Prisco on Bengals/Whitworth

[AMC]

Finally some props for Whitworth.

From Prisco's article:::

Player who left: Guard Eric Steinbach (Browns)

Replacement player: Andrew Whitworth

The skinny: Steinbach was a good player who started every game in his four seasons with the Bengals. He will be tough to replace. But Whitworth is a second-year player who played well when he started at left tackle last season for the injured Levi Jones. At 6-7, 339 pounds, he is more of a power player than Steinbach, which should help the run game. This is a perfect example of a team being prepared for a veteran free agent to exit.

Rate the replacement: Good. Whitworth showed last season that he is a mauler who won't back down. The Bengals won't miss Steinbach.

[Stripes]

ESPN didn't even seem to know he exists.

[HairOnFire]

This is a perfect example of a team being prepared for a veteran free agent to exit.

What's that? I thought I read something somewhere about the Bengals being totally unprepared for free agency.

[Oldcat]

This is a perfect example of a team being prepared for a veteran free agent to exit.

What's that? I thought I read something somewhere about the Bengals being totally unprepared for free agency.

The Bengals were unprepared to blow lots of money on marginal, aging talent.

The fools!

[HoosierCat]

This is a perfect example of a team being prepared for a veteran free agent to exit.

What's that? I thought I read something somewhere about the Bengals being totally unprepared for free agency.

The Bengals were unprepared to blow lots of money on marginal, aging talent.

The fools!

Yeah, let's rely on rookies, PS players and UDFAs while spending day one picks on offensive positions where we already have high-quality starters. That'll improve the defense!

[HairOnFire]

I'd say the Bengals did a brilliant job of replacing Steinbach, and agree that if everyone stays healthy Steinbach won't be missed at all.

BTW, I heard a blurb on Cold Pizza this morning about Steeler OG Alan Faneca being very determined to cash in on the outrageous salary increase being paid to FA guards. In response it is believed that the Steelers have "no intention whatsoever" of offering Faneca a salary even close to what he can get in the FA market and will allow him to leave after this season without a struggle.

Sound familiar?

[HoosierCat]

BTW, I heard a blurb on Cold Pizza this morning about Steeler OG Alan Faneca being very determined to cash in on the outrageous salary increase being paid to FA guards. In response it is believed that the Steelers have "no intention whatsoever" of offering Faneca a salary even close to what he can get in the FA market and will allow him to leave after this season without a struggle.

Sound familiar?

One team won't pay for a top guard in the prime of his career, another won't pay top dollar for a player who'll be 32 next year? Familiar? No, not really. And PS, Faneca won't get it, either.

[James_Brooks21]

ESPN didn't even seem to know he exists.

I live in the D.C. area and they are reporting that the Redskins are talking to New England about a possible trade for Asante Samuel and then signing him to a long term contract. How the hell does the Redskins have all this money? Look at all the people that they are paying and somebody please tell me.

[HoosierCat]

I live in the D.C. area and they are reporting that the Redskins are talking to New England about a possible trade for Asante Samuel and then signing him to a long term contract. How the hell does the Redskins have all this money? Look at all the people that they are paying and somebody please tell me.

Well, the 'skins have all that money because the franchise rakes in mega-bucks thanks to its location, DC. Washington is, I believe, the No. 1 franchise in revenue terms, pulling in something like $300m annually (versus something like $180m for the Bengals). I assume you're actually asking how they can spend all this and still stay under the cap. The primary tool is to constantly restructure contracts: you take a big salary and convert it into a bonus. Then, instead of that big number hitting in one year, you spread the hit out over several years. All you need to do this is a big pot 'o dough to pay out these bonuses, which DC has.

There are other ways to create cap space. For example, if a team has a few million left under the cap going into the season, it can pass that around to players in the form of additional "likely to be earned" (LTBE) incentives. However, since the CBA only specifically defines what's a "not likely to be earned incentive," it's possible to craft LTBE incentives that are, in fact, impossible to hit. However, a LTBE incentive counts against a current year's cap, and if it isn't hit, the team gets a credit the following year -- in other words, their cap is adjusted upward. There is actually only one team this year that has a salary cap of $109 million: the Bengals. Every other team has a cap number that's somewhat higher or lower because of the impact of incentives. Savvy teams use the LTBE dodge to push space into future years.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

ESPN didn't even seem to know he exists.

