skyline Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 It's funny. Just yesterday I was looking over the game thread from the Baltimore victory, and about every third post is "HOOOOOSH!" or something similar.How soon they forget.All TJ did was run good routes and catch balls thrown to himYeah. All he did. Not here. Last offseason when everyone was complaining about having TJ around, I was one of the few guys defending him. I've always liked the guy.I still like him a lot. I just don't think he's necessary. If he wants to sign a fairly cheap deal, then great. Glad to have him.If not, then I'm fine with seeing the money spent on something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shworge Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 I'm sure Chad has some regrets about taking his slightly under-market value deal as well at this point. The reason Chad took less is because he was a year and a half away from free agency. This is standard operating procedure for the Eagles: identify your core of young players and lock them up well before their rookie contract is up so you can get them cheaper than if you waited until the final year. Why is it genius when other clubs do this but when the Bengals do it, it's just Mike Brown being cheap? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted February 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 I'm sure Chad has some regrets about taking his slightly under-market value deal as well at this point.The reason Chad took less is because he was a year and a half away from free agency. This is standard operating procedure for the Eagles: identify your core of young players and lock them up well before their rookie contract is up so you can get them cheaper than if you waited until the final year. Why is it genius when other clubs do this but when the Bengals do it, it's just Mike Brown being cheap? I don't think Mikey was ever called cheap over the Chad extension. In fact, I distinctly remember a tone of surprise in the national media stories, which usually began something like: "(Cincinnati) -- The usually tightfisted Bengals extended the contract of Chad Johnson today..."I also remember reading at least one article (on profootballtalk.com, I think) that panned the extension as a stupid move since Chad "had only one good year" and only the Bengals would be so dumb as to give a WR big bucks for that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckj414 Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Once again, whether it's a "fair price" or not is immaterial. It's the price. $300 may not have been a fair price for yahoo, but if you wanted a share, that's what you had to pay.I disagree - 'Fair Price' couldn't be more material. Thats the name of the game in the salary cap era NFL. Acquiring players at a 'fair price' = Patriots. 'Market value' = Redskins. As to whether it would be a good investment, who knows? But the "he's only had one good year" argument is -- to put it plainly -- bulls**t, for a number of reasons.For one thing, TJ has only played the No. 2 role for 1 season. Before that he was the No. 3 wideout, and his performance in that role was fine. He was asked to step up last season, and did. Now people want to use that against him? Thats a good point, but the fact remains that we don't know that TJ could replicate 2004 over and over again. If we knew he could, sure, I'd say the asking price is fair. But the Bengals staff would have better insight to this than any of us, not to mention every single other team in the NFL. If they don't think he's worth 3.5 mil, then I'm inclined to believe them. The Bengals front office history may throw a monkey wrench into the works, but I have confidence is ML & Co....Another point that might be made is that his presumptive replacement at No. 2, Peter Warrick has only had one good season, too. Prior to 2003 he was widely labeled a bust. Rudi Johnson, who many think deserves a $5 million/year average contract, is another Bengal with "one good year." He was almost cut a couple offseasons back!Also true. But thowing the stats out, just watching those two guys on the field, I think its pretty obvious who the better player is - Warrick. Incidentally, I don't think Rudi is worth anywhere near what he's asking either. The reality is