P-Dub back on Wednesday??

[derekshank]

Also, I don't want to sound like a Robinson apologist, but these are the things Len Pasquarelli said about Robinson the day we signed him.

The versatile Robinson, who has started at both end and tackle during his eight-year NFL career, should add depth, experience and stability to a Bengals defensive front in need of all three elements. The Denver Broncos had also been in pursuit of Robinson, who played for the Miami Dolphins in 2004, after spending most of his career with the Chicago Bears.

Robinson, 30, played in all 16 games for the Dolphins in 2004 and started 13, notching 69 tackles, including 43 solo stops. He signed with Miami last summer after the Bears released him for salary cap reasons.

Earlier in his career, Robinson played primarily at left end, largely because of his ability to aggressively play the run. Never particularly effective as a pass rusher, Robinson was a valuable defender because of his toughness in anchoring the strong side of the defense.

Will he be the best run stopper in the league? No, but between him and Thornton it will certainly be enough to keep teams honest. Anything is an upgrade from Tony Williams... so yes, I do feel like the Bengals addressed their DT issues as well as could be done this year in free agency. Doing nothing would have been the Bengals not trying.

[kingwilly]

Derek --

I think most of us will stop bitchin when Mike Brown connects the dots between winning and creating a front-office organization that can facilitate such an occurence.

I know that you would agree that wanting to win and taking the necessary steps to do so, yielding organizational control, are entirely seperate things.

It does not take a great businessman to have a financially successful NFL franchise, revenue sharing and the popularity of the League takes care of that. It is almost an automatic. If Mike Brown were an astute business man with an intent to win AND have a successful franchise, he would have hired the appropriate staff for the front office to effect such an intent. The current front staff is filled with family, family-in-laws, and a few former players (Ball?). To me, his actions over the past decade-plus do not equate with a man who is intent on winning, one who equips the organization with a philosophy, the staff and environment for success.

All I can say is that I used to think we were "Close and making progress" but it is these situations, like where Lewis reveals that "Mike Brown has final say" and the Pollack deal is all smoke, that tells me there is still a long, long way to go. Detroit may as well be on Mars.

[derekshank]

Derek --

I think most of us will stop bitchin when Mike Brown connects the dots between winning and creating a front-office organization that can facilitate such an occurence.

I know that you would agree that wanting to win and takaing the necessary steps to do so, yielding organizational control, are entirely seperate things.

It does not take a great businessman to have a financially successful NFL franchise, revenue sharing and the popularity of the League takes care of that. It is almost an automatic. If Mike Brown were an astute business man with an intent to win AND have a successful franchise, he would have hired the appropriate staff for the front office to effect such and intent. The current front staff is filled with family, family-in-laws, and a few former players (Ball?). To me, this his actions over the past decade-plus does not eqaute with a man who is intent on winning, who equips the organization with a philosophy , the staff and environment for success.

All I can say is that I tused to think we were "Close and making progress" but it is these situations, like where Lewis reveals that "Mike Brown has final say" and the Pollack deal is all smoke, that tells me there is still a long, long way to go. Detroit may as well be on Mars.

Fair enough. He's arrogant. That is something we can agree on. What he is not is Donald Sterling of the L.A. Clippers.

Sterling really only cares about the bottom line, and just sits back and rakes in the cash. Mike Brown is guilty of believing he can do what his dad did. Paul Brown knew football. Mike doesn't, but has convinced himself that he can pull it all together like the magical '88 season.

Katie Blackburn and Marvin Lewis though are pushing this team in the right direction. And don't act like I haven't noticed the incompetence in the past. I guess the only difference is that I am willing to forget that and embrace the Marvin Lewis era.

By the way... what do you expect Marvin Lewis to say? I doubt he is in the dark on these decisions, but Mike Brown has always had "the final say" whether all the Marvin Lewis lovers have wanted to believe it or not. Brown has just been willing to listen to Marvin Lewis, because Lewis is the one with a plan. Lewis is under no circumstances though going to give Brown advice on how much money should be paid to Pollack. That's not his job.

[Columbusbengal]

I agree 100% with Derek's comments. The reason the Marvin Lewis era will be successful is because Marvin has gained Mike Brown's trust to the point where he is letting him have much of the influence in determining the football portion of the franchise decisions. This does not mean that Marvin gets to make all decisions about where money will be spent on players' salaries.

