More Chad Talk

[BengalByTheBay]

Which is fine to a point, but even if the only thing anyone agrees is that Chad is being an asshat their are consequences....especially when the face of the franchise is suddenly viewed as fugtard. Granted, a very lovable fugtard, but a fugtard nonetheless.

And there's the rub because Chad Johnson's actions AND words place him in the "Me First" spotlight.

So, Chad Johnson is now the apologist for everything that's wrong in sports? I will grant you that you started your "More TJ/Less Chad" thing before this current trade talk, but that doesn't make it any better an idea now than it was before. I accuse you of confusing the face with the game. Chad plays every bit of his game and you simply choose to get caught up in his personality -- which you clearly don't like. So what? Why is it so difficult to dismiss an interview with an athlete - any athlete - for being superficial. Why do you care what Chad Johnson says anyway? I mean really. If he plays well and doesn't say things that run down the team, why would you care? He's right it is entertainment. Since when did it get to be about morality? "Me first" attitude is a brand new thing -- really? You're starting to sound like my grandfather -- kids these days. You don't think the Raiders in the 60's were out for themselves first? Please? You're getting way too emotionally invested in how bad you think Chad Johnson is making the Bengals look IMO -- and I think you've erroneously substituted your opinion for that of the masses. Here's my take -- people still like Chad. Do they think he's particularly intelligent -- nah. Do they think he's fun to listen to and engaging -- yeah. This does seem to boil down to the fact that you'd rather Chad be like Palmer. Since that's not going to happen, I suppose I can understand how you get to the point that you'd like Chad to be traded. But you ought to accept that for what it is -- your opinion -- and not one that is widely held. You can continue to say "Chad is a fugtard" all you want, but it doesn't make your opinon any more than a simple opinion. Personally, I don't think there's much to this trade rumor thing for a variety of reasons, but even if there is it would certainly come down more to production vs. cost than anything related to what Chad says in interviews or does for celebrations.

[HairOnFire]

Actually, Dillon is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Bengals fans leveled more and much harsher criticism of CD, and for a far longer period of time, than has ever been laid on Chad. And all that opprobrium had precisely zero impact on Dillon's behavior or the team's treatment of him.

More cherry-picking. Bengals fans finally had enough of Dillon's behavior, but not only did they dismiss it for years they actually supported his verbal attacks against the coaching staff and management. In fact, you're a fine example of that, right?As for it having zero impact on the way the team treated him, only after the majority of Bengal fans finally accepted Dillon for being the moody malcontent he always was did management do what was previously unthinkable. That being, trade him.

So much for zero impact.

In Chad's example, as long as he's adamant about not changing, not caring about what others think, and is under no obligation to listen to anyone....the real question asks how much longer his act is tolerated by the majority of fans and coaches. And when that shift becomes greater you'll see action.

Last point. If Chad's interview with Keyshawn is a precursor of things to come I think you may see more examples of a far angrier Chad becoming more and more defensive. And it won't be pretty.

[HairOnFire]

This does seem to boil down to the fact that you'd rather Chad be like Palmer. Since that's not going to happen, I suppose I can understand how you get to the point that you'd like Chad to be traded. But you ought to accept that for what it is -- your opinion -- and not one that is widely held.

I actually like Chad...to a point. In fact, I've always described my feelings for him as love/hate. And there's the rub because my problems with him shouldn't be hard for his supporters to understand. After all, many of you agree that his behavior isn't appropriate, and some of you have gone so far to say that Chad often sounds like an idiot whenever he speaks.

So where we differ is how seriously his actions should be taken...especially when weighed against his talent and production. And on that point most of you agree that the best thing anyone can do is ignore Chad as best they can while doing absolutely nothing. In short, you'll write passionate posts about this team needing more discipline, maturity, and professionalism, but when push comes to shove all you're willing to do is offer silent lip service.

