Chris Henry May Be Deactivated This Week (1 Viewer)

[Phurfur]

Lots of folks in glass houses throwing stones over this latest incident.Bet half the folks on this board have yakked after too many drinks. Any many of those WELL after they were 23 years old.Henry may or may not have violated his probation -- we don't know. There's no question he's done one very stupid thing (the gun charge) and several dumb ones that lots of NFL-players and regular folks do ocassionally. Still stupid, still potentially dangerous, but hardly capital crimes or particularly unusual except that his get reported in the press.I'm not so much trying to defend Henry here as call bull#### on people who think a kid puking out the passenger window on his own time is a homicidal maniac.

I think you are missing the big picture. If you isolate this incident I agree with you but this is just one of a series of incidents. There is a pattern here and I assure you we have not seen the end of Mr. Henry and his off field problems.

 

[massraider]

Has anything been confirmed??? So far all I've read is "Henry was in the car." So what. Where's the "suspension"??

I think this is all much ado about nuttin'.

Henry also "reportedly" threw up out the passenger window.If Henry wasn't suspended following his arrests, I'm interested to hear how people rationalize him being suspended when his teammate gets arrested.

You can't make suspensions based on what you think you know. I think I know the Henry was partying after a big win, and was probably drunk. I think I know that he threw up out the window because he was drunk. So what? He hasn't taken a breathalyzer, no incriminating photographs from the bar have surfaced, and even if they did, no one knows if being in a bar is a violation of his parole. All we have is the vague "stay away from alcohol" edict.

Some of you need to use your brains. Imagine arguing to a arbitrator that you want to suspend a kid for being a passenger in a car. Because that's where any suspension would end up, and the player would win.

Now, might Lewis deactivate him this week? I don't know, sounds like a good move for the sake of discipline, and within his power. I must admit, it would surprise me to see Lewis do it.

 

[ericttspikes]

Yet another rumor on this guy. I'll take heat for this, but I really don't care if the guy is a punk or not, he's on my team and has produced. All I want to know is if he is in or out. Why not wait until that is clear before playing lawyer or speculating on what the guys punishment will be? Why even have a post based on "reading between the lines"?

Man, I wonder what it would of been like if they had internet message boards when Broadway Joe and Hollywood Henderson played ball.

 

[joffer]

from kffl

Bengals | Henry could be inactive Week 4Sat, 30 Sep 2006 09:00:43 -0700Geoff Hobson, of Bengals.com, reports Cincinnati Bengals head coach Marvin Lewis could deactivate WR Chris Henry for the team's Week 4 game. Henry was a passenger when LB Odell Thurman was arrested for DUI following the Bengals' Week 3 victory over the Pittsburgh Steelers.

 

[Joe Bryant]

My gut feel is he plays. If you can run fast and catch TDs, the rules don't apply as much for Marvin Lewis (and lots of coaches)

J

 

[Sheriff66]

My gut feel is he plays. If you can run fast and catch TDs, the rules don't apply as much for Marvin Lewis (and lots of coaches)J

I agreeLewis knows they need every bullet in their gun for this game...

 

[Family Matters]

I can't justify what's happening with Henry because I think he should've been suspended long before now but I can't help but wonder who's making the decision on this. I've been wondering what role Mike Brown has had in this, if any. Is he feeling so much heat to win that he's telling Lewis play him until the NFL tells us otherwise? Is this Lewis decision to make? In the past Brown has had the say over coaches so I'm not sure if Lewis has that much say.

In any case I think Henry should be suspended for a game or 2 to try and get his attention. Not sure it'll work but they've got to try.

 

[Shiver44]

Peter King was on NBC during the Notre Dame/Purdue halftime show. He said, either Henry is de-activated or his playtime will be severly reduced. So get him out of your lineups A.S.A.P.

 

[duaneok66]

My gut feel is he plays. If you can run fast and catch TDs, the rules don't apply as much for Marvin Lewis (and lots of coaches)J

post of the thread . . .

 

[BigOlBar]

From Bengals website

Head coach Marvin Lewis is still mum on wide receiver Chris Henry’s status for Sunday, but it might be a little bit more interesting now that Antonio Chatman looks like he’s healthy enough to play.

Chatman, looking to make his Bengals debut since being hobbled with a groin problem since the first hours of training camp, practiced for the third straight day Friday and is still listed as questionable on Friday's injury report.

