Is your wife sleeping with an unemployed NFL GM?

[The PatternMaster]

nothing is wrong with high standards, but there is something wrong with unrealistic expectations. Did you expect Marvin to win the SuperBowl in his 3rd year after taking over what many in the NFL believe to be the worst franchise in all of sports.

No. But we aren't talking about his third year, we are talking about his fifth year. And what is "unrealistic" for this season? Is it a winning season? A playoff loss like 05? A playoff victory? A conference Championship? A Super Bowl loss? A Super Bowl win? I think if you ask around here, you'll find most people feel that the minimum for success is a return to the playoffs. It that "unrealistic"?

If you think that your standards or expectations are higher than Marvin's or anyone elses in PBS then you are mistaken, they want to win so badly that they literally are spending millions of dollars to do so, how much have u invested in the Bengals? Not trying to be a prick but just trying to give u some perspective.

Where did I say my "standards were higher than Marvin's or the FO's"? I did say that my standards were higher than just having a good offseason, but that ought to go without saying. As for spending millions of dollars, well, the majority of the money being "spent" by the Bengals is the players' money to begin with. It's their cut of total NFL revenues; all the teams do is dispense it. The real question is how they dispense it, and the Bengals' record on that is, to be generous, mixed.

Marvin changed the culture and in doing so he set the bar so high that going 8-8 is like going 4-12 or 2-14, he should be praised for his accomplishments not given ultimatiums and questions of his abilities to get the job done. He is more than capable and he will have success has a head coach here or some other place, after the 90's I glad we have a coach like Marvin because I remember the other options it ain't a pleasant memory.

Well, whether Marvin has really changed the culture remains to be seen. We've had two seasons end in disarray, and from what Marvin has said in recent days, there remains a lot of instilling-the-right-attitude work to go.

As for those "other options," all I can say is, we've been here before. This debate has been going on since long since Marvin was hired. If you want plesant memories from the dark years, ask old-timers like me about the heady days of 1996, when the Bengals under new coach Bruce Coslet cut a swath of destruction through the league. Or even the following year, when despite Boomer's defection to MNF the Bengals remained contenders, falling out only after three heartbreaking losses (by a combined 8 points) near the end of the year. And in the following draft we would get Spikes and Simmons and Foley, instantly creating (we hoped) one of the best LB units in the league. And then...

...well, we all know how it turned out. Hopefully, things turn out better this time around. But I hope you won't mind if I wait to see it before I believe it.

Well there's the rub as Marvin Lewis had nothing to do with the 2-14 season.

I never said he did. Pattern brought that up.

No, that failure can largely be placed at the feet of popular players that few of you are willing to criticize. In short, Carson Palmer tanked it up down the stretch, Chad Johnson made more mistakes than big plays, rock-steady long snapper Brad St.Louis crumbled under pressure, and one of the very best placekickers in the entire NFL, Shayne Graham, missed a fairly easy kick that if made would have made this discussion impossible.

Well, don't include me in the above. I was one of the few who lambasted our highly paid offense for not getting the job done after the season...and was promptly shouted down by the blame-the-defense crowd.

The difference between making the playoffs and not making the playoffs is very slim, unfortunately we know all too well.

Going into his 5th year I'm sure Marvin planned to be commanding a well oiled machine, but he didn't plan on his starting MLB smoking himself into a year long drug suspension, he didn't plan on 2 first round picks not being able to stay healthy long enough to contribute, or any of the crazy un-controllable things that this franchise has had to endure the past few years.

I, like you believe that if this team doesn't win the SuperBowl they have under achieved, but I also realize that we are headed in the right direction and doing something extreme like getting rid of the head coach would be counter-productive to say the least. Not saying you want to get rid of Marvin, yet..But if they don't win a playoff game it sounds like you would support that decision.

If you look at the Colts they have had one of the best teams in the NFL this decade and they finally got over the hump this year by staying true their system and believing in each other. Only one team can win it all each year and when a team is young and has never experienced success they have to learn how to win before they can make the final evolution into a championship team.

