It's a risk/reward decision. His decision to make and he made it. Same as AD. Though I don't believe it ever came out of his or his agents mouth, I'm pretty sure that AD would not have played under the tag if the Rams had tried to franchise him, and, if that happened, I wouldn't have blamed him. I would have blamed the Rams. Just like the cheap ass Steelers are 100% to blame, IMO, for Bell not playing this year with their relatively shitty contract offer. I think Bell not signing the franchise tag is a good thing for the league's players (particularly elite rookie RBs). If failing another drug test and getting suspended was a factor, the Steelers could have structured a contract offer that reflected reduced pay and future guarantees if it happened again. Going forward I think this will make teams more likely to try to reach a contract with their best players than to just assume they will play under the tag. It's one thing to franchise a player when you're not sure about them after playing one good season (e.g. Joyner, and that looks like a mistake now), and another to franchise a star player on their rookie deal, just because you can.