Stacy Andrews: Franchise Player

[Bengals1]

Let's step back and all take a deep breath here. Hoosier and Hair are right about this. Just because we've tagged Andrews doesn't mean we can't still reach a long term deal with him that will reduce his cap hit this year. We didn't do that with J. Smith last season but that doesn't mean we won't or can't with Stacey this season.

We can now concentrate on drafting defensive players in the first couple of rounds and it also means we're one step closer to seeing the end of the grossly overpriced J. Smith in stripes.

This would appear to be a win/win sceneario all around for the cats.

[GregCook]

4th year players are no longer about potential and upside. They are about production or the lack thereof.

Andrews started at least 11 games last season and by some accounts allowed fewer sacks than any member of the O-Line. In addition, he's proven capable of playing three spots on the line, LG, RG, and RT. So he is producing, and unless the team was willing to let one of their project players leave just as he was returning major dividends then this was the only move that could be made.

In addition, the move allows the Bengals to address positions other than OT in the coming draft, bad news for those amongst us who were pimping that idea, but happily for me I wasn't one of them. I love the idea of the Bengals freeing up their ability to draft defense again and again.

Even better they have two guys in Whit & Stacy that can play anywhere on the line and still keep Carson clean. Those two are the future of the line. Willie's about done. Levi is questionable. Center needs an upgrade. So we let Stacy walk?

If that happened, mail in the season and listen to all the bitc*'n about how cheap Mike Brown was to let him go.

Now they are much freer in the draft to pick someone to upgrade their offense or defense and not just find someone to fill a big hole. Personally at #9, I'm smell'n big ol running back, about 230lb, runs the 40 in sub 4.5. Someone named Stewart. Unless of course a stud DE falls to #9, but that won't happen.

Taggin Stacy is smart & forsighted and had to be done.

[HairOnFire]

Now they are much freer in the draft to pick someone to upgrade their offense or defense and not just find someone to fill a big hole. Personally at #9, I'm smell'n big ol running back, about 230lb, runs the 40 in sub 4.5. Someone named Stewart. Unless of course a stud DE falls to #9, but that won't happen.

I don't share your fantasy, but I've got my own and they never included drafted Ryan Clady at #9. In addition, I'd like to see the Bengals address other positions with the 2nd round pick and I think this move dramatically increases the odds that the Bengals will use both top picks on defense.

And while we're talking about silver linings.....making Madieu Williams one of the highest paid players at his position only made sense in one way. That being, it was the least expensive of the only two options that I considered realistic. But based soley on merit Williams wasn't worthy of being tagged anymore than Andrews. In fact, I'd say Andrews is a far better building block for the future than Williams has proven himself to be, and an argument for replacing Madieu with a draft pick isn't hard to make.

[TJJackson]

I don't necessarily agree that it makes more sense to tag Stacey rather than Madieu. I'd argue that the best choice of all would be to not tag either player - ie there is no requirement to tag anyone, so comparing "tag madieu, or tag andrews" misses the larger picture.

I also don't buy the "we can now negotiate a longer term contract with Stacey". I figure the Bengals had all year to do that, as do some other writers who chimed in on this, and I feel that since it didn't get done yet, it is not going to happen.

Lets say I do accept the argument that it came down to Stacey versus Madieu. I'd argue in Madieu's favor - and mind you, I am no longer a fan of the fellow - not only from the "it's cheaper" standpoint but also because we stand to loose both our starters at safety now, leaving us dangerously young at safety. Yes, I like the newbs - a lot. But they lack experience. Keeping Madieu would mean retaining some experience at the safety spot.

I like this tag a lot better if it was done in order to trade him. There have been a number of cases in the past couple of years where the tag was used to facilitate a trade. I think we'd need to get a high 3 or low 2 for Stacey if this is the case. If it is, we might not see it til draft day.