We have a young team and a first time HC, they all are learning as they go, unfortunately some lessons come a steeper price than others but that is way the game works. I apprieciate a team that is fiscally sound, re-signs it's own players and builds through the draft; that is how a dynasty is built in the FA era of the NFL.

[TJJackson]

Well.....pretty much everyone thinks they can do a better job as GM than Mike "I'm just as smart as my daddy" Brown....and pretty much everyone who thinks so is right -- because being a better GM than him is not a difficult thing to do.

The only two exceptions I can think of....agreen and spain. Heck, even Don'tListenToMe would be a better GM than Small Market Mikey

[The PatternMaster]

Well.....pretty much everyone thinks they can do a better job as GM than Mike "I'm just as smart as my daddy" Brown....and pretty much everyone who thinks so is right -- because being a better GM than him is not a difficult thing to do.

The only two exceptions I can think of....agreen and spain. Heck, even Don'tListenToMe would be a better GM than Small Market Mikey

WOW...Did you even read the article.. Mike Brown isn't the GM, it's a GM by committee. Please understand that before you go bashing Mike Brown, he can't change the past all he can do is work to ensure that history doesn't repeat itself. As far as I can see he is doing a good job, besides bashing MB is sooo 1999-2000, get with the times man!!!

[TJJackson]

Yep, I read the article.

No, it's not GM by committee....Mikey Boy holds the title, and he sucks.

Doesn't matter what year you pick - he sucks in any year, and will suck until he passes on

Oh, and the whole "that's so 2000" comment....what are you, a teenage girl? Do you think this forum is about clothing or music?

[ShulaSteakhouse]

Also, let's remember it doesn't take more than one or two offseasons these days to turn an NFL team around - literally - if you really want to. This isn't college with 4-5 year plans anymore. Marvin's had plenty of time - let's see some real results or get someone in here who can get them. Tired of the low standards. No one cares about 8-8 seasons.

Well there's the rub. Are you smart enough to recognize better results when you see them? Based upon your posts I'd say....no.

I think an excerpt from Lance McAlister's blog tonight sums up the response to your typically inane and short-sighted statement quite succinctly, on the subject of Tubby Smith leaving UK:

But failing to make the Sweet 16 in back to back seasons showed UK was trending the other way. Sure they were 'this close" to going to the Final Four three years ago. But "close" isn't for elite programs. Close is for programs that accept less than the best. Close is for the Bengals fan who are happy that 8-8 is better than 2-14.

I was happy about 8-8 three years ago, but that got old quick.

I've seen one freakin' playoff game in 16 *** damn years, I'm f-king sick of it, absolutely tired of excuses and am more than out of patience.

Forgive me for not being "appreciative" of .500 seasons year after year.

[Stripes]

I was happy about 8-8 three years ago, but that got old quick.

I've seen one freakin' playoff game in 16 *** damn years, I'm f-king sick of it, absolutely tired of excuses and am more than out of patience.

Forgive me for not being "appreciative" of .500 seasons year after year.

Nobody is satisfied with 8-8. Nobody.

Not a single member of this message board ever says, "Yay, we finished .500!"

You're allowed to be tired of excuses, but it's still an obvious error to disregard them entirely no matter how much truth they may hold. The "one playoff game in 16 years" thing is completely irrelevant. Why would the 1993 season make any difference in 2007? Why should the Bengals' tendency to suck back then affect your opinion of the team's progress now?

The talent that Marvin, Katie, Troy, and Mikey have compiled together has already resulted in ending The Drought. The 2006 season that followed was so filled with adversity that I am frankly amazed to see the front office receiving even more s**t from Bengals fans than it did before the playoff game.

[HairOnFire]

I was happy about 8-8 three years ago, but that got old quick.

I've seen one freakin' playoff game in 16 *** damn years, I'm f-king sick of it, absolutely tired of excuses and am more than out of patience.

After giving the matter even more thought than it deserves I've come to the conclusion that you're a bigger idiot than I ever imagined.

