clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Is signing Landon Johnson a priority?

New, comments

People will use Landon Johnson as an example of how cheap the Cincinnati Bengals are. Question is, do you really think that Landon is a good example? I like Landon's durability and stability. He's a good guy and all that. But why do people complain about how cheap the front office is when the team never thought that Landon was worthy of being a starter -- and not because someone else got injured.

Furthermore, little has been reported regarding Landon's demands and what the Bengals are offering.

But I found little that really validates "Big C's" argument. And comments like "It's not always about the money you know" doesn't really endear me to follow Holmes' thinking. It's ONLY about money. That's why veterans fade and unproven rookies get more guaranteed money each season. Money is the reason why a team does well -- either through spending or salary-cap mastery -- or has a Snyderism attached to their mascot. If you can't master your finances or plan well in advance, then you have dead money and cap issues.

Furthermore, the line of thinking of paying someone -- because it's not about the money -- simply in regards to loyalty, has been a horrible experience for Cincinnatians.

Like I said, I like Landon. Would love to have him back. However, not knowing the deals offered, I can't say that the team is playing cheap on this one (nor am I saying that they're not cheap). I just think they have more things to worry about than signing Johnson to a deal right now.