Turn Off Ads?
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 55

Thread: Mike Brown Article on ESPN.com

  1. #31
    He has the Evil Eye! flyer85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    south of the border
    Posts
    23,858

    Re: Mike Brown Article on ESPN.com

    Quote Originally Posted by bucksfan2 View Post
    In the end Smith becomes the real loser the longer the hold out extends.
    that remains to be seen. However, he is certainly taking on risk at this point.
    What are you, people? On dope? - Mr Hand

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    7,201

    Re: Mike Brown Article on ESPN.com

    If what Reedy's reporting is correct, the Bengals aren't even matching what the #6 pick in the draft last year got. The heck with slotting, what basis are the Bengals using for their numbers?

  4. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,325

    Re: Mike Brown Article on ESPN.com

    Signing Andre Smith for $1 would've been a waste of money. Aside from the fact that he's a fat slob, what else would he offer the team? His strong suit isn't even as a pass blocker and that was the Bengals main concern. He's a head case and everyone knew it.

    The blame falls squarely on the Bengals.

  5. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,419

    Re: Mike Brown Article on ESPN.com

    Quote Originally Posted by Screwball View Post
    Didn't Keels say on Hard Knocks they wanted a little over what DHB got from the Raiders, and Katie said they're "not prepared to meet that"?

    While it sucks Al Davis is clearly insane, this is how it is. Either pay the man his slot money, or punish the team by not doing so. They're not going to get away with their lowball offer.
    They obviously want more than what DHB got and thats fair its just a matter of how much more. Is it 25 million guaranteed what? 2 picks behind Smith went another OT and he only got 19.2 mill. Why should DHB deal effect how much Smith is getting. DHB got 4 million more than the pick behind him. No other draft pick recieved more than 4 million other than Curry and Stafford and thats because they signed a 6 year deal instead of 5.

    It all depends on where each side views the slot and with Smith holding out I would think the Bengals have a legit argument for holding firmer and firmer. The more he holds out the less value he is to the bengals this year so why should they be giving in when they are actually losing money on investment.

  6. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,419

    Re: Mike Brown Article on ESPN.com

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier Red View Post
    If what Reedy's reporting is correct, the Bengals aren't even matching what the #6 pick in the draft last year got. The heck with slotting, what basis are the Bengals using for their numbers?
    I have a feeling Reedy is getting his info from Keels. Im quite sure he isnt getting it from the Bengals.

  7. #36
    I hate the Cubs LoganBuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,185

    Re: Mike Brown Article on ESPN.com

    Quote Originally Posted by GIDP View Post
    I have a feeling Reedy is getting his info from Keels. Im quite sure he isnt getting it from the Bengals.
    I wouldn't be surprised if Keels' meeting with the Bengals doesn't end up on Hard Knocks. Reedy's sources are more likely to be from within the Bengals. We aren't talking about national security here.
    The Sox traded Bullfrog the only player they've got for Shottenhoffen. Four-eyes Shottenhoffen a utility infielder. They've got a whole team of utility infielders.

  8. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    7,201

    Re: Mike Brown Article on ESPN.com

    Quote Originally Posted by DTCromer View Post
    Signing Andre Smith for $1 would've been a waste of money. Aside from the fact that he's a fat slob, what else would he offer the team? His strong suit isn't even as a pass blocker and that was the Bengals main concern. He's a head case and everyone knew it.

    The blame falls squarely on the Bengals.
    He's a fat slob who SEC ends and linebackers took 3 days to get around.

  9. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,419

    Re: Mike Brown Article on ESPN.com

    Quote Originally Posted by LoganBuck View Post
    I wouldn't be surprised if Keels' meeting with the Bengals doesn't end up on Hard Knocks. Reedy's sources are more likely to be from within the Bengals. We aren't talking about national security here.
    Reedy sources are probably pretty limited inside the Bengals. I doubt many people other than the Browns and Keels are in the negotiations.

