Bengals Defense line getting alot worse.

[HoosierCat]

The Geathers/Dunlap issue is a legitimate concern... but it's disingenuous to look at that issue and blame it on the loss of two role players who have been adequately replaced.

First, whether they've been adequately replaced remains to be seen, and that's the crux of the "depth woes" you mentioned.

But you are right that the loss of Fanene and Rucker was sold as no big deal because they were just "role players." Their replacements could be untried rookies and other teams' castoffs precisely because the team just needed "role players." All that was needed were bodies to spell the starters so that they could stay fresh into the fourth quarter. Except now we've got two starters sidelined with knee injuries before the season has even begun, calling into question what kind of role guys like Still and Anderson will have to fill. (And Pat Sims' inability to get healthy may only add more inexperience to the mix.)

Th bottom line is that we have depth woes on the line precisely because our most experienced "role players" either left (Rucker) are hurt (Sims) or both (Fanene).

[derekshank]

The bottom line is that we have depth woes on the line precisely because our most experienced "role players" either left (Rucker) are hurt (Sims) or both (Fanene).

First of all, Mem was "lolling" about all the criticism that was being heaped on Mike Brown for letting Rucker and Fanene walk. At least in Fanene's case, Mike Brown has been wholly vindicated. So, yeah. lol.

Second of all, even if the current situation was what Mem was "lolling" about, he'd still be right. Rucker and Fanene's "experience" as role players was defined primarily by their lack of durability. If you are looking for role players who can step into starting roles when Dunlap and Geathers get hurt... it's risky to rely on guys who have demonstrated throughout their careers that they can't stay healthy.

So when you look at the current situation and suggest that the Bengals would be better off if they'd retained Rucker and Fanene, you have to consider that such a scenario would also mean that Jamaal Anderson almost certainly wouldn't be here - and more than likely neither would Devon Still.

So his "lolling" is valid regardless. Had Mike Brown done what the fans were demanding 5 months ago, the Bengals would be in a far worse situation than they currently are. And that's not to say the current situation is peachy... it just means that having a healthy Anderson and Still for about $4M this year is superior to an unhealthy Fanene and an injury prone Rucker for about $8M this year.

So, yeah. lol

[membengal]

Yup. Still lol.

Derek. Poster on fire.

Hoosier. Panties still firmly bunched.

[membengal]

Oh, and whoever pointed out the screaming if Mike Brown had spent $4 million on Fanene and had him turn up lame...well...

But I guess its okay for the Pats to do that.

[membengal]

Just double-checked the thread...re-read it...and, extra lolz.

[membengal]

To futher clarify, why do so many on here have to view EVERY move the Bengals do as automatically s**t? It gets REALLY tiresome. I am amazed Derek still has the energy to engage it.

The Bengals letting Fanene and Rucker walk was completely defensible at the time, for all the reasons every person bitching on this thread knew at the time. Nice role players - when healthy. But WAY too often, not healthy. And, therefore, not the world's best risk for pouring guaranteed coin in the range of, say, $4 million dollars on. As NE just found out.

In any event, yeah, lol.

[HoosierCat]

First of all, Mem was "lolling" about all the criticism that was being heaped on Mike Brown for letting Rucker and Fanene walk. At least in Fanene's case, Mike Brown has been wholly vindicated. So, yeah. lol.

Wholly vindicated? I'd like to see your crystal ball, because we've no idea whether we've replaced Fanene and Rucker's production. Again, that's why there are depth woes.

Second of all, even if the current situation was what Mem was "lolling" about, he'd still be right. Rucker and Fanene's "experience" as role players was defined primarily by their lack of durability. If you are looking for role players who can step into starting roles when Dunlap and Geathers get hurt... it's risky to rely on guys who have demonstrated throughout their careers that they can't stay healthy.

Yes, it's at least as risky as depending on rookies and washouts to back up starters who have demonstrated issues staying healthy.

So his "lolling" is valid regardless. Had Mike Brown done what the fans were demanding 5 months ago, the Bengals would be in a far worse situation than they currently are.

Really? Well, they'd have to find a replacement for Fanene, but you don't appear to think that would be very difficult. And they'd be only $12 million under the cap instead of $16 million...OTOH the need for space to extend Dunlap has declined a bit. Marginally worse perhaps, but far worse? Not buying it.

