(11-22-2015, 04:00 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: We're not talking about what TO did in Philly in 2004 or what Chad did in 2008.

We're talking about 2010 here. Particularly the harmless little talk show that is always blamed for all the losing that year. Tell me, Fred, do you think that TV show caused us to lose 10 straight? If so, why do people always bring it up?

I think the fact that we had to of the biggest "me first" players in the league hurt the team.  The TV show itself did not hurt the team.  It was just a symbol of the problems with Chad and TO.

Now let me ask you something.  Do you really think that Chad and TO had reformed and were no longer the same guys they were before?  Remember that Marvin benched Chad late in '08 for disciplinary reasons.  That kind of attitude from guys who are supposed to be the biggest stars of the team hurts the entire team.

Chad was still crying like a baby after the 2010 season until we traded him.  Remember how he claimed that Marvin was mean to him?

(11-22-2015, 04:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think the fact that we had to of the biggest "me first" players in the league hurt the team.  The TV show itself did not hurt the team.  It was just a symbol of the problems with Chad and TO.

Now let me ask you something.  Do you really think that Chad and TO had reformed and were no longer the same guys they were before?  Remember that Marvin benched Chad late in '08 for disciplinary reasons.  That kind of attitude from guys who are supposed to be the biggest stars of the team hurts the entire team.

1. I think TO actually earned the cancer label previously and Chad was never even in the same stratosphere.

2. I think it's unfair to lump a player who did FAR more positive than negative for this team in with TO who was only here for one season. 

3. I think TO had a relatively good season here behavior-wise. He had a few lapses that got worse as he realized the team wouldn't be competitive. Do I think he was the reason we were losing though? Nope. The defense fell off, and Benson had a terrible year.

4. You keep bringing up Chad's 2008 season. How about 2009? Fact is, Chad did nothing wrong in any year other than 2008. The only thing people can point to from 2009-10 is the TV show, which you've agreed was not a problem.

(11-22-2015, 04:28 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: 4. You keep bringing up Chad's 2008 season. How about 2009? Fact is, Chad did nothing wrong in any year other than 2008. The only thing people can point to from 2009-10 is the TV show, which you've agreed was not a problem.

After the 2010 season Chad was still taking shots at Marvin and trying to whine and cry his way off the team.  Then he went to New England and refused to put in the work to learn their system.  Then he went to Miami and made a complete ass of himself.

Since I was not in the locker room from 2008 to 2010 I can't say for sure, but all the evidence points to Chad being a continued problem.  Why else would Marvin have been so anxious to get rid of him? 

(11-22-2015, 04:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: After the 2010 season Chad was still taking shots at Marvin and trying to whine and cry his way off the team.  Then he went to New England and refused to put in the work to learn their system.  Then he went to Miami and made a complete ass of himself.

Since I was not in the locker room from 2008 to 2010 I can't say for sure, but all the evidence points to Chad being a continued problem.  Why else would Marvin have been so anxious to get rid of him? 

I don't remember any specific shots at Marv after 2010. Chad's work ethic was praised in NE. Welker said that Chad's problem was learning the complex playbook on the fly. Remember he wasn't traded until after the lockout, so he had very little time to learn the playbook before actually hitting the field with Brady. He was cut by Miami due to an off field incident. A problem he never had here.

I'm not sure why Chad was traded but neither are you. He was a 34 year old WR and we'd just drafted his long term replacement, so I'm sure those were factors. Chad was the old face of the franchise on a team that wanted to "re-boot". So I'm sure that played a role as well. It could've been mutual considering how happy Chad was initially.

(11-22-2015, 04:57 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I'm not sure why Chad was traded but neither are you.

Actually it was pretty clear that it was because of Chad's poor attitude.

It started at the end of the '10 season when Chad was injured and Marvin accused him of having a poor attitude about his reduced role in the offense.  Chad then started crying like a child about how Marvin was "turning on him" and "throwing him under the bus" and "not giving him any respect".  Then he went back to saying how bad he had it in Cincinnati and about how Marvin could not criticize him because Marvin had a losing record.  And remember this is all coming from a guy who completely quit on the team after the '07 season, and spent the entire off season crying about how bad it was in Cincinnati.  It was comical.

I like Chad a lot early in his career, but after the '07 season he was nothing but a petulant child who cared more about being famous than playing football.

(11-22-2015, 01:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I never said that NFL owners were not allowed to cut players with years left on their contract.  I never made any false statements.  Can you really read?

If you have never stated NFL owners don't honor their contracts I stand corrected.

But I am sure you did in fact cry in this thread about it.

(11-22-2015, 07:49 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: If you have never stated NFL owners don't honor their contracts I stand corrected.

But I am sure you did in fact cry in this thread about it.

You stand corrected.  I never said that owners were not allowed to release players with years left on their contract.

Post a link or STFU about this. 

(11-22-2015, 08:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You stand corrected.  I never said that owners were not allowed to release players with years left on their contract.

Post a link or STFU about this. 

You never said:

Owners do not honor contracts

If that was your statement, please explain exactly how you meant that statement

(11-22-2015, 10:03 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: You never said:

Owners do not honor contracts

If that was your statement, please explain exactly how you meant that statement

You are 100% correct.  I never said that.

