Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About SkinneymulleT

  • Rank
  1. 2008 FA's

    MW, Jeanty and LJ should be kept but as backups. Maybe Fanene bc he should be cheap and could be good if he could stay healthy. Others might be Ok as warm bodies to fill the roster but only if they sign for minimum. The rest can walk/run out of town and not look back lest they be turned into a pillar of salt. Then we could take the money and sign atleast one top fa for the Defense.
  2. Chad's pride the only thing hurt.

    Cant say that I like all of chad's antics but when a man get hit hard in the lower rear of their skull, they are gaurenteed to atleast have their vision partially distorted, if not blacked, as well as a jolt sent down their spine. That is a poorly protected part of the skull. The vision nomalizes quickly but it can scare the hell out of a person, and med staff will always err on side of caution with a head/kneck injury. A hit to that area of the skull also causes many concussions so I think we all must give him the benefit of the doubt on this one and just be glad for him as a Human Being that he is OK.
  3. Ahmad Brooks

    You can call a cat a dog but it doesnt make it so willy. You make all sorts of statments saying you said this or that but where? It isnt in there. I am sure that few if anyone can make out your point(s). And as for assertion that brooks was taken instead of a Top LB FA, you again offer no proof nor a name who that FA would have been, and again Marvins own comments say your wrong and brooks was to be worked into the fold over the next few seasons, but you skip what you cant defend. And look back at the pundits, Webster was paid like and was, according to the media, a Top FA available that year(and I didnt call him the next ray lewis, infact I thought it was a poor pick up). It is you that attempts to revise history based on his performance, which is quite silly willy. Your points seem to go in as many directions as a compass. And porter and thomas play different positions then brooks and in excel in different schemes then we run, so at best they would have had only situational usefulness. And a 3rd rounder is just that, despite the artificial expectation you place on him to be a 1st rounder. He was a 3rd rounder which makes his selection great value even when balanced against his collegiate cannabus use. It seems strange that you knock him as a 3rd rounder selection and then want him to play like a 1st rounder with immediate impact. That appears to be contradictory, but I will let the readers decide. And you say no one was going to take a crack at him then say the 49's were going to? HUH? No one wanted to take him before the bengals did, and not as you posit that no one but the bengals would take him, its a simple difference but I am sure if you ask your teacher she will explain it to you. And the reason he came out early doesnt have any effect on if he is physically or mentally ready to play at the next level and certainly not any effect on if and when he will get injured (another one of your points that is honestly funny). Mistakes a 19 year old made in college should not be the determiner for the rest of their life, unless your GWBush then you get to be president. And Brooks will be a stud. And then you can comeback and try to explain that is what you meant all along...
  4. Ahmad Brooks