Mike Brown and Marvin BOTH want Pollack here, but both understand what New England has done to stay successful once they finally got to that level. They cut or release or allow free agents to leave when players make unreasonable demands. You cannot let players start asking for more and more contract clauses that will adversely affect your cap space. It's not just a matter of giving in to Pollack because we need him. It's a matter of giving in to Pollack and setting the bar higher for all future Bengals draft picks.

I love what Mike Brown is doing now that he is leaving the player evaluations and coaching decisions to football men.

[HoosierCat]

I find it interesting that Mike Brown continues to get the blame as if the reason the Bengals lose is because he refuses to pay for talent.

Which he sometimes does. Case in point, Sapp.

You seem to believe that it isn't possible to judge each of the front office's acts on its own merits. If I call Mikey out for his first-round negotiation BS with Pollack, I must be 100% against Mikey in everything, eh? Guess what: I'm not. I repeat: I call ‘em as I see ‘em. When Mike does good things to build the team, I praise the front office. When he hired Marvin, I cheered. I praised him for the early signing of Palmer, opening his checkbook for FAs like Thornton, James, et. al., for stepping up and matching Jax’s offer to Graham even tho the kid had just 1 successful year under his belt…and more. When Mikey does good, I’m there to say good job.

But guess what? When not forced to set the market because he has the first pick, Mikey consistently gets into holdouts with first round selections. Agents? Even if they are the scum of the earth, every other team seems to be able to deal with them. No one els, except us, seems to have a history of chronic holdouts. Sorry, that’s Mikey. The business with Warrick? Who would you rather have, a rookie or Peter in there? Who really gives us a better chance to win, assuming that Warrick is, as he claims, healthy? And yeah, Sapp would have been an upgrade over what we had there last year. I would have praised the signing of at Williams as well. Instead we got Mr. Hyperbaric Chamber and a 4th round pick in a boot. (As for Lenny, he praises every FA signing.)

[bengalboomer7]

Do you realize you are praising Mike Brown for nothing more than leaving his nose out of the "football stuff" I'm sorry, but two 8-8 seasons doesn't get him off the hook...at least not yet.

[HoosierCat]

Do you realize you are praising Mike Brown for nothing more than leaving his nose out of the "football stuff"

Well, as they say, the journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. So bravo to Mikey for admitting he could use some help. And he's done more than just stay in the closet; matching the Jags' offer to Graham, for example, needed his OK, I'm sure.

Mikey is neither throughly divorced from the business (as the Marvin = GM crowd would have it) nor is he secretly running things from behind the scenes (as the Marvin-is-a-puppet crowd believes). Sometimes his input, and that of the rest of his family in the front office, is of benefit to the team (hiring Marvin, stepping up for Graham, etc). Sometimes it isn't...as the history of first-round signing holdouts and lowball FA offers attests. Mikey makes me proud to be a Bengals fan when he stands up and says that guys like T.O need to honor the contract they signed...then turns around and demands that Peter Warrick renegotiate the contract he, Mikey, also signed. Well, yes, that's the way the game is played...but easy-to-reach incentives are also the way the game is played, and watch Mikey scream about those. (And on that subject, I agree with him...but that's how the game is played. If he doesn't like it, perhaps he should find a new game.)

[derekshank]

I find it interesting that Mike Brown continues to get the blame as if the reason the Bengals lose is because he refuses to pay for talent.

Which he sometimes does. Case in point, Sapp.

You seem to believe that it isn't possible to judge each of the front office's acts on its own merits. If I call Mikey out for his first-round negotiation BS with Pollack, I must be 100% against Mikey in everything, eh? Guess what: I'm not. I repeat: I call ‘em as I see ‘em. When Mike does good things to build the team, I praise the front office. When he hired Marvin, I cheered. I praised him for the early signing of Palmer, opening his checkbook for FAs like Thornton, James, et. al., for stepping up and matching Jax’s offer to Graham even tho the kid had just 1 successful year under his belt…and more. When Mikey does good, I’m there to say good job.

