Examiner.com take on Andre Smith

[gregstephens]

Let this debate begin right about...NOW!

/>http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7774-Cincinnati-Bengals-Examiner~y2009m9d1-Is-Andre-Smith-already-a-Bengalbust

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Come on Greg, that's straight troll bait.

We've had enough Mike-and-Andre flaming around here already, haven't we? You might as well cover Groundhog and Hair with lighter fluid and toss a match.

[membengal]

Seriously Greg, that's cheap bulls**t is what that is.

Is bengalszone hard up for hits? Is that why you dropping such obvious troll bait to start a thread?

We have plenty of Smith threads.

[gregstephens]

Come on Greg, that's straight troll bait.

We've had enough Mike-and-Andre flaming around here already, haven't we? You might as well cover Groundhog and Hair with lighter fluid and toss a match.

I beg to differ. My article raises what I believe are valid points, argued saliently. I don't bang on SoP on here for the purpose of just banging. Nor have I been on here banging on Andre Smith. I don't pollute any and all threads with a constant barrage of anti-Bengal negativity. Disagree with the points if you wish, or if you can, but I think it's hardly 'troll bait'. It's reasoned food for thought. I thought that was one of the purposes of the board in the first place.

[membengal]

Reasoned article or not, we have several Smith threads. Drop the link in there. Like, say, the ankle injury one.

You don't need to call attention to your article with "bengal bust" as the tag. You just don't.

And there is no way to categorize that as anything other than troll bait.

I may need to take some time away from this board. It is so f**kin' hard to find decent discussion here anymore.

[gregstephens]

Reasoned article or not, we have several Smith threads. Drop the link in there. Like, say, the ankle injury one.

You don't need to call attention to your article with "bengal bust" as the tag. You just don't.

And there is no way to categorize that as anything other than troll bait.

I may need to take some time away from this board. It is so f**kin' hard to find decent discussion here anymore.

First of all, I drop a seperate thread for all my articles on any topic to mark it as a link to my articles. Having said that, I do usually put in the title that it is an examiner.com piece, so I will change the title accordingly.

Second, the thread post reflects the title of the article. That was the simple reason I worded it that way.

Third, I think you may be just a smidge oversensitive if this particular thread causes you to take time away. I don't recall you threatening a boycott at any of the posts of the GHD's of the board, but THIS is what pushes you over? Think about the reasonableness of that statement for just a second.

[membengal]

Why in the f**k are you, of all people, one of the handful of reasonable posters, putting out such obvious troll bait? And it would cause me to take a vacation because it may mean that the purpose of the site is to generate cheap hits over discourse. If so, that's fine, but I don't want to be a part of that kind of thing.

So, hey, why not drop the troll baiting part of your thread title?

Or, if baiting the trolls is what this site is about, then I am glad to know that.

And, yes, greg, I hold you to a different standard. I would have thought you wouldn't want to get lumped in the with the GHDs of the site...

[Baraka]

i'm sorry greg but that's pure trash. you are one of the more reasonable posters around here and 2 days into the man's career and you're heading for the emergency exit. you may be right, you may be wrong but lets give andre a little more than 48 hrs before jumping ship. though i've never read any of your articles i can imagine you can do better. it must be the bitter taste of first round failures that have compelled you to take such an alarmist approach.

[NJ29]

Let's not jump the gun here man. It is an early, discouraging injury, but give him some time before flying the bust flag.

[gregstephens]

Let's not jump the gun here man. It is an early, discouraging injury, but give him some time before flying the bust flag.

This is exactly the type of response I was hoping for. I can understand this argument and it has much validity. I merely posed the question in the article. I don't think the overall issue of how Smith will pan out is somehow off-limits. Heck, we do it for everything that happens on this team. Palmer's ankle is injured--should we get rid of him? Some say yes, some say no. Debate it and go on. I posed three reasons for concern. I hope Smith is one of the greatest Bengal tackles of all-time. I just don't see how the topic itself is taboo.

[gregstephens]

Why in the f**k are you, of all people, one of the handful of reasonable posters, putting out such obvious troll bait? And it would cause me to take a vacation because it may mean that the purpose of the site is to generate cheap hits over discourse. If so, that's fine, but I don't want to be a part of that kind of thing.

So, hey, why not drop the troll baiting part of your thread title?

Or, if baiting the trolls is what this site is about, then I am glad to know that.

And, yes, greg, I hold you to a different standard. I would have thought you wouldn't want to get lumped in the with the GHDs of the site...

Alright, fair enough. I don't apologize for the content of the article because I think they are legitimate points worthy of thought and debate. However, I accept the accessment of the topic title and will edit it to be less inflammatory.

[membengal]

Edited.

Thanks for editing your title.

Much appreciated.

[Pidge]

Well greg, I agree with you, any chance he had of contributing this season is astronomically reduced. And yeah, the contract reflects what we all knew. He can't say no to a donut and has zero self discipline. Money seems a good motivator for most people though so the threat of losing hundreds of thousand of dollars just for that one last scoop of Ben & Jerrys should help him with that. Still possible he plays significant time of course but yeah, this yr, save maybe a game or two at the back end if things are going sub .500, this yr is most likely done. However, to call him a bust we'd have to meet here in the second week of Jan 2012 at the earliest, by which time, of course, we'll know whether the team (thereby rendering what any of us might think having observed him for two full seasons moot) consider him a bust by saying yay or nay on the extension.

[membengal]

Let's not jump the gun here man. It is an early, discouraging injury, but give him some time before flying the bust flag.

This is exactly the type of response I was hoping for. I can understand this argument and it has much validity. I merely posed the question in the article. I don't think the overall issue of how Smith will pan out is somehow off-limits. Heck, we do it for everything that happens on this team. Palmer's ankle is injured--should we get rid of him? Some say yes, some say no. Debate it and go on. I posed three reasons for concern. I hope Smith is one of the greatest Bengal tackles of all-time. I just don't see how the topic itself is taboo.

Why?

Why exactly are you trying to prompt that kind of response?

Who, precisely, was using a "bust" type label? Other than you, in that article, to frame a debate that no one is having?

If your point is that the injury is less than ideal, I agree.

If your point is that it hampers his ability to help in 2009, I agree (although not as much as holding out likely did).

If you are being remotely serious with musing over "bust" as even a possible frame for a "debate", then I still call bulls**t.

[gregstephens]

Well greg, I agree with you, any chance he had of contributing this season is astronomically reduced. And yeah, the contract reflects what we all knew. He can't say no to a donut and has zero self discipline. Money seems a good motivator for most people though so the threat of losing hundreds of thousand of dollars just for that one last scoop of Ben & Jerrys should help him with that. Still possible he plays significant time of course but yeah, this yr, save maybe a game or two at the back end if things are going sub .500, this yr is most likely done. However, to call him a bust we'd have to meet here in the second week of Jan 2012 at the earliest, by which time, of course, we'll know whether the team (thereby rendering what any of us might think having observed him for two full seasons moot) consider him a bust by saying yay or nay on the extension.

On a practical level, I think you are right. Even if he tanks the first season, there will always be a shot of redemption in the second season. However, I do think first round picks are judged by a different standard. I think, barring quarterbacks that sit a year or three, in the case of Aaron Rodgers, first rounders, and particularly non-skill players, are judged on the 'bust' factor based on first-year contributions. Jacob Long had a great year in Miami, most wouldn't even think to put him in the discussion of potential bust material.

Of course there will be a great argument against the bust label if he tanks year one, but has a decent year two in the fact that he really didn't get first round money, or at least high first round money considering how screwed up the deal appears to be for Smith. It could in fact be a value-based assessment at that point.

[gregstephens]

Let's not jump the gun here man. It is an early, discouraging injury, but give him some time before flying the bust flag.

This is exactly the type of response I was hoping for. I can understand this argument and it has much validity. I merely posed the question in the article. I don't think the overall issue of how Smith will pan out is somehow off-limits. Heck, we do it for everything that happens on this team. Palmer's ankle is injured--should we get rid of him? Some say yes, some say no. Debate it and go on. I posed three reasons for concern. I hope Smith is one of the greatest Bengal tackles of all-time. I just don't see how the topic itself is taboo.

Why?

Why exactly are you trying to prompt that kind of response?

Who, precisely, was using a "bust" type label? Other than you, in that article, to frame a debate that no one is having?

If your point is that the injury is less than ideal, I agree.

If your point is that it hampers his ability to help in 2009, I agree (although not as much as holding out likely did).

If you are being remotely serious with musing over "bust" as even a possible frame for a "debate", then I still call bulls**t.

This again is the debate I was hoping for. Why do I want to prompt the previously mentioned response? Because it was a valid counterargument. Why wouldn't I want to prompt that?

My problem with your response here, in terms of the point/counterpoint, is that you've only focused on one part of my argument--the injury and its immmediate impact. The other two parts of my argument are still out there. First is the 'Vince Young' argument. One has to question the judgment and intelligence level of Smith. He's not making good decisions--anywhere. And that's not something you can teach or coach up or improve with maturity. It's who he is and who he will always be. Based on what we've already seen, does he appear to have the mental acumen to play the game on an NFL level?

Second is the 'Chris Henry' argument. While we all hope Henry has turned the corner, very few of us believe he has the self-discipline to stay there and play on a pro level (rename it the 'Michael Vick' argument if the Henry reference is distastful, or even the 'Jeremi Johnson' argument). If Smith can't discipline himself as to the basic requirements to stay healthy and play the game effectively, i.e. his weight and conditioning, can he discipline himself as to stupid penalties, blocking assignments, etc.?

I never labelled him a bust in the first place. I merely suggest that everything we've seen of him so far does not give a lot of room for hope for his future. I certainly can be, and hope to be, proven wrong.

[gregstephens]

Let's not jump the gun here man. It is an early, discouraging injury, but give him some time before flying the bust flag.

This is exactly the type of response I was hoping for. I can understand this argument and it has much validity. I merely posed the question in the article. I don't think the overall issue of how Smith will pan out is somehow off-limits. Heck, we do it for everything that happens on this team. Palmer's ankle is injured--should we get rid of him? Some say yes, some say no. Debate it and go on. I posed three reasons for concern. I hope Smith is one of the greatest Bengal tackles of all-time. I just don't see how the topic itself is taboo.

Why?

Why exactly are you trying to prompt that kind of response?

Who, precisely, was using a "bust" type label? Other than you, in that article, to frame a debate that no one is having?

If your point is that the injury is less than ideal, I agree.

If your point is that it hampers his ability to help in 2009, I agree (although not as much as holding out likely did).

If you are being remotely serious with musing over "bust" as even a possible frame for a "debate", then I still call bulls**t.

And don't kid yourself for a second that people aren't having this debate already. You don't think everyone from NFL general managers to scouts to media types aren't already having this discussion about Smith and the Bengals?

Sure.

[Pidge]

On a practical level, I think you are right. Even if he tanks the first season, there will always be a shot of redemption in the second season. However, I do think first round picks are judged by a different standard. I think, barring quarterbacks that sit a year or three, in the case of Aaron Rodgers, first rounders, and particularly non-skill players, are judged on the 'bust' factor based on first-year contributions. Jacob Long had a great year in Miami, most wouldn't even think to put him in the discussion of potential bust material.

Of course there will be a great argument against the bust label if he tanks year one, but has a decent year two in the fact that he really didn't get first round money, or at least high first round money considering how screwed up the deal appears to be for Smith. It could in fact be a value-based assessment at that point.

I hear you. The kid has talent though. If he has enough talent to make to a pro bowl say before we meet back here in 2012 then whatever happens this yr will be forgotten. Not the best start for the young man but we don't live in an ideal world. Hopefully this injury is a wake up call, however it happened, and as he looks at the team from the outside he puts the time to good use. I'm personally not impressed with any pro athlete who can't maintain a basic level of fitness though - goes to the attitude side of things - but who the f**k am I anyway? No doubt the coaches will be all over him for being a butterball and will whip him into shape. Or he'll stand to lose millions. His move I guess.

[kingwilly]

I think we have a case of premature bust-aculation. Greg, you might want to see someone for this. It happens to most guys when they get excited.

Do the signs here point to a bust? Yes.

Is Andre Smith a bust? No.

Before we saddle Dre Smith with the bust tag, let's give him a chance to get into shape and heal his foot.

He "could" be healed by week 4-5, and then be in some kind of playing shape by the bye. If he can start getting some rotation, or start seeing the field to sub for a nicked up lineman come week 9 or 10, he could make a contribution to the team and shed the ugliness of all the events that transpired to get him here.

Now, if his foot problem needs surgery, and if he gets IR'd, and has weight issues into mini-camp 2010, THEN we can start whispering bust.

[gregstephens]

I think we have a case of premature bust-aculation. Greg, you might want to see someone for this. It happens to most guys when they get excited.

Do the signs here point to a bust? Yes.

Is Andre Smith a bust? No.

Before we saddle Dre Smith with the bust tag, let's give him a chance to get into shape and heal his foot.

He "could" be healed by week 4-5, and then be in some kind of playing shape by the bye. If he can start getting some rotation, or start seeing the field to sub for a nicked up lineman come week 9 or 10, he could make a contribution to the team and shed the ugliness of all the events that transpired to get him here.

Now, if his foot problem needs surgery, and if he gets IR'd, and has weight issues into mini-camp 2010, THEN we can start whispering bust.

That, too, is fair enough. I think if Smith doesn't ever see a snap before week 10, the pick will go down as a terrible pick even if it's not technically a bust. Number six overall pick needs to be in camp, playing from game one, and already improving the team. If he had suffered a long-term knee or foot injury playing hard in a pre-season game protecting his QB, he gets a Mulligan. Strolling in after the third preseason game, tipping the scales at just under a Prius, with no visible signs of being in football condition, and then breaking his foot in a non-contact drill--there is no way he can redeem this season, because he was the sixth overall pick, unless he is just the second coming of Anthony Munoz or Willie Anderson. I hope he is. I suspect otherwise.

[membengal]

Let's not jump the gun here man. It is an early, discouraging injury, but give him some time before flying the bust flag.

This is exactly the type of response I was hoping for. I can understand this argument and it has much validity. I merely posed the question in the article. I don't think the overall issue of how Smith will pan out is somehow off-limits. Heck, we do it for everything that happens on this team. Palmer's ankle is injured--should we get rid of him? Some say yes, some say no. Debate it and go on. I posed three reasons for concern. I hope Smith is one of the greatest Bengal tackles of all-time. I just don't see how the topic itself is taboo.

Why?

Why exactly are you trying to prompt that kind of response?

Who, precisely, was using a "bust" type label? Other than you, in that article, to frame a debate that no one is having?

If your point is that the injury is less than ideal, I agree.

If your point is that it hampers his ability to help in 2009, I agree (although not as much as holding out likely did).

If you are being remotely serious with musing over "bust" as even a possible frame for a "debate", then I still call bulls**t.

This again is the debate I was hoping for. Why do I want to prompt the previously mentioned response? Because it was a valid counterargument. Why wouldn't I want to prompt that?

My problem with your response here, in terms of the point/counterpoint, is that you've only focused on one part of my argument--the injury and its immmediate impact. The other two parts of my argument are still out there. First is the 'Vince Young' argument. One has to question the judgment and intelligence level of Smith. He's not making good decisions--anywhere. And that's not something you can teach or coach up or improve with maturity. It's who he is and who he will always be. Based on what we've already seen, does he appear to have the mental acumen to play the game on an NFL level?

Second is the 'Chris Henry' argument. While we all hope Henry has turned the corner, very few of us believe he has the self-discipline to stay there and play on a pro level (rename it the 'Michael Vick' argument if the Henry reference is distastful, or even the 'Jeremi Johnson' argument). If Smith can't discipline himself as to the basic requirements to stay healthy and play the game effectively, i.e. his weight and conditioning, can he discipline himself as to stupid penalties, blocking assignments, etc.?

I never labelled him a bust in the first place. I merely suggest that everything we've seen of him so far does not give a lot of room for hope for his future. I certainly can be, and hope to be, proven wrong.

No. It's NOT a valid counter-argument, Greg.

It's bulls**t panty bunching of the first order. You have thong underwear coming out of your throat they are bunched so tight.

Look, you are better than this. He's projected to miss 7-10 days. That's two weeks. Going from that to "BUST???????????????" and claiming that is a "valid counter-argument" is FoxNews-esque. And that is not a compliment.

You want people to read your stuff? Stop flame-throwing. Be reasonable. And don't posit the worst and completely outlandish conclusion and claim it's a "valid counter-argument".

On top of all that, you want to pose such a thing?

We ALREADY had a Smith foot thread. We didn't need two. Especially one with such an invalid frame.

[TJJackson]

While I do think that the injury will take much longer than 2 weeks to heal, and I certainly dont expect the big guy to contribute much if at all to the bengals 2009 season due to his holdout -- I think we are well short of the point where one can legitimately even bring up the word 'bust' for discussion.

Am I disappointed with what we have gotten from him thus far? Absolutely. Yes. No doubt. Angry even.

Am I ready to declare him a bust? Not remotely.

[walzav29]

He is not in horrendous shape, the guy broke his foot. The guy was regarded as the best tackle going into the bowl game last year. He has been signed for 4 days. Let's give him a chance.

[Ickey44]

Greg, I'm forced to agree with everyone else here. Bringing up the word bust 48 hours after he signed his first contract is somewhat irresponsible. Give the kid a couple of years before you even bring that word up.

[Bearcat1975]

Man...even question something about the almighty Bengals and you are either a troll, or you are laying "troll-bait."

I hope the crybabies keep me on ignore.

To the point of Greg's article, I think Andre Smith will end up being a bust because he is not a person of high character, he was drafted by the Bengals, and because he was just bitch-slapped in negotiations.

I admit this is just my gut feeling. Smith might end up a perrenial probowler. Conventional wisdom says he is more likely to go the Big Daddy route. Half-ass it for 4 years then bash the Bengals on his way out of town.

"Another Satisfied Customer." - CEO Mike Brown