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 6 hours ago 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 5 hours ago 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 4 hours ago 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]

12 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.

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. Somewhere to the tune of having very limited talent in the interior DL, secondary,  no #1 WR, on it goes. Probably the exact reason we didn't go further than we did. 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 4 hours ago 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 4 hours ago 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