But guess what? When not forced to set the market because he has the first pick, Mikey consistently gets into holdouts with first round selections. Agents? Even if they are the scum of the earth, every other team seems to be able to deal with them. No one els, except us, seems to have a history of chronic holdouts. Sorry, that’s Mikey. The business with Warrick? Who would you rather have, a rookie or Peter in there? Who really gives us a better chance to win, assuming that Warrick is, as he claims, healthy? And yeah, Sapp would have been an upgrade over what we had there last year. I would have praised the signing of at Williams as well. Instead we got Mr. Hyperbaric Chamber and a 4th round pick in a boot. (As for Lenny, he praises every FA signing.)

I like that we are referring to Warren Sapp as talent now. He was an over the hill slob who wanted a ton of cash because of past accomplishments. The Raiders were willing to give it to him, because that is their image. If we had matched Oakland's deal, we would be stuck with him at a high price for a long time. Not worth it in the long run.

Now don't hear me say that Mike Brown is completely free of any guilt here either. I'm sure that if he would give in a little bit, Pollack would probably be in. I guess what frustrates me is that the hard line stance the Eagles are taking with T.O. and the hard-line stance the Steelers are taking with Ward have often in the past been viewed as characteristics of strong men looking out for the good of the team, and making players honor their contracts.

However, if Mike Brown gets into a similar pissing contest with an agent, he's going to be viewed as cheap, a domeone who doesn't care about the teams chance of winning. People here will be calling for his head. It's just inconsistent. That's my only point.

Why does a hold-out have to be Mike Brown's fault? Hey, why does anyone have to at "fault". Everyone in the negotiation is looking out for their best interests. If Mike Brown allows Pollack to hold-out a while, it isn't really setting the team back all that much, but it will eventually get him in cheaper, which is good for the team in the long run.

A dirty move? Sure... but that is what business men do. And you don't hear anyone on the Patriots complaining about it when they are winning the superbowl. After they get their rings they might bitch... and either they can reach a reasonable agreement (Richard Seymour) or they'll send you packing (Ty Law). In either case, they aren't worried about the player. They're worried about the team.

So back to what got this whole discussion started. If continuing to wait before activating or cutting Warrick is going to give the team a better ability to evaluate what the right decision is... then by all means, do it, because it is not Mike Brown's job to look out for Warrick.

However, maybe one of the bleeding hearts on this site can take up donations for the "Peter Warrick unfair treatment fund". 49 mil doesn't spend like it used to, and it's not as if he hasn't lived up to the hype. (sarcasm inserted here)

[HoosierCat]

I like that we are referring to Warren Sapp as talent now. He was an over the hill slob who wanted a ton of cash because of past accomplishments. The Raiders were willing to give it to him, because that is their image. If we had matched Oakland's deal, we would be stuck with him at a high price for a long time. Not worth it in the long run.

Not true. I will be happy to dig back into the board archives for all the gory details if you care, but the "big money" is all in the last two fictitous years of the deal. The whole thing was front-loaded so that basically Sapp becomes cap-neutral to cut after this season and actually frees up space after that. And the money the Raiders gave him over the first three years -- which is all he'll see -- is only about $1 million more than our offer.

Why does a hold-out have to be Mike Brown's fault? Hey, why does anyone have to at "fault". Everyone in the negotiation is looking out for their best interests. If Mike Brown allows Pollack to hold-out a while, it isn't really setting the team back all that much, but it will eventually get him in cheaper, which is good for the team in the long run.

Not necessarily. Get them cheaper, I mean. The Bengals commonly end up signing holdouts to contracts equivalent to ones the players demanded earlier. They did it with Akili, they dd it with Smith, and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts they do it with Pollack.

So back to what got this whole discussion started. If continuing to wait before activating or cutting Warrick is going to give the team a better ability to evaluate what the right decision is... then by all means, do it, because it is not Mike Brown's job to look out for Warrick

However, maybe one of the bleeding hearts on this site can take up donations for the "Peter Warrick unfair treatment fund". 49 mil doesn't spend like it used to, and it's not as if he hasn't lived up to the hype. (sarcasm inserted here)

And if holding out to get a bigger deal is in the best financial interests of Chad Johnson, then by all means do it, because it is not Chad Johnson's job to look out for Mikey. However, maybe one of the bleeding hearts on this site can take up donations for the "Mike Brown unfair treatment fund". Tens of millions of dollars of profit a year doesn't spend like it used to, and it's not as if the team hasn't lived up to the hype. (sarcasm inserted here)

[rizzy]

per bengals.com on the warrick deal

There is also speculation that agent Drew Rosenhaus floated publicly what the Bengals are doing in order to get some trades stirred for his client. With another client, Terrell Owens, walking out of Eagles camp Wednesday on the same day Rosenhaus taped an appearance on David Letterman’s show, Rosenhaus was understandably unavailable for comment.

