Big Willie

[derekshank]

The decision to get rid of him after making the claim they had to rededicate themselves to running the ball made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

It's not as if the Bengals would be where the Ravens are right now if they had kept Willie.

Since 'ifistory' is so fun to play, lemme ask you...how do you know?

Let's look at the whatifs. Willie stays. The team chemistry, particularly on the oline, is improved as is probably the QB protection on Willie's side of the ball. That means that Carson doesn't get stuffing beat out of him early in the season, or at least probably not as badly. Also, may have prevented that hit by the Giants on Palmer's arm that effectively ended his season. Willie's presence in the locker room may have settled down Fredo.

All that said, can you say definitively, with the way the Defense played the last half of the season, this Bengals' team would not have squeaked into a wild card slot?

Alright, ifistory huh? Well... in order to not look stupid, you have to be reasonable when playing. So lets look at the facts.

You mentioned the Giants game where Palmer gets hurt? Well, lets look at the sack stats in that game against the Giants.

How many of the 6 sacks were by Justin Tuck who was facing Andrews? - A big fat Zero.

How many were against Levi Jones? - 2

How many were to the DT's facing Ghiaciuc? - 3.

And 1 by a blitzing CB.

Seems like Andrews wasn't the real problem with this O-line at all. Not saying Willie wasn't better... but the problems with the O-Line would not have been fixed with Willie in the game. He only plays RT. LT and Center were the real problems.

Secondly. He only plays offense. The Ravens defense is the reason why they are in the playoffs. They have arguably the best defense in the NFL. Willie has nothing to do with that. Even with the way the Bengals D played down the stretch, it doesn't compare with what the Ravens do week to week. And against good teams, the D didn't play all that great. (gave up 24 points to TN, 26 to the Giants, 31 to Dallas, 26 to NYJ, 38 and 27 to Pittsburgh, 35 to Houston, 34 to Baltimore, 35 to Indy) The last 3 weeks against weak teams doesn't excuse the rest of the season where they gave up large quantities of points fairly regularly.

And since when did Willie ever have any impact on Fredo at all. Wasn't he in the locker room in that infamous '05 playoff game? In fact, Seems like during the actual season, there weren't many temper tantrums at all. Seems like most of the problems were when Willie was in the locker room. Maybe Willie was the problem (since you enjoy improbable ifs - I thought you might jump on that one).

So in answer... yes, I feel I can say definitively from the facts that with the presence of Willie Anderson, the Bengals were rather unlikely to have turned a 4-11-1 team into an 11-5 team. But hey... I wouldn't want to interrupt your Willie worship with reason and logic... so don't mind me.

[COB]

Anyone who thinks the Bengals were just being cheap with Willie should remember they paid him a couple million dollar bonus in the offseason. They were hoping he could come back and play, but he just couldn't.

No, that's just a phantom we've been seeing on the Baltimore line all year...

I get the hindsight thing. I'm just looking at what was available to the Bengals when they made the decision.

[Thurmanation]

Willie walked the company line here, through year after year of ineptitude.

I hope he gets a ring. Most who are banished to Bengal-land never do.

Not that i'm not happy for him, but he's not even that good on the Ravens. He constantly gets pulled during games, and gives up the rush to quick pass rushers. I hope he gets a ring but i don't really care that we let him go that much. It's not like hes playing like the 04 and 05 seasons.

He's playing better than Andrews did this year.

Plus, Mike Brown did nothing with the cap money saved by cutting Willie.

So it is more to the point to say that Willie is certainly better than whoever was the Bengals backup RT this season.

I mean, if the Bengals were going to do something with the cap money saved by cutting Willie... then I could justify cutting him. But cutting him just to pocket the cap money totally reeks of all too familiar Bengal ineptitude.

The only thing i don't agree with you on is the Anderson being better then Andrews. Im sure the coaches (even the Bengals coaches) have some skill in determining the ability of the players on there team. What im getting at is Anderson was cut because Andrews was better then him in camp (to us anyway) and im sure Andrews was better and still is better then the aging wonder that is big Willie Anderson this season.

[HoosierCat]

Anyone who thinks the Bengals were just being cheap with Willie should remember they paid him a couple million dollar bonus in the offseason. They were hoping he could come back and play, but he just couldn't.

