agreen_112 Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Housh stated on this total access interview that going into the bye week, where the guys had 3 days off, that Marvin stated there's going to be 0 tolerance on anyone if they get into trouble. http://www.bengals.com/media/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edogger Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Wow, it is about time he throws his hammer down. It has been embarassing this past year for the Bengals and the last thing they need is another person in trouble with the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Oh no, not 0 tolerance !!! Whatever... I'm I the only one not impressed by him making that statement ?? Where was that when it would have made a difference for some of our troubled rookies ??WHODEY !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlainThePain Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 I don't even see why he would make that statement since he can't cut a player for off the field incidents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 "nods" True that but still nice now because really needs be stopped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agreen_112 Posted October 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Oh no, not 0 tolerance !!! Whatever... I'm I the only one not impressed by him making that statement ?? Where was that when it would have made a difference for some of our troubled rookies ??WHODEY !!!that's what i'm sayin. He should've had that attitude months ago, then maybe we'd still have Thurman and Henry this week. I'm not blaming Marv for their screw-ups, but all I'm saying is that maybe if he was a little more strict than it maybe they would'nt be out screwing around.I don't even see why he would make that statement since he can't cut a player for off the field incidents.waivers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC_Bengals_Fan Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Oh no, not 0 tolerance !!! Whatever... I'm I the only one not impressed by him making that statement ?? Where was that when it would have made a difference for some of our troubled rookies ??WHODEY !!!Um, the rookies were still in college? Nicholson's problems are overblown, but Rucker's crap all happened at USC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Oh no, not 0 tolerance !!! Whatever... I'm I the only one not impressed by him making that statement ?? Where was that when it would have made a difference for some of our troubled rookies ??WHODEY !!!Um, the rookies were still in college? Nicholson's problems are overblown, but Rucker's crap all happened at USC. Um, I'm talking about Henry and Thurman when they were rookies... Should've clarified. Just figured people would know who I was talking about when it came to "issues"...WHODEY !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacD BengalFan Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 I don't even see why he would make that statement since he can't cut a player for off the field incidents.waiversA player being cut is the same as placing them on waivers and no team can do either for off field problems. The most a team can do is suspend a player for up to 4 games without pay and then place them on the inactive list, with pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalboomer7 Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 I don't even see why he would make that statement since he can't cut a player for off the field incidents.waiversA player being cut is the same as placing them on waivers and no team can do either for off field problems. The most a team can do is suspend a player for up to 4 games without pay and then place them on the inactive list, with pay.They can do it, you're just looking a a grievance filed by the NFLPA if you do. Case in point-Koren Robinson and the Minnesota Vikings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agreen_112 Posted October 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 I don't even see why he would make that statement since he can't cut a player for off the field incidents.waiversA player being cut is the same as placing them on waivers and no team can do either for off field problems. The most a team can do is suspend a player for up to 4 games without pay and then place them on the inactive list, with pay.They can do it, you're just looking a a grievance filed by the NFLPA if you do. Case in point-Koren Robinson and the Minnesota VikingsTrue it just happened again in San Diego with that cornerback that beat his wife/girl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC_Bengals_Fan Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Oh no, not 0 tolerance !!! Whatever... I'm I the only one not impressed by him making that statement ?? Where was that when it would have made a difference for some of our troubled rookies ??WHODEY !!!Um, the rookies were still in college? Nicholson's problems are overblown, but Rucker's crap all happened at USC. Um, I'm talking about Henry and Thurman when they were rookies... Should've clarified. Just figured people would know who I was talking about when it came to "issues"...WHODEY !!!See, that's the problem, there's been so many you need to be specific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasher Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Well, it has worked so far. No arrests since the Thurman incident after the Pissburp game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Oh no, not 0 tolerance !!! Whatever... I'm I the only one not impressed by him making that statement ?? Where was that when it would have made a difference for some of our troubled rookies ??WHODEY !!!Um, the rookies were still in college? Nicholson's problems are overblown, but Rucker's crap all happened at USC. Um, I'm talking about Henry and Thurman when they were rookies... Should've clarified. Just figured people would know who I was talking about when it came to "issues"...WHODEY !!!See, that's the problem, there's been so many you need to be specific. And why Marvin's rhetoric of "zero tolerance" should have come far sooner than it has. It seems meaningless to me now !!!WHODEY !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 And why Marvin's rhetoric of "zero tolerance" should have come far sooner than it has. It seems meaningless to me now !!!WHODEY !!!Agreed. However, keep this in mind. What he says to the media (indirectly to you) and what he may say behind closed doors, I will bet are VASTLY different. While he may be saying this now, we have no idea what's been said before to his team behind closed doors. Could this simply be a PR move? Or did he finally go to the press with what he said to the players a few weeks ago letting them know that WE know now? Humm.... Marvin = Spinster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 I will DEFINITELY give you that one Kirk !!!WHODEY !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.