I would love to see someone go up to Rosenhaus and punch him in the face.

[derekshank]

And if holding out to get a bigger deal is in the best financial interests of Chad Johnson, then by all means do it, because it is not Chad Johnson's job to look out for Mikey. However, maybe one of the bleeding hearts on this site can take up donations for the "Mike Brown unfair treatment fund". Tens of millions of dollars of profit a year doesn't spend like it used to, and it's not as if the team hasn't lived up to the hype. (sarcasm inserted here)

Seems like you really nailed me to the wall with that mocking little paragraph, which looks strangely similar to the post I made previously. Very clever. Actually, all you have done is shown that you really haven’t understood my perspective or the point I am attempting to make.

I am not a bleeding heart for Mike Brown. I in no way feel pity for him if a player attempts to hold-out or get some extra cash from him. It may seem like I am on Mike Brown’s side on this Pollack issue, but as I have said earlier, I don’t choose to take a side. I understand what both sides are attempting to do, and honestly feel that both sides are justified.

Mike Brown is trying to field a winning team, and to do that, there are always players that must outplay their dollar value. It may seem a tad bit asinine to attempt to get a 1st rounder at below the market value, but I can’t fault him for trying.

As far as David Pollack, the collective bargaining agreement currently in place gives all the power to the owners, so Pollack is attempting to use the one time he has some leverage to get a fair deal, so that his doesn’t end up looking like the deal you spoke of regarding Warren Sapp.

The whole thing was front-loaded so that basically Sapp becomes cap-neutral to cut after this season and actually frees up space after that. And the money the Raiders gave him over the first three years -- which is all he'll see -- is only about $1 million more than our offer.

In your comments regarding Sapp you are agreeing with me on this point. You seem to have no concern for the well being of the player as long as your team gets to benefit. You are in favor of an owner structuring a contract with no intent of paying it out completely, because this collective bargaining agreement allows you to cut him when you are through with his services.

Do I think that is the right thing to do? No. I also think players should honor their contracts instead of holding out in the middle of a deal... but it’s not a perfect world. However, my feelings on ethical business are immaterial. For this reason you will never hear me find fault with a player for doing that.

I think Hines Ward is right. On some level T.O. is right, because the Eagles made it very easy to cut him after this year. On the other hand, they are the ones who signed the contracts, so from the owner’s perspective, it’s not his fault they are underpaid.

So if Chad Johnson is going to hold-out next year, that is his prerogative. Whether Mike Brown lets a hold-out work is his prerogative. The only point I am really trying to make is that whether Warrick gets screwed or not should not be Brown’s primary concern. Neither should it be Warrick’s concern to make sure he is playing for less to help line Mike Brown’s pockets.

I am actually very consistent in my point of view regarding this. Football is a business, so hold-outs and player cuts happen. Fair, or unfair, all I am saying is that Mike Brown is right to cover his bases before making a snap decision on Warrick whether activating him or cutting him, make sure it’s the right choice.

Not necessarily. Get them cheaper, I mean. The Bengals commonly end up signing holdouts to contracts equivalent to ones the players demanded earlier. They did it with Akili, they dd it with Smith, and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts they do it with Pollack.

As far as the effectiveness of Mike Brown’s “who will blink first” negotiating tactic, it’s not the issue here. Whether it works or not (as you have pointed out that it doesn’t) merely speaks to his abilities (or lack thereof) as a negotiator. It has nothing to do with his desire to field a winning team. (Also, I am willing to take part in any bet where doughnuts are involved.)

So, while I value your right to “call ‘em as you see ‘em” I think you simply missed the point on this Warrick thing. I also didn’t see any DT’s out there in the last 2 years that are an enormous upgrade from Robinson, so you can call that as you see it all you want, but the value just wasn’t there... including Sapp.

We’re all pissed off about 15 years without a playoff berth... and Mikey deserves a lot of the blame. But I only want to blame him when it is really his fault, and the past two years I haven’t witnessed him doing anything that I would claim is the reason we’ve missed the playoffs. It may have been the decade or so of bad decisions previously, but I focusing on the now.

Wow this is a long post. A bad habit I'll try to break.

[kingwilly]

The effort of the bengals to win reminds me of the math problem where you disprove that you can actually ever get anywhere.

If you need to cover a set distance, you must first go half-way. Then at some point you pass half-way over the second half, then half again, further halving each new half, again and again, into infinity. No matter how close you get, you never can mathmatically reach the desired point.

This, to me is the Mike Brown approach to winning.

[HoosierCat]

Actually, all you have done is shown that you really haven’t understood my perspective or the point I am attempting to make.

Nor have you understood mine.

I am not a bleeding heart for Mike Brown.

Nor am I a bleeding heart for Peter Warrick.

Mike Brown is trying to field a winning team, and to do that, there are always players that must outplay their dollar value.

Now we come to my aforementioned point. By all accounts Warrick is healthy to practice. We are demonstrably a better team with Warrick than without. In other words, Warrick increases our chances of winning, even if he's just returning punts (you recall the KC game, I'm sure). His cost is already factored into the cap, and what the Warrick affair has revealed is that even if Peter became healthy...he still might be cut! One has to ask, then, why the Bengals didn't bite the bullet earlier, when his big chunk of cap space might have been used in free agency? In short, I challenged your contention that what is going on now represents an effort to build a winning team. I don't see how it's conducive to that at all.

It may seem a tad bit asinine to attempt to get a 1st rounder at below the market value, but I can’t fault him for trying.

Had the strategy ever shown a history of success, I would agree. But since it's flopped again and again (and again and again and again)...don't you think a reevaluation is in order? As I've said many times before, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is a functional definition of insanity.

In your comments regarding Sapp you are agreeing with me on this point. You seem to have no concern for the well being of the player as long as your team gets to benefit. You are in favor of an owner structuring a contract with no intent of paying it out completely, because this collective bargaining agreement allows you to cut him when you are through with his services.

There's a difference between a contract like Sapp's, which both parties know is actually a shorter, smaller deal that's been puffed up to stretch out a signing bonus or just for PR; and a deal like Warrick's. Both the Raiders and Sapp know the true nature of the contract and went into it with open arms. No one is getting shafted there.

So if Chad Johnson is going to hold-out next year, that is his prerogative. Whether Mike Brown lets a hold-out work is his prerogative. The only point I am really trying to make is that whether Warrick gets screwed or not should not be Brown’s primary concern.

No. Winning ought to be. And we're better off with Peter than without him.

We’re all pissed off about 15 years without a playoff berth... and Mikey deserves a lot of the blame. But I only want to blame him when it is really his fault, and the past two years I haven’t witnessed him doing anything that I would claim is the reason we’ve missed the playoffs. It may have been the decade or so of bad decisions previously, but I focusing on the now.

I wouldn't lay sole blame at Mikeys feet, or anyone else's, for the Bengals failures over the last 15 years. There is quite a cast of characters, Mikey included, to apportion responsibility to. My point is simply that in the Warrick affair (and the Pollack holdout) I see the front office making its usual share of contributions to losing. I see many players committed to winning. I see a head coach and coaching staff committed to winning. And I see a management that is committed to...well, what the hell ever it's been committed to for the last 15 years. Whatever it is, it ain't been winning.

[The_Next_Big_Thing]

The effort of the bengals to win reminds me of the math problem where you disprove that you can actually ever get anywhere.

If you need to cover a set distance, you must first go half-way. Then at some point you pass half-way over the second half, then half again, further halving each new half, again and again, into infinity. No matter how close you get, you never can mathmatically reach the desired point.

This, to me is the Mike Brown approach to winning.

That isn't a math problem, it's a logic problem and it's called Zeno's Arrow.

[HairOnFire]

Now we come to my aforementioned point. By all accounts Warrick is healthy to practice. We are demonstrably a better team with Warrick than without. In other words, Warrick increases our chances of winning, even if he's just returning punts (you recall the KC game, I'm sure).

Warrick being healthy enough to practice isn't the point. The point is if he's healthy enough to play on a regular basis, if his condition is degenerative and will only get worse if repeatedly stressed, and determining the odds his injury might be repeated in the future.