The Bengals went 8-8 in their 1st year under Lewis, an improvement of 6 games. Simply put, Lewis managed to exactly what you said good coaches do by turning the Bengals around in a single season.

The following season the Bengals also went 8-8 even while developing 2nd year player Carson Palmer into one of the finest QB's in the NFL. Simply put, developing franchise QB's is one of the most important jobs a head coach and often takes precedent over all other team goals for several seasons. Lewis managed this difficult task very well, and as a result the Bengals aren't scrambling to replace a player they spent years building their team around....ala David Carr.

The following 11-5 season produced a division title and a playoff berth so I'm guessing even your tiny lizard brain can find few reasons to complain. (Not that you won't.) Regardless, prior to Palmer's injury in the playoff game the 2005 season was seen as just the latest step in the steady rise of the Bengals.

So what we're really talking about here is a one season stumble that you're unable to stand. And this is

due to the past frustrations that have built up within you to such an unbearable point that you now give Marvin Lewis absolutely no margin for error. Worse, despite acknowledging the lack of patience and frustration that makes you a raving fugtard you simply haven't got the guts to quit being a Bengal fan.

All things considered, you're sorta pathetic.

[HoosierCat]

So what we're really talking about here is a one season stumble

And there's the core of the whole discussion. Lets for argument's sake assume that's true -- that last season was indeed a "hiccup" due to a combination of incredibly bad luck with injuries, players who couldn't stay out of off-field trouble, and a penalty call or two.

In that case, this is hardly an auspicious time to launch a major youth movement, right? That's the stuff of a rebuilding squad, not one with aspirations of a championship run. Retaining your own veteran starters and backups, and perhaps making a play for an impact player or two in FA is a much more sensible strategy.

In fact, according to none other than The Man himself, that was the strategy. Here's Mike Brown: (emphasis added)

We’ve spent more than most teams, but we did it earlier to keep our own players that were headed to free agency this year and next,” Brown said. “We locked them up for the long term and when we did that we depleted our cap room. There were some good players in free agency and we lost some guys we wanted to keep, but we had to do what we had to do after we reached deals with the other guys.”

As I said a while ago, the Bengals boxed themselves in with a lot of long-term deals done the way they like to do 'em -- and then got caught out in a FA marketplace whose nature changed significantly this offseason. In short, they blew it, Mike admitted it, and we're now on plan B, which is, "throw the green wood on the fire and hope we get more than smoke." Well, that's usually a recipe that brings mixed results at best, maybe the Bengals will get lucky. After last year, they're certainly due. And I'll be thrilled if it happens. But like I said before, I'll believe it when I see it.

[Defender]

As I said a while ago, the Bengals boxed themselves in with a lot of long-term deals done the way they like to do 'em -- and then got caught out in a FA marketplace whose nature changed significantly this offseason. In short, they blew it, Mike admitted it, and we're now on plan B, which is, "throw the green wood on the fire and hope we get more than smoke." Well, that's usually a recipe that brings mixed results at best, maybe the Bengals will get lucky. After last year, they're certainly due. And I'll be thrilled if it happens. But like I said before, I'll believe it when I see it.

So let's suppose the Bengals didn't re-sign anyone who was set to hit the market this off-season. Who do you re-sign and who do you let walk? Off the top of my head, you've got the entire starting O-line, Smith, Geathers, Jeremi Johnson, K-Wash, KK, Tony Stewart, Wilkins, Watson and both back-up QB's who would have been FA. How many of them could you re-sign with the way money has been thrown around in this FA market? Maybe the Bengals get a few of them re-signed and perhaps grab a couple new FA, but come nowhere close to as many as they have now. They missed out on a couple of guys who were back-ups and the front office gets lambasted for "not keeping their own". Point is, all things considered the off season hasn't been as bad as it's been portrayed. Granted, Justin Smith doesn't necessarily deserve $8+ million a year, but he was tagged with the intention of signing him long-term and reducing that cap hit. If/when they do him like they did Rudi two yrs ago, I'd give an overall grade around a B

[HairOnFire]

As I said a while ago, the Bengals boxed themselves in with a lot of long-term deals done the way they like to do 'em -- and then got caught out in a FA marketplace whose nature changed significantly this offseason. In short, they blew it, Mike admitted it, and we're now on plan B...

