haven't been on the interest list so far. As usual, you're only capable of dichotomous thinking. I know this will come as a shock to you, but saying something is not x does not suddenly mean that it is the opposite of x. Just because I'm saying something is not black does not mean I'm saying it's white. Show me where I said they ARE interested. I realize this is the central tool you use to make any of your arguments, but it still doesn't stand up. I just hope for your sake you don't do this in real life too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkansas Bengal Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 Cut Margus Hunt and sign Johnson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.