Bottom Line: Trading Chad isn't my first choice, and it's an idea I'd have no support for if only Chad would change. And I'm not talking about wholesale change here. But instead of changing, he's digging in...and you're rallying around his right to be a selfish idiot.

[BengalByTheBay]

This does seem to boil down to the fact that you'd rather Chad be like Palmer. Since that's not going to happen, I suppose I can understand how you get to the point that you'd like Chad to be traded. But you ought to accept that for what it is -- your opinion -- and not one that is widely held.

I actually like Chad...to a point. In fact, I've always described my feelings for him as love/hate. And there's the rub because my problems with him shouldn't be hard for his supporters to understand. After all, many of you agree that his behavior isn't appropriate, and some of you have gone so far to say that Chad often sounds like an idiot whenever he speaks.

So where we differ is how seriously his actions should be taken...especially when weighed against his talent and production. And on that point most of you agree that the best thing anyone can do is ignore Chad as best they can while doing absolutely nothing. In short, you'll write passionate posts about this team needing more discipline, maturity, and professionalism, but when push comes to shove all you're willing to do is offer silent lip service.

Bottom Line: Trading Chad isn't my first choice, and it's an idea I'd have no support for if only Chad would change. And I'm not talking about wholesale change here. But instead of changing, he's digging in...and you're rallying around his right to be a selfish idiot.

I completely disagree that his behavior "inappropriate"? He's a wide receiver on Sunday and does a whole lot of other stuff the rest of the time. If he comes off like an idiot in interviews, that doesn't make him "inappropriate." This isn't high school. He can talk all he wants as far as I'm concerned. He can race a horse or whatever the hell else on his time off. What does "inappropriate" mean anyway? He's an adult. Lots of adults say stupid things. Since when does Chad have to be an adult and Mark Cuban get to be a 14-year old. Celebrities are always being douches -- so what? The only difference between Chad saying something stupid and John Thornton saying something stupid is that somebody's listening to Chad. Everybody's favorite team player, Willie Anderson, has said stupid things that could clearly be interpreted as possibly damaging to team morale on a number of occasions. Is he all-of-the-sudden a "disruption"?

Bottom line is I don't care if he says stupid things as long as they aren't directed to hurting the team. That's where I draw the line and where the obvious comparison to Dillon, Pickens, etc. comes in. I haven't seen anything said recently, or otherwise, that I've ever thought was intended to do anything other than hype himself and the team. So, since you obviously disagree -- what are you talking about? What is he saying that is "inappropriate"?

And yeah, it's perfectly okay to ignore Chad. That's pretty much what I do. Clearly, I'm in the minority there, but I don't care if he's on Oprah, Survivor and being interviewed by Dr. Phil all in the same week. How is it inconsistent to think that he's corney and says ridiculous things at times and still defend his ability to do that? Since when does one wideout talking about himself compromise the very fiber of a team? I'll tell you when -- when they're 2-4.

So, as for your love/hate feelings for Chad, would I be too right-on to suggest that perhaps you're more willing to let fly with the hate when the team's 2-4 and CJ's the focus of media speculation and trade rumors? I haven't once heard you admit that you blame Chad for the lack of success this season. Do you? I don't -- and based on that I'm totally unimpressed with everybody flocking to jump off his jock when, to my eye, things look about the same in terms of what 85 brings to this team as they did when the team went 11-5. In fact, IMO the sacred cow of #9 is more to blame (with the one high-exposure exception of the pick vs. NE that was Chad's fault) with the failure of this offense to consistently click than CJ is. And, FWIW, that doesn't mean I want them to trade Palmer either, that's just the way I see it.

[HoosierCat]

More cherry-picking. Bengals fans finally had enough of Dillon's behavior, but not only did they dismiss it for years they actually supported his verbal attacks against the coaching staff and management. In fact, you're a fine example of that, right?As for it having zero impact on the way the team treated him, only after the majority of Bengal fans finally accepted Dillon for being the moody malcontent he always was did management do what was previously unthinkable. That being, trade him.

