Ahmad Brooks

[bengalspride1219]

is out again

hes been out for 6 weeks now

what the hell is wrong with him

[ArmyBengal]

What's wrong with him ??

Probably a misdiagnosed sports hernia, but given the medical staff's ability to determine what is wrong and take care of it, they probably though he had an erectile disfunction...

WHODEY !!!

[membengal]

Ya know, rather than always assume misdiagnosis, how about this:

ML won't release anything approaching accurate injury information. My theory: the team knows what's wrong with players, and for how long they will be out. They just don't tell anyone else with anything approaching specificity.

[skyline]

Ya know, rather than always assume misdiagnosis, how about this:

ML won't release anything approaching accurate injury information. My theory: the team knows what's wrong with players, and for how long they will be out. They just don't tell anyone else with anything approaching specificity.

Yeah, I think that's pretty obvious, but if people came to accept this, then they'd have one less thing to complain about, right?

If any medical staff in the NFL were as incompetent as fans seem to think they are, then they'd be fired in a flash. There's too much money on the line for doctors to be making several million-dollar mistakes each year.

[membengal]

Word.

[CarsonCity]

At any rate, this continues to really handcuff the defense. Do the Bengals have some sort of linebacker curse I haven't heard of?

[mgilgris]

One, cant build a team around one player on either side of the ball. Apparently Marvin did, in hoping that Brooks would step up to the plate.

Two, I like that Marvin stays tight lipped on injuries. It may drive us all crazy but it probably isnt much fun for the opposing coaches who also would like to know who is playing so they can game plan around it.

On the other hand, when you have a defense as bad as ours, regardless of what player plays the game plan is the same. Run, Pass and do your endzone dance.

[BengalPappaw]

What's wrong with him ??

Probably a misdiagnosed sports hernia, but given the medical staff's ability to determine what is wrong and take care of it, they probably though he had an erectile disfunction...

WHODEY !!!

That has been my concern all along!

I am concerned that Brooks will miss the whole year and become the "defense" version of Chris Perry.

If we start talking draft -- I want a better medical staff, scouts and GM.

[as_v_1]

The curse of the s**tty ass defense.

[oldschooler]

Some groin injuries can take 6+ weeks to heal properly.

Ahmad tried to practice before the Pats game and reinjured it.

So technically, this week, is the 6th week since he reinjured it . . .

[SkinneymulleT]

I believe his groin injury was orignally misdiagnosed by the medical staff as an ectopic pregnancy, which as you can imagine, has set him back both physically and emotionally.

[Walrus]

Ya know, rather than always assume misdiagnosis, how about this:

ML won't release anything approaching accurate injury information. My theory: the team knows what's wrong with players, and for how long they will be out. They just don't tell anyone else with anything approaching specificity.

I'd like to believe this but the fact is that the Bengals not only *say* they expect a player back in a certain amount of time, but also behave as though they expect it. By not making more significant roster moves to prepare for a protracted recovery, they work counter to their best interests (ie NOW they start looking at Ed Hartwell again?? Doesn't look good for Ahmad and/or Caleb)... If Marvin is really employing this subterfuge to gain a competetive advantage, it doesn't seem to be working.

[kingwilly]

Ya know, rather than always assume misdiagnosis, how about this:

ML won't release anything approaching accurate injury information. My theory: the team knows what's wrong with players, and for how long they will be out. They just don't tell anyone else with anything approaching specificity.

I don't buy this theory beyond ML's overall vagueness regarding injuries. If we look back at Warrick, Perry, Dugans and the lingering nature of TJ's old hammy problem, and others (recall the soft tissue injury aricle?) I think is a safe, informed position to take that the medical staff is below average at PBS.

As for Brooks, I think they either don't know what the problem is, or the medical staff sucks. I think if ML "knew" that Brooks was jammed up for weeks on end, he would have made a more impactful roster move rather than bringing in some scrubs.

