Chad still on DWTS

[BengalPimp]

Aging or not, quick, name the Bengal Pro Bowlers from last season? There was Chad....and.....and.....and.....and.....

......and who got in only when 374 or so other wide receivers (better wide receivers) declined to play in the sham that is the Pro Bowl

Amusing..... 374 other WR's ? Welker because of injury, Wayne because he was playing in the Superbowl...That's 2...but i guess you were rounding up. You act like WR is the only position where players might not play. 3 AFC QB's didn't play (Manning, Brady, Rivers) and allowed guys like Garrard and VY to get in (still can't believe Palmer didn't get in) but there were replacements at many positions like QB, WR, T, C, TE, K, LB, S, DE for the AFC. Again Chad was the only Pro Bowler. I still feel others got snubbed, but don't just take that away from Chad because you don't like him.

[derekshank]

Aging or not, quick, name the Bengal Pro Bowlers from last season? There was Chad....and.....and.....and.....and.....

......and who got in only when 374 or so other wide receivers (better wide receivers) declined to play in the sham that is the Pro Bowl

Amusing..... 374 other WR's ? Welker because of injury, Wayne because he was playing in the Superbowl...That's 2...but i guess you were rounding up. You act like WR is the only position where players might not play. 3 AFC QB's didn't play (Manning, Brady, Rivers) and allowed guys like Garrard and VY to get in (still can't believe Palmer didn't get in) but there were replacements at many positions like QB, WR, T, C, TE, K, LB, S, DE for the AFC. Again Chad was the only Pro Bowler. I still feel others got snubbed, but don't just take that away from Chad because you don't like him.

Well, you defeat yourself in your own argument. Mentioning that players like Schaub, Vince Young and David Garrard were the QBs for the Pro Bowl proves how valuable it is at assessing the league's best players. Not at all.

Reggie Wayne, Wes Welker, and Randy Moss all declined (for different reasons) and Chad got in. So we're now bragging that the best WR on the team is in the argument for top 6 WR... if you leave out the NFC. Awesome.

He's not the cornerstone of this team, and he'll be gone in a year or two regardless. It's time to stop acting like this is '05... because he's well over 30 now, and his skills are in decline.

The Bengals have to move on eventually (quite soon actually). Why not now, if they can actually get something valuable in return? At the very least, I'd give Dan Snyder a call to see what he has to say.

[HairOnFire]

The Bengals have to move on eventually (quite soon actually). Why not now, if they can actually get something valuable in return?

Yeah, in theory I love the idea and I don't mind indulging myself thinking about it. But oddly enough I think the very fact the Bengals are a better team than last year greatly reduces the odds Chad would be traded. Well, that and the fact that Chad's glorious return from the tank corps means he won't have to be traded at fire sale prices.

At the very least, I'd give Dan Snyder a call to see what he has to say.

Tell him Albert Haynesworth deserves to be happy.

Oh, and if that doesn't get the job done....get Mike Holmgren on the line.

[BengalPimp]

Dammit.....Enough of the trade Chad talk....I only want to see him Samba,Mambo,Rumba in the End Zone wearing Stripes.

[derekshank]

Dammit.....Enough of the trade Chad talk....I only want to see him Samba,Mambo,Rumba in the End Zone wearing Stripes.

Isn't the Rumba a self-propelled vacuum cleaner? And is this a Freudian confession that you think Chad sucks? In which case you actually love the trade talks?

Alright. Don't bend my arm. We'll continue the day-dreaming and rumor making.

[BengalPimp]

Dammit.....Enough of the trade Chad talk....I only want to see him Samba,Mambo,Rumba in the End Zone wearing Stripes.

Isn't the Rumba a self-propelled vacuum cleaner? And is this a Freudian confession that you think Chad sucks? In which case you actually love the trade talks?

Alright. Don't bend my arm. We'll continue the day-dreaming and rumor making.

Uh, that's a Roomba, not Rumba...nice attempt.

No Freudian slips, Chad is the best WR we've got, and until there is someone better (unknown as of now) I don't want him traded for a "future" pick. It's just not a good move.

[ArmyBengal]

Well well well, what an interesting thread this turned out to be.

I was out of the loop last week at a medical conference, but kept up with what was going on and here's what I kept thinking:

If the reports about the young WR's are to be be believed and we are now looking at a thought of Matt Jones "being a beast", Simpson having "the light turn on", and Briscoe "not lasting on the practice squad", at what point do we consider a trade involving Chad increasing in odds ??

Don't get me wrong, I really don't like Chad and would relish the thought of him being gone, but this is from another standpoint. Do you sacrifice the future and cut one of the youngsters and keep a declining Chad ?? Also, not forgetting Antonio Bryant has been a #1 WR in this league and a good one. Can he be that much of a fall off from an aging Chad ?? SERIOUSLY ASK YOURSELF THAT QUESTION.

