09-17-2017, 11:09 PM
(09-17-2017, 11:04 PM)Whatever Wrote: There's a number of reasons why Whit could have potentially taken less money to stay. Possibly loyalty to the club. After all, they drafted him and gave him the opportunity to play in the NFL and made him a very rich man with numerous contract extension. He was a team leader, so perhaps loyalty to his teammates. Maybe he wanted to finally win a playoff game here. Maybe he didn't want to pack his family up and move cross country in the twilight of his career.
If Whit thought this team had no shot of winning a playoff game, then he should have never been a team captain. How is a captain supposed to get the other players to give 100% when they don't believe they can succeed themselves?
The Rams aren't close, dude. We all know that. Unless Whit is extremely gullible, he's not buying that line. I'm sure if winning was a priority to him, he could have gone to a contender other than the Bengals for less money, but he chose to go to the Rams. He's made a ton of money already in his playing career, so it's not like he needs the biggest payday he can possibly get to set himself up for retirement.
Again, I understand that all NFL players have a limited shelf life to get what they can. I have no issue with Whit making a business decision to make as much as he can during his career. My issue is with the notion that the Bengals were wrong to not pay him whatever he wanted because of loyalty, but it's ok for him to cast the notion of loyalty and leave. If the reported $9 mil offer is true, that would've still put him in the Top 16 for LT's this year. It was a reasonable offer for a player his age. It wasn't like he was asked to play for peanuts.
The Rams aren't close? Some 23 different teams have played in a Super Bowl since we've last won a playoff game. Statistically ANY team is closer than us.
Plus, the Rams actually make changes. They hired a new HC, etc.
