I want Jessie Bates III

[SNDavidson]

"Bates, playing on the franchise tag, is likely out of Cincinnati after the Bengals drafted his replacement (Daxton Hill) in Round 1 last year," Rosenthal wrote. "Bates might have greater value to a team that plays more single-high safety, although there are fewer of those teams every year." https://www.si.com/nfl/bengals/allb...onn-bell-make-nfl-networks-top-51-free-agents"

6. Jessie Bates III, Cincinnati Bengals​

Highest ranking: 2 | Lowest ranking: Out of top 10
Age: 25 | Last year's ranking: 10

Bates comes up big when the Bengals need him. Just look at their four-game playoff run, when Bates was stellar with six pass deflections and two interceptions. The 10th-ranked safety last year is no longer flying under the radar.

"A lot of times guys who are good in coverage might not be the best tacklers, but I feel Bates has found a good balance -- he's elite on the ball, but he's not a liability against the run either," an AFC exec said.

Bates admitted to a lack of focus early in the season as he couldn't come to an agreement on a long-term extension with Cincinnati. He is set to play on a $12.8 million franchise tag this year, and though both sides have until July 15 to reach a new deal, that's widely not expected.

"That happens sometimes when a guy enters a contract year ... there's a lot to process ... but as the season went on, he was excellent," an NFL personnel evaluator said.

A few voters knocked Bates as a below-average tackler, though his 88 tackles last season ranked No. 24 among defensive backs. Cincinnati was pleased with his all-around play last season."https://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/in...yers-make-their-picks-best-back-end-defenders

Yes, we have an absurd amount of $$ tied up in the Safety spot for 2023, but then we can cut both Diggs and Adams, and, the rest of the defense will be young for 3 or 4 years as they will be rookies and 2nd years. Bates is ET3 light.

 

[SNDavidson]

 

[WarHawks]

He definitely looks legit!

 

[MyrtleHawk]

So, cut Diggs and pay more for Bates?

 

[massari]

They need to beef up the front 7. Enough spending huge amounts on Safeties.

 

[getnasty]

Yeah definitely a stud but we'd have so much money invested at safety if we signed him. It would suck watching him making tackles 10 yards down field because we can't stop the run.

 

[SNDavidson]

I think we can draft enough beef and run stop in the draft.
My draft:
Myles Murphy DL
Trenton Simpson LB\Edge
Siaki Ika DT
JL Skinner S
Noah Sewell ILB
Spencer Anderson G
Eric Gray RB
DJ Johnson LB\Edge
Ainias Smith WR
Zach Kuntz TE

 

[SNDavidson]

I think we get a mild hometown discount on Geno, unfortunately we really cannot count on Adams, so it will realistically be Bates/Diggs for one year, then yeah, move on from Diggs and Adams.

 

[u0087966]

I think we can draft enough beef and run stop in the draft.
My draft:
Myles Murphy DL
Trenton Simpson LB\Edge
Siaki Ika DT
JL Skinner S
Noah Sewell ILB
Spencer Anderson G
Eric Gray RB
DJ Johnson LB\Edge
Ainias Smith WR
Zach Kuntz TE

I like it but the first pick has different options....if Carter or Anderson are there...no brainer, pick the one available.

Tyree Wilson vs Murphy would be a difficult choice.

 

[SNDavidson]

I like it but the first pick has different options....if Carter or Anderson are there...no brainer, pick the one available.

Tyree Wilson vs Murphy would be a difficult choice.

I don't think Carter is there.

 

[u0087966]

I don't think Carter is there.

You're most likely correct but you never know. Chicago could trade back with LV and three of the first four selections are QBs.

 

[Jville]

They would be much better with a second round tender on Ryan Neal. Neil has a full year with Coach Scott. That's a big plus.

I'm also looking forward to see how competitive the speedy Joey Blout will be in his second year under Coach Scott.

In my opnion, the defensive secondary is already poised to take a big step forward in 2023.

