February 16, 200719 yr By GEOFF HOBSON Smith In a move that gives them flexibility in free agency the Bengals announced Thursday they have designated defensive end Justin Smith as their franchise player. How does this give them flexibility in free agency? Is it b/c he won't get a huge signing bonus?
February 16, 200719 yr Author How does this give them flexibility in free agency? Is it b/c he won't get a huge signing bonus? http://www.bengals.com/news/news.asp?story_id=5889
February 16, 200719 yr http://www.bengals.com/news/news.asp?story_id=5889 That's why I wonder why it says flexibility. It seems to me that they have no flexibility now. He'd be crazy not to take the $8.6M and see what happens next year.
February 16, 200719 yr I'll counter with this. If he signs long term for reasonable money I'm a lot better with this situation. He is a steady and reliable DE, but he is NOT an 8 million dollar player... Im not really a fan of tagging him either. I think with our first pick they could get either Okoye or Carriker which I think both will turn out to be better than Smith. I guess it all really depends on what position they are looking to take with that first pick. If they arent looking at DE or DT then it might have been the right move to put the tag on him.
February 17, 200719 yr That's why I wonder why it says flexibility. It seems to me that they have no flexibility now. He'd be crazy not to take the $8.6M and see what happens next year. Because in football, there are no guarantees. Players like the longer term contracts that give them a huge amount up front in the signing bonus. Plus it provides them with stability and not having to worry about contracts each and every year.
February 17, 200719 yr Once again you are saying stuff like we dont know any of this. Yeah we got a pretty good young core group of guys on defense. However this defense has a few major holes to fill if we want to get to where we want and that is to win the super bowl. How long are we going to have to wait for this young group to get good? Are we going to have to wait 5 years, where then are explosive offense would be losing their power? It just makes sense to me to try to go for it now, when you have a explosive offense that only needs a defense. And signing Justin Smith to 8 million for one year, is not something that helps out the team that much because he is not worth 8 million a year. I really hope as GT said that they work out a long term deal which is not worth quite that much and then I wont have as big of a problem with this... What are you talking about?? Smith has led the defensive line in tackles for 5 seasons-fact. He plays the most of the DL on all three downs-fact. Marvin has said that he wants to build primarily through the draft, not exclusively-fact. The players selected in Marvin's 1st four drafts are young-fact. The others listed were college free agents-fact. Smith & Simmons were drafted by the Bengals and Marvin has said that he would rather sign their own free agents rather than others-fact. O'Neal was traded for and did go to the Pro Bowl-fact. James (Pro Bowl & many INT's) & Thornton (4 yr. starter) have been solid-opinion, but supported with facts. Sam Adams did say to Marvin that he just wanted a respectable salary, so that he didn't look foolish, but he wanted to come here-fact. Robinson was signed to play DT originally (moved to DE with the Adams signing)-fact. Jackson was a need at safety (Ohalete-terrible, Kaesviharn-proved he couldn't play every down, Williams-coming off a season-ending injuy)-fact. The Bengals have 5 months to negotiate a long term deal with Smith before it goes on to the '07 cap; I hope they do too. I am not a huge Smith fan, but he is the best every down DL the Bengals have on a poor defense; if they re-sign him, then they can look to solidify other positions. I can't predict the future, but the great defenses have players that have been around for several years (there are always exceptions). Baltimore, Pittsburgh, NE all have cores that have played together.
February 17, 200719 yr It's almost a lock he misses the first 4 games next year. So there are no trade options that are above waiting for him to be cut. IMO there is no chance at trading Henry for any pick in the draft... I know I read on another thread you explaining why the Bengals can't cut either of them.....
February 17, 200719 yr That's why I wonder why it says flexibility. It seems to me that they have no flexibility now. He'd be crazy not to take the $8.6M and see what happens next year. Especially since nothing is guaranteed. Why would he take less money for further years, when that much is guaranteed (basically) for a year.
February 17, 200719 yr Wow. Not sure where to start. If in 4 years TWO picks define the draft process things are worse that I thought. Pollack was unfortunate and Odell was stupid. Very easy to argue only one should have been drafted. I've always wondered if they asked Pollack about Odell before they used that 2nd round pick. Odell for Dre Bly? Wow. Next. And now you want Bly AND Clements/Samuel? Is this an off season on Madden? It's a very weak LB draft. The best chance for help is after round 1. And at that point most of us aren't very sure who the pick is. Bottom line. The smallest scouting department in the NFL puts a chink in the draft process. If you want to sell me on a franchise that knows who and when to pick GET MORE HELP IN THE PROCESS... After Marvin was hired, he said liked the idea of the coaches doing some of the scouting; they do have more than they had under Coslett & Lebeau. Their drafts have been very good since Marvin took over; I know you are looking at the final product and the lack of production from the defense, but there are many other reasons for their lack of production other than a smaller scouting staff. (James's aging, Williams-out for a year, O'Neal-head somewhere else, Jackson's injury, Brooks-young, Odell-stupidity, Simmons-aging, Adams-injury, Ratliff-disappointment, Pollack-injury, Askew-disappointment, Nicholson-stupidity, Smith-good not great) The Bengals indeed knew about the players with question marks, they just drafted them any way(Mike or Marvin-I don't know).