    apologies for the unintentional mis-quote, I clearly gain no argumentative advantage with "questions" or "concerns". Did you read the article? The part about being arrested and dismissed from the team? or the injury issues? Why did no one else take a crack at him? What a guy did as a sophomore is as much an indicator of potential upside as the negative behavior he displayed as a junior does for downside. Again, noone is arguing the guys "potential", as it is obvious. Let's just not ignore the downside. Not sure what your saying with regard to drafting a supplemental r3 pick...do you mean that you agree it precludes ML from going after a top FA LB or not? I think the pattern of drafting LB's has meant they felt comfortable with their players and did not need to go into FA to get one. To my knowledge, they brought in Hardy, Webster, Wilkins (not top tier guys) and a host of fringe guys this year to fill in for injuries to Brooks, Jeanty, Marshall, Henderson, etc. Consider if they had gone after a guy like Adalius Thomas instead of taking Brooks. Which would you prefer? Heck, Schlegel was an r3 pick for the Jets (another terrible D) and he got cut and we snapped him up out of absolute need. Also, are you really going to come on here and pull Caleb's schlong? Caleb Miller is a very average player who cannot crack the starting line-up on one of the worst defense's in the NFL. How is that good for an r3 pick? Dazzle us with your explaination! While you are at it explain how any/all r3 picks are a risk to some degree. Such insight should illuminate this board for days. I realize spelling and grammar can slip at times when angrily typing but your statement below left me baffled, so maybe you can explain what this sentence means, as it is unintelligible: "And I know you didn't annoit him as LT, um that was part of the point but I will let you ponder that upon your thrown with your willys." huh? To quote Ralphie Wiggings "Me fail english, that's unpossible." I initially was excited about drafting Brooks, but as the continuation of problems with other Bengals picks occured, it made me more wary of the guys they have selected with questionable character/known issues. We all crossed our fingers that these issues would be addresed and the team would grow up. I hope that Brooks gets healthy and can be the guy to prove Marvin right. SO far, I have seen far too little to think that is the case. Of all the guys, Brooks and Henry have the most upside, so here to hoping it works. Just don't act so surpirsed if it does not. And should that happen, who is to blame for the set-back it causes the team? The correct answer is ML. Your point about sterotypes is utterly idiotic. When the guys with questionable character have all, in one way or another and to varying degrees, exhibited behavior that is detrimental to the team, it is no longer a sterotype, it is patternistic behavior. It has been an acute issue that has materially affected the team and its ability to play and win. It seems to me that you consider the litany of incidents to all be isolated issues, which in no way suggests that there is a problem or that bad decisions were made. Utter ignorance. Open your eyes. I have explained my position about 3 times now, all with the same points, and still have yet to see you address the key issues. Questioning my loyalty as a Bengals fan? fffft. get over yourself. I guess a real fan like you should just blindly accept what product is put on the field, gulp down every ML press conference and smile wildly when they roll the dice with questonable player moves and draft picks. If that is you, then you already know ignorance is bliss. hyperbole rhetoric uh, not sure what you think those words mean or howI applied them to your post but I think you should bookmark that dictionary.com home page for the future. I am sure your dictionairy can point out the difference between a question and a concern. So were are only looking at only top tier FA LB's, a slight difference from a FA LB. And at the time, Webster was a top tier free agent(got paid as such) and was even called the next ray lewis by some. Sorry, should have said "doesn't" preclude but didnt have time to proof read for you king. How do you know no one else took a "crack" at brooks? And again you go back to taking brooks as the reason we have not signed "top tier" LB's. Why? There isnt a shred of evidence to support that. After Brooks was drafted, I remember Marvin saying he would need time to be brought up to speed, which offers no support to him precluding us signing AT. The facts tend to show that one did not impact the other, and you think that drafting brooks prevented us from signing AT, which was about the only decent FA Lb out there and I think he is a 3-4 guy. But Everyone has an opinion. And I read the article and Your Simpsons quote has kinda been overdone everywhere so try to be more original when you attempt to insult and try to find one more on point. You may not have understood the meaning of the sentence but it was gramatically correct. It took me quite some time to read through the poor spelling, missing words and akward sentences from your previous posts but I always assume that stuff can be overlooked by most people. But then their is the wanna-be intellectual that is going to try and appear intelligent by in essence calling me dumb for committing similar gramatical/spelling errors, which means you have in effect called yourself a dumbass. But I digress, the LT comment was in response to you complaint about brooks preseason play. Again the guy came out school early(not by choice grant you) but he is still young and learning, but not fast enough for you. The point is you seem to think a 3rd rounder should have an immediate impact on the starting team and if he does not do so the reason is because he is a bad seed and he did something(was lazy, didnt work out, missed films) to cause this and you think that it is reasonable to assume so. That is silly willy. Since he has been a Bengals he has had no problems and has thus not been detrimental to the team and not "patternistic". So you have sterotyped him as a bad seed for behavior that occurred years ago just as the the media does. So wrong again willy. But that isnt enough for you because he smoked some grass a few years ago and had some injuries following a stellar somphmore season. My comment about Caleb was pointing out just what you did subsequently, that he was a risk as a 3rd rounder("Want a risk at LB in the 3rd, look at Caleb"). I guess you were reading "angrily" and had to say it yourself to believe it. So I explained it for you. And to further explain the unexplainable, You (kingwilly) are the King of the Willys and thus you must have a throne to sit upon when you "hold" court and are surrounded by many willys where judging from your comments you do something to Calebs schlong. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Question...how do you type angrily? I've never done that before. Maybe you could offer some pointers when you try to explain all your other unsubstantiated assumptions and contridictory positions. And what was your point anyway? All I can get out of it is you hate the brooks selection if he fails, and you like it if he succeeds as long as we sign a top tier LB, whos name you dont provide? Oh you are a wise one-eyed.
  5. Ahmad Brooks

