I totally disagree with your assessment of Mike Brown.Because of the lockout the Bengals couldn't trade Palmer before the draft... so unless another team would have packaged current players, (Philly got Rogers-Cromartie) there was no benefit to trade him before the 2012 draft.So... instead of caring what pundits and fans say, Mike Brown maximized Palmer's value by convincing other GMs that only a huge offer would even be considered.Was the Campbell injury lucky? Sure. But Mike Brown must be given the credit for being patient enough to give luck a chance to play out... and then completely rape a team that is desperate. (If it had been anyone but Mike Brown, you'd be praising this as a brilliant GM move).Mike Brown was smart enough to know that Palmer's trade value would be the same at the 2012 as he was before the 2011 season, and he waited it out... just in case. It worked.
You're right; if this was Belichick, I'd be writing ballads about his genius. That having been said, it isn't Belichick...it's Mike Brown. The same Mike Brown who ignored his coaching staff and hung them out to dry with the TO and Pacman Jones signings. The same Mike Brown who spent the better part of a half decade acquiring every criminal that has ever played in the NFL. The same Mike Brown who has made the Bengals a laughingstock in the NFL for 20 years.If you choose to believe Brown, at 74, has finally hit his stride as a personnel guy then you're free to have that opinion. Certainly, the Palmer situation worked out extraordinarily well for him and Bengals fans have reason to be excited. Still, you can't seriously expect people to buy into this. Your entire argument is predicated on Palmer's trade value being the same in 2012 as it was prior to this season. That simply isn't the case. Prior to the 2012 draft, Palmer would be a 33 year old QB, having not played in over a year and being 5 years and two major injuries removed from his last Pro Bowl appearance. Teams would have far more flexibility in acquiring other options (draft, free agency, trade) and would be unlikely to offer anything more than a 3rd round pick...a 2nd at the most. Any other opinion is simply delusional.By stubbornly holding onto Palmer through the last offseason, Brown told the tale of what his true intent was. The history of in season QB acquisitions for playoff contenders (the only teams likely to pay a high price)is severely spotty at best. Even if this was his "plan," it was a dumb longshot. He got lucky, pure and simple. No skill, no genius...just dumb luck.
A couple of points...First, Palmer asked Mike Brown to sign T.O. and Brown spent the majority of the last several seasons attempting to give Palmer as many weapons as he asked for... (including letting his little brother be on the team). Palmer stabbed him in the back with the trade demand. I agree that it was a bad idea to bring in T.O., but Palmer can't get what he asks for and then blame Brown for the consequences.Second... there are 3 main reasons that the Bengals were a "laughingstock" for 20 years. I'll name them in order. 1) David Klingler. 2) Akili Smith. 3) Ki-Jana Carter. If Boomer hadn't been a complete tool (just like Palmer) and demanded a trade, the Bengals wouldn't have needed to draft a QB like Klingler (a complete bust). And if you look around the league, when you see a top 10 QB bust... it takes that team between 5-10 years to recover (Ryan Leaf, JaMarcus Russel, Joey Harrington). The Bengals had two of them in a row with Akili. Yes... that is Mike Brown's fault to a large extent, but by the same token, the Bengals have not been consistently bad since Palmer was drafted, and won their division twice... simply because Palmer wasn't a colossal bust. (Peyton Manning made the Colts front office look really smart, but suddenly they don't look like the peanut gallery, right? One good/bad pick can completely change the reputation of any GM).Third... Palmer couldn't be traded during the 2011 draft. And if you believe reports... the Seahawks and Dolphins were interested in Palmer once the CBA was complete... but only for a 3rd round pick. Had Brown traded Palmer for that price, the media would have blasted him for agreeing to such a low offer.Palmer certainly would have been worth a 3rd round pick in the 2012 draft... and if he wasn't, fine. Just let the dude retire, because that's not enough value to justify the move. However... patience allowed fate to play it's hand.And for the record... the Bengals have been playing pretty well this year... and it is primarily based on the young players that Brown has drafted in the last 3-4 years. Does that make up for the futility of the 90's? Perhaps not... but you must judge him now on the same basis that he was judged then. And right now, he's performing the role of GM quite well.
