09-17-2017, 04:50 PM
(09-17-2017, 04:46 PM)Whatever Wrote: Yes and no. Loyalty is a two way street. The Bengals could have offered Whit more. Whit could have taken less to stay. You see players take less money to stay with a team all the time. If you have to hand a guy a blank check to get him to stay, then he obviously doesn't have much loyalty to you or your organization. I like Whit as much as the next guy, but the first chance he got, he ran outta town to the highest bidder. The first time he was going into a season without a contract extension, he griped about it in the media. I don't hold that against him. He made his choice based on his priorities.
Honestly, why would a player take less money to come here?
Generally players take less money to go somewhere to chase a Super Bowl. That's not happening here.
One could argue that the Rams are a better chance to win. They had a bad year last year and FIRED THEIR COACH. ie Ownership wasn't complacent and made a change to try to win. Their defense is every bit as good as ours.
The have a #1 pick at QB. Their RB in Gurley is better than any RB on our roster. They just need an offensive line.