Either way, it points back to the riskiness of taking Brooks, which noone is addressing. Guy had a positive mary jane test (not that it matters) but also had a few other problems. Do these things directly cause an injury? No. But it can point to things like self-discipline and profesionalism, all contirbute to his preparation and commitment to doing the little things that need doing, as in getting treatments for little injuries, stretching, lifting, running, gameplanning, learning the playbook, etc. Rather than spend the ching on a top FA LB, they rolled the dice on Brooks, effectively winning the draft pick bid for another guy with a less than desirable reputation.

ML has taken considerable risks with many of his draft decisions. At this point the Brooks pick looks like it could end up on the "bad decision" column due to his injury which when combined with the previous history of issues.

[BengalByTheBay]

Ya know, rather than always assume misdiagnosis, how about this:

ML won't release anything approaching accurate injury information. My theory: the team knows what's wrong with players, and for how long they will be out. They just don't tell anyone else with anything approaching specificity.

I don't buy this theory beyond ML's overall vagueness regarding injuries. If we look back at Warrick, Perry, Dugans and the lingering nature of TJ's old hammy problem, and others (recall the soft tissue injury aricle?) I think is a safe, informed position to take that the medical staff is below average at PBS.

As for Brooks, I think they either don't know what the problem is, or the medical staff sucks. I think if ML "knew" that Brooks was jammed up for weeks on end, he would have made a more impactful roster move rather than bringing in some scrubs.

Either way, it points back to the riskiness of taking Brooks, which noone is addressing. Guy had a positive mary jane test (not that it matters) but also had a few other problems. Do these things directly cause an injury? No. But it can point to things like self-discipline and profesionalism, all contirbute to his preparation and commitment to doing the little things that need doing, as in getting treatments for little injuries, stretching, lifting, running, gameplanning, learning the playbook, etc. Rather than spend the ching on a top FA LB, they rolled the dice on Brooks, effectively winning the draft pick bid for another guy with a less than desirable reputation.

ML has taken considerable risks with many of his draft decisions. At this point the Brooks pick looks like it could end up on the "bad decision" column due to his injury which when combined with the previous history of issues.

Wow -- that's quite a stretch. In one breath you mention TJ's "old hammy problem" and in the next you ask us to consider that having smoked pot made Brooks a risk for, among other things, a groin injury -- a risk the team should have, presumably, been aware. I think you're guilty of mixing up a few too many factors there. I think smoking pot suggests you are a risk to ..... smoke more pot.

[kingwilly]

Wow -- that's quite a stretch. In one breath you mention TJ's "old hammy problem" and in the next you ask us to consider that having smoked pot made Brooks a risk for, among other things, a groin injury -- a risk the team should have, presumably, been aware. I think you're guilty of mixing up a few too many factors there. I think smoking pot suggests you are a risk to ..... smoke more pot.

Not much of a strecth at all.

First issue is the medical staff. To deny the history of shabby work is ignorant. Is Brooks the latest victim? I'm more inclined to believe this than ML being some strategic communications expert.

Second is our blind faith that Brooks, he of crummy pre-season play, will somehow transform the D into a solid unit. What is being overlooked, or intentionally forgotten, is that Brooks was a big "risk" selection. The reasons were many, all of which can point to attitude and preparation. I think injuries are unpredictable, and certainly not dumb enough to think that "bad guys" get hurt more often but if a guy is unprofessional on several levels I think it is reasonable to think that kind of player is more likely to get a dumb injury due to insufficient preparation (laziness, poor decisions, simple stupidity, take your pick). I think people are so focused on him being out and what he will do when he returns, as evidenced by the whining that he s still out, that they are overlooking/ignoring the bigger issues like this being another of ML's potentially poor decsions.

I contended that in this case we have a perfect storm of a bad medical staff, a player with a "character issue" before he came here, and a coach who either does not care about "character" or is arrogant enough to think he can change people. All I hear everyone else is talking about is "When Brooks get back we will stomp..." in a generic sense.

[BengalByTheBay]

I contended that in this case we have a perfect storm of a bad medical staff, a player with a "character issue" before he came here, and a coach who either does not care about "character" or is arrogant enough to think he can change people. All I hear everyone else is talking about is "When Brooks get back we will stomp..." in a generic sense.

My comment was directed at the "character" factor in your perfect storm. Even if you think that Brooks is more likely to be unprepared and, thus, get injured because he liked(es) the herb, how can you reconcile that with your statement that TJ has a lingering hamstring problem. In other words, if Brooks is injured partly because of bad character, why doesn't that same thing apply to TJ (or Rudi, or .....). I'm not taking issue with the "medical staff" claim because I am willing to admit I don't know jack about what treatment, or physicians, or whatever is involved there. While I kind of think it is one more excuse to try to call Mike Brown cheap -- I simply don't know that it's not a major factor, so I can't opine on that. Moreover, if that is the problem, at least it is the same for all players and wouldn't tend to impact one over another regardless of what they like to light up on their off time. As for ML being "arrogant" -- I can't get behind that. It's based on fans being pissed that he doesn't say more in press conferences, which is misguided. While a fan may get excited to think he has some insight into what's going on with the team, a far more important concern would be what other teams can learn from them -- or think they can learn. If ML is arrogant because of this, he's in the company of Belichick and most other relatively-intelligent coaches in the NFL.

[BZoner]

If your theory held water then why is Chris Henry not permanently injured, I can't remember PacMan or Vick having had much time off due to injuries either, and if there is any truth to your theory then 2 Carry must be a serial killer. LOL.

[kingwilly]

If your theory held water then why is Chris Henry not permanently injured, I can't remember PacMan or Vick having had much time off due to injuries either, and if there is any truth to your theory then 2 Carry must be a serial killer. LOL.

I think people need to work on their dedcutive reasoning skills around here:

1. "If some Smaugs (Dummies) are Thors (Bengals) and some Thors (Bengals) are Thrains (Injured), then some Smaugs (Dummies) are Thrains (Injured)."

This statement is: TRUE - FALSE - NEITHER

[BengalByTheBay]

If your theory held water then why is Chris Henry not permanently injured, I can't remember PacMan or Vick having had much time off due to injuries either, and if there is any truth to your theory then 2 Carry must be a serial killer. LOL.

I think people need to work on their dedcutive reasoning skills around here:

1. "If some Smaugs (Dummies) are Thors (Bengals) and some Thors (Bengals) are Thrains (Injured), then some Smaugs (Dummies) are Thrains (Injured)."

This statement is: TRUE - FALSE - NEITHER

(d) IRRELEVANT

[GregCook]

If your theory held water then why is Chris Henry not permanently injured, I can't remember PacMan or Vick having had much time off due to injuries either, and if there is any truth to your theory then 2 Carry must be a serial killer. LOL.

I think people need to work on their dedcutive reasoning skills around here:

1. "If some Smaugs (Dummies) are Thors (Bengals) and some Thors (Bengals) are Thrains (Injured), then some Smaugs (Dummies) are Thrains (Injured)."

This statement is: TRUE - FALSE - NEITHER

(d) IRRELEVANT

People need to KISS. There is no conspiracy of Marvin, doctors or pharmaceuticals haze. Guys get injuried in the NFL, sometimes for long periods of time. Brooks is injuried for a long period of time.

Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio native, Brownies fan, possible even abducted, is more interesting than NFL injury conspiracies.

[SkinneymulleT]

Wow -- that's quite a stretch. In one breath you mention TJ's "old hammy problem" and in the next you ask us to consider that having smoked pot made Brooks a risk for, among other things, a groin injury -- a risk the team should have, presumably, been aware. I think you're guilty of mixing up a few too many factors there. I think smoking pot suggests you are a risk to ..... smoke more pot.

he of crummy pre-season play...will somehow transform the D into a solid unit. What is being overlooked, or intentionally forgotten, is that Brooks was a big "risk" selection. The reasons were many, all of which can point to attitude and preparation. I think injuries are unpredictable, and certainly not dumb enough to think that "bad guys" get hurt more often but if a guy is unprofessional on several levels I think it is reasonable to think that kind of player is more likely to get a dumb injury due to insufficient preparation (laziness, poor decisions, simple stupidity, take your pick). I think people are so focused on him being out and what he will do when he returns, as evidenced by the whining that he s still out, that they are overlooking/ignoring the bigger issues like this being another of ML's potentially poor decsions.

What source do you have for all your info on brooks's many problems and his status as "high risk" when we took him in round 3. First off, anyone selected in the 3rd round is a risk to a degree. Other than him being a little heavy and puffing on an illicit but natural unrefined substance (and who hasnt been there at some time in their college life) what else do you have that pertains to his tenure with the Bengals? All you put forth are sterotypes that the national media puts forth about all Bengals players. In essence, they are all lazy bad seeds who are over paid retards. From what I've read, he has been in shape, worked out hard, studied film and has his weight at the teams requested level. And his on field performance is not all his fault. Part of being a good coach is putting players in a position to suceed. This includes being able identify and to use thier strengths to thier advantage and avoid placing them in positions where teams can exploit their weaknesses, and simplifying the scheme to allow him to do what he does best and being able to communicate the objectives in a way that the individuals understand (and this is not just brooks there is a team wide failure to either understand or execute). There is no disputing that brooks is a rare physical specimen and a great athlete. Brooks chasing down a running back after a catch is awe-inspiring and rarely seen in the NFL. A man that large moving so fluid, I felt like I was marlin perkins watching a lion run down an impala on the great serangetti. Brooks can blitz like no other backer we have had here for years that it takes a double team to stop him (and I cant recall an LB that could bring the wood on a blitz like he does ever, not even tko). He problems are systemic of the entire defense and coaching, i.e. being out of place, confusion about the call and situational objective, not receiving good coaching about the mistakes he has made. And one man does not an army make. This is essentially his rookie year and you want him to be LT. Well LT joined a D with a number of player in place that allowed him to do one thing...getting to the QB. Although he has been injured most of the year, even with him we have sub-par LB's at other positions that get no support up front from out lackluster d. line. And although Brooks has not shown that he can play run, pass, and rush, where were you when we drafted a one dimensional d-lineman out of georgia in the 1st round? Talk about risk. Did you say he is stupid and lazy because he SUCKED at playing linebacker and couldnt tackle anyone in the open field. If anything, brooks greatest weakness is he is unsure of what he is to do.

[kingwilly]

What source do you have for all your info on brooks's many problems and his status as "high risk" when we took him in round 3. First off, anyone selected in the 3rd round is a risk to a degree. Other than him being a little heavy and puffing on an illicit but natural unrefined substance (and who hasnt been there at some time in their college life) what else do you have that pertains to his tenure with the Bengals? All you put forth are sterotypes that the national media puts forth about all Bengals players. In essence, they are all lazy bad seeds who are over paid retards. From what I've read, he has been in shape, worked out hard, studied film and has his weight at the teams requested level. And his on field performance is not all his fault. Part of being a good coach is putting players in a position to suceed. This includes being able identify and to use thier strengths to thier advantage and avoid placing them in positions where teams can exploit their weaknesses, and simplifying the scheme to allow him to do what he does best and being able to communicate the objectives in a way that the individuals understand (and this is not just brooks there is a team wide failure to either understand or execute). There is no disputing that brooks is a rare physical specimen and a great athlete. Brooks chasing down a running back after a catch is awe-inspiring and rarely seen in the NFL. A man that large moving so fluid, I felt like I was marlin perkins watching a lion run down an impala on the great serangetti. Brooks can blitz like no other backer we have had here for years that it takes a double team to stop him (and I cant recall an LB that could bring the wood on a blitz like he does ever, not even tko). He problems are systemic of the entire defense and coaching, i.e. being out of place, confusion about the call and situational objective, not receiving good coaching about the mistakes he has made. And one man does not an army make. This is essentially his rookie year and you want him to be LT. Well LT joined a D with a number of player in place that allowed him to do one thing...getting to the QB. Although he has been injured most of the year, even with him we have sub-par LB's at other positions that get no support up front from out lackluster d. line. And although Brooks has not shown that he can play run, pass, and rush, where were you when we drafted a one dimensional d-lineman out of georgia in the 1st round? Talk about risk. Did you say he is stupid and lazy because he SUCKED at playing linebacker and couldnt tackle anyone in the open field. If anything, brooks greatest weakness is he is unsure of what he is to do.