If I'm cherry-picking, it's nothing compared to the furious rewriting of history you are attempting here at your own personal Ministry of Truth, Winston. They didn't trade him because of fan outrage, they traded him because he was 30 years old, becoming injury prone, and the Pats offered what every observer thought was way too much value in a second-round pick.

As to mine and many other Bengals' fans support of Dillon's attacks on mgmt. and coaching, yup, we agreed with him. What you fail to mention is that most of us also called for him to be traded, considering it a shame that his talents were being wasted in Siberia. "FREE COREY!!!" remember?

[HairOnFire]

I haven't once heard you admit that you blame Chad for the lack of success this season. Do you?

If you have such a problem with the things I'm actually saying why do you insist I say things that I haven't? You've claimed I'll lose credibility if I say the Bengals chances of winning the 2005 playoff game with Kitna under center were good. The truth is I've said the opposite. You mock the idea that I could somehow know what happened during halftime of that game...ignoring the fact that I've never passed up an opportunity to mock Hoosier whenever he quotes PFT. And you've implied that I'm blaming Chad Johnson for the Bengals 4 losses, something I've never come close to doing.

So how about responding to the things I'm saying instead of the points you'd prefer to debate?

[HairOnFire]

As to mine and many other Bengals' fans support of Dillon's attacks on mgmt. and coaching, yup, we agreed with him. What you fail to mention is that most of us also called for him to be traded, considering it a shame that his talents were being wasted in Siberia. "FREE COREY!!!" remember?

Then I'm not rewriting history at all, as you've just admitted that you supported Dillon's attacks on the very team he played for, and only called for him to be traded because you felt his incredible talent was being wasted.

But as is your habit, only one paragraph earlier you attempted to argue from both sides of the same fence by mocking the idea that Dillon's talents were worthy of a 2nd round pick.

All things considered, you may be the only person I know who can spin in two completely opposite directions at the same time.

[BengalByTheBay]

I haven't once heard you admit that you blame Chad for the lack of success this season. Do you?

If you have such a problem with the things I'm actually saying why do you insist I say things that I haven't? You've claimed I'll lose credibility if I say the Bengals chances of winning the 2005 playoff game with Kitna under center were good. The truth is I've said the opposite. You mock the idea that I could somehow know what happened during halftime of that game...ignoring the fact that I've never passed up an opportunity to mock Hoosier whenever he quotes PFT. And you've implied that I'm blaming Chad Johnson for the Bengals 4 losses, something I've never come close to doing.

So how about responding to the things I'm saying instead of the points you'd prefer to debate?

Wow -- if that doesn't beat all! You don't like the questions I ask and you would rather I respond to what you want to talk about. I seem to recall at least 100 similar comments directed at you in the past. You should show some appreciation for adoption of your tactics.

Here's the point -- I was pretty sure you don't hold CJ to blame for the team's record. So, you don't. That's sensible. You also agree that you didn't think Kitna had much chance to win the '05 wildcard game after Palmer went down. I thought that was true as well, but gave you the chance to say otherwise if it wasn't. We also agree that nobody really knows what happened at halftime. So, its 3 for 3. Far from implying anything, I was pretty sure that was what you thought about each of those subject -- just didn't want to assume your opinions for you. Now that we've got that out of the way.....your issues with Chad are that he acts like a clown and you don't like that on your team. Fair enough. For my part, CJ acts like a clown and I'm happy to have him on my team. You think he needs to change or the team can't win. I think that a lot of things need to change before the Bengals can win, but Chad isn't one of them. We disagree. That's cool.

