Carson Palmer Thread

[Sea Ray]

If Palmer was in danger of being cut, there was no need for this "Trade me or I'll retire" business.

Based on how Palmer has played the last two years, I think you're fooling yourself if you think he was going to play here four more years and collect $50 million. Irrespective of Vick, the Palmer deal was ripe for renegotiation based on his performance, and that in fact is what James Walker alleged the Bengals tried to do.

As to why they waited until this year to draft a QB, maybe they simply didn't see anyone they thought was better than Carson, even if they did believe he'd declined. Is it a bad thing they didn't draft Jimmy Clausen, for example? And they certainly believed that they had him locked up, right? Remember Mike's initial reaction to the threat to retire, that it wasn't "practical"?

If that's true then it's puzzling that Carson played it like he did. If that was the case then he could have gotten out of here by refusing the cut. Boomer didn't even play this game when Klingler was drafted who was clearly brought in to replace him. No way was Vick going to be handed CP's job. He was a longshot like most of the Bengals' troubled projects

[COB]

then he could have gotten out of here by refusing the cut.

If Palmer had a brain, or a set of balls, he could have gotten out of here by keeping his mouth shut. Call Marvin and Mike in June, tell them his arm is messed up but not injured. Then show up and throw everything to the defensive backs. Result: Cut or traded.

[derekshank]

If Palmer was in danger of being cut, there was no need for this "Trade me or I'll retire" business.

Irrespective of Vick, the Palmer deal was ripe for renegotiation based on his performance, and that in fact is what James Walker alleged the Bengals tried to do.

If that's true then it's puzzling that Carson played it like he did. If that was the case then he could have gotten out of here by refusing the cut.

*DING* *DING* *DING* *DING* *DING*

If there was a real threat of Palmer being given the "paycut or get cut" ultimatum, his course of action just made the Bay of Pigs look like a success in comparison.

No way was Vick going to be handed CP's job. He was a longshot like most of the Bengals' troubled projects

A Vick signing would have been a standard Bengals move. Pacman, Benson, Tank Johnson... get a guy on the cheap. Plan for the worst, hope for the best. It's a bargain, and MB doesn't like to pass those up.

It shouldn't be viewed as a Palmer replacement strategy. If the Packers had announced that Aaron Rogers was available, making an offer wouldn't mean Cincy was actively looking to replace Palmer. It means that if a good enough opportunity came along, the Bengals were open to it.

Now that we know how the Vick thing played out, it's not a stretch to say he could have challenged Palmer for playing time. But that's neither here nor there. Vick didn't come to Cincy... so suggesting that it played a meaningful part in Palmer's decision is stupid.

[derekshank]

If Palmer had a brain, or a set of balls, he could have gotten out of here by keeping his mouth shut. Call Marvin and Mike in June, tell them his arm is messed up but not injured. Then show up and throw everything to the defensive backs. Result: Cut or traded.

Yep... which is evidence that Palmer wasn't getting cut. Palmer knew, more than anyone, that he was MB's only egg basket. And that his only real shot of getting out of Cincy was to give them a few months to plan for life after Carson.

As it stood, there was no plan. And Palmer was the starting QB for 2011, whether he sucked or not. 16-0, or 0-16... #9 was the only plan.

[walzav29]

I'm starting to think Palmer is a weirdo.

[HoosierCat]

None of which supports your conclusion that they were going to offer him the starting spot.

Hey, it's not "my conclusion." It's just what the article says.

It's the conclusion you've wholeheartedly adopted.

No, it's just what Vick said. I didn't have to "conclude" anything.

As for your take that Goddell had a legitimate interest in "steering" Vick to Philly - are you serious about that? Goddell has an equal obligation to every team in the league. If he's telling players not to go to a specific team because he thinks it might lead to problems he's favoring one team over another. That's the ONE thing he absolutely cannot do if he's going to maintain any legitimacy in his position. He is commissioner of the NFL, not the Eagles, Patriots, Cowboys and Steelers. Just go to PFT and see the sh**storm brewing over this (and the league's attempted preemptive strike - "what, we didn't do it, Vick must be mistaken") starting out of Buffalo. It's a totally legitimate corruption story and there's plenty of history of favoritism to make it believable.

