Clayton's possbile Cap Casualties...

[Whur CHad At?]

For the Bengals

Cincinnati Bengals

Player Cap number 2006 savings

DE D Clemons $1,616,666 $1,349,998

S K. Herring $1,600,000 $700,000

TE R.Kelly $1,950,000 $1,450,000

DT J Thornton $3,875,000 $2,000,000

It is all messed up cant fix it. Here is the full link

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2341755

Looks like Big Johnny Boy will save us some money along with Duane and Reggie

[kingwilly]

All of those guys, except MAYBE Kelly, are goners...buh-bye.

[BengalChamps]

Depending on the draft and FA, Thornton my still play a role in a rotation. However, that alot to pay a guy in a rotation.

[turningpoint]

herring just needs to go, I'm sorry. I haven't heard s**t about him doing anything since we signed his ass.

[UofLnMU]

Unless we are drafting Ko or Bing (god, who named these guys? they sound like names a chimpanzee would name a kitten), or we are signing Chris Hope...I can't see us cutting Herring, though he has been injured since day one.

Herring is one of my biggest disappointments in free agency during the Marvin Lewis era, up there with Nate Webster. I thought he'd solidify the D for a few years. Ah...hindsight.

However, I would cut Herring in a heartbeat, if it meant we could sign Booger McFarland.

[derekshank]

Okay... this thread is interesting, but we are missing the real issue. The good players other teams will be cutting that might be available to the Bengals.

The most interesting on this list that I saw... Dallas Cowboys DT La'Roi Glover. They are 2 Mil over the cap... and he's a 6 mil savings. He could single handedly solve our D-Line problems, because he would drastically improve the production of Smith, Geathers, and the other DT, be it Shaun Smith, or B Robinson.

If we made no other noteworthy FA moves but managed to land this guy... I'd be a very hapy Bengals fan. Everything else can be reasonably dealt with in the draft.

[Kazkal]

"S K. Herring $1,600,000 $700,000 "

if we only saved 700,00 i'd keep him for depth

Kelly is the only one for sure i think stay out of those names...though I think he's rather #$$$$$ for a 6th linemen

[Whur CHad At?]

Okay... this thread is interesting, but we are missing the real issue. The good players other teams will be cutting that might be available to the Bengals.

The most interesting on this list that I saw... Dallas Cowboys DT La'Roi Glover. They are 2 Mil over the cap... and he's a 6 mil savings. He could single handedly solve our D-Line problems, because he would drastically improve the production of Smith, Geathers, and the other DT, be it Shaun Smith, or B Robinson.

If we made no other noteworthy FA moves but managed to land this guy... I'd be a very hapy Bengals fan. Everything else can be reasonably dealt with in the draft.

Can't Agree more. What about Sam Adams? or Lawyer Milloy? Or Trevor Pryce? Seth Payne? Any of these guys would do for me.

[The_Next_Big_Thing]

herring just needs to go, I'm sorry. I haven't heard s**t about him doing anything since we signed his ass.

You haven't? Perhaps you've totally missed the news about him both years. HE WAS ON IR. Stuff happens.

I'd absolutely love to see Chicago cut Mike Green for cap savings. Dude would be a great addition at safety for us.

I doubt the Titans are going to let Volek walk, but if they do to save themselves 2mill, I say we snag the man.

[kentjett]

All of those players need to go besides Herring because he wouldn't save us that much money. I can't believe we are paying Kelly almost 2 milion and he don't even play that much, he's definately gone. Thornton is making 4 million, he sucks a**. Clemons lost his job so he is a goner, plus he is a roid head. Every single one of those players are free agents that we had to over pay in order to get them to come to Cincy when we sucked a**. They all deserve to be cut in my opinion. Cutting them turds would give us an extra 5.5 million dollars to spend. We would be able to get two good free agents with that type of coin. Most players make less than 2.8 million in their first year of their contract. I still can't believe we are paying back-up players that amount of money, cut them all.

[TJJackson]

Reggie Kelly, barring us signing a first tier FA TE, will be the Bengals starting TE this year.

He contributes decently albeit quietly, mostly as a blocker.

Not suprisingly, it is the BLOCKING a TE provides that is most valued in the very potent Cincinnati offense.

With the exception noted above - he won't be cut, folks.

[HoosierCat]

Cincinnati Bengals

Player Cap number 2006 savings

DE D Clemons $1,616,666 $1,349,998

S K. Herring $1,600,000 $700,000

TE R.Kelly $1,950,000 $1,450,000

DT J Thornton $3,875,000 $2,000,000

Clemons? Yeah, he's history. Herring? Maybe. $700k really isn't that significant; if he gets cut it will be because he gets beaten out, not to save money. They seem to love Kelly and with both Stewart and Schobel likely gone I think they will want to keep one TE with experience in the offense. Thornton? He's a favorite whipping boy, and certainly hasn't lived up to expectations...but who do we replace him with, "Mr. Inactive" (aka Askew)? If they let him go then they need to either make a splash at the the position in FA (and I'm talking an upper-tier guy, not another b-rob) or draft a top DT prospect in the first two rounds. So I'll reserve judgement on that one.

A couple guys not mentioned:

Brian Simmons: I don't think he's done yet but he isn't the player he used to be. He has a $3.4 million cap hit in '06. Letting him go would save $1.6 million vs. the cap. Same deal as Thornton: if the let Simmons go they need to make a bold move replacing him.

Tory James: See Brian Simmons. He has a $3.8 million cap hit in 2006. Cutting him frees up nearly $3 million in space. Same replacement issue as Thornton and Simmons.

Willie Anderson: I don't see them releasing Big Willie but getting him off the roster frees up something like $4.7 million in space, so if you're looking for room you at least have to glance in his direction. It really depend on what the team's long-term plans for him are, IMHO. If they don't intend on extending him beyond 2006, then I am shopping him around this year.

[HairOnFire]

For those who enjoy the sight of a dead horse being beaten, how many of you laughed when seeing familiar names like Warren Sapp, Jamie Sharper, Peter Boulware, and a few others included on the list? My favorite example involved Sapp, as the winners in the bidding war for his services, da' Raiders, now face a cap hit of more than 6 million. Too much money for too little production? Cutting Sapp only saves them a tick over 100k.

[HoosierCat]

My favorite example involved Sapp, as the winners in the bidding war for his services, da' Raiders, now face a cap hit of more than 6 million. Too much money for too little production? Cutting Sapp only saves them a tick over 100k.

No surprise there. It was clear when the Raiders signed him that it was a 3-year deal. Essentially all they did was take the $9 million the Bengals were offering in their 3-year deal, guarantee it, and top it off with an additional $1 million. Then they tacked on a couple more BS funny-money years so Sapp could have a big number to parade around in the papers. But almost all the guaranteed money went against the first three years. Seems unlikey they cut him since they don't save anything by doing so and they'd have to replace him, and even a rookie makes more than $100k. But this is his last year as a Raider, and very likely in the NFL

[NYBengalfan]

Id love to see us get big Sam Adams from buffalo

[Whur CHad At?]

My favorite example involved Sapp, as the winners in the bidding war for his services, da' Raiders, now face a cap hit of more than 6 million. Too much money for too little production? Cutting Sapp only saves them a tick over 100k.

No surprise there. It was clear when the Raiders signed him that it was a 3-year deal. Essentially all they did was take the $9 million the Bengals were offering in their 3-year deal, guarantee it, and top it off with an additional $1 million. Then they tacked on a couple more BS funny-money years so Sapp could have a big number to parade around in the papers. But almost all the guaranteed money went against the first three years. Seems unlikey they cut him since they don't save anything by doing so and they'd have to replace him, and even a rookie makes more than $100k. But this is his last year as a Raider, and very likely in the NFL

I doubt it is his last year...I am sure one dumb team will pick him up. Remember his first year he was playing out of posistion so that could of been a cause of low production, but he had a little more production in him this year so he def. has a little left in the tank.

I would love to see us bring in Sam Adams or Trevor Pryce

[ArmyBengal]

Trevor Pryce would be more than welcomed, but once again, how much money are we talking about for him ??

WHODEY !!!

[HoosierCat]

I doubt it is his last year...I am sure one dumb team will pick him up. Remember his first year he was playing out of posistion so that could of been a cause of low production, but he had a little more production in him this year so he def. has a little left in the tank.

I hadn't honestly been paying attention but now that I look at him, you're right. In 10 games, 32 tackles (29 solo), 5 sacks, 1 pick, 1 FF, 2 PDs.

B-rob played in 10 games, too...and managed 18 tackles (9 solo) and...well, 18 tackles.

Even in his "out of position" year he kicked Tony Williams' butt. Tony had 16 tackles and...16 tackles. Warren had 42 tackles, 2.5 sacks and a couple fumble recoveries.

So basically it's:

Bengals DTs who would have been gone/not signed if we had Sapp: 26 games, 34 tackles.

Warren Sapp: 26 games, 74 tackles, 7.5 sacks, 1 pick, 1 FF, 1 PD, 2 fumbles recovered.

And people wonder that I have issues with Mike Brown's spending priorities...

[Whur CHad At?]

Trevor Pryce would be more than welcomed, but once again, how much money are we talking about for him ??

WHODEY !!!

the man is getting up there in years, so he needs to realize that teams aren't going to invest a major amount of money in him. He needs to except what he can get and move on...

[schweinhart]

DT wise, I'd be surprised if the Bills turned loose of Sam Adams given they're under the cap and he's their only real starter among the 4 DTs they've got under contract.

I would guess the Cowboys restructure Glover and keep him for another year because he could work all 3 D-line spots for them if need be and they're only 5 deep. He's not going to fetch top dollar in the open market given his age, but if he could be signed for a year for less than Thornton's cap savings if cut this year, then Glover would be worth a visit.

Trevor Pryce looks like a likely candidate to get cut but not a definite one, depending on how restructuring goes with him and other player contracts to shave off the $20 or so million over the cap problem they got. The Broncos did re-sign DE John Engleberger to a 3 year deal per Clayton a few days ago, but Marco Coleman retired this month and the Engleberger deal may have been just to replace him. The Bronocs still have Courtney Brown, who they're apparently trying to redo also and has a $2 million option bonus coming up. They also have Ebenzer Ekuban. A younger Pryce got lots of sacks and he's probably still got some more in him, so like Glover, if he could be signed for less than the savings to cut Thornton, he'd be worth a visit too and could be used either to play end or tackle in passing situations.

[The_Next_Big_Thing]

I doubt it is his last year...I am sure one dumb team will pick him up. Remember his first year he was playing out of posistion so that could of been a cause of low production, but he had a little more production in him this year so he def. has a little left in the tank.

I hadn't honestly been paying attention but now that I look at him, you're right. In 10 games, 32 tackles (29 solo), 5 sacks, 1 pick, 1 FF, 2 PDs.

B-rob played in 10 games, too...and managed 18 tackles (9 solo) and...well, 18 tackles.

Even in his "out of position" year he kicked Tony Williams' butt. Tony had 16 tackles and...16 tackles. Warren had 42 tackles, 2.5 sacks and a couple fumble recoveries.

So basically it's:

Bengals DTs who would have been gone/not signed if we had Sapp: 26 games, 34 tackles.

Warren Sapp: 26 games, 74 tackles, 7.5 sacks, 1 pick, 1 FF, 1 PD, 2 fumbles recovered.

And people wonder that I have issues with Mike Brown's spending priorities...

And people wonder why I have issues with your issues. Mental issues that is...

1. Tony Williams 16 tackle year included most of it on IR if you'll recall. You can't compare that to what Sapp did uninjured.

2. Brob PLAYED in 10 games, he didn't start in all of them. He didn't get the same playtime as Sapp.

3. Sapp was paid far more than ALL of our dlinemen combined.

[rwalling]

herring just needs to go, I'm sorry. I haven't heard s**t about him doing anything since we signed his ass.

You haven't? Perhaps you've totally missed the news about him both years. HE WAS ON IR. Stuff happens.

I'd absolutely love to see Chicago cut Mike Green for cap savings. Dude would be a great addition at safety for us.

I doubt the Titans are going to let Volek walk, but if they do to save themselves 2mill, I say we snag the man.

Trust me, after eight years living in Illinois, I can tell you categorically that Mike Green SUCKS! Think Ohaleyte behind a better front seven. Did you watch their playoff game? He was horrible.

[HoosierCat]

1. Tony Williams 16 tackle year included most of it on IR if you'll recall. You can't compare that to what Sapp did uninjured.

So toss in his replacement, Moore. That's will get you up to 65 tackles and add a sack and a FF. So now we're to 3 players and we still haven't equalled one allegedly elderly and ineffective Warren Sapp.

2. Brob PLAYED in 10 games, he didn't start in all of them. He didn't get the same playtime as Sapp.

Robinson had 9 starts, 10 if you count the playoff game. Sapp had 10 starts. If Robinson didn't get as much playtime, it's because he wasn't anywhere nearly as effective as Sapp.

3. Sapp was paid far more than ALL of our dlinemen combined.

Please. Sapp's "big money" deal is all backloaded smoke & mirrors. I broke it down way back when and can find the thread if you really care. Sapp, assuming he stays with the Raiders through the 2006 season, will have been paid about $10 million for his three years in Oakland. All the guarantees were loaded into the first three years of the deal (which is why he has such a big cap number this coming year); next year they will be able to cut him to free up space (or can rework the deal if they want to keep him).

The Bengals, meanwhile, paid about $2.4 million for Williams and Moore in 2004, spent $3.2 million on Robinson in 2005, and Robinson will make $1.3 million in salary in 2006, for a total over the same three years of about $7 million. So, really, the difference between what the Raiders spent on Sapp, and what we spent on a bunch of guys not named Sapp, is fairly close. The difference works out to about a million per year, chump change in NFL terms.

My issue with the Bengals' spending isn't that they don't spend enough. Generally speaking, they do. It's with how they spend it. They are experts at getting the least bang for their buck.

[The_Next_Big_Thing]

Indeed, they got multiple players for less than Sapp would have made. That's called SMART BUSINESS. The players we had played almost as well as Sapp did himself. We saved a million or so based on your numbers. We were also protected from injury to our starting DT by doing it the way we did, and it's a good thing too.

[HoosierCat]

Indeed, they got multiple players for less than Sapp would have made. That's called SMART BUSINESS.

Not when those multiple players can't do the job. It's like saying that you're going to enter the Indy 500, but instead of spending $100,000 on an Indy car you spend $20,000 each on five Honda Civics. Well, now you have multiple cars...but what are your chances of winning the race?

The players we had played almost as well as Sapp did himself. We saved a million or so based on your numbers.

Well, isn't that the point? Collectively they still didn't measure up to Sapp (who, I remind you, is widely considered to be a decrepit, worthless has-been) and the savings bordered on insignificant. Even if you believe that paying Sapp would have been a mistake, you also have to admit that this multiple-second/third-tier-players has been at least equally, and arguably more, ineffective.