The OL as I see it if we lose Stacey

Jones - Kooistra - Ghiaciuc - BWilliams - Whitworth

or if Willie gets healthy (unlikely)

Jones - Whitworth - Ghiaciuc - BWilliams - Willie

[Wraith]

Do you feel comfortable with Koostra? Cause I don't.

Jones-Andrews-Ghiaciuc-BWilliams-Whitworth

That is alot more to my likeing, particularly since Jones is a ? and both Andrews and Whitworth can play his position (or more likely Andrews plays right and Whitworth plays left).

As far as the whole year to negotiate a contract thing, what this does is tells Andrews representation that if they want a long term deal (which they do) that they should stop entertaining other teams and get down to business with the Bengals because Stacy is going to be a Bengal. Again, this is a bad deal if a long term deal is not done but I have faith that Katie (knowing that it is of prime import to the team) can get a long term deal done by June.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

While I'm glad they didn't tag Justin again (still a chance they sign him to a longer term deal unfortunately) I would've just as soon keep Steinbach last year, instead of paying a lesser player the same amount a year later.

Well, unless you have a time machine handy, there's not much chance of that happening now, eh? And in pointing out how letting Eric go didn't work out, you simultaneously refute your own "worst tagged franchise player" assertion, and answer your question, why did they use the tag if they didn't have to? Answer: they had to. As I wrote a few days ago:

But the offensive line is a disaster. They let Steinbach go last season, both starting tackles are injury wrecks, Keift gets hurt every time he moves, Bluto is struggling to cut it at center, and if Stacy walks, our depth is Scott Kooistra. Ugh. That's an invitation to get Carson's other knee ripped off. Tagging Stacy gives you an insurance policy on the line, and one more year to judge whether he's really capable of taking Willie's place and thus deserving of a big long-term deal.

Well my point is, why are they afraid of losing Andrews if they are committing to paying him top 5 money for at least a year any ways? Are you telling me he's "that" highly thought of around the league, that someone would out-bid the Bengals for him, if they like him that much regardless? So why go and commit top 5 money to him? I would think you could get the same talent out of the draft or FA at a much lower cost.

It's stupid. But I can count on you to put a positive spin on it! (something, admittedly, I have a hard time doing with this team any more)

So again instead of paying the best players/talent, the Bengals' pay for the "position" regardless of who it is. I just don't agree with that over-riding philosophy the Browns have held onto for way too long now.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

You need to drop the crack pipe right now and go get help if you think that he's not going to start somewhere on that line this year.

I like crack. What position is he taking? If he starts, it's because of injury, meaning we tagged a backup. Whose only significant accomplishments that

I recall from last year were penalties. And if he does start, he will probably suck.

Just awful. When's it Kooistra's turn to get tagged?

Hoosier, if this was the best available decision, it's only because it followed a series of staggeringly dumb ones.

And now that we're spending something like $7M/yr on *three* tackles, and spending starter money on *three* running backs, there's even less money available for the crappy defense.

[TJJackson]

I will say this, Mr Steakhouse - a bengal dollar does not seem like it has the same value as a dollar on other teams, ie the amount some other teams might pay for Stacey might be 75 cents or less of what we'd have to pay to keep him.

The whole "this place sucks, I'll take less just to get out" theory.

So it would not necesarily keep him here if we simply outbid the other team(s)

That still doesn't mean I am in favor of this tag, it just means the Bengals tend to have to pay more for the same player than other teams do. At least, as I have seen it for the last 20 years or so now.

[HoosierCat]

Well my point is, why are they afraid of losing Andrews if they are committing to paying him top 5 money for at least a year any ways? Are you telling me he's "that" highly thought of around the league, that someone would out-bid the Bengals for him, if they like him that much regardless?

I don't think there's any doubt he would have gotten paid. Prisco over at sportsline thought so, he had him ranked on his top 32 FAs list (4th overall among o-linemen, ahead of guys like Pitt's Max Starks). Don't forget that the Jets had him in last year, even though he was an RFA. They didn't make an offer, but I bet they told him not to sign anything without checking with us first (and notably, he hasn't).

Look around at what guys were getting last year. $3 million a year for a nickel corner, right? Same thing will happen this season.

So why go and commit top 5 money to him? I would think you could get the same talent out of the draft or FA at a much lower cost.

Can you imagine the howling here in the peanut gallery if they called Ryan Clady's name at 9? Or even used their second mid-round pick on OL? As for FA, the going rate is $7 million-ish a year for starting caliber guards, higher for tackles. What, were going to sign another Stepanovich type in Stacy's place? I can see the posts here now: Another cheap-ass Mike Brown move, let a starter on the o-line go for a second year in a row and sign some cast-off bum.

It's stupid. But I can count on you to put a positive spin on it! (something, admittedly, I have a hard time doing with this team any more)

I don't know that I'm being positive; I'm not thrilled by the move, either. I just don't think they had much choice (and admittedly they are in the spot they're in now because of questionable decisions starting back in 2006).

So again instead of paying the best players/talent, the Bengals' pay for the "position" regardless of who it is. I just don't agree with that over-riding philosophy the Browns have held onto for way too long now.

On that, I agree. The Bengals need to quit with the, "we'll pay for position X but not position Y" thinking and focus on keeping talent instead. Hopefully, this is a start.

[KiLBurn]

You need to drop the crack pipe right now and go get help if you think that he's not going to start somewhere on that line this year.

I like crack. What position is he taking? If he starts, it's because of injury, meaning we tagged a backup. Whose only significant accomplishments that

I recall from last year were penalties. And if he does start, he will probably suck.

Just awful. When's it Kooistra's turn to get tagged?

Hoosier, if this was the best available decision, it's only because it followed a series of staggeringly dumb ones.

And now that we're spending something like $7M/yr on *three* tackles, and spending starter money on *three* running backs, there's even less money available for the crappy defense.

I'm sure many of you recall a player, Peter Warrick was his name. Willie seems to be in the same boat, this year. Not saying... just saying.

[HoosierCat]

Hoosier, if this was the best available decision, it's only because it followed a series of staggeringly dumb ones.

Yes, exactly. I am hopeful that, at least as far as the o-line is concerned, tagging Stacy is a recognition of the old saying that, "when you're in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging."

[Wraith]

Understand we haven't committed any money to him yet we actually have longer than I thought (July 15th) to wrap up a long term deal before "we commit" 7.5 million to Stacy Andrews. This gives us the ability to negotiate with Stacy, it is not advisable for Tackles to play in this league without long term contracts and guaranteed dollars and Stacy isn't guaranteed anything with the Tag so his agents will want to get a long term deal done as much as the Bengals, I believe they were holding out hope that Cincy would tag Justin or Madieu and I expect conversations to be ramped up at this point. As far as the rest of the league, yeah actually I do think that young, improving guys with Stacy's size that can play both tackle positions as well as guard are in demand in this league and I do think that someone would have backed up the Brinks truck to get him.

As for Stacy being a backup, Stacy will be the starter at Left Guard unless both Willie and Levi can come back healthy, he started 14 games for us last season and played in all 16 I can't call that a backup and with Willie's knees and feet, I expect Stacy to play ALOT at RT.

[COB]

We all need to get over the fact that this personnel mechanism is called the "Franchise" tag. Implicit in that term is the idea that you use it on your "franchise" player, that being the best player on the team.

Maybe when it was conceived they foresaw it being used that way. But now it can be used in a variety of ways: To buy time. As leverage in contract negotiations. To force a guy to play one last year before you part ways with him. To avoid feeling the full effect of some of your past mistakes.

The use of the tag in this, and every application this year, has to be evaluated within the context of what is going on in free agency. Is it smart to tag a guy on the verge of his first big contract? Based on what went on last year in free agency, and what will go on again this year, I say hell yes. The condition of free agency will change the way teams are going to use the tag and the other mechanisms available to them in personnel dealings.