Exactly. Goodell is commissioner of the entire NFL. And if he's not going to keep Vick on the sidelines permanently a la Thurman, doesn't he have a responsibility to try and make sure Vick does no further damage to the league's image? If that means steering him away from a team like the Bengals who have a demonstrated history of not being a good place for troubled players, I don't see that as beyond the pale.

Now, if we were talking about a situation where the commissioner deliberately steered a star player to a specific team so they could win more games/championships, that would be a different story. But I haven't seen any evidence of anything like that so far.

[HoosierCat]

Now that we know how the Vick thing played out, it's not a stretch to say he could have challenged Palmer for playing time. But that's neither here nor there. Vick didn't come to Cincy... so suggesting that it played a meaningful part in Palmer's decision is stupid.

Right. The idea that the Bengals would have brought in even so much as competition for his job couldn't possibly have pissed Palmer off. Now who's being ridiculous?

[derekshank]

Now that we know how the Vick thing played out, it's not a stretch to say he could have challenged Palmer for playing time. But that's neither here nor there. Vick didn't come to Cincy... so suggesting that it played a meaningful part in Palmer's decision is stupid.

Right. The idea that the Bengals would have brought in even so much as competition for his job couldn't possibly have pissed Palmer off. Now who's being ridiculous?

How does the timeline work in your head? Because here is how it played out in real life:

- Vick was offered a contract.

- Vick chose the Eagles instead.

- Palmer asked to be traded 2 years later.

Palmer apparently didn't get pissed about it until he noticed that Vick was better than him. But by that point, it made no difference... because Vick didn't play for the Bengals. Cincy has never, at any point had another QB on their roster that has, at any time, been remotely capable of challenging Palmer for playing time.

So, WTF are you talking about?

[BengalByTheBay]

Exactly. Goodell is commissioner of the entire NFL. And if he's not going to keep Vick on the sidelines permanently a la Thurman, doesn't he have a responsibility to try and make sure Vick does no further damage to the league's image? If that means steering him away from a team like the Bengals who have a demonstrated history of not being a good place for troubled players, I don't see that as beyond the pale.

Now, if we were talking about a situation where the commissioner deliberately steered a star player to a specific team so they could win more games/championships, that would be a different story. But I haven't seen any evidence of anything like that so far.

Steering him to a team is steering him to a team. It doesn't matter what team he's steered from or for what reason. It's favoring one team over another. What part of commissioner of the NFL involves favoring, or disfavoring, any team? Once you admit he did it, but you agree with the reason, you've admitted he's unfit to fill the role of commissioner.

[HoosierCat]

How does the timeline work in your head? Because here is how it played out in real life:

- Vick was offered a contract.

- Vick chose the Eagles.

- Palmer asked to be traded 2 years later.

Actually it was a span of less than 16 months, from mid-August of '09 to last January. I doubt the Bengals chasing Vick was the sole reason Palmer finally walked out, but if you don't think it was important, I'd love to know what you think was.

[HoosierCat]

What part of commissioner of the NFL involves favoring, or disfavoring, any team?

The part that involves considering the good of the league as a whole.

It doesn't matter what team he's steered from or for what reason.

Well, this is where we're just going to have to agree or disagree, because I believe the teams and reasons involved do matter. And in this case, I agree completely with his steering Vick away from Cincy.

[Sea Ray]

Well, this is where we're just going to have to agree or disagree, because I believe the teams and reasons involved do matter. And in this case, I agree completely with his steering Vick away from Cincy.

So you think if the ends justify the means that it's OK for the commissioner to steer a free agent? I think that's dicey and the he ought not go there. It wasn't just Cincinnati that got screwed here. It was Buffalo too

[BengalByTheBay]

What part of commissioner of the NFL involves favoring, or disfavoring, any team?

The part that involves considering the good of the league as a whole.

It doesn't matter what team he's steered from or for what reason.

Well, this is where we're just going to have to agree or disagree, because I believe the teams and reasons involved do matter. And in this case, I agree completely with his steering Vick away from Cincy.

Here's why you're dead wrong - the "good of the game" is a subjective standard that can be invoked to support ANY decision at ANY time. It means whatever the person saying it says it means. This time, you apparently agree with Goddell. What about next time? What if the "good of the game" is that 3 or 4 teams are allowed special treatment because they're more popular? Would you agree with that? Because that's exactly how I see this situation.