First off, I balance the fact that the guy had a less than desirable college career with the fact that he has had nothing but praise from the Bengals staff. But before you go bananas with all the "potential" talk, he cost an r3 pick as he was taken in the supplemental draft BECAUSE of his college problems. He has undeniable r1 talent that was matched with, as this link calls "questions about his weight and committment" and further tainted with mary jane possession. End result? Booted form UVA, forced into the supplemental draft.

Not once do I sterotype the Bengals team the way the national media does. What are you smoking? I cal into question ML's philosophy of taking a chance on guys like this, time after time, thinking he can make it work. Remind me which ones have worked out???? I guess Brooks could be considered one that did but here we find him injured. My causal connection between a guy with previous off-field problems and injuries is admittedly tenuous and speculative but beyond blaming the medical staff, I thought I'd explore that as a possibility.

Also, I do not annoint him an LT. At this point I just want a healthy player. I agree that he has all the skills and could very well be the one guy that ML helps turn the the corner and makes the risk pay off. I just need to see more than what we've seen. I made it very clear that I think ML could be resorting to taking these risks since the SoP might not be letting him go after FA's that are proven players due to money.

Based on much of what else you "wrote" I'm not sure if you acutally read my posts.

Brooks is a very talented guy with limitless potential who got taken in the supplemental draft, instead of r1, because of a series of poor decisions he made. ML chose to roll the dice on Brooks because I think he was curbed from going after a FA LB (Adalius Thomas?) due to SoP. ML found himself in this position due to previous risk picks that did not pay-off, including Pollack, Thurman & Nicholson.

Brooks is hurt either due to bad luck or a result of a carry-over of his previously questioned committment to being a football player, which to me includes taking care of ones body.

All your rheotric and hyperbole of watching his chase down guys like a lion or whatnot is meaningless.

[SkinneymulleT]

What source do you have for all your info on brooks's many problems and his status as "high risk" when we took him in round 3. First off, anyone selected in the 3rd round is a risk to a degree. Other than him being a little heavy and puffing on an illicit but natural unrefined substance (and who hasnt been there at some time in their college life) what else do you have that pertains to his tenure with the Bengals? All you put forth are sterotypes that the national media puts forth about all Bengals players. In essence, they are all lazy bad seeds who are over paid retards. From what I've read, he has been in shape, worked out hard, studied film and has his weight at the teams requested level. And his on field performance is not all his fault. Part of being a good coach is putting players in a position to suceed. This includes being able identify and to use thier strengths to thier advantage and avoid placing them in positions where teams can exploit their weaknesses, and simplifying the scheme to allow him to do what he does best and being able to communicate the objectives in a way that the individuals understand (and this is not just brooks there is a team wide failure to either understand or execute). There is no disputing that brooks is a rare physical specimen and a great athlete. Brooks chasing down a running back after a catch is awe-inspiring and rarely seen in the NFL. A man that large moving so fluid, I felt like I was marlin perkins watching a lion run down an impala on the great serangetti. Brooks can blitz like no other backer we have had here for years that it takes a double team to stop him (and I cant recall an LB that could bring the wood on a blitz like he does ever, not even tko). He problems are systemic of the entire defense and coaching, i.e. being out of place, confusion about the call and situational objective, not receiving good coaching about the mistakes he has made. And one man does not an army make. This is essentially his rookie year and you want him to be LT. Well LT joined a D with a number of player in place that allowed him to do one thing...getting to the QB. Although he has been injured most of the year, even with him we have sub-par LB's at other positions that get no support up front from out lackluster d. line. And although Brooks has not shown that he can play run, pass, and rush, where were you when we drafted a one dimensional d-lineman out of georgia in the 1st round? Talk about risk. Did you say he is stupid and lazy because he SUCKED at playing linebacker and couldnt tackle anyone in the open field. If anything, brooks greatest weakness is he is unsure of what he is to do.

First off, I balance the fact that the guy had a less than desirable college career with the fact that he has had nothing but praise from the Bengals staff. But before you go bananas with all the "potential" talk, he cost an r3 pick as he was taken in the supplemental draft BECAUSE of his college problems. He has undeniable r1 talent that was matched with, as this link calls "questions about his weight and committment" and further tainted with mary jane possession. End result? Booted form UVA, forced into the supplemental draft.

Not once do I sterotype the Bengals team the way the national media does. What are you smoking? I cal into question ML's philosophy of taking a chance on guys like this, time after time, thinking he can make it work. Remind me which ones have worked out???? I guess Brooks could be considered one that did but here we find him injured. My causal connection between a guy with previous off-field problems and injuries is admittedly tenuous and speculative but beyond blaming the medical staff, I thought I'd explore that as a possibility.

Also, I do not annoint him an LT. At this point I just want a healthy player. I agree that he has all the skills and could very well be the one guy that ML helps turn the the corner and makes the risk pay off. I just need to see more than what we've seen. I made it very clear that I think ML could be resorting to taking these risks since the SoP might not be letting him go after FA's that are proven players due to money.

Based on much of what else you "wrote" I'm not sure if you acutally read my posts.

Brooks is a very talented guy with limitless potential who got taken in the supplemental draft, instead of r1, because of a series of poor decisions he made. ML chose to roll the dice on Brooks because I think he was curbed from going after a FA LB (Adalius Thomas?) due to SoP. ML found himself in this position due to previous risk picks that did not pay-off, including Pollack, Thurman & Nicholson.

Brooks is hurt either due to bad luck or a result of a carry-over of his previously questioned committment to being a football player, which to me includes taking care of ones body.

All your rheotric and hyperbole of watching his chase down guys like a lion or whatnot is meaningless.

When quoting an article please try to do so correctly, I am sure the author would appreciate it. The article reads "concerns" not "questions". That makes a bit of a differnce when reading the article there willy. Either you made a mistake or you were purposefully lying to try to help your arguement. But either way some vague unknown potential issues are not hard facts about what he did that was so wrong so he should not have been drafted in the 3rd round. And your link provides the following about his "less than desirable college career". And I quote " Brooks, who as a sophomore was named second-team all-American and a semifinalist for the Butkus Award as the sport's best linebacker". I know I sure wouldnt want that in my college bio. What about you Willy? And again how is he a big risk or rolling the dice when he is a 3RD ROUNDER? That is just plain wrong. Want a risk at LB in the 3rd, look at Caleb. He was great value in the 3rd with his still unkown other problems at UVA. He athleticism is matched by few and anyone who reads your post can see that you were against drafting him either then or now, which is dumb. And for you sterotypes, your statment was "guy is unprofessional on several levels I think it is reasonable to think that kind of player is more likely to get a dumb injury due to insufficient preparation (laziness, poor decisions, simple stupidity, take your pick". Um I think that covers about all of them. Are you really a Bengals fan? Also, drafting a 3rd r LB does preclude marvin from signing a vet LB. I think we have like sign like 5 over the past few years, including 1 or 2 top FA. They just havent worked out, and to blame the Brooks selection for that is tarded. The middle of your reply appear to contradict everything else you say so at this point I know your confused or trying to backtrack to save face. And I know you didn't annoit him as LT, um that was part of the point but I will let you ponder that upon your thrown with your willys. Oh, and next time you use the word rhetoric and hyperbole, go look them up in a dictionairy.

[kingwilly]

When quoting an article please try to do so correctly, I am sure the author would appreciate it. The article reads "concerns" not "questions". That makes a bit of a differnce when reading the article there willy. Either you made a mistake or you were purposefully lying to try to help your arguement. But either way some vague unknown potential issues are not hard facts about what he did that was so wrong so he should not have been drafted in the 3rd round. And your link provides the following about his "less than desirable college career". And I quote " Brooks, who as a sophomore was named second-team all-American and a semifinalist for the Butkus Award as the sport's best linebacker". I know I sure wouldnt want that in my college bio. What about you Willy? And again how is he a big risk or rolling the dice when he is a 3RD ROUNDER? That is just plain wrong. Want a risk at LB in the 3rd, look at Caleb. He was great value in the 3rd with his still unkown other problems at UVA. He athleticism is matched by few and anyone who reads your post can see that you were against drafting him either then or now, which is dumb. And for you sterotypes, your statment was "guy is unprofessional on several levels I think it is reasonable to think that kind of player is more likely to get a dumb injury due to insufficient preparation (laziness, poor decisions, simple stupidity, take your pick". Um I think that covers about all of them. Are you really a Bengals fan? Also, drafting a 3rd r LB does preclude marvin from signing a vet LB. I think we have like sign like 5 over the past few years, including 1 or 2 top FA. They just havent worked out, and to blame the Brooks selection for that is tarded. The middle of your reply appear to contradict everything else you say so at this point I know your confused or trying to backtrack to save face. And I know you didn't annoit him as LT, um that was part of the point but I will let you ponder that upon your thrown with your willys. Oh, and next time you use the word rhetoric and hyperbole, go look them up in a dictionairy.