    First off, I balance the fact that the guy had a less than desirable college career with the fact that he has had nothing but praise from the Bengals staff. But before you go bananas with all the "potential" talk, he cost an r3 pick as he was taken in the supplemental draft BECAUSE of his college problems. He has undeniable r1 talent that was matched with, as this link calls "questions about his weight and committment" and further tainted with mary jane possession. End result? Booted form UVA, forced into the supplemental draft. Not once do I sterotype the Bengals team the way the national media does. What are you smoking? I cal into question ML's philosophy of taking a chance on guys like this, time after time, thinking he can make it work. Remind me which ones have worked out???? I guess Brooks could be considered one that did but here we find him injured. My causal connection between a guy with previous off-field problems and injuries is admittedly tenuous and speculative but beyond blaming the medical staff, I thought I'd explore that as a possibility. Also, I do not annoint him an LT. At this point I just want a healthy player. I agree that he has all the skills and could very well be the one guy that ML helps turn the the corner and makes the risk pay off. I just need to see more than what we've seen. I made it very clear that I think ML could be resorting to taking these risks since the SoP might not be letting him go after FA's that are proven players due to money. Based on much of what else you "wrote" I'm not sure if you acutally read my posts. Brooks is a very talented guy with limitless potential who got taken in the supplemental draft, instead of r1, because of a series of poor decisions he made. ML chose to roll the dice on Brooks because I think he was curbed from going after a FA LB (Adalius Thomas?) due to SoP. ML found himself in this position due to previous risk picks that did not pay-off, including Pollack, Thurman & Nicholson. Brooks is hurt either due to bad luck or a result of a carry-over of his previously questioned committment to being a football player, which to me includes taking care of ones body. All your rheotric and hyperbole of watching his chase down guys like a lion or whatnot is meaningless. When quoting an article please try to do so correctly, I am sure the author would appreciate it. The article reads "concerns" not "questions". That makes a bit of a differnce when reading the article there willy. Either you made a mistake or you were purposefully lying to try to help your arguement. But either way some vague unknown potential issues are not hard facts about what he did that was so wrong so he should not have been drafted in the 3rd round. And your link provides the following about his "less than desirable college career". And I quote " Brooks, who as a sophomore was named second-team all-American and a semifinalist for the Butkus Award as the sport's best linebacker". I know I sure wouldnt want that in my college bio. What about you Willy? And again how is he a big risk or rolling the dice when he is a 3RD ROUNDER? That is just plain wrong. Want a risk at LB in the 3rd, look at Caleb. He was great value in the 3rd with his still unkown other problems at UVA. He athleticism is matched by few and anyone who reads your post can see that you were against drafting him either then or now, which is dumb. And for you sterotypes, your statment was "guy is unprofessional on several levels I think it is reasonable to think that kind of player is more likely to get a dumb injury due to insufficient preparation (laziness, poor decisions, simple stupidity, take your pick". Um I think that covers about all of them. Are you really a Bengals fan? Also, drafting a 3rd r LB does preclude marvin from signing a vet LB. I think we have like sign like 5 over the past few years, including 1 or 2 top FA. They just havent worked out, and to blame the Brooks selection for that is tarded. The middle of your reply appear to contradict everything else you say so at this point I know your confused or trying to backtrack to save face. And I know you didn't annoit him as LT, um that was part of the point but I will let you ponder that upon your thrown with your willys. Oh, and next time you use the word rhetoric and hyperbole, go look them up in a dictionairy.
  6. Ahmad Brooks