“We’ll evaluate him when he comes in tomorrow because he’s come back each day and done more and worked harder,” Lewis said. “He seems to have his speed and quickness. He can stretch out and that’s what we’re looking for.”

Henry is coming off the two best games of his career, but he’s also getting heat for being a passenger when linebacker Odell Thurman was arrested for DUI hours after the Bengals victory in Pittsburgh last Sunday and there is speculation that Lewis could deactivate him.

The addition of Chatman could be a factor, although he hasn’t played since his lone appearance, a preseason game against Green Bay 31 days ago. The 5-8, 180-pound Chatman has the M.O. of a speedster who caught 49 balls for the Packers last year.

“(His game is) speed and quickness and that’s why we’ve been kind of slow and cautious with his injury,” Lewis said.

http://www.bengals.com/news/news.asp?story_id=5546

Dodds has moved Henry's projections down, but I still think he could have a huge game...

 

[Topes]

Bump, before another thread is started.

Anxiously awaiting anything definitive here.

 

[fsufan]

this needs to be pinned

 

[joffer]

Bump, before another thread is started.

didn't help :(

 

[joffer]

this needs to be pinned

just use the report button

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

this needs to be pinned

just use the report button

correct.

 

[bigfun54]

Here's my thing as a Bengals fan. I don't get what de-activating him does other than hurt the Bengals chances to win. De-activating him still means you have to pay him. So you're basically paying him not to play. Now you guys who prefer this option would seem to think that it would "teach him a lesson". But here's the thing, that whole lesson is based upon the concept that it would hurt or bother him to not be out there helping his teammates. That would seem to indicate he's not selfish. Unfortunately, all of his actions over at least the last year would strongly indicate he is just that selfish if not more. In my opinion, de-activating him teaches him nothing and hurts the chances for victory.

 

[PatsWillWin]

First I heard of this.

ESPN's John Clayton reports Chris Henry is questionable for Week 4 with an injured groin.Henry may not be in danger of being held out because of his involvement with Odell Thurman's DUI over the weekend. The Bengals have an afternoon game, so if you have a safer early-game option, we recommend using it.

 

[ceo3west]

Likely to be deactivated per Mort this morning.

 

[fsufan]

Here's my thing as a Bengals fan. I don't get what de-activating him does other than hurt the Bengals chances to win. De-activating him still means you have to pay him. So you're basically paying him not to play. Now you guys who prefer this option would seem to think that it would "teach him a lesson". But here's the thing, that whole lesson is based upon the concept that it would hurt or bother him to not be out there helping his teammates. That would seem to indicate he's not selfish. Unfortunately, all of his actions over at least the last year would strongly indicate he is just that selfish if not more. In my opinion, de-activating him teaches him nothing and hurts the chances for victory.

i agree, this is not college

 

[The Gator]

Here's my thing as a Bengals fan. I don't get what de-activating him does other than hurt the Bengals chances to win. De-activating him still means you have to pay him. So you're basically paying him not to play. Now you guys who prefer this option would seem to think that it would "teach him a lesson". But here's the thing, that whole lesson is based upon the concept that it would hurt or bother him to not be out there helping his teammates. That would seem to indicate he's not selfish. Unfortunately, all of his actions over at least the last year would strongly indicate he is just that selfish if not more. In my opinion, de-activating him teaches him nothing and hurts the chances for victory.

If missing a game due to being stupid doesn't bother him, i would't want him as a team mate. So, if it bothers hime your move for holding him out has paid off. If it doesn't, then you know what kind of man he is.

 

[joffer]

Here's my thing as a Bengals fan. I don't get what de-activating him does other than hurt the Bengals chances to win. De-activating him still means you have to pay him. So you're basically paying him not to play. Now you guys who prefer this option would seem to think that it would "teach him a lesson". But here's the thing, that whole lesson is based upon the concept that it would hurt or bother him to not be out there helping his teammates. That would seem to indicate he's not selfish. Unfortunately, all of his actions over at least the last year would strongly indicate he is just that selfish if not more. In my opinion, de-activating him teaches him nothing and hurts the chances for victory.

If missing a game due to being stupid doesn't bother him, i would't want him as a team mate. So, if it bothers hime your move for holding him out has paid off. If it doesn't, then you know what kind of man he is.

