jditty47 Posted July 17, 2006 Report Posted July 17, 2006 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...&id=2521762 Quote
ArmyBengal Posted July 17, 2006 Report Posted July 17, 2006 Good article even though I'm not a big fan of Clayton...WHODEY !!! Quote
Kirkendall Posted July 17, 2006 Report Posted July 17, 2006 Will there be more suspensions in the next year? Can teammates count on these players in crunch time? When will the fans tire of the negative stories? How much of a distraction will future problems cause?Legit questions. Quote
ArmyBengal Posted July 17, 2006 Report Posted July 17, 2006 Will there be more suspensions in the next year? Can teammates count on these players in crunch time? When will the fans tire of the negative stories? How much of a distraction will future problems cause?Legit questions. Agree, but so is, "Will Carson be back for the opener and what kind of impact will this injury have long term?" and "What kind of progress is being made with the contract extensions of the Bengals offensive line and how will the deals not getting done affect the future of the offense?" but character issues are just juicier. I do agree with your opinion of them being legit questions though...WHODEY !!! Quote
bengalboomer7 Posted July 17, 2006 Report Posted July 17, 2006 All legit questions, and a lot of the same questions asked by PFT when they ranked us #19. Quote
BengalsMan3203 Posted July 17, 2006 Report Posted July 17, 2006 Fitting I found this on the front page of cbs.sportsline today at 3:30 PM. Quote
bengalboomer7 Posted July 17, 2006 Report Posted July 17, 2006 Nationally, we are definitely getting a black eye Quote
Stripes Posted July 17, 2006 Report Posted July 17, 2006 Nationally, we are definitely getting a black eye Can't wait for the Bengals to punch back once they hit the field. Quote
HairOnFire Posted July 17, 2006 Report Posted July 17, 2006 Not since the heyday of the NBA's Portland Jail Blazers has a franchise defied the character questions this much. The Trail Blazers kept drafting lottery picks with character problems. Fans became outraged at the constant headlines of arrests and misdeeds and turned on the team. You remember the jokes. Their team charter was ConAir.The Trail Blazers are an interesting parallel to the Bengals. An interesting parallel? I don't think so. The Trail Blazers used lottery picks on character risks, and then added to their misery by adding free agents who came with just as much baggage. With a single exception the Bengals have limited their risk to 3rd round picks or less, and of all of the players being criticized only Odell Thurman plays a starting role on a 53-man roster. More importantly, the Bengals best players...the very ones the team is actually built around...are high character players. Quote
Kazkal Posted July 17, 2006 Report Posted July 17, 2006 True that Odell is the only starter out of bunch mybe brooks in the future,Henry is a 3rd WR mybe 2nd mybe in 3years if he cleans up his act...Rucker well DE depth AJ Depth .... But we need someone like Odell in the middle of our defense to be a force I like landon but i'd take odell anyday over him we need a force we need character not a silent leader who leads by example. Quote
ArmyBengal Posted July 17, 2006 Report Posted July 17, 2006 All these maybe's being thrown around is crazy... Well...Maybe Carson never fully regains his leg strength...Maybe Rudi gets hit by a bus...Maybe Deltha and Tory become priests and leave the NFL...You get the picture...WHODEY !!! Quote
DC_Bengals_Fan Posted July 18, 2006 Report Posted July 18, 2006 Not since the heyday of the NBA's Portland Jail Blazers has a franchise defied the character questions this much. The Trail Blazers kept drafting lottery picks with character problems. Fans became outraged at the constant headlines of arrests and misdeeds and turned on the team. You remember the jokes. Their team charter was ConAir.The Trail Blazers are an interesting parallel to the Bengals. An interesting parallel? I don't think so. The Trail Blazers used lottery picks on character risks, and then added to their misery by adding free agents who came with just as much baggage. With a single exception the Bengals have limited their risk to 3rd round picks or less, and of all of the players being criticized only Odell Thurman plays a starting role on a 53-man roster. More importantly, the Bengals best players...the very ones the team is actually built around...are high character players.Now that's a really good point, and one that's lost on the media somewhat - if the Bengals want, they can punt on Nicholson and Rucker now. The 3rd would hurt, as that's higher than you'd like to blow (unless you're the Broncos, and Clarett is on the board). But one could get rid of them. And Henry, while he's a very good 3rd receiver, is a 3rd receiver.I'm interested in learning more about the Odell thing, that one was disappointing as he's the one I thought turned the corner.Of course, the only problem with your theory is that one is stuck in the position of hoping the felons are good enough to help the team, but leery of trusting them with starting jobs because you just know that arrest/suspension/shooting is coming. Quote
ArmyBengal Posted July 18, 2006 Report Posted July 18, 2006 Henry, while perceived as a 3rd receiver because of Chad and TJ, was all of the #2 and has the potential to be a #1 receiver on many teams in the NFL. A true shame...WHODEY !!! Quote
HairOnFire Posted July 18, 2006 Report Posted July 18, 2006 Now that's a really good point, and one that's lost on the media somewhat - if the Bengals want, they can punt on Nicholson and Rucker now. The 3rd would hurt, as that's higher than you'd like to blow (unless you're the Broncos, and Clarett is on the board). But one could get rid of them. And Henry, while he's a very good 3rd receiver, is a 3rd receiver.I'm interested in learning more about the Odell thing, that one was disappointing as he's the one I thought turned the corner.Of course, the only problem with your theory is that one is stuck in the position of hoping the felons are good enough to help the team, but leery of trusting them with starting jobs because you just know that arrest/suspension/shooting is coming. Actually, the Bengals are in the best position to judge whether the players they're considering for starting jobs are a great risk to melt down. They've interviewed these players. They've read the background reports written by scouts, coaches, and police officers. Guys like John Clayton simply scan the surface and write a newspaper article detailing information that everyone already knows. By comparison, the Bengals can judge the players up close and in person, and after drafting them can weigh their growth and determine if they're worthy of assuming a starters position in the future. Last, the Clarett example is a good one because it took place away from the frenzy that has sprouted from Chris Henry's spectacular implosion. The Broncos rolled the dice on with a late 3rd round pick and it failed completely....with absolutely no lasting harm done. One year later it's a non-story. In fact, even the outraged amongst us has had to come to grips with the fact that good teams like the Broncos and the Bengals can absorb the loss of a late 3rd round pick without so much as a bump or a hitch. And if those risky players fail then you can simply add them to the list of vagabond players who make brief appearances ...and are later cut for a multitude of reasons from the roster of every NFL team. BTW, I'll go so far as to opine that teams who routinely take calculated risks on these types of players can justify their actions even if most of the players blow up. No kidding, all you have to do is hit now and then on a Carl Pickens, a Corey Dillon, a Chad Johnson, or an Odell Thurman and you've got yourself all of the justification you'll ever need. Quote
derekshank Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 On Dan Patrick's radio show today, he had Randy Moss, Corey Chavous and Phil Simms on the show(a wide range of characters there), and he asked all of them if the character questions were overstated. They all agreed that the media cares a lot more than football GM's do. Simms even mentioned that in football, you have to have a couple guys that are "bad" guys because the rosters are so big, that without any friction, teams generally lack motivation and strength.Just an interesting insight from a "good character" guy. Chavous also mentioned that good character and bad character guys are defined by where they have been caught. He said that you are a good character guy if you haven't made a headline... but when it comes to in the locker-room, it's all the same. Every team has them. This is nothing but a media frenzy, and has very little to do with on-the-field production. Quote
ArmyBengal Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 On Dan Patrick's radio show today, he had Randy Moss, Corey Chavous and Phil Simms on the show(a wide range of characters there), and he asked all of them if the character questions were overstated. They all agreed that the media cares a lot more than football GM's do. Simms even mentioned that in football, you have to have a couple guys that are "bad" guys because the rosters are so big, that without any friction, teams generally lack motivation and strength.Just an interesting insight from a "good character" guy. Chavous also mentioned that good character and bad character guys are defined by where they have been caught. He said that you are a good character guy if you haven't made a headline... but when it comes to in the locker-room, it's all the same. Every team has them. This is nothing but a media frenzy, and has very little to do with on-the-field production. Nice catch and nicely put !!! Thought we were going to have to revoke your title of "The Self-Appointed Voice of Reason" away !!!WHODEY !!! Quote
HairOnFire Posted July 20, 2006 Report Posted July 20, 2006 On Dan Patrick's radio show today, he had Randy Moss, Corey Chavous and Phil Simms on the show(a wide range of characters there), and he asked all of them if the character questions were overstated. They all agreed that the media cares a lot more than football GM's do. Simms even mentioned that in football, you have to have a couple guys that are "bad" guys because the rosters are so big, that without any friction, teams generally lack motivation and strength.Just an interesting insight from a "good character" guy. Chavous also mentioned that good character and bad character guys are defined by where they have been caught. He said that you are a good character guy if you haven't made a headline... but when it comes to in the locker-room, it's all the same. Every team has them. This is nothing but a media frenzy, and has very little to do with on-the-field production. Yeah, I was listening to the show but in the Los Angeles area they broke away to Angels baseball so I didn't get to hear the main rant about character. However, I will add that earlier in the show Patrick asked Dan Marino what he felt and Marino answered..."There's a rush in the media to be the first source to sensationalize any story." That response prompted Patrick to change the subject immediately....no doubt because he was going to try his hand at doing just that in less than an hour. Simm's remarks about motivation are surprising, but those of Corey Chavous are exactly what ex-Viking Robert Smith said earlier in the week. In fact, I'd have to say that most ex-players who have commented on the issue have been overwhelmingly in agreement that the media either doesn't understand the character issue or is simply trying to cook the story in the hopes that it'll sell newspapers. Quote
ArmyBengal Posted July 20, 2006 Report Posted July 20, 2006 is simply trying to cook the story in the hopes that it'll sell newspapersThere would be a lot of buyers from this board !!! WHODEY !!! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.