    he of crummy pre-season play...will somehow transform the D into a solid unit. What is being overlooked, or intentionally forgotten, is that Brooks was a big "risk" selection. The reasons were many, all of which can point to attitude and preparation. I think injuries are unpredictable, and certainly not dumb enough to think that "bad guys" get hurt more often but if a guy is unprofessional on several levels I think it is reasonable to think that kind of player is more likely to get a dumb injury due to insufficient preparation (laziness, poor decisions, simple stupidity, take your pick). I think people are so focused on him being out and what he will do when he returns, as evidenced by the whining that he s still out, that they are overlooking/ignoring the bigger issues like this being another of ML's potentially poor decsions. What source do you have for all your info on brooks's many problems and his status as "high risk" when we took him in round 3. First off, anyone selected in the 3rd round is a risk to a degree. Other than him being a little heavy and puffing on an illicit but natural unrefined substance (and who hasnt been there at some time in their college life) what else do you have that pertains to his tenure with the Bengals? All you put forth are sterotypes that the national media puts forth about all Bengals players. In essence, they are all lazy bad seeds who are over paid retards. From what I've read, he has been in shape, worked out hard, studied film and has his weight at the teams requested level. And his on field performance is not all his fault. Part of being a good coach is putting players in a position to suceed. This includes being able identify and to use thier strengths to thier advantage and avoid placing them in positions where teams can exploit their weaknesses, and simplifying the scheme to allow him to do what he does best and being able to communicate the objectives in a way that the individuals understand (and this is not just brooks there is a team wide failure to either understand or execute). There is no disputing that brooks is a rare physical specimen and a great athlete. Brooks chasing down a running back after a catch is awe-inspiring and rarely seen in the NFL. A man that large moving so fluid, I felt like I was marlin perkins watching a lion run down an impala on the great serangetti. Brooks can blitz like no other backer we have had here for years that it takes a double team to stop him (and I cant recall an LB that could bring the wood on a blitz like he does ever, not even tko). He problems are systemic of the entire defense and coaching, i.e. being out of place, confusion about the call and situational objective, not receiving good coaching about the mistakes he has made. And one man does not an army make. This is essentially his rookie year and you want him to be LT. Well LT joined a D with a number of player in place that allowed him to do one thing...getting to the QB. Although he has been injured most of the year, even with him we have sub-par LB's at other positions that get no support up front from out lackluster d. line. And although Brooks has not shown that he can play run, pass, and rush, where were you when we drafted a one dimensional d-lineman out of georgia in the 1st round? Talk about risk. Did you say he is stupid and lazy because he SUCKED at playing linebacker and couldnt tackle anyone in the open field. If anything, brooks greatest weakness is he is unsure of what he is to do.
  7. Ahmad Brooks

    I believe his groin injury was orignally misdiagnosed by the medical staff as an ectopic pregnancy, which as you can imagine, has set him back both physically and emotionally.
  8. 5 that would have made a difference

    He was suspended from the team I believe?
  9. 5 that would have made a difference

    I would have taken odell anyday. He was worth the risk. I guess scouts might have been able to predict his fall but I was thrilled when we got him. KW also looked good at the time, and he did perform well enough with a few td's and some entertaining dance moves, but we got henry(or had) to fill the 3rd reciever role and he became expendable. I wish we had him now to fill our 3rd receiver role. The other late rounders are total 20/20 hindsight, although many including myself have been begging for a safety(not darnell bing) and ko was ripe, and dummerville seemed like a no brainer(i think there is a pun in there somewhere). Caleb and Landon were reaches. I think that is the bigger issue, that we took to many players that would have been available in later rounds(see frostee the snowman). Also is at issue is ML's blind loyalty to players he drafted. It seems at times he is more interested in proving himself right, rather than putting the best players on the roster/field.
  10. Why can't Whitworth play RT?

    I don't know about "most" but yeah, there was no shortage of people who waved away any concerns about Steiny walking by pointing to da Bear. With the always handy benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it's looking more and more like letting Eric go while keeping Justin was exactly the wrong thing to do. If we let justin walk and our d is like it is now, all we would have heard about is all the lop-sided balance of money allocated to the offense and how if we kept justin how much better our pass rush would be, but justin has been a solid player for years, never getting injured and being very productive...so damned if you do...but I was in favor of keeping stieny and letting willie and booby walk, but that is in the past. Steiny is more versitile, athletic and is smart. Our run game sucks, in part to the lack of ability of our gaurds to pull and block in space, something steiny did very well.
  11. Feeling a lot like 1987 to me

    Since you either are or appear to feign ignorance and cant read what was written, I will repeat that his premise is "poor roster management" and "playing starters" and that marvin or mike brown is to blame for such. When your "starters" or 1st stringers cant play because of injury, what can you do? You can bring in someone else in which case you must make room on the roster. If this is done your "injured starters" cannot return this season and that would be stupid if you expect them to return in a couple of games. Or you can allow the players who are not starters and are special teams players/subs to play both for a couple of games until your "starters" return. Simple simon. I guess in your world you consider a bunch of guys who were not on the team when we broke camp to be starters, and you want everyone who is hurt to be put on IR so we can sign a bunch of special teams players so that our 3-4 stringers can get some rest during the game? Pure genius . Why didnt marvin think of that. He should be fired!
  12. Feeling a lot like 1987 to me