I live in the D.C. area and they are reporting that the Redskins are talking to New England about a possible trade for Asante Samuel and then signing him to a long term contract. How the hell does the Redskins have all this money? Look at all the people that they are paying and somebody please tell me.

It's called perpetual salary cap hell for the 'Skins. Of course they'll try to play smoke and mirrors with contracts, deferring guaranteed money to later years when the cap will be expected to increase, but that won't give them everything they'll need, I imagine.

[HairOnFire]

One team won't pay for a top guard in the prime of his career, another won't pay top dollar for a player who'll be 32 next year?

Apparently Steinbach's prime doesn't include a single appearance at the Pro Bowl where Faneca has been a fixture. As for the difference in their ages, if the Steelers feel Faneca is getting a little long in the tooth then it's up to them to do their best to replace him. And if they do it perfectly maybe Pete Prisco will give them the same props he gave the Bengals.

Isn't it odd how that kind of positive review of something the Bengals did always seems to make you angry?

[HairOnFire]

There is actually only one team this year that has a salary cap of $109 million: the Bengals. Every other team has a cap number that's somewhat higher or lower because of the impact of incentives. Savvy teams use the LTBE dodge to push space into future years.

Savvy teams like the 5-11 Redskins?

You'll never admit it, mostly because it doesn't work, but most of the things you complain about the Bengals not doing are the very same things the Redskins do every year. They practically define what it means to play silly games with the cap, nobody overspends more on other teams so-called proven free agent talent, and they rely less on the draft than any team in the NFL.

The Redskins are your dream team, right?

In fact, the Redskins are the poster team of having fewer draft picks than normal....which I believe is your latest brainstorm. The 'Skins had just 3 total picks in '03, just 4 more in '04, and had only one pick higher than a 5th rounder last year. And that's all they'll have to work with again this year.

Never mind the fact that the Redskins suck every season, ehh? The most important thing to you is knowing how hard they tried. And boy have they tried. They've tweaked this, stretched that, and showed how much they care about winning by spending money the same way a certain fan would if he had the chance.

[Whur CHad At?]

The Redskins have been to the playoffs the same amount of times as the Bengals in the last 5 years....

[derekshank]

The Redskins have been to the playoffs the same amount of times as the Bengals in the last 5 years....

Great reasoning. How about this... the Redskins have had exactly 1 non-losing season in the last 5 years. The Bengals have had only 1 losing season (2-14 before Marvin got here).

Argue all you want about how the Redskins are no worse than the Bengals, but in the last 4 years of them spending for every free agent within reaching distance, they've been 33-47. The Bengals meanwhile have been rebuilding through the draft, and just after a 2-14 season have managed to be 35-29.

Sure... 8-8 was a step backward (and I still feel that it was largely due to injuries and Carson getting back from his injury), but the notion that a .500 season is a big step back only 4 years removed from a 2-14 season is proof that building through the draft has been working.

[Kazkal]

This is a perfect example of a team being prepared for a veteran free agent to exit.

What's that? I thought I read something somewhere about the Bengals being totally unprepared for free agency.

The Bengals were unprepared to blow lots of money on marginal, aging talent.

The fools!

Yeah, let's rely on rookies, PS players and UDFAs while spending day one picks on offensive positions where we already have high-quality starters. That'll improve the defense!

ISen't that what patriots did ? ya you can bring up Rodney Harrison and other older FA's they signed in their superbowl runs but what outsiders did they hand 30+ million dollar contracts out to before this year?

You'll never admit it, mostly because it doesn't work, but most of the things you complain about the Bengals not doing are the very same things the Redskins do every year. They practically define what it means to play silly games with the cap, nobody overspends more on other teams so-called proven free agent talent, and they rely less on the draft than any team in the NFL.

Record doesn't matter aslong as you blow bucks in FA remember?

[Stripes]

After speaking (typing) at length with some Redskins fans on this topic on other boards, I've learned that they are well on their way to hating Dan Snyder as much as Bengals fans hate Mike Brown.

[HoosierCat]

Never mind the fact that the Redskins suck every season, ehh? The most important thing to you is knowing how hard they tried. And boy have they tried. They've tweaked this, stretched that, and showed how much they care about winning by spending money the same way a certain fan would if he had the chance.

Yep, they have tried. And frankly their failures have IMHO been far more related to coaching then their FA approach. But as for "spending," you still don't get it, do you? No owner "spends" anything. The money is all the players' from the start, their share of total revenues under the CBA. All the owners do is distribute it.

