Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 52

Thread: NFL free agency 2017: Cap casualties Bengals should consider signing

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by JBandJoeyV View Post
    Not sure why we would. He's over 30 and hasn't had a productive year in 3 years. We don't need to bring back every single player we've ever had when they get cut from another team. Strong pass.
    .
    Fit and Depth. Not every player needs to start or even make the team to be around during the offseason. He was super productive 3 years ago. Only played 8 games 2 years ago. And has had Browns QBs as his QB for the length of that time. If he can be a veteran presence, return and cover kicks or just be here for the offseaosn that's fine with me. I want a fresh veteran at every spot though.

  2. #12
    I'd consider either Mangold or Hawkins.

    In particular, Mangold has played well, and he plays hurt. Smart guy... and he gives you some options, either starting at C or even playing some G. I expect they'd bring TJ Johnson back, but if they don't sign Zeitler, you have a steadying influence in the interior line who'd be a great mentor for the other interior guys like Bodine, Westerman, TJ, Hopkins... or some rookies they bring in.

    Hawkins I'd be less keen on, but he's a heckuva cover guy on STs, and he can still help you stretch the field in the passing game.

  3. #13
    I like Hawk, just don't think there's space for him. He wouldn't be a replacement for LaFell (if he gets away) and we always draft a WR.

    Probably Locks:
    Green
    LaFell
    Boyd
    Core
    Erickson

    Pick 1-2 of:
    Wright
    Kumerow
    Hawk
    2017 draft pick

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by gatorclaws View Post
    I like Hawk, just don't think there's space for him. He wouldn't be a replacement for LaFell (if he gets away) and we always draft a WR.

    Probably Locks:
    Green
    LaFell
    Boyd
    Core
    Erickson

    Pick 1-2 of:
    Wright
    Kumerow
    Hawk
    2017 draft pick
    I dont understand the problem with cutting good players at the 53 limit.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Bengalbro View Post
    I dont understand the problem with cutting good players at the 53 limit.
    I've got no problem bringing him in at the minimum with no promises, would be decent backup in case of offseason injuries. I just don't see it going anywhere.

  6. #16
    It's not so much that I'm anti baby hawk as I am just annoyed that the marvins and hobsons of the world will use it to try and claim that we are active in free agency when in reality it's just another retread.

  7. #17
    I wanted Baby hawk this time last year when he was almost cut.

    Now, I'd rather stick with the youth of Boyd and Erickson.

  8. #18
    Not only don't I want Baby Hawk....I may not want LaFell.

    NFL.com has a list of the Top100 free agents and LaFell barely made it at #90. Plus the ranking included a note about how every team that LaFell has played for has opted for an upgrade.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by gatorclaws View Post
    I've got no problem bringing him in at the minimum with no promises, would be decent backup in case of offseason injuries. I just don't see it going anywhere.
    I dont disagree. Just seems like such an obvious insurance policy.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by JBandJoeyV View Post
    It's not so much that I'm anti baby hawk as I am just annoyed that the marvins and hobsons of the world will use it to try and claim that we are active in free agency when in reality it's just another retread.
    HAHA. I think thats inevitable regardless.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •