Just when I begin to think we didn't do so bad in free agency this year, I consider this...here's a list of positions that we still need on offense in order for one to reasonably believe that we've improved from last year:
Center (other than Eric Ghiaciuc)
Offensive Tackle (maybe 2)
Fullback
A second Running Back
Sure, fans can argue (1) we can still make a trade, (2) we can still sign some free agents, or (3) we still have the draft. To quickly respond:
(1) We most likely can't or won't trade anyone besides Chad Johnson, which would immediately create another need at WR unless you are comfortable with Laveranues Coles, Chris Henry, Andre Caldwell and Jerome Simpson next season. Sure, one (not me) could argue that you draft Michael Crabtree or Jeremy Maclin, trade Chad for a late first round pick or an early second round pick and draft an Offensive Tackle and a Center with the second round pick and whatever pick you get from Chad. But first of all, if Mike Brown didn't trade Chad last year, why would you assume that he would this year? I fail to understand how people speculate on that again this offseason. Secondly, it's a clear violation of the Too Savvy Rule.
(2) Nearly all of the good free agents that would provide an upgrade at the above positions are gone. After we didn't pursue the three best Centers available, Eric Ghiaciuc is among the best Centers left for crying out loud and look where that got Carson last year. For whatever reason, we keep bringing in decent Fullbacks and then not signing them all while not pursuing some of the most promising available (Leonard Weaver, Justin Griffith, Lorenzo Neal).
(3) We do still have the draft but if we start a rookie at all four of the above positions, could that possibly bode well for next season? What production did we get out of our rookies last year? The year before?
I dont understand how anyone thinks the Bengals could get any sort of first round draft choice for Chad. I dont think there's any way he could get even a second rounder this offseason. If a team wanted a wide reciever this offseason, they could have gotten an above average receiver in free agency without giving up ANY picks. They could have gotten Marvin Harrison, TJ Housh, L. Coles (I refuse to learn how to spell his first name), TO, or possibly Tory Holt if he's released. LOTS of supply, not all that much demand = no 1st/2nd rounder for Chad.
Posted by: Mike H | March 13, 2009 at 04:10 PM
I see him netting a second rounder perhaps but I'm not confident about it. That's why I specified "one (not me) could argue..."
Although I'm in NY and can't listen to Lance, I'm willing to bet he's taken more than a few calls that begin with "We should just trade Chad for a first round pick."
Posted by: Who Dey NYC | March 13, 2009 at 04:17 PM
Mike,
Chad is twice as good as those wide outs you mentioned (except TJ and TO).
He had 1 bad year and people write him off. He also had no QB for most of the season.
Also, would you have thought Chad was worth 2 first rounders last year? No, but the draft makes some owners act crazy.
Posted by: Gambling Fool | March 13, 2009 at 04:43 PM
There are two sides to the argument on Chad's worth. Positive: He's kept his nose clean (sort-of) for a year; he had one bad year, a year in which he was injured, catching passes from harvard-boy, and didn't wan't to play for his current team. Remember Randy Moss' last season with the Raiders? 3tds. Next year, 23 tds with the Pats. Teams will be reminded of that when considering Chad. Negative: He's a 31 yr old loudmouth & honestly, why would you give up a 1st for an aging Chad, when its being reported on PFT that the Cards are shopping Boldin? The Bengals may be able to get an early 2nd rounder (maybe use that on one of the 2 centers?) Honestly I could see our line being fixed through the draft this way, but our receivers would be shaky at best.
Posted by: Deric | March 13, 2009 at 05:17 PM
I know, everyone's saying we should trade Chad - talk radio, internet articles, blogs, etc. etc. It just doesnt make sense to me. If you think we can get a 1st or high 2nd for him, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
You remember what the Patriots gave up for Randy Moss? A 4th round pick. I'm just saying that the window to trade Chad has all but closed. Wideout stock isnt that high and nobody likes a player that quits on his team (if that was the case last year). If I were a GM with a need at wideout, I sign one of the above average free agent wideouts and keep my draft pick. So... maybe Al Davis will take him for a 1st and 3rd rounder. It's too bad the Bengals dont have a GM to wise up and rip off Jerry Jones for all he's worth.