Now what questions of yours did I ignore? You asked over and over (and over and over) again whether I can say CJ's a clown and at the same time that he doesn't bother me. I'm pretty sure I said yes in a number of different ways. You don't agree -- apparently, I have crossed your imaginary line of consistent thinking. I don't agree, but hey -- I'm a liberal nut-job living in the bay area, so I'm probably on shrooms anyway, right. Here it is again though; Chad doesn't bother me. He just doesn't. Would I be happier if Chad skipped some of the lame celebrations? Yeah -- marginally. But I don't think they were crippling the team. I also seem to be the only one who hears him when he says he doesn't do them when the team is losing because it wouldn't be............."appropriate."

The end-game, however, is that I think the trade rumors represent an overreaction to what a player has said (or a perception that said player's selfishness in wanting/needing attention) rather than a reasoned response to what he does on the field. When the people complaining about him now were the same ones hanging off his sack and laughing at his "jokes" a season or two ago, I sense stupidity -- and not that coming from Chad.

[HoosierCat]

Then I'm not rewriting history at all, as you've just admitted that you supported Dillon's attacks on the very team he played for, and only called for him to be traded because you felt his incredible talent was being wasted.

But as is your habit, only one paragraph earlier you attempted to argue from both sides of the same fence by mocking the idea that Dillon's talents were worthy of a 2nd round pick.

Nope, the rewrite continues. The "Free Corey" cry was a Nineties-era phenomena. In the prime of his career, he was certainly worth at least a second, probably more. But but 2004 he was well on the downslope, coming off an injury-plagued season, and most observers felt that due to his attitude the Bengals had little leverage to extract even a day 1 pick.

[HairOnFire]

In fact, IMO the sacred cow of #9 is more to blame (with the one high-exposure exception of the pick vs. NE that was Chad's fault) with the failure of this offense to consistently click than CJ is.

For the record, I first began criticizing the performances of the Bengals biggest stars, all offensive skill players, during last seasons stretch drive. In fact, I wrote an entire series of posts detailing how poorly the Bengals biggest stars had performed, and how the much hated Chris Henry had repeatedly made plays that would have resulted in a playoff berth had other Bengal players not scuttled the opportunity. I pointed damning fingers of blame at Chad, TJ, Rudi, Carson, and even Shayne.

For my efforts I was called an idiot and reminded that the Bengals offense ranked amongst the NFL's elite. Stats were tossed about casually. Numbers were pointed to as proof that something meaningful had been accomplished. Failure to convert on 3rd down, or on the scoreboard, was quickly dismissed, and apparently forgotten.

So how's that playing out?

I don't mention the above to say I told ya' so. Only to show how unfair it is to claim that I'm only criticizing Chad, and only because of this seasons slow start.

[BengalByTheBay]

In fact, IMO the sacred cow of #9 is more to blame (with the one high-exposure exception of the pick vs. NE that was Chad's fault) with the failure of this offense to consistently click than CJ is.

For the record, I first began criticizing the performances of the Bengals biggest stars, all offensive skill players, during last seasons stretch drive. In fact, I wrote an entire series of posts detailing how poorly the Bengals biggest stars had performed, and how the much hated Chris Henry had repeatedly made plays that would have resulted in a playoff berth had other Bengal players not scuttled the opportunity. I pointed damning fingers of blame at Chad, TJ, Rudi, Carson, and even Shayne.

For my efforts I was called an idiot and reminded that the Bengals offense ranked amongst the NFL's elite. Stats were tossed about casually. Numbers were pointed to as proof that something meaningful had been accomplished. Failure to convert on 3rd down, or on the scoreboard, was quickly dismissed, and apparently forgotten.

So how's that playing out?

I don't mention the above to say I told ya' so. Only to show how unfair it is to claim that I'm only criticizing Chad, and only because of this seasons slow start.

I well-recall your comments about the offense. Hey, get this, I agreed with you on that one -- as you can tell from the above comment that sparked your mini-rant. I call it a rant because you employ the Squeeler-fan technique of defending your self against me for having been called an idiot when it was not I that did so. Oh I have no doubt you were probably called an idiot, but I happened to agree with you that the offense disappointed last year so I would be idiot-by-association. You are, however, criticizing Chad for what he's doing off-the-field, not what he's doing on the field. (Right? Or am I assuming too much there too?) I don't see you calling Palmer, Graham, TJ, Rudi, etc. a fugtard. I may have missed that thread, but I don't think so.

