Bengals place WR AJ Green on IR

[Nabbs4u]

On 12/23/2019 at 4:06 PM, wwhickok said:

.......Wtf is the point now?

Because its finally clear to them after his comments last week that Green is not ending his "Unofficial " holdout. I'm amazed that people have allowed him to hide behind this injury all year without bringing into question the severity of it? As if none of this is Contract Related? 

Guarantee had his long term contract/extension be finalized already, AJ Green plays weeks ago. Weeks!

[Ty21]

Guess he won’t be playing in the playoffs

[theJ]

8 hours ago, diamondbull424 said:

This tells me AJ Green has been making a “business decision” for mostly this entire season.

Clearly the Bengals and their medical staff must’ve felt the injury wasn’t as serious as Green, else they would’ve designated him IR-return vs going this route.

No way do I see him back in Cincy. You don’t pull this stunt and stay in the same place. Otherwise he could’ve just negotiated an extension and then came back when he was healthy.

The real question for me would be where he might decide to go in FA. I think Belichick hardcore recruits him to join the Patriots. The Bills would have serious interest. Him in that New Orleans offense would be very dangerous if they could clear the cap space to sign him. I hope my Ravens make a run at him, but as a divisional rival that might be a tough sell.

If you think he won't be franchised, I've got news for you. 

[43M]

1 hour ago, theJ said:

If you think he won't be franchised, I've got news for you. 

Disrespect to AJ if they do.  Forcing a 32 year old WR who has been loyal to stay on a team that is probably AT LEAST 3 years away from competing is just wrong.   They would be doing nothing except wasting what little prime he might have left.

Edited December 26, 2019 by FourThreeMafia

[diamondbull424]

1 hour ago, FourThreeMafia said:

Disrespect to AJ if they do.  Forcing a 32 year old WR who has been loyal to stay on a team that is probably AT LEAST 3 years away from competing is just wrong.   They would be doing nothing except wasting what little prime he might have left.

Also it would be sending a message to FAs as to how they value/treat their players and could allow them to keep AJ, but ruin their chances at recruiting additional talent in the future. What’s more, what kind of culture are you building if you’re holding onto a guy who doesn’t want to play for your team?

Which isn’t to say there’s a guarantee that he doesn’t want to play for Cincy, but if he wants to leave as a vested veteran the better move for the future would be allowing him to. Especially considering you’ll likely get a 3rd round comp in return.

Now the only way I could be okay with them franchising him knowing that he doesn’t want to be there (assuming he doesn’t) would be if they went to Green ahead of time and told him they will respectfully trade him and allow him and his agent to seek out suitors, but it’ll have to be some sort of sign and trade and the asking price is a 2nd round pick (or what have you). But forcing a guy like Green with one big contract left in his career to play out a season under a franchise tag would be a petty Daniel Snyder type of maneuver.

Edited December 26, 2019 by diamondbull424

[theJ]

1 hour ago, FourThreeMafia said:

Disrespect to AJ if they do.  Forcing a 32 year old WR who has been loyal to stay on a team that is probably AT LEAST 3 years away from competing is just wrong.   They would be doing nothing except wasting what little prime he might have left.

They're going to franchise him, then either trade or sign him to an extension. 

This is a business. They're trying to win football games, not play nicey nice with a player who's played 9 games in his last 32 at the back end of his last extension. 

[43M]

2 hours ago, theJ said:

They're going to franchise him, then either trade or sign him to an extension. 

This is a business. They're trying to win football games, not play nicey nice with a player who's played 9 games in his last 32 at the back end of his last extension. 

Its a business, yes, but the Bengals arent close to being a good team and Green isnt the player he once was, although he could probably still make a decent impact elsewhere.   Tagging him basically holds him hostage on a team that isnt going anywhere WITH or  WITHOUT him.

I just dont see the point of "punishing" the guy needlessly.  If he were younger, still under contract or the Bengals were close to being a competitive team, then sure, keep him around.   But he has one last chance to perhaps have success elsewhere, and the Bengals are going to force him to stay?  I know they are allowed to and there isnt nothing illegal about it, but it just seems like its spitting in his face.

