February 26, 200818 yr Every team's salary cap stucture is different; that is obvious. Steinbach got overpowered by bid DT's; if Stacy ends up at Guard, that will not happen; he is bigger and stronger and just as athletic; he has more potential. Also the Bengals may think they made a mistake w/ Steinbach and do not want to let 2 good OL leave in 2 years. The bottom line is tagging Stacy Andrews makes complete sense-business and football. Well if you like the recipe for mediocrity then me too :thumb::thumb:
March 7, 200818 yr Well if you like the recipe for mediocrity then me too :thumb::thumb: Signing a young 6'7 340 lb. athletic guard/tackle that a team has developed for 4 years and will now start is what every team in the NFL would like to do, so it is far from mediocrity; signing him to long term deal will make the move even more solid.
March 7, 200818 yr Carolina? 10 mil for 3 years. Just heard this on the radio. I saw that he signed with someone other than the Bengals on the ESPN Bottomline. I do not remember who but I will believe you that it is the Panthers.
March 7, 200818 yr Carolina? 10 mil for 3 years. Just heard this on the radio. I would have really liked having him back.
March 7, 200818 yr I would have really liked having him back. If they stay in a 4-3, I would have too as a backup, assuming they are all healthy. If it is a 3-4, he is too light to play OLB on the line of scrimmage; he would have to play weakside inside, still as a backup if all are healthy.
March 7, 200818 yr Apparently, the Bengals were only offerring him the same thing they gave Dhani Jones. No wonder why he left.
March 7, 200818 yr If they stay in a 4-3, I would have too as a backup, assuming they are all healthy. If it is a 3-4, he is too light to play OLB on the line of scrimmage; he would have to play weakside inside, still as a backup if all are healthy. Why as a backup in a 4/3? Who would you start over him. I mean the guy has only led the team in tackles 3 out of his 4 years in the league. Which is a pretty amazing accomplishment, since he has never got to get comfortable at just one set linebacker position. If they stay in the 4/3 you would have Jones, Brooks, and whoelse if you don't have Johnson start? I mean I don't think you can say Odel because he has been out of football for 2 years, so no one knows how good he will be when he comes back this year, or if he will even be on the team. Pollack if he came back is going to be a Defensive End. So thats why I ask, why would you have him as a backup?
March 8, 200818 yr Why as a backup in a 4/3? Who would you start over him. I mean the guy has only led the team in tackles 3 out of his 4 years in the league. Which is a pretty amazing accomplishment, since he has never got to get comfortable at just one set linebacker position. If they stay in the 4/3 you would have Jones, Brooks, and whoelse if you don't have Johnson start? I mean I don't think you can say Odel because he has been out of football for 2 years, so no one knows how good he will be when he comes back this year, or if he will even be on the team. Pollack if he came back is going to be a Defensive End. So thats why I ask, why would you have him as a backup? You let your most productive player on D go. But yet you franchise a backup olineman. Yea makes sense to me.
March 8, 200818 yr You let your most productive player on D go. But yet you franchise a backup olineman. Yea makes sense to me. I actually understand franchising Andrews, I think that was the right move. However I don't agree with them not signing Landon back. Especially if they stick with the 4/3.
March 8, 200818 yr Carolina? 10 mil for 3 years. Just heard this on the radio. Given the craziness of some of the recent FA signings, I don't consider this to be at all outrageous and one would have thought he would have been worth this to the Bengals. Heaven forbid if Thurman doesn't come back in shape ready to play.
March 8, 200818 yr You let your most productive player on D go. But yet you franchise a backup olineman. Yea makes sense to me. There are some issues on this team and the team management.
March 8, 200818 yr Given the craziness of some of the recent FA signings, I don't consider this to be at all outrageous and one would have thought he would have been worth this to the Bengals. Heaven forbid if Thurman doesn't come back in shape ready to play. The Bengals did offer to match the deal. I think he is glad to get out of Bengaldom.
March 8, 200818 yr Signing a young 6'7 340 lb. athletic guard/tackle that a team has developed for 4 years and will now start is what every team in the NFL would like to do, so it is far from mediocrity; signing him to long term deal will make the move even more solid. You're quite correct. The Bengals are far from mediocrity. Just on the wrong side thats all. :thumb:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.