February 17, 200719 yr What are you talking about?? Smith has led the defensive line in tackles for 5 seasons-fact. He plays the most of the DL on all three downs-fact. Marvin has said that he wants to build primarily through the draft, not exclusively-fact. The players selected in Marvin's 1st four drafts are young-fact. The others listed were college free agents-fact. Smith & Simmons were drafted by the Bengals and Marvin has said that he would rather sign their own free agents rather than others-fact. O'Neal was traded for and did go to the Pro Bowl-fact. James (Pro Bowl & many INT's) & Thornton (4 yr. starter) have been solid-opinion, but supported with facts. Sam Adams did say to Marvin that he just wanted a respectable salary, so that he didn't look foolish, but he wanted to come here-fact. Robinson was signed to play DT originally (moved to DE with the Adams signing)-fact. Jackson was a need at safety (Ohalete-terrible, Kaesviharn-proved he couldn't play every down, Williams-coming off a season-ending injuy)-fact. The Bengals have 5 months to negotiate a long term deal with Smith before it goes on to the '07 cap; I hope they do too. I am not a huge Smith fan, but he is the best every down DL the Bengals have on a poor defense; if they re-sign him, then they can look to solidify other positions. I can't predict the future, but the great defenses have players that have been around for several years (there are always exceptions). Baltimore, Pittsburgh, NE all have cores that have played together. :laugh: Once again you go on and on about all of this but what point are you trying to make? You keep telling me and others everything that WE ALL READY KNOW, you act like we dont know this stuff and you know it. We all see that in the draft we have taken alot of young guys on defense. But we all have also seen that the defense is the reason why we haven't done better than what we should the last few years! As you would say that is a FACT!!! So I will try this again, so we sign a guy back who yeah has been are leading tackler on the d-line, but has been a guy that hasn't helped our defense get any better at all IN ANY OF HIS YEARS HERE! So we use all that money on a guy who hasn't made this defense any better, so sounds like a great idea to me. Have you not seen other teams in ALL SPORTS usually get rid of someone who has been one of the most productive players, and probably couldn't get a guy who puts up the same numbers as him, but somehow they end up being better the next year because of it. Seattle Mariners in baseball get rid of Griffey and A-Rod two guys who you cant replace numbers wise, but yet they ended up setting a record in most wins in a season the next season without them. Colts let the Edge go and they go win the super bowl the next season. Patriots let Terry Glenn go who they didn't have a receiver who could put numbers as good as him, and they win the super bowl. We will stay with the Pats, they let Ty Law go once again someone like Justin Smith who they had no one who would put up the same numbers as him and they win the super bowl. Yeah you might not be able to replace a guy who puts up as good of numbers, but doesn't mean you cant be better the next season. And yeah we wouldn't have got a guy most likely who would have led the d-line in the tackles like Justin Smith, but if we go and sign one of those free agents out there and use the draft again, then good chance the defense could have been better than it ever has been with Smith. I really dont know why you want to argue about this, and just say the same things over and over about stuff that is pretty much common sense that we all already know. But when it comes down to it IMO it dont make much sense to sign a guy back for that much money who when he has been here has never made as a top defense, when maybe we could have got another guy who could have helped up be more of a better defense than we have been with him here...
February 17, 200719 yr Especially since nothing is guaranteed. Why would he take less money for further years, when that much is guaranteed (basically) for a year. Players like stability, and he can get more money up front with a long term deal.
February 17, 200719 yr The players selected in Marvin's 1st four drafts are young-fact. Wildcat, are you related to Ken Rosenthal? JUST KIDDING...don't answer that. I don't want to know. See National League Preview Thread....Not asking about his relatives.
February 17, 200719 yr :laugh: Once again you go on and on about all of this but what point are you trying to make? You keep telling me and others everything that WE ALL READY KNOW, you act like we dont know this stuff and you know it. We all see that in the draft we have taken alot of young guys on defense. But we all have also seen that the defense is the reason why we haven't done better than what we should the last few years! As you would say that is a FACT!!! So I will try this again, so we sign a guy back who yeah has been are leading tackler on the d-line, but has been a guy that hasn't helped our defense get any better at all IN ANY OF HIS YEARS HERE! So we use all that money on a guy who hasn't made this defense any better, so sounds like a great idea to me. Have you not seen other teams in ALL SPORTS usually get rid of someone who has been one of the most productive players, and probably couldn't get a guy who puts up the same numbers as him, but somehow they end up being better the next year because of it. Seattle Mariners in baseball get rid of Griffey and A-Rod two guys who you cant replace numbers wise, but yet they ended up setting a record in most wins in a season the next season without them. Colts let the Edge go and they go win the super bowl the next season. Patriots let Terry Glenn go who they didn't have a receiver who could put numbers as good as him, and they win the super bowl. We will stay with the Pats, they let Ty Law go once again someone like Justin Smith who they had no one who would put up the same numbers as him and they win the super bowl. Yeah you might not be able to replace a guy who puts up as good of numbers, but doesn't mean you cant be better the next season. And yeah we wouldn't have got a guy most likely who would have led the d-line in the tackles like Justin Smith, but if we go and sign one of those free agents out there and use the draft again, then good chance the defense could have been better than it ever has been with Smith. I really dont know why you want to argue about this, and just say the same things over and over about stuff that is pretty much common sense that we all already know. But when it comes down to it IMO it dont make much sense to sign a guy back for that much money who when he has been here has never made as a top defense, when maybe we could have got another guy who could have helped up be more of a better defense than we have been with him here... Baseball-different animal-no salary cap Patriots & Colts were letting players go on a squad (Patriots' defense/ Colts' offense)that was already very good-very, very different than the Bengals' defense. One player never makes a defense; I am not a huge Smith fan; it just makes sense; if you let him go, now the Bengals have to address his position along with ALL OF THE OTHER weak spots on defense; he is a solid player and it is ludicrous to blame the defense's woes on one player. The Bengals were a top 10 defense when he was a rookie; is that all to his credit??? Claiming another player will not play as well as Smith, but the Bengals will be better overall if they sign ONE MORE free agent, come on?????? Let's face it; the Bengals need a lot of help or improvements on defense that ONE free agent is not going to solve; plus a free agent has to learn the system.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.