On to 2024

[MichaelWeston]

Let's chat about 2024

 

Here are our Free Agents. Anyone we wouldn't want back, or who won't get us a comp pick, should be cut, and we should give space to rookies/young guys. 

 

Williams 24-Might want back
Irwin 24-Do want back
Higgins 24-Maybe want back but at least Franchise
Boyd 24-We aren't cutting Boyd, but probably should
Smith 24-CUT immediately
Sample 24-Do want back
Wilcox 24-Might want back
Ford 24-Might want back
Scharping 24-Might want back
Williams 24-Might want back
Tupou 24-Might want back
Reader 24-Do want back
Davis-Gaither 24-Won't be back but comp pick
Bachie 24-Do want back
Bailey 24-Do want back
Awuzie 24-Do want back

 

First order of busines. Cut Irv Smith. 

[Dautcom08]

Cutting Irv Smith won't be necessary.  He's on a one year deal.

 

Presently they'd pick at #18.

[leehop71]

3 hours ago, MichaelWeston said:

Let's chat about 2024

 

Here are our Free Agents. Anyone we wouldn't want back, or who won't get us a comp pick, should be cut, and we should give space to rookies/young guys. 

 

Williams 24-Might want back
Irwin 24-Do want back
Higgins 24-Maybe want back but at least Franchise
Boyd 24-We aren't cutting Boyd, but probably should
Smith 24-CUT immediately
Sample 24-Do want back
Wilcox 24-Might want back
Ford 24-Might want back
Scharping 24-Might want back
Williams 24-Might want back
Tupou 24-Might want back
Reader 24-Do want back
Davis-Gaither 24-Won't be back but comp pick
Bachie 24-Do want back
Bailey 24-Do want back
Awuzie 24-Do want back

 

First order of busines. Cut Irv Smith. 

I’ve been a fan since the beginning!  Fifty-five years and counting. . . “Well there’s always next year!”

[|BlackJesus|]

It likely is ...

 

[claptonrocks]

6 minutes ago, BlackJesus said:

It likely is ...

 

I think he gets an offer from the team.

Still very reliable and great blocker.

Maybe 1 yr ..6mil.

If he gets a better contract so be it.

 

I'm not sold on Charlie Jones but he's on a rook contract so that may play into it.

Why not keep both?

[|BlackJesus|]

[MichaelWeston]

4 hours ago, Dautcom08 said:

Cutting Irv Smith won't be necessary.  He's on a one year deal.

 

Presently they'd pick at #18.

All of those guys listed are free agents. You cut Irv Smith to develop other players. I laid it all out. 

[T-Dub]

1 minute ago, MichaelWeston said:

All of those guys listed are free agents. You cut Irv Smith to develop other players. I laid it all out. 

 

Why not just bench him? Money's mostly gone, might as well keep him as a backup.

[MichaelWeston]

1 hour ago, claptonrocks said:

I think he gets an offer from the team.

Still very reliable and great blocker.

Maybe 1 yr ..6mil.

If he gets a better contract so be it.

 

I'm not sold on Charlie Jones but he's on a rook contract so that may play into it.

Why not keep both?

Here are the WR signings last offseason

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2023/all/wide-receiver//

He will be 29. I think he will get 6-10 million for maybe a 3 year contract?

Length probably causes us to bow out but maybe he won't get a 3 year deal. A load of slot WRs entered the league this lat year and they are having a ton of success. 

 

If you keep Boyd I think you feel much better about letting Higgins walk. 

 

Slot WR is much easier to fill than outside WR though. Here is just a sample of the FAs I have marked as interesting so far. 

Mooney-Bears

Miller-Falcons

Dortch-Cardinals

Campbell-Giants

Boyd-Bengals

Samuel-Commanders

[MichaelWeston]

9 minutes ago, T-Dub said:

 

Why not just bench him? Money's mostly gone, might as well keep him as a backup.

We have 4 TEs on the roster right now. We certainly don't need that. What do you gain by keeping him?

[HereSince68]

2 hours ago, leehop71 said:

I’ve been a fan since the beginning!  Fifty-five years and counting. . . “Well there’s always next year!”

Same!  I was 15 when they came to town.  And I watched them play at Nippert.  I'm a native Cincinnatian and I graduated from UC in 1975 and I've said that WAY too many times.  It's been painful more often than I want to remember

 

Who Dey for life!!!!!

[T-Dub]

41 minutes ago, MichaelWeston said:

We have 4 TEs on the roster right now. We certainly don't need that. What do you gain by keeping him?

 

A high quality tackling dummy for practice?

[leehop71]

9 hours ago, HereSince68 said:

Same!  I was 15 when they came to town.  And I watched them play at Nippert.  I'm a native Cincinnatian and I graduated from UC in 1975 and I've said that WAY too many times.  It's been painful more often than I want to remember

 

Who Dey for life!!!!!

I was a month from 15 in September of 1968 T-Dub!

 

Dad and I switched from Frank Ryan, Leroy Kelley and the boys to the Bengals because of PB!

By the way, I mis-counted.  This is year 57 for them, which makes it even worse!

 

First 54 years, 5 playoff wins.

Years 55 and 56 also 5 playoff wins!

[MichaelWeston]

Loving hte history. 

[|High School Harry|]

4 hours ago, MichaelWeston said:

Loving hte history. 

[claptonrocks]

20 hours ago, MichaelWeston said:

We have 4 TEs on the roster right now. We certainly don't need that. What do you gain by keeping him?

Nothing..he's a total bust here.

Hudson is more reliable.

 

I hope he never sets foot on the field here again.

[Jamie_B]

Here is a what your FA market for tackles looks like. (No idea why there are some guard in this list)

 

Do we actually think any of these guys are better than Jonah? 

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/all/tackle//

 

If not then he is getting paid, and if we need to reserve some of that money for Jamar, guess what? Right tackle has to be drafted.

[Jamie_B]

With Boyd gone, Higgins maybe gone. Here is your WR market.

 

I like the guy who just killed us two weeks ago to replace Boyd, for a few years. Give Noah Brown a 3 year deal, he wont be super expensive, and I think the Texans have some guys ahead of him that when healthy keep him from having as much playing time, so I think he can be got.

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/all/wide-receiver//

[Le Tigre]

The question begs: why buy someone else’s diminished product? Why not re-invest in what you already have? 
 

Oh yeah…cost. Gotta save that for the guy who will now be double/triple teamed to death because there are no other receivers because…well…they cost too much? 

[Jamie_B]

1 minute ago, Le Tigre said:

The question begs: why buy someone else’s diminished product? Why not re-invest in what you already have? 
 

Oh yeah…cost. Gotta save that for the guy who will now be double/triple teamed to death because there are no other receivers because…well…they cost too much? 

 

Are you going to be THAT guy all offseason?

 

The reality is putting all of your money into one position group is going to mean not having money for other position groups. And unless those other groups are filled with players who are on their rookie contracts and are balling out on those contracts, you're going to have one position group that isn't that good.

 

You pay your best players sure, but you have to manage it in a way that doesn't hurt the OVERALL team. 

 

And then you weigh that against is a guy that you might get in FA just "someone else's diminished product" or is he not able to stay with his current team because of cap reasons. 

 

Because I very seriously doubt you would call DJ Reader or Trey Henrickson "someone else's diminished product"

 

Also, Noah Brown just ate our lunch two weeks ago, I would not call him "someone else's diminished product"

[Le Tigre]

1 hour ago, Jamie_B said:

Give Noah Brown a 3 year deal, he wont be super expensive, and I think the Texans have some guys ahead of him that when healthy keep him from having as much playing time, so I think he can be got.

This is what you just posted. If they are going to “have some guys ahead of him…” then he isn’t really valuable, is he? Of course he’ll be “cheaper”—but he doesn’t equal who he is replacing (in baseball, it’s called WAR—wins above replacement). And you mentioned nothing about his potential cap hit in HOU. 
 

36 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

Because I very seriously doubt you would call DJ Reader or Trey Henrickson "someone else's diminished product"

That is silly. Those two were just hitting their rise in playing quality when signed. 
 

The one position group you think will be overpaid for at the cost of “somewhere else”, will indeed be overpaid for at the cost of somewhere else—in the singular person of #1. And I fully anticipate the excuses when a rock-solid NT goes bye-bye because of needing “money for Uno”. 
 

And the ever-enduring “draft for players at rookie costs”. As has been going on since the dawn of time, even the top players at a position such as defensive line and offensive line need a lot of time to become the people one envisions them to be. In the meantime, you have to fill their spots with the amazing likes of Zack Carter and Myles Murphy—when you already have finished products on the field. Oh yeah, there’s that “cost” thing again. 
 

The overused phrase “you can’t keep everybody” is accurate. However, if you have no WAR pieces ready to go, it’s dog-chasing-tail. They didn’t have these types in the deep secondary especially because of “cost”. All this led to was Nick Scott. 
 

I must be “that guy” then, but I don’t think I’m wrong either. 

[Jamie_B]

42 minutes ago, Le Tigre said:

This is what you just posted. If they are going to “have some guys ahead of him…” then he isn’t really valuable, is he? Of course he’ll be “cheaper”—but he doesn’t equal who he is replacing (in baseball, it’s called WAR—wins above replacement). And you mentioned nothing about his potential cap hit in HOU. 
 

That is silly. Those two were just hitting their rise in playing quality when signed. 
 

