Tee Higgins franchised tagged by Bengals

[Buffalo_Stampede]

11 minutes ago, Matt_In_NH said:

I am sure he wont be.....dont think Brown gives a damn what he thinks though

You’re missing the point. A contract holdout is not something the Bengals need. We’d be furious in Buffalo if this happened in Buffalo.

 

Doing it for a second straight season would be a disaster for the Bengals.

Edited Monday at 09:51 PM by Buffalo_Stampede

[Mikie2times]

Just now, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

Isn’t it something that the Bills basically never use the franchise tag? Testament to our front office getting out ahead of some of our really good players and locking them in (eg, Dawkins, Spencer Brown, Shakir). 

They also got ahead of Tre White, Diggs, and Knox.  Unfortunately the biggest reason we have no franchise tenures is the talent level. Reason two is how early we extend, which has also worked out very negatively in some examples.

[Matt_In_NH]

9 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

You’re missing the point. A contract holdout is not something the Bengals need. We’d be furious in Buffalo if this happened in Buffalo.

 

Doing it for a second straight season would be a disaster for the Bengals.

I am not missing the point, I understand you think he will hold out.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

6 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

They also got ahead of Tre White, Diggs, and Knox.  Unfortunately the biggest reason we have no franchise tenures is the talent level. Reason two is how early we extend, which has also worked out very negatively in some examples.

Good point. It’s a risk-reward strategy, I guess. You bet on a guy early, and probably are able to get a deal done on more team-favorable terms. But if the player underperforms, you are stuck. 
 

I do think though it more readily allows us to sign our guys and not get into contract wars with some of our best players. Imagine if we had waited on Dawkins— probably would have been too expensive to sign.

[Mikie2times]

8 minutes ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

Good point. It’s a risk-reward strategy, I guess. You bet on a guy early, and probably are able to get a deal done on more team-favorable terms. But if the player underperforms, you are stuck. 
 

I do think though it more readily allows us to sign our guys and not get into contract wars with some of our best players. Imagine if we had waited on Dawkins— probably would have been too expensive to sign.

I was going to pose this question to the group at one point as I don't have a firm opinion. On one hand if the player work out you benefit. On the other hand you're making decisions early and with less information available. Any mistakes seem to be more impactful then the cumulative gain from savings. Ultimately it would be hard to say what approach is best.  

Edited Monday at 10:10 PM by Mikie2times

[gjv]

I can't imagine what Josh Allen would accomplish if he had the Bengals wideouts.

[DrDawkinstein]

1 hour ago, Mikie2times said:

They also got ahead of Tre White, Diggs, and Knox.  Unfortunately the biggest reason we have no franchise tenures is the talent level. Reason two is how early we extend, which has also worked out very negatively in some examples.

 

Very negatively? I need examples of which extensions crippled this team from winning.

 

 

21 minutes ago, gjv said:

I can't imagine what Josh Allen would accomplish if he had the Bengals wideouts.

 

Josh would have great numbers, like he already does. The Defense would still let us down tho.

[Mikie2times]

13 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Very negatively? I need examples of which extensions crippled this team from winning.

 

 

 

Josh would have great numbers, like he already does. The Defense would still let us down tho.

I like your wording, "Crippled", always goal post moving on these boards. By all means feel free to expand on how Diggs, White, and Knox's contract extensions  benefited us? How much did we lose the KC game by? Would 30 million+ been enough to make a difference? This has nothing to do with your wording. More to do with what ended up benefiting us more in the long run. If you think that rushing to sign players early benefited us more I would love to see you break down the reasoning compared to what it cost us. It won't cripple me to stay open minded to what that looks like. 

Edited Monday at 11:14 PM by Mikie2times

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, Mikie2times said:

I like your wording, "Crippled", always goal post moving on these boards. By all means feel free to expand on how Diggs, White, and Knox's contract extensions  benefited us? How much did we lose the KC game? Would 30 million+ be enough to have made a difference? This has nothing to do with your wording. More to do with what ended up benefiting us more in the long run. If you think that rushing to sign players early I would love to see you break down the reasoning compared to what it cost us. 

 

I didnt move any goal posts. I'm just trying to define your vague, open-ended goal posts. Saying our extensions affected us "very negatively" with no further explanation or examples leaves a lot open to interpretation.

 

So I dont hurt your feelings more, let me re-phrase. Which extensions hurt our ability to win?

 

No one could predict White's injury, and he was an All-Pro before that.

Knox isnt a huge number now, and wasnt even a big number then.

