SmittyBacall Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVillain112 Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 14 minutes ago, SmittyBacall said: Makes it a little easier to swallow. The biggest disappointment is we go into the season with him as the only plan for RT. We need to draft an OL (RG, RT, or Center) in the first 3 rounds... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmittyBacall Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 13 minutes ago, TheVillain112 said: Makes it a little easier to swallow. The biggest disappointment is we go into the season with him as the only plan for RT. We need to draft an OL (RG, RT, or Center) in the first 3 rounds... I'm hoping for catastrophe just to emphasize how absolutely inept our front office is. I bet even on the off chance we draft a tackle at 11 he will ride the bench while Hart trots out there Week 1. Guaranteed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theJ Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, SmittyBacall said: I bet even on the off chance we draft a tackle at 11 he will ride the bench while Hart trots out there Week 1. Guaranteed. With Marv gone, i'm not so quick to think that anymore. We'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmittyBacall Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, theJ said: With Marv gone, i'm not so quick to think that anymore. We'll see. We'll see how much pull the front office has. They don't typically shell out that kind of money to see it go to waste on the bench. Taylor is already souring in my eyes after the positional coaching hirings and this. I don't understand this blunder. Who was evaluating Hart's 2018 tape? Taylor, Turner, Tobin - was Mike Brown involved? Did they agree this was the right decision to bring him back as a starter? I don't understand how anyone of competence could come to that decision. There is no absolutely no excuse for it. I don't mind bringing Hart back as a back up. We had no tackles under contract and were desperate to fill the void, but at that price? Who else was bidding on him? And we signed him right out of the gates? We couldn't let his market settle? I can't imagine any team would offer him anything close to that. We're now paying a terrible tackle starter money (starter money for a cheap team like Cincinnati). We could have gotten the same play out of a dozen cheaper tackles on the FA market. This is just typical of this team. I'm sick of it. New Dey my arse. Edited March 12, 2019 by SmittyBacall 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmittyBacall Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 We'll see what happens with Dennard, Eifert, and how we approach the rest of FA. Right now, I'm pissed. Every year we're like the only team to consistently get worse during free agency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INbengalfan Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 41 minutes ago, TheVillain112 said: Makes it a little easier to swallow. The biggest disappointment is we go into the season with him as the only plan for RT. We need to draft an OL (RG, RT, or Center) in the first 3 rounds... Agreed it makes it easier. Plus we probably had to sign somebody. We weren't going to draft three new OTs and expect it to work out. I still think they draft one high, and take the wait and see approach with with Hart. Maybe that third year is a high salary of 8-9 mill, which we can cut after a draft pick takes his spot. The signing bonus (@6 mill I assume) was for the security having a second guy signed. I still hope Uzo had some of that money tied to incentives. I did not realize #2 TEs were getting that kind of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVillain112 Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 22 minutes ago, INbengalfan said: I still hope Uzo had some of that money tied to incentives. I did not realize #2 TEs were getting that kind of money. I'm very happy that they signed Uzomah over Kroft. Uzomah just turned 26 and that is TE #2 money. It would not surprise me if in 1-2 years, that this is one of the best contracts on the team... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE DUKE Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 We should extend Boyd now for 5 years, $55 million 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 Here's what ESPN said about re-signing Hart: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26152205/barnwell-2019-nfl-free-agency-trade-grades-tracking-every-big-signing-move Bobby Hart, T, Cincinnati Bengals The deal: Three years, $21 millionGrade: D- It's difficult to find a silver lining in Cincinnati's move to re-sign Hart, who was cut by the Giants last year amid concerns that he had quit on the team. (Hart would later deny those claims.) The 24-year-old cleared waivers and went to injured reserve before signing a one-year deal during the offseason with the Bengals, who eventually installed the Florida State product as their starting right tackle. Here's where would I normally say things went well and led the Bengals to sign Hart to a long-term deal. That isn't really what happened. Hart appears to have played pretty poorly in his debut season with the Bengals. While he stayed healthy and started all 16 games for the first time in his pro career, the former seventh-round pick allowed 11.5 sacks, per Stats