The one position group you think will be overpaid for at the cost of “somewhere else”, will indeed be overpaid for at the cost of somewhere else—in the singular person of #1. And I fully anticipate the excuses when a rock-solid NT goes bye-bye because of needing “money for Uno”. 
 

And the ever-enduring “draft for players at rookie costs”. As has been going on since the dawn of time, even the top players at a position such as defensive line and offensive line need a lot of time to become the people one envisions them to be. In the meantime, you have to fill their spots with the amazing likes of Zack Carter and Myles Murphy—when you already have finished products on the field. Oh yeah, there’s that “cost” thing again. 
 

The overused phrase “you can’t keep everybody” is accurate. However, if you have no WAR pieces ready to go, it’s dog-chasing-tail. They didn’t have these types in the deep secondary especially because of “cost”. All this led to was Nick Scott. 
 

I must be “that guy” then, but I don’t think I’m wrong either. 

 

*sigh*

 

So we're doing this.

 

They have Nico Collins and Tank Dell, both of them are 24 years old on their first contract (remember that position group on their rookie deall balling out thing I was talking about?) There is no real reason for them to keep Brown because they have two guys who are younger and cheaper and balling out. That does not diminish Brown still being a good WR, it means they can save money to use in other places by not re-upping him. I mean he just put up 153 yards against Tampa and 172 against us, all we would be asking him to do is come in and be the #3 as a gap player so that we can use our draft picks on positions that are more immediately important. 

 

So it's as simple as this. Tyler Boyd or Noah Brown. Who is younger, cheaper, and will get you the most production for your WR3 spot for lets say 3 years while we fill out other position groups? Or do you feel so good about Yoshi and Charlie Jones that you have no issue with not keeping or going after either of the other guys and you just let them slide into #3 and #4 (Unless we decide to keep Irwin if he doesn't find a better opportunity for himself) and expect little to no drop off, or at least have either or both of them producing at the levels of the current vets at least some time in the next season?

 

The argument of paying Chase vs not paying him so we can keep Reader is what is actually silly. Chase is a top 5 at his position, Reader is a rock-solid NT who is 29 years old. I'd love to keep DJ, but at a reasonable price for his age and 3rd contract. If you can do that and still pay Chase his money, do it. But that's on DJ to accept a deal like that rather than going out and getting another payday. And if DJ wants another payday, I can't fault him for it, but I'm also not going to risk losing a guy who is top 5 at his position for a rock solid 29 year old NT, because I know father time is undefeated and I think it's best to try to find his eventual replacement soon.

 

When planning a team you have to look at what is available in FA, what is the strength of the draft in positions that you may need either immediately if you are drafting at the top of the draft or in a year or two if you are drafting at the bottom of the draft. We are losing ALOT of impact players that some we simply cant afford to keep, and some that are getting closer to 30. Now in some cases keeping a guy nearing 30 on a mid to short term deal makes sense (DJ Reader) in some cases those guys are still looking for another pay day and you have to weigh what is a good idea for the team and what is not.

 

Yeah Zach Carter is a bust at this point not going to argue otherwise. He also wasn't drafted to be a NT, he was drafted to be a 3-tech Larry Ogunjobi replacement. You'd have a better argument if you brought up Tyler Shelvin. But then I'm just going to remind you (again) that having a better scouting department can help not miss out as often on guys and that we still have a long way to go in that area for all the changes the organization has made over the years, that is still a problem. If we want to have a team that gets in the playoffs and wins in them year after year, you have to address that.

 

And I agree Reader and Henrickson were coming on, which is exactly why they are not  "someone else's diminished product". But at the same time there are going to be guys on your team who are bridge type players that allow you time to find a better and younger player while addressing more immediate needs. That's just the reality of having a salary cap, and for a small to mid market team like the Bengals we all should be thankful for having that salary cap so we can at least compete.

 

The bottom line here is you pay your guy who are top in their position and who are still young and you build around that, and sometimes that means letting good but older players go and sometimes that means finding bridge players who can contribute something.

 

We have now made Joe the 2nd highest paid player at his position (after Mahomes redid his deal), we are going to make Jamar at least a top 5 paid at his position. That means if we dont want that "window" to close, we have to get REALLY good at drafting and REALLY good at finding FAs that are not super expensive but can contribute. And I agree, that is not Nick Scott.

 

You're really only making my point about fixing the front office infrastructure to at least be middle of the league in terms of number of scouts for me. And more scouts doesn't automatically mean they are better at scouting but it does mean that you lower the potential impact of the whole scouting department being bad.

[Mikeslumina]

With sixth pick bengals select Harrison jr  wr. I wish but if tee gone and he was there. Can we just take lineman with every pick at this point?

[Le Tigre]

15 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

 

*sigh*

 

So we're doing this.