that we have a lot of young players, courtesy of the roster purge undertaken by Marvin. There are going to be a lot of guys with short pedigrees. You cannot develop talent when you are not committed to keeping talent. I didn't make a fuss when we dumped Dillon and let Takeo walk; we were clearly rebuilding and I figured if the team was going to rebuild in might as well go the whole way. But that phase is coming to a close now. We have a competitive team with a good mix of vets and young players, and the best move they could make is to keep that together.You make a good case, I wouldn't shed any tears if TJ were resigned because continuity is as important as anything in the NFL. But I also see a team with other holes to be filled, and if signing TJ at his asking price would prevent those holes from being filled, then I say he walks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted March 1, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 You make a good case, I wouldn't shed any tears if TJ were resigned because continuity is as important as anything in the NFL. But I also see a team with other holes to be filled, and if signing TJ at his asking price would prevent those holes from being filled, then I say he walks...I was of similar mind a few days ago...but to return to my original post, what have they done to make you think they'll spend to fill holes? Have they gotten a long-term deal for Rudi to lower his cap number? Have the restructured anyone to free up space? Have they cut underperforming, overpaid players? No, no, and no. Instead they point to the tag and the rookie pool and incentives and tenders and sadly tell us that they only have $2.2 million to spend. Now, maybe this is all one big snow job -- but it's also standard operating procedure for the Bengals, and we all know how little that's gotten us.This a.m. there was this on the site from Hobson...it’s uncertain if the Bengals plan to dump a lot money right away on a big-name free agent like the Steelers’ Burress or Bills defensive tackle Pat Williams, or Jets running back Lamont Jordan, or if they plan to pick off a couple of more affordable role players like run-stuffing safeties such as Cleveland’s Robert Griffith or Miami’s Sammy Knight."More affordable" players. Well, that's just peachy. I'd be happy to see the Bengals prove me wrong and go grab, say, Ferguson...but I just have that "here we go again" feeling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 It's funny. Just yesterday I was looking over the game thread from the Baltimore victory, and about every third post is "HOOOOOSH!" or something similar.So ? I`m sure there were a few games when Rudi had some big rush and you were saying Ruuuuuuuuuuuuuudi.Does that stop you from thinking he isn`t worth the franchise tag ? Which is "fair market value".How soon they forget.All TJ did was run good routes and catch balls thrown to himYeah. All he did. Yeah and so did Kelley Washington.And 98% of WR`s in the nfl.It amazes me that a guy can have 5 good games and some people are wanting to throw a blank check his way.But then bitch because we have a s**tty defense. If TJ were asking for a 4 year contract for a total of 6 millionthen great ....but anything over that is wasted money. (for this team)TJ is i the same boat Rudi was last year...he hasn`t done enough to warrant a big pay day yet. People keep saying that Rudi isn`t an "elite RB" that`s why he does`t deserve the money....well TJ isn`t a #1 or even a "great" #2.So why the hell does he "deserve" to be paid as such ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 And as far as "Same Ol' Bengals.....No matter how many times this http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...es/default.aspx is posted, people still say that crap.We spend the money. Question "how" we spend it, but not "if" we spend it.Total payroll 2003 -- 4th highest New Orleans Saints $ 95,103,350 Tampa Bay Buccaneers $ 88,084,700 Minnesota Vikings $ 85,719,851 Cincinnati Bengals $ 85,457,225 Atlanta Falcons $ 84,861,253 Washington Redskins $ 84,826,189 Seattle Seahawks $ 84,227,732 Chicago Bears $ 82,803,517 New England Patriots $ 82,128,250 Dallas Cowboys $ 81,042,307 Arizona Cardinals $ 81,034,928 St. Louis Rams $ 80,224,050 Jacksonville Jaguars $ 78,735,117 New York Giants $ 