Bengals: Andrews: OK with possible 6th-man role

Monday, February 18, 2008

Andrews: OK with possible 6th-man role

If tackles Willie Anderson and Levi Jones are healthy next season, there's a chance that Stacy Andrews -- designated today as the team's franchise player -- could be the sixth man on the offensive line.

He's OK with that.

"I'm not worried about that at all," Andrews said late today of his potential role with the Bengals in 2008. He spoke by cell phone from him hometown of Camden, Ark. "They have something in store for me, whether it's at guard or tackle. Whatever is going to help the team I'll do."

He is easy to coach. He works extremely hard.

"Stacy, no question Stacy is a very important part of our football team," Bengals head coach Marvin Lewis said last week. "We watch growth, whether it's been left guard or right tackle. You see a guy ascend. He has no bad habits. He's a good worker. He's a good studier. It's what you want."

Andrews called the designation "an honor. I was hoping I was going to be able to get a (long-term) deal. I am excited, man. I've worked hard. I’m going to keep working hard."

19 Comments:

at 2/19/2008 12:18 AM

Andy Kuhn said...

guess that means Justin Smith is gone.

Oh well, it was disappointing while it lasted.

btw, i defy you to find and NFL GM that things it good to tag a backup lineman. The ridiculousness of this move is appalling.

at 2/19/2008 6:53 AM

Anonymous said...

Andy, what do you want? Mike Brown and the Bengals' front office are the biggest morons in pro sports.

at 2/19/2008 7:01 AM

ctbengalsfan said...

With everything they've invested in Andrews and the questionable health of Anderson, not to mention Levi Jones, this a good move. I can't beleive some even question it.

Suppose Anderson goes to camp and gets hurt? Do you want to count on Koistra for an extended period of time?

Every teams' needs are different. This move was made to provide security.

I'm glad Smith wasn't tagged. I will never question his work ethic or attitude, but he just does not give you the production as a pass rusher that his salary merits.

IMHO, I don't think Williams was ever even considered. Can anyone honestly say he was a difference maker when he was on the field? It seemed like they were better when "Duke" and White were out there.

at 2/19/2008 9:19 AM

Anonymous said...

This is a great move. Without a good offensive line, no matter how good Carson Palmer is, he isn't nearly as good if he's on his back all the time.

Just look at Tom Brady in the Super Bowl as an example.

With Willie's age and Levi's injury issues, it's important to have a rising star to step in. Remember the guys we used to have at tackle? Melvin Tuten and Rod Jones?

at 2/19/2008 9:42 AM

Anonymous said...

ctbengalsfan: I don't think anybody would argue that you don't need quality backup offensive linemen. But to be paying a guy that you expect to only be a backup over $7 million? That doesn't sound a bit out of touch with reality? If Willie hadn't been signed to his crazy contract, this would have been a good idea. But how can you spend that much money on only one position and expect to be competitive?

at 2/19/2008 10:26 AM

Anonymous said...

I don't believe a team HAS TO designate a franchise tag to anyone, so one has to wonder what is in it for the Bengals to use it on Andrews.

They could have not used the tag, and still aggressively pursued Andrews and addressed their depth on the OL, and this would not be guaranteeing him top 5 money, I believe.

The only thing I see that is gained is the right to match any offers before he could leave via free agency. Seems like a pretty steep price to pay, for someone who isn't even top 5 OL on the club, let alone anywhere near the top 5 in the entire league.

Franchise tags were a means for teams to keep their big stars around longer without automatically losing them to highest bidders/free agency. The underlying problem the past few years with Bengals franchise players is that we have very few "stars" to begin with (not already under long term contract).

What no Chad news today?

at 2/19/2008 10:32 AM

Anonymous said...

tagging Andrews is smart...if cap space is an issue, you cut Anderson. But you don't let Andrews go. As for Smith and Williams...both average players at best...no way you pay them franchise money.

at 2/19/2008 10:58 AM

Anonymous said...

Mark, can you please explain the logic behind franchising a backup? I haven't see a good explanation yet. I know they want to keep him, so doesn't a long-term deal make more sense? Before he gets more experience (more expensive)?

Dan

at 2/19/2008 11:39 AM

Anonymous said...

Bengals.com says the team has been trying to get Stacy signed long-term since the 2006 season, much like J. Smith and some others.

So there you have it, our cracker jack front office is the reason we had to slap the tag on him (which I'm not saying it's a bad move) but it's partially due to their inability to get a long-term deal.

Makes me wonder, because the team did extentions for Carson, Chad (twice), Geathers, Willie and Levi pretty easily, with at least a year (or more) remaining on all their contracts when new deals were struck. Those deals were nothing to sneeze at in terms of money either.

So you have to ask, did the team value all of the above so much more than current guys, did they get more cheap recently, or has someone else taken the reigns in contract talks, because I think it used to be Katie mainly.

at 2/19/2008 11:46 AM

Anonymous said...

Tagging Andrews was a smart move. He wants a long term contract and this is the way to keep him from going to the Eagles and giving the Bengals time to work out a deal. You never know who will get injured and this is cheap insurance. A young, skilled OL is highly regarded in this league and he was probably not going to be here if not tagged.

at 2/19/2008 12:16 PM

Anonymous said...

Its a good call, I bet that stacy will play every game with at least half the snaps in a game.Big Willie can't play whole games any more. They will be spilting the time at that position if willie can play that long. Just consider stacy as our 6th offensive lineman on the field.

feelgoodjoker

at 2/19/2008 12:22 PM

Anonymous said...

