Curnutte Calls BS on Bengals FA Efforts

[Kazkal]

But as for defense - the Bengals' mantra has been to keep and over-pay their own crappy/average starters, and wait for the market to come to them, and end up signing sloths after all the good players are aggressively scooped up by winning teams.

Those Redskins sure went far with Adam Archuleta. Don't forget the impact Grady Jackson had on that Atlanta defense. Kemoatu was a demon with those playoff bound Panthers.

Winning teams don't waste their money on this crap.

You mean like Baltimore did with Trevor Pryce?

Like Indianapolis did with Vinatieri?

Like the Jets did with Kimo?

Like San Diego did with Marlon McCree?

Like New Orleans did with Drew Brees?

Like Philadelphia did with Darren Howard?

Like Seattle did with Nate Burleson and Julian Peterson?

Seattle:Grant winstrom you know that justin smith clone

"this deal means they're done in FA" story.

Noooooooooo we must resign KK and Larson!

[Kirkendall]

... if they use the savings wisely.

And therein lies the crux of the matter. If they let Smith walk, and subsequently sign a stud player at a position of need, great. OTOH, if they let him go, putter around in FA as usual, and then end up trying to fill holes with rooks and bargain-bin FAs...well, hell, I'd rather see them "overpay" for Smith (or Steinbach).

From the sounds of it, I bet you get your wish in regards to Steinbach.

[HoosierCat]

If ya listen to Ludwig, it's Steinbach. If you listen to Hobson, it's Smith. So who the heck knows?

Hard to see them pouring more money into the o-line, tho.

[Stripes]

But as for defense - the Bengals' mantra has been to keep and over-pay their own crappy/average starters, and wait for the market to come to them, and end up signing sloths after all the good players are aggressively scooped up by winning teams.

Those Redskins sure went far with Adam Archuleta. Don't forget the impact Grady Jackson had on that Atlanta defense. Kemoatu was a demon with those playoff bound Panthers.

Winning teams don't waste their money on this crap.

You mean like Baltimore did with Trevor Pryce?

Like Indianapolis did with Vinatieri?

Like the Jets did with Kimo?

Like San Diego did with Marlon McCree?

Like New Orleans did with Drew Brees?

Like Philadelphia did with Darren Howard?

Like Seattle did with Nate Burleson and Julian Peterson?

So good teams only address glaring needs in FA? Kinda like Cincinnati did with Sam Adams? Kinda like Cincinnati did with Dexter Jackson?

The Bengals have handled their business in very similar fashion to all the above listed teams.

There's no reason to assume the Bengals won't participate in the FA market, but there's plenty of [good] reason to assume they won't compromise their cap strategy by blowing millions on the Archuletas of 2007.

[HoosierCat]

There's no reason to assume the Bengals won't participate in the FA market, but there's plenty of [good] reason to assume they won't compromise their cap strategy by blowing millions on the Archuletas of 2007.

The Bengals are so far from any cap trouble -- even if they did sign a big-bucks FA who flopped -- that it's laughable. There are reasonable arguments against putting a large number of eggs into a single basket, but in the Bengals' case the cap isn't one of them.

[Stripes]

There's no reason to assume the Bengals won't participate in the FA market, but there's plenty of [good] reason to assume they won't compromise their cap strategy by blowing millions on the Archuletas of 2007.

The Bengals are so far from any cap trouble -- even if they did sign a big-bucks FA who flopped -- that it's laughable. There are reasonable arguments against putting a large number of eggs into a single basket, but in the Bengals' case the cap isn't one of them.

I'm not saying they're restricted by the cap, I'm saying they have all that space because of how they've handled business in recent years. A big-bucks-flop of a FA would compromise the comfortable position they've put themselves in.

[HairOnFire]

At the risk of being told to bite someone.... ....isn't it funny how the same voices that demand the Bengals be more conservative in the draft are the very same ones that mock them for being conservative in free agency?

