Section 310 Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 PFT has the cap numbers posted on their site. They warn that certain player incentives are not factored in. This could reduce the number shown. No surprise, but they have the Bengals in decent shape at $20mm (14th best) under...despite the dire warnings from Hobson and the front office. The Brownies are at $29mm under, the Steelers at $300k under and the Rats at $1mm over.I wish the Bengals would use some of that on a guy like Samuel or even a couple of above-average journeymen rather than piss it away on Smith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rishipatel Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 John Clayton on ESPN.com has listed each team's cap space too.http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...&id=2758756Has the Bengals at a healthy $18.7 mill under.Ravens: $3.3mill underBrowns: $26.2mill underSteelers: $3.1mill under Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 ...and askthecommish.com has them at $28.8m under, so take your pick:http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/numbers.aspNote that would be pre-Junior's deal, which would knock that down by $3.5 to $5m, depending on how it's structured. Koo and Johnson's new deals probably cost them another million or two. So they ought to be around $22m or $23m by ask's numbers.PFT's $20m figure sounds like a good compromise between that and Clayton's calculations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 PFT's $20m figure sounds like a good compromise between that and Clayton's calculations. I wrote a bunch of numbers on the wall and then threw a dart. It hit the couch. So I figure the Bengals have 17.8 million bucks in cap room. Regardless, you know what they say. A million here and a million there and pretty soon you're talking about real money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 ...and askthecommish.com has them at $28.8m under, so take your pick:http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/numbers.aspNote that would be pre-Junior's deal, which would knock that down by $3.5 to $5m, depending on how it's structured. Koo and Johnson's new deals probably cost them another million or two. So they ought to be around $22m or $23m by ask's numbers.PFT's $20m figure sounds like a good compromise between that and Clayton's calculations.has landon been resigned yet? haven't heard anything about it since kooistra thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 has landon been resigned yet? haven't heard anything about it since kooistra thread.Not as far as I know. Last I heard was the info on lance's blog that Hair pointed out. According to that, if no deal was reached by last Weds., then they would tender him and let some other team do their negotiating.What's interesting about that is that it suggests that they won't put the top tender on Landon; IMHO no team is going to be willing to give up a first for him. (And if someone was I would take it in a flash.) If that's the way it plays out it would surprise me a bit. And frankly if they tender him at the minimum level, which would bring a 3rd round pick if the Bengals chose not to match an offer, and someone offers him...I might take the 3rd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 think they use 1st or mybe a 2nd just to tempt team with a very late 2nd . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schweinhart Posted February 12, 2007 Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 has landon been resigned yet? haven't heard anything about it since kooistra thread.Not as far as I know. Last I heard was the info on lance's blog that Hair pointed out. According to that, if no deal was reached by last Weds., then they would tender him and let some other team do their negotiating.What's interesting about that is that it suggests that they won't put the top tender on Landon; IMHO no team is going to be willing to give up a first for him. (And if someone was I would take it in a flash.) If that's the way it plays out it would surprise me a bit. And frankly if they tender him at the minimum level, which would bring a 3rd round pick if the Bengals chose not to match an offer, and someone offers him...I might take the 3rd.I don't know about lowballing Landon. He's not an Odell on the field but he damn sure ain't one off. They could do a lot worse than keeping him in Cincy. He is a decent WSLB and that price has been going up. Risking a match at all could force the Bengals to cough up like 4 years, $15 mill and then they screw themselves pretty good right out of the gate by creating another need if they don't beat it. B-Simms crippling neck stinger has to add some front office esteem for Landon too. Plus the guy is a serviceable MLB backup and a guaranteed nickel backer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted February 12, 2007 Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 I don't know about lowballing Landon. He's not an Odell on the field but he damn sure ain't one off. They could do a lot worse than keeping him in Cincy. He is a decent WSLB and that price has been going up. Risking a match at all could force the Bengals to cough up like 4 years, $15 mill and then they screw themselves pretty good right out of the gate by creating another need if they don't beat it. B-Simms crippling neck