04-12-2016, 01:20 PM
(04-12-2016, 01:01 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: "However, Lapham said the Bengals offered Nelson essentially the same deal they gave Iloka without as much guaranteed money and as many years."
So... not the same deal at all, then, got it.
If two of the three important parts of a contract (value, years, guaranteed money) are different, then it's 66% not the same contract, or only 33% similar. That's not the same at all. That's like saying AJ Green (6'4, 207 lbs, 4.50 forty time) and Devon Cajuste (6'4, 234 lbs, 4.62 forty time) from this upcoming draft are essentially the same physically. Sure the weight might be way different, and the speed too, but they're the same height. That's 33%!
Bengals do this a LOT. "Oh, we offered them the same money." or "We offered them the same contract as they signed with the other team." It's the perfect way to make people turn on the players they used to really like and make the Bengals look great for not signing them. How many people disliked JJo after they said they offered him the same money (even though it wasn't)? Now there's someone higher in the thread saying "This makes me not like Reggie Nelson as much as I used to."..... well, it worked, so why wouldn't the Bengals keep doing this?
Meh, it works both ways.
If the Bengals say nothing then the haters all cry about how we never made him any reasonable offer or even tried to re-sign him at all.
Reggie got a 2 year deal with incentives that could push it close to $10 million (only $4 million guaranteed). Even if the Bengals just offered a 2 year deal at $6 million a year like Ilkoa got it was a better deal for Nelson.
People who don't like Reggie because he tried to get more money from another team are wrong. But the people who "don't understand why the Bengals didn't want to pay Reggie" are also wrong.