[HoosierCat]

I'm not saying they're restricted by the cap, I'm saying they have all that space because of how they've handled business in recent years. A big-bucks-flop of a FA would compromise the comfortable position they've put themselves in.

And I'm saying: no, it wouldn't. It wouldn't precisely because they are in the position they are in. They could absorb any dead money hit from a flop easily, especially with the way the cap is jumping every year -- it's projected to increase by another $11m in '08 for example. You get in cap trouble by spending foolishly for several years, not by taking the occasional chance.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

... if they use the savings wisely.

And therein lies the crux of the matter. If they let Smith walk, and subsequently sign a stud player at a position of need, great. OTOH, if they let him go, putter around in FA as usual, and then end up trying to fill holes with rooks and bargain-bin FAs...well, hell, I'd rather see them "overpay" for Smith (or Steinbach).

If I had to make a bet, Shula, I'd say the chances of you throwing up in your mouth are pretty good. Unless they're prepared to abandon their long-standing approach to FA and play by the same rules everyone else does -- with all the funny money and backloaded deals and easy incentives and everything else -- Smith is probably the "best" FA they have a shot at, since he's the one they can tag and thus retain a right to match.

I think the Bengals probably make Justin a big "final" offer at the end of Feb., just before FA starts. Justin demurs politely, he wants to test the market; the Bengals leave the offer on the table, and probably stick the transition tag on him. FA starts, Justin visits some teams, and finds nothing that blows what Cincy is offering out of the water, and circles back to PBS. The aforementioned "final" offer gets a tweak or two...and we get to read Hobson's annual "this deal means they're done in FA" story.

I hear ya HC. It's sad how predictable they are. Almost as predictable as Justin Smith's pass rush moves.

[HoosierCat]

At the risk of being told to bite someone.... ....isn't it funny how the same voices that demand the Bengals be more conservative in the draft are the very same ones that mock them for being conservative in free agency?

When faced with a player who has never played an NFL down versus a guy with a multi-year track record in the league...uh, yeah, caution is warranted more in the former case than the latter.

[Stripes]

I'm not saying they're restricted by the cap, I'm saying they have all that space because of how they've handled business in recent years. A big-bucks-flop of a FA would compromise the comfortable position they've put themselves in.

And I'm saying: no, it wouldn't. It wouldn't precisely because they are in the position they are in. They could absorb any dead money hit from a flop easily, especially with the way the cap is jumping every year -- it's projected to increase by another $11m in '08 for example. You get in cap trouble by spending foolishly for several years, not by taking the occasional chance.

I can agree with that, and had the Bengals just finished a 4-12 season, I'd agree completely. I just don't think they're in a position in which taking a chance with their cap space is necessary. They're set for long term success, and the chances of any FA putting them over the top aren't all that high. I'll likely be in the minority here, but I think the Bengals of .500 fame currently find themselves dealing with the very friendly problem of being able to take any risk they want, but not having the need to do so.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

At the risk of being told to bite someone.... ....isn't it funny how the same voices that demand the Bengals be more conservative in the draft are the very same ones that mock them for being conservative in free agency?

Bah these are apples and oranges Hair. Taking chances financially in the short term, versus taking chances on questionable character and unproven pro level talent are two very different things IMO.

So bite me!

I'm not saying they're restricted by the cap, I'm saying they have all that space because of how they've handled business in recent years. A big-bucks-flop of a FA would compromise the comfortable position they've put themselves in.

And I'm saying: no, it wouldn't. It wouldn't precisely because they are in the position they are in. They could absorb any dead money hit from a flop easily, especially with the way the cap is jumping every year -- it's projected to increase by another $11m in '08 for example. You get in cap trouble by spending foolishly for several years, not by taking the occasional chance.

I can agree with that, and had the Bengals just finished a 4-12 season, I'd agree completely. I don't think they're in a position in which taking a chance with their cap space is necessary. They're set for long term success, and the chances of any FA putting them over the top aren't all that high. I'll likely be in the minority here, but I think the Bengals of .500 fame currently find themselves dealing with the very friendly problem of being able to take any risk they want, but not having the need to do so.