First, there's nothing about this years free agency that is significantly changed from the past....unless you count the things that make free agency less desirable than it's ever been before. Those things include less overall talent being available, fewer premier players shaking loose from their parent teams, and grossly inflated salaries being paid to even more marginal talent. But that's been the trend in free agency for years, and it's resulted in more teams concentrating on re-signing their own talent...just like the Bengals do. Plus, more teams are doing everything possible to stay out of the free agent market altogether.

All things considered, the Bengals seem to be one of the teams who accurately anticipated the changes in free agency by signing almost all of their own important free agents to contract extensions that kept them off the free agent market. And quite frankly, even a blind man should be able to recognize those moves as a proactive strategy, not one of a team that was caught unaware and unprepared.

In addition, Mike Brown doesn't say the Bengals blew it. That's clearly an empty claim that is little more than wishfull thinking on your part. All Mike Brown did was admit that the Bengals weren't able to keep everyone they wanted to...an end result that is very familiar to every team in the NFL. And because that's true every team in the NFL they're all forced to quickly move to Plan B, and then Plan C, and so on.

That's the way things work in real life, and if you were a real GM and not some message board fantasy GM you'd find yourself moving on to your own contingency plans. For example, you'd now be scrambling to replace your always injured starting RB, Chris Perry, due to your previous decision to let Rudi leave, and you'd also be scrambling to replace TJ as well. In addition, you'd have to answer for your decision to make Corey Simon the highest paid DT in the NFL.

Happily, you don't have to do any of that because your current GM duties are limited to constant second guessing and endless pretending.

[HoosierCat]

All things considered, the Bengals seem to be one of the teams who accurately anticipated the changes in free agency by signing almost all of their own important free agents to contract extensions that kept them off the free agent market.

Every team signs their own important FAs to keep them off the market. Didn't you just point out how weak the FA market is? I applaud Mikey for doing the same thing everyone else does in that regard -- but I dont see why he should be given special credit for it. Moreover, other teams retain their own and still maintain flexibility in FA; the Bengals have ended up in cap jail as a result.

But no bad offseasons!

[The PatternMaster]

Yep, I read the article.

No, it's not GM by committee....Mikey Boy holds the title, and he sucks.

Doesn't matter what year you pick - he sucks in any year, and will suck until he passes on

Oh, and the whole "that's so 2000" comment....what are you, a teenage girl? Do you think this forum is about clothing or music?

It's called a joke, have u heard of them? Sometimes there used to make people laugh.

A joke is a short story or series of words spoken or communicated with the intent of being laughed at or found humorous by either listener/reader or performer/writer. A practical joke differs in that the humor is not verbal, but mainly physical (e.g. throwing a custard pie in the direction of somebody's face).

Jokes are performed either in a staged situation, such as a comedy in front of an audience, or informally for the entertainment of participants and onlookers. The desired response is generally laughter, although loud groans are also a common response to some forms of jokes, such as puns and shaggy dog stories.

Also u say u read the article and it says Mike Brown is the GM..once again I ask u sir, did u read the article, answer truthfully this time.

Cincinnati doesn’t have a so-called General Manager, but that’s not a bad thing. The Bengals don’t rely on one person to make personnel decisions; instead the organization has a team that works together to make sure the right players are signed to fit their system. Included in those decisions are Mike Brown (President), Paul Brown (Vice President of Player Personnel), Katie Blackburn (Executive Vice President), Troy Blackburn (Director of Business Development), and Marvin Lewis and the rest of the Cincinnati coaching staff. That’s a lot of people who are a lot smarter than you, me, and the entire Bengals fan base.