All I know is everyone is clamoring on about how great the WR's are coming along and at some point you either have to base that in one of two things. Either it's early on and they are only getting love because there's nothing else to talk about OR they really are doing that well, which would absolutely beg the question of, who gets traded ?? With all of the WR's on the roster, every trade conversation should begin and end with Chad.

Once again, this is more than my simple dislike for Chad and I still put the odds on the low end, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

[walzav29]

Let's keep him. He is hands down the best receiver we have. Their is no salary cap, everything else is unproven. I think the Bengals have a real Super Bowl shot this year, and last years playoffs proved 2 things. 1. Palmer needs more receiving weapons the more the better. 2. Good old Rex still can't stop a PREMIERE passing game. The passing game is better with Chad. Name a better combination of 3 on the team?

[cincy9275]

until we see some one step up and takes chad's place as a #1 w/o. you really can't trade him. didn't losing TJ show what happens when you go in to a season with a bunch of unproven players? what looks good on paper does not euate to s**t once they start playing for real.

[ArmyBengal]

Let's keep him. He is hands down the best receiver we have. Their is no salary cap, everything else is unproven. I think the Bengals have a real Super Bowl shot this year, and last years playoffs proved 2 things. 1. Palmer needs more receiving weapons the more the better. 2. Good old Rex still can't stop a PREMIERE passing game. The passing game is better with Chad. Name a better combination of 3 on the team?

Cool, so you are of the line of thought that none of the talk about the other WR's matters. I have no issue with that in the least.

I agree that Chad is the best WR they have, but the question still standing is, by how much ?? If there isn't much of a drop off between him and Antonio Bryant, dumping Chad would allow the team to hold onto the younger guys that would be here longer. If there is that much of a drop off, then you keep him. I'm just of the line of thought that there isn't as much of a drop off that others think there is.

Palmer needs more weapons indeed, but he also needs WR's that are clearly devoted to the team and there's not a single person that can rationally argue that Chad is that WR. As for the better combination of 3 WR's on the team, it goes to if you believe the drop off isn't that much. If you don't believe the drop off is drastic and the talk about the other WR's is accurate, then a (Bryant, Jones, Shipley) combo wouldn't bother me in the least when you are also adding a Gresham / Kelly at the TE spot and I think the TE spot is something no one is giving much thought to in regards to adding weapons for Carson and how it could affect the WR corps.

It certainly is an arguable topic and the odds of a Chad trade are low, I can admit that.

I just don't think it's absolutely out of the rhelm of possibility.

[ArmyBengal]

until we see some one step up and takes chad's place as a #1 w/o. you really can't trade him. didn't losing TJ show what happens when you go in to a season with a bunch of unproven players? what looks good on paper does not euate to s**t once they start playing for real.

Again, if the accounts of the coaches and other players are to be taken seriously, we are seeing WR's stepping up each practice and we have another WR that has been a productive #1 WR in the league for years. I also don't think you can compare losing TJ as he had a different role than Chad, but I certainly get that point. That being said, you also can't argue this team is beter off without the now known pain in the ass TJ was/is and how getting rid of him improved our locker room. Is it so hard to fathom Chad's departure having the same, if not more, impact on the locker room ??

I also understand the looking good on paper thought, but we are talking about the coaches raving about the WR's abilities, not simply looking at who's currently on the roster. It just strikes me odd that everyone is willing to buy into how great Matt Jones, Antonio Bryant, and yes, even Jerome Simpson has looked in camp, but no one is willing to put thought to maybe those types of WR's could possible allow the team to trade Chad. I think there simply has to be equal thought, unless all of the reports out there are for show.

[derekshank]

Trading Chad boils down to the success/failure of one player in my mind. Matt Jones.

If Jones is (as I suspect) washed up, then trading Chad doesn't help the team. I like Caldwell, and I love Shipley, but both are #3s right now. I don't think either of them yet represent enough of a threat to take pressure off of Bryant.

But, if the Jones talk is more than just talk... a Chad trade makes a lot of sense. If he's really as good as people are talking, he'll be plenty solid as a #2, and Caldwell/Shipley can both man the slot.

Sure, Chad might represent the "best" WR on the team at this point... but the drop-off in skill level is not that drastic. And while it's great to have good depth, it would be crazy to stock-pile quality players who never get on the field.

If the Chargers had resigned Drew Brees a few years back, and Philip Rivers was their back-up... how is it benefitting the team? At a certain point, too much depth at one position keeps a team from addressing other needs, and you can afford to trade whatever player gives the greatest return.

If Jones can start, then Chad should be traded to help address an area of weakness on the Bengals roster. But if Matt Jones stinks, cut him. No worries.

[walzav29]

I say keep them all and when the new cba kicks in. If we CAN trade/cut him go ahead, but he is good. We can't risk the season on guys with character issues. I'm talking suspensions. Let's bring them all in and have them compete like crazy. I can't wait for Palmer to shut up everyone who thinks he's lost it. I believe the only thing he's lost is wr's. Until now baby!

Cincinnati 56

NFC SB Rep - 10

[derekshank]

I say keep them all

Alright, but if Jones ends up being worthy of a playing time... keeping  him, Chad, and Bryant means less playing time for young players that are supposedly being developed into starters.

Even worse, it means cutting players they've drafted specifically to replace aging players. The same aging players that fans  have such a hard time saying goodbye to, despite their diminishing abilities.

We can't risk the season on guys with character issues. I'm talking suspensions.

I'm having trouble finding a significant difference between a suspended player and one who admits to tanking a season. I mean other than the fact that a suspended player allows someone who gives a s**t to play. Frankly, if the success/failure of 2010 season is being placed on the shoulders of Chad, then my optimism takes a significant hit.

Let's bring them all in and have them compete like crazy.

Sure. Has anyone said otherwise? And it's my opinion that Matt Jones won't make the team. But those are the questions surrounding Matt Jones... not so much about a suspension.

But in the off chance that he is good enough, it's an opportunity for the Bengals to free themselves from the slavery of Chad's fickle attitude and unpredictable work ethic. It's an opportunity to keep developing young players. It's an opportunity to keep players on the roster with more upside. It's an opportunity to get something in return for a player who won't be in Cincy long term anyway. Win/Win/Win/Win.

[ArmyBengal]

How much of this coming season is on Chad's plate ?? Wouldn't an improved o-line (which we should have), a better than average running game (which we have), a top 5 defense (which we have), and improved effort from the WR corps (which we should have) place less of a burden on Chad needing to be the focal point of this team ?? Add in Gresham and Kelly at the TE spot along with a (healthy?) Coffman and it even lessens it.

I just don't think the team takes that much (see very little) of a hit if the other WR's step up.

RUN THE BALL, TD's IN THE REDZONE, AND PLAY DEFENSE !!!

Oh yeah, if I had the say in how to finish the CAP statement above, it would be:

BYE CHAD !!!

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Alright, but if Jones ends up being worthy of a playing time... keeping  him, Chad, and Bryant means less playing time for young players that are supposedly being developed into starters.

I'm betting training camp will help resolve some of these questions. Problem with trading Chad is, every WR the Bengals have right now is a "maybe" at best. Soonest they could reasonably get rid of him would be next year.

The time to trade him was after 2008, when they could have easily gotten a first and third minimum out of Danny Boy.

[walzav29]

Alright, but if Jones ends up being worthy of a playing time... keeping  him, Chad, and Bryant means less playing time for young players that are supposedly being developed into starters.

I'm betting training camp will help resolve some of these questions. Problem with trading Chad is, every WR the Bengals have right now is a "maybe" at best. Soonest they could reasonably get rid of him would be next year.

The time to trade him was after 2008, when they could have easily gotten a first and third minimum out of Danny Boy.

I agree. The Trade Chad ship has sailed. Ocho, Bryant, Jones (he is going to be a great weapon in the redzone), Caldwell early (Shipley Late), and the big question is PR. If Jones sucks than Cosby makes it. If Jones is a miracle. Briscoe makes it.

[ArmyBengal]

This might be one of those years, especially if Chad stays (which I anticipate), were they carry 7 WR's as not to lose a player with a more long term future with the organization. It could look something like this:

Chad

Bryant

Jones

Caldwell

Shipley

Cosby

Briscoe or Simpson

I can't say as that would bother me in the least.

[BengalPimp]

I say keep them all

Alright, but if Jones ends up being worthy of a playing time... keeping him, Chad, and Bryant means less playing time for young players that are supposedly being developed into starters.

Even worse, it means cutting players they've drafted specifically to replace aging players. The same aging players that fans have such a hard time saying goodbye to, despite their diminishing abilities.

But you don't trade a Pro Bowl WR (Chad) to make room on the roster for a 6th Rd WR (Briscoe) or a guy who hasn't played in 2 yrs (Jones). Really, does that make sense? Ditch a Pro Bowler for a 6th Rounder....

Diminishing abilities? Hell, if 1,000+ yds and 9 TD's is a result of diminishing abilities....sh*t, all of our WR would be fotunate to have those "diminished" abilities.

P.S. I don't care how good ANY of the WR's look right now. I want to see how they look, and how fast they play with pads on and contact. Everybody looks better/faster in shorts and a helmet, than they will in pads....that's the truth.....

