Bengals: Big plans for Fanene

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Big plans for Fanene

Defensive end Jonathan Fanene has shown the Bengals something. Thanks to agents Andy Simms and Dave Lee of PlayersRep Sports, Fanene will earn $2 million in the first year of his three-year contract signed Tuesday.

Fanene received $750,000 to sign and can earn a $50,000 workout bonus and $300,000 reporting bonus. His base salary for 2008 is $900,000.

His size, 295 pounds, and quickness make his a potential end in the 3-4 defensive scheme that appears to be the future for the Bengals.

In his second and third years, Fanene's base salaries will be $1,150,000 with $50,000 workout bonuses.

Fanene, who will be a fourth-year player this season, played in 14 games (no starts) for the Bengals in 2007, recording six tackles, one sack, one fumble recovery and two passes broken-up. Slowed by hamstring injuries, Fanene had played in just seven games his first two seasons. He was the Bengals' seventh-round draft pick (233 overall) in 2005.

Friday, during an interview at the NFL scouting combine in Indianapolis, Bengals head coach Marvin Lewis said he is looking for Fanene and third-year end Frostee Rucker to compete for playing time and contribute in 2008.

The money the Bengals have invested in Fanene suggests they're looking for a great deal of production from him.

The other contract signed Tuesday by a Bengals player was wide receiver Antonio Chatman's two-year deal. He will get $620,000 base salaries in 2008 and 2009. His signing bonus is $200,000. Chatman's workout bonuses will be $20,000 this year and $25,000 in 2009.

15 Comments:

at 2/27/2008 3:27 PM

Anonymous said...

That's a lot of money to pay 2 guys who have had trouble staying healthy. It seems that money could have been better spent towards a new contract for L Johnson.

at 2/27/2008 3:39 PM

Anonymous said...

I like the idea of signing these guys but just like 3:27 said, that is quite a bit of money for two guys who have hard times staying healthy. I really hope we dont expect and actual starter out of Fanene before he has actually proven anything. His size is impresive and I know that you can take a guy that isnt that great in a 4-3 and turn him into a 3-4 beast but i really hope they dont depend on him too much.

Mike in Chotch

at 2/27/2008 4:00 PM

Anonymous said...

It is sounding more and more like they will be moving to 3-4. As long as Thurman and Brooks work out I think it will be good. Even if the move to 3-4 I would like to see Gholston drafted, I think him or Geathers would both be a very good pass rushing OLB. Throw in Jeanty and that is a athletic 4 LBs. Do you think Peko would be able to handle NT? Seems to me they might need a bigger run stuffer in the middle.

at 2/27/2008 4:02 PM

Anonymous said...

It is too much money. $2 million for a guy that had 6 tackles and another guy that hasn't produced re-signed for $700,000. I wish I could make that much money for performing my job at a well below average level.

at 2/27/2008 4:18 PM

Anonymous said...

i'd rather have fanene at that rate than smith at his -

heck, we can have 5 fanene's for the price of one smith.

at 2/27/2008 4:19 PM

Anonymous said...

Fanene can play both DE and DT in a 4-3 defense and a DE in a 3-4 defense.

He should get a chance for more playing time this season if Justin Smith signs with another team.

at 2/27/2008 4:27 PM

Unknown said...

Please again explain to me why you want Landon Johnson. They guys makes tackles 5-7 yards down the field, hell, I could do that.

Fanane has the ability to blow people up behind the line. Also, Landon has no fit in a 3-4.

Your starting LB's will be: LOLB, Jeanty, MLB, Thurman, MLB, Brooks, ROLB, (Pollack, D. Jones, or FA Pick up)

at 2/27/2008 5:07 PM

Anonymous said...

Its normal Bengals work. Pay cheap, hurt, bad players and do nothing on the Free Agent market will Mikey might have to open his wallet. Lets make it no playoffs for 17 out of the last 18 years. Wow

at 2/27/2008 9:49 PM

Anonymous said...

Mike (4:27pm) is right, why does everyone want Landon re-signed? He has no ability to sense what the opposing offense is doing. He reacts, as opposed to reads... that's why he makes all of his tackles down field and not at the line of scrimmage. And lets not get started on his pass coverage. He's the worst on the team in that aspect. I honestly believe Shayne Graham could cover up a guy better than Lando.

I also agree that signing Fanene is much better than paying J Smith $1 mill + per sack. It's time for him to move on.

-Will

at 2/27/2008 10:31 PM

Anonymous said...

Mike,
There's no way in heck you could make tackles 5-10 yards down the field unless the RB happens to run your way and trips over you.

at 2/27/2008 11:42 PM

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:31...Get your facts strait,LJ side got ran on 70% of the time,look..if you was a Off Cord,you ran it that side and avg 5-7 yrds,wouldnt you run his side constantly?..He led the team in tackles??..Plus he Injury Prone and plays soft??...This is the reason the Bungals cant figure out simple math..think about it.

at 2/28/2008 6:24 AM

Anonymous said...

Looks like were a 3-4.

at 2/28/2008 8:54 AM

Anonymous said...

I fail to see how people cite Landon's size as not being a 3-4, when Thurman is just as small. Both are around 225-235, Landon actually is bigger since he added muscle last year.

Further, the guy has played out of position almost every year he. He played middle is whole ROOKIE year, he's bounced from weak (his preferred spot) to middle and strong for varying amounts of games in each of his four seasons here.

Every year Bresnahan kept saying "we're not sliding Landon over" but then they did, probably because Lewis overruled him.

Also, of course he had tackles 5-7 yards downfield, that's what a stupid, PASSIVE, zone scheme like the Bengals get. It also didn't help that the DTs in front of him couldn't clog a damn drain, let along an opposing NFL running attack.

And if (when) we switch to 3-4, Geathers will be on the outside, someone didn't even mention him. If we get Gholston to pair on the outside with Geathers, this could be okay. I think Geathers will be a always be a better 4-3 end than 3-4 OLB, but he'll still be good. Still need another NT or two. I bet Schelgel seems some playing time inside, he's about 240-250 and if Thurman or Brooks miss time, Schelgel, not Dhani, is a better inside fit.

I still think we'll regret not re-signing Landon, for all he brings, on and off the field, especially since that money we could've spend on him probably won't be spent any better, we're not going to get another big name FA just because we saved on not signing Landon. We won't win one bidding war.

I do think the 3-4, if you can beef up the NT and DE spots, has potential. And if Thurman and moreso, Brooks, made good on there potential. Then again, that's too many ifs for this team...lol.

at 2/28/2008 9:38 AM

Anonymous said...

Mike, I don't really see the Bengals signing a starting linebacker in FA. They seem to be pretty high on Eric Henderson. Of course, if Pollack comes back, then the job is probably his. If neither of these guys work out, then Jones probably starts. And there will also be very good LBs available when the Bengals pick at #9 (Connor, Rivers, maybe Gholston). So I don't see them spending FA $$ at that position.

at 2/28/2008 10:59 AM

Anonymous said...

if the signs point to going 3 - 4, the Bengals better get a very good DT in the first round -

and see what DE or OLB slides to round 2.

Kinda taking a chance the ILB corps will be based on Odell and Ahmad -

No doubt Odell and Brooks have the talent, it is the longevity that is a concern.

Pollack coming back would be a huge boost - but he said (I think I read it somewhere) that he wants to go back to a rush end.

I still say if Mendenhall slips to round 2 and is available, the Bengals should grab him in the second.

We'll see............

Previous Posts

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Big plans for Fanene

15 Comments: