Biggest Misconception?

[HoosierCat]

He quit. Faced with a chance to prove his mettle, to be a leader, to make a difference, he quit.

There really is no defense for that.

Which is good, because I have no interest in defending him. But what you're saying isn't that he quit because the going got tough, it's more along the line of, he reached a breaking point and snapped. Which may very well be the case. It makes more sense to me than the whole "his wife is in control" theory at any rate.

[derekshank]

He quit. Faced with a chance to prove his mettle, to be a leader, to make a difference, he quit.

There really is no defense for that.

Which is good, because I have no interest in defending him. But what you're saying isn't that he quit because the going got tough, it's more along the line of, he reached a breaking point and snapped. Which may very well be the case. It makes more sense to me than the whole "his wife is in control" theory at any rate.

Perhaps... but the "tough" that mem is referring too was when the fans finally stopped defending him. He publicly asked fans to stop booing (which only made it worse). He asked for T.O. to be on the team, but lacked the leadership skills necessary to keep the likes of Chad and T.O. in check. So he continually forced the ball into double and triple coverage, and then was amazed to see the fans blame him for his poor play.

He's "tough" in a physical sense... but certainly not in heart. And there's no way to blame Mike Brown for that.

[HoosierCat]

Well, based on the article that mem posted in the other thread... it looks as though the rotten egg has brought in a lot of players who care about winning. But Palmer continually let assclowns like Chad and T.O. run the locker room.

Those assclowns are the rotten eggs, not Mike Brown And that's the issue: if you want a locker room like New England's, which can handle the presence of the occasional assclown like Moss or Dillon, you have to start by stockpiling hardworking, strong-character players who are willing to put team ahead of personal glory. Obviously, that's never been a priority in Cincinnati, and we've seen the results.

It's nonsense to blame the owner when a player lacks a backbone. If Mike Brown has a fault in this, it is believing that the QB he drafted #1 overall was man enough to handle the leadership responsibilities expected of the position.

Well, Palmer exercising leadership presumes that there are players willing to be led. Is there any reason to believe that either of the aforementioned assclowns was interested in listening to Palmer? T.O. spent last season openly complaining about the OC and saying he could adjust the gameplan better, so he obviously had a clear idea who should be in charge, namely him. And as we all know, the only place Chad is interested in being led is out the door.

I don't blame Mike for Carson quitting. That was his decision and he'll have to bear the consequences. What I do blame Mike for is how the team's draft and free agent strategy undermines the team concept by continually pumping in toxic players.

[COB]

What I do blame Mike for is how the team's draft and free agent strategy undermines the team concept by continually pumping in toxic players.

Well, yes and no. The drafting lately has, I think, gone towards better character guys who can play instead of questionable guys who haven't lived up to physical potential (I say this with exceptions in mind, D tackle from Florida and Simpson).

It's the one free agent, T.O. and most of all, the mountain of dysfunction, Mike's refusal to get rid of Chad. It's been a distraction, he's not that good anymore, he's not a team guy, completely selfish behavior that the rest of the guys have to put up with.

So I disagree in regards to the draft and most of free agency. But the one I do agree on, Chad, is so momentous that it erases all the other stuff Mike has done right. Get Chad TFO.

[BengalByTheBay]

I think just the opposite can be argued: that Carson is quitting just as the going appears to be getting easier.

I think this is exactly what is so ridiculously frustrating about Palmer's position. Why now? Why quit now? Which begs the ultimate question - is it ever a good time to quit? Speaking just for myself, while the "why now" issue is interesting, the fact is that Palmer went from a guy I root for to a guy that quit on my team. As such, whatever the answer to "why now" is - f**k him!

[membengal]

I confess to not caring a whit for the reasons for his "why now". It is simply irrelevant. The quitting, in and of itself, is so objectionable that any attempt to legitimize the act by casting blame on, say, the front office, is invalid to me. Any and all blame for this runs to one place...Carson Palmer.

Pacman Jones, of all people, has his finger all over that in the quotes now memorialized in the CP thread.

[derekshank]

So I disagree in regards to the draft and most of free agency. But the one I do agree on, Chad, is so momentous that it erases all the other stuff Mike has done right. Get Chad TFO.

