Bengals sign Manny Lawson

[HoosierCat]

They could put any of those guys (except Muckelroy I suppose) into the spot right now and not even bother signing Lawson, so I don't really get where you're coming from.

They know they are going to have to spend higher than the $82 million pipe dream of everyone else spending to the cap, because there are lots of other teams (like Tampa and Buffalo) with tons on money they aren't spending, either. So spending a little on someone like Lawson is no big deal.

[BengalByTheBay]

They could put any of those guys (except Muckelroy I suppose) into the spot right now and not even bother signing Lawson, so I don't really get where you're coming from.

They know they are going to have to spend higher than the $82 million pipe dream of everyone else spending to the cap, because there are lots of other teams (like Tampa and Buffalo) with tons on money they aren't spending, either. So spending a little on someone like Lawson is no big deal.

Recall that your premise is that the reason they did a 1 year deal is to micro-manage the cap so that they don't have to spend anything extra in any coming year. If that's the only focus, why not just keep Odom and roll with the status quo? No, I think your conspiracy theory is a little too overblown. The theory that Lawson wanted a short deal is much more likely in my opinion. Otherwise, you've got SOP with the green visor on pouring over contracts to make them work out just right for next year after he's making these various moves rather than just doing nothing right now and not cutting guys he doesn't need to cut. After all, it's all the same money if you don't care about who's on the field anyway. It might just as well be Odom - or Chad for that matter - rather than the guys they're trading for. Do I think the Bengals always look at every angle of every contract before it's done to try to squeeze the best deal? Yeah, mostly. Why not spend "a little more" on Lawson for 2 years - you accomplish the same cap purpose? Nah, I think you're guilty of overdramatizing this one. Sometimes the answer is the most obvious - maybe Lawson wants to rehabilitate his career without getting stuck here and/or with a chance to make a lot more coin next year if he plays well.

[HoosierCat]

If that's the only focus, why not just keep Odom and roll with the status quo?

Well, unless I missed something they haven't replaced Odom in free agency. And he would probably have made more than Lawson.

Sometimes the answer is the most obvious - maybe Lawson wants to rehabilitate his career without getting stuck here and/or with a chance to make a lot more coin next year if he plays well.

Well, the good thing is that we'll get to find out.

[BengalByTheBay]

If that's the only focus, why not just keep Odom and roll with the status quo?

Well, unless I missed something they haven't replaced Odom in free agency. And he would probably have made more than Lawson.

That's exactly my point. Why cut and then replace anybody if all you're trying to do is keep your accounts payable the same? Why sign any FA at all? It's just a paper exercise anyway and it doesn't really matter whose filling up the uniform. Why go to all that work to end up right back where you started?

[HoosierCat]

That's exactly my point. Why cut and then replace anybody if all you're trying to do is keep your accounts payable the same?

I didn't say they wanted to keep accounts payable the same this year. I said they want to minimize spending in both unfloored years, which includes this one. And minimizing doesn't mean not spending. If the 99% league-wide commitment isn't met, teams that didn't spend will have to make up the difference by cutting bonus checks to players. So may as well try to improve the team, as long as it doesn't cost too much.

[BengalByTheBay]

That's exactly my point. Why cut and then replace anybody if all you're trying to do is keep your accounts payable the same?

I didn't say they wanted to keep accounts payable the same this year. I said they want to minimize spending in both unfloored years, which includes this one. And minimizing doesn't mean not spending. If the 99% league-wide commitment isn't met, teams that didn't spend will have to make up the difference by cutting bonus checks to players. So may as well try to improve the team, as long as it doesn't cost too much.

Okay, so they're trying to improve the team and manage the cap to as close to what they will "have" to spend as possible. So, what exactly is your complaint?

I'm being only a little bit of a jackass - I get it. I think you're saying they shouldn't focus on what they have to spend, but should spend whatever it takes to put a winner on the field. Of course, that would be the best universe possible, but I tend to think that all teams have to have some sense of what they can spend in order to keep it relatively level over time. Maybe that doesn't work in today's NFL. I suppose we'll see if its Eagles vs. Jets in the Superbowl. But Dan Snyder went pretty much with that extreme theory for a number of years and his teams got worse over time rather than better. We'd all be happy if the Bengals loosened up the purse strings on occasion, but it's just not as easy as saying "they never spend any money" because it's just not true. The trick is to spend money in ways that work.

[HoosierCat]

Okay, so they're trying to improve the team and manage the cap to as close to what they will "have" to spend as possible. So, what exactly is your complaint?

