Is Shemar holding out?

[ERIC1]

(06-23-2025, 08:25 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: If the defense was playing much better Lou would not have been fired.

They were playing better and I am sure there are a host of reasons lou was let go

[*rfaulk34*]

(Yesterday, 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.

I've previously changed my stance a bit and stated that if it's an NFL norm for others and the Bengals are trying to newly impliment it, i don't really have an issue with it...with these questions.

1. Are the Bengals adjusting the guarantee payout to match other teams, i.e., are they paying a bigger percentage at signing and then a smaller percentage later, or are they trying to give a smaller amount at signing?
2. Is that part of the issue with Shemar and his agent?
3. Does Shemar just not want to be the first Bengal rookie to have this language in his contract?

If 1 and 2 are true, that's a "Bengals cheap" thing. 
If 3 is true, that's a Shemar thing. 

[NUGDUKWE]

(Yesterday, 03:05 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I've previously changed my stance a bit and stated that if it's an NFL norm for others and the Bengals are trying to newly impliment it, i don't really have an issue with it...with these questions.

1. Are the Bengals adjusting the guarantee payout to match other teams, i.e., are they paying a bigger percentage at signing and then a smaller percentage later, or are they trying to give a smaller amount at signing?
2. Is that part of the issue with Shemar and his agent?
3. Does Shemar just not want to be the first Bengal rookie to have this language in his contract?

If 1 and 2 are true, that's a "Bengals cheap" thing. 
If 3 is true, that's a Shemar thing. 

Honestly it seems like it's all 3. The agent said they don't like the precedent being changed but if it is they need to negotiate that and give something to them and he mentioned specifically the timing of the signing bonus. 

That's why I think this is a Bengals issue. Both sides have made mistakes but changing your contract language only seems fair to give something in return.

[*rfaulk34*]

(Yesterday, 03:16 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: Honestly it seems like it's all 3. The agent said they don't like the precedent being changed but if it is they need to negotiate that and give something to them and he mentioned specifically the timing of the signing bonus. 

That's why I think this is a Bengals issue. Both sides have made mistakes but changing your contract language only seems fair to give something in return.

Pre

cisely!

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(Yesterday, 03:05 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I've previously changed my stance a bit and stated that if it's an NFL norm for others and the Bengals are trying to newly impliment it, i don't really have an issue with it...with these questions.

1. Are the Bengals adjusting the guarantee payout to match other teams, i.e., are they paying a bigger percentage at signing and then a smaller percentage later, or are they trying to give a smaller amount at signing?
2. Is that part of the issue with Shemar and his agent?
3. Does Shemar just not want to be the first Bengal rookie to have this language in his contract?

If 1 and 2 are true, that's a "Bengals cheap" thing. 
If 3 is true, that's a Shemar thing. 

Good questions alright Rfaulk. Yes, if 1 and 2 are true, the Bengals are being cheap to a point so they would take some of the blame.

I tend to agree with Nug and think it is all 3 otherwise this would of been taken care of by now.

[XsandOs]

(Yesterday, 03:05 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I've previously changed my stance a bit and stated that if it's an NFL norm for others and the Bengals are trying to newly impliment it, i don't really have an issue with it...with these questions.

1. Are the Bengals adjusting the guarantee payout to match other teams, i.e., are they paying a bigger percentage at signing and then a smaller percentage later, or are they trying to give a smaller amount at signing?
2. Is that part of the issue with Shemar and his agent?
3. Does Shemar just not want to be the first Bengal rookie to have this language in his contract?

If 1 and 2 are true, that's a "Bengals cheap" thing. 
If 3 is true, that's a Shemar thing. 

(Yesterday, 05:01 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Good questions alright Rfaulk. Yes, if 1 and 2 are true, the Bengals are being cheap to a point so they would take some of the blame.

I tend to agree with Nug and think it is all 3 otherwise this would of been taken care of by now.

I agree with your thoughts and add that since the contract will be fully guaranteed, the issue revolves around the entire $19M of the deal.  

The rookie bonus amounts are on a scale, so pre-determine. But if the Bengals are spreading the bonus payment ($9M) over the course of the contract, then the default language is a proverbial "gun to your head" situation. 

But, if they are paying it out in the first 12 months or so, then I don't see it as much of an issue. Some Teams pay a portion at signing and the rest in December.

Ultimately; if the Bengals are instilling the default language, their bonus payment schedule and annual salary should mirror those of other Teams. 

If they are offering that and Shemar is stuck on the precedent argument, then its on him.

I will add that the CBA reduced the draft pick compensation (especially for the high first rounders) with the stipulation that those contracts be fully guaranteed. I'm not sure which loopholes and why are they being used to side step the spirit of that agreement. But that is what it feels like to me. 

EDIT: 
Is the Henry Ruggs issue the culprit? I would be interested in when did this language start getting incorporated in rookie contracts.

[sandwedge]

(06-23-2025, 01:18 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: I sorta wonder if people were not paying attention to who we were playing those last 5 games when our D finally started getting some stops?

Cowboys - 7-10 playing with backup QB's as starters

Titans  3-14 just awful team

Browns  3-14 same as above

Broncos  10 -7 but a rookie QB and they nearly beat us

Steelers  10 - 7  with a broken R. Wilson whos season was over 5 games ago

Or in other words the teams we were playing and circumstances involved were very favorable to us. So I'm not filled with confidence they can keep that level of play up against better teams this coming season. I hope they do.........but......

I hate this excuse. Doesn't matter who we play, we have to beat them. Would you have been happier if we had lost any game in that playoff run? We almost got in because we beat the teams we had to and the young guys on D were playing better.  

[Ell Prez]

(10 hours ago)sandwedge Wrote: I hate this excuse. Doesn't matter who we play, we have to beat them. Would you have been happier if we had lost any game in that playoff run? We almost got in because we beat the teams we had to and the young guys on D were playing better.  

Who you beat is important. If you can only beat the bottom 5 teams in the NFL and lose to the rest, you’re the 6th worst team in the nfl. Pretty simply logic.

[*ochocincos*]

(10 hours ago)sandwedge Wrote: I hate this excuse. Doesn't matter who we play, we have to beat them. Would you have been happier if we had lost any game in that playoff run? We almost got in because we beat the teams we had to and the young guys on D were playing better.  

True, but beating a team well under .500 is far less impressive than beating a team with a winning record and in contention for playoffs.
And beating those teams with better records may end up having playoff tiebreaker/seeding implications too.

Bengals ended up beating two playoff teams in DEN and PIT, which was a good thing. They nearly squeaked into the playoffs due to a tiebreaker because of it.
But the wins against CLE and TEN really weren't impressive at all. Those are expected to happen and a disappointment if they didn't.