Jump to content

Bengals Moves


ArmyBengal

Recommended Posts

I will, TJ! Which reminds me I owe Billy a letter.

Back on the team front, it seems like chatter about Bernard Scott getting PUP'd is getting louder. It doesn't sound like he's all that hurt, but rather that they are just looking for a place to stash him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which reminds me I owe Billy a letter.

...and I am definitely going to have to include this item...


/>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-accused-repeatedly-sex-rubber-float-article-1.1395905#ixzz2Yl86sAmo

I don't even know what to say to that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually surprised Rhodes is still a FA. I'm wondering how much of that has to do with those pictures that surfaced.

Call it what you want, but I could see a team not wanting to knowingly bring that into a locker room not knowing what kind of effect it would have.

I personally think it would lessen the need to force Williams into the starters role from day one and that's a good thing.

If Williams can beat him out in camp and earn the spot, great. If not, it is a better fall back option than summoning Crocker from his couch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually surprised Rhodes is still a FA. I'm wondering how much of that has to do with those pictures that surfaced.

Call it what you want, but I could see a team not wanting to knowingly bring that into a locker room not knowing what kind of effect it would have.

I personally think it would lessen the need to force Williams into the starters role from day one and that's a good thing.

If Williams can beat him out in camp and earn the spot, great. If not, it is a better fall back option than summoning Crocker from his couch.

I agree with you that the only reason this guy is not signed is the presistent rumors about his sexuality which frankly embarrasses me. We can give second chances to drug dealers, women abusers, and $40million contracts to POSs like Aaron Hernandez (and spare me the "We didn't know about Hernandez" arguement because there were plenty of signs he was human excrement before he got busted for murder) but if a guy wants to bugger another guy we should send him off to live in a leper colony somewhere. I would have hoped by this stage in human development we would be able to appreciate a person for their talent and drive and intellect rather than their sexuality, race, or creed which have no bearing on a football field (or in the job market for that matter) but time and time again I get reminded that we are not nearly as evolved as we think we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually surprised Rhodes is still a FA. I'm wondering how much of that has to do with those pictures that surfaced.

Call it what you want, but I could see a team not wanting to knowingly bring that into a locker room not knowing what kind of effect it would have.

I personally think it would lessen the need to force Williams into the starters role from day one and that's a good thing.

If Williams can beat him out in camp and earn the spot, great. If not, it is a better fall back option than summoning Crocker from his couch.

I agree with you that the only reason this guy is not signed is the presistent rumors about his sexuality which frankly embarrasses me. We can give second chances to drug dealers, women abusers, and $40million contracts to POSs like Aaron Hernandez (and spare me the "We didn't know about Hernandez" arguement because there were plenty of signs he was human excrement before he got busted for murder) but if a guy wants to bugger another guy we should send him off to live in a leper colony somewhere. I would have hoped by this stage in human development we would be able to appreciate a person for their talent and drive and intellect rather than their sexuality, race, or creed which have no bearing on a football field (or in the job market for that matter) but time and time again I get reminded that we are not nearly as evolved as we think we are.

+1000

The NFL has some serious issues. The fact that a team might have a gay player should not even register. Troubling is when a player invokes a religious argument into the dynamic... ridiculous.

To the point about Rhodes, I'd think it is more about the Bengals having enough guys to evaluate at this point. I have to think Rhodes will get snagged by a team before camp starts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, the Bengals have more than enough guys to evaluate.

Problem is, when the evaluation is over, they will realize Rhodes would have been the better option.

Another problem ?? It will be too late.

Don't get me wrong, i'm really hopeful for Williams to be the starter and that he will be amazing.

I just think it's a problem when a 3rd round rookie starting is your best option when looking at the safety position.

God forbid an injury happens at the position. They will be screwed. Next man up you say ?? Who's that ?? Crocker ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually surprised Rhodes is still a FA. I'm wondering how much of that has to do with those pictures that surfaced.

Call it what you want, but I could see a team not wanting to knowingly bring that into a locker room not knowing what kind of effect it would have.

I personally think it would lessen the need to force Williams into the starters role from day one and that's a good thing.

If Williams can beat him out in camp and earn the spot, great. If not, it is a better fall back option than summoning Crocker from his couch.

