 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
John
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 5
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:56 pm Post subject: Should of signed Steinbach instead... |
|
|
http://www.bengals.com/news/news.asp?story_id=6198
I personally thought the money should have gone to Steinbach instead
of Big Willie. Loyalty to players is great but loyalty to the team as
a whole and the fans is better. Steinbach is younger and more
versatile.
Oh well. As long as the team gets Levi back I think Koos, Andrews, or
Whitworth can take Willies place.
JohnED.
Archived from group: alt>sports>football>pro>cinci-bengals |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
OrangeDood
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 6
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject: Re: Should of signed Steinbach instead... |
|
|
A man drink like that and he don't eat, he is going to DIE, John
!
> I personally thought the money should have gone to Steinbach
> instead of Big Willie. Loyalty to players is great but loyalty
> to the team as a whole and the fans is better. Steinbach is
> younger and more versatile.
I'd agree with you wholeheartedly if you'd said Justin Smith instead
of Willie Anderson. They're blowing eight million or whatever on an
average defensive end. Meanwhile, they could have had the best
pulling guard in the league for half that.
--
Cheers,
--Jeff
Let's Go Orange! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
turk
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 11
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:28 pm Post subject: Re: Should of signed Steinbach instead... |
|
|
"OrangeDood" wrote in message @72.52.150.163...
>A man drink like that and he don't eat, he is going to DIE, John
> !
>
>> I personally thought the money should have gone to Steinbach
>> instead of Big Willie. Loyalty to players is great but loyalty
>> to the team as a whole and the fans is better. Steinbach is
>> younger and more versatile.
>
> I'd agree with you wholeheartedly if you'd said Justin Smith instead
> of Willie Anderson. They're blowing eight million or whatever on an
> average defensive end. Meanwhile, they could have had the best
> pulling guard in the league for half that.
Yeah, I agree. There are dozens of players that can do what Smith does.
How many stud guards are there? I was perplexed by the Bengals desire to
get Smith back. He's average at best and wildly inconsistent.
turk
--
To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to
the dead.
-- Thomas Paine |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
melott
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 5
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:28 am Post subject: Re: Should of signed Steinbach instead... |
|
|
On Aug 16, 8:28 pm, "turk" wrote:
> "OrangeDood" wrote in message
>
> @72.52.150.163...
>
> >A man drink like that and he don't eat, he is going to DIE, John
> > !
>
> >> I personally thought the money should have gone to Steinbach
> >> instead of Big Willie. Loyalty to players is great but loyalty
> >> to the team as a whole and the fans is better. Steinbach is
> >> younger and more versatile.
>
> > I'd agree with you wholeheartedly if you'd said Justin Smith instead
> > of Willie Anderson. They're blowing eight million or whatever on an
> > average defensive end. Meanwhile, they could have had the best
> > pulling guard in the league for half that.
>
> Yeah, I agree. There are dozens of players that can do what Smith does.
> How many stud guards are there? I was perplexed by the Bengals desire to
> get Smith back. He's average at best and wildly inconsistent.
>
I like Smith for the fact that he can play an entire game and his
motor always is running... but overall I've been disappointed on his
sack production... though some of that may be the players around him.
That being said... I would have rather signed Steinbach long-term.
Cleveland got lucky... and I think Steinbach could have made more $$
if he would have made more trips. I'd be willing to bet the Cards and
Raiders would have paid quite a bit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
turk
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 11
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:19 pm Post subject: Re: Should of signed Steinbach instead... |
|
|
"Chaos_Not@Home" wrote in message @x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 16, 8:28 pm, "turk" wrote:
>> "OrangeDood" wrote in message
>>
>> @72.52.150.163...
>>
>> >A man drink like that and he don't eat, he is going to DIE, John
>> > !
>>
>> >> I personally thought the money should have gone to Steinbach
>> >> instead of Big Willie. Loyalty to players is great but loyalty
>> >> to the team as a whole and the fans is better. Steinbach is
>> >> younger and more versatile.
>>
>> > I'd agree with you wholeheartedly if you'd said Justin Smith instead
>> > of Willie Anderson. They're blowing eight million or whatever on an
>> > average defensive end. Meanwhile, they could have had the best
>> > pulling guard in the league for half that.
>>
>> Yeah, I agree. There are dozens of players that can do what Smith does.
>> How many stud guards are there? I was perplexed by the Bengals desire to
>> get Smith back. He's average at best and wildly inconsistent.
>>
>
> I like Smith for the fact that he can play an entire game and his
> motor always is running... but overall I've been disappointed on his
> sack production... though some of that may be the players around him.
He's definitely a high motor guy, but that just shows he's lacking in talent
given his numbers. For the position he was taken in the draft as well as
the money he now makes, he's a borderline bust I'd say. I know the market
for DE FA's was thin this year, but I didn't see any substantial difference
between Smith and some of the guys already on the roster behind him. In
fact, I think Smith might be more of a 3rd down edge rusher than an every
down DE. Just a waste of money to spend that much on him instead of
investing it in other areas. If not spending it to keep Steinbach, they
could have tried out some veteran TEs.
> That being said... I would have rather signed Steinbach long-term.
> Cleveland got lucky... and I think Steinbach could have made more $$
> if he would have made more trips. I'd be willing to bet the Cards and
> Raiders would have paid quite a bit.
Yeah, plus the Bengals wouldn't have to face him twice a year.
turk
--
To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to
the dead.
-- Thomas Paine |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
melott
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 5
|
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:41 am Post subject: Re: Should of signed Steinbach instead... |
|
|
On Aug 17, 4:19 pm, "turk" wrote:
> "Chaos_Not@Home" wrote in message
>
> @x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 8:28 pm, "turk" wrote:
> >> "OrangeDood" wrote in message
>
> >>@72.52.150.163...
>
> >> >A man drink like that and he don't eat, he is going to DIE, John
> >> > !
>
> >> >> I personally thought the money should have gone to Steinbach
> >> >> instead of Big Willie. Loyalty to players is great but loyalty
> >> >> to the team as a whole and the fans is better. Steinbach is
> >> >> younger and more versatile.
>
> >> > I'd agree with you wholeheartedly if you'd said Justin Smith instead
> >> > of Willie Anderson. They're blowing eight million or whatever on an
> >> > average defensive end. Meanwhile, they could have had the best
> >> > pulling guard in the league for half that.
>
> >> Yeah, I agree. There are dozens of players that can do what Smith does.
> >> How many stud guards are there? I was perplexed by the Bengals desire to
> >> get Smith back. He's average at best and wildly inconsistent.
>
> > I like Smith for the fact that he can play an entire game and his
> > motor always is running... but overall I've been disappointed on his
> > sack production... though some of that may be the players around him.
>
> He's definitely a high motor guy, but that just shows he's lacking in talent
> given his numbers. For the position he was taken in the draft as well as
> the money he now makes, he's a borderline bust I'd say. I know the market
> for DE FA's was thin this year, but I didn't see any substantial difference
> between Smith and some of the guys already on the roster behind him. In
> fact, I think Smith might be more of a 3rd down edge rusher than an every
> down DE. Just a waste of money to spend that much on him instead of
> investing it in other areas. If not spending it to keep Steinbach, they
> could have tried out some veteran TEs.
Agreed about the $$ vs output.
> > That being said... I would have rather signed Steinbach long-term.
> > Cleveland got lucky... and I think Steinbach could have made more $$
> > if he would have made more trips. I'd be willing to bet the Cards and
> > Raiders would have paid quite a bit.
>
> Yeah, plus the Bengals wouldn't have to face him twice a year.
Maybe Bratkowski knows his weakness.... (muffled chuckle)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|