  10. #39
    Member Highlifeman21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Bristol, just around the corner from ESPN
    Posts
    8,694

    Re: Mike Brown Article on ESPN.com

    Quote Originally Posted by DTCromer View Post
    Signing Andre Smith for $1 would've been a waste of money. Aside from the fact that he's a fat slob, what else would he offer the team? His strong suit isn't even as a pass blocker and that was the Bengals main concern. He's a head case and everyone knew it.

    The blame falls squarely on the Bengals.
    I was surprised when the Bengals drafted Smith, to say the least.

    While we certainly needed an OT, Smith wasn't the guy, IMO.

    With the 6th pick, there were plenty of better athletes on the board that played other positions than OT.

    Such as:

    Eugene Monroe (although he shouldn't have been a top 10, IMO)
    BJ Raji
    Michael Crabtree
    Aaron Maybin
    Brian Orakpo (the guy I really wanted the Bengals to take)
    Malcolm Jenkins
    Jeremy Maclin
    Percy Harvin


    If we really had our heart set on an OT, then we could have traded down to take Eugene Monroe, or Michael Oher. We certainly didn't need to waste the 6th pick on Andre Smith.

  11. #40
    Boom Goes the Dynamite Screwball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Chester
    Posts
    2,416

    Re: Mike Brown Article on ESPN.com

    Andre Smith was easily one of the most talented tackles in the entire draft. In fact, many were saying he was as talented as the #2 overall pick, Jason Smith, but fell due to the dreaded "character concerns" (mainly his debacle at the combine).

  12. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,419

    Re: Mike Brown Article on ESPN.com

    Quote Originally Posted by Screwball View Post
    Andre Smith was easily one of the most talented tackles in the entire draft. In fact, many were saying he was as talented as the #2 overall pick, Jason Smith, but fell due to the dreaded "character concerns" (mainly his debacle at the combine).
    .

  13. #42
    Waitin til next year bucksfan2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    10,242

    Re: Mike Brown Article on ESPN.com

    Keels is making a contradictary argument. He wants "slot" money but he is using two players that blew "slow" away. Sanchez got a deal that is given to a franchise QB. Those are known to be higher than "slot" but is expected when you think a QB will be your franchise QB. DHB got an insane deal from an insane man that blew "slot" out of the water again.

  14. #43
    Go Reds Go! UKFlounder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Northern KY
    Posts
    1,883

    Re: Mike Brown Article on ESPN.com

    Those 2 deals simply created a new "slot" and the Bengals were not prepared for other teams to be willing to sign players so soon. They could have been more agreesive in trying to sign Smith, but they waited for the market to set the price, and not that it has, they're still unable to make a deal.

    Just because the slotting number was increased by those other teams does not mean the system changed

    If the 6th pick getting more money that the 7th pick is such a difficult concept for this organization, that might explain their track record.

    Quote Originally Posted by bucksfan2 View Post
    Keels is making a contradictary argument. He wants "slot" money but he is using two players that blew "slow" away. Sanchez got a deal that is given to a franchise QB. Those are known to be higher than "slot" but is expected when you think a QB will be your franchise QB. DHB got an insane deal from an insane man that blew "slot" out of the water again.

  15. #44
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,419

    Re: Mike Brown Article on ESPN.com

    DHB and Sanchez were the 1st couple picks to sign so I dont really buy into the notion that this was all avoidable if they would have just been proactive. Dlus the dude didnt even have an agent till something like May 28th. Sanchez signed on the 10 of June. There was no chance the Bengals were going to beat that date.

    Both sides should be looking at Monroes contract not Sanchez and DHB.

  16. #45
    Member ochre's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    4,266

    Re: Mike Brown Article on ESPN.com

    Quote Originally Posted by Screwball View Post
    Andre Smith was easily one of the most talented tackles in the entire draft. In fact, many were saying he was as talented as the #2 overall pick, Jason Smith, but fell due to the dreaded "character concerns" (mainly his debacle at the combine).
    I'd say his decision to go shirtless for his school's pro-day was probably not a good move from a "winning the minds and hearts" of the draft projection crowd.

    My guess is, the Bengals saw blue-light special, while Smith's camp figured he was prime-rib. That, and what's a Bengal pre-season without a first round Smith hold out?
    4009




Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

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

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25