78,125,309 Detroit Lions $ 77,662,097 Houston Texans $ 77,591,518 Philadelphia Eagles $ 77,436,900 Kansas City Chiefs $ 77,394,073 Green Bay Packers $ 77,230,121 Baltimore Ravens $ 76,154,450 Tennessee Titans $ 75,575,947 Carolina Panthers $ 75,004,350 Indianapolis Colts $ 74,998,224 Oakland Raiders $ 74,904,848 Buffalo Bills $ 73,299,382 San Diego Chargers $ 73,230,536 New York Jets $ 69,209,828 Miami Dolphins $ 67,439,147 Denver Broncos $ 64,826,919 Pittsburgh Steelers $ 63,571,735 San Francisco 49ers $ 60,519,309 Cleveland Browns $ 53,849,750 Total Payroll 2002 -- 24th highest Pittsburgh Steelers $ 85,283,461 Atlanta Falcons $ 85,125,086 New York Jets $ 84,739,364 Oakland Raiders $ 83,931,651 Houston Texans $ 83,780,271 Philadelphia Eagles $ 81,929,630 New York Giants $ 77,833,196 San Francisco 49ers $ 75,146,409 Dallas Cowboys $ 74,138,471 Cleveland Browns $ 72,241,477 Chicago Bears $ 71,853,262 Kansas City Chiefs $ 71,456,693 St. Louis Rams $ 70,680,786 Arizona Cardinals $ 66,967,535 Indianapolis Colts $ 65,728,706 Tampa Bay Buccaneers $ 64,486,295 Detroit Lions $ 64,329,265 Miami Dolphins $ 63,402,451 Denver Broncos $ 62,563,073 Washington Redskins $ 61,149,117 San Diego Chargers $ 60,656,461 Buffalo Bills $ 59,603,267 Seattle Seahawks $ 58,320,758 Cincinnati Bengals $ 57,867,603 Baltimore Ravens $ 55,711,792 Tennessee Titans $ 54,329,558 New Orleans Saints $ 54,263,868 Carolina Panthers $ 54,170,477 Green Bay Packers $ 49,980,056 Jacksonville Jaguars $ 49,563,600 New England Patriots $ 46,194,915 Minnesota Vikings $ 43,549,384 Even being 24th, we spent more than these teams: Baltimore Ravens Tennessee Titans New Orleans Saints Carolina Panthers Green Bay Packers Jacksonville Jaguars New England Patriots Minnesota VikingsTotal Payroll 2001 -- 4th highest Denver Broncos $ 102,582,620 Cleveland Browns $ 92,598,829 St. Louis Rams $ 82,344,655 Cincinnati Bengals $ 81,989,628 Seattle Seahawks $ 81,034,664 San Diego Chargers $ 78,852,865 Oakland Raiders $ 78,133,041 Pittsburgh Steelers $ 77,711,029 New York Giants $ 77,617,916 Tampa Bay Buccaneers $ 76,976,459 Detroit Lions $ 76,573,454 Chicago Bears $ 76,479,893 Baltimore Ravens $ 75,764,764 Arizona Cardinals $ 74,891,809 Atlanta Falcons $ 72,969,398 Carolina Panthers $ 72,347,972 Philadelphia Eagles $ 70,893,988 Tennessee Titans $ 70,126,673 New York Jets $ 69,980,467 Green Bay Packers $ 68,979,435 New Orleans Saints $ 67,326,988 Miami Dolphins $ 67,094,051 New England Patriots $ 65,793,825 Indianapolis Colts $ 63,835,431 Kansas City Chiefs $ 59,800,143 Jacksonville Jaguars $ 58,244,865 Washington Redskins $ 56,017,166 Buffalo Bills $ 51,602,563 San Francisco 49ers $ 50,374,331 Dallas Cowboys $ 48,469,232 Minnesota Vikings $ 47,086,528 Total Payroll 2000 -- 18th highest Arizona Cardinals $ 58,610,500 Pittsburgh Steelers $ 58,464,200 St. Louis Rams $ 58,157,400 Tampa Bay Buccaneers $ 58,054,900 Jacksonville Jaguars $ 57,162,000 Atlanta Falcons $ 57,006,000 Chicago Bears $ 56,895,200 Kansas City Chiefs $ 56,337,200 Green Bay Packers $ 56,148,300 New Orleans Saints $ 55,914,000 Philadelphia Eagles $ 55,581,400 Tennessee Titans $ 55,487,200 Baltimore Ravens $ 54,811,100 Miami Dolphins $ 54,643,400 Detroit Lions $ 54,635,200 Buffalo Bills $ 54,612,000 Indianapolis Colts $ 54,183,800 Cincinnati Bengals $ 54,171,200 Washington Redskins $ 53,878,400 Minnesota Vikings $ 53,319,800 New York Jets $ 53,250,400 Carolina Panthers $ 52,887,500 New York Giants $ 51,348,900 New England Patriots $ 51,344,300 Denver Broncos $ 50,239,400 Dallas Cowboys $ 50,104,200 Oakland Raiders $ 49,143,700 San Diego Chargers $ 49,118,900 Cleveland Browns $ 48,373,000 Seattle Seahawks $ 47,802,600 San Francisco 49ers $ 42,695,400 Right in the middle of the pack. Little more than half a million away from being 13th. Still, lots of big spenders and/or good teams spent less. Washington Redskins Minnesota Vikings New York Jets Carolina Panthers New York Giants New England Patriots Denver Broncos Dallas Cowboys Oakland Raiders San Diego Chargers Cleveland Browns Seattle Seahawks San Francisco 49ersMedian Salary 2003 -- 1st Cincinnati Bengals $ 731,200 New England Patriots $ 707,650 Carolina Panthers $ 705,563 Kansas City Chiefs $ 705,000 Minnesota Vikings $ 680,500 New Orleans Saints $ 662,500 Detroit Lions $ 659,000 Oakland Raiders $ 