This hidden detail might explain Shemar Stewart's Bengals standoff

There is a ton of reporting circulating about why Cincinnati Bengals first-round draft pick Shemar Stewart refuses to sign his contract.

This major issue appears to be a clause that the Bengals now include in their contract language for their first-round draft picks, which could potentially void guarantees due at later dates.

The argument from the other side is, why must Stewart be the first first-rounder that Cincinnati uses this clause on? It is not that this language does not exist in other first-round contracts. The sticking point is that the Bengals are trying to introduce this into their way of doing business for the first time. 

Cincinnati is trying to catch up with the rest of the NFL. Is that not what the naysayers are calling for? Guess not. 

But could it be something else? Could this holdup be about someone else?

Why is Shemar Stewart holding out over his rookie contract?

The biggest issue may not be the clause itself, as other teams also use it. For example, the third overall pick, Abdul Carter, signed his contract, which includes the now-controversial provision.

Who the Bengals did not use the clause on could be at the crux of the issue. And we are not talking about Amarius Mims.

For Stewart and his team, they are publicly saying that Mims and Myles Murphy inked deals that do not void future guaranteed money. However, their unspoken main issue may be that Murphy did not sign an agreement that includes that language.

Zac Hiller of LAA Sports and Entertainment, and Stewart’s agent, may think that a player drafted at the same position just two years earlier who has not produced to the level of his draft selection should not get preferential treatment over his client. And quite frankly, we would think the same thing in his position. 

The Mims contract could be covering up the fact that Murphy, another young defensive end drafted even later in the first round, did not have to do this.

During his talk with the media, Stewart said, “If I was the GM or if I was the owner, take all my money, but I guess they don’t offer it like that,“ referring to Trey Hendrickson. Noticeably absent is what he would provide Murphy in terms of compensation. And why would he?

Stewart also said that the Bengals’ front office is more interested in winning arguments than games. That argument he could be referring to is juxtaposing Murphy’s and Stewart’s contracts.

The discussion surrounding the drafting of Stewart often includes the part about serving as insurance in case the Bengals have to trade Hendrickson. With that negotiation heading in a more positive direction, all eyes could quickly turn to what to do with Myles Murphy.

The team may have seen enough from him to know that things are not going to work out regardless of what happens. In that case, Stewart may be an alternative to Murphy, not Hendrickson. 

So why would Stewart and his agent want to sign a stipulation that the guy they will replace potentially did not have to? They wouldn’t. 

And Stewart, obviously confident in his abilities, would feel somewhat insulted at the idea of making him do something Murphy did not have to. Understandably, both sides could dig in on contract language at this point, turning something that should be easy into something complicated.

Cincinnati is trying to catch up to the rest of the NFL while Stewart is looking at Murphy and possibly saying, “If he did not have to, I’m not going to.” It would go a long way in explaining why Stewart is so adamant about signing a contract without this stipulation.

We are not privy to the negotiations between the two parties beyond the public barbs. So, even if the holdup is Murphy’s contract language, we may never know. 

That is, until the next Hard Knocks or another reality show stops by the Queen City. Then we may get some insights into what is going on. Or we can wait until one of the principals involved does a podcast.

We may get the answers one day. But more than likely, we will forget all about this once Stewart signs his contract and the whistle blows in September.