The Bengals recently signed Terrell Owens (T.O.) and as a Steelers fan, I first laughed at the upcoming media circus. But as I thought about it more, it seemed odd that they would sign a player with such baggage. T.O. has a history of having a diva-like “me first,” destructive attitude (one commentator has deemed T.O. as Team Obliterator). The Bengals had no pressing need to sign T.O. – recently signed Antonio Bryant is a serviceable starter and T.O. probably won’t produce any more than he would. So why sign him?
Upon further review, there seems to be something more to this signing than what you would expect from a typical professional football franchise. While the NFL as a whole has instituted a strict discipline policy against players who make “poor choices,” I believe that the Bengals see it as their counter-cultural mission to offer grace to the rejected and ungodly of the NFL. The Bengals have a history of signing and drafting wayward players – T.O. is the rule, rather than the exception.
Last year, the Bengals signed Tank Johnson though he was previously arrested for firearms possession, drunk driving, aggravated assault and resisting arrest. The Bengals signed receiver Matt Jones who previously was charged with possession of cocaine and was released by the Jaguars after he failed another drug and alcohol test. The Bengals signed Adam “Pac-Man” Jones even though he had previously been arrested for assault, felony vandalism, disorderly conduct, public intoxication, spitting in someone’s face, and drunk driving. Even more, the Bengals seem to have it as their policy to draft players black listed as “high character risk” like recent picks Frostee Rucker, Andre Smith, Bernard Scott, Ray Maualuga and the late Christ Henry- the list goes on and on.
All these players were known “bad apples” before they were drafted or signed and yet the Bengals still invested draft picks and/or millions of dollars in them. The Bengals sign those players who have struck out with often multiple previous teams.
They sign the players that no other team wants. Without an intervention of grace, these players would have their artistically transcendent gift of athletic ability taken from them in exchange for the common and dubious title “ex-con.”
This grace is not without a cost to the Bengals. Teams face stiff monetary fines from the league if their players are arrested an inordinate amount. For better or worse, the Bengals are now known by the players the sign and draft. Despite a recent resurgence of winning, the Bengals are still regarded by many around the NFL as a second-class franchise. This dubious status is a direct result of the risks the Bengals take on the team’s personnel. Yet in Christian terms, the Bengals are the class of the NFL. As T.S. Eliot once wrote, “In a world of Fugitives, the person taking the opposite direction will appear to run away”
[EDIT – see also this article from a couple years back]
Tremendous post, Todd. Great stuff. While I doubt that the motive behind the Bengals transactions is modeling the grace of Jesus, their practice does show the Gospel. Got issues? We want you.
I think this confuses God's motives, though. Marvin Lewis and the Bengals want to win, and they are willing to employ players with "character issues" in order to do so. That looks like grace, for sure, but God doesn't show grace in order for his team to win – he shows grace to us out of sheer delight. And he won't cut us loose when we don't perform up to standard, either.
(Side note – anyone catch what Pac Man Jones said when asked why this time was different for him? I won't mention it here, but funny stuff)
Matt, certainly there are limitations to the analogy. That said, I think there's much more to praise here than to correct. Grace is a very rare thing in the world of sports, especially the NFL.
But it's more interesting to me the criticism that is being leveled against the Bengals. As recently as yesterday, Peter King said this: "I have never seen the franchise be this aggressive and potentially sell-your-soul hungry in trying to win now."
I'm not really trying to criticize the Bengals. As Wayne Huizenga once said – "it is what it is." And it is a football team attempting to do what it is supposed to – win. That's not grace, that's just good business.
Oh sure, the Bengals are sticking their necks out there and recieving criticism. And why shouldn't they be criticized (I saw that King quote last night, too. Good piece)? They've just signed a guy in TO who's a proven team-wrecker and a few other guys (Pac Man, Tank) that aren't what you'd want as the face of your organization and city. Indeed, the criticism is warranted in many respects because these decisions actually have the chance to set the team back in terms of salary cap, locker room cohesion, etc. And that's fine for the Bengals to do, but it's not grace – it's a calculated business decision.
God's grace may be calculated, but it's anything but business. The decision to sign Jones, Owens, Johnson et al is only grace if you believe the team has some deeper motive beyond trying to win a Super Bowl. I don't.
Matt, you're not the first one to accuse Bengal's owner Mike Brown of being a crude businessman. See this article in Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2262321
Then, there's this article on the reclusive owner: ( http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nfl&id=3558286 ) with this pretty awesome quote…
"I guess the world is divided up between redeemers and non-redeemers," Brown said, during an interview with a few reporters. "I happen to be a redeemer. I think people can be made better and right. If that's a fault, so be it. These guys misstepped, they made mistakes, they paid prices for it that have been verging on ruinous, but that doesn't mean I dislike them personally."
I never accused him of being a "crude businessman." I simply stated that the ownership of the team was trying to win, which is fine, because that's your supposed to do when you own and/or manange and coach a team. And if the owner has an idea of redemption, then it certainly changes things.
So hats off to the Bengals for taking a chance – but I'm uncomfortable with the grace analogy, because while these players may be given a second chance, they also bring something to the table. We bring nothing to the table and we won't be cast aside when we fail to perform. Even if the owner believes in the players' redemption, there comes a time when he'll be let go. God won't do that.