Of course it's necessary though! They are a couple of difference makers away from a .500 team, to a playoff or Superbowl caliber team. This is EXACTLY the time to throw some $ around and try to get a couple of stud FA's in here for a few years.

The teams mentioned above that countered the Archuleta claim, were all teams in somewhat similar positions to the Bengals' now at the time - they knew they had a good group that just need a few guys to get them over the hump.

I mean, what's the point of being all cushy on the salary cap if they never do anything with it? What's the risk? They lose another crappy player? Who cares!?

And frankly I'm a little concerned that some of you are so worried about Mike Brown's profit margins.

That SOB owes us big time, and it's time to put up or shut up - he and his sweetheart stadium deal need to pony up and play the same game the other teams do for once. Enough is enough of the miser mentality.

No one's asking him to do it as a long-running philosophy like the Redskins or Cowboys.

Just go out and over-pay a little for players that are better than what you have.

Or at least make an honest, concerted freaking effort - beyond taking them to the Precinct and a coach plane ticket.

Again this would be different if they hadn't drafted and developed players and coaches so poorly over the years. You pay for your mistakes.

Otherwise get used to a .500 team that fills the seats - because that's all Mike Brown seems to care about and be happy with.

[HoosierCat]

I don't think they're in a position in which taking a chance with thier cap space is necessary. They're set for long term success, and the chances of any FA putting them over the top aren't all that high.

Maybe, maybe not, but look at it from the other side: when has there ever been a better time to take a chance? If the Bengals stay true to form, they're going to spend up to the cap anyhow, so why not make a grab for an impact player?

[Stripes]

I don't think they're in a position in which taking a chance with thier cap space is necessary. They're set for long term success, and the chances of any FA putting them over the top aren't all that high.

Maybe, maybe not, but look at it from the other side: when has there ever been a better time to take a chance? If the Bengals stay true to form, they're going to spend up to the cap anyhow, so why not make a grab for an impact player?

I do think the Bengals will make that effort, contrary to the worries of Curnutte. I think they'll at least be as involved as they have been lately with the likes of Warren Sapp or Corey Simon. I just doubt they'll pony up the Redskins-type cash it'll take to get guys like Asante Samuel, and I don't blame them.

I mean, what's the point of being all cushy on the salary cap if they never do anything with it? What's the risk? They lose another crappy player? Who cares!?

Well that's the essence of this debate, isn't it? "Crappy" is a relative term.

Just go out and over-pay a little for players that are better than what you have.

The problem is, even if the Bengals do step out of their shell and make that offer to over-pay them "just a little," some other team like the Redskins or Cowboys will be willing to over-pay them more than "just a little."

Or at least make an honest, concerted freaking effort - beyond taking them to the Precinct and a coach plane ticket.

They've made an honest, concerted effort to bring in impact players multiple times since Marvin hopped on board.

Otherwise get used to a .500 team that fills the seats - because that's all Mike Brown seems to care about and be happy with.

And on that mentality, we'll never see eye to eye.

[HairOnFire]

At the risk of being told to bite someone.... ....isn't it funny how the same voices that demand the Bengals be more conservative in the draft are the very same ones that mock them for being conservative in free agency?

When faced with a player who has never played an NFL down versus a guy with a multi-year track record in the league...uh, yeah, caution is warranted more in the former case than the latter.

I disagree. Unless you're drafting in the top 5 the cost of a busted pick is often far easier to absorb. For example, Akili Smith was a disasterous draft pick but I've read that he was paid less than 40% of the total contract amount he signed for. Much less, in fact.

More? Odell Thurman was a very high 2nd round pick that you've admitted could be cut without giving a second thought to the salary cap. Compare that with the financial obligations that a team would have to commit under any realistic scenario that results in Lance Briggs becoming a Bengal. Any team can make a mistake on a player like Thurman and not only survive, but move very quickly to replace the busted player. That's not true when discussing big ticket free agents.

