Bengals bungling things up - new rookie contract clause

[Tuco]

6 hours ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

If that's the case, can you please prove it?

 

On what basis are you contradicting the reporting of The Athletic?

 

Actually, I thought I did. Must have forgot the link. That's how it was being reported on multiple sites yesterday. I was going by the quote below that was reported on numerous sites.

 

 

Paul Dehner Jr. of The Athletic shared some insight on the disconnect between Stewart's camp and the Bengals.

 

"It is my understanding they're offering the same language in this clause as the majority of first-round contracts," Dehner tweeted on Thursday. "And, for reference, have offered the exact language of the pick before (Walter Nolen) and after (Grey Zabel). It's different than that of Murphy and Mims the last two years and the Bengals generally structure contracts differently than most teams with guarantees, which matters. But the language being proposed for this specific clause is common across the NFL."

 

 

Now it appears that Stewart's agency denies that it's the same. So, as usual, media reporting is a jumbled mess. But the idea and practice of such language is certainly nothing new. Many teams use it. Here's the latest from SI-

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/bengals/news/watch-cincinnati-bengals-rookie-shemar-stewart-sounds-off-on-contract-talks-with-team-01jxdmmbep85

 

 

Stewart's agency shot this down by replying to Dehner.

 

"Hi Paul - feel free to message us if you'd like accurate information. Thanks!" they tweeted.

 

 

 

Edited 12 hours ago by Tuco

[ColoradoBills]

17 hours ago, Gugny said:

I’ll simplify it. 
 

Let’s get to a Super Bowl before we start making fun of teams that have been to a Super Bowl.
 

 

Evaluating the Cincinnatti Bengals by themselves is a perfectly valid discussion.

Not everything has to be "compared".