Also, franchising and tagging rarely ever happens.  Fans talk about their team doing it all the time and it never happens.  Cant see anyone trading much for him either, giving his health the last few years.

[Forge]

2 hours ago, diamondbull424 said:

Also it would be sending a message to FAs as to how they value/treat their players and could allow them to keep AJ, but ruin their chances at recruiting additional talent in the future.

It's not like the Bengals are going out making splashy free agent signings, so I don't think that is going to bother them too much. 

[Forge]

3 minutes ago, FourThreeMafia said:

 

Also, franchising and tagging rarely ever happens.  Fans talk about their team doing it all the time and it never happens.  Cant see anyone trading much for him either, giving his health the last few years.

Happening more now, however. It's happened what, 4 times in 2 years? Ford was tagged and traded. Frank Clark as well. Clowney of course. And Jarvis Landry a couple of year ago. I still think the Giants made a mistake by not tagging Collins and then offering him up to teams; I think someone probably would have bit. 

I do think it has to be the right type player (and I'm not sure Green is the right type of player; possibly too old with too many injuries in this recent past), but I think with the increased cap flexibility of a lot of teams, this is something that we will likely see more of. 

[theJ]

1 hour ago, FourThreeMafia said:

Its a business, yes, but the Bengals arent close to being a good team and Green isnt the player he once was, although he could probably still make a decent impact elsewhere.   Tagging him basically holds him hostage on a team that isnt going anywhere WITH or  WITHOUT him.

I just dont see the point of "punishing" the guy needlessly.  If he were younger, still under contract or the Bengals were close to being a competitive team, then sure, keep him around.   But he has one last chance to perhaps have success elsewhere, and the Bengals are going to force him to stay?  I know they are allowed to and there isnt nothing illegal about it, but it just seems like its spitting in his face.

Also, franchising and tagging rarely ever happens.  Fans talk about their team doing it all the time and it never happens.  Cant see anyone trading much for him either, giving his health the last few years.

Because he's an asset that can help the team and just letting him walk would be a waste of that tremendous asset?

[43M]

8 hours ago, Forge said:

Happening more now, however. It's happened what, 4 times in 2 years? Ford was tagged and traded. Frank Clark as well. Clowney of course. And Jarvis Landry a couple of year ago. I still think the Giants made a mistake by not tagging Collins and then offering him up to teams; I think someone probably would have bit. 

I do think it has to be the right type player (and I'm not sure Green is the right type of player; possibly too old with too many injuries in this recent past), but I think with the increased cap flexibility of a lot of teams, this is something that we will likely see more of. 

True, its definitely happened more lately...but as you acknowledged,  all of those players you mentioned were just entering second contracts and were just hitting their prime.   Green is oft injured and his prime is fleeting, and injuries may have killed whatever prime he might've had left.  

If Green was coming off a big year, then it might make more sense.  I cant see any team giving up more than a 3rd for a tagged Green, and more likely a 4th or 5th.   Even if it were my team, I would rather they just let him walk and pick where he wants to go.  AJ has been very patient and loyal to the Bengals.  Let him finish his career on his terms.

The Bengals should offer him a contract, and if he accepts it, great....but forcing him to stay in a bad situation one more year at 32 just seems wrong to me.

[iknowcool]

I don't think they should tag him, but not because it would be disrespectful to Green.  More-so because I don't really think he offers that much of a benefit to them at this stage.  

I could be wrong but WR doesn't seem like one of the bigger issues with the team (relative to other weak positions they have, anyway).  Tate has shown potential and he's only 22 years old.  Boyd is also probably one of the better receivers in the league 25 years or under, and will probably record his 2nd consecutive 1,000 yard season.  Meanwhile Green has only topped 1,000 yards once since 2016.  He's played 9 games since 2018 and will be 32 years old.  

If I had to guess, he can still be a productive #1 for a team.  But what is it worth for the Bengals to sign him to an extension?  That money could be used elsewhere, not just on a younger, healthier player, but someone who could help them at another position of need that is also likely of more importance.  

If they tag him, then it should be to trade him.  Signing him to an extension, when considering where the team is at, seems foolish to me.  And tagging him just for a one year rental also seems pointless to me too .  Why not continue to see what you have with your younger receivers while building the team elsewhere?  

 

[SmittyBacall]

9 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said:

Its a business, yes, but the Bengals arent close to being a good team and Green isnt the player he once was, although he could probably still make a decent impact elsewhere.   Tagging him basically holds him hostage on a team that isnt going anywhere WITH or  WITHOUT him.

I just dont see the point of "punishing" the guy needlessly.  If he were younger, still under contract or the Bengals were close to being a competitive team, then sure, keep him around.   But he has one last chance to perhaps have success elsewhere, and the Bengals are going to force him to stay?  I know they are allowed to and there isnt nothing illegal about it, but it just seems like its spitting in his face.

Also, franchising and tagging rarely ever happens.  Fans talk about their team doing it all the time and it never happens.  Cant see anyone trading much for him either, giving his health the last few years.

We're not holding Green hostage. He's expressed he wants to retire a Bengal and is open to the franchise tag. He also wants a long term deal, but the numbers have to be right for a 32 year old receiver who can't stay healthy. Handing over a lucrative deal just to be nice isn't good business for the Bengals. It's not punishment in the least.

[SmittyBacall]

26 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

More-so because I don't really think he offers that much of a benefit to them at this stage.  

Developing Burrow is the priority now right for this team. Keeping a legitimate #1 target around for him would be the smart thing to do.

34 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

I could be wrong but WR doesn't seem like one of the bigger issues with the team (relative to other weak positions they have, anyway).  Tate has shown potential and he's only 22 years old.  Boyd is also probably one of the better receivers in the league 25 years or under, and will probably record his 2nd consecutive 1,000 yard season.  Meanwhile Green has only topped 1,000 yards once since 2016.  He's played 9 games since 2018 and will be 32 years old. 

It's definitely not a strength. Boyd is a stud, but he's bound to the slot and has his limitations there. Tate enjoyed a mini breakout campaign this year, but again, has his limitations as a boundary option; he struggles to separate and offers no threat of going deep. Outside of that we have nothing, really. Ross is incredibly inconsistent, injury prone, and completely unreliable; we'll likely let him walk after this year. Erickson is a replaceable slot receiver, and the rest of the room are just bodies. Without Green, we're easily a bottom 10 WR unit.  Burrow will have a really tough time his first few years without Green.

47 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

If I had to guess, he can still be a productive #1 for a team.  But what is it worth for the Bengals to sign him to an extension?  That money could be used elsewhere, not just on a younger, healthier player, but someone who could help them at another position of need that is also likely of more importance. 

We have plenty of money to pay Green and improve the roster elsewhere. Paying him isn't the issue here.

47 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

If they tag him, then it should be to trade him.  Signing him to an extension, when considering where the team is at, seems foolish to me.  And tagging him just for a one year rental also seems pointless to me too .  Why not continue to see what you have with your younger receivers while building the team elsewhere?  

Tagging him will be the last resort if we can't reach a long-term deal. Bengals fans would welcome him back. He still has a lot to give.

[43M]

2 hours ago, SmittyBacall said:

We're not holding Green hostage. He's expressed he wants to retire a Bengal and is open to the franchise tag. He also wants a long term deal, but the numbers have to be right for a 32 year old receiver who can't stay healthy. Handing over a lucrative deal just to be nice isn't good business for the Bengals. It's not punishment in the least.

If he wants to stay there, that's a different story.

I am merely stating that if he wants to look for other opportunities, and the Bengals 'chise him, its a pretty crappy move on their part.  

For the record, I dont think they should give him a huge deal either.  But if Green WANTS to stay, so be it.