TJ did have a blurb recently wherein he questioned the OC for not splitting him deep more often. Although I don't see that as a big deal -- I do see it as potentially more damaging that CJ's "look at me" show. You still want "more TJ"?

So, I'm not saying you're unfairly singling out Chad amongst the offense, only that you're unfairly singling out Chad based on stuff that doesn't warrant your clear level of disgust.

[HairOnFire]

You should show some appreciation for adoption of your tactics.

If you adopted my tactics you'd take the time to remember what the other persons position is.

Here's the point -- I was pretty sure you don't hold CJ to blame for the team's record. So, you don't. That's sensible. You also agree that you didn't think Kitna had much chance to win the '05 wildcard game after Palmer went down. I thought that was true as well, but gave you the chance to say otherwise if it wasn't. We also agree that nobody really knows what happened at halftime. So, its 3 for 3.

So we both know what I've said in the past, and we both agree that I've been sensible and reasonable. So why ask questions deliberately phrased in such a way that it implies something different?

Far from implying anything, I was pretty sure that was what you thought about each of those subject -- just didn't want to assume your opinions for you.

It seems obvious you already knew what my opinions were, and chose to ignore that knowledge for reasons I couldn't guess. But we're moving on now, right?

For my part, CJ acts like a clown and I'm happy to have him on my team. You think he needs to change or the team can't win. I think that a lot of things need to change before the Bengals can win, but Chad isn't one of them. We disagree. That's cool.

That's not quite the way I'd put it, but why quibble when we're finally making progress? I will add that one of our core differences seems to be the way I'm attacking Chad's behavior as a football player and as an important member of a team. By comparison, you largely seem to be defending his production as a wide reciever. As if simply doing his job on the field was all there was to it.

Now what questions of yours did I ignore?

None that I can think of. My only problem was the way you ignored answers you already knew.

Would I be happier if Chad skipped some of the lame celebrations? Yeah -- marginally. But I don't think they were crippling the team. I also seem to be the only one who hears him when he says he doesn't do them when the team is losing because it wouldn't be............."appropriate."

I don't recall saying that Chad's actions are crippling the team. I've even said that he doesn't have to change his goofy fun loving way completely. But I do think there's more of a problem here than most of you will admit, and I don't see it going away when Chad admits that the clowning will return the moment the teams won/loss record improves. In fact, you could say I'm not the least bit impressed by news that Chad thinks it would be wrong to act like a fool now, but perfectly reasonable to act like a fool later on.

The end-game, however, is that I think the trade rumors represent an overreaction to what a player has said (or a perception that said player's selfishness in wanting/needing attention) rather than a reasoned response to what he does on the field.

I've said it a dozen times already, but perhaps I need to say it once more. I'm not in favor of trading Chad now, or ever, as long as things change. And again, he can still be Ocho-Cinco. Just tone it down a little. Show some maturity. Show some poise. Show some class. Be less selfish. Be more of a teammate. And if you can't bring it upon yourself to be a leader...shut up and get out of the way.

[HairOnFire]

I well-recall your comments about the offense. Hey, get this, I agreed with you on that one -- as you can tell from the above comment that sparked your mini-rant.

Unless my memory is flawed I'd say we've agreed on alot of things in the past. As for the Chad debate, the biggest difference that I see is that I can very easily consider trading Chad if his behavior doesn't change, while you just can't bring yourself to view the problem as worthy of drastic actions. In fact, I'm not even sure you see a problem at all.

I call it a rant because you employ the Squeeler-fan technique of defending your self against me for having been called an idiot when it was not I that did so. Oh I have no doubt you were probably called an idiot, but I happened to agree with you that the offense disappointed last year so I would be idiot-by-association.