You're concerned that the Bengals get a problem player and, based on their history, let him run amok and get in trouble again? Is that it? Because there are sanctions for that kind of problem, right? Sanctions that are built into the structure of the game. Here, we're talking about depriving a team (2 teams actually) of a level playing field when trying to court a player. A player who, by his own admission, preferred those 2 teams. Said player is then "convinced" to sign with another team because that is better for the league". The third team gets a bargain (ie, pays less than the other 2 teams would have), goes immediately to the playoffs based largely on the player's performance and is now an odds-on favorite to win the SuperBowl. How can you - with a straight face - claim these events were "good for the game as a whole" as opposed to being good for one team at the expense of others?

[derekshank]

How does the timeline work in your head? Because here is how it played out in real life:

- Vick was offered a contract.

- Vick chose the Eagles.

- Palmer asked to be traded 2 years later.

Actually it was a span of less than 16 months, from mid-August of '09 to last January. I doubt the Bengals chasing Vick was the sole reason Palmer finally walked out, but if you don't think it was important, I'd love to know what you think was.

According to Mike Freeman, who interviewed Palmer's ex-teammates, it was a matter of weeks, not months, that Palmer was expressing bitterness. So whether it is 2 years, or 16 months... your timeline still looks silly.

Vick represented an extremely rare opportunity to build QB depth without spending much money. MB has never been willing to spend good money on a back-up QB... and in '08 we saw the consequences. Vick wasn't a conspiracy to replace Palmer. Once Vick fell through, Cincy didn't attempt to bring in any other quality QBs. It just wasn't a priority... let alone a grand plan.

Cincy has shown zero evidence that replacing Palmer was ever part of their plan. And when Palmer asked for a trade, Mike Brown told Palmer that he was "central to its plans" "that we count on him going forward," and "He was told that we are not in a position to trade him."

So this whole "Palmer is pissed because they tried to replace him" argument doesn't hold up when you rub two brain cells together.

[COB]

And in this case, I agree completely with his steering Vick away from Cincy.

Ok, how about when Goodell decides that a starter for the Bengals, who has reached free agency, would serve the league better playing for the Patriots. Goodell then gets involved and explains why it would be good for the league and good for the player if he signed his second contract with the Patriots.

I don't care what Goodell's reasons are in the hypothetical above. It doesn't matter what the reasons are, the fact is he has pushed a good player away from one team and towards another.

I care about the Bengals. I want good players to come here. The Commissioner should be an impartial force, not a guy advocating for his favored franchises. The good of the league thing I get, and he is justified within reasonable limits to take action to further the best interests of the league.

But he should never, no matter what policy consideration is behind it, do something that interfere with the competitive balance of the teams.

Hey Roger Goodell, I'd like to view the tapes that showed how and how much the Patriots cheated. Oh yea, you destroyed those tapes just about as soon as you got your hands on them.

He's not a Commissioner, he's an accomplice in a cover up of cheating by his favorite team. And he's a steaming bag of old lady douche.

[COB]

What part of commissioner of the NFL involves favoring, or disfavoring, any team?

The part that involves considering the good of the league as a whole.

It doesn't matter what team he's steered from or for what reason.

Well, this is where we're just going to have to agree or disagree, because I believe the teams and reasons involved do matter. And in this case, I agree completely with his steering Vick away from Cincy.

Here's why you're dead wrong - the "good of the game" is a subjective standard that can be invoked to support ANY decision at ANY time. It means whatever the person saying it says it means. This time, you apparently agree with Goddell. What about next time? What if the "good of the game" is that 3 or 4 teams are allowed special treatment because they're more popular? Would you agree with that? Because that's exactly how I see this situation.

You're concerned that the Bengals get a problem player and, based on their history, let him run amok and get in trouble again? Is that it? Because there are sanctions for that kind of problem, right? Sanctions that are built into the structure of the game. Here, we're talking about depriving a team (2 teams actually) of a level playing field when trying to court a player. A player who, by his own admission, preferred those 2 teams. Said player is then "convinced" to sign with another team because that is better for the league". The third team gets a bargain (ie, pays less than the other 2 teams would have), goes immediately to the playoffs based largely on the player's performance and is now an odds-on favorite to win the SuperBowl. How can you - with a straight face - claim these events were "good for the game as a whole" as opposed to being good for one team at the expense of others?

Bay summed it up better than I could have.

