Ahmad Brooks

[SkinneymulleT]

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.

I am sure your dictionairy can point out the difference between a question and a concern. So were are only looking at only top tier FA LB's, a slight difference from a FA LB. And at the time, Webster was a top tier free agent(got paid as such) and was even called the next ray lewis by some. Sorry, should have said "doesn't" preclude but didnt have time to proof read for you king. How do you know no one else took a "crack" at brooks? And again you go back to taking brooks as the reason we have not signed "top tier" LB's. Why? There isnt a shred of evidence to support that. After Brooks was drafted, I remember Marvin saying he would need time to be brought up to speed, which offers no support to him precluding us signing AT. The facts tend to show that one did not impact the other, and you think that drafting brooks prevented us from signing AT, which was about the only decent FA Lb out there and I think he is a 3-4 guy. But Everyone has an opinion. And I read the article and Your Simpsons quote has kinda been overdone everywhere so try to be more original when you attempt to insult and try to find one more on point. You may not have understood the meaning of the sentence but it was gramatically correct. It took me quite some time to read through the poor spelling, missing words and akward sentences from your previous posts but I always assume that stuff can be overlooked by most people. But then their is the wanna-be intellectual that is going to try and appear intelligent by in essence calling me dumb for committing similar gramatical/spelling errors, which means you have in effect called yourself a dumbass. But I digress, the LT comment was in response to you complaint about brooks preseason play. Again the guy came out school early(not by choice grant you) but he is still young and learning, but not fast enough for you. The point is you seem to think a 3rd rounder should have an immediate impact on the starting team and if he does not do so the reason is because he is a bad seed and he did something(was lazy, didnt work out, missed films) to cause this and you think that it is reasonable to assume so. That is silly willy. Since he has been a Bengals he has had no problems and has thus not been detrimental to the team and not "patternistic". So you have sterotyped him as a bad seed for behavior that occurred years ago just as the the media does. So wrong again willy. But that isnt enough for you because he smoked some grass a few years ago and had some injuries following a stellar somphmore season. My comment about Caleb was pointing out just what you did subsequently, that he was a risk as a 3rd rounder("Want a risk at LB in the 3rd, look at Caleb"). I guess you were reading "angrily" and had to say it yourself to believe it. So I explained it for you. And to further explain the unexplainable, You (kingwilly) are the King of the Willys and thus you must have a throne to sit upon when you "hold" court and are surrounded by many willys where judging from your comments you do something to Calebs schlong. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Question...how do you type angrily? I've never done that before. Maybe you could offer some pointers when you try to explain all your other unsubstantiated assumptions and contridictory positions. And what was your point anyway? All I can get out of it is you hate the brooks selection if he fails, and you like it if he succeeds as long as we sign a top tier LB, whos name you dont provide? Oh you are a wise one-eyed.

[kingwilly]

So were are only looking at only top tier FA LB's, a slight difference from a FA LB. And at the time, Webster was a top tier free agent(got paid as such) and was even called the next ray lewis by some.

I made it clear that I think the supplemental drafting of Brooks somehow internally satisfied the Bengal needs at LB. To me, this is as much about talent as it is about money, hence not going into FA to get a higher-priced veteran. Uh, just because someone said Webster was the next Ray Lewis does not make it even worth citing as support for your argument. Webster was a back-up in TB on a good defense. He was awful here and then got hurt. Webster was not a top FA, this is revisionist history.

How do you know no one else took a "crack" at brooks? And again you go back to taking brooks as the reason we have not signed "top tier" LB's. Why? There isnt a shred of evidence to support that.

Well, because no one took him but the Bengals. In the post-draft stories, the media widely reported that the Bengals took Brook in r3 because they were told/it was clear that SF was going to take him in r4 (top of the round). I am simply using a firmly based position in reality to form the opinion that they took Brooks instead of going into FA because history proves it correct. Who, after Brooks did they sign at LB, and for what reason? They signed Frazier, Harwell, Marshall, Jones, Schlegel, Mays and Coley. All were brought in due to injuries to starters, including Brooks. This is reality. None of them represent a top FA, which too is reality. Reality is the best evidence. Spend some time in it.

After Brooks was drafted, I remember Marvin saying he would need time to be brought up to speed, which offers no support to him precluding us signing AT. The facts tend to show that one did not impact the other, and you think that drafting brooks prevented us from signing AT, which was about the only decent FA Lb out there and I think he is a 3-4 guy.

I'm not sure you can actually read. I have repeatedly said that the Bengals appeared to be comfortable with the current starters so as to not go after a top-tier FA. Reality supports this, as they subsequently did not go after a top-tier FA. Either they are comfortable or not. The only other plausible option is a certain owners willingness to spend cash. It is not a stretch to suppose that the Bengals chose to take a guy like Brooks instead of going into FA for monetary reasons. He is cheap and addressed a need.

But I digress, the LT comment was in response to you complaint about brooks preseason play. Again the guy came out school early(not by choice grant you) but he is still young and learning, but not fast enough for you. The point is you seem to think a 3rd rounder should have an immediate impact on the starting team and if he does not do so the reason is because he is a bad seed and he did something(was lazy, didn’t work out, missed films) to cause this and you think that it is reasonable to assume so.

Yes, he played poorly in preseason and was spotty in the regular season. He did this after getting on the field last year and seemingly doing well. What causes this? He came out of school early DIRECTLY as a result of his bad choices. Who made those choices for him? Dazzle us with your answer...

I think an r3 pick, who for all intents and purposes should have been an r1 pick, should produce better than Brooks has. ESPECIALLY when he could/should have been an r1 pick had he been a little more mature and not gotten kicked off the UVA team as a result of his bad decisions. Guy has r1 talent/potential and fell midway through r3 of the supplemental draft… sounds like a deal for us Bengals, let’s roll the dice yet again! Yippee! No one else touched him, what does that tell you? It tells me that Mike Brown tasked the staff to go scratch and dent shopping at the supplemental draft.

Your Caleb point is correct, my mistake in not understanding it earlier, as he was a massive reach. Brooks is the better athlete but both have now been injured for large chunks of their careers so far. Could it be that Caleb was a bad pick? Perhaps one day we will come to find out Brooks was as well? That is my point; Are we seeing now the value, “potential” aside, of taking Brooks to address depth at LB instead of going after a Porter or Thomas? What seem clear is that the Bengals were willing to take the risk on a guy like Brooks (because they did) and forgo taking a top FA (because they did) to address the depth issues at LB. You say there is no connection? You are a fool.

Being a Brooks apologist, or one for any other pro athlete, is not my strong suit. You are right that we have not heard a peep about his past, as he seems to currently be on the right path. I sincerely hope he is. Now that he has “matured”, the injury issue is the problem. I am simply looking back and saying this could be due to bad luck and a kind of injury that happens to anyone, or questioning the progress he' made and saying perhaps he is not as far along a purported and this injury is a result of lack of preparedness, similar to the way he has often played.

Since he has been a Bengals he has had no problems and has thus not been detrimental to the team and not "patternistic". So you have sterotyped him as a bad seed for behavior that occurred years ago just as the the media does.

Not what I said.

All I can get out of it is you hate the brooks selection if he fails, and you like it if he succeeds as long as we sign a top tier LB, whos name you dont provide? Oh you are a wise one-eyed.

Not what I said.

The extent to which you contort my posts and fail to comprehend the points I have made is quite sad and tiring. Explaining it for a fourth time is just too much. I'm sure you'll let me know when Brooks is back on the field, I'll expect your full report. Until then we can enjoy the play of a defense that is a result of many risks and bad decisions that have failed to pay off, setting this team back 2-4 drafts.

[SkinneymulleT]

You can call a cat a dog but it doesnt make it so willy. You make all sorts of statments saying you said this or that but where? It isnt in there. I am sure that few if anyone can make out your point(s). And as for assertion that brooks was taken instead of a Top LB FA, you again offer no proof nor a name who that FA would have been, and again Marvins own comments say your wrong and brooks was to be worked into the fold over the next few seasons, but you skip what you cant defend. And look back at the pundits, Webster was paid like and was, according to the media, a Top FA available that year(and I didnt call him the next ray lewis, infact I thought it was a poor pick up). It is you that attempts to revise history based on his performance, which is quite silly willy. Your points seem to go in as many directions as a compass. And porter and thomas play different positions then brooks and in excel in different schemes then we run, so at best they would have had only situational usefulness. And a 3rd rounder is just that, despite the artificial expectation you place on him to be a 1st rounder. He was a 3rd rounder which makes his selection great value even when balanced against his collegiate cannabus use. It seems strange that you knock him as a 3rd rounder selection and then want him to play like a 1st rounder with immediate impact. That appears to be contradictory, but I will let the readers decide. And you say no one was going to take a crack at him then say the 49's were going to? HUH? No one wanted to take him before the bengals did, and not as you posit that no one but the bengals would take him, its a simple difference but I am sure if you ask your teacher she will explain it to you. And the reason he came out early doesnt have any effect on if he is physically or mentally ready to play at the next level and certainly not any effect on if and when he will get injured (another one of your points that is honestly funny). Mistakes a 19 year old made in college should not be the determiner for the rest of their life, unless your GWBush then you get to be president. And Brooks will be a stud. And then you can comeback and try to explain that is what you meant all along...