I only mentioned the idiot thing for one reason. That being, I've never had a problem expressing a very unpopular opinion if I truly belive myself to be right. And in this example, I'd be amazed if less than 90% of Bengal fans didn't support Chad, if not more. But so what? I see a problem that will only get worse if it isn't addressed, and the fact that Chad is one of the Bengals very best players, if not their best, isn't a reasonable defense. In fact, it only makes matters worse.

TJ did have a blurb recently wherein he questioned the OC for not splitting him deep more often. Although I don't see that as a big deal -- I do see it as potentially more damaging that CJ's "look at me" show. You still want "more TJ"?

Yeah, I still want more TJ. I took those remarks to mean he's capable of doing more than the short area crossing stuff, and I agree with him. But I think it's also a thinly veiled accusation that Carson forces too many balls in Chad's direction, a habit Palmer has had from the very start of his career. That said, keeping the always moody Chad happy is a big part of what we're talking about, right? And who can forget the way Chad pouted at the start of last season...despite the Bengals 3-0 start?

[BengalByTheBay]

TJ did have a blurb recently wherein he questioned the OC for not splitting him deep more often. Although I don't see that as a big deal -- I do see it as potentially more damaging that CJ's "look at me" show. You still want "more TJ"?

Yeah, I still want more TJ. I took those remarks to mean he's capable of doing more than the short area crossing stuff, and I agree with him. But I think it's also a thinly veiled accusation that Carson forces too many balls in Chad's direction, a habit Palmer has had from the very start of his career. That said, keeping the always moody Chad happy is a big part of what we're talking about, right? And who can forget the way Chad pouted at the start of last season...despite the Bengals 3-0 start?

How is TJ moping about not getting enough balls thown his way better for the team than Chad celebrating? That TJ thinks he is capable of more than he is being used for is exactly what has, in the past, made Chad "moody." I see more problem with that kind of comment from TJ than I do with Chad acting silly after he catches a TD. In short, I think you're applying a double standard and doing so in a "gadfly" role. That Chad is popular is no reason, in and of itself, to object to him. And that TJ has, up to now at least, been emotively different than Chad doesn't give him a pass to start trying to direct the offense through himself.

[HairOnFire]

I see more problem with that kind of comment from TJ than I do with Chad acting silly after he catches a TD.

Well, there's your problem because most of Chad's critics think there's a little more to it than how he acts after catching TD passes.

[HairOnFire]

And that TJ has, up to now at least, been emotively different than Chad doesn't give him a pass to start trying to direct the offense through himself.

That's a pretty big leap. When has TJ ever demanded the offense go through him? Unless we're talking about different statements all he did is remind Brat that he's capable of doing more than working underneath.

Hey, you wouldn't deliberately try to blow things out of proportion just so you can offer a better defense of Chad, would you?

[BengalByTheBay]

I see more problem with that kind of comment from TJ than I do with Chad acting silly after he catches a TD.

Well, there's your problem because most of Chad's critics think there's a little more to it than how he acts after catching TD passes.

Since you are assuming the position of most of Chad's critics, put some meat on those bones. What is it that you have a problem with? I'm serious here. You speak of clowning and fugtardeness -- what is it that has you so upset? I get upset with players questioning the coaches and their teammates. I see that in TJ's comments. What is it that Chad says that has your goat so tethered?

[BengalByTheBay]

And that TJ has, up to now at least, been emotively different than Chad doesn't give him a pass to start trying to direct the offense through himself.

That's a pretty big leap. When has TJ ever demanded the offense go through him? Unless we're talking about different statements all he did is remind Brat that he's capable of doing more than working underneath.

Hey, you wouldn't deliberately try to blow things out of proportion just so you can offer a better defense of Chad, would you?