As for whether I would do anything differently than Mikey, I would distribute it differently, yes. I would focus more money on winning now, versus locking guys up for 8, 9 ,10 years, and thus creating huge amounts of dead cap space in future years (which is the problem the Bengals have now). I wouldn't worry about signing someone now because they'll be "more expensive" later on because NFL revenues and the cap will keep rising, and the relative cost won't change much, if at all. I would recognize that signing your own FAs carries the same risk as signing outside FAs. Willie Anderson or Levi Jones can get hurt or turn to crap just as easily as an Adalius Thomas.

As has already been pointed out, you can bitch and moan about the skins all you want. But look at the record and the bengals haven't shown their methods to work any better.

[HairOnFire]

But as for "spending," you still don't get it, do you? No owner "spends" anything. The money is all the players' from the start, their share of total revenues under the CBA. All the owners do is distribute it.

And you strongly prefer the Redskins method of distributing money. Just like them you argue endlessly in favor of playing sill games with the salary cap, signing every available free agent, ridiculously overspending on at least one player every year just to make a media splash, and trading away draft choices for veteran players. In fact, the Redskins even have one of those powerless GM's that you were so fond of. I bet they've even got a practice bubble they hardly use.

They're everything you've ever dreamed of...yet every season they suck with much gusto.

[HairOnFire]

And frankly their failures have IMHO been far more related to coaching then their FA approach.

I'd say because of their front office practices they're mired in last place despite having a head coach who not only has won numerous Super Bowl championships, but has already been elected to the Hall of Fame. And prior to Joe Gibbs the Redskins were head coached by Marty Shottenheimer, the winningest coach in the regular season last year.

Frankly, you can take a few shots at the Redskins head coaching, but it's far more proven than the goofy front office practices that only you seem willing to continue supporting.

As for whether I would do anything differently than Mikey, I would distribute it differently, yes. I would focus more money on winning now, versus locking guys up for 8, 9 ,10 years, and thus creating huge amounts of dead cap space in future years (which is the problem the Bengals have now).

I'm willing to bet that prior to cutting Brian Simmons the Bengals had less dead cap space than any other team in the NFL. In fact, I'd bet that even after cutting Simmons the Bengals have less dead cap space than all but a few teams.

Last, how many Bengal players can you name that have been locked up for eight years or longer?

[HoosierCat]

They're everything you've ever dreamed of...yet every season they suck with much gusto.

And the same can be said of you and the Bengals. Every year you defend the FO's every move, and every season they go nowhere.

[HairOnFire]

I wouldn't worry about signing someone now because they'll be "more expensive" later on because NFL revenues and the cap will keep rising, and the relative cost won't change much, if at all.

Well that's just silly. Signing a player now for less money than it will take later is such a smart thing to do that I don't think I'll bother defending something so obvious. All I'll add is that a constantly rising salary cap should allow the Bengals to distribute more money to even more of their own potential free agents, allowing them to keep even more of their own talent. But of couse that's true only if they don't waste the additional cap space by paying more money in the future than they can get a player to sign for today.

[HoosierCat]

I'm willing to bet that prior to cutting Brian Simmons the Bengals had less dead cap space than any other team in the NFL. In fact, I'd bet that even after cutting Simmons the Bengals have less dead cap space than all but a few teams.

I doubt it. As you have often pointed out the bengals have dealt big contracts out to lots of players on the current roster, and that's no different from dealing big contracts to outside FAs. At this point, the Bengals have something on the order of $20-25m in dead cap space, space that's dedicated to amortizing bonuses given out in prior years. That's why they are effectively in cap jail this year.

[bengal4life]

I think the bengals only have $100k in dead money this year. That's pretty good management if you ask me. I'm not real sure, with tbe release of simmons, if the dead money total went up from 100k.

[HoosierCat]

Well that's just silly. Signing a player now for less money than it will take later is such a smart thing to do that I don't think I'll bother defending something so obvious.

It can be a good move, but it depends on other needs. By extending guys long before their contracts are up you take away money that could address immediate needs. And you borrow against future years earlier than you have to.

[Stripes]

Cutting Simmons did increase the total amount of dead money, but prior to cutting him every figure I've seen stated the Bengals had $100,000 in dead money (as bengal4life stated).

Hoosier, I'm not saying you're wrong because I don't know for sure... but where have you seen that $20-25 million figure?