12-04-2018, 04:52 PM
(12-04-2018, 04:31 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I didn't read OP's article, but the Whit quote he showed mentions nothing of length, just that the Bengals offer wasn't on par with the others.
You could read that as money or length, really. Something tells me it was a bit of both.
Yeah, the Bengals offered a 1 yr- 10m deal. There had to be some part of Whit that took that offer as an insult, compared to what others were offering. The Bengals could have easily structured the deal in the same way the Rams did...basically a 1 year guaranteed deal, with a 2 yr option that they could walk away from only owing 3m I think.
But, they didn't and now Whit is playing for a legit SB contender and his supposed replacement is such a dud he can't stay off the inactive list even when he's completely healthy and other T's are injured.