The fact that he's been cleared to practice is a positive, but being able to practice is only one consideration for the Bengals to consider. Other considerations include if Warrick's role has already been filled by other players, if his salary makes him too expensive to keep in a limited role, and the Bengals plans for Warrick past this season.

[HoosierCat]

Now we come to my aforementioned point. By all accounts Warrick is healthy to practice. We are demonstrably a better team with Warrick than without. In other words, Warrick increases our chances of winning, even if he's just returning punts (you recall the KC game, I'm sure).

Warrick being healthy enough to practice isn't the point. The point is if he's healthy enough to play on a regular basis, if his condition is degenerative and will only get worse if repeatedly stressed, and determining the odds his injury might be repeated in the future.

The fact that he's been cleared to practice is a positive, but being able to practice is only one consideration for the Bengals to consider. Other considerations include if Warrick's role has already been filled by other players, if his salary makes him too expensive to keep in a limited role, and the Bengals plans for Warrick past this season.

Two points. One, for the Bengals' purposes, "the future" is pretty short-term. Warrick's contract is up after this season and there's no way in heck we can afford him.

Second, all the considerations you list are absolutely true...and all of them are questions that do not require him to practice or play to answer. Has his role been filled? Yes: TJ. Is he too expensive to keep in a limited role: see point one. Plans for him past this season: again, see point one.

So why is he still here? We could have cut him in March and had another $2 million for free agency.

[kingwilly]

Well.. look at the big brain on TNBT...Thanks for the clarification. That makes all the difference. Really.

[HairOnFire]

So why is he still here? We could have cut him in March and had another $2 million for free agency.

Well that would have been a very mean thing for Mike Brown to do, right?

For all we know the Bengals wanted to give Pete a chance to return and were simply waiting to see how his rehab went. Or maybe they were waiting to see which wideouts were available in the late April draft. Maybe they get a good one...maybe they don't. Maybe they get a TE or a SS. Or maybe they were waiting to see what the rookie wideouts they did draft actually looked like in camp. Or maybe they were hoping Warrick could come back healthy enough to generate trade some interest. Afterall, the Bengals probably had no plans for Warrick next season regardless of if he were healthy or dead. Or maybe....ummm....whahhh?

I'm sorry, I just became very distracted and completely lost my train of thought. I mean c'mon, who knew that silly story had a bitchin' name like Zeno's Arrow?

[Kazkal]

warrick might be better off being cutted or traded to another team now and get started on learning a new system I still love the idea of him coming back and helping the bengals to the superbowl but I also would love too see Justin,eric,levi and willie also back in 2007 and I doubt if warrick had a contract worthy year like TJ did that he'd resign with us for 2million dollars a year

[HoosierCat]

So why is he still here? We could have cut him in March and had another $2 million for free agency.

Well that would have been a very mean thing for Mike Brown to do, right?

For all we know the Bengals wanted to give Pete a chance to return and were simply waiting to see how his rehab went.

Actually, letting him go was suggested by many people back in March, especially after the TJ signing made it clear he was on the way out the door. My point is simply that they don't know anything now that they didn't know then. So why wait until now to agonize over what to do?

Wait to see how his rehab went? OK. Answer: it went well and he's ready to go. Except now...they won't let him go. In the other thread, membengal offers that they think he can practice today, but what about the day after and the day after that? Well, only one way to find out, eh?

If they were really waiting to see how the knee recovered...now's the time to get him on the field.

[HairOnFire]

Wait to see how his rehab went? OK. Answer: it went well and he's ready to go. Except now...they won't let him go. In the other thread, membengal offers that they think he can practice today, but what about the day after and the day after that? Well, only one way to find out, eh?

Sorry, I'm walking in Memphis on this one....with a little bit of Shula Steakhouse thrown in for good measure. It's just too much of a stretch to say that Warrick's rehab went well. I'd say the Bengals have been very cautious the entire time, and their continued reluctance to clear Warrick smacks of a team that either isn't convinced that Warrick can bounce back quickly after contact or simply prefers to take things as slowly as time permits. And they do have the luxury of more time before making a final decision. Besides, Pete wasn't going to play against New England even if cleared to practice and I'm pretty sure that's been the teams focus of late.