[membengal]

Hoosier, I think you have lost your mind.

[HoosierCat]

What if the "good of the game" is that 3 or 4 teams are allowed special treatment because they're more popular? Would you agree with that? Because that's exactly how I see this situation.

Nope, wouldn't agree with it. But I don't see that happening here. How did the Eagles get special treatment because they were "more popular?"

The third team gets a bargain (ie, pays less than the other 2 teams would have), goes immediately to the playoffs based largely on the player's performance and is now an odds-on favorite to win the SuperBowl. How can you - with a straight face - claim these events were "good for the game as a whole" as opposed to being good for one team at the expense of others?

Vick certainly worked out well for Philly. But Goodell didn't steer him there because he thought Vick would be a great player who would take the Eagles to the playoffs. He was steering him away from Cincy and Buffalo in order to keep Vick out of trouble. And I can't blame him.

[ArmyBengal]

If in fact Goodell "steered" a player from one team to another, he should be fired immediately. While the "Good of the league" is an understandable thing he has to consider, I believe there are limitations to that and where he decides to place his input. This would clearly be out of bounds for him and no different that a team talking to another playing while they are under contract with another team. It's tampering.

Now, while I could see Vick being brought in as something that could piss Palmer off, I wouldn't say it was "THE" thing that sent him over the edge. If you are playing the "what if" game in this situation, you could go a lot of ways.

What if, when Palmer made his statement back in like 2007 about not knowing if this team could win, the players began questioning his leadership?

What if, Palmer took greater issue to how Chad morphed into the prancing cockbite he became?

What if, the thought of Vick being brought in under any circumstance irritated the hell out of Palmer?

What if, Palmer lost faith in the organization after a 2009 campaign that ended in complete failure?

What if, after all of that, Palmer lost his heart and desire to play for the Bengals anymore?

You can try to connect the dots and also throw in there something about, what if Palmer doesn't like coach Lewis and the fact he was retained, but it doesn't make any of that stuff, in and of itself a certainty. We as fans are only left to speculate. What I do know for a fact is Palmer quit and at this point in time, I don't really care what his reasons are. It's not how I would expect him or anyone that calls themself a professional to handle themselves.

Then again, money has a way to skew things in life...

[HoosierCat]

According to Mike Freeman, who interviewed Palmer's ex-teammates, it was a matter of weeks, not months, that Palmer was expressing bitterness.

Actually, all Freeman says is that Palmer had conversations with Bengals players in the weeks leading up to his decision. The bitterness predates that; the only thing new was that it had "reached an all-time high."

In the weeks before that day quarterback Carson Palmer, according to several Bengals players, began to have private conversations with a handful of teammates about his future in Cincinnati. His bitterness, he told players, had reached an all-time high. It had become unmanageable.

Then, suddenly, Palmer stopped complaining, and it was around that time players believe Palmer decided he never would be a Bengal again.

Palmer's been giving off hints of his unhappiness for years. Remember his "I don't know, I don't think so" answer to whether this team could win right after the '07 season? This has been bubbling for some time.

[kingwilly]

Check this out. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6873181/michael-vick-says-philadelphia-eagles-were-not-first-choice

Now, I'm not about to debate the merits of Vick, his transgressions or SoP. What I do get irritated at is the notion that Goodell "steered" Vick to Philly, or rather, away from Cincy or Buffalo....

WTF is that?

Goodell... that's called tampering.

What a jagoff.

[BengalByTheBay]

But Goodell didn't steer him there because he thought Vick would be a great player who would take the Eagles to the playoffs. He was steering him away from Cincy and Buffalo in order to keep Vick out of trouble. And I can't blame him.

But you should. You should blame him. It's not his job to "steer" a player anywhere under any circumstances. The fact that you accept that he did means you misunderstand what the job of commissioner is supposed to mean.

[HoosierCat]

You might want to check the Palmer thread...

[ArmyBengal]

Merged...

[derekshank]

Palmer's been giving off hints of his unhappiness for years. Remember his "I don't know, I don't think so" answer to whether this team could win right after the '07 season? This has been bubbling for some time.

Nice selective memory. But what about the '09 offseason? Remember when he was gushing about the team, saying they were really good and were going to surprise people.

And not only is 2009 more recent than 2007, it's also the year of the so-called Vick incident, when Palmer's delicate feelings were damaged beyond repair.