Of course he is ok with playing a 6th man role- he is a backup that the Bengals just inexcusibly threw 7-8 million dollars at; even he is probably shocked. Someone that considers the franchise tag an honor obviously doesn't deserve it. That's 7-8 million that will be tied up and unavailable when trying to pursue other free agents. Same old story with this team. Organizations such as the Patriots are probably laughing at the Bengals again; tell me another team would throw that kind of money at someone like Stacey Andrews??? Didn't we learn from Justin Smith's 4 million a sack last year? I don't know why I act surprised with this franchise anymore- perennial losers, top to bottom.

at 2/19/2008 12:35 PM

Anonymous said...

This is a great move! Andrews will not be a back up for long. Whether he's a starter this year or next you need a quality hardworking individual like he seems to be protecting Carson Palmer. It's never a bad move to sure up your offensive line.

Btw, they're going to be a lot better next year. You watch.

WHO DEY!?!

at 2/19/2008 12:59 PM

Anonymous said...

What's the point? A franchise tag on a polished turd.

What a joke

at 2/19/2008 1:11 PM

SportsMania said...

This move makes good sense. Andrews is a versitile lineman who can complete or fill-in at just about any spot on the line.

This does mean the end of Justin Smith. He was decent, but never great. I would also assume that we are planning on taking a DE with the first three picks this year, unless there is someone that I don't know about ready to step in (Pollack?, Ruckers?)

at 2/19/2008 1:33 PM

Andy Kuhn said...

it is more than just tagging a player, the Bengals think that logistically they can get Andrews for another season at a reasonable value.

But when you look at the numbers, the Bengals could will probably overpay for Andrews by putting the tag on him.

at 2/19/2008 2:42 PM

Anonymous said...

Nice to see the stupid Cincy fans are out in force.

Lets see you have an offensive lineman that is good enough to be a starter, that is currently a backup.

Then you currently have TWO, yep TWO starting offensive tackles, that are getting on in years, and have bad knees, which is the death knell for tackles.

So as a team you are looking at in the very near future, possibly even as soon as next year, needing TWO offensive tackles. You currently have a backup who you consider to be good enough to start, but he is going to be a free agent this off-season.

So as a team you have to evaluate three things, how good is your backup, how good is the free agent crop of tackles, and how good are the draft crop of tackles.

Once you do this you decide if you would be better to either sign or franchise your backup, sign a free agent or draft a college player that will be ONE of possibly TWO new tackles on your offensive line within one or two years, three at the most.

So the smart football move is to franchise that guy that has been with the team for a few years, that you feel is good enough to start, and that ALREADY KNOWS THE PLAYBOOK FRONTWAYS AND BACKWAYS.

This then affords you a seamless transition of ONE of your TWO oft injured tackles gets hurt next season. This franchised player can come in IMMEDIATELY and you will see little to no drop off in talent or productivity when this franchised player comes into the game.

This is a much smarter move than trying to sign a starting offensive tackle from free agency when you don't have a starting spot technically available at this time. I mean why in the world would you sign a backup caliber player in free agency when you KNOW in a year or two you will need ONE or TWO STARTING caliber tackles. Plus this new player would need to learn the playbook and have that learning curve to deal with.

This is a smarter move than drafting a college player to take over the position because while that makes sense if your two tackles last at least one or two more years, but if you need a new starter at tackle NEXT year, that college player is a much larger risk due to him NEVER playing pro football, and also again he doesn't know the playbook.

So to people that actually know and understand the strategy of football realize that while it may not look good to the casual fan, this actually is the smart move as it affords you a seamless transition when you lose at least one of your starting offensive tackles, and guess what folks, we will lose at least one of them for a long period of time as early as next year. Knowing Cincy fans I know that you all that are criticizing the Bengals for doing this now, would be the same smart ones criticizing in the future the Bengals if they didn't do this and one of our starting tackles goes down for any length of time. Remember one in the hand is better than two in the bush...

at 2/19/2008 3:41 PM

Anonymous said...

I like the move if it they sign him to a long-term contract and release Anderson NEXT year.

Andrews can play LG, RG and RT. Since Whitworth can play LT, having Andrews means you only have to have seven competent guys to have adequate depth. They can take chances with the other three spots to find a better center and someone to provide the depth needed after Anderson's departure.

Now, if the Bengals don't think Andrews is the long-term solution at RT, and are only doing this as a stopgap for this season, it is a stupid move. It wastes a lot of money, and a reasonable backup could probably be signed for $2-3million less.

at 2/19/2008 3:55 PM

Anonymous said...

Hey 2:42pm, some on here are in favor of Stacy getting the tag, some not. A bit overboard with the name calling, eh?

Some of the dismay may be not at Stacy, but at the 7.5 mill when you JUST signed Levi and Willie to five year deals that have four years left (signed in 06, but started in 07).

So it's a bit of poor planning by Bengals front office, and it brings up old wounds of Eric Steinbach.

Meanwhile...we'll probably sign Stacey sometime this summer, then the next year we'll have to deal with Whitworth if Willie and/or Levi get even worse, plus the LG spot will be vacated by Stacy moving to RT. (I believe the Bengals prefer Stacy at LG over Whitworth)...but Whitworth started because Stacy needed to be at tackle so much.

Previous Posts

Monday, February 18, 2008

Andrews: OK with possible 6th-man role

19 Comments: