The Rodgers Trade is off

[TJJackson]

Chad has to be smiling just a little in private that Leigh Bodden is no longer in Cleveland

[BengalszoneBilly]

Here's my take on all of this- I think we could all just relax...and have a hotdog. Carson likes 'em...you should too.

That's a unique first post I must say Bub.

[Jet23]

Call it reading between the lines, pure speculation, or wild ass guessing. Here's mine.

The trade fell through from the Lions end.

Consider....

Trade language, by rule, is written by the team whose property is being sold. All the bidder is responsible for is stating in writing how they'll compensate the selling team. Furthermore, any salary cap issues are far more likely to involve the Lions. And there's the proverbial rub because there's the matter of the 1 million dollar roster bonus that Rogers was to be paid at midnight. I'll suggest it's possible the Lions demanded the Bengals pay the bonus, and the Bengals may have agreed to, but were specifically prevented by contract language from doing so because the bonus wasn't technically owed yet. Thus, the trade is rejected based upon contract language.

Ehhhh?

Both parties are responsible for the language of the proposal submitted to the NFL. If the trade wouldn't fly, they should have known it. Their entire front office is comprised of attorneys for crying out loud. Any way it shakes out, this was the absolute WORST possible scenario for SOP. Right or wrong, he will come out looking like the boob in all of this.

[duus]

Here's my take on all of this- I think we could all just relax...and have a hotdog. Carson likes 'em...you should too.

That's a unique first post I must say Bub.

... albeit a typical mindless post characteristic of a true yinzer. I recognize the stupidity ... it's part of the air in western PA.

[Bubman]

Found this at PFW...

Nice haul

Addition of Rogers, Williams makes Browns the favorites in the AFC North

By Mike Wilkening (mwilkening@pfwmedia.com)

March 1, 2008

Division championships aren't won in March, and talented defensive linemen are not dangled in trade without eyebrows being arched, but the Browns have to be the early favorites to capture the AFC North for the first time in their history after Friday's acquisitions of Corey Williams and Shaun Rogers.

Early on Friday, general manager Phil Savage traded a second-round pick to Green Bay for Williams, who will play defensive end in Cleveland's 3-4 defense. Later in the evening, after a reported Bengals trade for Rogers fell through, Savage dealt a third-round pick and CB Leigh Bodden to Detroit for the 6-4, 340-pound lineman. Rogers figures to be the Browns' starting nose tackle.

The Browns won 10 games a season ago in spite of a defense that allowed more yards than all but two clubs and had its problems stopping the run and the pass. Any defensive improvement will give the Browns' potent offense more of a margin for error. Four of Cleveland's six losses in 2007 were by six points or fewer, and each was marked by mistake-laden play from QB Derek Anderson.

Was trading for Williams and Rogers risky? Yes. Williams, whom the Browns reportedly signed to a six-year, $38 million contract, had seven sacks in each of the last two seasons, but the Packers selected to sell high. Hmmm. And the Lions — not short on defensive problems of their own — were desperately trying to trade Rogers before having to pay him a $1 million roster bonus on Saturday. The Browns now have no picks in the first three rounds of April's draft. Their first-rounder went to Dallas in the Brady Quinn trade.

But the bigger risk for the Browns would have been to make only minor changes to the line — a veteran free agent here, a rookie or two there. Savage and the Browns' scouts looked at the D-linemen likely to be available when the Browns were picking in Round Two and cringed. "I was not comfortable at all that we were going to find a defensive lineman in that realm of the draft," he said.

Hence the deal for Williams. And, later, the trade for Rogers.

Look around the AFC North. The Steelers are going to lose OLG Alan Faneca, likely to the Jets. The Ravens don't have the salary-cap space to be major free-agent players and are hoping to coax one more year out of Steve McNair, 35, at quarterback. The Bengals let underappreciated S Madieu Williams walk and will have to replace steady DE Justin Smith, who reportedly will sign with San Francisco. Their plans to improve their defense remain largely a mystery — and took a major hit when they couldn't close the deal for Rogers.

The Browns spent Friday addressing their most glaring need. The payoff could be spectacular. The downside risk can't be ignored, but it can be swallowed without much discomfort, considering where the Browns have been and where they want to go.

[HairOnFire]

Any way it shakes out, this was the absolute WORST possible scenario for SOP. Right or wrong, he will come out looking like the boob in all of this.

If you're willing to blame someone regardless of whether they were right then you're the problem, not the owner of a team that explored a solid trade option that didn't work out..

In all seriousness, many of you so-called Bengal fans should shut it down and find another hobby.