Don't see were it says that Mike Brown is the GM, but I guess blind haterd can make a man see things that aren't there. Speaking of blind hate, I'm really getting to the point were I question why some of u guys call urselves fans. If you hate owner so much, why support his business and give him your hard earned money? If u think Marvin is such a bad coach, why support his team?

Sorry to break the news to u disgruntled "fans" Mikey ain't sellin the team anytime soon, I think he would leave Cincy first, and Marvin for damn sure isn't going anywhere anytime soon. What he's been able to accomplish is nothing short of amazing and the Brown family should realize this if they don't already. So either get over your hate for Mike Brown, get over your psuedo intelligence that falsely leads u believe you know what's better for the Bengals than Marvin does, get over the disappointing season of 2006 and get ready for 2007.

I too would like the Bengals to be more active in FA, but FA just started and because we didn't give Nate Clements 80 million or re-sign the highly versatile Steinbach to the largest contract for any player at his position in the history of the NFL doesn't mean I'm going to throw the baby out with the bath water, have no fear my chicken little friends the sky isn't falling. Do you guys who think we did nothing in FA realize we sign two Pro Bowl tackles, two highly productive DE's, a starting TE, a do-it-all RB, and we added depth to the o-line this year. Granted all of these guys were already on the Bengals expect for one guy, but they were all going to be FA this offseason and we re-signed them. It's all about perspective!!

[TJJackson]

If you had intended it as a joke, you might have used some smilies or something similar, instead you used multiple exclamation marks, which heightened the "serious" tone of your post.

So...Your post seems -- still -- intended as serious.

[The PatternMaster]

All things considered, the Bengals seem to be one of the teams who accurately anticipated the changes in free agency by signing almost all of their own important free agents to contract extensions that kept them off the free agent market.

Every team signs their own important FAs to keep them off the market. Didn't you just point out how weak the FA market is? I applaud Mikey for doing the same thing everyone else does in that regard -- but I dont see why he should be given special credit for it. Moreover, other teams retain their own and still maintain flexibility in FA; the Bengals have ended up in cap jail as a result.

But no bad offseasons!

Considering the amount of players who contracts were expiring they could only re-sign so many so they re-sign the guys whom they felt were the most important to what they are currently doing and what they want to do in the future. Some hard decisions were made(Simmons) and some guys got such huge offers from other teams(Steinbach) that it made it impossible to re-sign everybody they wanted to, but they did an excellant job at locking good young players for the long term(Levi and Geathers) and re-sign guys who can help them win right now(Willie and J.Smith). I swear it's like some people want a pound of flesh from Mike Brown, the team is obiviously doing everything they believe they can do to make this team better, u might not agree but u don't work Mike Brown either. I know it may not be the answer you want to hear but it's the truth.

[HoosierCat]

Considering the amount of players who contracts were expiring they could only re-sign so many

And who set up the deals so that they all came due simultaneously? That was rather poor planning, having your whole o-line go up in the same year, wasn't it?

so they re-sign the guys whom they felt were the most important to what they are currently doing and what they want to do in the future. Some hard decisions were made(Simmons) and some guys got such huge offers from other teams(Steinbach) that it made it impossible to re-sign everybody they wanted to, but they did an excellant job at locking good young players for the long term(Levi and Geathers) and re-sign guys who can help them win right now(Willie and J.Smith).

Well, we'll see. There seems to be an impression that all these big deals to keep our own players represent an unalloyed good, a hundred-percent-positive, risk-free thing. They aren't. The most obvious example is Carson: a week after he signs a $100m extension he gets his leg ripped off in a playoff game. Had that injury been the career-ending one initially feared, the extension would have been a disaster. Can Willie help us win now -- or will the increasing toll of injuries cut into more and more of his playing time? Levi just had his second knee surgery in five months -- is this the start of some ongoing problem?

These big money deals for our own guys can backfire just as easily as big-money deals for FAs from other teams. Meanwhile, like any kind of big money deal, our cap space is chewed up -- to the point where we have to have to let good players go, can't sign decent vets to replace them, and have to rely solely on youth, the very definition of cap jail.

