Does Marvin have a mental illness?

[HairOnFire]

You couldn't do it, could you? You couldn't think of a single example where the Bengals used a steady stream of high draft picks on a defensive position that was already secure.

What, you mean like drafting Hall after already having two starting CBs, including another first round pick and a Pro Bowler?

There. Happy now?

Sure, I'm happy enough. I always enjoy watching you make an idiots argument.

So they had two starters when they drafted Hall, right? Well, didn't they already have a backup RB when they drafted Perry? Or a backup WR when they drafted Washington, Henry, Simpson, and Caldwell? And I guess you still considered Deltha to be a CB playing at a Pro Bowl level, right?

[HoosierCat]

By definition, a luxury is something you don't need, not something that maybe has a use.

So by your definition a luxury item is something that has no use whatsoever?

Umm, no. By any definition (see above) "a luxury is something you don't need." You don't get to speak for me (or the dictionary) either.

So they had two starters when they drafted Hall, right?

Yup. Exactly what you asked for:

You couldn't think of a single example where the Bengals used a steady stream of high draft picks on a defensive position that was already secure.

Case closed.

[HAPPYJAQ]

The Bengals HAD to draft 2 WR's this year. Next to RB, WR's have the shortest career span of any position in the NFL. Johnson, T.J. and Chatman are all past or close to the magical age of 30, where receivers historically begin to decline. Futhermore, T.J. will not be a Bengal next year (and the Bengals have known that since last year). If you're still wishing upon a star regarding the Bengals resigning him, just look at the fact that the Bengals are willing to renegotiate Chad's deal after this year, given he has a good year and does not sulk, while they are not even close to renegotiation T.J., who will be an UFA after the season. This means, the Bengals had to draft someone who will be seasoned enough to produce in '09 as a starting WR, not even mentioning the uncertainty that the Bengals had always felt regarding Chris Henry, who was the #3 WR at the time of the draft, coming off an 8 game suspension. As it stands, both rookie WR's stand to be the #2 and #3 WR's, in some order, next year. Even more, the fact that the Bengals drafted Urrutia late and singed Brown, Logan and Purify says that they don't have a lot of confidence in the bottom of the roster at WR's ability to come in an produce should injury/ineffectiveness occur. These were all needed moves, considering all of the circumstances.

[HairOnFire]

Umm, no. By any definition (see above) "a luxury is something you don't need."

Your definition seems to keep changing. Only a short while ago you implied drafting Perry, Simpson, and Caldwell were absolute neccessities due to contract issues involving other players. Then you said some stuff about how a luxury was narrowly defined as something that had no use. But that was crap, right? Because it was easy to show how many luxury items can serve a practicle purpose....if the final cost is no object. So maybe it's the total cost, and a persons ability to pay it, coupled with a persons desire being greater than his need that defines what a luxury might be.

You don't get to speak for me either.

Why would I bother trying? All you seem to say is a bunch of mindless dribble followed up by repeated shouts of..."case closed."

[HairOnFire]

Once again a debate with Hoosier has descended into the precise definition of a word. Chairs are abandoned. The search for the family dictionary begins! Fingers flip about, and once again a precise definition of a "magic" word is found. Predictably, the definition proves what many of us have come to know. Hoosier simply doesn't know the meaning of the very words he clings to the hardest.

The word is defined three ways. See for yourself how closely the definitions match what either Hoosier and I have said.

The first definition is archaic. Lechery. Lust.

RANT - We are the bastard sons of Paul Brown and job one will always be passing the football.....because that's his legacy. Everything else is secondary.

The second is: A condition of abundance.

RANT - Let's see, not one but two Pro Bowl WR's at the starting spots. Plus one 2nd round draft pick & three 3rd round picks used on the same backup WR role over a fairly short time period. Plus one 1st round & one 2nd round draft pick used on yet another backup offensive skill position during the same period.

The third option: Of pleasure or comfort but not absolutely neccessary.

RANT - Three freaking wideouts in the last draft...with two of them being first day draft picks. Really? Just two of the top 5 available picks devoted to a 30th ranked defense? Really?