stinger has to add some front office esteem for Landon too. Plus the guy is a serviceable MLB backup and a guaranteed nickel backer.Yeah, I agree. The trouble is that if you look at guys like Daryl Smith and Cato June, they've got numbers reasonably close to Landon's, and they are $5m/year guys this offseason. So I don't think they're going to get Landon to sign for anything less than the kind of deal you cite. Which is borderline starter money. So like I said elsewhere, I think they need to sh*t or get off the pot regarding Landon; either he's Simmons' heir, or he isn't. If they think he is, then they ought to pay him be done with it. If not, put the minimum tender on him, see if anyone bites, and if so take the pick. And draft a WLB on day 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted February 12, 2007 Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 Another data point for the "what's Landon worth?" file: The New Orleans Saints have signed WLB Scott Shanle to a four-year deal. I havent seen any official numbers on it, but word out of NO via saintsreport.com is that it's in the $3m/year neighborhood. Shanle, a former 7th round pick in his 4th season, was a full-time starter for the first time in his career last year, and put up very Landonesque numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schweinhart Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 They might conclude the best way to get off the pot is the 1st round tender for Landon. Shouldn't bump his hit more than $1 mill from last year and they'd have at least 1 answered question for now and still could pursue free agents if they want. A 3rd rounder would have a ways to go to get where Landon is and be as versatile as he when they have needed him to be. The ship on defense is too adrift right now to toss him overboard IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Not that Hobson knows boo, but I found it interesting that in his last column, talking about RFAs, Landon wasn't mentioned as a possible higher tender guy...They also figure to tender restricted free agents Stacy Andrews, Kyle Larson, Caleb Miller and Landon Johnson, and maybe cornerback Greg Brooks. That’s about another $4 million and could be more if they decide to tender Andrews and Larson $1.3 million to fend off suitors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schweinhart Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Hard to believe there wouldn't be 4-3 teams looking at Landon as a cheap starter at WSLB and middle nickel, like the Colts, Zona, G-Men and Carolina or as a 3-4 drop back ILB, like the Bolts. I' say he's worth more than a 3rd rounder at this point and the risk of losing him and his versatility just ain't worth it IMO. Dude is solid, plays hurt if he has to and won't be an embarassment to the organiztion on or off the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Hard to believe there wouldn't be 4-3 teams looking at Landon as a cheap starter at WSLB and middle nickel, like the Colts, Zona, G-Men and Carolina or as a 3-4 drop back ILB, like the Bolts. I' say he's worth more than a 3rd rounder at this point and the risk of losing him and his versatility just ain't worth it IMO. Dude is solid, plays hurt if he has to and won't be an embarassment to the organiztion on or off the field.I agree with your second point, but I suspect your first point is the issue right now. Even a "cheap" starter is going to make more than the Bengals are likely comfortable paying for someone that they obviously have pegged as a backup/utility guy -- however versatile he might be. Even if no one is willing to give up a 3rd for Landon, he can talk to other teams, get an idea of his value, and depending on what that looks like and what the Bengals have offered long-term, he may decide to go the 1-year tender route.Interesting situation to watch... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schweinhart Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 Intersting to watch to with Caleb....Same boat. Maybe the Bengals have decided to commit to bigger stronger LBs rather than the lighter faster ones like was done at the start of the Marv era. Or maybe they'll waffle back and forth on what they want for the foreseeable future. Hate to say it but the ship on D might be so far adrift not just because of injuries and legal woes but because there's no captain on board. Marv wants them to have an identity he better give them one but that won't happen until he makes up his effing mind about what he wants if it is his mind to make up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 Hate to say it but the ship on D might be so far adrift not just because of injuries and legal woes but because there's no captain on board.I would say that it's less the lack of a captain than it is too many parts falling off the boat at one time.If Pollack doesn't break his neck and Odell doesn't implode, then the defensive side of the ball is a walk. Secure Robert for the long term (done), throw too much money at Justin (why not?), can James and O'Neal, and draft CB & WLB. Unfortunately, in the real world, the Bengals are (maybe) out two LBs, the third is old; definitely out one CB and maybe two, and are faced with letting a hole open up at DE unless they break the bank for a good but not great player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.