[HairOnFire]

And who set up the deals so that they all came due simultaneously? That was rather poor planning, having your whole o-line go up in the same year, wasn't it?

If it was such poor planning wouldn't it result in the loss of more than one offensive lineman...a player whose replacement was already on the roster?

There seems to be an impression that all these big deals to keep our own players represent an unalloyed good, a hundred-percent-positive, risk-free thing. They aren't. The most obvious example is Carson: a week after he signs a $100m extension he gets his leg ripped off in a playoff game. Had that injury been the career-ending one initially feared, the extension would have been a disaster.

Damned if they do. Damned if they don't.

Had the Bengals signed a couple of players from other teams to the same expensive contracts you'd be a happy camper. Instead, they sign their own players and all you can think to do is point out the worst case scenario.

[HoosierCat]

If it was such poor planning wouldn't it result in the loss of more than one offensive lineman

Not if you throw a whole bunch of money at the problem, which they did. That kept the line, at the price of putting them in cap jail. Better planning, or different deal structures, might have both kept everyone they kept and preserved some space for FA needs, or unexpectedly higher costs.

Damned if they do. Damned if they don't.

Not at all. But you seem unable to grasp the concept that deal that looks good at the start can turn sour by the end.

[HairOnFire]

These big money deals for our own guys can backfire just as easily as big-money deals for FAs from other teams. Meanwhile, like any kind of big money deal, our cap space is chewed up -- to the point where we have to have to let good players go, can't sign decent vets to replace them, and have to rely solely on youth, the very definition of cap jail.

I'd define cap jail as losing good player after good player after good player while lacking the money to sign anyone. Examples of this are too numerous in the NFL to mention, but don't include the Bengals who have lost one good player (Steinbach) whose replacement had already been found, a veteran defender (Simmons) whose salary and declining play had made him a bubble player the previous season and a cut casualty a year later, and a top reserve (Kaesviharn) that they wanted to keep but refused to pay starters money for. The other losses were limited to the spot players and special teamers that occupy the always churning bottom of the roster.

Frankly, a quick glance at the loss column shows a player who has already been replaced (Steinbach), a player who shouldn't be hard to replace (Kaesviharn), and a player (Simmons) that desperatley needed to be replaced.

Now watch 'em do it.

[HairOnFire]

If it was such poor planning wouldn't it result in the loss of more than one offensive lineman

Not if you throw a whole bunch of money at the problem, which they did. That kept the line, at the price of putting them in cap jail. Better planning, or different deal structures, might have both kept everyone they kept and preserved some space for FA needs, or unexpectedly higher costs.

Well, not only did the Bengal accomplish what they set out to do they managed to retain more of their own important free agents than you predicted they could....so whining about what else they might have done under different circumstances seems pointless. And lets never forget that your criticism is built upon a free agent market whose costs are spiraling out of control....so it seems disingenuous to claim now that the Bengals paid too much to keep their own players. With every new deal those contracts seem more and more reasonable, and the cost of replacing those players skyrockets. In fact, Robert geathers may already be underpaid. Best, by drafting Andrew Whitworth the Bengals were able to find and prepare a quality yet low cost replacement for the only top shelf free agent they lost.

[HoosierCat]

And lets never forget that your criticism is built upon a free agent market whose costs are spiraling out of control....so it seems disingenuous to claim now that the Bengals paid too much to keep their own players.

I didn't claim they paid too much for their own players, only that from the perspective of the cap, it doesn't matter whether you spend big bucks of one of your own, or on some guy from another team. Do enough of it, either way, and you'll end up in cap trouble.

As for a FA market, it isn't "spiraling out of control." The amount of money spent in FA, almost all of which represents players' cut of total league revenues under the CBA, is all laid out in advance. Salary caps are now decided on two years in advance, keeping pace with the bi-annual increase in the percentage of revenues going to players. Everything is projectable with a reasonably high degree of accuracy. The only thing that's changing about the FA market is that the deals at the top of the market appear to be moderating -- after all, how much more money can a single player be paid? -- and more money is filtering down the roster, creating a middle class of players. The Bengals didn't see that coming (and to be fair some other teams didn't, either).

