Rudi signs contract

[HairOnFire]

If the bengals viewed Rudi as their long-term solution, they would have inked him last offseason...or during the year...or earlier in the offseason. All that the delays have done is to drive up his price, a throughly predictable occurance.

Predictable? Yeah, by Rudi and his agent. You can't ignore the fact that the Bengals have repeatedly tried to sign Rudi to a long term contract paying starters money but have been rebuffed each time by a player whose contract demands were always higher, and likely to climb higher still.

The fact that there's no long term contract agreement says more about Rudi Johnsons ability to accurately judge his own market value than anything the Bengals have or haven't been able to do.

[HairOnFire]

Upon reflection, I think it will be even more surprising if they let him play under the one-year tender. Because if Perry does go bust, and Rudi performs on anything like his 2004 level, they will have no choice but to drop a bomb on him next year. That means something like a 5 year, $30-35 million deal with a $10-12 million bonus. Which means that Mikey will have paid something like $16 million over two years to Rudi.

Wow, that's Lamont Jordan money.

If I'm Mikey, presented with the above scenario, I'd first curse the fact that I stupidly didn't lock up Rudi long term when I had the chance. What's the matter with me? Then I'd stop cursing myself and tag Rudi again. Yeah, it'll cost me 20% more than it did this season, but that's still alot less than 16 million for two seasons work, and is a price I'm more than willingly pay after I've presumably rolled the dice and lost big on a now double-busted Perry.

[HoosierCat]

Predictable? Yeah, by Rudi and his agent.

No, predictable by anyone -- you, me, Mikey, little green men from Mars. Or are you saying there was a chance the cost of an NFL-caliber RB might actually decline this year?

I thought not.

Mikey took a chance -- and got burned. That burn has resulted in a promise to pay $6 million to Rudi so far. Now if he reaches a deal, say with a $10 million bonus and $1.5 million in year one salary, total cost of his error for '05 is $11.5 million. Add in a $2 million '06 salary and we're at $13.5 million.

On the other hand, he can pay the $6 million now, watch Rudi rack up the yards again, and then do the long-term deal in '06 when the bonus will be $12 million and the first year salary $1.5 million for a $19.5 million kiss over two years.

Or, under your multiple-tag scenario, spend $6 million this year and $7 million or so next year for a $13-14 million hit. Similar numbers to the long-term ones -- but a huge difference in cap hit.

Trade or long-term. Either makes more sense than multiple years of tagging.

[BengalszoneBilly]

Assuming, of course, that one buys into the idea that Chris Perry was drafted as a backup...which I don't.

Not even I believe that! Nobody...not even our Bengals waste a 1st round pick with nothing more than "backup" in mind. That's almost ludicrous!

[HairOnFire]

Or, under your multiple-tag scenario, spend $6 million this year and $7 million or so next year for a $13-14 million hit. Similar numbers to the long-term ones -- but a huge difference in cap hit.

True, but who says the Rudi immediately accepts the long term offer he thinks you're two years late making? Wouldn't he be just as close to free agency as he is now? So why would it be any easier to restrict his movement a year from now? Why wouldn't you need to use the tag next year in exactly the same play for contract leverage and possible trade return as was demanded this year? Wouldn't everything be the same except for the complete elimination of Perry as a starting option worth mentioning? I mean besides the higher dollar figures. So what happens if Rudi ducks that big bomb contract offer you finally dropped after Perry busts for a 2nd year? You predictably tag Rudi again, right? No?

If not, what do you do? Confess to your series of mistakes at the RB position and immediately burn ANOTHER 1st round pick as a sacrifice? Spend big FA bucks replacing what you once had? Both moves would slow the improvement of the defense you were trying help when you first started talking up the idea of going on the cheap at RB, right?

So what's the simple solution?

Psssstttttt......((((Pay the man. He's earned it.))))

[HoosierCat]

So what's the simple solution?

Psssstttttt......((((Pay the man. He's earned it.))))

"Pay the man," or a trade, are the most likely outcomes. Right now I can't assign a probability to either.

Rudi has put up big numbers in 2 seasons as co-starter/starter, so chances are he won't suck. Which means your worst-case scenario is that Perry blossoms too and you have a big juicy piece of trade bait next year. (If Perry blows you've lost little because of his relatively tiny contract.)

What would be interesting to know at this point is, what's the deadline for doing a deal and having the numbers count against the 2005 cap? I know there's a date -- and I believe it's in-season -- after which any deals signed can't be counted against the current year cap. That's the target date I'd put on a long-term deal. It would give them the "look" at Perry they clearly want (why else the constant push for him to get in games last year?) while still alolowing flexibility in signing Rudi. In short, they will probably drag things down to the wire...but what else is new?

