<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return  

Percentages

July 13 2008 at 2:47 PM
No score for this post

  (Login broncobux)
MikeBrownSucks.com Forum Moderator

This isn't that shockinh, but there was an article in the Sports Illustrated my office got last week about the portion of salary cap money NFL teams spend on offense and defense. It was discussing how money is spent in the NFL between the offense and defense.

The bengals have spent percentage wise, the most money on offense, and least amount on defense. LOL

Bengals- 61.17% Offense, 38.83% Defense
Colts- 55.08% Offense 44.92% Defense
Patriots- 53.89% offense 46.11% Defense

Not to my surprise was the fact that the Patriots, Cowboys, Giants and Packers are the most efficient teams when it comes to money.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
AuthorReply

Platinum_Series
(Login Platinum_Series)
Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members

Re: Percentages

No score for this post
July 13 2008, 4:43 PM 

Hopefully the money that they saved by letting Smith, Williams, and Johnson go, will help. I still have high hopes for Rivers and Odom. Also I think the secondary will be better than last year. It should be nice to watch a game where the corners don’t line up in Kentucky.

I just hope we have a “Physical” Defense that can intimidate other teams for once

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   

Gretto
(Login GrettoBengal)
Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members

*

No score for this post
July 13 2008, 4:46 PM 

And look who's up for a big money extension. TJ and Stacy Andrews.

I still contend that it would be wise to deal Andrews for a second round pick. It would be much better than the 3rd rounder they'll get after the 2008 season when Andrews signs a huge deal next offseason.

It seems like the current FA system has been twisted around completely. There's really nothing to spend the money on even if you wanted to. And it's much worse on the defensive side of the ball.

It will be interesting to see if they lock up TJ. It's tough either way. No matter if he stays or if he goes, he's getting paid. Can you throw him a contract bigger than Chad's and skew that 61% even higher? He's a quality #2 but he is a number two. Without a Chad, TO, Moss, or Holt he's Alvin Harper.

I say you have to pay him. He's got 5 solid years left including 2008. He can play the short to medium yardage game with minimal speed until he's 35 or 36.

But at some point you've got to make something happen by adding a star on the other side of the ball. Carson, CJ, TJ, Rudi, Jermi Johnson and the tackles...plus Stacey Andrews...are all paid like stars. Only Geathers and Odom make the money on the other side of the ball. Odom is an unknown and Geathers has flashed but never has really played to his pay rate...yet.

Spending $3 or $4 million of a veteran LB would have gone a long way to shoring things up a little better. How many years can the Bengals play in the AFC North and never understand that the 3 other teams in their division like to run the ball? Take a flier on Takeo Spikes. The defense needs a leader.

I see more of the same.

-------------------------------------------
President of the FalconGoose Association of North America or FANA.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   

Fulcher
(Login Fulcher-the-Vulture)
Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members

Re: *

No score for this post
July 13 2008, 6:47 PM 

Sounds about right

Offense sells tickets, Defense wins championships.

 


 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Synonymous Bengal
(Login CIN-C-STAR)
Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members

Re: *

No score for this post
July 13 2008, 8:27 PM 

I say they should not extend TJ.

I know that is unpopular, and hey, I like TJ too, better than Chad in nearly every way.

But WR is one of the most overrated positions in football. And with the money they already pay Carson (13.5 mill) and Chad (8 mill) how do they sign TJ?

A lot of my friends say dump Chad and then sign TJ, but then you get an 8 mill cap hit. I would rather have TJ, but I would rather have Chad and 8 million more to spend on the D. No way TJ is 8 mill better than Chad.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   

Homey
(Login HomerSaysDoh)
Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members

Re: Percentages

No score for this post
July 14 2008, 4:25 AM 

I would like to see a stat outlining net profit per win ratio over the past 18 years

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   

OldSchoolerFan
(Login oldschoolerfan)
Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members

Elementary, My Dear Watson

No score for this post
July 14 2008, 1:01 PM 

"But WR is one of the most overrated positions in football. And with the money they already pay Carson (13.5 mill) and Chad (8 mill) how do they sign TJ?"


Heck, the answer to this question is very simple--you dump all the defensive "talent" that you can. Sign the sh*t that's on the bench or draft malcontents in the draft in the lower rounds that "should have went higher" like Shirley. You have another flawed product that the fans will buy into, if you sign TJ for another year.

That's how.

"So he got fired? Big deal. It's happened to the best of us. So he got kicked out of his house by his 400 lb'ed wife?!?!? That's probably better for him anyways."-OldSchooler on ChrisMBHater's absence

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Current Topic - Percentages
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return