[HairOnFire]

As for a FA market, it isn't "spiraling out of control." The amount of money spent in FA, almost all of which represents players' cut of total league revenues under the CBA, is all laid out in advance. Salary caps are now decided on two years in advance, keeping pace with the bi-annual increase in the percentage of revenues going to players. Everything is projectable with a reasonably high degree of accuracy. The only thing that's changing about the FA market is that the deals at the top of the market appear to be moderating -- after all, how much more money can a single player be paid? -- and more money is filtering down the roster, creating a middle class of players. The Bengals didn't see that coming (and to be fair some other teams didn't, either).

Don't move the goal posts on me.

You've claimed that the Bengals weren't prepared for a free agent market that now pays staggering amounts of money to 2nd and even 3rd tier players. I say they saw that coming and that's precisely why they did everything possible to stay completely out of a free agent market that in the example of offensive lineman now has the Bills giving the Redskins 5th best offensive lineman a 49million dollar contract. And let's remember that the dramatic increase in the price of OG's began last season, and was probably the biggest story to emerge from that years free agency.

Far from not seeing this years market coming the Bengals correctly determined that retaining their own offensive lineman was not only cheaper in the long run, but better in terms of overall talent. They also correctly predicted that Eric Steinbach was very determined to test free agency, and once there he'd command a salary that was unjustifiable. Thus, they drafted his replacement last year....ample proof that they most certainly did see the changes that were coming.

Frankly, your dissatisfaction seems rooted in the fact that the Bengals didn't spend their money in the same way you would have, conveniently ignoring the fact that they never had any intention of doing so.

[HoosierCat]

Don't move the goal posts on me.

I didn't. The Dockery deal you cite (and the Davis deal, and the Steinbach deal) are perfect cases in point. Despite the cap rising, what, about 6-7% versus last season, those deals were basically flat versus the Henderson deal last year. The amount of money going to select -- not all -- second and third tier players is "staggering" only in relation to the minimums they used to cost, and is perfectly justifiable given their status as key backups, part-time starters, role players, special teams aces, etc. What that new middle class doesn't do is fit into the old royalty/peasant model the Bengals thought would continue.

Frankly, your dissatisfaction seems rooted in the fact that the Bengals didn't spend their money in the same way you would have, conveniently ignoring the fact that they never had any intention of doing so.

And you conveniently ignore Mike Brown's own words, that there were FAs they coveted and their own players they wanted back, but couldn't afford. Doesn't sound like "no intention of doing so" to me.

[HairOnFire]

Don't move the goal posts on me.

I didn't. The Dockery deal you cite (and the Davis deal, and the Steinbach deal) are perfect cases in point. Despite the cap rising, what, about 6-7% versus last season, those deals were basically flat versus the Henderson deal last year. The amount of money going to select -- not all -- second and third tier players is "staggering" only in relation to the minimums they used to cost, and is perfectly justifiable given their status as key backups, part-time starters, role players, special teams aces, etc. What that new middle class doesn't do is fit into the old royalty/peasant model the Bengals thought would continue.

In one paragraph you argue that salaries didn't increase at all...except when the increase was staggering. That's rich. (Pun intended.)

And your claim that the Bengals were unprepared for a new free agent model where only non-starters received staggering salary increases ignores the fact that their priority was re-signing 4/5ths of their starting O-Line, their starting TE, both starting DE's, and a couple of reserve players. That was a huge task, one that you claimed they couldn't come close to accomplishing, but they managed to do very well.

Finally, you claim that the Bengals can no longer aford the new middle class of free agency, and then quickly describe those players as special-team aces, key backups, and role players. Well, that sounds more like the lowest class to me, and it's hardly surprising that the Bengals would refuse to overpay for fringe players when they feel confident that they have players already on their roster...like the one in your avatar...that are ready to step into those roles.