apologies for the unintentional mis-quote, I clearly gain no argumentative advantage with "questions" or "concerns".

Did you read the article? The part about being arrested and dismissed from the team? or the injury issues? Why did no one else take a crack at him? What a guy did as a sophomore is as much an indicator of potential upside as the negative behavior he displayed as a junior does for downside. Again, noone is arguing the guys "potential", as it is obvious. Let's just not ignore the downside.

Not sure what your saying with regard to drafting a supplemental r3 pick...do you mean that you agree it precludes ML from going after a top FA LB or not? I think the pattern of drafting LB's has meant they felt comfortable with their players and did not need to go into FA to get one. To my knowledge, they brought in Hardy, Webster, Wilkins (not top tier guys) and a host of fringe guys this year to fill in for injuries to Brooks, Jeanty, Marshall, Henderson, etc. Consider if they had gone after a guy like Adalius Thomas instead of taking Brooks. Which would you prefer? Heck, Schlegel was an r3 pick for the Jets (another terrible D) and he got cut and we snapped him up out of absolute need. Also, are you really going to come on here and pull Caleb's schlong? Caleb Miller is a very average player who cannot crack the starting line-up on one of the worst defense's in the NFL. How is that good for an r3 pick? Dazzle us with your explaination! While you are at it explain how any/all r3 picks are a risk to some degree. Such insight should illuminate this board for days.

I realize spelling and grammar can slip at times when angrily typing but your statement below left me baffled, so maybe you can explain what this sentence means, as it is unintelligible: "And I know you didn't annoit him as LT, um that was part of the point but I will let you ponder that upon your thrown with your willys." huh? To quote Ralphie Wiggings "Me fail english, that's unpossible."

I initially was excited about drafting Brooks, but as the continuation of problems with other Bengals picks occured, it made me more wary of the guys they have selected with questionable character/known issues. We all crossed our fingers that these issues would be addresed and the team would grow up. I hope that Brooks gets healthy and can be the guy to prove Marvin right. SO far, I have seen far too little to think that is the case. Of all the guys, Brooks and Henry have the most upside, so here to hoping it works. Just don't act so surpirsed if it does not. And should that happen, who is to blame for the set-back it causes the team? The correct answer is ML.

Your point about sterotypes is utterly idiotic. When the guys with questionable character have all, in one way or another and to varying degrees, exhibited behavior that is detrimental to the team, it is no longer a sterotype, it is patternistic behavior. It has been an acute issue that has materially affected the team and its ability to play and win. It seems to me that you consider the litany of incidents to all be isolated issues, which in no way suggests that there is a problem or that bad decisions were made. Utter ignorance. Open your eyes.

I have explained my position about 3 times now, all with the same points, and still have yet to see you address the key issues. Questioning my loyalty as a Bengals fan? fffft. get over yourself. I guess a real fan like you should just blindly accept what product is put on the field, gulp down every ML press conference and smile wildly when they roll the dice with questonable player moves and draft picks. If that is you, then you already know ignorance is bliss.

hyperbole

rhetoric

uh, not sure what you think those words mean or howI applied them to your post but I think you should bookmark that dictionary.com home page for the future.

[mgi]

Oh, and next time you use the word rhetoric and hyperbole, go look them up in a dictionairy.

hyperbole

rhetoric

uh, not sure what you think those words mean or howI applied them to your post but I think you should bookmark that dictionary.com home page for the future.

I believe Mark Twain once said only fools run to a dictionary to settle a dispute.