Paul Daugherty lays it our perfectly.
Fans measure success by wins and losses. Mike Brown, according to Doc, measures success by profits, absolute control, and keeping the team in the family. On that criteria, he's been a success, and there's nothing in Mike Brown's history to dispute that claim. Who cares about winning when you're making money in spite of it?
For a little while there, when Marvin Lewis first got the job, that looked like things might have been changing. Shame on us. The Bengals will never be a successful franchise (and I mean actually successful, not "Mike Brown" successful) as long as the Brown family is in charge. And since he'll never sell the team, we'll never have a winner.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
If what you and Daugherty say is true, and I tend to believe you both, then what rationale do our marquis players (Palmer, Johnson, Housh, et al.) use to support their long-term contracts with the organization?
Perhaps they think that, together, they can achieve something in Cincinnati. That seems a bit naive to me, especially what the front office has (not) done to help them, (i.e., unloading Eric Steinbach for absolutely nothing and re-signing Anderson to a huge deal, only to cut him a year or so later).
There's no way any fan in Cincinnati could ever fault any of our Pro-Bowl players (or non-Pro-Bowlers, for that matter) from leaving for another franchise. And, sadly, I don't think a Palmer-Johnson-Houshmanzadeh defection carries the least bit of meaning for Brown.
So maybe our best bet is to let the Bengals leave and them get in on the next expansion, which will probably come within the next 5-7 years.
That's "marquee" for those of you keeping score at home. I don't seriously contend that the Bengals roster includes British noblemen.
Post a Comment