HoosierCat Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 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.Again, not really. In fact, it handily explains why they were so willing to cut him over money. I don't think the fact they asked for a $2 million pay cut after they gave him a $2 million bonus was coincidence. In their minds, they'd already paid him, and since he was going to be depth, no need to pay him again. As for the call to pay the roster bonus last January, it still seems a cheap price to pay for quality insurance on the o-line when you've shelled out $100 million on, and built your entire offense around, your QB.Frankly, I have no problem with Anderson and I'll be happy for him if he gets a ring.Same here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 I don't think the fact they asked for a $2 million pay cut after they gave him a $2 million bonus was coincidence. In their minds, they'd already paid him, and since he was going to be depth, no need to pay him again. As GrandmaOnFire often said, there's no need to keep throwing good money after bad. If you truly believe Anderson was no better than backup depth or if you prefer....very costly insurance....then all you're doing now is unfairly blaming the Bengals for attempting to secure the sevices of a reserve player at a cost more easily justified. That said, if someone here truly believes Anderson can still play at a high level, or even be a marginal starter past this season, then I guess there's ample room to complain. But c'mon now, how many of us truly believe that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 If you truly believe Anderson was no better than backup depth or if you prefer....very costly insurance....then all you're doing now is unfairly blaming the Bengals for attempting to secure the sevices of a reserve player at a cost more easily justified.No, I'm simply pointing out that the Bengals cut Willie based on money not, as COB wants me to believe, based on whether he could play this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 No, I'm simply pointing out that the Bengals cut Willie based on money not, as COB wants me to believe, based on whether he could play this season. Well, I'd say if either of you are speaking in absolutes you'd be wrong. But I'm guessing COB isn't doing that. It's pretty basic stuff. If Anderson couldn't stay healthy he's not worth as much to the Bengals. And if he could no longer be counted on to start both this season and the next, well.....I'd say the smart play dictated an offer of less money in exchange for lowered expectations, and failing that an ending to the relationship starts looking pretty good. And ANOTHER thing! On numerous occasions notice has been given to Anderson's remarks about being renewed or reborn since signing with Baltimore. Well, call me crazy but I say those things don't happen in Cincy. Instead, I'm guessing all we would have seen in the future was the same clock punching "leadership" we had all grown used to. And there's the proverbial rub, because more of the same dictates a draft pick being used on a replacement. Stay or go, what changes? Bottom Line: Again, if I'm supposed to be all angry and outraged at the way this thing played out, well....why shouldn't my anger be directed at the decision to give Anderson a roster bonus most felt he was unlikely to earn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Bottom Line: Again, if I'm supposed to be all angry and outraged at the way this thing played out, well....why shouldn't my anger be directed at the decision to give Anderson a roster bonus most felt he was unlikely to earn?No one's asking you to be outraged. All I'm saying is that the proposition that Anderson was cut because he couldn't play is false. That's self-evident. At best, the Bengals medical and training staff screwed the pooch again; at worst, it was a purely financial decision by a FO looking at the bottom line and not the best 53.And if we want to call it a bit of both, hey, who am I to complain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 And if we want to call it a bit of both, hey, who am I to complain? I agree the real truth is probably more nuanced than simply saying it was one thing or the other, and this thing but not that thing. Personally I think COB is standing on very solid ground on this one, and it's from that solid position that all of the later financial decisions were made....so both of you are correct if that's as far as it goes. But I'll argue a third factor, that Big Willie desperately needed a swift kick to his motivational "this is what makes me go" nads, and in this example he got one by changing his environment. Well, great.....I guess. But I still don't see how he would have been much help for the Bengals this last season, and I'm wholly unconvinced he'll be the answer for any team, Ravens included, after this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.