It's true. If Mike Brown has a fault in the culture of the locker room, it's the fact that Chad remains in stripes. At least part of the reason that New England had so much success with Dillon and Moss is that managment felt no emotional connection to the players and cut them loose the moment they became more of a headache than they were worth.

However, the fact remains that they were headaches before New England cut ties with them. But it worked because the players who were counted on to maintain the culture stepped up to the plate. Something Palmer not only refused to do... but made worse by forcing passes into coverage so that Chad and T.O. wouldn't be mad at him. That's not leadership, that's enabling. And that's a locker room problem, not a management one.

I can't wait to see Dalton and Green on the field, if for no other reason than to finally put a nail in the coffin of the miserable Chad/Palmer dynamic that was the root of so much dysfunction in the locker room.

[HairOnFire]

"In part" I will agree with. We can definitely do a better job of holding the players' feet to the fire. But I also think that our ability to influence the team is minimal compared to its own ability to influence itself. We are the equivalent of the weak nuclear force in this relationship.

I'll agree fans cannot influence the day to day dealings of a team directly. But we can influence indirectly the culture that surrounds the team, and I believe step one begins with holding players more accountable for their role in creating AND accepting a culture of losing.

Look at it this way. By holding Mike Brown accountable for everything we allow everyone else to be unaccountable for the things that they're directly responsible for. And you provide a handy example of that by adamantly insisting that Brown is ultimately responsible for everything.

As a fanbase I think we've gone about as far as we can go in regards to showing outright hatred and disdain for the teams owner, and my question for you is what has it gotten us? Amongst the things you could list is a roster of clock punchers, right? Star player after star player deferring leadership roles regardless of position played or salary earned....until their bank accounts grow so large they can afford to take a principled stand against the very things they've embraced in the past.

[HairOnFire]

This, IMHO, is why more fan opprobrium at the players won't make much, if any, difference. Until you have guys on the team who might actually be shamed by punching a clock, the accusation doesn't have much force.

Why would a player feel shame if his actions are openly supported by fans who constantly have a bigger fish to fry.

[HairOnFire]

If you start with rotten eggs, you never get chickens.

I agree if you start with rotten eggs you don't get more chickens. But you wouldn't have rotten eggs in the first place if you didn't already have a chicken.

[HoosierCat]

But it worked because the players who were counted on to maintain the culture stepped up to the plate. Something Palmer not only refused to do... but made worse by forcing passes into coverage so that Chad and T.O. wouldn't be mad at him. That's not leadership, that's enabling. And that's a locker room problem, not a management one.

The trouble with writing this off as a locker room problem and absolving management is that you're ignoring that Palmer's ability (or any QB's ability, for that matter) to lead depends in part on being backed by management. If the coaches are going to keep starting a player even though he's only going through the motions, and if the front office is going to keep paying that player even though he blows off team activities and conducts a public campaign against the organization...well, then IMHO there wasn't much Palmer could do.

One of the prerequisites to a solid locker room is management that consistently supports positive behavior and sanctions negative behavior. Chad's case is only the most recent example of the front office's habit of rewarding a player despite prolonged poor play and poor behavior. And that in turn poisons the locker room well by creating different rules for different players, perceptions of preferential treatment and encourages players not to pay attention to what their QB or their coaches think, but what Mike Brown thinks, because as long as you're in with him, then you've got an iron time card for that punch-clock.

[HoosierCat]

Well, yes and no. The drafting lately has, I think, gone towards better character guys who can play instead of questionable guys who haven't lived up to physical potential (I say this with exceptions in mind, D tackle from Florida and Simpson).

I agree, I think they did a much better job of drafting quality character guys in this last draft and that encourages me. But whether it's an aberration or marks the start of a new course remains to be seen.

[HoosierCat]

Look at it this way. By holding Mike Brown accountable for everything we allow everyone else to be unaccountable for the things that they're directly responsible for. And you provide a handy example of that by adamantly insisting that Brown is ultimately responsible for everything.