[HoosierCat]

The Bengals letting Fanene and Rucker walk was completely defensible at the time,

Except that, as we found out later from none other than Mike Brown, they weren't let go for any of those defensible reasons. Brown admitted the Bengals were caught off guard by the departures of the two players, whom they didn't expect to draw that kind of attention, and that they had to scramble to recover (which he further stated he thought they did well).

What we've got now on the defensive line in Cincy is plan B. It may turn out plan B ends up better than the plan A they had coming out of the 2011 season. Or it may not. We'll start to find out in a few weeks.

[derekshank]

Wholly vindicated? I'd like to see your crystal ball, because we've no idea whether we've replaced Fanene and Rucker's production. Again, that's why there are depth woes.

It's true that we don't know if Fanene's production from 2011 has been replaced. But we now know without doubt what Fanene's production would be in 2012 had he been retained. So whatever Devon Still produces, it's infinitely better than nothing. So yes... wholly vindicated.

Yes, it's at least as risky as depending on rookies and washouts to back up starters who have demonstrated issues staying healthy.

Frostee Rucker has missed 16 games in the last 4 years and Fanene missed 14 games in 2010 alone. Devon Still hasn't missed a game since 2008 and Jamaal Anderson has missed only 5 games in his 5 year NFL career. The Bengals current situation is far less risky than your preferred option.

You can paint with your broad brush and label Jamaal Anderson as a "wash-out" a "cast-off" a "bust" or any other derogatory word you can come up with... but it doesn't change the fact that he has been a very serviceable role-player for the last two seasons. The Bengals were replacing rotational back-ups - not key starters. Your criticism doesn't make sense.

And as for complaining about the fact that Devon Still is a rookie... seriously? There isn't a team in the NFL that isn't depending on a rookie in some capacity - let alone as a back-up.

Well, they'd have to find a replacement for Fanene, but you don't appear to think that would be very difficult. And they'd be only $12 million under the cap instead of $16 million...OTOH the need for space to extend Dunlap has declined a bit. Marginally worse perhaps, but far worse? Not buying it.

I didn't say finding Fanene's replacement wouldn't be difficult. But I am very pleased with Devon Still. At the very least, I'm far more pleased with Still than I would be with whatever will be left on the FA scrap heap at this point... which is what the Bengals would be stuck with if they had brought Fanene back.

And you're admitting it would be marginally worse... but not far worse. Are we splitting hairs here? I wouldn't expect you to admit you were wrong... because this is an internet message board. Those types of admissions just don't take place. Internet debate is for sport. But c'mon man. Do you really feel good about this? Defending your opinion that the Bengals should have re-signed Johnathan Fanene even now?

[ShulaSteakhouse]

Lol'ing at this thread before the bump.

Well, let's hope you're still loling in a couple months. Fanene and Rucker are gone, Geathers got knocked out on the first day of camp, Derrick Harvey flamed out and Carlos Dunlap continues to struggle with durability issues. Heck, they just signed some scrub DE in order to have enough bodies on the line to finish out the preseason.

Yep. Not sure how Mem can act like not keeping either Rucker OR Fanene (not both necessarily) is some sort of given fact everyone accepts and has no argument. The Bengals' do a lot of stupid roster management based on being ultra lean and cheap, it's why they haven't won a playoff game in 22 years. When they do, finally, I'll respect their "judgement" more than I do now.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

Wholly vindicated? I'd like to see your crystal ball, because we've no idea whether we've replaced Fanene and Rucker's production. Again, that's why there are depth woes.

It's true that we don't know if Fanene's production from 2011 has been replaced. But we now know without doubt what Fanene's production would be in 2012 had he been retained. So whatever Devon Still produces, it's infinitely better than nothing. So yes... wholly vindicated.

Yes, it's at least as risky as depending on rookies and washouts to back up starters who have demonstrated issues staying healthy.

Frostee Rucker has missed 16 games in the last 4 years and Fanene missed 14 games in 2010 alone. Devon Still hasn't missed a game since 2008 and Jamaal Anderson has missed only 5 games in his 5 year NFL career. The Bengals current situation is far less risky than your preferred option.

