Grown man vs recent teen. My take on the Character issue & Pac Man spin by management

[depthchart]

The Bengals could have a leg to stand on in this Public Relations effort they appear to be making with regards to Pac Man & character if they would adhere to some basic Principles. It borders on the absurd for management to put it out there that they are keeping Pac Man to prevent his family from basically becoming homeless (so to speak with a hint of sarcasm). Pac Man has made millions upon millions of dollars in his long career. Even if he were cut he would be signed rather quickly by another team at between 1.5 million to 3 million per year if not more. Pac Man is 33 years old and former Bengal corner Terence Newman is 38 and has been signing 1 year $3 million type deals which is what he got in 2016. Pac Man could play in the league for 5 more years and make plenty of cash on these types of deals. A man making $50,000 per year would have to work 20 years to make just one million and that man would be able to support his daughter just fine.

I get that Mike Brown may factor in the" we are Family" concept when dealing with players and coaches but it has to be rooted in Principles that protect the image of his Organization. I lean more toward a "Grown Man versus Recent Teen" Principle when it comes to character. I am all for taking the Choir Boys over the poorer character College prospects if the talent is equal. Do that as much as possible. I would also take a few risks on say a Joe Mixon or Bucky Hodges if I felt the locker room could handle them and based on them being very young when they misbehaved. My Principle would be limiting just how often I would do this to steals or bargains in Drafts while not putting up with Bad Behavior from GROWN MEN like Pac Man. I can see giving a Recent Teen a chance by Drafting them & trying to help them mature. Where the Front Office has made their biggest mistake is the constant defense of bad behavior by Grown 30 plus year old men.

Mike Brown could even come out and publicly say that they will give chances to poor character players that are below the age of 24 on rare occasions from time to time but will make it Policy that they rid their roster of Grown Men that are repeat offenders in the Bad Character area. Cutting Pac Man Jones to begin this New Policy would set the tone his paying Fans really want set and Pac Man will be able to move on to millions of more dollars on 1 year deals until he is 38 years old or older. His family will be just fine and the Front Office will have shown that they finally get it. Treat the recent teen differently than the Grown man.

[Shake n Blake]

I'm not defending the Bengals keeping Pacman - at all - but doesn't he have to fork over huge chunks of his pay to the man who was paralyzed by his posse? Actually, I found an article on it:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/09/pacman-jones-ordered-to-pay-12-4m-to-shooting-victims/

Quote:Bengals cornerback Adam “Pacman” Jones has been ordered to pay $12.4 million to the victims of a Las Vegas shooting after he lost an appeal before the Nevada Supreme Court.

Two doormen at a Las Vegas strip club sued Jones after they were shot during an incident in 2007. Jones didn’t pull the trigger, but a jury found he incited the melee at the strip club that precipitated the shooting.

The bulk of the $12.4 million will go to Tommy Urbanski, who was paralyzed in the shooting. Urbanski’s co-worker Aaron Cudworth was also shot and awarded damages from Jones, though Cudworth’s injuries were not as severe.

Jones’s lawyer, Lisa Rasmussen, has previously said that Jones cannot afford to pay the damages.

12.4 million is a ton of money...even for Pacman. Especially considering what his spending habits have probably been over the years.

[OrlandoBengal]

(04-03-2017, 01:03 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I'm not defending the Bengals keeping Pacman - at all - but doesn't he have to fork over huge chunks of his pay to the man who was paralyzed by his posse? Actually, I found an article on it:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/09/pacman-jones-ordered-to-pay-12-4m-to-shooting-victims/


12.4 million is a ton of money...even for Pacman. Especially considering what his spending habits have probably been over the years.

I've read numerous articles that state Jones has never paid much towards that judgement.  Here is a link to the latest I could find, in which the main victim says he has received $60k.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/adam-pacman-jones-shooting-victim-tommy-urbanski-new-york-jets-free-agent-030916

[BenZoo2]

I took my son to the cavaliers exhibition game a couple years ago. PAC man was there. We passed his Lamborghini in the parking lot. Poor guy had trouble providing for his family


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shake n Blake]

(04-03-2017, 01:12 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: I've read numerous articles that state Jones has never paid much towards that judgement.  Here is a link to the latest I could find, in which the main victim says he has received $60k.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/adam-pacman-jones-shooting-victim-tommy-urbanski-new-york-jets-free-agent-030916

Yikes. Seems Pacman is dragging that out as much as he can. No remorse.

[depthchart]

(04-03-2017, 01:12 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: I've read numerous articles that state Jones has never paid much towards that judgement.  Here is a link to the latest I could find, in which the main victim says he has received $60k.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/adam-pacman-jones-shooting-victim-tommy-urbanski-new-york-jets-free-agent-030916

From what I am finding, the incident took place in 2007. Ten years ago. Ten years to plan and prepare for paying it.
Pac man was "ordered to pay" on January 15, 2012 by a Jury. It then says (on Wikipedia mind you) that Jones was "forced to pay" on January 9, 2015. Now that may mean the case was appealed and then in 2015 they ruled final against Pac Man or that he actually paid or took out loans to pay or is getting Garnished. I am not certain where it all stands. Maybe another Poster knows more.

