Most people seem to be operating under the assumption that Chad Ochocinco(notes) will not be a Cincinnati Bengal in the hypothetical 2011 NFL season. He wants out, it seems like his coach wants him gone, and it would probably be better for everyone involved if he just moved on.
The team's owner still wants to tell him what to do, though. Even though, as an owner, he's one of the people responsible for football not existing at the moment.
From Joe Reedy's Bengals Blog at Cincinnati.com:
"He's going to do the things he does. Next maybe he'll be a snake wrangler and we'll watch to see if he gets bit," [Bengals owner Mike] Brown said. "He's always up to some stunt. They amuse me in a way. They concern me because let's face it we want a football player. We aren't hiring a bull rider, a dancer, a soccer player. We want a football player. It's simple. And that should be the focus, not on other things."
I'll never be confused with an Ochocinco fan, but this particular criticism, at this particular time, is unfair and insulting.
You want a football player? Then how about letting the guy play football? There's a lockout, Mike Brown(notes). That means the owners have literally locked the players out of team facilities, and at the same time, this owner wants to criticize a player for not having his mind on football? That's a little backwards, isn't it? It's like a wife throwing her husband out of the house and then complaining that he's never home.
If you want the Ocho to concentrate on football, then you and your owner pals can ease off of the greed throttle, end this lockout, and let him show up for his job. Otherwise, you don't get to tell him what to do.
I can't believe I'm defending Chad Ochocinco. I don't like what this lockout's made me become.
Posted Jul 2 2012
Posted Jul 3 2012
Posted Jun 21 2012