[blueridge]

The best piece of speculation I've seen on the whole "salary cap" thing is that the $1 million roster bonus had to be counted against the 2007 cap; as a "likely to be earned" incentive the Lions had already been charged $1 million in cap space for it. So they get a $1 million credit back on this season's cap, and the Bengals had to retroactively apply the $1 million to their 2007 cap. But the Bengals went over the 2007 cap because of injuries and Hall's performance bonus, and the NFL wouldn't grant the Bengals any kind of exemption.

My God! I actually understood all that!

Hey, that puts me ahead of almost everybody in the bungles front office!

Hey Bengals1, you are one hilarious guy the way you always refer to the Bengals as the "bungles". Clever and original. Some people might think you are just a tiresome halfwit. I don't. Some people might resent the way you clutter up this board with inane comments. I don't. And some people might fail to appreciate your classy avatar. I sure don't. I think you are just a very precocious 9 year-old.

[Pidge]

Here's my take on all of this- I think we could all just relax...and have a hotdog. Carson likes 'em...you should too.

So many people screwed up in making that ad it's not even funny. We should just be thankful it's mustard on the hot dog and not mayo.

[Thurmanation]

[Kazkal]

I think browns being favorite is well deserved,They were 10-6 last year and still doing everything they can do to improve.

PS,With the Brown's schedule they very well could go 12-4 or 10-6 which prob still win the division.

[Bubman]

Wow...things just keep getting better up north...

Source: Browns, ex-Pats receiver Stallworth agree to contract

By Michael Smith

ESPN.com

(Archive)

Updated: March 1, 2008, 5:06 PM ET

Comment

Email

Print

On the first day of NFL free agency, the Cleveland Browns first locked up quarterback Derek Anderson with a three-year deal.

On Saturday, they gave him a new target to pass to.

Donte' Stallworth

Wide Receiver

New England Patriots

Profile

2007 Season Stats Rec Yds TD Avg Long YAC

46 697 3 15.2 69 328

According to a source, Donte' Stallworth, who played last season with the New England Patriots, agreed to terms on a contract with the Browns. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Stallworth caught 46 passes for 697 yards and three touchdowns as part of a receving corps that included Wes Welker and Pro Bowler Randy Moss. Stallworth's best overall season was in 2005 when he caught 70 passes for 945 yards and seven touchdowns as a member of the New Orleans Saints.

Michael Smith covers the NFL for ESPN

[Kazkal]

Been thinking about it if the Lions didn't want to pay the 1million maybe the Bengal's offered to pay them 1million as part of the trade if it took place after Saturday and NFL disapproved.

Lions.con has now reported it

ALLEN PARK, Mich. – The Detroit Lions officially announced today that they have acquired Cleveland Browns CB Leigh Bodden and the Browns 2008 third-round draft choice in exchange for DT Shaun Rogers. With today's transaction, Detroit now holds the 13th (76th overall) and 24th (87th overall) choices in the third round of the 2008 NFL Draft.

Bodden (6-1, 193) arrives in Detroit after spending the first five years of his career with the Cleveland Browns. During his career, he has registered 208 tackles (144 solo), 12 interceptions (130 yards), 48 passes defensed, three fumble recoveries, one forced fumble and 30 special teams tackles. Over the past three seasons, he is tied for 12th in the NFL with 12 interceptions over that span.

Last season Bodden tied for fifth in the NFL with six interceptions, a team-high for the Browns, and was one of only eight players in the league with at least six picks. He finished the season playing and starting in all 16 games as he collected 93 tackles (68 solo) and 14 pass defenses.

Additionally, Bodden tied for second in the NFL with a total of nine individual takeaways (six interceptions and three fumble recoveries), and his three fumble recoveries tied for third in the league (tied for first among defensive backs) in 2007. He was the only player to record at least three interceptions and recover three fumbles. Bodden was fifth among cornerbacks with 88 credited tackles according to NFL.com press box stats, and he was the only player to have at least 88 tackles and six interceptions.

Bodden’s breakout year occurred in 2005 when he played 13 games (11 starts), recorded 59 tackles (36 solo), three interceptions and 20 pass defenses—all career highs through his first three NFL seasons. That year, Bodden also recovered a blocked field goal and returned it 59 yards for a touchdown at Pittsburgh (11/13/05).

Following the 2003 NFL Draft, Bodden was signed as an undrafted free agent (May 2) out of Duquesne.

