Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Phatcat

Risk v. Reward Decisions

Recommended Posts

With our beloved team there have been hundreds and hundreds of decisions over the years that we die hard fans debate ad nauseam.  After all we are fans.  Two come to mind in recent history that were very controversial :

 

Pacman and Burfict.    Pacman... for me.... meh.   Never worth the investment required.   Sure he could be electric but never in my opinion was a difference maker worth the investment in such a risk.  Burfict on the other hand had "hall of fame" instincts.   In hind site, I can see Marvin's allure with Burfict.  I can see where Marvin had visions of a truly impact player - playoffs vs. no playoffs.   Was it worth the risk?  I say yes. 

 

Not bad boys in terms of risk.  Shula vs. Taylor at head coach.  A past decision versus now?  

Whitworth vs.  Ogbuehi?  Ok that is a softball question.

Who did we hit out of the park?  Who was worth the risk but failed?  

 

This may go nowhere in terms of conversation but worth a shot.... lol    

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pacman is kind of an enigma.  We got him dirt cheap his first few years.   He was a damn good player who was never an issue on the field.   The Joey Porter thing was utter bullshit so I can't hang that on him.  He played here for 8 years and missed one game due to a suspension.  Missed 8 games in 6 years total due to injury so was pretty reliable.  Plenty of things off the field that made you wince but only 1 game in 8 years.   All Pro and Pro Bowler who also returned punts when asked. 

 

Burfict was an undrafted FA so it wasn't much of an initial investment.  That said Burfict missed 10 games total due to suspension and  27 additional games the last 6 years due to injury.  That is 37 games lost over 6 years or more than 2 seasons.   Guy had all pro talent when he was in his prime, no doubt about it.  He issues were all on the field which caught up with him as his reputation began to create phantom calls. 

 

I never wanted Pacman on this team. I was very upfront about it but in the end, he was a damn fine RELIABLE player for us.  Burfict could have been an all time great Bengal but he just couldn't keep it together for every play and it has become obvious that he is being baited big time by opposing teams,..and it is working. 

 

Biggest reach not counting Ced recently was Jerome Simpson IMHO.  2nd round WR "project" that really never amounted to much other than one ESPN highlight.  It was just a needless pick and the fact that DeSean Jackson was picked 3 spots later stung.  Bad year for WRs. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SF is right: "risk" means little when it is neither monetary or high draft-pick involved. The "reward" can be subjective. People bitch and complaint to this day the selection of Dan Wilkinson. He was a long-time-much-better-than-solid-pro. He produced--just not what the overestimating press thought he would (should). I cannot say he was without "reward". David Klingler was a huge "risk", but due to the state of the franchise, he failed to yield any "reward". 

 

Coaches are no "risk" or "reward" when hired. Whether they turn out to be promising or you shitcan them after a year--the only thing invested is time. It's when you shitcan one and he then goes on to become successful is when the lack of "reward" is felt.        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot about Jerome.  His somersault was truly a highlight.  Another one was Margus Hunt.  

 

I think my biggest miss in terms of expectations was Shula.  I was young, stupid, and hopeful.  Oh my!  The second huge miss I had was Laveranues Coles.  High hopes.  Bengals finally go out and make a big FA move.   Yikes.   Thankfully fellow fans I am not the Bengals GM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Le Tigre said:

SF is right: "risk" means little when it is neither monetary or high draft-pick involved. The "reward" can be subjective. People bitch and complaint to this day the selection of Dan Wilkinson. He was a long-time-much-better-than-solid-pro. He produced--just not what the overestimating press thought he would (should). I cannot say he was without "reward". David Klingler was a huge "risk", but due to the state of the franchise, he failed to yield any "reward". 

 

Coaches are no "risk" or "reward" when hired. Whether they turn out to be promising or you shitcan them after a year--the only thing invested is time. It's when you shitcan one and he then goes on to become successful is when the lack of "reward" is felt.        

