Why Ed is probably back...

by LukeNukem on May 6, 2009 1:05 PM EDT

...Besides the obvious (he's good and cheap).

I wasn't really on this blog much when Ed Johnson was last cut, so I don't know what you guys heard or found out about it, but around that time there were some rumors flying around that Ed was on the fast track to an NFL drug test-related suspension anyway, so the Colts made an example out of him, knowing that he could be gone soon. This was good PR and set a good precedent with the rest of the locker room.

The "zero tolerance policy", of course, gave them an out clause. Based on his past at Penn State, it made sense. Hell, it's pretty much why he fell in the draft. During Goodell's first couple years, drafting "good character guys" was en vogue, since nobody wanted to draft the next Chris Henry or Pacman Jones.

Now that he's back, I'm assuming that he's either off the league's radar, or the Colts reasonably believe he could pass a drug test. I don't think they're trying to be tricky, it's just some rumor I remember hearing...that he was on his way out anyway so they bounced him.

But by no means do I think the Colts (led by Dungy or not) were an ethically-flawless bunch of football purists. This is a business. They brought Ed back because he'd tarnished himself into a dirt-cheap free agent, who offers very little real monetary risk for them. Any bad PR they receive, they obviously feel will be worth it. I never thought this was about morals. It was always about liability and football.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors.

Tweet Comment 8 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Well put.

I agree, it was about liability and football. It is a business, afterall. Again, why would a team invest in a player whose probability of being suspended is high (forgive the pun) anyway? Financially speaking it makes no sense.

I, personally, like the fact that the Colts don’t eff-around in this area. I mean if I ever disagreed, I could always start rooting for the Bengals.

We keep guys on the roster who have a greater chance of playing an entire season; of earning their paychecks every week. Hence, we have a better chance of winning. Pretty simple, if you ask me.

"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007

by peytonsthebest on May 6, 2009 3:44 PM EDT reply actions

Yeah

I think there’s a lot out there that Colts fans aren’t being told. I don’t know the timetable of this horrible Ryan Lilja injury that may cost him his career, but he has restructured his contract, and there are some bonuses the Colts get back if he doesn’t play. Maybe they knew he’d be an injury liability and signed him anyway because the risk was worth the lower cost (figuring that Scott would be more expensive). But I don’t know.

I just want to dispel this myth that the Colts are always about “high character” guys. They do a good job in the community, and they know what their fans value (no primadonnas, no Pacman Jones-level offenders) but in the end it’s about two things…winning games and money. Bob Kravitz’s whole premise that the angelic days are officially over is flawed because, in my opinion, there were no angelic days…just smart football days and some common sense PR decisions.

by LukeNukem on May 6, 2009 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Whoa there

To call what Ed Johnson did (smoking Marijuana) even in the same league as to what Bengals players have done (ie hit women) is just totally inaccurate. I am glad Ed Johnson is back. He should have never been cut in the first place. The marijuana rules, as well as the law, is stupid. Time to get with the 21st century people.

by MasterRWayne on May 6, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Not putting anyone in the same league as the Bengals...

exactly the opposite in fact.

I, personally, like the fact that the Colts don’t eff-around in this area. I mean if I ever disagreed, I could always start rooting for the Bengals.

Then the point of my post:

I agree, it was about liability and football. It is a business, afterall. Again, why would a team invest in a player whose probability of being suspended is high (forgive the pun) anyway? Financially speaking it makes no sense.

This is my favorite quote of me.

"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007

by peytonsthebest on May 6, 2009 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree with the marijuana rule

You dont hear about anyone beating their wife, going into depression, or going into rage because they were way too high. Those news stories are for alcohol. Being in college I drink every weekend, but I think its a way more harmful substance

by ColtsPurdueFanFromKY on May 6, 2009 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions

I dont agree with the marijuana rule*

by ColtsPurdueFanFromKY on May 6, 2009 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions

My personal opinion is that I agree.

However, when it comes down to it: I just want the rules to be followed so a valuable player doesn’t get suspended and cost my team games. I’m all for changing the rules, but while they’re there just abide by them.

"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007

by peytonsthebest on May 6, 2009 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Rules are rules are rules.....

You are right on. Just follow the rules. We all have to follow the rules set forth by our employers, states, government, (wives)….. why should NFL players be any different? I’m not against giving anyone a second chance, it happens in all aspects of life. I’m sure this will be Big Eds’ last shot with the team, and probably the NFL. Almost positive we got him cheap, and with our depth at his position, what’s the harm? I don’t see a lot of downside here.

mama said foosball is for the devil - 18forever

by 18forever on May 7, 2009 9:25 AM EDT reply actions