 

[bigfun54]

Here's my thing as a Bengals fan. I don't get what de-activating him does other than hurt the Bengals chances to win. De-activating him still means you have to pay him. So you're basically paying him not to play. Now you guys who prefer this option would seem to think that it would "teach him a lesson". But here's the thing, that whole lesson is based upon the concept that it would hurt or bother him to not be out there helping his teammates. That would seem to indicate he's not selfish. Unfortunately, all of his actions over at least the last year would strongly indicate he is just that selfish if not more. In my opinion, de-activating him teaches him nothing and hurts the chances for victory.

If missing a game due to being stupid doesn't bother him, i would't want him as a team mate. So, if it bothers hime your move for holding him out has paid off. If it doesn't, then you know what kind of man he is.

I agree with you on a general concept standpoint, but this past Bengals offseason has really made me come to terms with what I can tolerate as a fan. I'm just done with the whole holding professional athletes to some type of mythical standard that has simply never existed. The media just covers it better today. I think it's very pollyanish of us as a society. Chris Henry is 6'4", runs a 4.4 40 and caught two touchdowns to help them beat Pittsburgh. If you don't want him on your pee-wee team then that's fine. But in the world of Professional Football, there isn't one team that wouldn't want that, regardless of what comes with it. TO, Moss, Koren Robinson, I mean really, where do we even get off thinking there's a line anymore by what they do off the field. The only line that matters is when they can't physically do what they get paid to do.

 

[CGRdrJoe]

Here's my thing as a Bengals fan. I don't get what de-activating him does other than hurt the Bengals chances to win. De-activating him still means you have to pay him. So you're basically paying him not to play. Now you guys who prefer this option would seem to think that it would "teach him a lesson". But here's the thing, that whole lesson is based upon the concept that it would hurt or bother him to not be out there helping his teammates. That would seem to indicate he's not selfish. Unfortunately, all of his actions over at least the last year would strongly indicate he is just that selfish if not more. In my opinion, de-activating him teaches him nothing and hurts the chances for victory.

If missing a game due to being stupid doesn't bother him, i would't want him as a team mate. So, if it bothers hime your move for holding him out has paid off. If it doesn't, then you know what kind of man he is.

I agree with you on a general concept standpoint, but this past Bengals offseason has really made me come to terms with what I can tolerate as a fan. I'm just done with the whole holding professional athletes to some type of mythical standard that has simply never existed. The media just covers it better today. I think it's very pollyanish of us as a society. Chris Henry is 6'4", runs a 4.4 40 and caught two touchdowns to help them beat Pittsburgh. If you don't want him on your pee-wee team then that's fine. But in the world of Professional Football, there isn't one team that wouldn't want that, regardless of what comes with it. TO, Moss, Koren Robinson, I mean really, where do we even get off thinking there's a line anymore by what they do off the field. The only line that matters is when they can't physically do what they get paid to do.

You are right they should tolerate everything he does and not care as long as he produces. When he gets drunk and crashes his car into a family of four killing them hopefully he doesn't hurt himself bad enough to miss Sunday's game.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Here's my thing as a Bengals fan. I don't get what de-activating him does other than hurt the Bengals chances to win. De-activating him still means you have to pay him. So you're basically paying him not to play. Now you guys who prefer this option would seem to think that it would "teach him a lesson". But here's the thing, that whole lesson is based upon the concept that it would hurt or bother him to not be out there helping his teammates. That would seem to indicate he's not selfish. Unfortunately, all of his actions over at least the last year would strongly indicate he is just that selfish if not more. In my opinion, de-activating him teaches him nothing and hurts the chances for victory.

If missing a game due to being stupid doesn't bother him, i would't want him as a team mate. So, if it bothers hime your move for holding him out has paid off. If it doesn't, then you know what kind of man he is.

I agree with you on a general concept standpoint, but this past Bengals offseason has really made me come to terms with what I can tolerate as a fan. I'm just done with the whole holding professional athletes to some type of mythical standard that has simply never existed. The media just covers it better today. I think it's very pollyanish of us as a society. Chris Henry is 6'4", runs a 4.4 40 and caught two touchdowns to help them beat Pittsburgh. If you don't want him on your pee-wee team then that's fine. But in the world of Professional Football, there isn't one team that wouldn't want that, regardless of what comes with it. TO, Moss, Koren Robinson, I mean really, where do we even get off thinking there's a line anymore by what they do off the field. The only line that matters is when they can't physically do what they get paid to do.

You are right they should tolerate everything he does and not care as long as he produces. When he gets drunk and crashes his car into a family of four killing them hopefully he doesn't hurt himself bad enough to miss Sunday's game.

That's on Chris Henry first and the LEGAL system second. What the hell are the Bengals supposed to do?

 

[CGRdrJoe]

Here's my thing as a Bengals fan. I don't get what de-activating him does other than hurt the Bengals chances to win. De-activating him still means you have to pay him. So you're basically paying him not to play. Now you guys who prefer this option would seem to think that it would "teach him a lesson". But here's the thing, that whole lesson is based upon the concept that it would hurt or bother him to not be out there helping his teammates. That would seem to indicate he's not selfish. Unfortunately, all of his actions over at least the last year would strongly indicate he is just that selfish if not more. In my opinion, de-activating him teaches him nothing and hurts the chances for victory.

If missing a game due to being stupid doesn't bother him, i would't want him as a team mate. So, if it bothers hime your move for holding him out has paid off. If it doesn't, then you know what kind of man he is.

I agree with you on a general concept standpoint, but this past Bengals offseason has really made me come to terms with what I can tolerate as a fan. I'm just done with the whole holding professional athletes to some type of mythical standard that has simply never existed. The media just covers it better today. I think it's very pollyanish of us as a society. Chris Henry is 6'4", runs a 4.4 40 and caught two touchdowns to help them beat Pittsburgh. If you don't want him on your pee-wee team then that's fine. But in the world of Professional Football, there isn't one team that wouldn't want that, regardless of what comes with it. TO, Moss, Koren Robinson, I mean really, where do we even get off thinking there's a line anymore by what they do off the field. The only line that matters is when they can't physically do what they get paid to do.

You are right they should tolerate everything he does and not care as long as he produces. When he gets drunk and crashes his car into a family of four killing them hopefully he doesn't hurt himself bad enough to miss Sunday's game.

That's on Chris Henry first and the LEGAL system second. What the hell are the Bengals supposed to do?

This is not his first, second, third, fourth run in with trouble and he doesn't seem to care. Chris Henry is headed down the road to long term suspension so why should the Bengals continue to invest time in him when they can get a 3rd option that they can count on week to week?

 

[The Gator]

Here's my thing as a Bengals fan. I don't get what de-activating him does other than hurt the Bengals chances to win. De-activating him still means you have to pay him. So you're basically paying him not to play. Now you guys who prefer this option would seem to think that it would "teach him a lesson". But here's the thing, that whole lesson is based upon the concept that it would hurt or bother him to not be out there helping his teammates. That would seem to indicate he's not selfish. Unfortunately, all of his actions over at least the last year would strongly indicate he is just that selfish if not more. In my opinion, de-activating him teaches him nothing and hurts the chances for victory.

If missing a game due to being stupid doesn't bother him, i would't want him as a team mate. So, if it bothers hime your move for holding him out has paid off. If it doesn't, then you know what kind of man he is.

I agree with you on a general concept standpoint, but this past Bengals offseason has really made me come to terms with what I can tolerate as a fan. I'm just done with the whole holding professional athletes to some type of mythical standard that has simply never existed. The media just covers it better today. I think it's very pollyanish of us as a society. Chris Henry is 6'4", runs a 4.4 40 and caught two touchdowns to help them beat Pittsburgh. If you don't want him on your pee-wee team then that's fine. But in the world of Professional Football, there isn't one team that wouldn't want that, regardless of what comes with it. TO, Moss, Koren Robinson, I mean really, where do we even get off thinking there's a line anymore by what they do off the field. The only line that matters is when they can't physically do what they get paid to do.

You are right they should tolerate everything he does and not care as long as he produces. When he gets drunk and crashes his car into a family of four killing them hopefully he doesn't hurt himself bad enough to miss Sunday's game.

That's on Chris Henry first and the LEGAL system second. What the hell are the Bengals supposed to do?

So if the Bengals can help to get a point accross they are not supposed to?

 

[PatsWillWin]

Here's my thing as a Bengals fan. I don't get what de-activating him does other than hurt the Bengals chances to win. De-activating him still means you have to pay him. So you're basically paying him not to play. Now you guys who prefer this option would seem to think that it would "teach him a lesson". But here's the thing, that whole lesson is based upon the concept that it would hurt or bother him to not be out there helping his teammates. That would seem to indicate he's not selfish. Unfortunately, all of his actions over at least the last year would strongly indicate he is just that selfish if not more. In my opinion, de-activating him teaches him nothing and hurts the chances for victory.

If missing a game due to being stupid doesn't bother him, i would't want him as a team mate. So, if it bothers hime your move for holding him out has paid off. If it doesn't, then you know what kind of man he is.

I agree with you on a general concept standpoint, but this past Bengals offseason has really made me come to terms with what I can tolerate as a fan. I'm just done with the whole holding professional athletes to some type of mythical standard that has simply never existed. The media just covers it better today. I think it's very pollyanish of us as a society. Chris Henry is 6'4", runs a 4.4 40 and caught two touchdowns to help them beat Pittsburgh. If you don't want him on your pee-wee team then that's fine. But in the world of Professional Football, there isn't one team that wouldn't want that, regardless of what comes with it. TO, Moss, Koren Robinson, I mean really, where do we even get off thinking there's a line anymore by what they do off the field. The only line that matters is when they can't physically do what they get paid to do.

You are right they should tolerate everything he does and not care as long as he produces. When he gets drunk and crashes his car into a family of four killing them hopefully he doesn't hurt himself bad enough to miss Sunday's game.

That's on Chris Henry first and the LEGAL system second. What the hell are the Bengals supposed to do?

So if the Bengals can help to get a point accross they are not supposed to?

No, they aren't. If the legal system keeps letting Henry get off with these things, what difference can the Bengals make? It's not realistic to think that the Bengals are putting that "family of four" at higher risk by letting him play football.

 

[The Gator]

So if the Bengals can help to get a point accross they are not supposed to?

No, they aren't. If the legal system keeps letting Henry get off with these things, what difference can the Bengals make? It's not realistic to think that the Bengals are putting that "family of four" at higher risk by letting him play football.

Im sure the family of the little girl Leonard Little killed agrees with you.

 

[ericttspikes]

Likely to be deactivated per Mort this morning.

The only post worth posting. Got to sit him, can't chance a zero. Hope Mort got this right, this could be costly for me if not.

 

[PatsWillWin]

So if the Bengals can help to get a point accross they are not supposed to?

No, they aren't. If the legal system keeps letting Henry get off with these things, what difference can the Bengals make? It's not realistic to think that the Bengals are putting that "family of four" at higher risk by letting him play football.

Im sure the family of the little girl Leonard Little killed agrees with you.

Take it up with the legal system - to blame Little's or Henry's EMPLOYER is stupid.

 

[machone]

Come on guys, we're talking about football (that's my Allen Iverson impression...

But for real though, we are not the morals police we're fantasy football players and as long as Henry is producing he should be allowed to play. The NFL will likely suspend him for his past problems and maybe even this most recent one so for the Bengals to deactivate him today will only cause them to be without him even longer.

Those of you with the positive spin are obvious Henry owners (like me and I need him bad.... or Bengals fans and those with the negative spin must be facing him this weekend in their matchups or else they just don't recognize real talent.

Bottom line, the Bengals want him on that field, they need him on that field. There is no way opposing defenses can stop Johnson, T.J., and Henry when they are all 3 on the field at the same time.

 

[The Gator]

So if the Bengals can help to get a point accross they are not supposed to?

No, they aren't. If the legal system keeps letting Henry get off with these things, what difference can the Bengals make? It's not realistic to think that the Bengals are putting that "family of four" at higher risk by letting him play football.

Im sure the family of the little girl Leonard Little killed agrees with you.

Take it up with the legal system - to blame Little's or Henry's EMPLOYER is stupid.

To put zero blame on them is worse.

 

[PatsWillWin]

So if the Bengals can help to get a point accross they are not supposed to?

No, they aren't. If the legal system keeps letting Henry get off with these things, what difference can the Bengals make? It's not realistic to think that the Bengals are putting that "family of four" at higher risk by letting him play football.

Im sure the family of the little girl Leonard Little killed agrees with you.

Take it up with the legal system - to blame Little's or Henry's EMPLOYER is stupid.

To put zero blame on them is worse.

 

[cgh3rd]

Benched him as soon as I heard he had a chance of being inactive. This is the high risk part of high risk, high reward of owning the guy. I'm going with Cotchery because even if Henry plays I don't think he will get as many chances and won't produce.

 

[nikjesdad]

Did anyone hear if he was de-activated today?

 

[roadkill1292]

Thanks to the worrywarts here at FBGs (and I mean that in a good way), I benched Henry and started -- REGGIE WILLIAMS!