Stripes Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Is Jerome Simpson still available? :lol:/> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 I haven't seen details of the Pats offer, but the rumors say it is match-able by Pitt. It isn't a big money deal, instead it's a 1 year contract. So if the Steelers match then they are faced with Sanders being an unrestricted FA next year. So do they take the Pats third round pick in compensation this year, or risk losing Sanders for nothing next year? Tough call but if I had to bet they will match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volcom69 Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Bengals hosted Dansby, and Kerry Rhoads! I think they would be dumb not to sign both guys. Might not be long term answers, but would be huge upgrades, for two guys who could start day one. If they do that it could open the door for then to go OL, or WR in the first with a RB in the second. Get both of those guys signed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Is Jerome Simpson still available? :lol:/>/>Not that you were serious here, but no - he re-signed with the Vikings shortly after the big trade with Seattle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Bengals hosted Dansby, and Kerry Rhoads! I think they would be dumb not to sign both guys. Might not be long term answers, but would be huge upgrades, for two guys who could start day one. If they do that it could open the door for then to go OL, or WR in the first with a RB in the second. Get both of those guys signed.This is awesome news, finally bringing in a couple of veterans who can help w/o breaking the bank/>http://www.cincyjungle.com/2013/4/10/4208854/bengals-recently-hosted-free-agent-safety-kerry-rhodesYou've got to give the Rhodes visit a little love, Army, c'mon - from the article: During 34 attempted passes against players he covered last season, opposing quarterbacks generated a 64.5 passer rating with only five allowed completions over 20 yards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 I've said it before and I will say it again and again...If they bring in a player that keeps them from drafting a safety, RB, or LB in the first 3 rounds, I will be pissed.If bringing someone in to compliment that drafted player is workable, then sure, i'm all for it.The safety and runningback spot specifically.If Rhodes simply pushes the bottom of the heap down further, great.If he pushes a potential draft pick from being selected, NO.For FAR TO LONG the Bengals have avoided the safety position in the draft and IT'S F*CKING TIME.Enough of the 5th round guys with great measureables, but never do much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Kerry Rhodes is awesome, I would love that pickup. He's had a couple isolated seasons as one of the 10 or so best safeties in the league, IMO.What these FA options offer is not the ability to ignore a position in the draft. Instead, they would lessen the priority, which I think would be great. I hate it when we're seemingly locked down between a handful of positions of need and that prevents us from getting a real impact player. I want some good players in those three first/second round picks and I don't much care what positions they play.If nothing changes they're stuck with OT, S, RB, and LB. I want them to have the option to take someone like Johnathan Cooper if he falls, or a top tier WR, instead of forcing themselves to take an unspectacular prospect at a position of need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 I get the not wanting to force the issue, especially in the first, but I don't think they need to do that when considering the depth at some spots of need in this draft. I include the 3rd round in getting a player that could still potentially start this coming season, so we are talking about 4 picks. S, RB, OLB, and name your spot. WR, OL, DE, CB, whatever. I don't think it locks us up all that much.I've also already said I would be good with a WR as early as the first and yes, if a guy like Cooper were to fall, I would do back flips seeing him get selected by the Bengals. Again, a guy like Barrett Jones is another one I really like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 If they bring in a player that keeps them from drafting a safety......in the first 3 rounds, I will be pissed.If bringing someone in to compliment that drafted player is workable, then sure, i'm all for it.Agreed.I am just more confident than you are that the scenario with signing Rhodes is a case of the latter rather than the former :-)For FAR TO LONG the Bengals have avoided the safety position in the draft and IT'S F*CKING TIME.Enough of the 5th round guys with great measureables, but never do much.101% agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volcom69 Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 If they get Andre, Dansby, and Rhodes signed they can pick up the best player available in the draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 If they get Andre, Dansby, and Rhodes signed they can pick up the best player available in the draft.And I would be a very happy camper with very little to make comment about.Well, for the most part... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Pats offer to Sanders is 1 year, $2.5 million.Pitt has $1.3 million tender on Sanders already and $1.9 million more in cap space, so they could do it but it would chew up virtually everything left.(Memo for Cincy FO: please note that the organization you constantly say you want to be is not worried about reserving $$$ for rookies or an injury cushion...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalByTheBay Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Pats offer to Sanders is 1 year, $2.5 million.Pitt has $1.3 million tender on Sanders already and $1.9 million more in cap space, so they could do it but it would chew up virtually everything left.