With that said, if I were Mike Brown and this was my real reason for keeping Pac Man then I would want to Guaranty a few things occurred from Pac Man in return for not cutting him. I would make it Crystal Clear that this is the specific reason he is being kept to start protecting the reputation of my Organization when it comes to the character issue. I would then want Pac Man to prove that he is "actually paying" this obligation with the money I would be giving him as owner. Or that he has already paid the obligation but has to repay loans he took out to do it. Team Lawyers could even help work out a Settlement that could save Pac Man money and make the victim happy if he has not yet paid. I would make sure Pac Man is accountable and if he or the Players Association or his Agent don't want to be responsible I would go ahead & cut the Grown man. If Mike Brown lets him play here 2 more years and get paid without Pac Man using that money to pay on this obligation then he has just DELAYED his Bankruptcy. He would not have really helped at all. This could actually turn into a Positive story if the Bengals got Pac Man to get on Board Publicly with the concept of being a responsible adult that pays his debts to society and the team that was willing to work with him to make sure he does it.

[XenoMorph]

(04-03-2017, 01:34 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Yikes. Seems Pacman is dragging that out as much as he can. No remorse.

He shouldn't have to pay for that...   case of going after the deepest pockets in the room.

[OrlandoBengal]

(04-03-2017, 01:34 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Yikes. Seems Pacman is dragging that out as much as he can. No remorse.

From what I understand, the guy will never walk again.  Who knows the amount of medical bills he has amassed, not to mention the emotional toll the whole thing probably took on him.  According to Spotrac he has made over $32 million in his career, with another $7 million to come this year.  And you've only paid the guy $60k??

I've never been a fan of him being on the team, but this latest incident really bothers me.  Mike Brown's statements about him really bother me.  I'm not sure that I can continue to root for a team that employs and supports him... funny thing is that as I consider moving on, this message board is one of the things I would miss most.  My wife wants thinks we should start rooting for the Dolphins because they are closer and we have a number of friends who go to games.  I saw some comments that Stephen Ross made last week about NFL owner's should pay for their own stadiums and upgrades, how they should not be a drain on society... made that option look even more appealing. 

[OrlandoBengal]

(04-03-2017, 01:52 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: He shouldn't have to pay for that...   case of going after the deepest pockets in the room.

Have you actually read anything about the incident?  Because if you had, I don't think you would have that mindset.

[Crowe]

Couldn't agree more. I'm all for giving a guy like Mixon a chance, but to keep giving guys like Adam Jones a 7th, 8th, and 9th chance is beyond ridiculous. He's a grown man who continues to act like an irresponsible child and yet our management continues to deem this behavior as acceptable. The longer we continue to allow players to act like this the longer we'll be the laughing stock of the NFL and the more you'll see players behaving like this.

[BengalsRocker]

Like I've said before...

If Adam Jones is in so much supposed debt and cutting him would put his family on the street... then why the hell is he out partying(spending $$$)and acting a fool(taking risks)?!?

What a self centered twit!! Never mind breaking the law.

[depthchart]

Setting up a Trust for a 5 year old with say $50,000 for College and $50,000 that child would get when they turn say 21 would end up being a lot of money with interest by the time they went to College and turned 21. Mike Brown could do this for Pac Man's daughter making sure that Pac Man can't ever touch that money. Then be Free to cut him. Jones could still play in the league another 5 years at say 2 to 3 million per year like Terence Newman has. Mike Brown isn't backed into a moral corner here as implied to the Media.

[Circleville Guy]

This is basically helping someone who doesn't care enough to help themself. He obviously sets a bad example for his kid, team and community. I can see a second or third chance, some people never do learn though. If you want to learn, you first have to care and want to change. He obviously doesn't give a F.

[McC]