Posted by: Mike H | March 13, 2009 at 06:28 PM
I don't think Chad will be traded this year, but everyone seems to forget: When all that trade talk was going on last year, Chad needed surgery. The Bengals knew he needed surgery.
He wouldn't have passed a physical and the trade would have been nixed. There's no way a club would have given one or maybe two first rounders for damaged goods.
Posted by: Komrade Kato | March 13, 2009 at 06:56 PM
"everyone seems to forget: When all that trade talk was going on last year, Chad needed surgery. The Bengals knew he needed surgery."
On top of that, they also don't discuss the 8 million cap hit which would have occurred with a Chad trade last year. I think it's a little over 4 million if they trade him this year, not as bad.
Not arguing for or against the Chad trade here, but if we're going to discuss the potential Chad trade last year, I would imagine we should at least mention the cap hit.
Posted by: Guest | March 13, 2009 at 09:23 PM
http://www.bengals.com/news/news.asp?story_id=7557
We're apparently pretending that TJ is still on the team. Thanks Baghdad Hob. It only hurts a little.
Posted by: Ryan Smith | March 14, 2009 at 12:50 AM
Oh... and what the hell is up with the opening sentence to this post?
"Just when I begin to think we didn't do so bad in free agency this year,"
Ummm... WTF?! I thought this was Who Dey Revolution. What did they do in free agency other than let their starting tackle and best receiver walk? The only signings were a lesser capable replacement for said receiver and a running back who is marginal at best with character issues.
Crocker? YAY!
A revolution is nothing without sharp teeth.
Posted by: Kato | March 14, 2009 at 11:38 AM
I agree with Kato about the opening sentence. I never mistakenly thought we didn't have a bad offseason.
Posted by: Mike H | March 14, 2009 at 12:29 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3979551
God I wish a Bengals coach would do something like this. Not say he was fired for no reason but stand up to Mike Brown after the fact and show the world how his horns are covered by his hair.
Posted by: Ryan Smith | March 14, 2009 at 04:10 PM
Lorenzo Neal is almost 40...
Posted by: K. Phelps | March 14, 2009 at 10:21 PM
Kato, Part of the revolution is controlling any feelings that progress is being made. I like the Coles signing more than most I think but on the whole free agency is a huge failure because of zero additions to the O-line (while losing Andrews and our shitty starting Center). So even if I do like the Coles signing, it doesn't matter because the rest of the moves have been shit.
K. Phelps, Neal is almost 40 but Baltimore's run game was pretty damn good last year. I'm sure he wouldn't come here because he's been here but I named him with the others mostly to point out that we aren't going after all of the good fullbacks and the ones we are going after, we are not getting.
Posted by: Who Dey NYC | March 15, 2009 at 01:04 PM
Getting a standout Center was such an obvious move, and yet, despite having two excellent choices in FA this year (Jason Brown, Matt Birk), we did nothing. What did Matt Birk sign for? $4M a year? Chump change considering how important the Center position is to any team (SEE: Rich Braham).
Don't buy any hype, especially of the Bill Cowher-variety. This team is likely to go 6-10 right now. Barring a fantastic draft, this team has an outside shot at best to make the playoffs. More likely, I'd expect something between 6-10 to 9-7. Mediocre, but I bet they close by winning 4 out of 5 once their playoffs hopes are dashed. Sound familiar? It's the Mike Brown way.
Posted by: SM | March 15, 2009 at 03:02 PM
Ahh just a note???? One can have the best offense the game has ever seen, but if they don't have a defense, they can't win -- and vice-versa.