"I think if the season was seven weeks long and I had to vote today, my Executive of the Year would be Mike Brown. It's not just the Palmer trade. It's sticking to his guns on draft day and waiting, waiting, waiting for Andy Dalton at the 34th overall pick."-Peter Kinghttp://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/10/24/Week7/index.html#ixzz1biecbQBy
I didn't notice this quote of yours before:"The history of in season QB acquisitions for playoff contenders (the only teams likely to pay a high price)is severely spotty at best."Of course it's spotty! No team with a decent QB wants to trade him away. The reason it's rare is because of the supply, not the demand. Teams with playoff aspirations have QB problems almost every season.
You've basically made my argument for me! Brown is SOLELY responsible for drafting David Klingler, Akili Smith, Ki-Jana Carter, and others. Brown is solely responsible for all the poor trades, the worthless free agent endeavors, and the endless circus that surrounds this franchise. Brown has chosen to take on the mantle as the de facto head of the organization and therefore, the past two decades of garbage falls on him. There is no denying this. It's impossible to claim otherwise. As you say, "you must judge him now on the same basis that he was judged then." If that's the case, then why are you partially absolving him of two decades of stupidity? Based on that, in what reality should I turn a blind eye to 20 years of stupidity just because one trade and one draft in one solitary year worked out? Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? Yes, the Dalton thing was great! I've said that many, many times! The Green pick was awesome! I've also said that! Please don't selectively choose to forget that I've given plenty of credit for the good choices. But in all seriousness, the Palmer situation was handled poorly and the result is pure luck. It took a catastrophic injury within the first 6 weeks to make this happen. What are the odds on that? If you're just going by pure risk management, this is exactly the type of poor decision that has gotten Brown into so many messes. It just so happens that this one time, things worked out. I've heard the reports that they were offered up to a 1st round pick after the CBA was settled. Whether that is true or not, I don't know. Fact is, nobody in the media would kill them for taking a #3. Nobody. Getting something instead of nothing is always good. Regardless, that isn't really the point. You're suggesting that Mike Brown was slow playing this process to get the utmost value...and that really is a crazy claim. He was upset at Palmer (rightfully so) and he wanted to "win" in this standoff. That's the crux of it. Peter King is totally right in declaring Brown the Executive of the Year, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Most of the time, luck is a far bigger factor than people want to admit. You can believe what you want, but I have 20 years of evidence to suggest that Brown didn't suddenly "get smart."
You miss the point on that quote. The point of it is to detail how thin a market there would be for Palmer, specifically at that price. The Dolphins aren't going to give up even one 1st rounder for Palmer because they would be bad anyways. The only teams in the market would be teams with a vested interest in the early returns on Carson Palmer...basically, contenders. Since most of those teams have established QB's, they wouldn't likely be making trades to replace their guy. Also, the likelihood of injury isn't great either. You'd have to hope that one of maybe ten QB's goes down, that the team didn't have a backup good enough to fill in, and that the injury within a very specific time frame (prior to the trade deadline). The odds of all this lining up are not good...not good at all.
By the way, is this Mike Brown I'm talking to?
- "Why are you partially absolving him of two decades of stupidity?"I'm not. But I'm also saying it wasn't two decades. They haven't been a "laughingstock" since the 2002. Yes, the QB busts were his fault at the end of the day... and that is how he got his reputation. But my argument is that those two picks don't make his other decisions bad. The problem was the amount of time it took to dig out of the hole those mistakes created. But... he has dug them out of that hole, and did so in 2003.- "You're suggesting that Mike Brown was slow playing this process to get the utmost value...and that really is a crazy claim."Really? I mean... really? Seattle didn't offer him a first, and that hasn't been reported by anyone. GMs around the league have openly stated that they thought Palmer was worth no more than a 2nd rounder (which made the Oakland deal all the more crazy).So Yes! He absolutely maximized Palmer's value! He made it clear to everyone that the only way Palmer would play football again was if a team came in with a Godfather type offer... none of this 3rd round pick crap. And it worked!I'm not saying there was no luck involved. Campbell could have gotten hurt a week later (or not at all), resulting in no trade - but that doesn't take anything away from how Brown handled this. He set it up to either get ultimate value... or, at worst, the same value next year. Personally, I would have been livid if they traded Palmer for a 3rd round pick. Trades don't take place in a vacuum... so letting Seattle have a good QB for a bargain price actually hurts Cincy more than it helps. They are in direct competition with Seattle as a fellow NFL team.
-"By the way, is this Mike Brown I'm talking to?"Nope. I'm actually Jared's cousin.
I fail to see how Brown "dug them out of a hole" when they have a winning record in just 2 seasons since Palmer was drafted, and 0 playoff wins. That seems to be a disengenuous statement. I guess if your definition of success is relative (if you're a Bengals fan, as I'm assuming, then I wouldn't blame you for that)then yes, they're out of the hole a bit. At the end of the day, you seem to be giving an awful lot of credit to Brown for drafting Palmer. I can't do that when Palmer was the obvious, clear cut #1 pick in that draft. What else was Brown going to do? I'd much rather call it an exercise in luck that they happened to get the #1 pick when there was as legit franchise QB on the board. Similarly, credit can't be given to whoever takes Andrew Luck because they literally HAD to take him.Anyways, I honestly can't believe you're arguing that Brown has been competent. Nobody agrees with you...nobody. Those in the league will say this, those who report on the league will say this, and the myriad of players who have come and gone from that organization will say this. Finally, you don't know what Seattle did or didn't offer. There are media member here in the Columbus area that had sources telling them both Seattle and San Francisco offered 1st rounders. Again, we don't know the truth on that. Regardless, there is NO WAY Brown could have known that Oakland would lose their starter and then offer 300 cents on the dollar! So no, he didn't slow play it. He fully intended to do nothing, saying as much several different times. He got lucky. And no, trading him to Seattle for proper market value (a 3rd is decent value for an aging, mediocre QB) doesn't hurt Cincy. They aren't in the same division or conference!Finally, there are stories that Brown had to be CONVINCED to go through with this trade. How ridiculous is that?! Here is a story from a prominent Bengals blog that pretty much summarizes everything I've been saying.http://www.cincyjungle.com/2011/10/21/2504747/mailbag-was-mike-brown-a-genius-for-trading-carson-palmer-or-just
Adding to the crazy amount of luck involved was David Garrard's random injury! Did Brown plan that one too?
-"At the end of the day, you seem to be giving an awful lot of credit to Brown for drafting Palmer."Not at all. As you mentioned... any monkey could have done that. The real fact of the matter is that Palmer didn't live up to his draft status. He was a very good QB for one season... but aside from that he's ranged from average to mediocre (Palmer was the primary reason they lost the '09 playoff game).Currently the national media is praising the Bengals for having one of the youngest and brightest teams in the NFL... and that has nothing to do with the Palmer trade. This isn't just one "lucky" move.Perhaps his current success isn't enough for you to forget the failings of the past... and that's fine. Criticize away for those mistakes. But you must judge him now on the same standard that he was judged in the past. If you are consistent, you'll admit that he's doing a good job. Right now the Bengals have the #1 ranked defense in the NFL and are winning games with a rookie QB. That is what I give Mike Brown credit for. He built that without the help of Carson Palmer.- "There are media member here in the Columbus area that had sources telling them both Seattle and San Francisco offered 1st rounders."I live in Columbus as well... and I assume you are mis-remembering. Seattle was said to have been interested in giving a 1st round pick for Palmer prior to the draft (but a deal couldn't be done because of the CBA). After that they changed their offer (per Schefter) to a 2nd and a 4th. Brown felt Palmer was worth more than that (if for no other reason, more was offered prior to that).As for the 49ers... they are a perfect example of a team who would have been willing to make the same offer next year. They aren't going to have an early pick to address the QB position... and their QB of the future is still several years away from being ready.-"There is NO WAY Brown could have known that Oakland would lose their starter and then offer 300 cents on the dollar!" Agreed, No one could have predicted this exact scenario... but that's not my argument. My argument was that he gave luck a change.And by the way, luck alone doesn't make deals happen. An opportunity presented itself and Brown could have ignored it... but to what should be his enormous credit, he turned that luck into two high draft picks. That's the kind of thing that good GMs do.
I'm not misremembering the comments I heard from local radio hosts. They claim to have sources telling them that both Seattle and San Francisco offered 1st rounders.Look, I have given credit for drafting Dalton and Green. Numerous times in fact. Again, please don't selectively remember things. There is no denying that the 2011 draft was ENORMOUSLY successful, and I'm more than willing to give Mike Brown credit for that. He targeted those guys, he got those guys, and he was right on those guys. Kudos to him.What I will not do is choose to be a "hindsight is 20-20" judge. Mike Brown made his stance on Carson Palmer, not through foresight or wisdom, but on vengeance and stubbornness. Honestly, I can understand why he would do so, but as an NFL GM he has let his emotions get in the way of better judgment time and time again. What he had was a past his prime QB that could have been peddled in a very good market (several teams needed QB's in the offseason)for more than he was worth. He chose to turn that down due to personal bias. The fact that he got a better package down the road does not change the fact that this was a bad move. It just means he was lucky (and yes, luck and randomness are HUGE factors). It took the exact perfect set of circumstances to overcome this blunder, and the odds were severely stacked against this happening. Basically, he bought a couple lottery tickets and hit the big one. It's not skill, it's luck. And I can turn to the fact that Brown's team has the worst record in the NFL during his tenure as owner/GM to tell me that he's nowhere near smart enough to pull off what you are suggesting.
I wrote the below information in an earlier post. Do you realize that you are trying to convince me that the man with the worst record in the NFL since 1991 is a good GM? Do you realize the absurdity of that? What possible reason would I have for giving him the benefit of the doubt? You have to earn that...he has not."1970-1990 - Paul Brown Era164-148 (.526), 6 division titles, 7 playoff births (5-7), 2 AFC Championships.The franchise had to deal with the NFL-AFL merger (they were originally an AFL team) and were 7-2 in the strike shortened 1982 season, making them even more successful than the already good numbers would suggest. They may not have been the Steelers or Cowboys, but Cincinnati was always competitive. They finished last in their division only 5 times, finished with a losing record only 6 times, and had consecutive losing seasons only once (1978-1980). They produced two excellent QB's in Ken Anderson and Boomer Esiason, had reasonable stability at head coach, and were 84-68 (.553) in the 10 years prior to Mike Brown1991-Present - Mike Brown Era115-204-1 (.359), 2 division titles, 2 playoff births (0-2), 1,457,836 dumb decisions (only slightly exaggerated).Though he inherited a team with the same coach, same quarterback, and almost the same roster from a division winner the year before (not to mention the Super Bowl just a few years before that), Brown worked his magic immediately, finishing dead last with a 3-13 record. He proceeded to fire the most successful coach in franchise history (Sam Wyche) and destroy the roster. In his twenty years, the team has finished last 9 times, finished next to last another 4 times, ended the season with a losing record 14 times, and strung together an incredible 14 straight seasons without a winning record. The team has had legendary coaches such as Dave Shula, Bruce Coslet, and Dick LeBeau. They have featured All-Pro's at quarterback such as David Klingler, Jay Schroeder, Jeff Blake, Neil O'Donnell, Akili Smith, Scott Mitchell, and Jon Kitna. And they have drafted can't miss prospects such as David Klingler (6th overall), John Copeland (5th overall), Dan Wilkinson (1st overall), Ki-Jana Carter (1st overall), Akili Smith (3rd overall), Peter Warrick (4th overall), Chris Perry (26th overall), and fat Andre Smith (6th overall).This is an owner that refuses to step down and hire a GM despite constant failure. This is an owner that won't invest in an indoor practice facility (the only team in the NFL without one). This is an owner that continually acquires poor character guys (Chris Henry, Pacman Jones, TO, Frostee Rucker, Odell Thurman, etc.), and openly works against his coach's personnel wishes. Worst of all, this is an owner that employs only one full time scout. ONE FULL TIME SCOUT?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!"
Oh boy... you visited Wikipedia. Let the stat sheet fly!It's not fair to call it the Paul Brown era, when Mike Brown was functioning as GM for most of the last decade of that time. That's right... the '88 SuperBowl team was Mike Brown's product.Most people who aren't die-hard Bengal fans don't know that, and most Bengal fans don't want to admit it. Afterall... it's easier to have one scapegoat to blame all the mistakes on then it is to come up with the actual reasons.Whether Sam Wyche was fired or resigned is not known, but either way, he went 3-13 that season. So even if he was fired... let's not act like it was a terrible injustice.Your list of QB failures doesn't do much for me. Brown wanted to build around Boomer, but that selfish douchebag forced his way off the team. The 10 years of futility were a direct result of Mike Brown giving that spoiled athlete his wish... because so many resources were wasted on trying to find an adequate replacement.And why don't you check yourself before you start listing off draft busts. Every team has them. You know who currently has the fewest in the last 5 years? I'll give you one guess.Mike Brown has a reputation for giving too many chances to troubled athletes, but he does so on his terms at a low risk/high reward situation. And with the exception of Benson and Pacman... the Bengals roster is pretty squeaky clean.Meanwhile the Steelers have a rapist at QB, a drunk-driving WR, and a OLB who admits he attempts to injure people on the field. Or perhaps we should focus on the high quality human beings that compose the Ravens locker-room. It's the NFL... not church-camp.My eyes might be permanently lodged in the back of my skull because of your indoor practice facility complaint. What does that have to do with being a GM? And are these football players or what? Geesh!I've heard all these complaints from the same Bengal fans who are consistently looking for that unattainable scapegoat. Everything will be better when Mike Brown dies, right?You can look through Bengal history all you want. The fact is... Mike Brown built the current roster. The same roster that analysts suggest will be long-term bully in the AFC North. But please... continue to complain about indoor practice facilities.
Anyway bro... it was good arguing with you today. I enjoy a healthy debate.I just tend to think that Mike Brown doesn't deserve nearly as much criticism as he gets... and when he does do something right, people don't want acknowledge any skill involved. That rubs me the wrong way.But anyway... agree to disagree. I probably shouldn't spend any more of my time at work arguing about Mike Brown's quality.
So what you're saying is that you're satisfied with endless streams of bad decisions and constant losing and you don't care that every stat and every relevant person in the league disagrees with what you just said? Alright then.
I gave you a link of a guy who said he would give Mike Brown the award for executive of the year. So... whatever.No one was more critical of Mike Brown than I was in the 90's. And for good reason. All I'm saying is, you can't go purely on the past. Intelligent people continue to analyze the facts... and don't lazily assume that the way things have been are the way things always will be.Holmgren hasn't done anything of note since his Favre Super Bowl... but people keep giving him chances, because of the perception that he is smart and knows what he is doing. But how much evidence is there to that fact?The point being... people who are paying attention notice more than just what they've come to expect and believe. People who pay attention notice that sometimes perception isn't reality. People who are paying attention notice that Mike Brown has quietly built a very good foundation in Cincinnati over the last several years.
I've said those exact same words about the foundation several times. What more do you want? Do you want me to put Mike Brown in the HOF or something? It takes more than a foundation to build a winner and it's entirely reasonable for me to doubt his ability to continue performing well in this process. Please, tell me why it's "lazy" or "unintelligent" for me to disregard the past. What should I judge him on then? Even if you want me to disregard the 90's, I can point to the 4-12 team he built last season. Is that recent enough? Furthermore, your assertion that I'm not "paying attention" is laughable, especially when you claim that Holmgren has done nothing since '96. Umm, were you not paying attention when he took Seattle to the Super Bowl? Or is that not enough?I'm going to end this conversation here because clearly we aren't on the same page. I respect the fact that you are excited for your team. You should be! Brown HAS made a lot of great moves lately! Carlos Dunlap, Andy Dalton, A.J. Green have been great picks...and there have been others as well. What I don't understand is why you feel it necessary to lecture me on "lazily" examining past performance to predict future success. To put it bluntly, that's a stupid statement. Believe me, I've been paying attention...and what I've seen is a GM who has put together 2 playoff teams in 20 seasons. That isn't my "perception." It's reality. For the life of me, I will never understand why you are standing up for this clown, but that's your prerogative. Just don't try to tell me that I'm "lazy" or "unintelligent" for doubting a guy who has a reputation as the worst GM in the league and has the record to back that up.
What has Holmgren accomplished as a GM besides running the Seahawks into the ground?What has Bill Polian done as the Colts GM aside from hitting the jackpot with Peyton Manning?What has Bill Parcels done as a GM besides make the Miami Dolphins a complete joke?What has Scott Pioli done as a GM besides get lucky with Tom Brady with a late round pick (The Chiefs suck)?These guys are championed as geniuses in the NFL, but the difference between a genius and an idiot is nothing more than a Hall of Fame QB. I wasn't lecturing you as being lazy... I was doing so to the national media. The opinions of you and Jared on the podcast merely echo the widespread opinions spouted by talking heads across the country that aren't willing to do their homework.You admitted that Mike Brown has built a good foundation... and that is something you hadn't previously done, so props. That's all I was asking for.I'm not suggesting Mike Brown be elected into the hall of fame. I'm just asking for him to be given a fair shake. Most people have already passed judgement on Mike Brown as a bumbling idiot... so when a good decision is made, he's just a lucky blind squirrel. That's BS, and that's what rubs me the wrong way.
I certainly hope your comments about Holmgren, Polian, Parcels, and Pioli were meant as hyperbole or as a joke. If you're comparing them to Mike Brown then I don't know what to tell you.
No... I'm certainly not suggesting that Mike Brown belongs in the ranks of "genius" - but merely pointing out how much a good QB or a bad QB can influence perception.Would Bill Walsh be a genius without Joe Montana? Perhaps... who knows? How about Shanahan? What has he done post-Elway?My point is not that Mike Brown should be given the benefit of the doubt. My point is that no one should. Why is Bill Parcells known as anything but a utter failure for what he did to Miami? Because people had already formed an opinion about him prior to that.I'm saying that Mike Brown's decisions over the last several years grade very favorably in comparison to the rest of the league... but because he's Mike Brown, he's given little to no credit for those decision. He's been lucky. So consider an impossibly hypothetical...What if instead of drafting David Klingler in the 1st round of 1992, Mike Brown had drafted Brett Farve in the 2nd round of 1991? what his legacy would be?I am suggesting is that the difference between the label of genius and buffoon is a very thin line in the NFL. And once you've been labeled, it's incredibly difficult to shake.Mike Brown deserves a lot of the criticism he gets. But he also deserves credit from time to time... and for some reason people like to withhold it.
Hey fellas... sorry, arriving a little late here! Let's get this party started:"Would Bill Walsh be a genius without Joe Montana? Perhaps... who knows?" Umm... anyone who knows anything about the history of the game. That's who knows. Walsh personally invented many football schemes that forever changed the way the game is played. Sure, he had an awesome QB, but to even imply that his success is limited to luck, or stops anywhere short of visionary, revolutionary, etc... is just plain ignorant. Oh, and speaking of the 49ers, I've got a great candidate for giving your boy a "fair shake...”Anyway, back to the point. I can't believe I just wasted 15 minutes of my life reading through all these comments. Mr. Brown (ahem, I mean, 'Prince's cousin'), you just spent a bunch of time and energy demanding more respect for Mike Brown from a blog owner who has made such concessions as "Carlos Dunlap, Andy Dalton, A.J. Green have been great picks...and there have been others as well,” “Peter King is totally right in declaring Brown the Executive of the Year,” and “the 2011 draft was ENORMOUSLY successful, and I'm more than willing to give Mike Brown credit for that. He targeted those guys, he got those guys, and he was right on those guys. Kudos to him.”To quote Jon one last time, “What more do you want?” One minute, you insist that Jon is short-changing Brown; the next, after he has given Brown his due credit, you go and say something like, “[regarding successive top-10 QB busts] that is Mike Brown's fault to a large extent,” “Does that make up for the futility of the 90's? Perhaps not...” “Yes, the QB busts were his fault at the end of the day,” “The 10 years of futility were a direct result of Mike Brown giving that spoiled athlete his wish” (were you trying to make Brown good with that one?), and “Mike Brown has a reputation for giving too many chances to troubled athletes.”Therefore, the only logical explanation to all this, I must conclude, is that you have some deep-rooted, schizophrenic obsession with Brown. I mean, by the end of your arguments here (who am I kidding, it probably isn't the end, even though you said you were done several comments ago), you've reverted so far from your point as to say "My point is not that Mike Brown should be given the benefit of the doubt. My point is that no one should." Wow. Way to stick to your guns, Mr. Hyde.Well, that’s pretty much all I have to say about that.
Hey Casey.Your post was very difficult to read because of all the quoting and commenting, so I'm not going to even try to respond to most of it. Just allow me just to say this...My points was never that Mike Brown is a great GM... and I only bring up other "geniuses" to show how relatively lucky someone can be to receive such a term. (Bill Walsh was a great football mind. Don't pretend I said otherwise. But he learned everything he knew from Paul Brown, and then hit the jackpot with Montana and Jerry Rice. He wouldn't have succeeded the way he did with David Klingler).Anyway, my point all along was that it is not good practice to make a judgement about someone's decisions based solely on what your opinion of them was previous to those decisions.Was the Palmer trade a good move or not? Have they drafted well in the last several years or not? If the answers to those questions are "yes" then why is it so hard to say "good job" instead of snickering about how lucky he is?
But you're doing the exact same thing when you say Walsh "hit the jackpot" with Montana and Rice? Did Walsh win all those Super Bowls or not? Going back to a previous example, did Scott Pioli take Tom Brady in the 6th round or not? Why is it "luck" when guys with incredible track records do something right, but it's skill when Brown, a man with an awful track record, does something right? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth on this one.(By the way, bring accurate facts to the table when you're making arguments. Walsh did NOT learn everything from Paul Brown. Just because he coached under him doesn't mean Walsh vultured his ideas. Walsh is responsible for inventing the West Coast offense, not Paul Brown. If anything, you should give credit to Sid Gillman since it was his original offensive philosophy that Walsh modified. Again, it's hypocritical for you to lecture us on not giving credit to someone when you are consistently and erroneously taking credit from someone who genuinely deserves it. That's not gonna fly, man.)
Fair enough about Bill Walsh. I may have overstated my case... but Bill Walsh did learn a great deal from Paul Brown (who coincidentally is also referred to as a "genius" by many analysts).But back to my original point. I'm not attempting to take anything away from Bill Walsh. I'm merely pointing out that "luck" plays a factor with every "genius" in the NFL. There have been plenty of great minds who failed because they didn't have the talent to succeed.I'm bringing up "luck" with these other guys to point out that Mike Brown is no more "lucky" than any of them. So it is inconsistent to refer to one guy as "lucky" and another guy as "genius" when it is almost always somewhere in the middle.