[HairOnFire]

Assuming, of course, that one buys into the idea that Chris Perry was drafted as a backup...which I don't.

Not even I believe that! Nobody...not even our Bengals waste a 1st round pick with nothing more than "backup" in mind. That's almost ludicrous!

Let's call it a backup with an asterick. Example: Chris "backup*" Perry.

* Valuable backup player who immediately assumes important complimentary role in offense while providing outstanding depth at critical position. Not intended starter. Relief player. Emergency starter. Understudy. Not-da-man. The other guy. And finally, depending on how you look at it...either very expensive or cheap insurance in case the Bengals can't sign Rudi Johnson, the long term RB option the Bengals seem to prefer...judging by their expensive pursuit.

[HairOnFire]

Rudi has put up big numbers in 2 seasons as co-starter/starter, so chances are he won't suck. Which means your worst-case scenario is that Perry blossoms too and you have a big juicy piece of trade bait next year. (If Perry blows you've lost little because of his relatively tiny contract.)

Trade bait? Joisey, what's with the desire to trade everyone the moment they prove they can produce? Best case scenario would have Perry blossoming...giving me that two-fisted backfield attack I mentioned in another post. If he can actually play I don't even consider trading him OR Rudi.

Look, let's not get lost debating the meaning of my use of the word backup*. In my world the backup plays, scores touchdowns, wins games, and sometimes gets the girl. Hammer and sword. Weapons out the wazoo. Grab hold of your butt with both hands. Ickey & Brooks. Two plays in...two plays out....two plays in...two plays out. Repeat until touchdown.

Keeping Rudi may cost bank, but I think it's the right thing to do over the short and long term....preferably both. In my opinion the real question has always dealt with the wisdom of drafting Perry, not retaining a proven young runner like Rudi. That's almost a no-brainer. But despite whatever any of us thought about the Perry pick the choice has already been made, Perry was drafted and signed, and the cost of a late round draft picks like Perry is relatively inexpensive insurance that completely solidifies the Bengals at RB for up to 5 years...a freakin' NFL eternity.

[bengalboomer7]

I was thinking the exact same thing Joisey, a late season deal after they look at Perry. In this case though, I would think that Rudi jacks his price up

[HoosierCat]

Trade bait? Joisey, what's with the desire to trade everyone the moment they prove they can produce?

It seems the phrase "worst-case scenario" did not penetrate. I.e. if Rudi and Perry do well, all options are open.

As I've said before, I'm not terribly worried about our RB situation as it pertains to the actual position of RB. Rudi...Perry...I think we'll be fine. Like you, I think Carson is the real deal and our potent passing attack will open lanes for any competent RB. The issue is one of resource allocation and the best use of assets to improve the team.

Not too long ago, I stumbled across an interview with Dan Fouts, talking about those SD "Air Coryell" teams, after which the bengals seem to be patterning themselves. Fouts was talking about one of their playoff losses, against whom I forget. But the jist of it was that SD was rolling every time they got on the field; the defensive players on the other team begged their own offense, don't give them the ball back, we can't stop them. And what happened? SD didn't get the ball back and they lost.

Those SD teams rarely had a big rusher. They did their running by committee; their weapon was the passing. I simply don't buy the proposition that we need a top-notch running game. What we really need is a guy who can grind it out in the fourth quarter and protect a lead, if necessary. But we'll live and die by the pass.

And we have to be able to get the other team off the field. We can't let them run the ball down our throats and keep our offense off the field. In that case, it doesn't matter whether we have Rudi and Perry and the second coming of Walter Peyton to boot; they do us no good sitting on the sideline. I would rather have an average running game and an above average defensive line than the other way around. Which is why I keep looking for ways to turn our running game -- which I think is better than we need -- into assets for our defensive line, which is demonstrably worse than we need.

[jjakq27]

Joisey, the onlu SD RB that comes to mind from that era is Chuck Muncie.

Also back in the day, I remember Sam Wyche stating that he may have created a monster with the no-huddle offense and some of the other innovative things they were doing at the time. The Bengals literally scored too quickly and their defense just wasn't as good. There was a game back in like 1986 and they were up by 15 over the Oilers in the fourth quarter and lost the game! Sounds like what Fouts was talking about.

I have to think that at some point Marvin will earn his stripes (no pun intended!) by making this defense into a top 10-15 at minimum. Hopefully we will not be so one-sided like the Colts and be able to grind out a game if necessary.