Yesterday, 10:33 AM
(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.