As I have said before, the 'Mr. Bojangles' (In honor that they would be beter suited as a performing minstrel artist troupe than a football team.) need just about everything. They need a running back (if you think CB is the answer, you are taking a bigger risk than Wall Street did with stocks last year!), they need a solid blocking back (No one on the team to fill that role!), they need a Tight End.. ..who's their Tight End again? -- that should tell you something, they need an entire offensive line (not a one of them is worth a rat's fart and saying that this schmuck or that schmuck is... ...well that makes you a schmuck that isn't kindly looking towards realism and pragmatism. The Bojangles (In honor of visiting that restaurant would be more exciting than seeing this team play) need about, oh, say, nine players -- heck, why not the whole defense?, to be even considered a defensive squad -- they are soooooo bad that a roster of upper-level projected defensive draft picks who have NEVER played a NFL professional down would give these guys a run for their money.
Honestly, again, I said this before, for the Bengals to contend (at this point) they need six years of '75% successful drafting' -- if they used an actual competent drafting conglomerate to actually make the draft rather than their 'in-house' abortion that they call -- a front office.
It isn't that they can't draft -- no, that's only PART of the problem -- it is that what they have in place sucks that butt out of dead rhinocerous to begin with. There are MANY reasons why this is the case -- such as they are incompetent (the front office), that though the city of Cincinnati is nice, the sprting intellect is on par with a mental institution etc.
Let me ask you... why did Justin Wilson leave and CB stayed? Justin Wilson saw that the Bengals were a hole. He had an option to leave -- he did. CB? No one wanted to pay him anything close to what he wanted (or rather -- would take). That alone should tell you something.
Again, I will say, Mikey Boy Brown doesn't know what he's doing, doesn't care so long as he turns a profit of even one dollar, doesn't care what the city or the fans think and never will, doesn't give a rip about what WDR thinks, feels or states, could care less what any other owner or the commissioner thinks, feels, states or does. Cincinnati had a shot of getting rid of him but it would have required losing the Bengals. There would have been a reasonable chance to do what Cleveland did when Model was told to take a hike, but there were some people out there who just couldn't take their ego and their 'spoiled childish act' and set it aside and they voted to give Mikey Boy Brown the deed -- not the keys -- to the city. Some of those very same people inhabit this website and they want to have the unmitigated gall of crying over this team when if they weren't so selfish, they wouldn't have had this problem to begin with. That's know as 'Chutzpah!'
Pathetic. While this board is a great place to 'vent', one must also consider that it really can't do anything about the situation -- this must be realized.
Posted by: WCH | March 16, 2009 at 12:26 AM
He doesnt care what anyone thinks, but he MUST care about the bottom line. And WDR isn't going to change that without a LOT of help from the Bengals front office incompetency - and for better or worse, there's PLENTY of that to go around. Who knows, maybe this site is founded on a pipe dream. But if this site's ideals dont work, Paul Brown died at age 72. Mike Brown is 70 years old. Someone order him a couple 3-ways and a pizza, with a side of Joe Camel's. I'll keep my fingers crossed.
Posted by: Mike H | March 16, 2009 at 02:32 AM
I absolutly whole heartedly agree with everything you just said, you're the first person who I've agreed so much with on the issue only I would like to addwe need a DT who can pass rush Peko is decent at stopping the run but I never see him in the backfield and a Punter wouldn't hurt either if we have to punt after having the ball everytime somone needs to boom it(hopefully Larson will have more production this year) and give the young defense a chance with field position and I also think St Louis is a waist of a roster spot he never plays tight end and his streak of bad snaps ended long ago but, the problems you mentioned are first priority
Posted by: Matt | March 16, 2009 at 04:42 AM
The only thing the Bengals did on free agency was sign players to replace departed players. No one was brought in to replace someone on the roster, which is how you get better. Building through the draft is fine, but you cannot rely on the draft alone. All the proffessional teams sign free agents, and that is why they get better.
Posted by: Robinsgr | March 16, 2009 at 12:49 PM