Case closed?

[Ickey44]

Well, the defense continues to suck no matter how many draft picks we add so we might as well keep fueling the offense.

[HoosierCat]

Umm, no. By any definition (see above) "a luxury is something you don't need."

Your definition seems to keep changing.

Nope.

lux·u·ry (lgzh-r, lksh-)

n. pl. lux·u·ries

1. Something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort.

2. Something expensive or hard to obtain.

3. Sumptuous living or surroundings: lives in luxury.

adj.

Providing luxury: a luxury car.

[Middle English luxurie, lust, from Old French, from Latin luxuria, excess, luxury, from luxus.]

Synonyms: luxury, extravagance, frill

These nouns denote something desirable that is not a necessity: the real luxury of riding in a limousine; a simple wedding without any extravagances; caviar and other culinary frills.

Antonym: necessity

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/luxury

Case closed.

[redsbengalsbucks]

It seems yet again HOF and Hoosiercat have again hijacked a thread to continue their Hatfield and McCoy like blood feud.

I say, solve it like men, dueling pistols at 30 paces.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

For me, drafting wide receivers high was a necessity due to three factors:

1. Chris Henry's flakiness

2. CJ and TJs age

3. CJ's tantrum.

The first two were the most important factors, as far as I was concerned.

30 isn't ancient at wide receiver, but it isn't spring chicken either, and I argued long this off-season that particular position needed fresh blood. Since the CJ draft, only Henry had been taken on the first day at WR. Seven years and one first day receiver? That is a long time between drinks of replenishment. They needed to address that position, and I am glad they did.

And don't forget last year's decision to let Walter and Washington walk, one was a stand out ST's player, and the other was a very productive #3 type on a bad team in Houston, as he would've been here.

But I guess bad personnel decisions snowball when you decide to pay a guy who can barely walk big bucks at RT, and sign two others in the same position group at the same time, and can't afford to keep your quality depth (Walter, KK, LJ, Steinbach) and compound that with stupid draft picks like Thurman and Henry too high in the draft.

Most of the Bengals' problems are a result of a poor or no Personnel GM, and a salary cap philosophy that's been way too slow to change or adapt. They are forced into neglecting position groups in the draft annually, because of this.

[HairOnFire]

It seems yet again HOF and Hoosiercat have again hijacked a thread to continue their Hatfield and McCoy like blood feud.

I say, solve it like men, dueling pistols at 30 paces.

I think it has been solved. Hoosier just posted a definition of a word that doesn't even fit his own rants. Meanwhile, my rants have managed to matche BOTH definitions perfectly.

Again, using Hoosiers preferred definition this time...the word LUXURY is defined three ways.

1 - Something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort. - We could spend months debating how much the Bengals needed three rookie wideouts. By comparison we probably couldn't spend five good minutes debating whether it was essential the Bengals draft more than one.

Case closed. Advantage Hair.

2. Something expensive or hard to obtain. - Count 'em again. One 2nd and three 3rd round picks burned on the same part time role over a fairly short time period. Oh, and that "other" offensive part time role? A pair of even higher draft picks spent there.

Case closed. Advantage Hair.

3. Sumptuous living or surroundings - We are the Bastard Sons of Paul Brown and we practically drip with offensive weaponry. And not the cheap stuff, either. We're talking about pro bowl players at QB, RB, WR, WR again, and a very good Oline. As for backups, nothing but the absolute best will do. We're talking first day picks everywhere.

Case closed. Advantage Hair.

So as Hoosier likes to do, let's take a moment to review where we're at.

Right down the line, from A to Z, from front to back, from here to there, and even from soup to nuts my rants have perfectly matched both definitions. I've got nothing to answer for and nothing to explain. Because not only does everything I've said fit the definition....there's nothing I've said that doesn't.

By comparison, at BEST there are bits and pieces of Hoosiers rants that manage to fit narrow portions of his own preferred definition. Worse, he's said plenty of crap that doesn't fit either version. For example, he once claimed something couldn't be considered a luxury if it had any value whatsoever. And that doesn't fit his own definition, does it? In fact, that point was pure s**te....as most of his ranting has been.