Not at all. Suggesting that he get the ball more is questioning the play calling isn't it? Suggesting that he catch passes for TD's rather than first downs is questioning his use. It's hardly supportive of the team. Like I said, none of it really bothers me, but to the extent I have any problems with what's said I'm more upset by things that question the team rather than things that do not. For instance, if you were complaining because CJ was calling out the coaches for not getting him the ball enough (which he probably has, but I don't recall him doing so in recent memory), you'd have a better point than just complaining because you don't think Chad is funny. One is about the football game and that's the comment I pay more attention to.

And I find it interesting that you would accuse me of blowing something out of proportion when my point all along has been the this whole panty-bunching exercise about Chad is completely blown out of proportion. I'm not so much defending Chad as I am attacking the fact that people are getting on him about exactly the same thing that got him so much popularity in the first place.

[HairOnFire]

And that TJ has, up to now at least, been emotively different than Chad doesn't give him a pass to start trying to direct the offense through himself.

That's a pretty big leap. When has TJ ever demanded the offense go through him? Unless we're talking about different statements all he did is remind Brat that he's capable of doing more than working underneath.

Hey, you wouldn't deliberately try to blow things out of proportion just so you can offer a better defense of Chad, would you?

Not at all. Suggesting that he get the ball more is questioning the play calling isn't it? Suggesting that he catch passes for TD's rather than first downs is questioning his use. It's hardly supportive of the team.

You wouldn't be the first person to suggest that both Bengal wideouts are emotional primadonnas, but in my opinion TJ's remarks seemed no more than a player making a case that he can do more if given a chance, hardly unsupportive of the team. If done inappropriately it could be considered selfish, which was a point TJ touched on when he wondered aloud if he might be included in the group of players that set Marvin off.

As for me, I'll admit freely that TJ doesn't get on my nerves the same way that Chad does, but if you're suggesting that his remarks are on par with Chad's, but not subject to the same level of criticism, well I'd say you're not only wrong about their actions being comparable, but blissfully ignoring the obvious fact that Chad has always demanded extra attention.

[HairOnFire]

I'm not so much defending Chad as I am attacking the fact that people are getting on him about exactly the same thing that got him so much popularity in the first place.

I was just listening to the Steve Mason/John Ireland Show on ESPNRadio, and that very subject was discussed. The hosts were discussing the Jason Whitlock articles and how critical they were of Chad and each wondered if it was fair to tear down a player that the media had helped create. They concluded that it was fair, because as inflammatory as Whitlocks remarks were they were based in the truth. (More on that later.)

They also agreed that it was ludicrous to conclude that Chad's actions could be anything but disruptive, divisive, and harmful. And finally, they noted that the press had no obligation to deal consistently with anyone, especially someone who attempted to use the press to his own advantage, and especially when it was sensed that the tide of public opinion had changed. In short, they claimed it was naive for anyone to assume that the press wouldn't laugh with Ocho Cinco even as it criticized Chad Johnson.

[HoosierCat]

What is it that Chad says that has your goat so tethered?

Chad is just another of Hair's windmills.

Sancho! My armor!

[kentjett]

I like to start off by saying that I'm not a big fan of Chad's behavior but I'm a huge fan of what he brings to the table on gameday. He is not the problem on the team, he has never been arrested, never been seriously injured, and he makes everything open underneath. There has been several of my friends(including my sister & fiance) who never liked football or the bengals in the past who watch every game because of Chad Johnson. They get excited about what he might do next. I do admit that his actions take away from the game but he is an entertainer and that is what he will always be. I don't like Wrestling but there are tons of people that do and those type of people now enjoy watching football because of the side entertainment. Levi being hurt, Willie being hurt, Chris Perry being hurt, Pollack being hurt, Odell being suspended, Henry being suspended, Irons being hurt, Brooks being hurt, Joseph being hurt/suspended is what is hurting this team. They have had to change the line-up numerous of times and they have no consistency at all. Look at that list and look at how many first day draft picks there is. 5 first rounders, 2 second rounders and two thirds w/ first round ability. Everybody needs calm down and let some of these things work themselves out. It is hard to win w/ a full roster of back-ups. Chad will be fine and he is not going anywhere. Even if he was a guy that evrybody hated like Keyshawn and TO, Mike Brown wouldn't trade him because he attracts a lot of people, which in turns sells tickets and all he cares about is $$$$. He refuses to sign top notch FA's and continues to be one of the most profitable franchise's in the NFL.

