2018 Depth Chart...How do you see it?

[Frankie2Gunz]

39 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

He wasn't going to see meaningful reps for them. He doesn't have a lot of dead money so you move on. It's commonly done.

Ask Bengals fans. It "truly angers you"? Give me a break.

I literally explained that he's a low end 2/high end 3 statistically and you're acting like I said he's some kind of savior. He can help us win as a role player. What's so bad about that. You seem to be looking for a reason to be negative.

 

Here's why they cut him. Unless the source is wrong too.

It saves them cap space in future years on his deal. He signed an extension and clearly they no longer need his services. Why pay 3 million for a WR who won't get meaningful snaps, when you have cheap rookies on similar length deals, who may have more upside based on being younger and career trajectory. He doesn't have to be worse than those 8. He just has to have a less valuable combination of value and youthful upside. Which he does due to his age and his bloated contract for a non-starter.

Hence signing him for cheap is a good move on our end. No risk and he can help us.

Basically that article is a kind way of saying he has little to nothing left to contribute to the team. 

Why pay BL 3 million as opposed to rookies? If someone goes down with an injury you're saying that the Bangles would rather trust an inferior talented rookie to take potentially meaningful snaps to save 2 million of meaningless cap space?  I just want to make sure I'm clear on your point.  

BL has been at best average throughout his entire career and is now 31.  He was cut because 8 other, younger players outperformed him and the coaches felt the 8 others would better help them win games. 

[MrOaktown_56]

15 minutes ago, Frankie2Gunz said:

Basically that article is a kind way of saying he has little to nothing left to contribute to the team. 

Why pay BL 3 million as opposed to rookies? If someone goes down with an injury you're saying that the Bangles would rather trust an inferior talented rookie to take potentially meaningful snaps to save 2 million of meaningless cap space?  I just want to make sure I'm clear on your point.  

BL has been at best average throughout his entire career and is now 31.  He was cut because 8 other, younger players outperformed him and the coaches felt the 8 others would better help them win games. 

1

Is that why they cut Michael Johnson too? Before resigning him to a cheaper deal... Cap matters. Even if you have lots of space.

This is a very simple concept to understand. Why did the 49ers cut Bowman last year? Because Brock Coyle was better than him? 

[Humble_Beast]

Just now, MrOaktown_56 said:

Is that why they cut Michael Johnson too? Before resigning him to a cheaper deal... Cap matters. Even if you have lots of space.

This is a very simple concept to understand. Why did the 49ers cut Bowman last year? Because Brock Coyle was better than him? 

it's simple logic.. Bengals wanted to save money and play their youth.. John Ross former top 10 pick been flashing all offseason, and they wanted to put him in the slot BL old role. They also have Tyler Boyd as their number 2, so they didn't want to pay BL to be the 4th wideout. Doesn't make him a bum, just odd man out

[Frankie2Gunz]

8 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Is that why they cut Michael Johnson too? Before resigning him to a cheaper deal... Cap matters. Even if you have lots of space.

This is a very simple concept to understand. Why did the 49ers cut Bowman last year? Because Brock Coyle was better than him? 

Ever hear of a guy named Ruben Foster?  The 9ers spent a first round pick on him.  

Once again an article proving you have no clue what your talking about.  MJ signed for the exact same amount as he was due to make before he was cut.  Seriously do you enjoy wasting peoples time making up complete uneducated garbage?  Where do you get your information from or do you just make it up hoping people believe the trash you spew at them?  Absolute joke...  Do some research, I sick of schooling you.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/nfl/bengals/2018/09/03/why-cincinnati-bengals-cut-and-re-signed-michael-johnson/1184457002/

[Frankie2Gunz]

18 minutes ago, Humble_Beast said:

it's simple logic.. Bengals wanted to save money and play their youth.. John Ross former top 10 pick been flashing all offseason, and they wanted to put him in the slot BL old role. They also have Tyler Boyd as their number 2, so they didn't want to pay BL to be the 4th wideout. Doesn't make him a bum, just odd man out