Did we tag a servicable player to buy time to replenish our defense? Yes. Did we tag a young developing talent as leverage in our negotiations for a long-term deal? Yes. Did we do the one thing we could do right now to avoid losing a guy we brought up in our system and invested years and money in? Yes.

I think this was a sound and versatile use of the franchise tag. And I am hereby accepting nominations for a new name for the "franchise tag". That name in no way reflects the true use of this device.

[Sundance_Kid]

I'm not totally sold on whether it is a good move or not, because the tag can still be lifted/trade could happen/etc. etc.

BUT, I am happy I'm a Bengals fan who is only 24 years old.... because by the time I'm 40, Mike Brown SHOULD be dead, or thereabouts

meaning I have a new owner who will almost indefinately be better than Mike Brown, taking the driver's seat

[Wraith]

I nominate the term "Vacuum Bag" because that is what this is. We are placing Andrews in a Vacuum eliminating all opportunity for him to gain a contract from anyone else.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Hoosier, if this was the best available decision, it's only because it followed a series of staggeringly dumb ones.

Yes, exactly. I am hopeful that, at least as far as the o-line is concerned, tagging Stacy is a recognition of the old saying that, "when you're in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging."

If I thought they had a coherent long term plan, that would be one thing. Problem is, they won't dig their way out of it, they'll just grab a different shovel.

So this buys us a year. A really expensive one. But the real question is, where are we next year when Willie is another year older? No, let me guess - we'll tag Andrews AND take a tackle in round one. That way we can pay starter money to 4 OTs.

And I may be crazy, but I don't think other teams would line up to give Andrews a long-term contract for $7M a year.

[HoosierCat]

How about just "The Tag"? The only reason it was called the franchise tag was to distinguish it from the transition tag, the the transition tag has been rendered unusable via poison pills.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Did we tag a servicable player to buy time to replenish our defense? Yes.

No, we blew the money on him that we would have had for the defense. I can't wait until Hobson's article about how we can't spend any money on D because of tagging Andrews.

Did we tag a young developing talent as leverage in our negotiations for a long-term deal? Yes.

When you overpay and give top-5 starter money to a backup, that ain't leverage. Because you've now set the floor for that negotiation. And if you think Stacy Andrews is one of the top 5 tackles in the NFL, I nominate you for involuntary committal to a mental institution.

Did we do the one thing we could do right now to avoid losing a guy we brought up in our system and invested years and money in? Yes.

Did we throw good money after bad, hoping that a guy who has failed to develop finally will? Yes.

If Stacy Andrews steps up and becomes an all-pro caliber starting tackle commensurate with his salary, I'll eat my words. I don't like the chances.

[HoosierCat]

If I thought they had a coherent long term plan, that would be one thing. Problem is, they won't dig their way out of it, they'll just grab a different shovel.

So this buys us a year. A really expensive one. But the real question is, where are we next year when Willie is another year older? No, let me guess - we'll tag Andrews AND take a tackle in round one. That way we can pay starter money to 4 OTs.

And I may be crazy, but I don't think other teams would line up to give Andrews a long-term contract for $7M a year.

I think they do have a long-term plan, though it's one they've been forced to develop on the fly since long-term plan A -- which centered on having Willie and Levi as bookends at least through the end of the decade -- has blown up in their face.

My guess is that they think the 2008 season will be Willie's swan song. His retirement or release will free up a tackle slot (they still don't want to pay for guards) and that money can flow in a long-term deal to Stacy. Meanwhile, Whit gets the top RFA tender next season and the tag the year after. By the time 2011 and UFA looms for Whit, Levi will be pushing 31 and his knees may be jell-o. If not, great, if so, Whit gets a visit from the Brinks truck. And somewhere in the next 3 drafts we spend another 1st-3rd rounder on an o-line prospect.