Well, there are people that hold Mikey responsible for everything, but I'm not one of them. It isn't that simple. Take everyone's favorite WR, Chad. Brown isn't responsible for Chad's bad behavior or lackadaisical play, Chad himself is. He has a choice, and his choice was to be a clown.

But Mike Brown also had a choice. He could have ordered Chad's playing time reduced. He could have fined him. he could have traded him for a bounty of picks to DC. He could have just cut him. Instead, he chose to cling to Chad to the bitter end. And the results of that decision are on him.

[HairOnFire]

I think just the opposite can be argued: that Carson is quitting just as the going appears to be getting easier.

So how about we drop the excuses for a moment and hold Palmer accountable both for quitting AND for having a lousy sense of timing.

[HoosierCat]

I think just the opposite can be argued: that Carson is quitting just as the going appears to be getting easier.

So how about we drop the excuses for a moment and hold Palmer accountable both for quitting AND for having a lousy sense of timing.

Sure.

[HairOnFire]

Look at it this way. By holding Mike Brown accountable for everything we allow everyone else to be unaccountable for the things that they're directly responsible for. And you provide a handy example of that by adamantly insisting that Brown is ultimately responsible for everything.

Well, there are people that hold Mikey responsible for everything, but I'm not one of them. It isn't that simple. Take everyone's favorite WR, Chad. Brown isn't responsible for Chad's bad behavior or lackadaisical play, Chad himself is. He has a choice, and his choice was to be a clown.

But Mike Brown also had a choice. He could have ordered Chad's playing time reduced. He could have fined him. he could have traded him for a bounty of picks to DC. He could have just cut him. Instead, he chose to cling to Chad to the bitter end. And the results of that decision are on him.

Didn't New England, home of the NFL's bestest coach and very finest front office, hold onto Randy Moss until the bitter end? In fact, don't the mismanaged Raiders better fit your profile of a message sending team who won't tolerate open insubordination? How'd that work out for them?

[HoosierCat]

Didn't New England, home of the NFL's bestest coach and very finest front office, hold onto Randy Moss until the bitter end? In fact, don't the mismanaged Raiders better fit your profile of a message sending team who won't tolerate open insubordination? How'd that work out for them?

Don't look at me, I'm not the one who brought up New England as the paragon of football-y virtues. But in any event, I don't think trading Moss five weeks after he asked to be dealt can be categorized as holding on to the bitter end. Had Mike moved with anything like similar alacrity back in 2008, Chad would have long ceased to trouble you and we'd have had an extra first round pick or two.

As for your second question, I'm not asking for any messages to be sent. "Sending a message" is footballese for "we aren't actually going to do anything." If a guy's tanking it on the field, he can tank it just as well on the bench. If a guy wants out, show him the door and get someone who wants to be there.

[HairOnFire]

Don't look at me, I'm not the one who brought up New England as the paragon of football-y virtues. But in any event, I don't think trading Moss five weeks after he asked to be dealt can be categorized as holding on to the bitter end. Had Mike moved with anything like similar alacrity back in 2008, Chad would have long ceased to trouble you and we'd have had an extra first round pick or two.

I didn't imply there were the paragon of virtues. Only that their coaching staff and front office is considered one of the best in the NFL. And regardless of whether you rank them 1st or 5th or 15th, it's proof that good front offices often do the very same things as bad front offices. I guess you can point to Moss being traded 5 weeks after demanding a trade as proof the Patriots weren't willing to hold onto Moss until the bitter end, but I'll counter by pointing out how they willingly put up with his antics right up to the point when he couldn't play any more.

Which brings me to your Chad comparision.

Because it seems to me that if Mike Brown moved with the same alacrity as New England the Bengals won't be cutting Chad until his 14th season, and only then if his demands for a new long-term contract aren't met.

[HairOnFire]

I think just the opposite can be argued: that Carson is quitting just as the going appears to be getting easier.

So how about we drop the excuses for a moment and hold Palmer accountable both for quitting AND for having a lousy sense of timing.

Sure.

Bravo.

I guess what I'm saying is as a fanbase we need to do more of this. And less of the other thing. And I say these things not because Mike Brown isn't a douchebag, but rather....because he isn't the only one.