655,900 New York Jets $ 655,000 Philadelphia Eagles $ 655,000 Atlanta Falcons $ 654,100 Arizona Cardinals $ 652,800 Seattle Seahawks $ 652,400 Pittsburgh Steelers $ 632,200 Tennessee Titans $ 607,100 Chicago Bears $ 578,800 Green Bay Packers $ 572,900 New York Giants $ 570,325 Miami Dolphins $ 565,000 Houston Texans $ 559,400 Tampa Bay Buccaneers $ 556,900 St. Louis Rams $ 556,850 Buffalo Bills $ 543,600 Jacksonville Jaguars $ 542,500 Baltimore Ravens $ 530,000 Denver Broncos $ 530,000 Washington Redskins $ 530,000 San Francisco 49ers $ 529,300 Cleveland Browns $ 505,600 San Diego Chargers $ 454,100 Dallas Cowboys $ 454,000 Indianapolis Colts $ 454,000 Median salary 2002 -- 7th Philadelphia Eagles $ 762,995 Pittsburgh Steelers $ 691,320 Oakland Raiders $ 676,980 New York Jets $ 660,000 St. Louis Rams $ 603,600 New Orleans Saints $ 597,059 Cincinnati Bengals $ 564,125 Denver Broncos $ 561,540 Atlanta Falcons $ 554,538 Kansas City Chiefs $ 552,520 Minnesota Vikings $ 551,125 Tennessee Titans $ 548,010 New England Patriots $ 540,300 Detroit Lions $ 539,680 Houston Texans $ 539,180 Miami Dolphins $ 536,590 Cleveland Browns $ 530,000 Chicago Bears $ 525,360 Green Bay Packers $ 469,160 Carolina Panthers $ 468,145 Tampa Bay Buccaneers $ 465,870 Jacksonville Jaguars $ 454,050 San Diego Chargers $ 451,665 Washington Redskins $ 439,000 Seattle Seahawks $ 400,000 Buffalo Bills $ 390,245 Arizona Cardinals $ 383,165 San Francisco 49ers $ 378,600 Baltimore Ravens $ 378,240 Indianapolis Colts $ 378,060 Dallas Cowboys $ 317,000 New York Giants $ 303,780 Median Salary 2001 -- 7th New York Jets $ 751,173 Baltimore Ravens $ 725,320 Philadelphia Eagles $ 701,760 St. Louis Rams $ 700,240 Denver Broncos $ 695,372 Miami Dolphins $ 690,000 Cincinnati Bengals $ 688,478 Tampa Bay Buccaneers $ 660,080 Oakland Raiders $ 653,993 Detroit Lions $ 599,720 Kansas City Chiefs $ 576,720 New York Giants $ 570,333 Carolina Panthers $ 569,037 Seattle Seahawks $ 563,200 Washington Redskins $ 554,710 Tennessee Titans $ 543,287 New England Patriots $ 535,500 San Diego Chargers $ 535,100 Atlanta Falcons $ 529,000 New Orleans Saints $ 516,000 Chicago Bears $ 515,280 Pittsburgh Steelers $ 514,720 Green Bay Packers $ 514,520 Arizona Cardinals $ 512,000 Cleveland Browns $ 512,000 Minnesota Vikings $ 477,000 San Francisco 49ers $ 477,000 Indianapolis Colts $ 428,826 Jacksonville Jaguars $ 423,760 Buffalo Bills $ 401,734 Dallas Cowboys $ 320,560 Median Salary 2000 -- 4th Detroit Lions $ 619,050 St. Louis Rams $ 605,700 Denver Broncos $ 597,800 Cincinnati Bengals $ 597,750 Tampa Bay Buccaneers $ 593,800 Miami Dolphins $ 575,000 Minnesota Vikings $ 546,900 New York Jets $ 540,700 Baltimore Ravens $ 525,450 Kansas City Chiefs $ 505,650 Oakland Raiders $ 500,000 Carolina Panthers $ 490,600 Chicago Bears $ 490,000 Pittsburgh Steelers $ 486,050 Tennessee Titans $ 485,050 Jacksonville Jaguars $ 481,300 Washington Redskins $ 477,100 New England Patriots $ 476,800 Atlanta Falcons $ 476,500 San Diego Chargers $ 476,200 New Orleans Saints $ 475,200 New York Giants $ 475,100 Buffalo Bills $ 474,150 Philadelphia Eagles $ 473,200 Arizona Cardinals $ 455,050 Seattle Seahawks $ 455,000 Dallas Cowboys $ 441,300 Green Bay Packers $ 434,400 Cleveland Browns $ 427,700 San Francisco 49ers $ 411,550 Indianapolis Colts $ 361,200 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shworge Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 I'd like to see the Bengals pick up Lamont Jordan for about 3 million per year then trade Rudi. I think Jordan would be an excellent fit for this offense because he can pound it between the tackles as well as catch the ball out of the backfield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalszoneBilly Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 TJ has had one good year. Yeah, but with a rookie QB throwing the ball to him will trying to grasp the offense. I think his following years will be even better! If they are, I hope he's still with the Bengals!It's just me. I like him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakq27 Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 TJ has had one good year.Yeah, but with a rookie QB throwing the ball to him will trying to grasp the offense. I think his following years will be even better! If they are, I hope he's still with the Bengals!It's just me. I like him. Billy I hope TJ is able to stay also. I like his personality and his skills. Knowing Marvin's philosphy, he must have impressed them enough to stay on IR all year in 2003 and make the team in 2004.My only point was that people cannot compare him to Stokley becasue he's been around longer than TJ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalszoneBilly Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 Billy I hope TJ is able to stay also. I like his personality and his skills. Knowing Marvin's philosphy, he must have impressed them enough to stay on IR all year in 2003 and make the team in 2004.My only point was that people cannot compare him to Stokley becasue he's been around longer than TJ. I look at TJ the same way I look at Rudi. IMHO, he fits the "Marvin Mold" for the type of players he's trying to equip this team with! The Tory Jame's, the Nate Websters, and the Deltha O'Neils...those kind of guys.I don't see players such T.O. and Randy Moss coming from this mold, but conversely Chad seems perfect with Marvin's Mold too. The player better be more about the team than himself and his records with coach Lewis I'm pretty certain. I'm definitely good with that! :player: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted March 1, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 We spend the money. Question "how" we spend it, but not "if" we spend it. Forgive me for going all caps on your ass but THAT WAS MY FREAKING POINT IN MY FIRST POST STARTING THIS THREAD!!!! I'm happy you had a chance to show off your internet research skills, but it's all irrelevant.I'm not saying they're the "same ol' Bengals" because they don't spend overall, I'm saying they're the same ol' Bengals because they would rather sign 1 or 2 or 3 "affordable" players instead of spending the same money to get 1 good player. I don't mind if TJ walks so they can afford Jason Ferguson. I do mind if TJ walks and all we get is some Brownie cast-off like Robert Griffith!As I said before, I hope the Bengals prove me wrong. I hope they sign some badass FAs before March is over and show me they're serious about making a playoff run. Is that so much to ask? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 We spend the money. Question "how" we spend it, but not "if" we spend it.Forgive me for going all caps on your ass but THAT WAS MY FREAKING POINT IN MY FIRST POST STARTING THIS THREAD!!!! I'm happy you had a chance to show off your internet research skills, but it's all irrelevant.I'm not saying they're the "same ol' Bengals" because they don't spend overall, I'm saying they're the same ol' Bengals because they would rather sign 1 or 2 or 3 "affordable" players instead of spending the same money to get 1 good player. I don't mind if TJ walks so they can afford Jason Ferguson. I do mind if TJ walks and all we get is some Brownie cast-off like Robert Griffith!As I said before, I hope the Bengals prove me wrong. I hope they sign some badass FAs before March is over and show me they're serious about making a playoff run. Is that so much to ask?Like I always say....if you`re going to be an ass....might as well "try" to be a smart 1.....good for you. I noticed that you skipped over my other post though.Why is TJ worth 3.5 million a year...but Rudi isn`t worththe franchise tag ? Our runinng game without Rudi is more of a big ? than our passing game is without TJ.Rudi is more important to this teams success than TJ is.Why is TJ such a "must have" player in your eyes ?This is what Marvin had to say about franchising Rudi."This is the most responsible move we can make in pursuit of our goal to give our fans a playoff season and a run for the Super Bowl in 2005," coach Marvin Lewis said.http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1992105This is what he had to say about players like TJ....Pat them on the back and send them on their way. :player: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted March 1, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 OK, first things first...This is what he had to say about players like TJ...."We're looking for production," Lewis said. "T.J. did a fine job for us" http://www.daytondailynews.com/sports/cont...301bengals.htmlNow, on to other questions...Why is TJ worth 3.5 million a year...but Rudi isn`t worth the franchise tag ?Two seperate questions, but the simple answer is, because we aren't paying Carson Palmer a zillion dollars to throw to Rudi Johnson.We have a good young QB. But his success -- and by extension, the success of the team -- is greatly dependent on the quality of his wideouts. Rudi's job is to run out the clock after the passing game has secured the lead. What did you think all that stuff about "clock-killin' Dillon" was all about? Teams run when they win, they don't win when they run. You like numbers, go to footballoutsiders.com, it's all there.As for TJ, let's look at a few things. First off, his putative replacement is Peter Warrick, right? Well, the bottom line is that in 4, count 'em 4, years as this team's No. 1/No. 2 guy, Warrick has never, repeat never, racked up as many yards as TJ. So in just one year, TJ got to where, and perhaps beyond, it took Warrick 4 years to get.Isn't that worth a second's hesitation? A touch of respect for his abilities? More importantly, isn't it worth some cash? Warrick has a $2.2 million salary, and a roster bonus, and a $3.6 million cap hit, all based on his draft position. What's TJ worth based on his actual numbers?Second, let's consider where we are next year. Even if it turns out that Warrick is 100% OK, after 2005, our FA wide receivers are Peter Warrick and Kelly Washington. Washington will be an RFA so we can hold him for another year, but if TJ wants $3.5 million, what do you think Warrick will want? At what point do the Bengals quit churning through receivers? And while they are, how is that impacting Palmer and the passing game? And if the passing game goes south, where is Rudi going to find holes to run?For the last two years, we have watched the Bengals churn at two positions: LB and S. They have let Cory Hall and Lamont Thompson walk at safety, signed 2 FAs (Herring and Beckett) and spent a second-round-pick on the position. Result: we're still looking to finalize things at S, even to the point that many think we should spend a first-round pick on Thomas Davis.At LB we have let Steve Foley and Takeo Spikes go. We have signed many FA LBs, chief among them Webster and Hardy. We have spent 2 3rd round picks and 4th round pick on LBs as well. The result? There's a question mark at every LB slot except that of Brian Simmons.This year at WR it's TJ. Next year it'll be Warrick. Year after that it'll be Washington. When does the churn stop??? Developing talent in the NFL is only half the battle; then you have to find ways to pay to keep it! Otherwise this team is going to end up being the best farm club the rest of the league has ever seen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 As for TJ, let's look at a few things. First off, his putative replacement is Peter Warrick, right? Well, the bottom line is that in 4, count 'em 4, years as this team's No. 1/No. 2 guy, Warrick has never, repeat never, racked up as many yards as TJ. So in just one year, TJ got to where, and perhaps beyond, it took Warrick 4 years to get.And Warrick never had a QB, WR and running game or all around good team that TJ had this year in those 2 of those 4 years either.Except for 2003 when he got injured.Warricks rookie year (2000)Season leaders:Passing: Akili Smith (267 Att, 118 Comp, 1253 Yds, 44.2 Pct, 3 TD, 6 Int, 52.8 Rating) Receiving: Peter Warrick (51 Rec, 592 Yds, 11.6 Avg, 46 Long, 4 TD) Craig Yeast was the #2 . And the Bengals had 6 ...count them 6 passing TD`stotal. 2001Season leaders:Passing: Jon Kitna (581 Att, 313 Comp, 3216 Yds, 53.9 Pct, 12 TD, 22 Int, 61.1 Rating) Receiving: Peter Warrick (70 Rec, 667 Yds, 9.5 Avg, 33 Long, 1 TD) Scoring: Corey Dillon, 78 points (10 TD rushing; 3 TD receiving) The Bengals had 12 total passing TD`s. That 1 TD recieving Warrick had in 2001equaled the total TJ had in the 3 years prior to 2004.2002 SEASON LEADERS:Passing: Jon Kitna (473 Att, 294 Comp, 3178 Yds, 62.2 Pct, 16 TD, 16 Int, 79.1 Rating) Receiving: Chad Johnson (69 Rec, 1166 Yds, 16.9 Avg, 72 Long, 5 TD) Warrick finally got a true #1 WR so he could move to the slot.He lead the Bengals in recieving TD`s with 6. That is 1 more TD tha TJ has in 4 years as a Pro WR. 2003 SEASON LEADERS Passing: Jon Kitna (520 Att, 324 Comp, 3591 Yds, 62.3 Pct, 26 TD, 15 Int, 87.4 Rating) Receiving: Chad Johnson (90 Rec, 1355 Yds, 15.1 Avg, 82 Long, 10 TD) Warrick had a 77 yard TD pass. He had 7 recieving TD`s and 1 punt returnfor a TD. That is double the amount of TD`s TJ scored in his "career year".TJ`s longest catch was for 62 yards...he was caught from behid ...no TD.He has 5 TD`s in 4 years....that includes punt returns.Warrick has 18 recieving TD`s alone...plus 2 rushing TD`s and 2 punt returns for TD`s in 5 years.Yeah TJ is worth $3.5 million to a team that is already paying 2 WR`s$3 million this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted March 2, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 And Warrick never had a QB, WR and running game or all around good team that TJ had this year Serve me up a softball, why don't ya? Let's see, Warrick's big year was 2003, when he had Corey Dillon and Rudi Johnson and Jon "comeback player of the year" Kitna. No, he never had a team to play for, eh?TJ had Carson, Kitna, and Johnson. Notably, 235 of his yards came from Kitna, the rest from Palmer. And he made a seamless transition right in the middle of the New England game. Wasn't it our hero, Chad Johnson, who admitted after the first Cleveland game that he still wasn't on the same page as Palmer? How many WRs can switch in an instant? Chad had a whole offseason, TJ had a few plays...Frankly, right now TJ looks like a better player than Warrick. Guy hasn't busted 900 yards in four years as No.1/No.2 wideout. No one seems to be bitching about his $3.6 million cap number... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 And Warrick never had a QB, WR and running game or all around good team that TJ had this year in 2 of those 4 years either.Except for 2003 when he got injured.Serve me up a softball, why don't ya? Let's see, Warrick's big year was 2003, when he had Corey Dillon and Rudi Johnson and Jon "comeback player of the year" Kitna. No, he never had a team to play for, eh?TJ had Carson, Kitna, and Johnson. Notably, 235 of his yards came from Kitna, the rest from Palmer. And he made a seamless transition right in the middle of the New England game. Wasn't it our hero, Chad Johnson, who admitted after the first Cleveland game that he still wasn't on the same page as Palmer? How many WRs can switch in an instant? Chad had a whole offseason, TJ had a few plays...Frankly, right now TJ looks like a better player than Warrick. Guy hasn't busted 900 yards in four years as No.1/No.2 wideout. No one seems to be bitching about his $3.6 million cap number... If you`re going to quote me ...the quote the whole sentence at least.I highlighted the part you left out. 2 of those 4 years either.Except for 2003 when he got injured.I plainly stated except 2003 ..WHEn Warrick got injured and was hurt the last 2 and 1/2 games.Fact is Warrick has scored 22 TD`s in 5 years ...TJ has scored 5 TD`s in 4 years.That is over 400% more TD`s. Isn`t scoring TD`s, coverting 3rd downs, and being a threat to do bothso your #1 WR can`t/won`t be double and triple teamed a little moreimportant than total yards ? Well Warrick brings that threat to this team that TJ lacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 Just to add my two cents, I don't see this as the same old Bengals and for what it's worth, if it wasn't for Rudi pounding the ball and teams stacking the box, our WRs would have had to work a hell of alot more to get open. I guess you could turn that around to say the WRs opened the field, but I'll stick with my first comment in support of Rudi. Palmer is going to make it happen regardless.WHODEY !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TippCityRick Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 We'll know shortly how ML feels about TJ's "worth". It seems to me that 3.5 is quite a high number, but if ML is comfortable with that figure then I am too. The model we're after is the Patriots (due to their 3 rings!), and they don't overpay for anyone. I would personally rather have a healthy PW then a healthy TJ, but I'm not sure that's an option. If PW is healthy, then resigning TJ for 3.5 (or really anything over 2) would be overpaying. But if PW isn't healthy, then resign TJ for number 2 money and get on with the business of cutting PW. Hard choices, eh?! 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.