Brace yourselves, Bengal faithful. Word has surfaced today through our old pal Len Pasquerelli at ESPN that the team’s decision to sign DB Adam “Pacman” Jones was, quoted, “Hardly unanamous.”
I’ll give you a moment to let this groundbreaking revelation sink in…
Done? Good. As the next few days progress, people like PFT and NFP and other NFL observers will chew over this like its some kind of big deal. I’m sure Doc and Chick and Hobson will all feel the need to weigh in as well. It’ll be the controversy du jour for fifteen minutes.
They’ll openly wonder if this reveals some division inside the organization; if this is one of the “issues” Marvin Lewis talks about when he discusses his contract status; and those with no real knowledge of the situation will develop the overriding opinion that this is new evidence that Owner Mike Brown still calls the shots in the Queen City, nothing has changed, coaches have no autonomy, not enough scouts, blah..blah..blah.
Let me get ahead of the curve and take a moment to provide the “official” Bengals Gab viewpoint on the matter:
Who cares? I’ve got a great big “Frankly Miss Scarlett…” for this fake hub-bub.
I know that certain elements in the “mainstream” NFL media absolutely love an opportunity to rip on the Bengals, particularly when it comes to their compunction for signing players with a “checkered” past. Mike Brown, (who, make no mistake, is no hero in this space) gets a bum rap on this point. Everybody loves getting their digs in on the Bengals and Brown, and this will doubtlessly serve as another convenient reason to line up and do it again.
Here are some admittedly radical and controversial viewpoints on the matter, that I feel our readers should keep in mind while reading the tripe about to be flung all over the intergoogle:
- No signing on ANY NFL team is “unanimous”. From the number one draft pick, to the last college free agent, scouts, coaches, and front office personnel will disagree. Why is this especially important in the case of Pacman? (Hint: It isn’t).
- Opinions be as they may, here’s a fun fact: Mike Brown, turns out, is the Owner of the team, and thereby he’s earned the right to make whatever decisions he darn well pleases. Thus, IF (and its a big ‘if’) Marvin Lewis was against the signing, it really doesn’t matter.
- There is a precedent. Mike Brown allegedly signed Chris Henry against Marvin Lewis’ wishes. I emphasize the “allegedly” because we really don’t know (more on that later). and by the way now all we can talk about is how the offense in 2009 tanked after Henry got injured. Seems like the old man might have been right after all on that one.
- Every Bengal fan wants to give Mike Zimmer sainthood. I don’t blame them. The guy took our 27th ranked defense and got it up to number 4 in two seasons using cast-offs and draft picks. Some want him to ascend to the head coaching job before someone else steals him away. The point is, its an unquestioned fact that the guy knows what he’s doing. He’s on record as saying he likes what he’s seen from Pacman. What more do you want? That’s enough of an endorsement for me.
- Take this stuff with a grain of salt. We all know that trying to decipher what the front office is doing is harder than figuring out the formula for cold fusion or Coca-cola. Trusting these jESPN “sources” is dangerous at best. Only a small group of individuals know what’s really going on at PBS.
So there you have it. Much ado about nothing. Whether the organization voted 100-0 to get Pacman, or it was 1 to 99 against, it really doesn’t matter. He’s here now. He provides talent at a very low risk. He wants to be here, and he’s motivated.
Pasquerelli can frame it however he wants. The world can discuss and decide for themselves. In the meantime, its a done deal.
I, for one, am glad.