Marvin: Everything Coming Up Roses

[HoosierCat]

http://www.cincypost.com/bengals/2005/beng03-10-2005.html

Same old same old...never mind that 24 other teams have been active in FA outside their own clubs...everyone's mediocre and overpaid...gonna build through the draft...sigh...better be a hell of a fuggin' draft...like better than the Steelers in '74...

[BengalNation1281]

Joisey, I get the feeling that you are displeased with the way that the offseason has gone so far. Would I be correct in that assumption?

[bengalboomer7]

Someone having a bad day?

[Fab Five]

Amen Joisey...

[HoosierCat]

Joisey, I get the feeling that you are displeased with the way that the offseason has gone so far. Would I be correct in that assumption?

Displeased? Too early to say. Disturbed by the airy hand-waving and blithe dismissals coming from the bengals? Yup.

The Bengals have been pretty active in FA and trading over the past two offseasons, and IMHO that's been a big reason for the team's dramatic improvement. By contrast, not only are they all but inactive outside their own players this year, the appear to have little intent on getting involved. I think the best way to plug the team's holes, especially on defense, is with a combination of FA and the draft. That's worked pretty well for the last two years, so why deviate now?

As for the concept of building through the draft, certainly, that has to be the core of building any successful team. But you can draft your tail off and still not get any better. Take, for example, the Kansas City Chiefs. Since 2000, the best their D has ranked is 20th -- and that was in 2000. Last year they ranked 31st. Yet over the last five drafts, they have spent 11 of their 15 day 1 picks on defense. Little wonder they overpaid for Bell...may as well overpay for a guy who at least has a record with some success on it than pour more money into unknowns.

I don't think the bengals have gotten any worse this offseason, which is certainly a plus. What I'm looking for, and have yet to find, is some sign they're getting better. And yes, there's still time. We'll see.

[bengalboomer7]

I would say that is a good way to put it. But I am kind of pleased they have been inactive so far. The market has been incredibly high this year and there werent too many "A" players anyway. I agree that at least Willie's redeal should be done already along with a few others. But, it appears they are still hunting a veteran DT along with another LB, and I would expect another defensive draft this year, which is probably another reason to keep the continuity on Ofense by resigning our own players. I'l go ahead and predict that it will be smiley faces all around come the last wek of April.

[TJJackson]

I'll have to agree to an extent.

A good FA signing is one where you get a starter - a proven player that upgrades you at a position of need, which in this case means a defensive player. This last draft aside, you don't generally or predictably get starters out of the draft.

That said, this team is close enough to playoff quality that a solidly good defensive player or two - starters, not backups - could get us to 9-7 or 10-6. I'm not saying we couldn't do it with all the returness from the massive spate of injuries last year, but I think it more likely if we pick up some front seven run-stuffing players.

(like that wasn't obvious, duh, sorry)

So yeah, I'd like to see a little more activity in FA. I don't want to see more than 1-3 players signed, because this team really just needs some tweaking -- on defense only, albeit maybe one should include OL -- not an overhaul like in previous years.

IMHO

[turningpoint]

Well If we get a healthy Darren Sharper.... all wil be forgiven.

[TJJackson]

Isn't Darren Sharper pretty old? I'd be worried about too much age in any secondary position unless the individual was in top top top physical condition, ala a Darrel Green or a Jerry Rice.....

[Bgal]

I happen to agree with Marvin on this one. The bengals went 8-8 last year with a "rookie" quarterback and half the team on IR. I really believe that if we had the same exact team this year we would be able to pull off a playoff-berth. Carson will be more experienced, and hopefully the team will be able to stay healthy. The young defense was beginning to show some real signs of life last year and another year of experience can't hurt anything. That being said, I think that after the draft, and a few eventual smart free agent signings we'll be more than good to go.

[Section 310]

Is it any wonder we didn't make a splash? Hobson said yesterday

we are a small market team...never mind the hard salary cap,

revenue sharing and the new stadium...

So far I would give us a B minus.

Good:

Rudi and TJ...continuity on offense and

no key FA losses

Bad:

Continuity on defense...no run stopper anywhere

in sight. No guarantee that Askew or Geathers

can help. Linebackers in flux (Johnson and Webster's

injuries). Center and tight end situation needs to

be addressed.

[Bobcat Bengal]

http://www.cincypost.com/bengals/2005/beng03-10-2005.html

Same old same old...never mind that 24 other teams have been active in FA outside their own clubs...everyone's mediocre and overpaid...gonna build through the draft...sigh...better be a hell of a fuggin' draft...like better than the Steelers in '74...

You guys should root for the Redskins in the offseason.

They have the most interesting part of their season when no one is actually playing, and that's when the fans get the most excited.

[HairOnFire]

...gonna build through the draft...

...gonna build us a defense....

[Whur CHad At?]

Can't win with a team of not proven players

[ShulaSteakhouse]

Is it any wonder we didn't make a splash? Hobson said yesterday

we are a small market team...never mind the hard salary cap,

revenue sharing and the new stadium...

Yeah you gotta love Hobson's very vague reference/excuse to them "consistently being around 27th in revenues."

Uh, maybe that's because the Bengals have SUCKED for 15 years maybe?

Don't the Bengals get the same TV money everyone else gets? Don't they have a sweetheart stadium deal that's sold out two years in a row now? Don't they have to have the same cap everyone else does? Aren't they one of the top 12 most profitable franchises in ALL of pro sports!!!???

I mean what a pathetic excuse, really, this is how the Bengals' operate - thinking fans are so ignorant they will eat up everything their propoganda journalist tells them.

Unfortunately many of them do.