Bottom Line: Hoosier's insistence that the debate by framed withing the specific definition of a word might make more sense if he actually knew the definition from the very start or could understand it later after having read it.

[HairOnFire]

And don't forget last year's decision to let Walter and Washington walk, one was a stand out ST's player, and the other was a very productive #3 type on a bad team in Houston, as he would've been here.

In hindsight Walter and Washington shared the same fate. Both produced respectable stats but were eventually discarded because they lacked big play potential. And there's the rub because this team simply won't tolerate the normal production levels that can be had relatively inexpensively. Instead, they point to the offensive rankings falling out of the Top 5 as proof that explosive players have to be in place at every position, and in every part-time role, or the entire machine begins to fail.

[HoosierCat]

It seems yet again HOF and Hoosiercat have again hijacked a thread to continue their Hatfield and McCoy like blood feud.

I say, solve it like men, dueling pistols at 30 paces.

I think it has been solved. Hoosier just posted a definition of a word that doesn't even fit his own rants. Meanwhile, my rants have managed to matche BOTH definitions perfectly.

Again, using Hoosiers preferred definition this time...the word LUXURY is defined three ways.

1 - Something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort. - We could spend months debating how much the Bengals needed three rookie wideouts. By comparison we probably couldn't spend five good minutes debating whether it was essential the Bengals draft more than one.

Case closed. Advantage Hair.

2. Something expensive or hard to obtain. - Count 'em again. One 2nd and three 3rd round picks burned on the same part time role over a fairly short time period. Oh, and that "other" offensive part time role? A pair of even higher draft picks spent there.

Case closed. Advantage Hair.

3. Sumptuous living or surroundings - We are the Bastard Sons of Paul Brown and we practically drip with offensive weaponry. And not the cheap stuff, either. We're talking about pro bowl players at QB, RB, WR, WR again, and a very good Oline. As for backups, nothing but the absolute best will do. We're talking first day picks everywhere.

Case closed. Advantage Hair.

So as Hoosier likes to do, let's take a moment to review where we're at.

Right down the line, from A to Z, from front to back, from here to there, and even from soup to nuts my rants have perfectly matched both definitions. I've got nothing to answer for and nothing to explain. Because not only does everything I've said fit the definition....there's nothing I've said that doesn't.

By comparison, at BEST there are bits and pieces of Hoosiers rants that manage to fit narrow portions of his own preferred definition. Worse, he's said plenty of crap that doesn't fit either version. For example, he once claimed something couldn't be considered a luxury if it had any value whatsoever. And that doesn't fit his own definition, does it? In fact, that point was pure s**te....as most of his ranting has been.

Bottom Line: Hoosier's insistence that the debate by framed withing the specific definition of a word might make more sense if he actually knew the definition from the very start or could understand it later after having read it.

Gone completely around the bend, haven't we? Ignore the fact the Bengals have spent the vast majority of their top picks over the last five years on defense. Ignore the fact that from Thornton to Odom all their top outside FA acquisitions have been on defense. Ignore 2007 and what it demonstrated about the importance of the No. 2 RB and No. 3 WR positions. All you have left...is, well, nutin'.

Have the Bengals been committed to building a defense? Pretty damn obviously.

Case closed.

[HairOnFire]

Gone completely around the bend, haven't we?

Nope. You've spent the better part of a week complaining I didn't know the definition of a word. Turns out I knew the definition perfectly, and far better than you at any rate.

Ignore the fact the Bengals have spent the vast majority of their top picks over the last five years on defense.

Ignore the fact the Bengals just used 3 out of their top 5 draft assets on their 7th ranked offense....using only two of their top 5 picks on their 27th ranked defense. [Luxury = Adding something inessential]

Ignore the fact that from Thornton to Odom all their top outside FA acquisitions have been on defense.