(04-03-2017, 12:21 PM)depthchart Wrote: The Bengals could have a leg to stand on in this Public Relations effort they appear to be making with regards to Pac Man & character if they would adhere to some basic Principles. It borders on the absurd for management to put it out there that they are keeping Pac Man to prevent his family from basically becoming homeless (so to speak with a hint of sarcasm). Pac Man has made millions upon millions of dollars in his long career. Even if he were cut he would be signed rather quickly by another team at between 1.5 million to 3 million per year if not more. Pac Man is 33 years old and former Bengal corner Terence Newman is 38 and has been signing 1 year $3 million type deals which is what he got in 2016. Pac Man could play in the league for 5 more years and make plenty of cash on these types of deals. A man making $50,000 per year would have to work 20 years to make just one million and that man would be able to support his daughter just fine. I get that Mike Brown may factor in the" we are Family" concept when dealing with players and coaches but it has to be rooted in Principles that protect the image of his Organization. I lean more toward a "Grown Man versus Recent Teen" Principle when it comes to character. I am all for taking the Choir Boys over the poorer character College prospects if the talent is equal. Do that as much as possible. I would also take a few risks on say a Joe Mixon or Bucky Hodges if I felt the locker room could handle them and based on them being very young when they misbehaved. My Principle would be limiting just how often I would do this to steals or bargains in Drafts while not putting up with Bad Behavior from GROWN MEN like Pac Man. I can see giving a Recent Teen a chance by Drafting them & trying to help them mature. Where the Front Office has made their biggest mistake is the constant defense of bad behavior by Grown 30 plus year old men. Mike Brown could even come out and publicly say that they will give chances to poor character players that are below the age of 24 on rare occasions from time to time but will make it Policy that they rid their roster of Grown Men that are repeat offenders in the Bad Character area. Cutting Pac Man Jones to begin this New Policy would set the tone his paying Fans really want set and Pac Man will be able to move on to millions of more dollars on 1 year deals until he is 38 years old or older. His family will be just fine and the Front Office will have shown that they finally get it. Treat the recent teen differently than the Grown man.

You make a lot of good points.  But man, think paragraph.  They're free of charge.

[McC]

(04-03-2017, 01:03 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I'm not defending the Bengals keeping Pacman - at all - but doesn't he have to fork over huge chunks of his pay to the man who was paralyzed by his posse? Actually, I found an article on it:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/09/pacman-jones-ordered-to-pay-12-4m-to-shooting-victims/


12.4 million is a ton of money...even for Pacman. Especially considering what his spending habits have probably been over the years.

Yep.  Entourages ain't cheap.

[depthchart]

(04-03-2017, 04:24 PM)McC Wrote: You make a lot of good points.  But man, think paragraph.  They're free of charge.

I see your point.
When I look back at the Post now it looks like I wrote a mini Book.
I kept the Keys humming on my keyboard before my thoughts were forgotten.
I'll try for more paragraph breaks to ease the read next time.

[depthchart]

(04-03-2017, 04:24 PM)McC Wrote: You make a lot of good points.  But man, think paragraph.  They're free of charge.

I took your advice and broke my first Post down into 3 sections for an easier read with an edit.

[grampahol]

I have a feeling there's a lot more to the whole thing than what the public is being told. I find it difficult to think the organization would continue to back him without some much deeper things happening we're not privy to. 
That said, from a PR standpoint it's a disaster to not make those reasons clear to the public. It just doesn't make sense to keep backing Jones without this stuff being told. 
If it were just a matter of homelessness then MB should be funding massive housing projects for homeless people instead of the reasons given. None of it really makes sense. I've personally known many many more deserving homeless people than Adam Jones. Hell, I've been homeless and lived in homeless shelters and the guys I know didn't come close to doing some of the things Jones has done off the field and Brown certainly wasn't there for me nor anyone else who is homeless that I'm aware of. 
No, there has to be more to the story and it needs to be told because the one we as fans are getting just doesn't cut it. As it is now Jones's contribution to society other than playing football and maybe being an ok dad isn't really cutting it. 
Hey Mr Brown if you're overriding concern is Jones's ability to put a roof over his head then what about all the other homeless men, women and children?  Or don't they count ? This story just doesn't wash.

[Shake n Blake]

I was reading Daugherty's recent piece on Mike Brown not drawing any lines, and it got me thinking.

Is Mike's constant forgiveness to players like Pacman really good in any way?

It certainly doesn't help the team or the perception of it or the city. But I'd also argue that it doesn't help the person he's being lenient with.

Sometimes people need a wake up call.

[*psychdoctor*]

(04-04-2017, 01:12 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I was reading Daugherty's recent piece on Mike Brown not drawing any lines, and it got me thinking.

Is Mike's constant forgiveness to players like Pacman really good in any way?

It certainly doesn't help the team or the perception of it or the city. But I'd also argue that it doesn't help the person he's being lenient with.

Sometimes people need a wake up call.

It is an issue of controversy.  Rogerian unconditional positive regard versus tough love.  Mike Brown uses unconditional positive regard and does not judge the person but this isn't necessarily condone their behavior either.  Sometimes the person's behavior and the person's identity are one and the same.  

The the inadvertent consequence of unconditional positive regard can be creating apathy or decreasing motivation the change.  Making reoccurring mistakes is one thing nevertheless if it's part of a  person's character it's another.  Some might say it's hard to distinguish between the two.  

The Cincinnati Bengals overall message from the front office to players and coaches is "forgiveness."

This modus operandi it's not a good mix for players with questionable character and inept coaches.