Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
slat1
New member
MORE CORROBORATION OF JOHNSON FIGHT
As Bengals receiver Chad Johnson continues to deny that he engaged in a locker room brouhaha with receivers coach Hue Jackson and head coach Marvin Lewis during halftime of Sunday's home playoff loss, we continue to hear from new sources that the incident Johnson claims didn't happen in fact did.
This one came to us unsolicited (but second hand) from one of the many agents we've gotten to know over the past four-plus years. Said the source:
"I spoke to a player that I am very close to on the Bengals today and he confirmed the incident you have been reporting. He said that there was a 'swing' taken in Marvin's direction and that Marvin did nothing about it. My source also said that he felt like 'kicking Chad's ass' and that Marvin never stands up to Chad. He said that they allow him to act like a 12-year-old and that it definitely affected their play in the second half."
The problem, of course, is that no one has gone on the record to dispute Johnson's version of the events. Lewis has been conspicuously silent, as has been Hue Jackson.
But this isn't a game of rock-scissors-paper in which a public denial trumps the truth. The players understandably are reluctant to discuss the matter on the record, apparently because they believe that any public comment on the issue would not be appreciated by Coach Lewis.
There's also a general belief in locker rooms that, as Herm Edwards a/k/a Jackie Chiles said on Monday, "what stays in my house, stays in my house."
Also, let's consider for a moment the bass-ackward logic that was spawned by the Eephus pitches hoisted in Chad's direction during last night's press conference.
Softball #1: "Chad, if any of this stuff was true, wouldn't -- wouldn't Coach Lewis based on what we know about him have done something about it during the game?"
Johnson: "Probably so. Probably so."
Softball #2: "Do you think you would have played if you would've took a swung [sic] at him? Do you think you would have played?"
Johnson: "He would have sat me down."
But if Marvin Lewis had decided in the midst of the moment, only seconds before it was time to head back to the field and receive the kickoff to start the third quarter, that it was an emotional reaction by an emotional player in very emotional circumstances and that the team, already down Carson Palmer and Chris Henry, couldn't win with Chad Johnson out of action, Lewis would have done precisely what he did.
Nothing. Nothing at all.
And let's assume Lewis had benched Johnson for the second half of the franchise's first playoff game in 15 years at a time when the Bengals were clinging to a three-point lead and without their starting quarterback and their No. 3 receiver. With Kelley Washington inactive, the Bengals would have had three wideouts for the rest of the game -- T.J. Houshmandzadeh, Kevin Walter, and Tab Perry.
The post-game press conference would have been interesting, to say the least.
Hardball #1: "Coach Lewis, why didn't Chad Johnson play in the second half of the game?"
Lewis: "Coach's decision. Next question."
Hardball #2: "But what could have happened to cause you to bench one of the best receivers in the NFL during crunch time in the team's first playoff game in 15 years?"
Lewis: "As Herm Edwards might say tomorrow when addressing his exit from the Jets, what stays in my house, stays in my house."
Hardball #3: "What the hell does that mean?"
Lewis: "I don't know. Ask Herm tomorrow. But I think it means we don't talk about things that happen in the locker room."
Folks, there's no way Lewis would have been able to keep a lid on what had happened, if Johnson had been yanked from the game. Even if Lewis had refused to explain to the media why Johnson was benched, at least one of the other players would have viewed the benching as tacit approval to talk about what happened. Johnson, at a minimum, likely would have said that there was a confrontation in the locker room but that the punishment didn't fit the crime.
Bottom line -- Lewis made a snap decision to brush the whole thing under the rug, and everything that has happened since then was a natural consequence of the choice Lewis made.
Including the decision by multiple other players to talk privately about the matter. It's not an uncommon phenomenon when players believe that there is one set of rules for them, and another set of rules for the photogenic superstar who has the head coach and the media wrapped around his finger.
Human nature, under such circumstances, spawns resentment -- especially when there's reason to believe that the circumstances ultimately prevented the team from achieving its goal of advancing in the playoffs.
"The special treatment program is a dangerous path," one league insider told us on Wednesday morning. In this specific case, it's possible that one or more of the players will fink on Chad publicly, turn on Lewis for allowing Johnson to misrepresent what occurred, or want out of Cincinnati.
As we've learned too many times in matters of politics, the cover up is often worse than the crime. In this case, the cover up is in full gear. The only thing that remains to be seen is whether one of Johnson's teammates will stand up and expose the truth
As Bengals receiver Chad Johnson continues to deny that he engaged in a locker room brouhaha with receivers coach Hue Jackson and head coach Marvin Lewis during halftime of Sunday's home playoff loss, we continue to hear from new sources that the incident Johnson claims didn't happen in fact did.
This one came to us unsolicited (but second hand) from one of the many agents we've gotten to know over the past four-plus years. Said the source:
"I spoke to a player that I am very close to on the Bengals today and he confirmed the incident you have been reporting. He said that there was a 'swing' taken in Marvin's direction and that Marvin did nothing about it. My source also said that he felt like 'kicking Chad's ass' and that Marvin never stands up to Chad. He said that they allow him to act like a 12-year-old and that it definitely affected their play in the second half."
The problem, of course, is that no one has gone on the record to dispute Johnson's version of the events. Lewis has been conspicuously silent, as has been Hue Jackson.
But this isn't a game of rock-scissors-paper in which a public denial trumps the truth. The players understandably are reluctant to discuss the matter on the record, apparently because they believe that any public comment on the issue would not be appreciated by Coach Lewis.
There's also a general belief in locker rooms that, as Herm Edwards a/k/a Jackie Chiles said on Monday, "what stays in my house, stays in my house."
Also, let's consider for a moment the bass-ackward logic that was spawned by the Eephus pitches hoisted in Chad's direction during last night's press conference.
Softball #1: "Chad, if any of this stuff was true, wouldn't -- wouldn't Coach Lewis based on what we know about him have done something about it during the game?"
Johnson: "Probably so. Probably so."
Softball #2: "Do you think you would have played if you would've took a swung [sic] at him? Do you think you would have played?"
Johnson: "He would have sat me down."
But if Marvin Lewis had decided in the midst of the moment, only seconds before it was time to head back to the field and receive the kickoff to start the third quarter, that it was an emotional reaction by an emotional player in very emotional circumstances and that the team, already down Carson Palmer and Chris Henry, couldn't win with Chad Johnson out of action, Lewis would have done precisely what he did.
Nothing. Nothing at all.
And let's assume Lewis had benched Johnson for the second half of the franchise's first playoff game in 15 years at a time when the Bengals were clinging to a three-point lead and without their starting quarterback and their No. 3 receiver. With Kelley Washington inactive, the Bengals would have had three wideouts for the rest of the game -- T.J. Houshmandzadeh, Kevin Walter, and Tab Perry.
The post-game press conference would have been interesting, to say the least.
Hardball #1: "Coach Lewis, why didn't Chad Johnson play in the second half of the game?"
Lewis: "Coach's decision. Next question."
Hardball #2: "But what could have happened to cause you to bench one of the best receivers in the NFL during crunch time in the team's first playoff game in 15 years?"
Lewis: "As Herm Edwards might say tomorrow when addressing his exit from the Jets, what stays in my house, stays in my house."
Hardball #3: "What the hell does that mean?"
Lewis: "I don't know. Ask Herm tomorrow. But I think it means we don't talk about things that happen in the locker room."
Folks, there's no way Lewis would have been able to keep a lid on what had happened, if Johnson had been yanked from the game. Even if Lewis had refused to explain to the media why Johnson was benched, at least one of the other players would have viewed the benching as tacit approval to talk about what happened. Johnson, at a minimum, likely would have said that there was a confrontation in the locker room but that the punishment didn't fit the crime.
Bottom line -- Lewis made a snap decision to brush the whole thing under the rug, and everything that has happened since then was a natural consequence of the choice Lewis made.
Including the decision by multiple other players to talk privately about the matter. It's not an uncommon phenomenon when players believe that there is one set of rules for them, and another set of rules for the photogenic superstar who has the head coach and the media wrapped around his finger.
Human nature, under such circumstances, spawns resentment -- especially when there's reason to believe that the circumstances ultimately prevented the team from achieving its goal of advancing in the playoffs.
"The special treatment program is a dangerous path," one league insider told us on Wednesday morning. In this specific case, it's possible that one or more of the players will fink on Chad publicly, turn on Lewis for allowing Johnson to misrepresent what occurred, or want out of Cincinnati.
As we've learned too many times in matters of politics, the cover up is often worse than the crime. In this case, the cover up is in full gear. The only thing that remains to be seen is whether one of Johnson's teammates will stand up and expose the truth
