Odell.....its been nice knowing you.

[Walrus]

The NFL has a say over who is elegible to be drafted -- if they truly feel a player is likely to hurt the league's reputation WHY LET THEM BE DRAFTED AT ALL? Make it easy by taking them off everyone's board.

Hoosier and I kicked this one around a little while back, and rather predictably we reached no agreement.

Regardless, my point was that if the NFL took official action preventing players from being included then it would be an actionable offense that wouldn't stand up to a legal challenge. Hoosier countered by suggesting that the NFL would essentially come to a good old boy agreement that side-stepped the need for official action.

Since a player who right out of school is not yet a member of the players' union, I can't see many having the legal clout to take on the NFL if the league decided to keep them out. (See MoClo.)

Back to the draft, the question that remains is if owners can resist the temptation to refrain completely from drafting a player like Marcus Thomas or if the NFL's new hard-line stance simply means that the risk/reward debate has shifted but remains fundamentally unchanged.

The answer is no. Even players with glaring character flaws will be drafted or picked up as UDFA by an NFL team. It's like throwing rotten apples in the pigs' slop and expecting them not to eat them.

[Scottishbengal]

but look at the brighter side we only have a month to a month and a half to find out if the alcoholic will returns as a bengal.

i'll drink to that!

[HoosierCat]

Since a player who right out of school is not yet a member of the players' union, I can't see many having the legal clout to take on the NFL if the league decided to keep them out. (See MoClo.)

Yup. And not only that, I still can't see how the NFL deciding to say, prohibit drafting players with criminal records, would be actionable (though given the litigious nature of our society I expect someone would try).

[Walrus]

Since a player who right out of school is not yet a member of the players' union, I can't see many having the legal clout to take on the NFL if the league decided to keep them out. (See MoClo.)

Yup. And not only that, I still can't see how the NFL deciding to say, prohibit drafting players with criminal records, would be actionable (though given the litigious nature of our society I expect someone would try).

The point is, though, that this wouldn't really help anyways -- because the NFL wouldn't be able to identify future felons any better than individual teams. Punishing teams just for drafting guys who wind up in trouble is just stupid. Isn't what the Bengals have gone through already with Henry and Thurman (suspension, lost salary cap space, headaches) punishment enough?

Maybe they should go all Clockwork Orange on guys like Henry and Thurman.

[jjakq27]

When all of this broke with Pacman and Henry, some people suggested that WVa should be held accountable in some manner. I just don't see how you could do that.

[HoosierCat]

Punishing teams just for drafting guys who wind up in trouble is just stupid.

Who claimed the NFL was smart? I happen to agree with Mikey that the answer is to give the teams more power to mete out punishment, rather than some kind of team sanction or even commissioner-driven-suspension approach.

I suspect there are other forces at work here, though, namely that Goodell and Brown don't appear to get along. IIRC, Brown didnt support Goodell's ultimately successful bid for the job. Peter King passed a comment (only one of several references I've seen to their mutual dislike) in a column a few weeks back praising Goodell's performance at the last owner's meeting, noting that he only apeared to edge toward getting upset once. With whom? Mikey, of course, who apparently wouldn't stifle his whole "the sky is falling on the small market teams" rant.

Bottom line is that I think that while Goodell's team sanctions might not be a great idea, any objection from Mikey is going to fall on the deafest of ears.

[HairOnFire]

Bottom line is that I think that while Goodell's team sanctions might not be a great idea, any objection from Mikey is going to fall on the deafest of ears.

Well that's just the point. Despite the fact that other teams have arrest records more serious than the Bengals it is the Bengals who have been portrayed by the media as the NFL's outlaw franchise. And since the NFL seems soley concerned with addressing media driven issues like image and marketing, and not the root cause of the behavior, the Bengals now have less margin for error than the 31 other teams in the NFL. In fact, I'm betting the Bengals next draft class resembles a boy scout jamboree. (But hopefully without the pedophile entourage.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm still heavily in favor of drafting dopers who fall from the 1st round into the 4th or 5th, but I just don't see it happening now. Other teams can and will draft players like Marcus Thomas as soon as he drops low enough in the draft that the pick can be defended, and they'll face the wrath of Roger if Thomas slips up. But the Bengals are likely going to find themselves limited to picking from a pool of churchmice.

In short, the Bengals can no longer afford bargains.

[cincy9275]

if odell returns and and is on the active roster. he will play ,talent does not sit on the bench no matter how much of a jackass they are period. if that was the case henry would not have played at all. odell is a playmaker if he comes back he will be a starter and playing. marvin may hold him out for the first few untill landon and miller show they are nothing but backups and odell will take over. if he makes it back and in his case as with henry if is a big word.

[Kazkal]

If odell can return to 2005 but smarter on and off the field,

I'd welcome back with open arms.