No, that's just a phantom we've been seeing on the Baltimore line all year...

I get the hindsight thing. I'm just looking at what was available to the Bengals when they made the decision.

And what was available was a guy who could clearly play. Anderson was not cut because he couldn't get on the field. He was cut because he wouldn't take a $2 million pay cut.

[ArmyBengal]

I'm with Hoosier here...

[Bearcat1975]

Anyone who thinks the Bengals were just being cheap with Willie should remember they paid him a couple million dollar bonus in the offseason. They were hoping he could come back and play, but he just couldn't.

No, that's just a phantom we've been seeing on the Baltimore line all year...

I get the hindsight thing. I'm just looking at what was available to the Bengals when they made the decision.

And what was available was a guy who could clearly play. Anderson was not cut because he couldn't get on the field. He was cut because he wouldn't take a $2 million pay cut.

2 questions then:

1. Why did Willie need to take a 2 mil pay cut?

and

2. What did Mike Brown do with the cap savings from cutting Willie?

[COB]

And what was available was a guy who could clearly play.

What? The conversation before his big chance to prove he could play, the 4th preseason game when he was going to start and show his recovery, went something like this:

Bengal coach: "Ok Willie, you're set to start tonight. Show us what you can do for us this season."

Willie: "I can't play."

You call that a guy who can clearly play? I call that a guy who clearly can't, or won't, play. At least not for us.

Now if I may allow me to interject one criticism that has not been heaped on the Bengals coaching yet. You do not wait until the 4th preseason game to test a stalwart player who's been the force for good in your locker room for over a decade. By the fourth game all your good players are out and depth guys are fighting it out for roster spots. It was truly a slap in the face to wait until the 4th game to give Willie extended time. If he told them to wait because he wanted to heal up some more I understand it. But if not, it was major disrespect. And if that was the case it certainly fits with Mike Browns propensity for falling in love with project guys (Stacy Andrews) and forcing them into the lineup.

[gregstephens]

The decision to get rid of him after making the claim they had to rededicate themselves to running the ball made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

It's not as if the Bengals would be where the Ravens are right now if they had kept Willie.

Since 'ifistory' is so fun to play, lemme ask you...how do you know?

Let's look at the whatifs. Willie stays. The team chemistry, particularly on the oline, is improved as is probably the QB protection on Willie's side of the ball. That means that Carson doesn't get stuffing beat out of him early in the season, or at least probably not as badly. Also, may have prevented that hit by the Giants on Palmer's arm that effectively ended his season. Willie's presence in the locker room may have settled down Fredo.

All that said, can you say definitively, with the way the Defense played the last half of the season, this Bengals' team would not have squeaked into a wild card slot?

Alright, ifistory huh? Well... in order to not look stupid, you have to be reasonable when playing. So lets look at the facts.

You mentioned the Giants game where Palmer gets hurt? Well, lets look at the sack stats in that game against the Giants.

How many of the 6 sacks were by Justin Tuck who was facing Andrews? - A big fat Zero.

How many were against Levi Jones? - 2

How many were to the DT's facing Ghiaciuc? - 3.

And 1 by a blitzing CB.

Seems like Andrews wasn't the real problem with this O-line at all. Not saying Willie wasn't better... but the problems with the O-Line would not have been fixed with Willie in the game. He only plays RT. LT and Center were the real problems.

Secondly. He only plays offense. The Ravens defense is the reason why they are in the playoffs. They have arguably the best defense in the NFL. Willie has nothing to do with that. Even with the way the Bengals D played down the stretch, it doesn't compare with what the Ravens do week to week. And against good teams, the D didn't play all that great. (gave up 24 points to TN, 26 to the Giants, 31 to Dallas, 26 to NYJ, 38 and 27 to Pittsburgh, 35 to Houston, 34 to Baltimore, 35 to Indy) The last 3 weeks against weak teams doesn't excuse the rest of the season where they gave up large quantities of points fairly regularly.

And since when did Willie ever have any impact on Fredo at all. Wasn't he in the locker room in that infamous '05 playoff game? In fact, Seems like during the actual season, there weren't many temper tantrums at all. Seems like most of the problems were when Willie was in the locker room. Maybe Willie was the problem (since you enjoy improbable ifs - I thought you might jump on that one).