You can paint with your broad brush and label Jamaal Anderson as a "wash-out" a "cast-off" a "bust" or any other derogatory word you can come up with... but it doesn't change the fact that he has been a very serviceable role-player for the last two seasons. The Bengals were replacing rotational back-ups - not key starters. Your criticism doesn't make sense.

And as for complaining about the fact that Devon Still is a rookie... seriously? There isn't a team in the NFL that isn't depending on a rookie in some capacity - let alone as a back-up.

Well, they'd have to find a replacement for Fanene, but you don't appear to think that would be very difficult. And they'd be only $12 million under the cap instead of $16 million...OTOH the need for space to extend Dunlap has declined a bit. Marginally worse perhaps, but far worse? Not buying it.

I didn't say finding Fanene's replacement wouldn't be difficult. But I am very pleased with Devon Still. At the very least, I'm far more pleased with Still than I would be with whatever will be left on the FA scrap heap at this point... which is what the Bengals would be stuck with if they had brought Fanene back.

And you're admitting it would be marginally worse... but not far worse. Are we splitting hairs here? I wouldn't expect you to admit you were wrong... because this is an internet message board. Those types of admissions just don't take place. Internet debate is for sport. But c'mon man. Do you really feel good about this? Defending your opinion that the Bengals should have re-signed Johnathan Fanene even now?

They spent two high draft picks instead of one replacing them, when they could've used at least one of those to fill needs at Safety, Center, CB, or especially LB, that's really "my" point, because they had no intention of finding a FA at any of those positions that was worth a damn as usual. And more than that, they could've easily afforded to keep both, or extended them last year, anticipating the hit on depth.

[derekshank]

They spent two high draft picks instead of one replacing them, when they could've used at least one of those to fill needs at Safety, Center, CB, or especially LB, that's really "my" point, because they had no intention of finding a FA at any of those positions that was worth a damn as usual. And more than that, they could've easily afforded to keep both, or extended them last year, anticipating the hit on depth.

They only used one draft pick. Devon Still. Brandon Thompson is not a replacement for either Rucker or Fanene.

And are you saying you'd rather have Fanene than Still right now?

I don't get you people.

[membengal]

Me neither. And its one of the reasons for a board that is sickly. The constant negativity...its just not fun to be around.

Looking at Fanene, its clear, CLEAR, the bengals made the right call. And yet...nope. Folks still dug in on their usual memes. Disappointing. But, expected.

[ArmyBengal]

I at least try to look at things from each side, holding onto what I feel is right.

I will say that I am happy as hell with having Still on board. I think long term he will be awesome for the Bengals. While I think they are fortunate he fell to them where he did, that's the way the draft works sometimes, so no complaining at all.

AT THE TIME, I felt the Bengals could have brought back at least one of them considering the money they had at the time and the production they got out of their "role players". I didn't like the fact that not bringing them back put them in a situation where the draft wasn't as freed up as it could have been and there isn't one here that wasn't in favor of freeing up THIS particular draft. AT THE TIME, the Bengals did think they would be able to bring them back as well, so it's not like they "made the decision to not being them back". The players CHOSE to go elsewhere in the hopes of more playing time. I don't blame them for that and feel both the Pat and Browns overpaid. When I saw the numbers they got, I was happy the Bengals didn't pay that much.

AGAIN, my feelings were based on what was happening AT THAT POINT IN TIME and I still don't think I was wrong for feeling that way then. Now in looking back with that hindsight we all know is crystal clear, the Bengals came out of the situation better off.

I hope and think the new players will do fine this season with what they will be asked to do.

There was no "right" decision to make. The players left and it worked out nicely for the Bengals.

I'm happy for that.

[derekshank]

AT THE TIME, the Bengals did think they would be able to bring them back as well, so it's not like they "made the decision to not being them back".

Not so sure about that. I'm willing to bet that Mike Brown offered them some kind of contract... but the Bengals were rumored to be in search of several other FA DEs prior to the free agency period even starting.

If those rumors are true, (and the Bengals did schedule visits with Langford, Anderson, and I think Mincey... among others) then it seems like the Bengals had made a decision to move on. At the very least, Rucker and Fanene were not a priority and were seen as replaceable.

[volcom69]

I'm glad the bengals didn't pay the money to keep those players. They moved on to be starters in this league something they would not be here, and unfortunately Fanenes ended early. I think I saw Rucker on the sideline in street cloths for the browns so I wonder if he's hurt as well.

