Is Shemar holding out?

[NUGDUKWE]

(Yesterday, 11:48 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 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.

I didnt like the interview especially since he hasn't done anything yet. But I do agree with him and his agent here. Regardless what triggers the default language the Bengals should be willing to give something if they are trying to implement new language for them. Seems reasonable and something that will but probably shouldve already been done. Some unnecessary bad publicity.

[sandwedge]

(Yesterday, 11:48 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 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.

I still do not believe it has anything to do with on the field penalties, there would be a lot of players not getting guaranteed money, because this clause is pretty standard throughout the league.

[NUGDUKWE]

(Yesterday, 12:06 PM)sandwedge Wrote: I still do not believe it has anything to do with on the field penalties, there would be a lot of players not getting guaranteed money, because this clause is pretty standard throughout the league.

I don't know the exact wording of the Bengals contract. I also doubt it can be triggered by on the field penalties. But while the default language is becoming standard among 1st rd picks the exact wording of the default language varies from team to team. So it is possible that the Bengals version is stricter than other teams.

[sandwedge]

(Yesterday, 12:05 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: I didnt like the interview especially since he hasn't done anything yet. But I do agree with him and his agent here. Regardless what triggers the default language the Bengals should be willing to give something if they are trying to implement new language for them. Seems reasonable and something that will but probably shouldve already been done. Some unnecessary bad publicity.

What do you mean "willing to give something"?

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(Yesterday, 11:24 AM)ERIC1 Wrote: 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?

Your first statement is incorrect, as a quick search proves, the next two are suspect, subjective claims, and the last is a non sequitur fallacy.

If you want my attention, you need to do better.

[ERIC1]

(07-04-2025, 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, 12:00 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: 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. 

Bengals issues on defense were far more than a lack of pass rush and even given that he had the opposing quarterback running for his life anytime he was in tha backfield..regardless..trashing a pick when not a single game has been played is nonsensical..you and others continue to dwell in the past when..in fact..this franchise has done remarkably wel, the past four years and had it not been to an overabundance of injuries would have gone deep within the playoffs the past two years..the difference between you and I us that I see the glass full and you see it half empty..we can have this discussion mid october and make better determinations...have a great day

[SunsetBengal]

(Yesterday, 12:14 PM)ERIC1 Wrote: Bengals issues on defense were far more than a lack of pass rush and even given that he had the opposing quarterback running for his life anytime he was in tha backfield..regardless..trashing a pick when not a single game has been played is nonsensical..you and others continue to dwell in the past when..in fact..this franchise has done remarkably wel, the past four years and had it not been to an overabundance of injuries would have gone deep within the playoffs the past two years..the difference between you and I us that I see the glass full and you see it half empty..we can have this discussion mid october and make better determinations...have a great day

There were definitely issues other than simply "lack of pass rush". Pass rush has nothing to do with stopping the run. Lack of a NT, veteran LBs missing tackles/allowing ball carrier to drag them downfield, and Safeties being out of position also played a large role in the defensive struggles.

[NUGDUKWE]

(Yesterday, 12:12 PM)sandwedge Wrote: What do you mean "willing to give something"?

Well it appears just simply changing the timing of the signing bonus. They paid Mims 50% at signing and 50% in Dec. So just paying it 100% at signing. I've heard this from Goodberry who talked to the agent and seen it in quotes in another interview with the agent where he implied this or something like that would get the deal done. 

[NUGDUKWE]

(Yesterday, 12:14 PM)ERIC1 Wrote: Bengals issues on defense were far more than a lack of pass rush and even given that he had the opposing quarterback running for his life anytime he was in tha backfield..regardless..trashing a pick when not a single game has been played is nonsensical..you and others continue to dwell in the past when..in fact..this franchise has done remarkably wel, the past four years and had it not been to an overabundance of injuries would have gone deep within the playoffs the past two years..the difference between you and I us that I see the glass full and you see it half empty..we can have this discussion mid october and make better determinations...have a great day

I don't see the Bengals with a glass half empty view. I have been burned by the Bengals with the trust the evaluators/coaches view. So i try and look at it from the outside and take my fandom out of it where I can to give myself a realistic view. 

My whole point on the Stewart pick. Is it's okay to say hes a bad pick because you should be basing on the information you have. We have his tape and college production along with athletic testing. As well as where the team stands. 
1:He had good athletic testing although he didnt do abilities which limit the data.
2: He had terrible production and lack luster parts to his tape.
3: We have the reigning sack leader as well as a 1st rd pick from 2 years ago at said position. On a defense that as you said had a lot of holes to fill or areas of poor play.
Objectively this points to a bad pick for me and it doesnt matter what he does in the future because we are talking about the pick at the time. Hopefully it works out on the better side but that doesnt change the evaluation of said pick right now.

[Luvnit2]

(Yesterday, 12:51 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: I don't see the Bengals with a glass half empty view. I have been burned by the Bengals with the trust the evaluators/coaches view. So i try and look at it from the outside and take my fandom out of it where I can to give myself a realistic view. 