(Memo for Cincy FO: please note that the organization you constantly say you want to be is not worried about reserving $$$ for rookies or an injury cushion...)This is close to what I wanted the Bengals to do to Pitt last year with Mike Wallace. Say what you want about him being a 1 trick pony, he definitely cashed in this offseason. The benefit of that would have been the same as the vicarious benefit of this Pats move, it requires Pitt to pay more than they had planned for the player. With Pitt up against the cap, even though they CAN match the offer, it still bones them as far as any space they THOUGHT they would have but now won't. That or - equally delicious - they lose their next best WR to Wallace (some would argue best including Wallace) and will now have a teed-up whine for their turd QB (who has been known to queen it up some in the past) if/when he starts to suck it up. I wouldn't even say as I blame him if they end up losing his two best receivers. So, either way it should hose the Squeels. Pretty good entertainment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cHaD711Johnson Posted April 11, 2013 Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 Wouldn't want to give Mike Wallace a huge deal and give up a 1st round. Pitt likely wouldn't have matched it, and we wouldn't been stuck with a s**tty deal, bad cap, and no 1st rounder, which is 5 years of cheap labor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted April 11, 2013 Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 so I go on the espn nfl site and I see the headlineSaints agree to 1-year deal with OT Smithdesperately, I click throughohnot our smith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted April 12, 2013 Report Share Posted April 12, 2013 Your bold txt made me weep a lil bit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalByTheBay Posted April 12, 2013 Report Share Posted April 12, 2013 Wouldn't want to give Mike Wallace a huge deal and give up a 1st round. Pitt likely wouldn't have matched it, and we wouldn't been stuck with a s**tty deal, bad cap, and no 1st rounder, which is 5 years of cheap labor.I'd give up a first rounder for Mike Wallace at the deal that could've been struck this time last year. It would've been waaaayyy lower than what he was able to extort from the fins. That was one of the few big deals this season, the rest have dropped off a cliff. Wallace as #2 to Green would be the best receiver corps in the league by a country mile and would have made both of them better. Again, a Wallace deal last year would have been much lower, wouldn't have been a bad deal, wouldn't get us anywhere near the cap and would put a solid load in the pants of Harbaugh and Tomlin for the next 3 years. All that said, it wasn't done, so it doesn't matter. The point was that the Pats' offer to Sanders is similar and puts Pitt in a dark place. Hell, I think the Bengals should have done that same deal. Sanders is probably going to put up numbers comparable to Wallace this coming season wherever he ends up. He's still young and even if Pitt signs him it's at the higher number and they have to pull Mike Brown's thumb out of their eye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted April 12, 2013 Report Share Posted April 12, 2013 Bernard Scott close to inking? Hobson thinks so/>http://www.cincyjungle.com/2013/4/12/4217756/2013-nfl-free-agency-bengals-could-be-close-to-re-signing-running Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volcom69 Posted April 12, 2013 Report Share Posted April 12, 2013 On a 1 year deal, guess he will battle for his spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted April 12, 2013 Report Share Posted April 12, 2013 Bleah. You just keep raising that bar, Bengals! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volcom69 Posted April 12, 2013 Report Share Posted April 12, 2013 Yea really what have they really done to prove they are still not a one and done team in the playoffs? I just don't understand what this team does, it's about getting over the hump, not standing still.Now sign Rhodes, Dansby, and Andre and ill fell much better! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalByTheBay Posted April 12, 2013 Report Share Posted April 12, 2013 Yea really what have they really done to prove they are still not a one and done team in the playoffs? I just don't understand what this team does, it's about getting over the hump, not standing still.Now sign Rhodes, Dansby, and Andre and ill fell much better!Well, in defense of this move, Scott was not on the field for the loss to the Texans, or for much of the year at all. So, he's not really a contributing factor to that. I get that he's been injured A LOT. This is obviously an indication that they already think they have that change-of-pace back. I'm not a huge fan of it either. I want them to draft Jonathan Franklin. That said, Scott plainly has a lot of talent and could fill the role if he ever can stay healthy for a full season. Typical Bengals move - nibble at the periphery and wait for the value of those who remain FAs to fall. Since they only ever sign FAs on their terms, they rarely sign FAs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted April 12, 2013 Report Share Posted April 12, 2013 I don't think bringing Scott back changes anything whatsoever about their draft plans. Marvin and Gruden have both been so vocal about the need for a complementary back, and there's no way they think Bernard Scott is the best option. He'll compete for a spot, maybe with Boom, and ideally fall well short of the eventual draft pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted April 12, 2013 Report Share Posted April 12, 2013 Scott = who cares ??Really, it changes nothing.He's that good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShulaSteakhouse Posted April 13, 2013 Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 This is truly a case of a philosophy revolving around being "competitive enough to sell tickets," while an egotistic coach just happy to be in a cushy job thinks he can work miracles with cast-off players and head cases in the draft with high ceilings, due to the circumstances.I mean really, you sign virtually no one of any real value, let the most talented FA from your roster leave, and have arguably the most cap space in the league? Why do people buy season tickets for this garbage again? And who worries about re-signing Dalton in a year or two? The guy is Mark Sanchez incarnate. 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.