I agree with you that the only reason this guy is not signed is the presistent rumors about his sexuality which frankly embarrasses me. We can give second chances to drug dealers, women abusers, and $40million contracts to POSs like Aaron Hernandez (and spare me the "We didn't know about Hernandez" arguement because there were plenty of signs he was human excrement before he got busted for murder) but if a guy wants to bugger another guy we should send him off to live in a leper colony somewhere. I would have hoped by this stage in human development we would be able to appreciate a person for their talent and drive and intellect rather than their sexuality, race, or creed which have no bear..ing on a football field (or in the job market for that matter) but time and time again I get reminded that we are not nearly as evolved as we think we are.

Yours is a typical blowhard strawman argument. You assume Rhodes is not signed because of the rumors he is gay. There are other reasons why 30-something nfl players don't get signed. Yet, you get up on your rainbow soapbox to tell the rest of us how gay-intolerant we are. Shut up. And not signing a guy who might be gay is not the same as consigning him to a "leper colony". Again, there are other reasons not to sign a plus 30 DB like Rhodes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually surprised Rhodes is still a FA. I'm wondering how much of that has to do with those pictures that surfaced.

Call it what you want, but I could see a team not wanting to knowingly bring that into a locker room not knowing what kind of effect it would have.

I personally think it would lessen the need to force Williams into the starters role from day one and that's a good thing.

If Williams can beat him out in camp and earn the spot, great. If not, it is a better fall back option than summoning Crocker from his couch.

I agree with you that the only reason this guy is not signed is the presistent rumors about his sexuality which frankly embarrasses me. We can give second chances to drug dealers, women abusers, and $40million contracts to POSs like Aaron Hernandez (and spare me the "We didn't know about Hernandez" arguement because there were plenty of signs he was human excrement before he got busted for murder) but if a guy wants to bugger another guy we should send him off to live in a leper colony somewhere. I would have hoped by this stage in human development we would be able to appreciate a person for their talent and drive and intellect rather than their sexuality, race, or creed which have no bear..ing on a football field (or in the job market for that matter) but time and time again I get reminded that we are not nearly as evolved as we think we are.

Yours is a typical blowhard strawman argument. You assume Rhodes is not signed because of the rumors he is gay. There are other reasons why 30-something nfl players don't get signed. Yet, you get up on your rainbow soapbox to tell the rest of us how gay-intolerant we are. Shut up. And not signing a guy who might be gay is not the same as consigning him to a "leper colony". Again, there are other reasons not to sign a plus 30 DB like Rhodes.

Continuing this since I was the first to bring it up. I simply stated I wondered if it might have something to do with it.

Outside of that, sure, there are plenty of reasons not to sign a 30+ DB.

However, for the Bengals I can't see adding what was the 4th rated safety in the NFL last season as a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I will not shut up, you may not like my opinion but I have every bit as much a right to express it as you do to disagree.

And

No. I was not calling you gay intolerant I was addressing what I see as a problem in our society.

And

The guy was a borderline Probowler last year who was (as Army just said) was ranked by Pro Football Focus (who breaks down every play from every player) as the 4th best Safety in the NFL and it is my opinion that the primary reason he is not signed is that he is gay and owners are concerned about the effect on their locker room and the effect on the fan base because we are (and I hope you will not disagree with me on this statement) very gay intolerant as a society.

Personally I really couldn't care less what choices someone makes in the bedroom as long as those choices involve only consenting adults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted Rhodes badly before the draft. That he remains unsigned is puzzling (like Wraith I hope for the sake of the dignity of the human race that it isn't because of uncertainty about his sexuality). I don't recall hearing about any significant lingering injuries. Maybe the Bengals specifically simply don't perceive him to be a logical fit in Zimmer's scheme. He has always loved the hard-hitting, poor-in-coverage strong safety types after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scheme fit is really the only reason I can think of why not bring him in.

He obviously presents an upgrade to anyone on the current roster at the other spot.

While I hope Williams becomes that guy they think he is, I would feel more comfortable with him watching through the first 5 weeks of the season with the Steelers, Packers, and Patriots on the schedule. Then again, maybe Williams just happens to be the gem that teams simply overlooked like Atkins was. Boy that would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...