If AJ Green breaks his leg and is out for the year BL being the "4th" according to you, instantly gets thrust into the 3rd spot seeing significant playing time.  Now according to your theory Cincy is thrusting an inferior quality player, who lacks experience into a significant role to save 2 million in cap when they have 20 free.  Makes perfect sense to me SMH

[Humble_Beast]

1 minute ago, Frankie2Gunz said:

If AJ Green breaks his leg and is out for the year BL being the "4th" according to you, instantly gets thrust into the 3rd spot seeing significant playing time.  Now according to your theory Cincy is thrusting an inferior quality player, who lacks experience into a significant role to save 2 million in cap when they have 20 free.  Makes perfect sense to me SMH

you know the name of their owner? For Profit

[Frankie2Gunz]

1 minute ago, Humble_Beast said:

you know the name of their owner? For Profit

I have zero clue what you're talking about and honestly could care less.  More nonsense from EA

[Humble_Beast]

3 minutes ago, Frankie2Gunz said:

I have zero clue what you're talking about and honestly could care less.  More nonsense from EA

Bengals owner is know for being cheap... they have a lot invested in their top 3 wideouts in Green, Boyd, and Ross

Gruden needed another vet because his trade for Bryant was a blunder. BL isn't great , but he us a steady vet, and Gruden needed to make a move in response to Bryant fiasco

[MrOaktown_56]

45 minutes ago, Frankie2Gunz said:

Ever hear of a guy named Ruben Foster?  The 9ers spent a first round pick on him.  

Once again an article proving you have no clue what your talking about.  MJ signed for the exact same amount as he was due to make before he was cut.  Seriously do you enjoy wasting peoples time making up complete uneducated garbage?  Where do you get your information from or do you just make it up hoping people believe the trash you spew at them?  Absolute joke...  Do some research, I sick of schooling you.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/nfl/bengals/2018/09/03/why-cincinnati-bengals-cut-and-re-signed-michael-johnson/1184457002/

1

And so you cut your 2nd best LB at the time because you draft a good one?

I admit, I assumed it was for less money, but my point stands. Teams release vets all the time that are making more money that younger players to let the younger players play. Even if they have a higher floor than those younger players. Brock Coyle, their backup behind Bowman was absolute garbage. And yet they released Bowman because they didn't want to pay his contract as the team was undergoing a youth movement. 

In the same vein, Lafell probably wasn't the worst receiver on the Bengals. He was being paid too much for his spot on the team as a reserve player. And yes, I was totally wrong about the Johnson example. But it doesn't discredit the point about veteran players.

I can name several other players like this. How about CJ Anderson? He had 1000 yards rushing for Denver last year and they cut him. Why? Because he was the worst back on the team? He was a STARTER and they released him to save money. Imagine if he was a backup. 

On a sidenote, are you Vic Cotto? No one wants to discuss anything with you because half your posts are ad hominem, and you act like no one on here has any understanding of the game if they disagree with you and try to attack their credibility by crying and referencing old posts in an effort to discredit arguments.

35 minutes ago, Frankie2Gunz said:

I have zero clue what you're talking about and honestly could care less.  More nonsense from EA

Am I pulling up posts related to you heralding Bryant as some savior? No. Because it has absolutely nothing to do with you referring to Lafell as a scrub who "we should be worried about" if he sees playing time (your words, not mine). And the vast majority of us discuss football in a civil way here, rather than trying to have a pissing contest about who's right the most.

Brandon Lafell is not a scrub. He's a fine signing for cheap and can help us win. Just because he was released, does not make him a scrub, as seen with precedent with countless other players. I'd rather debate with posters who have a little respect, rather than clinging to their opinions at all costs. I'm done discussing this with you.

[big_palooka]

My thought on LaFell.... why?

He will be 4th-5th on the depth chart. 31 years old. No ST value. why not just keep or sign a younger WR who you can develop?

Sometime this sign a veteran for the sake of signing a veteran crap gets old. 

[SimonGruber]

1 hour ago, big_palooka said:

My thought on LaFell.... why?

He will be 4th-5th on the depth chart. 31 years old. No ST value. why not just keep or sign a younger WR who you can develop?

Sometime this sign a veteran for the sake of signing a veteran crap gets old. 

Have you looked at our offense outside Coop and the young RBs. Its not going to win many foot races. Nice to see Jon living up to our concerns about his vice with signing veterans 

[holyghost]

2 hours ago, big_palooka said:

My thought on LaFell.... why?

He will be 4th-5th on the depth chart. 31 years old. No ST value. why not just keep or sign a younger WR who you can develop?

Sometime this sign a veteran for the sake of signing a veteran crap gets old. 

Ateman and Blacknall, our young guys, aren't going to win too many footraces either. I think age is a concern of course but forcing them onto the roster so they can sit on game days isn't "developing" them. PS is developing them, which is where they are and where Fadol Brown and Hatcher came from. 

Lafell can sit there, get his few snaps or be deactivated on game days. On a one year deal. If we have an injury problem he is more apt to help the offense along than the guys on the PS. ANd having him sit there and not play doesn't hurt his development like it might do to a young guy.

Listen, I'm not into the age thing either. Not at all. But for me it's too soon to tell if he is back to collecting old players or if the past 3 drafts were so thin that we really have no choice right now. I'm praying it is the latter, but am very concerned it isn't. I'd rather a proven older guy on a one year deal than forcing an underperforming non-prospect onto the roster due to draft status when he shows no real signs of ability. The Del Rio era was rife with that. Guys on the team, with real roles, that showed no promise and earned nothing.

[Frankie2Gunz]

2 hours ago, SimonGruber said:

Have you looked at our offense outside Coop and the young RBs. Its not going to win many foot races. Nice to see Jon living up to our concerns about his vice with signing veterans 

Our roster, in particular WR is a dumpster fire.  Losing MB was a major blow.  MB was a player, and if he had kept clean would have been a game changer and opened up the O.  Anyone who disputes that has no clue what they're talking about.  Losing him was a major blow and now we are trying to patch the loss with BL who would most likely be unemployed if not for the Raiders and their heaping mound of garbage WR's.  

Ghost hit on a key point above and that is have we went out and flooded our roster with AARP members. bc that is  Gruden's thing or were our drafts really so terrible he hasn't been given much of a choice?  Either way it's a sad state we are in this year.  

The other thing I don't understand is the "Bowman homerism".  He came in last year and played admirably but is now unemployed.  He is not employed for a reason, why do all you think he is unemployed 1 day before kickoff of the regular season?  Oaktown was yapping about why the 9ers cut Bowman implying that Bowman is the player he was in his prime, "it was a cap issue which is obvious because some scrub took his position".  he forgot about Foster their first round pick SMH. 

Maybe the proof is in the pudding as to why Bowman was cut, he clearly isn't close to the same player he was in his prime due to multiple injuries and age.   I'm pretty sure the same homers were clamoring for the Raiders to resign Perry Riley after he came in here and played decently.  He was cut and hasn't played in 2 years.  Nuff said.  

[Darbsk]

18 hours ago, Silver&Black88 said:

19 hours ago, NYRaider said:

Hester was a smaller, pass rushing DT in a similar mold to PJ and Hurst. He wasn't going to play ahead of those guys. Price seems to be a run stuffer and will backup Jelly and play in goal-line situations.

This

Good point, although I was under the impression the FO viewed Hall as a NT type who could also apply pressure (I do think he'd be better at 3T with his explosiveness and burst)

[holyghost]

32 minutes ago, Darbsk said:

Good point, although I was under the impression the FO viewed Hall as a NT type who could also apply pressure (I do think he'd be better at 3T with his explosiveness and burst)

Yeah, they talked that up at first but thankfully came to their senses. He's not a nose. He's a stout 3T from what I saw/see. With some flexibility to play along side Hurst on passing downs. It's a better group as far as roles with Price here instead of Hester. On paper.