Re: Rudi Johnson threatening to sit out
I don't like these comments because the "Franchise Tag" policy is part of the CBA agreed to by the player's association. The players as a group agreed to this stipulation knowing that these exact situations will happen regularly. Why should a team not use it if it's to their benefit? As a player, Rudi agrees to be subjected to the franchise tag. I don't like players who act like the rules don't apply to them and somehow they're an exception. Sitting out for Rudi would be the worst thing he could do for his career. Running backs who sit out a year are going to lose something.
As far as the Bengals are concerned, if there's no one else they feel warrants the franchise tag, then they should absolutely use it on Rudi. That way, if he does go elsewhere, they get draft picks, which Marvin has shown he knows what to do with (except for Perry). There's really no downside to it. If he sits, they don't have to pay him. If he goes elsewhere, they get draft picks. The only downside is the "chemistry" argument. And Rudi doesn't seem like the kind of guy who will cause a lot of problems.
I think the Takeo situation was different in a couple of ways. Lewis was brand knew and the Bengals were still a laughing stock and mired in the losing mentality. While they still haven't completely broken through, it's definitely a different mentality and Rudi is part of the new Bengals. Spikes had been through the wrost with the Bengals and wanted out of Cincinnati regardless. Rudi just wants a long-term contract. And more importantly, I really don't think Takeo was all that great. Honestly, he's one of the most over-rated players the Bengals have ever had. I loved the guy's attitude, but from watching him week in and week out, he wasn't that great. And rumor has it that Marvin felt the same way and didn't see any need to pay a great price for Spikes.
Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David