 

They have Nico Collins and Tank Dell, both of them are 24 years old on their first contract (remember that position group on their rookie deall balling out thing I was talking about?) There is no real reason for them to keep Brown because they have two guys who are younger and cheaper and balling out. That does not diminish Brown still being a good WR, it means they can save money to use in other places by not re-upping him. I mean he just put up 153 yards against Tampa and 172 against us, all we would be asking him to do is come in and be the #3 as a gap player so that we can use our draft picks on positions that are more immediately important. 

 

So it's as simple as this. Tyler Boyd or Noah Brown. Who is younger, cheaper, and will get you the most production for your WR3 spot for lets say 3 years while we fill out other position groups? Or do you feel so good about Yoshi and Charlie Jones that you have no issue with not keeping or going after either of the other guys and you just let them slide into #3 and #4 (Unless we decide to keep Irwin if he doesn't find a better opportunity for himself) and expect little to no drop off, or at least have either or both of them producing at the levels of the current vets?

 

The argument of paying Chase vs not paying him so we can keep Reader is what is actually silly. Chase is a top 5 at his position, Reader is a rock-solid NT who is 29 years old. I'd love to keep DJ, but at a reasonable price for his age and 3rd contract. If you can do that and still pay Chase his money, do it. But that's on DJ to accept a deal like that rather than going out and getting another payday. And if DJ wants another payday, I can't fault him for it, but I'm also not going to risk losing a guy who is top 5 at his position for a rock solid 29 year old NT, because I know father time is undefeated and I think it's best to try to find his eventual replacement soon.

 

When planning a team you have to look at what is available in FA, what is the strength of the draft in positions that you may need either immediately if you are drafting at the top of the draft or in a year or two if you are drafting at the bottom of the draft. We are losing ALOT of impact players that some we simply cant afford to keep, and some that are getting closer to 30. Now in some cases keeping a guy nearing 30 on a mid to short term deal makes sense (DJ Reader) in some cases those guys are still looking for another pay day and you have to weigh what is a good idea for the team and what is not.

 

Yeah Zach Carter is a bust at this point not going to argue otherwise. He also wasn't drafted to be a NT, he was drafted to be a 3-tech Larry Ogunjobi replacement. You'd have a better argument if you brought up Tyler Shelvin. But then I'm just going to remind you (again) that having a better scouting department can help not miss out as often on guys and that we still have a long way to go in that area for all the changes the organization has made over the years, that is still a problem. If we want to have a team that gets in the playoffs and wins in them year after year, you have to address that.

 

And I agree Reader and Henrickson were coming on, which is exactly why they are not  "someone else's diminished product". But at the same time there are going to be guys on your team who are bridge type players that allow you time to find a better and younger player while addressing more immediate needs. That's just the reality of having a salary cap, and for a small to mid market team like the Bengals we all should be thankful for having that salary cap so we can at least compete.

 

The bottom line here is you pay your guy who are top in their position and who are still young and you build around that, and sometimes that means letting good but older players go and sometimes that means finding bridge players who can contribute something.

 

We have now made Joe the 2nd highest paid player at his position (after Mahomes redid his deal), we are going to make Jamar at least a top 5 paid at his position. That means if we dont want that "window" to close, we have to get REALLY good at drafting and REALLY good at finding FAs that are not super expensive but can contribute. And I agree, that is not Nick Scott.

 

You're really only making my point about fixing the front office infrastructure to at least be middle of the league in terms of number of scouts for me. And more scouts doesn't automatically mean they are better at scouting but it does mean that you lower the potential impact of the whole scouting department being bad.

Fair dinkum. That is a good analysis. 
 

I guess I just watch too much baseball—where top-tier pitchers are allowed to go elsewhere—for not much difference in cost, only to be replaced by significantly lower cost/lower quality. This, when it was so easy to have kept the pitcher. 
 

The Reds, for example, seem all-in on a high-end starting pitcher (as yet not identified) but at the cost of their decently adequate infield. It is illogical 

[Jamie_B]

Just now, Le Tigre said:

 

Fair dinkum. That is a good analysis. 
 

I guess I just watch too much baseball—where top-tier pitchers are allowed to go elsewhere—for not much difference in cost, only to be replaced by significantly lower cost/lower quality. This, when it was so easy to have kept the pitcher. 
 

The Reds, for example, seem all-in on a high-end starting pitcher (as yet not identified) but at the cost of their decently adequate infield. It is illogical 

 

I hope they keep Abbot to be honest. Having Green and Abbot as your 1 and 2 would be close to having Maddox and Glavin. 

 

Also depends on what they have that is ready to come up from the minors. I like our young infield but it sounds like some of our minor leaguers could contribute soon. I'd love to keep India but I just dont see where there is room for him, so I'd love to trade him for some rotational depth or some minor leaguers that might turn into gems down the line.