All of them you say? Well, you're just wrong again, aren't you? Reggie Kelly still plays and starts for the Bengals 7th ranked offense, and is considered one of the best blocking TE's in the entire NFL. Pro Bowl player for the Falcons, right? At the other TE spot the Bengals have yet another offensive FA signed away from another team. In fact, the teams 2nd most expensive addition in FA this offseason was used on....(wait for it)....yet another pass catcher. [Luxury = A condition of abundance.]

Ignore 2007 and what it demonstrated about the importance of the No. 2 RB and No. 3 WR positions.

Didn't 2007 demonstrate anything about the importance of numerous defensive positions...including multiple starting positions? And based on measuables like production and rankings which side of the ball needed the most attention immediately? Was it the 7th ranked offense or the 27th ranked defense? [Luxury = Adding something inessential]

Case closed.

You've been claiming that for a week now, right? Yet here you still are. Best, since you declared yourself the victor we've learned you don't even know the meaning of ther words you hide behind. And that's real progress.

[HoosierCat]

Case closed.

You've been claiming that for a week now, right?

Yup, and that was just about the time you quit arguing facts and started you rant over word definitions, which has been enjoyable to read, but not of much use to the point at hand.

Ignore the fact the Bengals just used 3 out of their top 5 draft assets on their 7th ranked offense....using only two of their top 5 picks on their 27th ranked defense. [Luxury = Adding something inessential]

Hmmm...well, now that we are changing the playing field, to just the 2008 draft from the last five, we can eliminate Irons, Perry, Washington and Henry from your argument. Oh, and if we're going to change the playing field again and add in fourth round picks, let's factor that in over the last five years and...yep, still spending 2/3rds of draft picks on this defense they aren't committed to building.

All of them you say? Well, you're just wrong again, aren't you? Reggie Kelly still plays and starts for the Bengals 7th ranked offense, and is considered one of the best blocking TE's in the entire NFL. Pro Bowl player for the Falcons, right? At the other TE spot the Bengals have yet another offensive FA signed away from another team. In fact, the teams 2nd most expensive addition in FA this offseason was used on....(wait for it)....yet another pass catcher. [Luxury = A condition of abundance.]

Another classic: the Bengals current TE situation constitutes "a condition of abundance"?? But hey, congrats for citing two small-beer, money-wise, signings in five years. What are they spending on him and Utecht combined? About what they are spending on just Odom, right? Not to mention what they spent on Thornton, Hardy, James, Webster, and Fat Sam, just to name a few. I don't know why they keep doing this, though, when they aren't committed to the defense.

Didn't 2007 demonstrate anything about the importance of numerous defensive positions...including multiple starting positions? And based on measuables like production and rankings which side of the ball needed the most attention immediately? Was it the 7th ranked offense or the 27th ranked defense?

Actually, we had the 11th ranked offense last season, a drop from previous years. But let's see, yes, on which side of the ball did open starting slots get addressed? Well, let's see...Rivers...Sims...Dhani Jones...Odom...yeah, that would be the defensive side of the ball.

[HairOnFire]

Yup, and that was just about the time you quit arguing facts and started you rant over word definitions, which has been enjoyable to read, but not of much use to the point at hand.

Sorry, but you're the poster who repeatedly claimed I didn't know the definition of "luxury". As it turns out I knew what it meant exactly....something you can no longer claim. In fact, you not only exposed yourself as someone who is ignorant about the meaning of words, but also as a raving douchebag who dictated the debate be framed under those ridiculous terms. And as for the so-called point at hand, you're the one who repeatedly attempts to define what can and can't be discussed....as if you have that kind of control.

Another classic: the Bengals current TE situation constitutes "a condition of abundance"??

I mentioned the TE position only because you mistakenly claimed the Bengals had never signed a notable offensive FA from another team. Obviously, you didn't know what you were talking about, did you? So don't blame me for opening that door. You opened it when you proved how little you know.