As for the established track record that comes with veteran free agents, yeah...it gives some indictation of what a team should be able to expect. But it doesn't eliminate the risk of injury or the probability that the player in question won't perform as well in a new system or after being surrounded by different teammates. The mix changes the results.

And why is it that an established level of play is a consideration of real value only when debating the merits of players outside the organization? Doesn't it explain very well why the Bengals prefer to sign their own free agents instead of endlessly chasing players that other teams couldn't afford to keep?

It's considered common knowledge that most free agents come with price tags that can't be justified by the team that let them leave or the team that begged them to come. Granted, teams willingly overpay because of pure pressing need, but it's still overpaying. And that results in a staggering number of examples where the buyer releases the free agent back into the marketplace only a year or two after trumping all other bidders.

[HairOnFire]

The problem is, even if the Bengals do step out of their shell and make that offer to over-pay them "just a little," some other team like the Redskins or Cowboys will be willing to over-pay them more than "just a little."

It's not just the Redskins or the Cowboys. Adding talent in free agency means your shopping in a very shallow talent pool as well as bidding against the field, not just one team. And it also means a player can ignore your egual or higher bid because he wants to play closer to home, for an old coach he once had, or in a warmer climate.

Plus, there's absolutely nothing to stop that player from using your bid soley as a means to drive up the price for teams he will sign for. And that propmpts the very same fan who once said "over-pay just a little" to quickly demand the team "over-pay just a little more than a little more". And if the team refuses to bid against itself the same fan screams that the team is being cheap.

Wait for it. It's coming soon enough.

[schroomytunes]

Well I for one hope we dont approach FA like the Redskins do every year. I would rather we play in it a little and find those difference makers in the draft. If we look at this years offseason I would like these UFA's back in Bengal strips. KK,R.Kelly,K.Watson,M.Wilkins. As far as Justin Smith, why overpay a guy that is an underachiever, and Steiny well we can replace alot cheaper and upgrade in other areas.

FA's I like:

1)Michael Myers-DT

2)London Fletcher-MLB

3)Asante Samuel-CB

4)Nate Clements-CB

If we could land at least 1 of the above then our defense will be an improvement.

Cap Casulties:Bryan Robinson,John Thornton-again what would we miss!

[Sox]

But as for defense - the Bengals' mantra has been to keep and over-pay their own crappy/average starters, and wait for the market to come to them, and end up signing sloths after all the good players are aggressively scooped up by winning teams.

Those Redskins sure went far with Adam Archuleta. Don't forget the impact Grady Jackson had on that Atlanta defense. Kemoatu was a demon with those playoff bound Panthers.

Winning teams don't waste their money on this crap.

You mean like Baltimore did with Trevor Pryce?

Like Indianapolis did with Vinatieri?

Like the Jets did with Kimo?

Like San Diego did with Marlon McCree?

Like New Orleans did with Drew Brees?

Like Philadelphia did with Darren Howard?

Like Seattle did with Nate Burleson and Julian Peterson?

So good teams only address glaring needs in FA? Kinda like Cincinnati did with Sam Adams? Kinda like Cincinnati did with Dexter Jackson?

The Bengals have handled their business in very similar fashion to all the above listed teams.

There's no reason to assume the Bengals won't participate in the FA market, but there's plenty of [good] reason to assume they won't compromise their cap strategy by blowing millions on the Archuletas of 2007.

That's crap.

You state that winning teams don't spend big money on free agents; I refuted your argument with facts. Not every team signs a bust. Did you notice anything in particular about the teams and players I showed?

Every one of them was in the playoffs.

Would you like me to go back another year and see what free agents last years PLAYOFF teams signed?

[Stripes]

That's crap.

You state that winning teams don't spend big money on free agents; I refuted your argument with facts. Not every team signs a bust. Did you notice anything in particular about the teams and players I showed?

