Originally Posted by Sea Ray
What's your preference? A guy who has problems on the field or off? His problems have been on the field. I saw him play in a few west coast games on FSN and as I watched him I thought "he has Bengal written all over him". Odell Thurman's problem was alcoholism, I don't think that's Burfict's problem. He just undisciplined. He will tend to be out of position and get fines for late hits. Supposedly Marvin's been talking to him and hopefully he's spelled it out for him: that there's a spot for him at MLB and he can make a living if he works at it and stays clean. I'm OK with signing him as an UDFA and I think his chances of working out are less than 50:50 but we've had a hole at that position ever since Marvin's been here (since Takeo Spikes left). For a guy like this the choice is clear: you either make a living in football or you'll be on the streets. I'm surprised that doesn't motivate more players
That's a good question Sea Ray. Being a knucklehead off the field doesn't actually cost the team anything other than PR points. On the other hand, being a knucklehead on the field is easier to coach the guy out of you would think.
I agree with the post you made further down the line. The Bengals are now going to be good enough to cut a lot of good players who will likely be picked up by other teams. So now if Burflict performs well enough early on, the team will be as vested in him as they are in a draft pick, because they'll have likely given up a previous draft pick to keep him.