Posts: 1,061
Threads: 3
Reputation:
10104
Joined: Oct 2017
(06-28-2025, 02:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: yeah, Houston screwed that up for EVERYONE
The wait and see approach for second rounders was based on the potential outcome of the collusion case against NFL owners. Although the arbitrator ruled against NFLPA, the spillover of the following statement can have consequences for both veteran and non-first round rookie contracts:
“There is little question that the NFL Management Council, with the blessing of the Commissioner, encouraged the 32 NFL Clubs to reduce guarantees in veterans’ contracts at the March 2022 annual owners’ meeting.”
Posts: 3,288
Threads: 27
Reputation:
18950
Joined: Jan 2022
(06-24-2025, 02:29 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Agree, like 20 other teams have had this clause in their rookie contracts for years. The moment the Bengals do it for the first time everybody
jumps on them and acts like they are the worst FO of all time because Shemar was told by his agent not to sign. We can hate on the Bengals
FO but we also have to try and not be biased. I admit it though, I am biased against the agents that don't get the players they represent playing
football for the team that drafted them.
Same with being biased against Trey's dumbass agent.
But Ja'Marr's got his and Tee's deals done so that agent is excluded and doing things the right way in my eyes.
Travis Hunter has been practicing while not being signed. That is a football player. Shemar has let me down listening to his agent and not
practicing. I was one of the few that was behind the pick and now I am not so sure.
After some time reflecting on this issue, I have landed on the same place as you. I have seen some posters saying that if the Bengals are going to implement this clause, then they should give some additional benefit to the Shemar. I don't know why that would be the case. If it's a standard clause other teams have had for years, implementing that should not impact the amount of money dispersed to Shemar.
Furthermore, Shemar should be grateful that he was selected #17, and thus he has been slotted financially that high. There are many analysts that felt this was a reach for someone with so few sacks in college; at any rate, if the Bengals had not selected him, he could have been selected much later and be looking at considerably less money just from fitting into a later slot.
Maybe the Bengals can just throw a little bit more money at him so that he and his agent can save face, but I think it is Shemar that needs to be the one that gives in if indeed it is this clause that he is reacting to by holding out.
1
Posts: 20,561
Threads: 146
Reputation:
178203
Joined: May 2015
Location: Covington, Ky
(06-30-2025, 10:33 AM)Nepa Wrote: After some time reflecting on this issue, I have landed on the same place as you. I have seen some posters saying that if the Bengals are going to implement this clause, then they should give some additional benefit to the Shemar. I don't know why that would be the case. If it's a standard clause other teams have had for years, implementing that should not impact the amount of money dispersed to Shemar.
Furthermore, Shemar should be grateful that he was selected #17, and thus he has been slotted financially that high. There are many analysts that felt this was a reach for someone with so few sacks in college; at any rate, if the Bengals had not selected him, he could have been selected much later and be looking at considerably less money just from fitting into a later slot.
Maybe the Bengals can just throw a little bit more money at him so that he and his agent can save face, but I think it is Shemar that needs to be the one that gives in if indeed it is this clause that he is reacting to by holding out.
1. It's not about extra. It's about the fair payout of existing guarantees. If you have this language and you want to give him 20% at signing and then the other 80% at the end of the year, that's not exactly fair. If you're the signee and you're getting 50%-75% at signing, then the rest at the end of the year, this language is easier to swallow, since you've already gotten the majority up front. It's not really fair to say, sign this, with this language and here's your 20% so if you're a knucklead between now and December, we get to keep the largest portion of what would have been your guarantee.
2. No one should be grateful they signed at any position. If a team drafts you, they like you at that spot. They don't say, "well, we drafted you early so you should be grateful and take less because you weren't projected til pic X". No team does that.
3. It's not about saving face. It's about both sides getting a fair deal.
"Hope is not a strategy"
"The measure of a man's intelligence can be seen in the length of his argument."
Posts: 38,473
Threads: 52
Reputation:
251771
Joined: May 2015
Location: Star Valley, Wyoming
(06-30-2025, 10:33 AM)Nepa Wrote: After some time reflecting on this issue, I have landed on the same place as you. I have seen some posters saying that if the Bengals are going to implement this clause, then they should give some additional benefit to the Shemar. I don't know why that would be the case. If it's a standard clause other teams have had for years, implementing that should not impact the amount of money dispersed to Shemar.