This is an interesting point considering that I'm the one who made it earlier in the discussion when I said, " Most of the time, luck is a far bigger factor than people want to admit." So thanks for agreeing with me, even though you were disagreeing with me earlier.I think Mike Brown lucked out on the Carson Palmer thing. Nothing you can say will change my mind. My opinion has nothing to do with his 20 years of failure, though that certainly adds creedance to my argument. I won't give Brown credit for this ONE DEAL (note, I said one...not EVERYTHING as you insist on inferring) because I think his initial decision to play hardball with Plamer was dumb. We disagree fundamentally about Palmer's value, and that's fine. That's clearly where our disconnect is. My personal thought is that Brown had done an excellent job of building a young talent base and he should have taken the opportunity to rid the franchise of this distraction and add future value. I believe that Brown never had any intention of dealing Palmer, and that the remotest of circumstances popped up to turn this situation into pure gold. That is my belief, and it is one that is shared by many, many people. My opinion is not one that I am copycatting from national media, as I am clearly able to formulate my own ideas. Again, it isn't about Brown's past failures. It's about the statistical chances of something like this working out, which are extremely thin. That, my friend, is analytical thinking, which for whatever reason you think I am not employing. In fact, my approach to this ONE situation is PURELY analytical. He went against the odds and he's extraordinarily fortunate that it worked out. You obviously disagree, and that's OK.
It's all good man. And I think it's probably time to let this debate mercifully die. Allow me to say make a couple closing remarks (that I think we can agree on).You're final point about luck is correct. And if you look at my initial post, I conceded that luck played a factor from the get-go. I just think that luck tends to be a huge part of the discussion in relation to Brown, but is almost never brought up with other teams. I find that inconsistent (especially since I could make a strong argument that with career changing injuries to the likes of Greg Cook, Ki-Jana Carter, and Carson Palmer, the Bengals may be one of the "unluckiest" franchises in NFL history).I would just like to say for the record that I don't think you were "copycatting" national media opinions, or that you are unable to formulate your own thoughts. But the national media does play a factor in how people perceive things. So my apologies if I came of as condescending. That was not my intent.Anyway... I don't think were disagreeing all that much. Perhaps only semantics, that I felt was a matter of principle. Regardless... thanks for responding to me and keeping the conversation going. It was fun.Take it easy bro.
You're probably right, and it's OK if we disagree anyways. Luck is a huge factor, but you're right that the national media, by in large, refuses to acknowledge that. Perhaps its just a refusal to admit that not everything is in our control. Whatever the case may be, the Bengals have been unlucky. Ki-Jana Carter and Palmer were probably two of the most unfortunate injuries I've ever seen, as both looked poised to be incredible players. Palmer specifically looked like he was right up there with anybody, including Manning and Brady. Sadly, it didn't work out. Either way, I'm pulling for Cincy. I have roots in the area and the Bengals have been a sort of 2nd team to me. Things look good so hopefully nothing crazy happens.
For the record, I'm glad you guys are ending this commenting, too! But I do want to make one more comment, because you basically seemed to disregard my entire long post on the grounds that the quoting was "confusing". That may be the case, and I'm sorry if it is... but the only reason I did it was to show you how many times Jon has basically done exactly what you have been saying you wanted him to do in this comment thread.So, you disregarded all my quotes of Jon agreeing with you... then you went on to conclude your response with:"Have they drafted well in the last several years or not? If the answers to those questions are 'yes' then why is it so hard to say "good job" instead of snickering about how lucky he is?"My whole point was to show you that Jon had already given credit, several times, where credit is due. He was not disproportionately judging Brown based on the past, as you suggested. Anyway, just wanted to point that out on the off chance that you've made a policy change and are now reading my comments.