New helmet rule non-issue for Tremaine Edmunds, Bills..why Bears?

GREENVILLE, NC - SEPTEMBER 16: Running back Tyshon Dye
GREENVILLE, NC - SEPTEMBER 16: Running back Tyshon Dye /

The Buffalo Bills had no issue conceding the helmet rule suspension clause in their negotiations with Tremaine Edmunds. Why are the Chicago Bears stuck on it with Roquan Smith?

One question that emerged from the new reports that the holdup in the Roquan Smith contract is the new helmet rule was why is Smith the only player affected by it? Yes, it is year one of a new rule, and that is why things are dicey for Smith. So, every other rookie signed this deal, right?

Right. The exception is that this rule is centered almost specifically around Smith and the linebacker position. Linebackers make the most tackles. They are subject to the most targeting fines, see Danny Trevathan last season. This issue is much more pressing for linebackers than other positions.

It brings the next question, why is Tremaine Edmunds in camp? According to the Athletic, which is behind a paywall, the Buffalo Bills had no issue excluding the language that an on-field suspension could cost Edmunds guaranteed money.

The story mentioned that Edmunds and Smith have the same agent. This agent is asking the Chicago Bears the same demands as the Buffalo Bills. The Buffalo Bills said no problem without any issue. The Chicago Bears are not doing the same. Why?

One reason would be the draft slot of Smith. Being selected so high, Smith is subject to more guaranteed money. Still, this is not much money when you break down their draft slots.

The Bears are fighting this fight for $6 million over the course of four seasons and $1.5 million four years from now.

Related Story. Bears should stand down in Roquan Smith hold out. light

The Buffalo Bills took a good look around and realized that Edmunds holding out was not worth that small issue. They understand that this new rule is subjective and may not even be in place beyond this season. They agree with Edmunds, Smith and their agent that being a victim of this rule next season should not cost a player the potential to earn guaranteed money. Why do the Chicago Bears not agree?