 

Diggs isnt necessarily part of this conversation since it mainly centers around extending guys off their rookie deal and he came to us already on his 2nd contract and made the All-NFL team as we were extending him again. His meltdown was mostly centered around Dorsey and McD holding the team back, and he wasnt wrong, so... 🤷‍♂️

 

Extending players who prove themselves on their rookie contract is foundational to well-run organizations. It not only keeps homegrown talent, usually at a discount. It also shows players all around the league that we are willing to take care of our players and do business right, which makes more FAs want to join the team. It is absolutely the best way to do it, when the player deserves it.

 

But it's not the only way we operate, as Beane proved with Tremaine Edmunds. And we didnt even re-sign Epenesa until the tampering period had started.

 

There will always be some misfires. No one is 100%. No one. But way more often then not, signing rookies whose play has been proven to early extensions is the right way to do it.

[3rdand12]

I didn't really want him as a Bill. I was pretty much just Kidding about how he would be a great fit positionally. 

51 minutes ago, gjv said:

I can't imagine what Josh Allen would accomplish if he had the Bengals wideouts.

Yes you can 💪

[Mikie2times]

6 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I didnt move any goal posts. I'm just trying to define your vague, open-ended goal posts. Saying our extensions affected us "very negatively" with no further explanation or examples leaves a lot open to interpretation.

 

So I dont hurt your feelings more, let me re-phrase. Which extensions hurt our ability to win?

 

No one could predict White's injury, and he was an All-Pro before that.

Knox isnt a huge number now, and wasnt even a big number then.

 

Diggs isnt necessarily part of this conversation since it mainly centers around extending guys off their rookie deal and he came to us already on his 2nd contract and made the All-NFL team as we were extending him again. His meltdown was mostly centered around Dorsey and McD holding the team back, and he wasnt wrong, so... 🤷‍♂️

 

Extending players who prove themselves on their rookie contract is foundational to well-run organizations. It not only keeps homegrown talent, usually at a discount. It also shows players all around the league that we are willing to take care of our players and do business right, which makes more FAs want to join the team. It is absolutely the best way to do it, when the player deserves it.

 

But it's not the only way we operate, as Beane proved with Tremaine Edmunds. And we didnt even re-sign Epenesa until the tampering period had started.

 

There will always be some misfires. No one is 100%. No one. But way more often then not, signing rookies whose play has been proven to early extensions is the right way to do it.

Believe me, you didn't hurt my feelings, only my head. I'll try and deliver this in tiny bite size sections. I never said this was only about rookie deals. That was all you.  So convenient to exclude Diggs when it was the most detrimental extension we have seen from this regime. In further breaking news, when players actually get to the end of the contract you get more information on that player. So in Whites case, had we waited, we might have also known White suffered a career impacting injury. These are the nuggets of knowledge you don't get when you try and save a few bucks not letting a guy play out his contract. Sort of like when you think you're good at TE but than draft one in the first round. Collectively these bad decisions have impacted our ability to add more talent. But you can also call out the play of the early extenders and the money we saved as a result of those extensions. Perhaps it equalizes it all out. It's a concept rational people can discuss at some point but this doesn't appear like one of those times.  

Edited Tuesday at 05:41 AM by Mikie2times

[FireChans]

5 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I didnt move any goal posts. I'm just trying to define your vague, open-ended goal posts. Saying our extensions affected us "very negatively" with no further explanation or examples leaves a lot open to interpretation.

 

So I dont hurt your feelings more, let me re-phrase. Which extensions hurt our ability to win?

 

No one could predict White's injury, and he was an All-Pro before that.

Knox isnt a huge number now, and wasnt even a big number then.

 

Diggs isnt necessarily part of this conversation since it mainly centers around extending guys off their rookie deal and he came to us already on his 2nd contract and made the All-NFL team as we were extending him again. His meltdown was mostly centered around Dorsey and McD holding the team back, and he wasnt wrong, so... 🤷‍♂️

 

Extending players who prove themselves on their rookie contract is foundational to well-run organizations. It not only keeps homegrown talent, usually at a discount. It also shows players all around the league that we are willing to take care of our players and do business right, which makes more FAs want to join the team. It is absolutely the best way to do it, when the player deserves it.

 

But it's not the only way we operate, as Beane proved with Tremaine Edmunds. And we didnt even re-sign Epenesa until the tampering period had started.

 

There will always be some misfires. No one is 100%. No one. But way more often then not, signing rookies whose play has been proven to early extensions is the right way to do it.

Sorry but the Diggs extension is perhaps the single biggest mistake in Beane’s tenure. It effectively cost us 1 offseason of pursuing talent to surround Josh with, which is as bad as it gets 

[Mikie2times]

11 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Sorry but the Diggs extension is perhaps the single biggest mistake in Beane’s tenure. It effectively cost us 1 offseason of pursuing talent to surround Josh with, which is as bad as it gets 

What the Dr is missing is when you let a guy finish out a contract you have signifgantly more information available. As example, does that player still want to be part of your team? Is that player healthy? Is that player still a priority in roster construction? You can jump to sign people before the contract expires and you will save some money that way, but you will most certainly have some dead weight signings that you never had to commit to in the first place had you just waited. I'm curious, if we look up the value of waiting, compare that to savings we felt we got by resigning a player or the value we think we got by ensuring we signed that player early, if it justifies such a strategy. We wouldn't have signed White, Diggs, or Knox had we waited. That is almost 50 million dollars just this past year. So it's not like this is a black and white conversation. 