They didn't pay the guys crazy money to stay they let them move on and become starters and more playing time. Good for them time to move on and worry about what the bengals do have. I still think someone might be added on cut down day.

[derekshank]

I think what frustrates me is that this thread screams of the double standard that so many Bengalzoners seemd to have.

Last year Whitworth, Cook, and Hall were extended. There were a large number of members here who bashed Mike Brown for overpaying. Fast forward to this year when he chooses not to overpay for two role playing back-ups… and he gets bashed again. You can't have it both ways.

Many “fans” around here have already predetermined their opinion about every move the Bengals will ever make. These “fans” don’t evaluate moves on their own merit. They have already judged that any/every move made by Mike Brown is a dumb one.

I’m sure I could be accused of being a Mike Brown apologist… and maybe I am. But I criticized MB when Joseph left. I’m also quick to point out when I don’t like a decision (just in the past few months when Derrick Harvey was signed and when Dre Kirkpatrick was drafted). But I like to think I judge each decision on its own merit – which is what it seems like many people around here refuse to do.

I understand the disappointment with Fanene. He has always been a fan favorite (for reasons that aren’t entirely clear to me). It’s not fun to see one of your favorite players leave (even if hindsight proves that it was the right move).

Rucker on the other hand… this guy was ragged on by fans for his entire career. People hated that guy. People were calling for him to be cut at training camp last season. God only knows what the outrage would have been if Mike Brown had brought him back on a 5-year $20.5M contract.

So it just strikes me as hypocritical. Mike Brown let Rucker walk so he’s cheap. If Mike Brown had brought Rucker back, he’d be dumb. *sigh* I’m tired.

[ArmyBengal]

I believe the moves have to be based on their own merits as well.

In regards to Whit, Cook, and Hall, the only of those moves I wasn't overly concerned about is Cook, but that's turned out well for the most part and the continuity is always good. The difference between them and Fanene and Rucker is they are starters as opposed to role players. I think looking at that difference makes a difference as well.

In looking back, my concern was with the Bengals having the money and being able to keep Fanene as the role player he had become. It would have also freed up the draft. Rucker ?? I never really gave him much thought due to the massive amount of injuries.

Again, that was then and this is now. The Bengals were able to grab Still and I honestly can't believe this is still a topic of conversation. I'm happy to be able to say the Bengals came out on the good side of things.

Members can feel however they wish when something happens right or wrong.

What I dislike is not being able to go back and either justify why you felt that way or just say, "I was wrong".

I met Billy once, but don't really know anyone here and have no issue saying that.

Who really cares ??

I like everyone's opinion here regardless of how I feel about their particular stance.

[COB]

Fanene and Rucker leaving is a sympton of success. Zimmer coached a really solid defense up. Those guys got to rotate in, play when they were fresh against o-linemen that were playing every down. The result was they got to put some really good stuff on film for other teams to look at when contract time came around.

I don't think they were any better than they were a year or two prior to the last two seasons. But with Zimmer's defense, they were able to shine. Then other teams see them as starting material, our coaches know they aren't starters, so we get outbid for their services. Good luck to both those guys, but I'll be stunned if Rucker plays well for Cleveland. I think he'll either get hurt or he'll show as below average at best. Cleveland would probably be happy with the latter.

[derekshank]

I'll be stunned if Rucker plays well for Cleveland. I think he'll either get hurt or he'll show as below average at best.

He's already a step ahead of you. He has already missed the first two preseason games with a knee injury.

[BengalByTheBay]

Me neither. And its one of the reasons for a board that is sickly. The constant negativity...its just not fun to be around.

Looking at Fanene, its clear, CLEAR, the bengals made the right call. And yet...nope. Folks still dug in on their usual memes. Disappointing. But, expected.

I'm sure there are dark clouds on other boards as well. Shades of the "Moe is We" label HOF taped on a few years back. I suppose it helps balance out the preseason optimism (or over-optimism depending on how you see it) that most fans engage in.

[HoosierCat]

Your criticism doesn't make sense.

That's because you misread it. The Bengals have brought aboard rookies and castoffs to back up starters -- namely Geathers and Dunlap -- who have demonstrated injury issues of their own. Again, this is why we have depth woes. Where the team had an experienced and productive defensive line bench in 2011, it now has a bunch of question marks. All things considered, yes, I would very much like to have Rucker back right about now.

