During the early part of this decade, the Bengals were known for being particularly inept on the field. The 12-36 record confirms as much. While things have improved under Marvin Lewis, there have still been problems, mostly of the off-field, illegal variety. Until this week, anyway.
Since free agency began on Feb. 29, the Bengals have twice tried to to consummate trades for a defensive lineman, twice agreed in principle, and twice had the deals fall through. Doesn't do a whole lot for the perception that the personnel department is run by a monkey. (Because owner Mike Brown is so notoriously cheap, he refused to pay for a second monkey.)
Most recently, Dewayne Robertson, just like Shaun Rogers before him, was traded to Cincinnati before he wasn't.
Another source close to the situation told The Enquirer late this afternoon that Robertson, who was believed to be in Cincinnati today, does not want to re-negotiate the final two years of his contract.The fact that the Bengals weren't jazzed about paying Robertson $18 million doesn't necessarily reinforce their cheapness; that's a lot of coin for an underachieving player. But it does make you wonder why they didn't find out Robertson's contract demands before, you know, trading for him.
And why would he? He is due to make base salaries of $9.8 million in 2008 and $8.29 million in 2009, according to the New York Daily News.
Whatever, the organization finally got a defensive player to commit to coming to Cincinnati: former Titans defensive end Antwan Odom. Adding a pass rusher should do wonders for that porous run defense.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-03-2008 @ 10:04PM
Duard Weese said...
It doesn't seem like Robertson is thinking this all the way through. If the Bengals didn't want to pay him $18 million, it sure doesn't seem like the Jets want to, so they are likely to cut him. If they wait until June to cut him, what kind of deal would Robertson expect to get at that time??
Reply
3-03-2008 @ 11:46PM
VegasSports said...
Benglas seem to have forgotten that sports requires commitment and focus.
Reply
3-04-2008 @ 8:53AM
Ilanin said...
In 2007:
Cincinnati run defense DVOA: -6.7% (13th)
Cincinnati pass defense DVOA: 24.8% (31st)
Cincinnati DL adjusted line yards: 4.21 (20th)
Cincinnati DL adjusted sack rate: 3.8% (32nd, and by a long way).
They needed a pass rusher. A run-stopping DT would also be useful, but they *really* needed a pass rusher, especially since Justin Smith has left.
Reply
3-04-2008 @ 8:57AM
ryan said...
Ilanin,
Well, I wouldn't point to Justin Smith as some big loss since, you know, he didn't do very well rushing the passer. And it seems like Shaun Rogers, and to a lesser degree, Dewayne Robertson might've been just as useful for improving the pass rush by drawing double teams, while also improving the run defense.
My point is that the Bengals could've done a better job addressing their DL needs than whiffing twice on trades before going with option 3.
Reply
3-04-2008 @ 12:17PM
Jeff said...
Smith wasn't a big loss at all. He had lots of tackles, but they were usually 4 yards down field. And from what I gather about Odom, he's athletic enough (6'5" 275) to drop back into space. With Geathers at the other end spot, and drafting Ellis with the 9th pick, the line looks a lot better. The problems with the run defense come from the linebackers. Nobody was athletic enough to step up and make a play.
Reply
3-04-2008 @ 10:30PM
Ben said...
I think this is a good move for Cincinnati. Why take another teams cast off for way too much cash? If Dwayne thinks that he will get a good deal after he gets cut and all the free agent money is gone then he's mistaken. I would rather let the Jets cut him and then try to give him a contract and keep the picks. He will not make 18 mill for 2 years. Odom was a good sign that was greatly needed, there are other tackles out there, but Robertson would be better off taking a 3 year deal full of incentives turn the defense around and then hit the market as a 29 year old that turned around one of the worst D's in recent history
Reply