My whole point on the Stewart pick. Is it's okay to say hes a bad pick because you should be basing on the information you have. We have his tape and college production along with athletic testing. As well as where the team stands. 
1:He had good athletic testing although he didnt do abilities which limit the data.
2: He had terrible production and lack luster parts to his tape.
3: We have the reigning sack leader as well as a 1st rd pick from 2 years ago at said position. On a defense that as you said had a lot of holes to fill or areas of poor play.
Objectively this points to a bad pick for me and it doesnt matter what he does in the future because we are talking about the pick at the time. Hopefully it works out on the better side but that doesnt change the evaluation of said pick right now.

It is realistic to have concerns. But when the concerns jump to Stewart is was a bad pick when he has yet to play a snap is not a half full reponse, it is half empty.

It is not just you, a lot in this forum take the leap of negativity, yet I have not seen any fans go the other way and say Stewart is a future all pro.

[NUGDUKWE]

(Yesterday, 01:02 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: It is realistic to have concerns. But when the concerns jump to Stewart is was a bad pick when he has yet to play a snap is not a half full reponse, it is half empty.

It is not just you, a lot in this forum take the leap of negativity, yet I have not seen any fans go the other way and say Stewart is a future all pro.

Okay maybe this helps me make my point a little clearer. Bad pick doesnt necessarily equal a bad player. I'm just saying with the stuff we had on paper at the time of drafting it wasn't a good pick. Now maybe he ends up being a good player. I tend to agree when people say the data suggests he has a limited ceiling which yes maybe is a glass half empty approach. But I've not only been burned by trusting the team in the past but by my own accord of getting overhyped about players that I try and temper my expectations. 

[RunKijanaRun]

(Yesterday, 09:09 AM)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.

If I am not qualified to offer a take because I’m not an NFL GM, then you’re no more qualified to assert that my assessment is incorrect.

Look at the picks our FO has made over the last 15 years, give or take a few. Recent history. Any sort of blind faith in their expertise is sunshine-pumping irrationality.

[Luvnit2]

(Yesterday, 01:23 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: Okay maybe this helps me make my point a little clearer. Bad pick doesnt necessarily equal a bad player. I'm just saying with the stuff we had on paper at the time of drafting it wasn't a good pick. Now maybe he ends up being a good player. I tend to agree when people say the data suggests he has a limited ceiling which yes maybe is a glass half empty approach. But I've not only been burned by trusting the team in the past but by my own accord of getting overhyped about players that I try and temper my expectations. 

I understand your being skeptical, we have plenty of draft picks in rounds 1 or 2 that did not produce a good player. But again, you are admitting you go overboard to the negative because of the past. The past has zero to do with how Stewart will do in the NFL.. He may a complete bust, he may be an all pro or likely at a minimum in the middle, but you went to bad pick.

Just my 2 cents as you can feel or say anything you like. In the end, I know you are hoping you are wrong and it is a great pick. Sadly, others hope for a self fulfilling prophecy and he is bad because they predicted he would be bad.

 They don't care if he is bad then Bengals likely fall short of winning a Super Bowl, they are thrilled they called it. That is not you in my opinion.

[Luvnit2]

(10 hours ago)RunKijanaRun Wrote: If I am not qualified to offer a take because I’m not an NFL GM, then you’re no more qualified to assert that my assessment is incorrect.

Look at the picks our FO has made over the last 15 years, give or take a few. Recent history. Any sort of blind faith in their expertise is sunshine-pumping irrationality.

Is it blind faith or HOPE our draft picks are great? If hope, what is wrong with hope? Again, I have yet to see any fans say he will be an all pro, just hoping he becomes an all pro.

[ERIC1]

(07-04-2025, 07:07 PM)ERIC1 Wrote: He will be in training camp..But I will let the scouting department know of your concerns...Happy 4th

(10 hours ago)RunKijanaRun Wrote: If I am not qualified to offer a take because I’m not an NFL GM, then you’re no more qualified to assert that my assessment is incorrect.

Look at the picks our FO has made over the last 15 years, give or take a few. Recent history. Any sort of blind faith in their expertise is sunshine-pumping irrationality.

Personally I love your posts..especially on game day..but you have a propensity to go from hot to cold within minutes regarding everything

[*rfaulk34*]

(Yesterday, 11:34 AM)ERIC1 Wrote: Please dont speak for me..

i think we all..

You just asked someone not to speak for you, then immediately spoke for a bunch of people. 

Also, deselect isn't that hard to figure out, troll. 

[sandwedge]

(Yesterday, 12:30 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: Well it appears just simply changing the timing of the signing bonus. They paid Mims 50% at signing and 50% in Dec. So just paying it 100% at signing. I've heard this from Goodberry who talked to the agent and seen it in quotes in another interview with the agent where he implied this or something like that would get the deal done. 

I see what you mean