"building" through the draft is antiquated - FA is just as much a part of building a team as the draft is and it's been that way for a long time. The #1 problem with the Bengals is the way they work the cap and their insistence on not pro-rating salaries and bonuses more often and instead taking large cap hits the same year instead of future years - it's an incredibly conservative fiscal policy that in this case is out-dated and non-competitive.

Their track record is proof of that, period.

[HoosierCat]

Don't the Bengals get the same TV money everyone else gets? Don't they have a sweetheart stadium deal that's sold out two years in a row now? Don't they have to have the same cap everyone else does? Aren't they one of the top 12 most profitable franchises in ALL of pro sports!!!???

No doubt Mikey makes some bucks. That said, there is still a pretty big chunk of $$$ that isn't shared. Last number I saw for NFL revenue sharing was 65% of total revenues. Which is more than any other sport by far; that number came from an article about the NHL and what the big NHL owners were willing to share with the small franchises, which was like 5% or 6%.

Still, that leaves more than a third of revenues "unshared," and I have to think that the big-market teams get the lion's share of that. They can charge more for "official team of" sponsorships, stadium ads, charge more for tickets -- the bengals were in the middle of the pack on ticket prices last time I heard -- and all that.

The place that hits is the signing bonus, the up-front money that Mikey has on hand to lay out. IMHO, that's always been the reason the team has been so "cheap." I think the strategy has always been something like this: we have X million to lay out in bonuses, let's not put all out eggs in a single basket. So you end up with an aversion to guys like Bell or Hartwell who want eight-figure signing bonuses and instead look to spread your available cash out among several lesser deals.

What I question is the wisdom of that this year. I think the Bengals have hit that point where they are "1-2 players away" from being a real contender. Give us a kick-butt DT, an upgrade at LB or SS, and maybe a decent all-around TE and we could go all the way.

[bengalboomer7]

I agree, but to do that you have to redo other positions to make up the cap room. Even though it's a bad example let's take Beckett(head aside). Then, let's say we sign this Robinson guy from Miami(or Eliss is doesn't matter. So, while our DT position got stronger, we had to weaken our SS positon to do it. Now I know there are so many variables included, but the variables are used to see if making the decision one way or the other benefits the team most. If the Bengals were to give an outrageous deal to an FA(and we've seen some this year) other positons become weaker because there is no money to put into them. Take the patsie for example. They lost a 12 mill dollar man in the middle of the season in Ty law, but because they were strong in so many other spots and because they had depth at the spot it didn't affect their defense at all, then as a result a guy like TY becomes a casuality

Not sure that makes sense, though

[HoosierCat]

It makes perfect sense. The question is -- to put it in Texas Hold 'em terms -- is this the time to go "all in"? I don't think the Bengals have been in a better position to shoot the moon in at least a decade, if not more. We have an offense that put up 370+ points last year with a rookie QB who struggled through the first half of the year and then missed the last month, just when he was hitting his stride. All the pieces of that offense are back -- and more if you have Warrick around. No reason we can't expect 400+ points in '05. So let's grab some guys on the other side, give the offense a D that can hold a lead, and declare open season on the opposition. :player:

[ShulaSteakhouse]

I'm still not sure what difference revenue makes if you're still the 12th most "profitable" (or thereabouts) franchise in ALL of pro sports and you have a salary cap. It means you have enough money to spend as anyone else over time in the league.

He also never mentions what years he is averaging. The last fifteen? Or since they moved into PBS? Or what? That makes a huge difference. For all we know they could be 15th in the league the last 3 years, but 27th over the last 15.

And if you have cap trouble, you deal with it for a year or two, and make your money back later by cutting players and playing under the cap. Why is that such a problem for only the Bengals? They take no risks in that manner.

If it means a 2-3 year run in the playoffs as opposed to a losing season or two, I say push the money back and sign more players.

So yeah essentially I agree with what you're saying Joisey but not sure what the point about revenue was. My comment was that Hobson was making an excuse and spinning things - and it was pretty obvious. He makes no connection between revenue income and how it affects spending with the cap, none. Poor writing on his part. It's exactly what people mean when they say he spins things - he should stick to just writing fluff pieces instead of "pretending" to be a freakin journalist and maybe people would get off his back. He's a joke.

[BengalszoneBilly]

Guys!! Don't you know you can give almost any two separate people the very same and identical numbers, stats, miscellaneous figures, dollar amounts, overhead and operating costs versus profit ratio's...whatever.

After each one is finished crunching the numbers their own way, they both have a completely different story than the other. It's known as "cooking the books! If the books aren't serving up the figures in the flavor you like, just chuck 'em all back into the ol' pot, put the burner on "high", and let 'em simmer while you stir 'em up for a few hours. The flavor will be much different the second time, and the third time, and the...

[HoosierCat]

So yeah essentially I agree with what you're saying Joisey but not sure what the point about revenue was.

My point about revenue is just that I could easily see how the Bengals could be at the bottom of the NFL revenue pack, as Hobson suggests. If so, that gives them less actual dollars on hand to compete. How much of a role that plays I don't know because I don't have any exact numbers. (And I wouldn't really expect Hobson to have them, either.) And yeah, the stadium was supposed to help with that...but most other teams have or are building new homes with all the bells and whistles, too. I doubt PBS has done much more than help Mikey keep up with the pack.

All in all over the past couple of years, I haven't had much reason to complain about how Mikey has spent his money. Not, I'm sure, that he would give a crap if I did. We've probably signed more worthwhile, and more expensive, free agents in the last two years than we did in the 10 years previous to that. Now we just need him to pry the wallet open one more time...