That said, the really interesting thing relates to how disingenuous your original claim was. You deliberately framed your question in a way that demands the reader ignore the vast number of offensive free agents the Bengals had kept over the years, and you did so because you thought such a narrow question gave you an important debating point....something that's far more important to you than "the point at hand". Worse, you weren't even able to make a point you already knew to be worthless because you somehow managed to forgot both of the Bengals best TE's were FA's who came from other teams.

Hmmm...well, now that we are changing the playing field, to just the 2008 draft from the last five, we can eliminate Irons, Perry, Washington and Henry from your argument.

No you can't. Any rules restricting our ability to look at things in any way we see fit exist only in your feeble mind.

Frankly, rather than worry about a change in subject perhaps you should be interested in adding something of substance to this thread before it dies. After all, you began your rants attempting to hide behind numbers you know are meaningless, then you attempted to frame the debate using your less than keen grasp of the meaning words. And through it all you demonstrated what a douche you are by proclaiming case closed over and over again......only to be forced to return the following day to correct all of the mistakes you keep making.

[HoosierCat]

but also as a raving douchebag

Ah, I see now that the facts have failed, it's down to insults and running around the board trolling after me.

I mentioned the TE position

Yes, and if I'm kind I might some day let you live down calling it "a position of abundance."

That said, the really interesting thing relates to how disingenuous your original claim was. You deliberately framed your question in a way that demands the reader ignore the vast number of offensive free agents the Bengals had kept over the years,

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that your definition of "commitment to defense" meant not only that the team had to spend all its draft picks and free agent dollars on defenders, but also to decline to re-sign guys like Chad, TJ, Carson, Levi, etc. But OK, if you want to argue that the Bengals should let, say, Carson walk to prove their commitment to defense, be my guest.

Oh, by the way:

Case still closed.

[HairOnFire]

Ah, I see now that the facts have failed, it's down to insults and running around the board trolling after me.

Pointing out how you're acting like a raving douchebag isn't a personal insult. It's simply an accurate way of describing your behavior. In this thread alone you're guilty of offering stats you knew to be meaningless, then cluelessly attempting to frame the debate using a dictionary, and then you added the finishing kick of another heaping dose of disingenous tripe you also knew to be worthless. And then there are the obvious mistakes you keep making. Like how anything with any value whatsoever can't be a luxury, a sweet little bit 'o douchebaggery that doesn't even fit your own hand selected definition. Oh, and you couldn't even recall a single example of an offensive FA being signed from other teams...conveniently forgetting both the Bengals starting TE of the last couple of seasons AND the player most hope will assume the starting role for the next couple of years.

Yes, and if I'm kind I might some day let you live down calling it [the TE position] "a position of abundance."

Again, the TE position was only mentioned because of your errors. You opened the door. And once it was opened it wasn't much of a trick to realize that Utect, a predominately pass catching TE, was yet another offensive weapon added to this team prior to this years draft. A draft that resulted in three more WR's and yet another predominately pass catching TE being added. So that's five new pass catchers added in one offseason to a passing offense that already ranked amongst the NFL's very best. Now, how many of those five additions are you prepared to argue were essential?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that your definition of "commitment to defense" meant not only that the team had to spend all its draft picks and free agent dollars on defenders, but also to decline to re-sign guys like Chad, TJ, Carson, Levi, etc. But OK, if you want to argue that the Bengals should let, say, Carson walk to prove their commitment to defense, be my guest.

Pure 100% disingenuous douchbaggery. Now that your favored dictionary gambit has blown up in your face, as it always seems to do, it's time for the patented Hoosier-style strawman diversion. Now you dig in your heels and try to pretend someone actually suggested this team lets Carson Palmer walk, right? Nevermind the fact that nobody said anything remotely close to what you're claiming. Nevermind the fact that you keep ducking the real issues in favor of crap like this. Sheesh, you're just trying to get to the truth, right?

Case still closed.

See you tomorrow.

[HoosierCat]

Now you dig in your heels and try to pretend someone actually suggested this team lets Carson Palmer walk, right? Nevermind the fact that nobody said anything remotely close to what you're claiming. Nevermind the fact that you keep ducking the real issues in favor of crap like this.

