Chad Johnson thread numer 1,068

[COB]

I've been wondering for a couple of years if Chad isn't a large part of Marvin's problems with his team.

What if Marvin has wanted to jap-slap this punk all along but has been handcuffed by his boss and prevented from doing so?

This has been my belief for a couple years now. Last season, Marvin was asked if Chad would be traded. He responded by saying well, he's the owner's favorite player, so no, he's not going to be traded. That said it all to me.

[HoosierCat]

I've been wondering for a couple of years if Chad isn't a large part of Marvin's problems with his team.

I think Chad is just the icing on the proverbial cake. Over Marvin's tenure, if it hasn't been Chad acting the fool, it's some ex-Bengal like Shaun Smith dishing dirt, or Pollack publicly agonizing over his decision to return, or Grumpy Levi whining about starting, or Deltha skipping voluntaries and complaining about his deal, or any one of a dozen players getting arrested for booze or drugs or guns or beating up women, or Dillon tossing his pads into the stands, or Takeo saying he's "done his time," blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda. To steal a theme from one of Sandwedge's posts in the Henry thread, this club ought to change its name to the Cincinnati Drama Queens.

[HairOnFire]

Personally, I think Chad has a point, as least as far as Marvin "taking bullets" for him. From whom? The media? The locker room? The front office?

Well, how about from you? Several months ago you were standing atop a soapbox claiming Marvin Lewis should be fired if for no other reason than the way he lost the locker room, and you repeatedly pointed to Chad's playoff game meltdown as the moment when all was lost.

[HairOnFire]

Funny stuff.

On ESPN's First take they asked if Chad Johnson was worth the aggravation he'd bring, not to the Bengals, but to any other NFL team.

Prompting Skip Bayless to call Chad Johnson a clown.

He then claims the worst part of his job is being forced to respond to "the stupid things clowns like Chad Johnson say".

All of this was enough to make Skip's fellow talking head squirm in his seat and complain that players have a right to express their opinion in any way they saw fit, and it was wrong to call them clowns.

Prompting Bayless to say the press was guilty of enabling "clowns like this".

Bottom Line: They eventually agreed few teams in the NFL would be able to control Chad Johnson over the long haul, and regardless of which team he played for would prove to be an aggravation who wasn't worth the trouble. Furthermore, any interest in Johnson would now be limited to a championship contending team willing to put up with his antics for a few years.

[skyline]

Bottom line, Chad gave in.

Chad said he wasn't going to sit out weeks ago -- in fact, I think it was the day after he raised the possibility in the first place.

Personally, I think Chad has a point, as least as far as Marvin "taking bullets" for him. From whom? The media? The locker room? The front office? But in any event, dumb. You want Chad to change his behavior, let him deal with the consequences of his actions, don't shield him.

People have criticized Marvin since he got here for turning a blind eye to Chad's behavior. Marvin always defended him, saying he's a passionate player, etc., etc. I think that's what Marvin is referring to, and he's dead on in saying that.

In which case I'd hardly describe that as "taking bullets." But again, Chad's right: if people question his behavior, let him answer. It isn't Marvin's job to be Chad's PR flack.

That misses the point.

They are questioning whether Marvin has control of his team because of Chad's behavior. That's something Marvin has to be accountable for, not Chad. So, Marvin has to either tell Chad to shut up and get in line, or he has to take the media's bullets, tell them that Chad's behavior is ok, and to find something else to write about. Marvin is essentially saying that he's willing to continue to defend Chad, and yes...that IS part of his job.

So part of Marvin's job is to enable Chad's bad behavior? To go to war with the media versus telling Chad to shape up? Just want to make sure I have this straight for future reference.

It doesn't matter if he's enabling Chad's behavior or putting a stop to it. Regardless of what he chooses to do, he has to do something, don't you think? Behavior is a coaches responsibility, and with players like Chad on your team, there's always going to be something to answer for.

[HoosierCat]

It doesn't matter if he's enabling Chad's behavior or putting a stop to it. Regardless of what he chooses to do, he has to do something, don't you think?

Well, yes -- but that's just the point: what he chooses to do is going to help determine whether the situation gets better or worse. Which is why I submit your first sentence is nonsense. Of course it matters if he's enabling Chad or not. Cover for him and the situation is guaranteed to worsen.

[skyline]

It doesn't matter if he's enabling Chad's behavior or putting a stop to it. Regardless of what he chooses to do, he has to do something, don't you think?

Well, yes -- but that's just the point: what he chooses to do is going to help determine whether the situation gets better or worse. Which is why I submit your first sentence is nonsense. Of course it matters if he's enabling Chad or not. Cover for him and the situation is guaranteed to worsen.

I think we're arguing different things here. I agree...Marvin would be better off laying down the law.

When I say it doesn't matter what Marvin does, I'm simply saying that he's going to find himself taking heat from the media regarding Chad either way. Taking bullets, if you will. Man, I'm sick of that phrase. And I'm sick of Chad.

Can't this whole mess just go away?

[HoosierCat]

When I say it doesn't matter what Marvin does, I'm simply saying that he's going to find himself taking heat from the media regarding Chad either way.

I think you'd find him taking far less fire if he didn't cover for Chad -- if, when asked by the media about this or that action by his premiere wideout, he simply said, "well, why don't you go ask Chad what I've told him about that." And when Chad does do things he's been told not to -- like celebrate his way into a 15-yard penalty, then his butt get sat down for the next series. Or the next quarter or the next half or the next game, whatever it takes. The media would back him, the fans would back him...

That that hasn't happened leads me to believe that either, one, Marvin "doth protest too much" and isn't as put out by Chad's antics as it would seem; two, Marvin's afraid to tackle the issue of Chad for fear of his loss leading to a season that costs Marvin his job; or three, that the FO wont let him come down on the team's big-bucks wideout.

[HairOnFire]

...whatever it takes. The media would back him, the fans would back him...

Yeah, they'd back Marvin now....because we're seeing the real Chad Johnson. But they wouldn't have backed Lewis previously. In fact, I uttered my first "Trade Chad" mutterings in response to a message board that was filled with demands that Marvin Lewis be fired largely due to claims he had lost control of his players. And as proof of that failure you and many others pointed to Chad Johnson's meltdown during halftime of the 2005 playoff game. Well, call me crazy but I'm still wondering how Lewis could have handled that situation any better than he did. And before any of you offer counterfactual alternatives, ask yourself if you would have supported cutting Chad outright or a trade that would have netted no more than you'd be willing to accept today.

You know you wouldn't have.