    I was thinking just the opposite, the injuries have lead to overuse of some of the starters this season. Which in turn has lead to more injuries, a vicious cycle. How can they be over-used in 1-2 games. Stupid. And were is the proof? Any stats showing increase number of plays? Maybe the last game, but the "starters" were injured in the preseason-1st game. This is WEEK 4. It is our 3rd stringers are getting hurt because our starters were already out. And the only real injuries to speak of are at linebacker. No dline injuries. No secondary injuries except jj who missed 1 game. The oline doesnt rotate so that is stupid to say about them too. CJ and TJ are not injured and are normally always on the field. Rudy is an everydown back and so would normally play alot with kw coming in on 3rd down. What, do you want carson to rotate with fitzpatrick? Ignorant. Well it seems you have reinforced my position that certain players are always on the field. The poor roster management I was referring to is that we have six safeties on the roster and currently only three healthy LB's. The overuse comes into play when most of the players on special teams are pulling double duty. True, most teams have some starters on special teams, but not to the extent that the Bengals have had to use them. At some point don't you think that those who are pulling double duty are getting fatigued at the end of games and may be susceptible to mental breakdowns in coverage. Just a thought, but it seems fairly obvious that the trouble we have had on special teams has come late in games. Um, your premise is about poor roster management causing over playing of starters thus causing injury, not certain players are always on the field, causing a breakdown on special teams. Read your own post next time before you change your premise again. If we have not played but 4 games, and the injuries occured in or before the first game, then ispo facto they cannot be caused by over play because they have not been overplayed. And you gloss over the fact that almost the entire offense never rotates on any team, and the only injuries on d are at linebacker. And what d starters are on special teams and have been hurt? (landon is not a starter but a second stringer forced into a starting role by injury/suspension as are the others that play special teams). Once the roster is set in camp, when starters get hurt or are suspended most teams have no choice but to play those who have practiced at special teams or sign those who have not practiced and risk a greater "breakdown". Then the team would be forced to IR some players to make room which you may need if they can get healthy in a few weeks. And you cant pup if they practice. So pick your poison.
  13. Feeling a lot like 1987 to me

    I was thinking just the opposite, the injuries have lead to overuse of some of the starters this season. Which in turn has lead to more injuries, a vicious cycle. How can they be over-used in 1-2 games. Stupid. And were is the proof? Any stats showing increase number of plays? Maybe the last game, but the "starters" were injured in the preseason-1st game. This is WEEK 4. It is our 3rd stringers are getting hurt because our starters were already out. And the only real injuries to speak of are at linebacker. No dline injuries. No secondary injuries except jj who missed 1 game. The oline doesnt rotate so that is stupid to say about them too. CJ and TJ are not injured and are normally always on the field. Rudy is an everydown back and so would normally play alot with kw coming in on 3rd down. What, do you want carson to rotate with fitzpatrick? Ignorant.
  14. When do we find out officially who comes back @ KC?

    This is probably a topic for a separate thread but while I've critisized the Perry pick mightly over the years he was not known to be injury prone at Michigan. Bad breaks happen, and God knows the kitties have had more than their fair share, but beyond the debate over whether we should have taken Perry is the fact that for some reason he's been unable to remain vertical for more than a few games at a time. Now, whether he turned out to be more brittle than advertised or whether our "crack' medical staff has somehow contributed to his problems is interesting to me. What say you all.....? During his college career Perry was extremely durable and one could argue that he was worn down. Sounds alot like another former 1st round selection....Kagina. CP is made of glass. He was never touched at michgan.
  15. Offense? What Offense!

    Rudy has been ridden hard for 4 years now. Historically, when backs get as many carries as he has their production falls off significantly. He is broken or nearly so. Our change of pace backs break with 1 play. Willie is a fatburger. Guychech is MIA and we have a cast off from the cardinals as his replacement. Levi MIA. Whitworth is large but has not impressed. What choice do we have but to air it out?