Crap like this?

You deliberately framed your question in a way that demands the reader ignore the vast number of offensive free agents the Bengals had kept over the years

Wouldn't Carson Palmer be one of those "vast number of offensive free agents the Bengals had kept over the years"? Fine, let's include those players in the debate. How do the extensions of Palmer, Levi, Chad, TJ etc., demonstrate their lack of commitment to the defense? What players who they have let walk on D should they have given these big bucks to instead?

In this thread alone you're guilty of offering stats you knew to be meaningless, then cluelessly attempting to frame the debate using a dictionary, and then you added the finishing kick of another heaping dose of disingenous tripe you also knew to be worthless.

Funny how any facts that don't agree with your assertions are meaningless or worthless. But saying so doesn't change the facts. By any measure, the Bengals have focused on the defense in both the draft and free agency over the past five years. I've offered ample evidence of that. I've even included your objections. You want to add in a sixth year? Done. You want to consider 4th round picks as well as the top three rounds? Done? You want to consider potential offensive free agents retained? Done. None of it helps, tho. The majority of draft picks still remains weighted to the defense, as does the majority of free agents. And there is scant evidence that any money spent on the offensive side of the ball retaining guys like Palmer has impacted their ability to sign defenders.

Case still closed.

[HairOnFire]

how any facts that don't agree with your assertions are meaningless or worthless.

There're meaningless because they're "disingenuous"......a word you should probably look up before we continue.

Why else would you even offer your fatally flawed rant about the lack of offensive free agents added from outside sources? You deliberately framed that question in a manner that excludes almost all of this teams best and highest paid players, right? And they're all offensive players, aren't they? Well, why would anyone do that if you were as interested in discovering the truth as you claim? And are you seriously going to continue mocking the idea that adding a pass catching TE like Ben Utect doesn't belong in a conversation about how many new pass catchers a team really needs? And finally, why would you claim that anything with any value whatsoever can't be considered a luxury?

Are you stupid?

Is that what you'd prefer I believe?

Or as I've long suspected are you simply being a deliberate douchebag?

[HairOnFire]

By any measure, the Bengals have focused on the defense in both the draft and free agency over the past five years. I've offered ample evidence of that.

Focused?

Really?

That's what you're going to stick with?

As for evidence, your latest aside began with you forgetting a long time starter at TE and ended with you forgetting the Bengals 2nd most expensive FA move of the offseason. And now, during a debate about whether enough attention has been shown to a 27th ranked defense, you're busy crafting a strawman argument around Carson Palmer being let go.

Yeah, I'd say you've proven something. But probably not what you think.

BTW, I see you ducked the question about how many of the Bengals 5 new pass catchers you considered essential. Didn't you think it belonged in this conversation? Or are you too busy playing with straw?

[HoosierCat]

Why else would you even offer your fatally flawed rant about the lack of offensive free agents added from outside sources? You deliberately framed that question in a manner that excludes almost all of this teams best and highest paid players, right?

No, I simply didn't believe anyone would seriously argue that the fact the team paid guys like Palmer, Levi, Chad and TJ is proof that they aren't committed to the defense. Apparently I gave you too much credit.

I see you ducked the question about how many of the Bengals 5 new pass catchers you considered essential. Didn't you think it belonged in this conversation?

No, I think it was largely answered earlier in this thread. Far from being extraneous (as long as we're using big words), the selections of Simpson and Caldwell were direct reactions to the lack of a third wideout -- which killed us last season -- the fact TJ is a FA after this season, and Chad's offseason Ocho Bozo act. In short, these choices were dictated by team needs, not some lack of commitment to the D. As for Utecht, signing to that position of abundance that is our TEs, please. He doesn't even fit your rant about how the Bengals sign guys on offense when they already have guys at the position. We had a pass-catching TE where? Heck, with Coats moving to FB, we had a second TE where?

[HairOnFire]

Apparently I gave you too much credit.

There's alot of that going around. For example, I sorta assumed you knew who Reggie Kelly and Ben Utect are but they seemed to slip your mind when it mattered most.

