Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Bengals still lead the league in cap space
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Cincinnati Bengals
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
theJ


Moderator
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 19105
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sparky151 wrote:
INbengalfan wrote:
The rookie money still gets paid though, right. So where is the spin? Let's just ignore the upcoming contracts, throw a bunch of money at some FAs, then not worry about extending our own. No thanks.

I know you aren't advocating that, but who out there would you have spent it on? Wheeler didn't even get his agent to talk here. I would have loved Huff, expecially at the price the ravens got him at (don't they seem to have mojo on their side this week, as Huff wanted to go to Dallas but they had no cap space and fax screw up?). Bush wanted top be the top dog wherever he ended up.

We still have 10 picks in a deep safety, RB and DL draft...the spots we will most likely target. These players will be cheaper and younger. I think that's a good thing.

We could pay the rookie salaries just by cutting Jason Allen and Anderson.


The spin is that the rookie pool isn't a separate pot of money. The rookies don't get roster spots in addition to the regular 53, they take the place of guys who left or were on the roster last year. That's why the Cowboys who are up against the cap at the moment aren't sweating the rookie pool at all. The rookie number is simply a limit on how much a team's first year players can be paid beyond the minimum salary. It is irrelevant in discussions of a team's overall cap situation.

I would agree with that. That part is spin. What isn't spin is that the team pays for guys up front, not on long guaranteed contracts that push money out like other teams. That's their strategy whether you or anyone else likes it or not. That means when it comes to the cap, they will always be under it...significantly. Then they spend it during the offseason, first a small amount of FA's, then some on draft picks, then on big extensions with big signing bonuses.

You can get frustrated all you want, but this is how every offseason goes, and this one won't be different.
_________________


Don't follow your passion, take your passion with you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheVillain112


Moderator
Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 16826
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not frustrated as long as they extend Geno, AJ Green, Dalton and one of Dunlap/MJ93 with all the cap space.

But if we lose out of multiple of those players, I'll be mad...
_________________
Hokie wrote:
Yall remember that one time Burifict made a tackle and didn't have to leave the game? Good times.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hokie


Joined: 01 Apr 2012
Posts: 803
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Current free agents I wouldn't mind seeing the Bengals sign:

OT Andre Smith
S Kerry Rhodes
WR Brandon Lloyd
S Quintin Mikell
CB Mike Jenkins
S Dawan Landry

These are just guys off the top of my head. The Bengals will likely re-sign Smith. They likely won't even make a phone call to one of the other guys listed.

None of these guys would break the bank. How would signing any of them prevent signing Atkins, Johnson, Green, Dalton, etc. to an extension? That's all I'm asking.

Signing solid, veteran starters to reasonable two year deals should never handicap you from re-signing your young stars. It doesn't other teams. Why do the Bengals get to use it as an excuse? That's all I'm asking.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
theJ


Moderator
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 19105
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 7:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hokie wrote:
Current free agents I wouldn't mind seeing the Bengals sign:

OT Andre Smith
S Kerry Rhodes
WR Brandon Lloyd
S Quintin Mikell
CB Mike Jenkins
S Dawan Landry

These are just guys off the top of my head. The Bengals will likely re-sign Smith. They likely won't even make a phone call to one of the other guys listed.

None of these guys would break the bank. How would signing any of them prevent signing Atkins, Johnson, Green, Dalton, etc. to an extension? That's all I'm asking.

Signing solid, veteran starters to reasonable two year deals should never handicap you from re-signing your young stars. It doesn't other teams. Why do the Bengals get to use it as an excuse? That's all I'm asking.

Perhaps they don't see them as upgrades, or if they do, not even worth their price tag? Or maybe they have called those guys, and they have no interest in signing in Cincy? That happens more frequently than we hear about, IMO.
_________________


Don't follow your passion, take your passion with you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
theJ


Moderator
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 19105
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reading over in the Dallas forum that Nate Livings might be released this offseason.

Looks like the team might find a way to spend that money after all.

What do you guys think: 6 years, 90 million?




Laughing
_________________


Don't follow your passion, take your passion with you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
INbengalfan


Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 5690
Location: Richmond, IN
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sparky151 wrote:
INbengalfan wrote:
The rookie money still gets paid though, right. So where is the spin? Let's just ignore the upcoming contracts, throw a bunch of money at some FAs, then not worry about extending our own. No thanks.

I know you aren't advocating that, but who out there would you have spent it on? Wheeler didn't even get his agent to talk here. I would have loved Huff, expecially at the price the ravens got him at (don't they seem to have mojo on their side this week, as Huff wanted to go to Dallas but they had no cap space and fax screw up?). Bush wanted top be the top dog wherever he ended up.

We still have 10 picks in a deep safety, RB and DL draft...the spots we will most likely target. These players will be cheaper and younger. I think that's a good thing.