So in answer... yes, I feel I can say definitively from the facts that with the presence of Willie Anderson, the Bengals were rather unlikely to have turned a 4-11-1 team into an 11-5 team. But hey... I wouldn't want to interrupt your Willie worship with reason and logic... so don't mind me.

Not a Willie worshipper, and don't let the intangible of team chemistry interrupt your preference to be a Shleprock. When Willie got cut, it sent a message to the o-line that loyalty, hard work and team leadership mean jack. You think Willie just being on that team couldn't have amped that line a notch in terms of play? He'd been on them like white on rice if they played the way they did in weeks 1-5 and he was on that team.

Leadership means a lot, especially for linemen. They are a true team unto themselves. Willie was the foundation. Sending him off the way the Bengals did destroyed the foundation. I don't know how many, if any, wins that cost the team, but you can't say this team would or would not have went a different direction.

[Clackwoods]

The decision to get rid of him after making the claim they had to rededicate themselves to running the ball made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

It's not as if the Bengals would be where the Ravens are right now if they had kept Willie.

Since 'ifistory' is so fun to play, lemme ask you...how do you know?

Let's look at the whatifs. Willie stays. The team chemistry, particularly on the oline, is improved as is probably the QB protection on Willie's side of the ball. That means that Carson doesn't get stuffing beat out of him early in the season, or at least probably not as badly. Also, may have prevented that hit by the Giants on Palmer's arm that effectively ended his season. Willie's presence in the locker room may have settled down Fredo.

All that said, can you say definitively, with the way the Defense played the last half of the season, this Bengals' team would not have squeaked into a wild card slot?

Alright, ifistory huh? Well... in order to not look stupid, you have to be reasonable when playing. So lets look at the facts.

You mentioned the Giants game where Palmer gets hurt? Well, lets look at the sack stats in that game against the Giants.

How many of the 6 sacks were by Justin Tuck who was facing Andrews? - A big fat Zero.

How many were against Levi Jones? - 2

How many were to the DT's facing Ghiaciuc? - 3.

And 1 by a blitzing CB.

Seems like Andrews wasn't the real problem with this O-line at all. Not saying Willie wasn't better... but the problems with the O-Line would not have been fixed with Willie in the game. He only plays RT. LT and Center were the real problems.

Secondly. He only plays offense. The Ravens defense is the reason why they are in the playoffs. They have arguably the best defense in the NFL. Willie has nothing to do with that. Even with the way the Bengals D played down the stretch, it doesn't compare with what the Ravens do week to week. And against good teams, the D didn't play all that great. (gave up 24 points to TN, 26 to the Giants, 31 to Dallas, 26 to NYJ, 38 and 27 to Pittsburgh, 35 to Houston, 34 to Baltimore, 35 to Indy) The last 3 weeks against weak teams doesn't excuse the rest of the season where they gave up large quantities of points fairly regularly.

And since when did Willie ever have any impact on Fredo at all. Wasn't he in the locker room in that infamous '05 playoff game? In fact, Seems like during the actual season, there weren't many temper tantrums at all. Seems like most of the problems were when Willie was in the locker room. Maybe Willie was the problem (since you enjoy improbable ifs - I thought you might jump on that one).

So in answer... yes, I feel I can say definitively from the facts that with the presence of Willie Anderson, the Bengals were rather unlikely to have turned a 4-11-1 team into an 11-5 team. But hey... I wouldn't want to interrupt your Willie worship with reason and logic... so don't mind me.

Alot of people point to other teams pounding us down to why our defense was ranked so high, but what they don't realize is that if our offense could do anything then the defense would have been ranked even higher because they wouldn't have been on the field as much. I think we will have an excellent defense next year if we pick up more key player, plus the maturation and return of Rivers and Sims. We need a RB, OT, and a C to be effective on O and set us up for a playoff run next season.

[derekshank]

Not a Willie worshipper, and don't let the intangible of team chemistry interrupt your preference to be a Shleprock. When Willie got cut, it sent a message to the o-line that loyalty, hard work and team leadership mean jack. You think Willie just being on that team couldn't have amped that line a notch in terms of play? He'd been on them like white on rice if they played the way they did in weeks 1-5 and he was on that team.