And you're admitting it would be marginally worse... but not far worse. Are we splitting hairs here?

That would be hard to do since we've never disagreed that the line has depth woes. Where we differ is our estimation of how that will play out. You are satisfied that the team will be OK with a pair of rookies and a bargain free agent. Me, I've seen this movie before: Bengals decide player(s) aren't worth the money, replace them rookies/cheap FAs, then watch as quality of play drops. If it turns out differently this time, terrific. I'll be right there cheering with everyone else.

[HoosierCat]

I think what frustrates me is that this thread screams of the double standard that so many Bengalzoners seemd to have.

Last year Whitworth, Cook, and Hall were extended. There were a large number of members here who bashed Mike Brown for overpaying. Fast forward to this year when he chooses not to overpay for two role playing back-ups… and he gets bashed again. You can't have it both ways.

WOAH WOAH WOAH here! To paraphrase a certain Mr. Coleman, whachutalkinbout, derek? No one here complained when the Bengals re-signed Andrew Whitworth. The extension of Hall earned only a minor grumble from Hair. And the guy who flipped out the most over them re-upping Cook?

Yeah, that would have been you.

Many “fans” around here have already predetermined their opinion about every move the Bengals will ever make. These “fans” don’t evaluate moves on their own merit. They have already judged that any/every move made by Mike Brown is a dumb one.

While there may be fans like that, there don't seem to be many around here. You may be confusing bengalszone with WDR.

[derekshank]

WOAH WOAH WOAH here! To paraphrase a certain Mr. Coleman, whachutalkinbout, derek? No one here complained when the Bengals re-signed Andrew Whitworth. The extension of Hall earned only a minor grumble from Hair. And the guy who flipped out the most over them re-upping Cook?

Did you actually read the Whitworth thread? There were several people continuing to mock Mike Brown's approach, arguing that Whit would never see all of that money and that Mike Brown still runs his team like it is the 1950's. Yes... these are the first things that come to mind when a franchise LT is locked up long term. Also... if you look in places other than just the thread bearing Whitworth's name, you'll find Cheeseland arguing that the Bengals overpaid for Whitworth - and using it as proof that Mike Brown continues to build a perennial loser.

The Leon Hall thread caused several to lament the loss of Jonathan Josepth rather than enjoy the long term signing itself... and again, if you look elsewhere, you'll find Cheeseland arguing that Mike Brown continues the status quo of letting star players walk while extending mediocre players to overpriced contracts.

As for Kyle Cook... yes, I was disappointed that he was being retained as the starter. And while I still wouldn't complain if the Bengals had an upgrade, I'll gladly admit that Cook has surprised me as a solid starter - something I didn't believe he could be at the time. Shula, on the other hand identified this as "typical, silly Bengals contract" and suggesting that there was nothing commendable about it at all - which is not what I said at all.

But that kind of proves my point, right? I'm willing to call a spade a spade when I see it that way. But some people around here have never seen the Bengals make a move they approve of. They look for the s**tty lining no matter what the headline says.

So yes, there are plenty of guys around here that will complain when Rucker leaves via free agency... but if they would have locked him up long term, they would have called it "a typical, silly Bengal contract" that proves that Mike Brown will never build a consistent winner.

[101Airborne]

I think many of us tend to see the s**t lining of every move because of the consistency of suck we've endured. I find Mike Brown to be pretty much an incompetent, penny pinching owner who seems like he doesn't care at all about football. But that's just a bias I have from watching the team suck for what seems like forever. Its hard to give the guy credit for the stuff he does right when he does so many infuriating and seemingly obvious things wrong. Its really hard not to see the bad in everything when most of the descisions made up to maybe a few years ago have led to mediocrity at best. Hell, it wasn't too long ago I was estatic to see the Bengals just BE mediocre.

Now, with all of that said, I think we do need to look at the positive direction of the team. Yes we can still yell about not winning a playoff game, but again, it wasn't too long ago that the idea of even making the playoffs, or even having a winning record seemed like the impossible dream. So while I still harbor much dislike for Mike Brown, I will at least give him this. He's finally managed to put together a team I can see beating anyone they play, as opposed to going into every game assuming we'll lose and wondering how badly.