Is Shemar holding out?

[NUGDUKWE]

(1 hour ago)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]

(1 hour ago)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]

(48 minutes ago)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]

(49 minutes ago)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]

(1 hour ago)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]

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

(54 minutes ago)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]

(40 minutes ago)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]

(42 minutes ago)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]

(40 minutes ago)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.