As for whether you are crazy...well, you're a Bengals fan and I think by definition that makes us all nuts...

[Wraith]

Again, we haven't paid Stacy 7.5 million dollars, I don't believe the plan is to pay him that kind of money. The plan is to eliminate the competition in our bid to negotiate a long term contract which will provide stacy guaranteed money and long term security and gives us a cap break that will take the 7.5 million dollars down to a more reasonable 3.5 to 4 million. So here is the question if we were to sign stacy for a cap hit of 4 million dollars for 5 years are you comfortable with that? Because I think that is where we end up sometime before July 15, if that fails to materialize and we end up paying him the one year tender I will be right there with you complaining of a bad deal.

[HoosierCat]

Did we tag a servicable player to buy time to replenish our defense? Yes.

No, we blew the money on him that we would have had for the defense. I can't wait until Hobson's article about how we can't spend any money on D because of tagging Andrews.

Funny, that reminds me that I advocated the Bengals spending all their FA money on defense -- on the theory we needed leadership and experience to go with all the young'uns at LB and DB -- and then focus the draft on offensive skill positions like RB, wideout and TE, since all our options there are either aging, injured or stink. Of course, I was shouted down by the masses who demanded that the Bengals draft defense, defense, defense, and more defense and only defense!! Well, looks like the masses are getting their way. First big FA move is on offense, and clearly points to a defensive bent to the draft.

[CarsonDaMan]

Way to go Bengals!!! Just when I thought the front office couldn't get any dumber they go and prove me wrong. You have to appreciate that.

It just numbs my brain about how this team treats free agency like the plague and refuses to realize that it exists. They give the excuse of not wanting to overpay and train guys in their system. Yet on the other hand they are willing to overpay times two what the current players they have are worth.

Unless they plan on letting Willie go this move makes absolutely no sense and kills any wiggle room they have to go out and improve other areas of the team. Maybe they do want to sign stacey long term but if that doesn't get done very quickly they have essentially handcuffed themselves for most of the offseason. And they did it for a BACKUP player.

I truly feel for Marvin. The man has to be pulling his hair out with the decisions this team makes.

p.s.

They'll probably announce any moment now they've made Justin Smith the highest paid DE in the NFL. It would only be fitting.

[HoosierCat]

Because I think that is where we end up sometime before July 15, if that fails to materialize and we end up paying him the one year tender I will be right there with you complaining of a bad deal.

Even if the Bengals end up paying $7.5 million, it isn't that bad a deal. COB's post earlier is dead on: the franchise tag isn't anywhere near the kind of drag on a teams finances it once was. In fact, I would -- and have -- argued that it's gone from being of benefit to the players to being more of benefit to the owners.

[COB]

When you overpay and give top-5 starter money to a backup, that ain't leverage. Because you've now set the floor for that negotiation. And if you think Stacy Andrews is one of the top 5 tackles in the NFL, I nominate you for involuntary committal to a mental institution.

1. Not leverage? Wrong. No signing bonus, no guaranteed money, no long-term security. He watched David Pollack suffer a career-ending neck injury. This early in his career, hanging out there with nothing? I'd call it major leverage.

2. I doubt even Stacy's agent would claim the franchise number is the floor for the negotiation. Hours of tape and the market will set his price. Though I'll be curious to see the contract Justin Smith signs and how it relates to the $8 million franchise number we paid him last year.

3. I don't think he's one of the top five tackles in the league. I spent 5 paragraphs trying to explain why you tag guys for a variety of reasons, not just to claim that they are one of the 5 best at their position. The tag isn't a compliment. It's not a reward. To a young guy like Andrews, it's more like a pair of handcuffs. I therefore must refuse your nomination to a mental institution.

[BengalszoneBilly]

IMO Stacey Andrews strong suit is pass protection. He's weak suit is run blocking. Hopefully he can improve on the latter.