Leadership means a lot, especially for linemen. They are a true team unto themselves. Willie was the foundation. Sending him off the way the Bengals did destroyed the foundation. I don't know how many, if any, wins that cost the team, but you can't say this team would or would not have went a different direction.

Well, I won't disagree that Willie was a leader. He was always a leader for the O-Line, and I have a lot of respect for him. That said... he was the leader for this O-Line in '06 when it started to fall apart, and '07 when it fell completely apart... and I see no reason why his leadership would have made much of a difference in '08. Especially when you consider how bad this team was throughout the 90's with him in the prime of his career. He's a great player and a great leader... but it means jack s**t when you're surrounded by pu**ies.

Would the line have been better with him in there? Sure... I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying that it wouldn't have made a substantial difference because the PRIMARY reason the O-Line stinks is because of the LT and C play. RT wasn't a huge weakness for them this year. It wasn't what I would label a strength either... but it was far from the problem.

[derekshank]

Alot of people point to other teams pounding us down to why our defense was ranked so high, but what they don't realize is that if our offense could do anything then the defense would have been ranked even higher because they wouldn't have been on the field as much. I think we will have an excellent defense next year if we pick up more key player, plus the maturation and return of Rivers and Sims. We need a RB, OT, and a C to be effective on O and set us up for a playoff run next season.

I hear this argument a lot... and it's bogus.

Yes defenses get worn out when they are on the field too long, and yes TOP is an important stat for defensive production - but only when the game is close. When a team is trailing by multiple scores, it actually plays in favor of defensive statistics.

A perfect example of this is the '06 Raiders. They finished the season with the 3rd ranked overall defense, and the 1st ranked passing defense. The Oakland offense was ranked dead last. This would lead many to believe (and did) that once they could get any offensive production whatsoever, they would be a major contender.

What happened in '07? The offense got a little better. Did a better job of staying in games and keeping teams from just running out the clock on them for the entire 2nd half. What happened to that 3rd ranked defense? It dropped to 22nd.

This is what happens when teams have multiple score leads on you. They start just eating up clock and slow the game way down. This helps your defensive stats because the team you are playing against is no longer gaining massive amounts of yards... but rather just playing keep away.

Look at the Colts game. They had 157 yards in the 1st half, 150 yards in the 3rd quarter, and then 22 yards in the 4th. Did they suddenly forget how to move the ball? Doubtful... they changed their philosophy and decided that eating up clock was more important than gaining ridiculous amounts of yards. They were playing against a team that had a 28 point deficit, 4 punts and 4 turnovers. Had they been facing the '05 offense I'm betting those 4th quarter stats would have been a bit different.

The stat you need to look at is points differential. On defense the Bengals were ranked 20th in points/game. And that's pitiful when you consider that the Bengals were dead last in points scored on offense. Only Detroit and St. Louis had a worse point differential than the Bengals in '08.

[combatbengal]

Hey, all you guys who were in a favor or supported the move to get rid of Willie. Who cares who was better at the position. The fact of the matter is, Wille was prepared to play, he played all season and now he's playing in the AFC championship. Where are our beloved Bengals? That's right, they're where their usually at this time of the year. With us on their couch watching the playoffs. You can throw all these sack stats, historical data etc into this threat. The bottom line is, Willie is still playing ball and our oline are done for the season. Willie go get your ring!

[derekshank]

Hey, all you guys who were in a favor or supported the move to get rid of Willie. Who cares who was better at the position. The fact of the matter is, Wille was prepared to play, he played all season and now he's playing in the AFC championship. Where are our beloved Bengals? That's right, they're where their usually at this time of the year. With us on their couch watching the playoffs. You can throw all these sack stats, historical data etc into this threat. The bottom line is, Willie is still playing ball and our oline are done for the season. Willie go get your ring!

Not sure I get your point. Are you happy for Willie, or upset about his release? The only way he was ever going to get a ring was by being released. He's at the end of his career and was able to get a job on a team full of aging veterans looking for their last shot. Good for him.

If you're pissed that the Bengals decided to move in a new direction, fine. But Willie couldn't be part of a rebuilding plan here simply because of his age.

If you're merely happy for Willie, why throw it in the face of those who weren't opposed to the move?

Seems like the only people to mock are those who thought the Bengals were going to be contenders for the AFC North. And most of us that weren't opposed to the Willie move weren't in that camp.

[HoTbOy]

Hey, I hope he gets a ring or the chance to play for one, but he wouldn't have fixed this O-line this year...If WAnderson was saying he could play, then the Bengals must not have wanted him playing in case he got hurt in the pre-season, and then they would have to pay him for the entire season while he was on the bench or however many games he missed...Most contracts have the player getting the most $ in the last years of it in hopes of maybe restructuring or taking a pay cut if player is not performing up to standards...IMO I don't think that WAnderson was playing PB caliber football the last 2 years, if he was I seriously doubt the Bengals ask him to take a pay cut, since he wasn't playing PB caliber football because of nagging injuries, the Bengals asked him to take a pay cut he refused they let him go...Some blame also has to go to WAnderson, because he knew he was not on the field and injured he could have taken the pay cut if he wanted to stay with the team...

[HoosierCat]

And what was available was a guy who could clearly play.

What? The conversation before his big chance to prove he could play, the 4th preseason game when he was going to start and show his recovery, went something like this:

Bengal coach: "Ok Willie, you're set to start tonight. Show us what you can do for us this season."

Willie: "I can't play."

You call that a guy who can clearly play? I call that a guy who clearly can't, or won't, play. At least not for us.

And I call that bullsh*t.

Again, if the Bengals thought Willie couldn't play...why did they offer to keep him at a lower salary?

If a guy can't play, he gets cut.

But that's not what happened.

You can try to rewrite history all you want, but it is what it is.

[COB]

And I call that bullsh*t.

Succinct argument.

But you have already stated that Willie's foot injury kept him out of 9 games in '07. Then his activity was limited in camp. Then he played limited time in 2 of 4 preseason games, finally not being able to play at all in the 4th game.

So I ask again, what evidence, from the start of the '07 season, until the day that they cut him, were the Bengals supposed to rely on to demonstrate Willie would suddenly be able to play again?

If it was purely a financial decision, they would have cut him after the '07 season. Instead they paid him a $2 million dollar bonus at the turn of the year. They were very clearly hoping Willie would recover. They bet $2 million he would. But he never showed he'd recovered. Not even close. Until he arrived in Baltimore

[HoosierCat]

So I ask again, what evidence, from the start of the '07 season, until the day that they cut him, were the Bengals supposed to rely on to demonstrate Willie would suddenly be able to play again?

And I ask again, if they thought he couldn't play, why did they try to keep him at a lower salary?

If you can't do your job, does your company 1. let you go or 2. ask you to take a pay cut?

This was about shaving $2 million off the payroll, nothing more.

[ArmyBengal]

I also don't think it has anything to do with keeping Willie somehow makes the Bengals a contender. Willie and no other ONE player are going to make or break that, so I don't have an issue with releasing him from that perspective. I'm merely pointing out that the way it was executed by the organization and the impact it made on the rest of the team was bigger than I think they were thinking. Willie being given the big contract and then being shown the door, while losing out on others screams of ineptitude by the front office.

[derekshank]

So I ask again, what evidence, from the start of the '07 season, until the day that they cut him, were the Bengals supposed to rely on to demonstrate Willie would suddenly be able to play again?

And I ask again, if they thought he couldn't play, why did they try to keep him at a lower salary?

If you can't do your job, does your company 1. let you go or 2. ask you to take a pay cut?

This was about shaving $2 million off the payroll, nothing more.

Yeah it was about shaving payroll, but it was also about moving forward. Same with the Rudi Johnson move. Had Rudi gotten a job sharing carries in Baltimore there would be two threads dedicated to this.

Anyway, I think it's pretty obvious they offered him a lower salary because they wanted out of the fat contract they signed him to. They would have preferred he stay with the team because of the chance that he might get healthy, his leadership role, as well as for depth in the event of further O-line injuries (which certainly occurred).

The cut was because of the giant salary he was getting could not be justified with the level of play he had nor the level of health he had exhibited. But you also have to consider the fact it was finally time to see if Andrews was the RT of the future. After franchising him it seemed like it would be the last chance to see him play. The move wasn't so black and white that you can wrap it up in the one sentence "It was about payroll."

And I acknowledge that payroll had something to do with it, and while nobody likes the payroll side of it, what are you going to do? Plenty of teams try to renegotiated deals with aging players. This often goes into the future planning of the team as well - because now there no more cap hit. Better this year than next.

[HoosierCat]

And I acknowledge that payroll had something to do with it, and while nobody likes the payroll side of it, what are you going to do?

That's fine. My beef isn't with anyone who understands this was about money. I object to the rewriting of history to say it was all about Anderson's inability to get on the field.

[HairOnFire]

Seems like the only people to mock are those who thought the Bengals were going to be contenders for the AFC North. And most of us that weren't opposed to the Willie move weren't in that camp.

Yup. Frankly, I've agreed with almost everything you've said in this thread, and would only add my thoughts about Willie being grossly overrated as a leader....especially as his time in Cincy was winding down. For example, I still remember his remarks about mentally sleepwalking and being in a fog during the Coslet/LeBeau years before Marvin's arrival. To be fair, Anderson seemed to "buy in" after Lewis arrived, but his more recent remarks sounded an awful lot like the same sleepwalking clock-puncher who had earlier admitted doing little more than going through the motions.

[HairOnFire]

And I acknowledge that payroll had something to do with it, and while nobody likes the payroll side of it, what are you going to do?

That's fine. My beef isn't with anyone who understands this was about money. I object to the rewriting of history to say it was all about Anderson's inability to get on the field.

I doubt anyone is rewriting history. More likely, we're each seeing things now that seem to back up our previous opinions.

For my part, I'm pretty sure I actually started a thread debating whether the Bengals should pay Anderson the 2 million dollar bonus. I argued against it for any number of reasons, but it all started with a belief that Anderson's play didn't merit it. And yeah, I can still argue that point even though he's still playing when the Bengals are watching.

Last, if Anderson was still wearing stripes nearly all of you would still be yammering about how three offensive lineman need to be drafted. His continued presence would count for almost nothing. Rather telling, ehh?

[COB]

I object to the rewriting of history to say it was all about Anderson's inability to get on the field.

Do you deny that Willie missed 9 games in '07 with a foot injury?

Do you deny that the Bengals paid him a $2 million bonus at the turn of the year?

Do you deny that he could barely practice, if at all, in camp due to the same foot injury?

Do you deny that he saw limited action in 2 preseason games?

Do you deny that, given the chance to prove he'd recovered, Willie couldn't start or even play in the final preseason game due to the same foot injury?

Do you deny that he was cut a few days after being unable to play in that last preseason game?

Those are facts. I'm not rewriting history.

Please cite the facts that support your claim that he was cut just to save the money. Be forewarned, the payment of a $2 million dollar offseason bonus, followed by an evaluation of the player's health that went as cited above, is a pretty big hurdle to any claim that he was cut solely for financial reasons.

As to why they offered him a pay cut: An injured player who may or may not ever get back on the field as an effective player is worth less than a healthy player.

[HoosierCat]

Last, if Anderson was still wearing stripes nearly all of you would still be yammering about how three offensive lineman need to be drafted. His continued presence would count for almost nothing. Rather telling, ehh?

Not really, since I saw him strictly as depth who would be well worth the couple million extra given how our o-line seemed to be falling apart in 2007...and as I feared it continued to do so in '08. Anyone watching knew we were in for at least two offensive linemen, if not more, this April, if Levi continued to deteriorate, Andrews didn't sign, and Ghaicuic still couldn't cut the mustard.

[HairOnFire]

Last, if Anderson was still wearing stripes nearly all of you would still be yammering about how three offensive lineman need to be drafted. His continued presence would count for almost nothing. Rather telling, ehh?

Not really, since I saw him strictly as depth who would be well worth the couple million extra given how our o-line seemed to be falling apart in 2007...and as I feared it continued to do so in '08.

Well, if you saw Anderson strictly as a backup player who would be likely to play only an additional season or two, as I did, then the decision to pay Anderson a 2 million dollar bonus can't be justified, as I once argued. Yet the Bengals did pay that bonus...which sort of makes a mockery of the idea the Bengals cut Anderson soley for monetary reasons.

Frankly, I have no problem with Anderson and I'll be happy for him if he gets a ring. That said, if I'm suddenly granted perfect hindsight I have to admit the decision I have a far greater problem with isn't the decision to cut Anderson, but rather....the previous decision to pay him a 2 million dollar roster bonus.