We could pay the rookie salaries just by cutting Jason Allen and Anderson.


The spin is that the rookie pool isn't a separate pot of money. The rookies don't get roster spots in addition to the regular 53, they take the place of guys who left or were on the roster last year. That's why the Cowboys who are up against the cap at the moment aren't sweating the rookie pool at all. The rookie number is simply a limit on how much a team's first year players can be paid beyond the minimum salary. It is irrelevant in discussions of a team's overall cap situation.


My take would be that Mike Brown isn't using the Rule of 51 at the current moment, and is actually looking at what the cap number will be when the season starts. Those looking to slam him for being cheap are looking at the "51" cap space available. I get the spin, but I don't understand why people don't look down the road and see what the numbers will be once the season starts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheVillain112


Moderator
Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 16826
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

theJ wrote:
Reading over in the Dallas forum that Nate Livings might be released this offseason.

Looks like the team might find a way to spend that money after all.

What do you guys think: 6 years, 90 million?


Laughing


Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad

Please no...
_________________
Hokie wrote:
Yall remember that one time Burifict made a tackle and didn't have to leave the game? Good times.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sparky151


Joined: 07 Feb 2012
Posts: 2055
Location: Columbus, OH
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

INbengalfan wrote:
sparky151 wrote:
INbengalfan wrote:
The rookie money still gets paid though, right. So where is the spin? Let's just ignore the upcoming contracts, throw a bunch of money at some FAs, then not worry about extending our own. No thanks.

I know you aren't advocating that, but who out there would you have spent it on? Wheeler didn't even get his agent to talk here. I would have loved Huff, expecially at the price the ravens got him at (don't they seem to have mojo on their side this week, as Huff wanted to go to Dallas but they had no cap space and fax screw up?). Bush wanted top be the top dog wherever he ended up.

We still have 10 picks in a deep safety, RB and DL draft...the spots we will most likely target. These players will be cheaper and younger. I think that's a good thing.

We could pay the rookie salaries just by cutting Jason Allen and Anderson.


The spin is that the rookie pool isn't a separate pot of money. The rookies don't get roster spots in addition to the regular 53, they take the place of guys who left or were on the roster last year. That's why the Cowboys who are up against the cap at the moment aren't sweating the rookie pool at all. The rookie number is simply a limit on how much a team's first year players can be paid beyond the minimum salary. It is irrelevant in discussions of a team's overall cap situation.


My take would be that Mike Brown isn't using the Rule of 51 at the current moment, and is actually looking at what the cap number will be when the season starts. Those looking to slam him for being cheap are looking at the "51" cap space available. I get the spin, but I don't understand why people don't look down the road and see what the numbers will be once the season starts.


Err, every team does that. The rule of 51 is in place to allow expanded rosters for training camp but every team manages its cap with a 53 man active roster, a practice squad and varying amounts reserved for players on IR and their replacements. That doesn't change the fact the Bengals have the most cap space in the league.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
INbengalfan


Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 5690
Location: Richmond, IN
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

it also doesn't change the fact that the team plans to resign smith, extend johnson, dunlap and adkins and brace for extending green
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hokie


Joined: 01 Apr 2012
Posts: 803
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 12:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

theJ wrote:
Hokie wrote:
Current free agents I wouldn't mind seeing the Bengals sign:

OT Andre Smith
S Kerry Rhodes
WR Brandon Lloyd
S Quintin Mikell
CB Mike Jenkins
S Dawan Landry

These are just guys off the top of my head. The Bengals will likely re-sign Smith. They likely won't even make a phone call to one of the other guys listed.

None of these guys would break the bank. How would signing any of them prevent signing Atkins, Johnson, Green, Dalton, etc. to an extension? That's all I'm asking.

Signing solid, veteran starters to reasonable two year deals should never handicap you from re-signing your young stars. It doesn't other teams. Why do the Bengals get to use it as an excuse? That's all I'm asking.

Perhaps they don't see them as upgrades, or if they do, not even worth their price tag? Or maybe they have called those guys, and they have no interest in signing in Cincy? That happens more frequently than we hear about, IMO.


Fair enough. I just don't see how signing any of those guys would prevent the team from re-signing one of our young stars, as guys like Hobspin imply.

Let's just hope they continue to draft well. They've been nailing their picks for the last few seasons, so I have faith in the coaching staff to bring in the right guys... just would like to front office be proactive for a change. I'm done whining about it though. Moving on...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LondonBengal


Joined: 07 Feb 2010
Posts: 3473
Location: London, England, UK
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

theJ wrote:
6 years, 90 million?


When those Cowboys fans were jumping hoops after signing him, I told them he was garbage.

I wouldn't pay him $6 over 90 years.......
_________________
" Democracy is a system where two idiots can out-vote a genius..........."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Cincinnati Bengals All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group