History has shown that teams who are the free agent champs, are nowhere close to being champs on the field and seem to not even make the playoffs. I do think the Bengals can go out and sign a few guys who could help fill some roles on this team though.

History has shown that teams who are the free agent champs, are nowhere close to being champs on the field and seem to not even make the playoffs. I do think the Bengals can go out and sign a few guys who could help fill some roles on this team though.

Except for the Pats right?

Interesting article if you are a Bengals fan.

 

I read a lot of the articles posted on that site and I usually disagree with much of what they have on there. There is only two or three guys on this list that I agree could be good guys to go get, other than most of them just seem like it would be a waste to me.

 

The three I would want would be Hardy because he is a guy we could get for a decent price but would also make plays on the field assuming he is aloud to play. Ryan Mallett because he would be a good backup to Dalton and possibly could be a good one to take over. He is not that mobile, but since the Bengals do a lot of quick 3 step drops, he doesn't have to hold on to the ball to long anyways. Then the third one would be Anthony Fasano assuming Gresham leaves. Other than that, I wouldn't put any of the guys on a list that is suppose to be a wishlist?

Except for the Pats right?

 

When have they gone out and been a team that fixes their team by getting a lot of guys through free agency? They have put most of their team together through the draft and they did add an important part in Revis last year though. The times they do go through free agency they usually can get a talented veteran to come in for cheaper than most teams can get a guy, because that guy wants to win a super bowl. To get top free agents most teams have to break the bank to get a guy. The Pats have built through the draft, and occasionally get a free agent that truly helps like Revis.

When have they gone out and been a team that fixes their team by getting a lot of guys through free agency? They have put most of their team together through the draft and they did add an important part in Revis last year though. The times they do go through free agency they usually can get a talented veteran to come in for cheaper than most teams can get a guy, because that guy wants to win a super bowl. To get top free agents most teams have to break the bank to get a guy. The Pats have built through the draft, and occasionally get a free agent that truly helps like Revis.

 

Well, you're wrong if you say that the Pats aren't active in free agency. They're very active. Not difficult to look up. Secondly, they are very matter of fact with their own FA and that includes cutting bait with vets if need be. See Wilfork currently. They may not make retarded deals like the fins did with Mike Wallace for instance, but you're totally wrong on the notion that teams active in FA can't make hay. The Pats do it better than anyone, IMO. Now, they are brilliant in their draft strategy, which is a major key. But again, solid and shrewd in free agency. If your point is that some teams are stupid (Redskins, Dolphins) then I agree. But the rest of your notion is silly.

Here FC, see for yourself. I'll link a site that shows all the FA over the years for the Pats. Active is an understatement.

 

The New England Patriots

Well, you're wrong if you say that the Pats aren't active in free agency. They're very active. Not difficult to look up. Secondly, they are very matter of fact with their own FA and that includes cutting bait with vets if need be. See Wilfork currently. They may not make retarded deals like the fins did with Mike Wallace for instance, but you're totally wrong on the notion that teams active in FA can't make hay. The Pats do it better than anyone, IMO. Now, they are brilliant in their draft strategy, which is a major key. But again, solid and shrewd in free agency. If your point is that some teams are stupid (Redskins, Dolphins) then I agree. But the rest of your notion is silly.

 

Can you please tell me what and how the rest of my notion is silly? I clearly said that teams are usually crowned the free agency champs usually don't get it done on the field. The Pats are never usually crowned as a free agent champ by all the big free agent signings they do. Teams like the Bucs last year, Dolphins two years ago, Redskins as you said, and then Philly a few years ago, etc. All went out and signed a bunch of guys who were suppose to make their team so much better and then those teams fell flat on their face. Never once did I say free agency doesn't help at all and how you have seem to take it that way I don't know. However those teams like the ones I mentioned and why I clearly said free agent champs is ones who have seemed to think free agency was the way to build a winning team and history has shown that it doesn't work. The Pats have built their team through the draft, which is why they do cut their older veterans because they do draft so well. Then occasionally they do sign a few free agents to help fill missing pieces. Revis was probably the biggest free agency they have brought in (Was Randy Moss a free agency or traded to them?) and yet they still have been a top 3 team every year because they build through the draft not free agency.

 

Still not sure how you took that initial post to mean anything else?

Here FC, see for yourself. I'll link a site that shows all the FA over the years for the Pats. Active is an understatement.

 

The New England Patriots

 

Thank you for sharing and your point is? Basically all those guys who they brought in were older guys who they got for cheap correct except maybe Danny A. Never once said winning teams don't sign free agents. However that group of people they signed that year, did any of those really wow anyone? Were they going out trying to sign top guys to make their team better? Nope. Would anyone crown them the free agent champs and saying wow look at all that talent and top guys they just added through free agency. Nope. So I still don't get how you took my original post to mean that a team like the Pats never sign anyone.

Let me re-word my original post then so there is no confusion. Teams are termed the free agent champs because of them going out and paying big money to get multiple top guys usually fall flat on their face. Is that better?

Thank you for sharing and your point is? Basically all those guys who they brought in were older guys who they got for cheap correct except maybe Danny A. Never once said winning teams don't sign free agents. However that group of people they signed that year, did any of those really wow anyone? Were they going out trying to sign top guys to make their team better? Nope. Would anyone crown them the free agent champs and saying wow look at all that talent and top guys they just added through free agency. Nope. So I still don't get how you took my original post to mean that a team like the Pats never sign anyone.

Whatever. They had 11 free agents in 13. IF your point is that they don't pick up the high ticket guys, I agree. But sheer volume of free agents and the Pats are at the top of the heap. So, it's whatever. I'm not gonna argue with you. You're the futurecoach. It's futile.

Whatever. They had 11 free agents in 13. IF your point is that they don't pick up the high ticket guys, I agree. But sheer volume of free agents and the Pats are at the top of the heap. So, it's whatever. I'm not gonna argue with you. You're the futurecoach. It's futile.

 

That was exactly my point! Still not sure how you took it otherwise. As I have said to you a few times now you don't hear people ever talk about the Pats being free agent champs in the off season even though they do sign free agents. Hence the reason why I said free agent champs, because the people who get labeled free agent champs in the off season are the ones who go out and sign these high price guys and spending all this big money thinking they are improving their team. So not sure how you took it to mean anything else, unless you have decided to ignore what was said like the one whom shall not be named use to do.

 

However I re-worded a post for you to make it more clear about what I meant, this way there is no more confusion. :thumb:

I'll add this and stop; if you'd add the totals spent by the Pats vs the rest of the league I bet you'd be shocked at the totals and how close they are. Again, they are just better at it than most.

I'll add this and stop; if you'd add the totals spent by the Pats vs the rest of the league I bet you'd be shocked at the totals and how close they are. Again, they are just better at it than most.

 

Which I completely agree with. The way the Pats do things is the best in the business. They build through the draft, they don't keep former star players who are older and would cost them money, and during free agency they don't go pay big money to get top players. They find players that would fit their needs but come for cheap. Never once said that way was a bad way. Just for some reason you took what I originally said completely wrong, even though I thought it was pretty clear on what I was saying but I guess it wasn't.

My wish would be for them to spend on more than a left over.

Hue Jackson wants a good run blocking TE.

TE run block90% of the time. A great run blocker is few and far between. In HS TEs are so hard to recuirt because blocking is a lost art!! The spread o has made this TE a thing of the past.