 

I totally disagree with you.  Every decision made in the NFL is a risk-reward.  It is a business.  But I guess where I really was going with this is your personal thoughts.  Who were you "banking on".  Really was meant to be a fun discussion.  Not a battle of semantics.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Le Tigre said:

SF is right: "risk" means little when it is neither monetary or high draft-pick involved. The "reward" can be subjective. People bitch and complaint to this day the selection of Dan Wilkinson. He was a long-time-much-better-than-solid-pro. He produced--just not what the overestimating press thought he would (should). I cannot say he was without "reward". David Klingler was a huge "risk", but due to the state of the franchise, he failed to yield any "reward". 

 

Coaches are no "risk" or "reward" when hired. Whether they turn out to be promising or you shitcan them after a year--the only thing invested is time. It's when you shitcan one and he then goes on to become successful is when the lack of "reward" is felt.        

Great point about Big Daddy.  Dude played 195 games.  Missed 7 games in 12 years.  If he had been picked 20th he would have been considered an excellent pro.  Same thing happened to Justin Smith here but he did go on to have GREAT years in SF. 

 

Klinger and Akille killed us.  Old CBA with monsterous rookie contracts that haunted you for years.   I agree about coaches, I don't think it is hard to figure out if they are good or not, particularly if you have good people in the FO.   They are disposable to be honest although the better ones can become whores like Parcells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Phatcat said:

 

I totally disagree with you.  Every decision made in the NFL is a risk-reward.  It is a business.  But I guess where I really was going with this is your personal thoughts.  Who were you "banking on".  Really was meant to be a fun discussion.  Not a battle of semantics.   

At the end of the day, the greatest risk for any franchise is losing substantial salary cap space to bad players and NOT being able to find a decent QB. Neither Pac Man nor Burfict were initially risks to this club.  They could have released either one the first 2 years and barely lost anything.  Both played at pro bowl levels.  Re signing both to big contracts is where the risk came in.  I think they got their money's worth from Pacman but not from Burfict.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it's about the DRAFT

 

One of the biggest mistakes I think was in 2004 and trading down from pick #17 to #24 (they later went down again to #26) and drafting Chris Perry (Mr. Glass), when if the Bengals had stayed put with their original #17 pick they could have drafted DT Vince Wilfork (who went #21) -- a hall of fame talent in the middle and the Bengals biggest need was DT.

 

Another was the 2010 draft, when the Bengals drafted the first TE Jermaine Gresham at pick #21, and the next TE went 21 picks later at #42, Rob Gronkowski. Many thought the Bengals should have went for Gronk instead, and imagine if they had.

 

You could make the argument that the Patriots dynasty was aided by the Bengals draft passes maybe more than any other team with those 2 guys.* 

 

(*They even threw in Corey Dillon for a Patriot rental and 2004 Superbowl champ as well.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marvin (or whoever) drafted a bunch of TE's & none of them have been all that great, for various reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, BlackJesus said:

Many thought the Bengals should have went for Gronk instead, and imagine if they had.

my guess is he never turns into "Gronk" if the Bengals draft him..

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, BlackJesus said:

For me it's about the DRAFT

 

One of the biggest mistakes I think was in 2004 and trading down from pick #17 to #24 (they later went down again to #26) and drafting Chris Perry (Mr. Glass), when if the Bengals had stayed put with their original #17 pick they could have drafted DT Vince Wilfork (who went #21) -- a hall of fame talent in the middle and the Bengals biggest need was DT.

 

 

Or we could have gotten Steven Jackson instead of Chris Perry. 

 

My big risk/reward letdown is Ki-Jana Carter. He was Mr. Glass before Chris Perry. Not only was I at the draft when they moved up to pick him, I was also at the first game in 1998 when he broke his wrist against the Titans. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with Burfict, too bad Marvin couldn't coach him to be a true pro.

Pacman was cheap and played like it. Helped a little and hurt alot when it mattered, total waste.

 

My choice is still Odell Thurman, ML reaching at pick # 50 to find his new franchise LB and missed on an addict he couldn't save. Such a waste.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

Go-Bengals.com on Facebook

Go-Bengals.com on Twitter

×