LLC. Hart also committed 14 penalties, which tied him for fourth in the league. Nine of those penalties were false starts, which you can spin in either direction; a Hart supporter could suggest that Hart will cut out the false starts with experience, while a detractor might find it frustrating that Hart can't manage to line up and get off the snap on time on a regular basis. Either way, Hart hasn't shown much suggesting he's even a competent NFL tackle. Incoming offensive line coach Jim Turner hand-waved away the concerns about sacks and pressures by talking about how Hart has played with passion, but the bottoms of NFL rosters and practice squads are full of players who have passion. It's not hard to find a player who cares. The Bengals are paying Hart to be an effective NFL lineman, and he simply isn't one. I can't imagine that Cincinnati guaranteed more than one season to Hart as part of this three-year pact. Since he is just 24, the Bengals would be in position to keep Hart around if he does break out, but this doesn't appear to solve Cincinnati's offensive line woes. If anything, the signing solidifies them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmittyBacall Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 (edited) Quote Taylor’s new coaching staff has spent its first month sifting through college and pro tape at the direction of the player personnel department looking to get a feel for what the coaches want and new offensive line coach Jim Turner made it quite clear he’d like Hart. He liked how hard Hart played and how athletic he is. There were moments Hart struggled. He allowed 10 sacks, according to Pro Football Focus, while leading the league with nine false starts. But who didn’t struggle last season on an offense that lost quarterback Andy Dalton for the last five games, wide receiver A.J. Green for the last eight and tight end Tyler Eifert for the last 12? I was waiting for Hobson's fluff piece. I thought the bolded was funny. "There were moments...", moments? You mean every quarter of every game? Also funny to see him blaming the offensive unit for an individuals inept performance. https://www.bengals.com/news/bengals-get-a-deal-with-hart Edited March 12, 2019 by SmittyBacall 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Nix Posted March 12, 2019 Author Share Posted March 12, 2019 I just hope with all these ridiculous contracts the majority of teams take themselves out of the running for the rest of FA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 There's not enough perfume in Paris to make the Hart deal less smelly. We can't get rid of Turner soon enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otg Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 4 hours ago, INbengalfan said: Maybe that third year is a high salary of 8-9 mill, which we can cut after a draft pick takes his spot. My hope... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otg Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 5 hours ago, SmittyBacall said: I bet even on the off chance we draft a tackle at 11 he will ride the bench while Hart trots out there Week 1. Guaranteed. You think the Bengals would play an inferior lineman while a better option is wasted on the bench? Let's think about happier times, and a stupid mistake we made way back then... Who do we think is more to blame for the Evan Mathis situation, Marvin Lewis or Paul Alexander? It wasn't like Mathis was buried behind a good veteran or lost playing time to a promising player. We favored Nate Livings, though whenever Mathis could get on the field he looked better. Significantly in my opinion. Then after we let him go he is arguably the best left guard in football for the Eagles. Again it's not like he was buried and we had no idea what we had. Nor was it that he blossomed because of a different scheme or culture. And Philly didn't pry him away like an Andrews brother. I can't find contract details but he signed a one year contract, probably low value just looking for a home. Then he signed an extension for big money. We should have had the best guard in football. And we probably could have had a discount, if we had extended him for multiple years when his market price was low and it seemed there wasn't much competition for his services. He'd demonstrated enough value here to deserve a multi-year contract (I'll concede I didn't expect him to become what he did, but at the minimum a competent starter). Livings played here one more year. His whole career, showed he was who I thought he was. So who's to blame for this? Was Mathis toxic or otherwise a cancer in ways that I didn't know? Or was he simply improperly used? Should Marvin have trusted his line coach about who to play? Or eventually should he have stepped in and asked for an explanation? Back when we were competitive for a while. This week the Bengals were officially eliminated from the playoffs. Someone asked recently why we follow this team. It gives us character. Think of those poor folks in Boston who have won some championship in the four major sports at least once every year for the past 20 years. Or the Ravens and Steelers fans who aside from a bad stretch occasionally have world class organizations. And the poor Browns fans who are about to have a long period of success. Character, that's my argument... 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.