[BengalPimp]

Do you sacrifice the future and cut one of the youngsters and keep a declining Chad ?? Also, not forgetting Antonio Bryant has been a #1 WR in this league and a good one. Can he be that much of a fall off from an aging Chad ?? SERIOUSLY ASK YOURSELF THAT QUESTION.

I don't think cutting a 6th Rd pick (Briscoe), a WR who hasn't played in 2 yrs (Jones) or a guy drafted as a project, who hasn't even been able to make it on the field(Simpson) is really a "sacrifice". I see your point about youth Army, but we're not talking about Michael Crabtree's or Dez Bryant's......We're talking Mat Jones', Jerome Simpson's, and possibly Dez Briscoe's.

as for Antonio Bryant, why does he have to replace Chad, and there be any kind of "fall off" at all? I mean, I think they're going to make one hell of a 1-2 punch.

[ArmyBengal]

Do you sacrifice the future and cut one of the youngsters and keep a declining Chad ?? Also, not forgetting Antonio Bryant has been a #1 WR in this league and a good one. Can he be that much of a fall off from an aging Chad ?? SERIOUSLY ASK YOURSELF THAT QUESTION.

I don't think cutting a 6th Rd pick (Briscoe), a WR who hasn't played in 2 yrs (Jones) or a guy drafted as a project, who hasn't even been able to make it on the field(Simpson) is really a "sacrifice". I see your point about youth Army, but we're not talking about Michael Crabtree's or Dez Bryant's......We're talking Mat Jones', Jerome Simpson's, and possibly Dez Briscoe's.

as for Antonio Bryant, why does he have to replace Chad, and there be any kind of "fall off" at all? I mean, I think they're going to make one hell of a 1-2 punch.

I'm posing the thought for a few reasons:

#1. It's a simple question of how much fall off is there between Chad and Bryant if Chad were gone ??

#2. I asked if the talk was just talk or are the guys coming on like the coaches couldn't imagine ??

#3. How much of this season is on Chad's shoulders that he's an "absolute" must have for the season ??

For the record, I don't think Chad is going anywhere and I think the WR will be greatly improved from last year. I also think (as I mentioned before) this may be the season they carry 7 WR's as opposed to 6. That would be very interesting. You get my point, but I don't honestly think it will or even should happen. I'm just talking because it is in fact an interesting thought process and I don't support sacrificing the future of the position for what should be one more season for a guy who doesn't have the season on his shoulders when looking at the rest of the roster.

I'm just looking at a bigger picture of what Carson will have as opposed to how it has always been with everything riding on Chad.

I think this may be the first season where Chad is actually less of a factor than in years past.

[Ickey44]

I think this may be the first season where Chad is actually less of a factor than in years past.

Here's hoping.

[TJJackson]

I think this may be the first season where Chad is actually less of a factor than in years past.

Here's hoping.

+1

[Trevor]

I think this may be the first season where Chad is actually less of a factor than in years past.

Here's hoping.

+1

-2

[Wraith]

Really? trade Chad before the start of the season but after the draft? I respect you Army but you really haven't thought this one through. It is not a matter of a drop off it is a matter of risk. Antonio Bryant has never played in this system until you get him out into the field you have no real idea how he can perform within the context of this offense, practice and even preseason games mean nothing when teams are playing against themselves or worse running vanilla schemes to not give their playbooks away before the start of the games that matter. Everyone on this board thought that Laveneus Coles would be an at least acceptable replacement for TJ after all they were roughly the same age and Coles had similar numbers coming into last year, no one predicted that Coles would be such a failed experiment, quoting SEC "Blue Sky Rules" past performance is not always an accurate predictor of future sucess.

Matt Jones could be the second coming of Jerry Rice but until such time as you can make sure you can trust him to make good decisions off the field and be emotionally able to handle success you cannot risk your team on him, you cannot know the answer to this until next offseason if he makes the team at all.

Nobody else on the entire team has shown any ability to have consistent success at the NFL level.

In short this discussion would be better fleshed out if we were talking about next season BEFORE the draft, this season talk about trading Chad for virtually nothing in exchange that will help THIS season is just silly talk. (anything we get back would be in the form of draft picks for next year and this team is equipped to win today!). Keeping Chad gives us an anchor for this season, we know that he will perform. His statistics last season were remarkable considering the dimished playbook (because of O Line concerns), the loss of every TE worth a damn on the rosters, and the failure of Coles and the lack of development of Caldwell and Simpson. He will perform this year as well Chad is a constant we know what we are going to get with him. we know nothing else with regards to our passing game, I don't think it is likely that Bryant will flop the way that Coles did, or that Gresham, Kelly, and Coffman will all suffer season ending injuries, or that Caldwell, Shipley, Simpson, Briscoe, Brown (we always forget about Freddie Brown) will all fail to develop into NFL talents but if it does happen we always have Chad to fall back on and with just a little help I believe our passing game can return to at least 2006 levels.