Every one of them was in the playoffs.

Would you like me to go back another year and see what free agents last years PLAYOFF teams signed?

Yes I'm quite aware the teams you listed made the playoffs, and I'm well aware they signed free agents. The difference between the players you list (aside from Drew Brees, Adam Vinatieri, and Julian Peterson - I'll address them next) and the players in question are the prices they demanded on the free agent market.

I listed Adam Archuleta as the first obvious example. The contract he signed with the Redskins was the highest paying in NFL history for any safety. Perennial winners whom needed safety help like the Patriots might have been players in the Archuleta market, but when his asking price got as high as the Redskins were offering, they all abandoned ship. Even had Archuleta played well this year, the point would remain the same.. Very few teams were willing to spend that much cash whether it shored up a position of need or not.

You listed Marlon McCree given his signing with the Chargers. Do you think the circumstances of that signing are similar to that of Archuleta, or can better parallels be drawn to the Bengals signing a similar second tier safety in Dexter Jackson?

Similar comparisons can be made all over your list... For example: Trevor Pryce on a winning Ravens team, Kimo on a winning Jets team, or Darren Howard on a winning Eagles team vs. the much more expensive John Abraham on a losing Falcons team. The better teams got good value out of the free agent market without throwing money at the apparent best options available.

As for Drew Brees, he was signed by a 3-13 Saints team with nothing to lose... not a perennial winner. They had plenty of reason to take a chance on Brees, and it has paid off for them. Adam Vinatieri is a kicker, and I don't think he fits as well in this discussion as such... but regardless, the Colts felt they had a pressing need to upgrade the kicker position after Vanderjagt's constant misses in pressure situations.

Julian Peterson is the one guy that got big money from a consistent winning team. He's the only valid example on your list, in my opinion.

[HoosierCat]

I disagree. Unless you're drafting in the top 5 the cost of a busted pick is often far easier to absorb.

Maybe, maybe not, but again, not applicable to this discussion. No one is suggesting the Bengals go out and sign $200 million worth of FA and commit cap suicide, and in their current position have ample cap space now and in the future to sign any name you could want.

And why is it that an established level of play is a consideration of real value only when debating the merits of players outside the organization? Doesn't it explain very well why the Bengals prefer to sign their own free agents instead of endlessly chasing players that other teams couldn't afford to keep?

I continue to wait for the name of the current player whom they should spend $10m on...

[HairOnFire]

No one is suggesting the Bengals go out and sign $200 million worth of FA and commit cap suicide, and in their current position have ample cap space now and in the future to sign any name you could want.

Well, I guess we can both agree that the $200 million dollar figure hasn't been brought up precisely because it's a crap figure that isn't grounded in reality.

As for the cap space the Bengals do have, and their apparent ability to sign anyone on the market....where those players eventually play will be determined by the players themselves, not the Bengals. And on that point, how many examples can you think of where the Bengals lost a free agent bidding war despite offering the most money OR offering a comparable contract that was structured in such a manner that the player was more likely to earn the money being offered instead of being cut after a season or two.

Even those who suggest the Bengals make a bigger splash in free agency admit that the Bengals will only be successful if they pay more than the talent is really worth. And since when did fiscal irresponsibility become a model for successful team building?

Finally, as others have pointed out...the Bengals always find themselves well positioned in regards to the salary cap precisely because of the way they have historically approached free agency. To suggest that they suddenly change tactics and go on a free agent shopping spree is fine in theory if the proponent is suggesting the Bengals are in a position where increased risk has to be taken because the team can..."win big right now."

But here's the rub. That same argument in favor of absorbing greater risk can be made in regards to draft picks who increase your odds of winning now instead of later. (Chris Henry, Odell Thurman, etc.) More importantly, if a draft pick does bust due to poor character it's easier for a team to move on precisely because those players have fallen in the draft and demand a salary that is a fraction of what their talent level would command under other circumstances.