Far from being extraneous (as long as we're using big words), the selections of Simpson and Caldwell were direct reactions to the lack of a third wideout -- which killed us last season -- the fact TJ is a FA after this season, and Chad's offseason Ocho Bozo act.

Well, how many thousands of times did you write about Chad's antics amounting to nothing? How many times did you say flatly that he wouldn't hold out? And after acknowledging the very real risk he might meltdown....you said you didn't think he would. So why do you get to use Chad's idiot act as justification for drafting three...count 'em....three new wideouts?

And TJ can be restricted, right? Plus, the Bengals continue to claim keeping him is a priority. So what happens to the three amigos if the Bengals keep Housh? How many of them get stashed on the roster without a significant role to play? Two out of three, right?

BTW, there were plenty of thing that killed the Bengals last season ---- most of them more important than the struggles at 3rd wideout. For example, there's the 27th ranked defense.....a unit that is still searching for proven starters at multiple positions.

[HoosierCat]

Apparently I gave you too much credit.

There's alot of that going around. For example, I sorta assumed you knew who Reggie Kelly and Ben Utect are but they seemed to slip your mind when it mattered most.

Cute, but you neatly dodged the issue. Again: are you seriously arguing that the fact the team paid guys like Palmer, Levi, Chad and TJ is proof that they aren't committed to the defense?

Well, how many thousands of times did you write about Chad's antics amounting to nothing?

Well, how many times have your written about me being wrong?

And TJ can be restricted, right?

In which case, that would be more "proof" the Bengals aren't committed to the defense, right? They would again be spending money on one of those in-house offensive FAs you want to include as part of this debate. So...if they spend money on TJ, they aren't committed to defense. If they draft a replacement for TJ, they aren't committed to defense. Exactly what practical option remains?

BTW, there were plenty of thing that killed the Bengals last season ---- most of them more important than the struggles at 3rd wideout. For example, there's the 27th ranked defense.....a unit that is still searching for proven starters at multiple positions.

And it's still searching for starters because:

1. The Bengals have spent a ton of top draft picks and FA dollars on the defense with little result, or

2. The Bengals aren't committed to building a defense.

Sorry, but the evidence points to 1.

[HairOnFire]

Again: are you seriously arguing that the fact the team paid guys like Palmer, Levi, Chad and TJ is proof that they aren't committed to the defense?

Sorry, but you're playing with your own strawman. Keep it up and you'll go blind.

You're the only poster who has mentioned Palmer or Levi, and we both know you did so only for the purpose of douchebaggery. The fact that you continue to engage in that type of deliberate douchebaggery is on you, not me.

As for Chad and TJ, the two wideouts obviously belong in any conversation about how many weapons an offense might need to be successful. Both players produce at an elite level so it's only natural to wonder how much more help any offense should REQUIRE from role playing positions. And on that score, it's not very hard to think of playoff teams that haven't burned as many 1st day draft assets over a short period of time on wideouts (4 picks) and RB's (2 picks) who were selected to be backups.

[HairOnFire]

They would again be spending money on one of those in-house offensive FAs you want to include as part of this debate. So...if they spend money on TJ, they aren't committed to defense. If they draft a replacement for TJ, they aren't committed to defense. Exactly what practical option remains?

Again, you're playing with yourself.

The Bengals didn't draft one replacement. In fact, if they had you probably wouldn't be playing with strawman right now. No, the Bengals drafted three WR's and a pass catching TE months after signing another pass catching TE in FA.

That's five new pass catchers, right? And they did all of this even though they have two of the most productive WR's in the entire NFL.......and the 27th ranked defense in the NFL.

To which you keep responding along the lines of..."It doesn't matter if the defense is poorly ranked or that it is has never performed at a high level. The Bengals have done enough. Nor does it matter that the offense, at it's worst, is still an above average unit. Much much much more still needs to be done. Furthermore and most importantly, my figures clearly show they actually did six of this thing and only five of that. And obviously, this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt their comittment is to this and not to that."