IMO, the needs of the front six or seven over shadow, by far, that of the secondary.

 

[TheLegendOfBoom]

"Bates, playing on the franchise tag, is likely out of Cincinnati after the Bengals drafted his replacement (Daxton Hill) in Round 1 last year," Rosenthal wrote. "Bates might have greater value to a team that plays more single-high safety, although there are fewer of those teams every year." https://www.si.com/nfl/bengals/allb...onn-bell-make-nfl-networks-top-51-free-agents"

6. Jessie Bates III, Cincinnati Bengals​

Highest ranking: 2 | Lowest ranking: Out of top 10
Age: 25 | Last year's ranking: 10

Bates comes up big when the Bengals need him. Just look at their four-game playoff run, when Bates was stellar with six pass deflections and two interceptions. The 10th-ranked safety last year is no longer flying under the radar.

"A lot of times guys who are good in coverage might not be the best tacklers, but I feel Bates has found a good balance -- he's elite on the ball, but he's not a liability against the run either," an AFC exec said.

Bates admitted to a lack of focus early in the season as he couldn't come to an agreement on a long-term extension with Cincinnati. He is set to play on a $12.8 million franchise tag this year, and though both sides have until July 15 to reach a new deal, that's widely not expected.

"That happens sometimes when a guy enters a contract year ... there's a lot to process ... but as the season went on, he was excellent," an NFL personnel evaluator said.

A few voters knocked Bates as a below-average tackler, though his 88 tackles last season ranked No. 24 among defensive backs. Cincinnati was pleased with his all-around play last season."https://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/in...yers-make-their-picks-best-back-end-defenders

Yes, we have an absurd amount of $$ tied up in the Safety spot for 2023, but then we can cut both Diggs and Adams, and, the rest of the defense will be young for 3 or 4 years as they will be rookies and 2nd years. Bates is ET3 light.

I still think if Seattle upgrades through free agency, the money spent is better off up front.

Seattle has so much money tied to the defensive backfield it’s insane.

Daron Payne seems to be a better free agent signing than another safety.

 

[QWERTY]

I still think if Seattle upgrades through free agency, the money spent is better off up front.

Seattle has so much money tied to the defensive backfield it’s insane.

Daron Payne seems to be a better free agent signing than another safety.

If Seattle gets a QB with the 5th pick, then they can sign Bates. As long as they don't re-sign Geno.

That rookie QB salary will help.

 

[TheLegendOfBoom]

If Seattle gets a QB with the 5th pick, then they can sign Bates. As long as they don't re-sign Geno.

That rookie QB salary will help.

What would they do with Adams and Diggs?

One of them has to go at least.

And then what would it be?

Trade?

Release?

Either way a trade, you probably wouldn’t get much.

Release? A lot of dead money lost.

 

[SNDavidson]

I would use Adams as a LB and Bates as a S, then cut Diggs and Adams in '24.

 

[SNDavidson]

Adams is 80/20 going to be out again regardless of where you play him

 

[QWERTY]

What would they do with Adams and Diggs?

One of them has to go at least.

And then what would it be?

Trade?

Release?

Either way a trade, you probably wouldn’t get much.

Release? A lot of dead money lost.

You can still keep Adam and Diggs with a rookie QB contract.

I believe in Diggs still he had a major injury last season, and I believed he was rushed coming back. But his contract is done in 24.

As for Adams you can cut him after the 24 season as well.

 

[QWERTY]

But also that brings up to the question, do we want Bates or do we want Ryan Neal that can be cheaper.

If Neal is willing to take a home discount let's say 3 years 21mill or 4 years 28mill sounds good.

 

[TheLegendOfBoom]

But also that brings up to the question, do we want Bates or do we want Ryan Neal that can be cheaper.

If Neal is willing to take a home discount let's say 3 years 21mill or 4 years 28mill sounds good.

But what’s the plan for all three?

Play all three on defense, 100 percent of the time?