Furthermore, Shemar should be grateful that he was selected #17, and thus he has been slotted financially that high. There are many analysts that felt this was a reach for someone with so few sacks in college; at any rate, if the Bengals had not selected him, he could have been selected much later and be looking at considerably less money just from fitting into a later slot.
Maybe the Bengals can just throw a little bit more money at him so that he and his agent can save face, but I think it is Shemar that needs to be the one that gives in if indeed it is this clause that he is reacting to by holding out.
Agree that if it is a standard clause and similar to what the other teams do, Shemar should of just signed and should be practicing by now.
I saw on Good Morning Football where all the talking heads were saying he should of just kept his mouth shut about the entire thing.
Shemar is the one that is looking bad here and it is hurting him the most by holding out, same with Trey honestly because his agent is simply
not good at his job. We don't know all the details though, so the FO is probably being cheap as well, so they also shelter some of the blame.
In the end as long as Shemar is playing by the regular season, I am happy, I think he will be an upgrade over what we saw from Sam the last
couple years with his athleticism alone. He is a good run stopper and he gets lots of pressures when he keeps his head up.
(06-30-2025, 11:27 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: 1. It's not about extra. It's about the fair payout of existing guarantees. If you have this language and you want to give him 20% at signing and then the other 80% at the end of the year, that's not exactly fair. If you're the signee and you're getting 50%-75% at signing, then the rest at the end of the year, this language is easier to swallow, since you've already gotten the majority up front. It's not really fair to say, sign this, with this language and here's your 20% so if you're a knucklead between now and December, we get to keep the largest portion of what would have been your guarantee.
2. No one should be grateful they signed at any position. If a team drafts you, they like you at that spot. They don't say, "well, we drafted you early so you should be grateful and take less because you weren't projected til pic X". No team does that.
3. It's not about saving face. It's about both sides getting a fair deal.
Yeah, there is a middle ground that needs to be looked at here pretty sure.
But if it is similar to what other teams are doing Shemar has no excuse. Have you read the clause the Bengals put in Shemar's contract or
are you just guessing the Bengals are being that cheap?
Posts: 20,561
Threads: 146
Reputation:
178203
Joined: May 2015
Location: Covington, Ky
(06-30-2025, 01:41 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Agree that if it is a standard clause and similar to what the other teams do, Shemar should of just signed and should be practicing by now.
I saw on Good Morning Football where all the talking heads were saying he should of just kept his mouth shut about the entire thing.
Shemar is the one that is looking bad here and it is hurting him the most by holding out, same with Trey honestly because his agent is simply
not good at his job. We don't know all the details though, so the FO is probably being cheap as well, so they also shelter some of the blame.
In the end as long as Shemar is playing by the regular season, I am happy, I think he will be an upgrade over what we saw from Sam the last
couple years with his athleticism alone. He is a good run stopper and he gets lots of pressures when he keeps his head up.
Yeah, there is a middle ground that needs to be looked at here pretty sure.
But if it is similar to what other teams are doing Shemar has no excuse. Have you read the clause the Bengals put in Shemar's contract or
are you just guessing the Bengals are being that cheap?
Guesstimate based on what i've read about previous contracts and guarantees. The payouts have been a sticking point in several contract negotiations in recent years.
"Hope is not a strategy"
"The measure of a man's intelligence can be seen in the length of his argument."
Posts: 38,473
Threads: 52
Reputation:
251771
Joined: May 2015
Location: Star Valley, Wyoming
(06-30-2025, 02:05 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Guesstimate based on what i've read about previous contracts and guarantees. The payouts have been a sticking point in several contract negotiations in recent years.
Cool.
Posts: 6,370
Threads: 145
Reputation:
29960
Joined: Dec 2021
Romo “ so impressed with Zac ...1 of the best in the NFL… they are just fundamentally sound. Taylor the best winning % in the Playoffs of current coaches. Joe Burrow” Zac is the best head coach in the NFL & that gives me a lot of confidence." Taylor led the Bengals to their first playoff win since 1990, ending the longest active drought in the four major North American sports, en and appeared in Super Bowl LVI, the first since 1988.
Posts: 7,229
Threads: 109
Reputation:
22243
Joined: Aug 2015
He was just a bad pick. And if he’s so concerned about a morality clause that he’s willing to jeopardize millions and a year of his already limited NFL shelf life, he’s telling you who he is. Believe him.
If you see something suspicious, say something suspicious.
Posts: 7,892
Threads: 222
Reputation:
41692
Joined: May 2015
Location: Cave
(07-01-2025, 05:57 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/bengals-participation-agreement-kept-shemar-stewart-out-of-offseason-program
I do not sense that the FO will compromise on the language of the contract. I hope I am wrong. I don't like that he is not practicing.
Posts: 1,101
Threads: 2
Reputation:
2242
Joined: May 2024
(Yesterday, 05:41 PM)RunKijanaRun Wrote: He was just a bad pick. And if he’s so concerned about a morality clause that he’s willing to jeopardize millions and a year of his already limited NFL shelf life, he’s telling you who he is. Believe him.
He will be in training camp..But I will let the scouting department know of your concerns...Happy 4th
1
Posts: 3,729
Threads: 48
Reputation:
21048
Joined: Feb 2024
(Yesterday, 05:41 PM)RunKijanaRun Wrote: He was just a bad pick. And if he’s so concerned about a morality clause that he’s willing to jeopardize millions and a year of his already limited NFL shelf life, he’s telling you who he is. Believe him.
Oddly, I like the idea of him starting opposite Trey, but overall I agree.
Not a great pick, poor attitude, "same old, same old" look, and the franchise is peeing in the pool.
Nothing is going right with this selection.
Posts: 8,663
Threads: 101
Reputation:
23580
Joined: Nov 2015
(Yesterday, 05:41 PM)RunKijanaRun Wrote: He was just a bad pick. And if he’s so concerned about a morality clause that he’s willing to jeopardize millions and a year of his already limited NFL shelf life, he’s telling you who he is. Believe him.
Because he is holding out, does not make him a bad pick, he has been engaged with team just not participating, knight is not signed does that make him a bad pick??
Posts: 7,229
Threads: 109
Reputation:
22243
Joined: Aug 2015
(11 hours ago)Essex Johnson Wrote: Because he is holding out, does not make him a bad pick, he has been engaged with team just not participating, knight is not signed does that make him a bad pick??
Correct. He was a bad pick before the holdout. This just galvanizes it.
If you see something suspicious, say something suspicious.
Posts: 3,617
Threads: 112
Reputation:
20494
Joined: May 2015
(9 hours ago)RunKijanaRun Wrote: Correct. He was a bad pick before the holdout. This just galvanizes it.
It’s impossible to determine if the pick was good or not based on this. This is a ridiculous take. How many FO jobs have you held? Which team has paid for your expertise? I’m really curious to hear.
Posts: 3,617
Threads: 112
Reputation:
20494
Joined: May 2015
(11 hours ago)Essex Johnson Wrote: Because he is holding out, does not make him a bad pick, he has been engaged with team just not participating, knight is not signed does that make him a bad pick??
It is just trolling.
Posts: 4,063
Threads: 20
Reputation:
13720
Joined: Apr 2021
(3 hours ago)Bengalbug Wrote: It’s impossible to determine if the pick was good or not based on this. This is a ridiculous take. How many FO jobs have you held? Which team has paid for your expertise? I’m really curious to hear.
I think we should all be able to look at the pick and say it was a bad pick if we're being honest with ourselves. He had the worst production data in multiple areas in like 30 years of drafted DEs at a position where we drafted a guy 2 years ago in the 1st rd and we have the reigning NFL sack leader wanting a long term deal. All that makes it a bad pick. His data suggests he has a ceiling of a solid B player which you probably don't want in the 1st. We can all hope the data and poor tape are wrong and that he exceeds his expectations. But that doesnt mean right now that it was not a bad pick.