Edited Monday at 11:50 PM by Mikie2times

[FireChans]

5 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

What the Dr is missing is when you let a guy finish out a contract you have signifgantly more information available. As example, does that player still want to be part of your team? Is that player healthy? Is that player still a priority in roster construction? You can jump to sign people before the contract expires and you will save some money that way, but you will most certainly have some dead weight signings that you never had to commit to in the first place had you just waited. I'm curious, if we look up the value of waiting, compare that to savings we felt we got by resigning a player or the value we think we got by ensuring we signed that player early, if it justifies such a strategy. We wouldn't have signed White, Diggs, or Knox. That is almost 50 million dollars just this past year. 

So here’s the thing.

 

i think as a general rule, paying guys 1 year before they hit market is usually smart, if they are almost assuredly players you are going to keep.

 

We can point to teams like the Cowboys and Bengals who have cost themselves 10s of millions waiting. Especially when they would have probably paid those guys the same contracts even if they tore ACLs. 
 

Now those teams can point the Bills as a team that got burned doing things the opposite way. But still, I do think it is a overall more winning strategy.

 

The biggest problem was the Beane broke his own rule, and gave Diggs money 2 years before he was up. And as anyone with any second of leadership experience will tell you, the second you start making exceptions is the second things blow up in your face.

[TBBills Fan]

How much money did the Bengals cost themselves by not signing chase last year to his extension at this point??

 

Now they tag Higgins. Lol

[Thurman#1]

8 hours ago, BillsShredder83 said:

Tag n trade seems likely.  Lame, we just went from 1% chance to .25%

 

 

Maybe we get Trey Hendrickson, then.

[Doc Brown]

5 hours ago, FireChans said:

The biggest problem was the Beane broke his own rule, and gave Diggs money 2 years before he was up. And as anyone with any second of leadership experience will tell you, the second you start making exceptions is the second things blow up in your face.

Did Beane ever come out and say he doesn't extend guys more than one year into their contract?  If he did my apologies but your leadership advice falls flat if applied to Beane if that isn't one of his rules.

[Thurman#1]

6 hours ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

Good point. It’s a risk-reward strategy, I guess. You bet on a guy early, and probably are able to get a deal done on more team-favorable terms. But if the player underperforms, you are stuck. 
 

I do think though it more readily allows us to sign our guys and not get into contract wars with some of our best players. Imagine if we had waited on Dawkins— probably would have been too expensive to sign.

 

 

Yup. Dawkins, Spencer Brown, Josh. Plenty more over the years.

 

Some evidence goes the other way too. 

 

You simply can't predict injuries in football most of the time. Some guys are injury prone, till they're not. Others are wildly healthy till they're not. Others continue the trends they've established. Continuing the trend is the best bet, but as guys get older bodies change and healthy trends become more likely to change.

 

Overall, I'll take betting on a guy you already have more info on than anyone else does. As you say, it's risk-reward, because there is no perfect strategy. Guys will get injured no matter how they're brought in. They'll slack off after the second contract whether it's with their first or second teams. But you've got a better chance if you know them as people, and how they fit in your system and with your roster.

 

But all you can do is do your best to increase your odds, to use your competitive advantages, which do include knowing the player. 

 

But guys change. We now know that's Diggs' M.O. is to be a great teammate for two or three years but after that ... well. He is such a good teammate early that he fooled both Minny and the Bills into extensions. But both extensions were worked out poorly for the teams. Sometimes, those kinds of things happen. No strategy is perfect.

 

The Bills have done this again and again. I think it's been good overall, but there are certainly some bad results too.

[LABILLBACKER]

8 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

They also got ahead of Tre White, Diggs, and Knox.  Unfortunately the biggest reason we have no franchise tenures is the talent level. Reason two is how early we extend, which has also worked out very negatively in some examples.

So true, our talent level rarely justifies franchising anyone.  And extensions to players like Knox, Epenesa and Bass were hardly comparable to their projected production. 

[NoHuddleKelly12]

15 hours ago, Augie said:

 

Mike Brown is going to have to be medicated for what’s coming his way. He’ll cheap out eventually, I bet.  It’s what he does. 

Exactly right!! He will instruct his minions to pump the proverbial brakes as he scrambles to save some coinage from his couch cushions…