Rogers (6-4, 345) spent seven seasons (2001-07) with the Lions after being drafted by Detroit in the second round (61st overall) of the 2001 NFL Draft out of Texas. The two-time Pro Bowler (2005, 2006) registered 29.5 sacks (217.5 yards) and 447 tackles (296) in 98 games (96 starts) for the Lions. Rogers had a solid 2007 season, finishing with a career-high 7.0 sacks (53 yards) and his first career interception (11/4, vs. Denver) which he also returned 66 yards for his first NFL touchdown.

As a rookie in 2001, Rogers led all NFL defensive linemen with 97 tackles (62 solo) and was ranked one of the 10-best rookies by the Sporting News. In his seven seasons with the team, he has also been a weapon on special teams, blocking an NFL-high 11 kicks (10 FG, 1 PAT) since 2001.

[HoosierCat]

Been thinking about it if the Lions didn't want to pay the 1million maybe the Bengal's offered to pay them 1million as part of the trade if it took place after Saturday and NFL disapproved.

Who knows? We still haven't gotten a straight answer, and likely never will.

Hobson took a shot at the league FO today on bengals.com, saying that the league killed the trade because of some "obscure technicality." Of course, the league is (as far as I know) still claiming it had nothing to do with it, there was no deal submitted, etc.

[Kazkal]

"sighs" Now browns sign stallworth.

[Bengals1]

Hey Bengals1, you are one hilarious guy the way you always refer to the Bengals as the "bungles". Clever and original. Some people might think you are just a tiresome halfwit. I don't. Some people might resent the way you clutter up this board with inane comments. I don't. And some people might fail to appreciate your classy avatar. I sure don't. I think you are just a very precocious 9 year-old.

I undertand you're really mad at the Rogers deal falling through and not me. Once you cool off, you'll find me humerous.

[bengalsfansince68]

I undertand you're really mad at the Rogers deal falling through and not me. Once you cool off, you'll find me humerous.

Seriously doubt it!

[Bengals1]

I undertand you're really mad at the Rogers deal falling through and not me. Once you cool off, you'll find me humerous.

Seriously doubt it!

I undertand you're really mad at the Rogers deal falling through and not me. Once you cool off, you'll find me humerous.

[Jet23]

Any way it shakes out, this was the absolute WORST possible scenario for SOP. Right or wrong, he will come out looking like the boob in all of this.

If you're willing to blame someone regardless of whether they were right then you're the problem, not the owner of a team that explored a solid trade option that didn't work out..

In all seriousness, many of you so-called Bengal fans should shut it down and find another hobby.

Read the post again ya dink. Two possible scenarios. Either they submitted a good deal and were hosed by the NFL (unlikely), or they submitted a deal that they should have known was bad. Either way, Mike Brown will look bad to the nation. Did you read the 'right or wrong' part? ESPN radio simply stated 'the Bengals still don't get it'.

So, in order to be a Bengals fan you have to blindly support THE WORST OWNER IN THE HISTORY OF PROFESSIONAL SPORTS. That's your gig Lawn Boy.

[COB]

So, in order to be a Bengals fan you have to blindly support THE WORST OWNER IN THE HISTORY OF PROFESSIONAL SPORTS.

Caps button get stuck? Put it in caps all you want, but that "worst owner in sports" bit is played out.

I suppose we could go around with Clippers, Raiders, Devil Rays, Lions, etc., etc., comparisons. But reality should have a say in here somewhere shouldn't it?

Under the current administration, we're 42-38. That's a fact and that's winning.

Same five year period, Lions are 26-54, the Browns are 29-51.

Yup, our hayseed owner sure is stupid. If only he were as smart as the brilliant owners of the two teams that supposedly hoodwinked us in the Rogers deal, we'd have less than 30 wins in the last five years.

Get back to me when the league starts putting free agent signings in the won-loss column.

[membengal]

Hey Bengals1, you are one hilarious guy the way you always refer to the Bengals as the "bungles". Clever and original. Some people might think you are just a tiresome halfwit. I don't. Some people might resent the way you clutter up this board with inane comments. I don't. And some people might fail to appreciate your classy avatar. I sure don't. I think you are just a very precocious 9 year-old.

I undertand you're really mad at the Rogers deal falling through and not me. Once you cool off, you'll find me humerous.

Doubt it. Maybe if you come to understand how offensive your continual use of that term is, perhaps more will see the funny side you claim you have. As it stands, I am moving you to the unable-to-ever-be-happy troll box occupied by ShulaSteak.

[Kazkal]

So, in order to be a Bengals fan you have to blindly support THE WORST OWNER IN THE HISTORY OF PROFESSIONAL SPORTS.

