Yesterday, 02:29 PM
(Yesterday, 12:54 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: It really doesn't. Maybe a little bit, but this makes the agent look greedy and uncompromising (in a bad way).
It's not a good look for either side, but it's like 85/15 on the part of the agent.
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.
(Yesterday, 02:13 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: Im not rooting for the agent over the FO. Just merely trying to look at it from an outside perspective. Not sure how this makes the agent look bad. Bengals want to change theyre precedent which is fine. They are just asking to give something in return. Seems fair to me.
Perhaps I blame the Bengals FO a bit more here just for the fact this seems like an extremely easy fix yet we've let it drag on where he is almost the last to sign, he made some poor comments to the media and he was the only 1st rd rookie who hasn't done any practice work.
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.