[HairOnFire]

I continue to wait for the name of the current player whom they should spend $10m on...

Keep waiting. I'm actually in favor of the Bengals strategy of signing most of your own free agents while adding two or three 2nd tier players to start at positions of pressing need, thereby freeing up a draft that should produce one or two additional immediate starters. For any team that considers itself a playoff contender....adding 4 or 5 new starters is a successful offseason.

Oh, and if the Bengals have more money than usual due to various factors....see if you can't finally land the bigger fish that has always eluded you. But if you can't then add another 2nd tier free agent or extend the contract of one of your own players who is approaching free agency.

[HoosierCat]

Even those who suggest the Bengals make a bigger splash in free agency admit that the Bengals will only be successful if they pay more than the talent is really worth. And since when did fiscal irresponsibility become a model for successful team building?

The only kind of fiscal irresponsibility that can be practiced by NFL teams is bad cap management, which we've already agreed doesn't apply here. The act of "paying talent more than its worth" is an artifact of revenue-sharing; teams don't behave in a financially rational manner because the vast majority of the money they spend is effectively OPM -- Other People's Money. If there were actual financial consequences to poor spending habits by NFL teams (for example, bankruptcy) it wouldn't happen. But you have to try really, really hard, and fail at a lot outside of footbal, to go belly-up as an NFL owner (see Modell, Art).

Finally, as others have pointed out...the Bengals always find themselves well positioned in regards to the salary cap precisely because of the way they have historically approached free agency. To suggest that they suddenly change tactics and go on a free agent shopping spree is fine in theory if the proponent is suggesting the Bengals are in a position where increased risk has to be taken because the team can..."win big right now."

It doesn't have to be taken, but it makes sense. The historical Bengals approach made sense when, one, a single impact FA wouldn't have made enough difference, and; second, when the cap was only increasing by a few million a season. However, neither of those objections now apply.

But here's the rub. That same argument in favor of absorbing greater risk can be made in regards to draft picks who increase your odds of winning now instead of later. (Chris Henry, Odell Thurman, etc.)

Just like you can only sign so many big-bucks FAs before getting yourself in trouble, you can only sign so many character risks before you poison team chemistry. The latter has become an issue for the Bengals, the former has not. Sorry, but I'm unconvinced.

Keep waiting. I'm actually in favor of the Bengals strategy of signing most of your own free agents while adding two or three 2nd tier players to start at positions of pressing need

No one is against them signing their own FAs. But the point is, they've done it. Really, there's no one left to spend big bucks on or extend right now -- unless you count Steinbach or Smith, and it appears that most people (yourself included) are prepared to howl if they get the coin they're asking.

As for bring aboard even more second-tier junk, why? Where? I'd argue it would make more sense for the Bengals to give increased playing time to their own young prospects. The Bengals have done nothing but bring in bargain FAs for, well, ever, who rarely make an impact, large or small. Again, the startegy made sense a few years ago when the team had to dump virtuallly the whole defense and needed a pile of stopgaps. We ought to be beyond that now.

[HairOnFire]

The only kind of fiscal irresponsibility that can be practiced by NFL teams is bad cap management, which we've already agreed doesn't apply here.

And the very reason it doesn't apply is due to the Bengals long standing strategy in free agency. Granted, they could abandon that strategy any year it suits them, but they do so at the risk of not being in solid shape in future years.

[HairOnFire]

As for bring aboard even more second-tier junk, why? Where?

Who said anything about adding junk? I applauded the signing of Dexter Jackson last year...a 2nd tier moved you mocked openly and often. In hindsight, who called that one better?

In addition, the dynasty that became the Patriots was begun by Scott Piolli's decision to ignore high priced free agents in favor of a larger crop of 2nd tier free agents. That decision resulted in a team that was solid everywhere almost overnight, but according to critics supposedly lacked starpower. Those same critics are now calling the strategy brilliant.

The fact remains that many successful teams use exactly the same conservative free agent strategy as the Bengals.