Posts: 1,101
Threads: 2
Reputation:
2242
Joined: May 2024
(Yesterday, 07:07 PM)ERIC1 Wrote: He will be in training camp..But I will let the scouting department know of your concerns...Happy 4th
(Yesterday, 11:49 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Oddly, I like the idea of him starting opposite Trey, but overall I agree.
Not a great pick, poor attitude, "same old, same old" look, and the franchise is peeing in the pool.
Nothing is going right with this selection.
Most scouts felt he was a very good pick.. the most athletic and disruptive lineman in the draft....as far as attitude..did you not listen to his interface with reporters.,he was respectful and articulate..so ..and using your logic...trey hendrickson has a poor attitude?
Posts: 1,101
Threads: 2
Reputation:
2242
Joined: May 2024
(Yesterday, 07:07 PM)ERIC1 Wrote: He will be in training camp..But I will let the scouting department know of your concerns...Happy 4th
(1 hour ago)NUGDUKWE Wrote: I think we should all be able to look at the pick and say it was a bad pick if we're being honest with ourselves. He had the worst production data in multiple areas in like 30 years of drafted DEs at a position where we drafted a guy 2 years ago in the 1st rd and we have the reigning NFL sack leader wanting a long term deal. All that makes it a bad pick. His data suggests he has a ceiling of a solid B player which you probably don't want in the 1st. We can all hope the data and poor tape are wrong and that he exceeds his expectations. But that doesnt mean right now that it was not a bad pick.
Please dont speak for me..i think we all..aside from some franchise first rounders..can say many draft picks taken jn the 2 nd 3rd 4th and 5th rounds...even some that were undrafted..that maybe were not the greatest olayers in college have gone on to have stellar professional careers..lol@ data...tell us about tom bradys data in college...stewart was perhaps the most athletic , disruptive and explosive defensive player in this years draft
Posts: 18,362
Threads: 241
Reputation:
153335
Joined: Oct 2015
(Yesterday, 05:41 PM)RunKijanaRun Wrote: He was just a bad pick. And if he’s so concerned about a morality clause that he’s willing to jeopardize millions and a year of his already limited NFL shelf life, he’s telling you who he is. Believe him.
Wow, the Bengals FO/Hobspin really won that PR war there by making people falsely believe and then repeat that this was just about off-field legal troubles, huh?
It's not a morality clause. It's a "we want to be able to not pay you the money you were guaranteed if we don't want to" clause. Saying something deemed unflattering to the franchise in a postgame interview? Can wipe out 4 years of guarantees. Get suspended a game because a WR on a screen ducked while you were trying to tackle them at the waist? Can wipe out 4 years of guarantees. Get injured working out in a private gym in the offseason? Can wipe out 4 years of guarantees.
And the Bengals don't want to give up anything in return for accepting that when no other Bengals 1st rounder under the rookie wage scale (the 15 previous guys) has had to sign away all their guarantees before.
____________________________________________________________
Posts: 4,063
Threads: 20
Reputation:
13720
Joined: Apr 2021
(40 minutes ago)ERIC1 Wrote: Please dont speak for me..i think we all..aside from some franchise first rounders..can say many draft picks taken jn the 2 nd 3rd 4th and 5th rounds...even some that were undrafted..that maybe were not the greatest olayers in college have gone on to have stellar professional careers..lol@ data...tell us about tom bradys data in college...stewart was perhaps the most athletic , disruptive and explosive defensive player in this years draft
I'm not speaking for you. I said "if we are being honest with ourselves". If you can't look at the Bengals objectively than the statement doesnt apply to you. Also the data literally says that someone with his production profile can't have a "stellar" career that why I said a solid B player. Yes I suppose he could be the 1 player at his position to do so since 2000 but the odds are against him. Why i would say yes we can say it's a bad pick. If all the chips fall right and he breaks the mold great but it's the Bengals and im not betting on it happening. The most explosive defensive player in this years draft does not have the worst tackle for loss production since 2000. I mean people who broke down his tape noted he doesnt have "pass rush moves". I mean let that sink in just a bit and realize we took a guy in the 1st rd who needs to develop pass rush moves.
|