Not complaining, just offering my thoughts on why they might be making a deal like this. I can't honestly blame them. In fact, I can't see any reason for the CBA being set up the way it is, with these two unfloored years, other than to allow small market teams to gather some "windfall" profits before the floor kicks in. And both players and owners signed off on that CBA, so if they're OK with it, no sense in my rocking the boat.

[ArmyBengal]

I actually don't mind the signing at all when looking at our current LB corps.

That being the case, I don't understand the thought that they want him to be able to prove himself in the 4-3 when he was one of the players that gave the Bengals much thought to moving to a 3-4 when he was coming out of college. Do they see him differently as his career has progressed or do they just need to make some move, any move, when considering our f*cked LB corps ??

As always, hoping for the best, but I get the same feeling I did back in the day when Marvin was bringing in all these free agents as stop gaps.

[derekshank]

I found this. It was dated back in January... before 49er fans thought they were going to lose him - and they all seem pretty damn high on him. So there is that.

I liked this:

Manny Lawson is a guy that I would absolutely hate to lose, because he does so much for our defense that doesn't show up on the stat sheet. He'll never be the sack leader of the NFL or anything, but he does everything so well, and there is something to be said about a LB that has NO holes in his game. Great in coverage, excellent against the run, one of the best in setting the edge, and a pretty decent passrusher in his own right. Not only that, but he's an athletic freak and one of the best at blocking FGs. He's a great character guy as well.

Also, it sounds like the Bengals are really close to a contract with Brandon Johnson. They still need to get another MLB and a S... but I think the defense is pretty close.

[BengalPimp]

Love the player but not the one-year deal.

Don't see the problem. They will clearly have tons of money to extend people during season if it is working out. So if he is indeed a good fit here, they can go multi-year with some idea of his fit.

We had tons of Money to extend Joseph,Yet it didn't get done I would have prefered atleast a 2 year deal but ohwell he may have not wanted it.

I agree, and with a longer deal, not only would you get him at possibly a bargained price (as opposed to if he has a great year) but last I checked, NFL contracts still are not guaranteed and the Bengals could always cut them anyways. A 3 year deal would have been great since he is still a young LB.

I don't get all the 1-year deals they are doing. That F*cktard Mike Brown just wants to give players a platform to show their abilities to other teams, and prove they are not washed up, because his cheap ass definitely won't re-sign them unless they suck,.,then they'll be cheaper.

[cincy9275]

what i like best about all the defensive free agents. the fact that zimmer had a big hand in picking these guys. if zimmer wants them then that's good enough for me.

[BengalPimp]

. They still need to get another MLB and a S... but I think the defense is pretty close.

Apparently you havent heard. Like i predicted Mike Brown wouldn't seriously go after a top Safety like I wanted in Michael Huff, but I said he would rather kick the tires (err...knee) on Gibril Wilson one more time.......Then what does Mikey do? Re-Signs Gibril Wilson.....Such a predictable cheap ass.

As for another MLB? Since Mike Brown loves handing out 1 year deals (for players to show other teams they are not washed up) why not go after Lofa Tatupu?

I don't think anybody's gonna throw big money at Tatupu because of his injuries and drop off in production the past couple of years. He might be looking for a 1-year deal to "redeem" himself.

Lofa can play a couple of LB positions, so just promise him an "opportunity" to start.

Won't happen, i know, but I would like to see the Bengals at least TALK to some of these guys........

[membengal]

By the way, one-year contracts are all the rage across the NFL at this point. The market has shrunk and teams are getting guys for one-year deals in a lot of places.

[volcom69]

By the way, one-year contracts are all the rage across the NFL at this point. The market has shrunk and teams are getting guys for one-year deals in a lot of places.

Exactly people need to stop complaining over these one year deals, go look at all of these other clubs and tell me they are not signing guys for 1 year deals.

[HoosierCat]

By the way, one-year contracts are all the rage across the NFL at this point. The market has shrunk and teams are getting guys for one-year deals in a lot of places.

Yup. The Bengals aren't the only team looking to game the system for a few extra million come December. I think that in 2011 and 2012, December will be a mini-March, with a slew of big-bucks signings (I fully expect the Bengals to at least make a run at Hall then, for example) happening as low-spending teams look to get up to the minimum needed to hit the league-wide spending commitment.

That said, you may see a few more dollars move out into the market soon once the CBA is ratified and several teams, like the Raiders, have to cut guys to get under the cap.