Like I said.  Post a link to me saying that or STFU.

I don't see how I can explain something that I never said.

(11-22-2015, 10:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are 100% correct.  I never said that.

Like I said.  Post a link to me saying that or STFU.

I don't see how I can explain something that I never said.

Interesting, I don't see many links in your posts to back up your blathering..

(11-22-2015, 01:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Don't act like Mike Brown was doing Palmer a favor.  Palmer earned that contract and would have gotten it someplace else if not from the Bengals.

People who make lots of money quit and change jobs all the time.  They don't think that their boss "owns them" just because they get paid a fair wage for their skills.

Another funny thing.  People around here are always saying we should release certain players when they still have years left on their contracts, but then they scream bloody murder just because Palmer left with years left on his contract.

I guess you just brought this up because you thought it was OK for fans to scream bloody murder when a contract is voided by the team, but were sarcastic.

STFU FRED

Congrats Palmer. I have a feeling he knew Marvin would play for overtime on that last drive.

Yeah, I really wanted us to go gutsy. A 3rd and 2 and 4th and 2 rush probably would have converted a 1st with that momentum. Almosta hell of a catch by AJ in the endzone though.

I've spent far too much time discussing the Palmer thing. Yes, he "quit" but he didn't want to play for Marvin and Mike Brown. Thems the breaks, but sometimes I wonder how else things could have gone.

Palmer just stays after 2010 = he plays out his contract, leaves as a FA and we probably draft Bradon Weeden or Nick Foles (or maybe hit on the good players...who knows). I assume Bratkowski stays if Palmer doesn't complain, and we don't look for a QB in 2011 so Dalton goes to the Colts?
Mike Brown gives into Palmer's demands = we get a new HC (maybe?), and whatever else he may have wanted

(11-23-2015, 02:39 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I've spent far too much time discussing the Palmer thing.  Yes, he "quit" but he didn't want to play for Marvin and Mike Brown.  Thems the breaks, but sometimes I wonder how else things could have gone.

Palmer just stays after 2010 = he plays out his contract, leaves as a FA and we probably draft Bradon Weeden or Nick Foles (or maybe hit on the good players...who knows).  I assume Bratkowski stays if Palmer doesn't complain, and we don't look for a QB in 2011 so Dalton goes to the Colts?
Mike Brown gives into Palmer's demands = we get a new HC (maybe?), and whatever else he may have wanted

Yeah I think things turned out just fine. Despite the loss, I was proud of Dalton tonight. We have a good one.

(11-23-2015, 02:59 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Yeah I think things turned out just fine. Despite the loss, I was proud of Dalton tonight. We have a good one.

Yup, I believe Dalton has really turned a corner, but it seems like Marvin and Mike are still imposing a glass ceiling over this team's upside.  Again, I just want to point out that Dalton and Palmer are both above average QBs with VERY productive and long careers compared to their peers.  Marvin had both and has yet to win anything of note with them in 12 years.  Here's hoping the playoffs aren't another bust.  Argh.

Then again, in 2003 I wanted to trade the top pick (and Palmer) to the Bears and build the trenches and draft *gulp* Rex Grossman!

(11-23-2015, 03:16 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Yup, I believe Dalton has really turned a corner, but it seems like Marvin and Mike are still imposing a glass ceiling over this team's upside.  Again, I just want to point out that Dalton and Palmer are both above average QBs with VERY productive and long careers compared to their peers.  Marvin had both and has yet to win anything of note with them in 12 years.  Here's hoping the playoffs aren't another bust.  Argh.

Then again, in 2003 I wanted to trade the top pick (and Palmer) to the Bears and build the trenches and draft *gulp* Rex Grossman!

Totally agree. I'm hoping this is the year, but they need to maintain momentum. A win this week is almost a must.

As for the '03 draft, ouch. I was just glad they didn't take Terrence Newman. He was discussed. The fact that Newman was 25 y.o. as a rookie makes it even more incredible that he still starting right now.

(11-23-2015, 03:23 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Totally agree. I'm hoping this is the year, but they need to maintain momentum. A win this week is almost a must.

As for the '03 draft, ouch. I was just glad they didn't take Terrence Newman. He was discussed. The fact that Newman was 25 y.o. as a rookie makes it even more incredible that he still starting right now.

The Rams are a pretty lousy team, so I don't see them beating us in Cincy at 1pm.  I will now say that in no way do I think losing 2 games in a row is going to make the Bengals win because they are "mad" or any rubbish of that sort.

(11-23-2015, 03:26 AM)Nately120 Wrote: The Rams are a pretty lousy team, so I don't see them beating us in Cincy at 1pm. 

and the Texans game was supposed to be an easy "W"  :snark:

The Rams are a much better team then the Texans.  The Rams will be a tough game.

(11-23-2015, 03:48 AM)GodFather Wrote: and the Texans game was supposed to be an easy "W"  :snark:

The Rams are a much better team then the Texans.  The Rams will be a tough game.

Meh. The Texans beat a pretty solid Jets team today and they're very much in the hunt at 5-5. The Rams have a terrible o-line, no receivers and worse QB play than the Texans. Their d-line is good, but no JJ Watt there.