[BengalByTheBay]

I'm not so much defending Chad as I am attacking the fact that people are getting on him about exactly the same thing that got him so much popularity in the first place.

I was just listening to the Steve Mason/John Ireland Show on ESPNRadio, and that very subject was discussed. The hosts were discussing the Jason Whitlock articles and how critical they were of Chad and each wondered if it was fair to tear down a player that the media had helped create. They concluded that it was fair, because as inflammatory as Whitlocks remarks were they were based in the truth. (More on that later.)

They also agreed that it was ludicrous to conclude that Chad's actions could be anything but disruptive, divisive, and harmful. And finally, they noted that the press had no obligation to deal consistently with anyone, especially someone who attempted to use the press to his own advantage, and especially when it was sensed that the tide of public opinion had changed. In short, they claimed it was naive for anyone to assume that the press wouldn't laugh with Ocho Cinco even as it criticized Chad Johnson.

I get it. The press says that the press is fully entitled to say what the press is saying. So, my pointing out that they are being inconsistent is somehow "naive"? That the sports media is living down to my expectations is no reason to lower them. Naive is to accept everything spoon fed to you by ESPN, etc., etc. To sum, I have tried to point out for several pages what, apparently, at least some pundits are admitting to and you are now championing -- the right to be inconsistent!! How's that for an impressive stand to make. I'm really surprised that you can take your dislike of CJ to level of pretty much admitting a double standard (presumably because you just like TJ more) and defending the bobbleheads' right to be inconsistent.

The fact that ESPN senses a story here doesn't mean I have to sit and passively accept what I know to be garbage. The fact that you argue that I should seems shockingly inconsistent itself with what you normally seem to believe.

[COB]

All across this board we keep reading "Marvin's lost this team." Look no further than Chad Johnson. He physically shrugged off his coach a couple weeks ago. Nice leadership Chad. And make no mistake, he is a team leader. He's one of the Bengals best players, a pro bowler. By default, he's a team leader the rank and file will take their cues from. Where's he leading us? Just look to that Pittsburgh game.

Trade Chad after this season, get defense or o-line for him. Blow the team up five different ways if you want to, but for god's sake, get rid of Chad Johnson.

[HairOnFire]

To sum, I have tried to point out for several pages what, apparently, at least some pundits are admitting to and you are now championing -- the right to be inconsistent!! How's that for an impressive stand to make. I'm really surprised that you can take your dislike of CJ to level of pretty much admitting a double standard (presumably because you just like TJ more) and defending the bobbleheads' right to be inconsistent.

If a double standard exists, and it obviously does, then why should I be ashamed to acknowledge it? Haven't I correctly acknowledged the very same double standard in hundreds of posts written during the "Character Wars"? And haven't I acknowledged that while a double standard my be deplorable, you ignore it's impact at your own risk?

And if the reaction to Chad's antics has fundamentally changed, and I believe it has, who is being naive by expecting the press to something it's never been? Obviously I could include you in that discussion, but that's missing the point. Far better and more relevant to conclude the most naive of all is Chad Johnson, as he's the one who believed he could control the press, that it wouldn't grow tired of his act, that it wouldn't turn on him the moment the wind began blowing from a different direction, or that he could stop the rising tide of criticism by simply going into a shell for a couple of weeks.

Bottom Line: If Chad doesn't acknowledge that things have changed, and respond with changes of his own....things are only going to get worse.