Caps button get stuck? Put it in caps all you want, but that "worst owner in sports" bit is played out.

I suppose we could go around with Clippers, Raiders, Devil Rays, Lions, etc., etc., comparisons. But reality should have a say in here somewhere shouldn't it?

Under the current administration, we're 42-38. That's a fact and that's winning.

Same five year period, Lions are 26-54, the Browns are 29-51.

Yup, our hayseed owner sure is stupid. If only he were as smart as the brilliant owners of the two teams that supposedly hoodwinked us in the Rogers deal, we'd have less than 30 wins in the last five years.

Get back to me when the league starts putting free agent signings in the won-loss column.

Browns were also 10-6 last season with drastic improvements from last year,you don't think Shaun Rodgers will be a upgrade over Ted Washington?

Or Williams over no name DE they had? or Stallworth won't upgrade their alrdy good offense? Bengals have been finding some nice players in the draft but not enough to take us to the next level with all the players we drafted that didn't work out.

[duus]

Hey Bengals1, you are one hilarious guy the way you always refer to the Bengals as the "bungles". Clever and original. Some people might think you are just a tiresome halfwit. I don't. Some people might resent the way you clutter up this board with inane comments. I don't. And some people might fail to appreciate your classy avatar. I sure don't. I think you are just a very precocious 9 year-old.

I undertand you're really mad at the Rogers deal falling through and not me. Once you cool off, you'll find me humerous.

Doubt it. Maybe if you come to understand how offensive your continual use of that term is, perhaps more will see the funny side you claim you have. As it stands, I am moving you to the unable-to-ever-be-happy troll box occupied by ShulaSteak.

If I told you how offended I personally get by the constant use of that term, would it matter to you? Or would you simply enjoy a fellow fan sitting in frustration? Or would you just call me thin skinned and tell me to get over it? In any case, why must the use continue? What good comes of it? Do you get your joy that much by bothering so many that share the same house? If so, that's truly sad. If not, then stop. I hear this term day after day in PA. It completely bugs me. I can name nothing else that does that. Obviously, it bothers me when it is used by those outside our circle ... that is just arrogant and offensive on various levels. That said, close behind, I now find a brother's CONTINUAL USE to be be pretty offensive and annoying as well. I have zero issue with a brother using it based upon the circumstance. This current screw-up is one of those. Use it once and be done with it. Heck, being Bengals fans we know the need to use the word will come up more often than we always hope. My issue is not the use of the word by you ... it is the CONSTANT USE of the word. I say either stop or go join the Steelers yinzers. Your choice.

[Jet23]

So, in order to be a Bengals fan you have to blindly support THE WORST OWNER IN THE HISTORY OF PROFESSIONAL SPORTS.

Caps button get stuck? Put it in caps all you want, but that "worst owner in sports" bit is played out.

I suppose we could go around with Clippers, Raiders, Devil Rays, Lions, etc., etc., comparisons. But reality should have a say in here somewhere shouldn't it?

Under the current administration, we're 42-38. That's a fact and that's winning.

Same five year period, Lions are 26-54, the Browns are 29-51.

Yup, our hayseed owner sure is stupid. If only he were as smart as the brilliant owners of the two teams that supposedly hoodwinked us in the Rogers deal, we'd have less than 30 wins in the last five years.

Get back to me when the league starts putting free agent signings in the won-loss column.

I'm not blaming the current administration, I'm blaming Mike Brown. No other sport promotes parity like the NFL. In fact, it is not even close. For Mike Brown to have 1 winning season in the past 17 is terrible. But, for people not to recognize how pathetic that is....well, that's just plain sad.

Mike Brown will change if you make him. That's why he finally went outside the organization to hire Lewis. But, it's not nearly enough. If Brown ran a business outside the friendly confines of the NFL, he would have filed Chapter 7 years ago. What other business can you find where your competitors reward you and your ineptitude with their profits? However, there must be sheep for it to work. Mike Brown needs people like you. He needs people like you and dreams about people like Hair. He continues to operate on the cheap, because of people like you.

Look at how successful organizations run. Than look at the front office of the Cincinnati Bengals. He's operating a team within a billion dollar business, not a freaking Dairy Queen. I would bet you, however, that most Dairy Queens are more responsible to their Customers than Mike Brown is to the fans of the team that was dropped in his lap. You continually stick up for Mike Brown, but he laughs at you.

On behalf of Mike Brown and his entire staff (Paul, Lippy, Pumpkin....who am I forgetting) thank you for your support.

[Bengals1]

Doubt it. Maybe if you come to understand how offensive your continual use of that term is, perhaps more will see the funny side you claim you have. As it stands, I am moving you to the unable-to-ever-be-happy troll box occupied by ShulaSteak.

Okay, let’s take this seriously for a moment. How come you get to dictate to me what words I can and cannot use? What gives you or anyone else on this board the right to abridge my first amendment rights? Yes, I know that’s putting it a bit dramatically but in essence you're asking me to stop using a perfectly acceptable word simply and only because you don't care for it.

If I was using a racial epitaph or a derogatory slang term that was deemed offensive by society at large, if I was using it to personally attack a fellow poster or simply using foul language, I could see where the moderators would ask me to stop.

But I’m supposed to alter my own writing style, self edit myself as it were, simply and completely because you don’t like one particular word!?! A word that’s perfectly acceptable to 99.9 percent of the rest of the world?

And you don’t see anything wrong with demanding that of a fellow poster? Someone who’s never done or said anything bad to anyone on this entire board in all these months? Simply because you say so!?!

And you don’t see anything wrong in that?

What if I found your avatar offensive? What if I didn’t like Shula’s sig pic? Would it be okay if I demanded that they stop using them simply because “I” didn’t like them? Would you back me up?

What if I had a relative that had been burned in an accident and demanded Haironfire change his nickname? What if I knew somebody that had chocked on a piece of steak? Would that give me the right to demand that Shulasteakhouse change his moniker? What if I was against the war in Iraq and wanted Armybengal to change his name because I felt it was “offensive”? Is that okay? Since when does one poster get to dictate to another what word they can use?

Are we all going to go around changing our nicknames or avatars or sig pics on the say-so of the other members of the forum? Do you really feel you should have that power over me or any other poster here?

Really?

I know you’re angry over what’s happened to the team over the last few days. We all are. And we take it out in different ways. But don’t take it out on me. Channel your anger and angst in some other direction. Write a scathing letter to Mike Brown or Roger Godell or something. But don’t pass it on to me, okay?

[Bengals1]

Here's the latest including a comment on the fizzled deal from Marvin Lewis:

Bengals' trade falls apart over roster-bonus issue

By Chick Ludwig

Sunday, March 02, 2008

CINCINNATI — The Cincinnati Bengals' proposed trade for Detroit defensive tackle Shaun Rogers fell apart late Friday night, Feb. 29, because of salary cap issues.

The NFL office in New York, which must approve all trades, didn't like the way the Lions and Bengals had arranged the deal. So it was nixed, opening the door for the Lions to trade Rogers to Cleveland for cornerback Leigh Bodden and the Browns' third-round draft pick.

Rogers was owed a $1 million roster bonus at 12:01 a.m. Saturday, March 1. That's why the Lions were aggressively trying to trade him.

It's believed a league interpretation over roster bonus allocations led the NFL to invalidate the trade.

Bengals head coach Marvin Lewis was asked for some insight on how the trade fizzled.

Lewis said it had to do with "how Detroit had to count cap figures, and the timing (of it). It's more in legality terms of league (rules) and how Detroit tried to execute it, and when they did it, it was too late, and so they (the league) just disallowed it."

Bengals Vice President Troy Blackburn gave the club's public relations director, Jack Brennan, permission to comment on the proposed trade, which was reported as consummated by numerous media agencies, including The Associated Press, ESPN and the team's Web site, bengals.com.

"You're aware that even though this (trade) was incorrectly reported from other sources in the media," Brennan said, "we never made an announcement on it. Obviously, for every trade that occurs, there are numerous discussions between teams that don't lead to an actual trade."

Greg Aiello, the NFL's senior vice president of public relations, said he didn't know the specifics of how the Lions-Bengals deal failed.

"When teams are making trades," he said, "they'll talk to our office and if there are complications, they'll ask, 'Can we do this? Can we do that? Is this OK? Is that OK?' They are given the answer and either a trade happens or it doesn't happen. We don't announce trades. The clubs do."

The Lions claimed they had a deal with Cincinnati for third- and fifth-round draft picks. They confirmed it. The Bengals didn't, though their Web site reported it. Detroit clearly jumped the gun.

"Trades have to be approved by the league office," Aiello said. "The information is submitted to the league office and signed off on. If there's something improper or something doesn't work about it, then the teams are notified. They either work it out or they just say, 'We'll go our separate ways.'''

Bottom line: Rogers, nicknamed "Big Baby," is a Brown and not a Bengal.