NFL GridIron Gab Daily Digest

Looks like the Bengals are adding some more guns to the defense, figuratively speaking.

Joe Reedy tweets that the team is hammering out the final details on a deal with Adam "Pac-man" Jones, and Hobson says they are equally close on a deal with Safety Gibril Wilson.

Both players would add depth and experience to an already deep and experienced secondary.  Jones will immediately vie for nickel back, and Wilson will provide competition at safety, and insurance should starters Chris Crocker and Roy Williams continue to face injuries.

Jones will also likely contend for the starting punt returner job, something I mentioned would be beneficial in the event that Quan Cosby can't survive the WR scrum.

Both Mike Zimmer and Tank Johnson sure sound like Pac-man is a done deal. Tank went so far as to say, "I think Dallas was too much glitz, too much of a wild situation to go into, but this is definitely a more tame situation."

Editor's note: Naysayers be damned!  This is all good news.  The Bengals have taken a division championship team and done nothing but strengthen it through veteran acquisitions and solid draft picks.  I have nothing negative to say.  Kudos to Brown & Lewis for continuing to look for players to help win a super boal.

Despite this, the team has the THIRD best odds of winning the AFC North in 2010, behind Baltimore and Pittsburgh.  No respect!

This is a bit of a departure from my usual fare surrounding the Rams and daily roster moves, rumors and scuttlebutt, but something that has been banging around in my head a bit and thought I would throw it against the screen and see what I got.

What type of person are we fostering by supporting the NFL and should we be surprised when an NFL player acts violently towards another person off the field?  The culture of victory through violence is prevalent

SI.com's Ross Tucker ho-hums through an article explaining away choking, fighting, spitting, helmet swinging and kicking all in the course of practice and games.  He treats this type of violence as a normal part of the game and practice, which by all accounts it probably is.  After Tucker was hit in the side of the head by a helmet, he was scolded by his coach for not "winning" the fight.  He was hit in the side of his un-helmeted head by a weapon which more than likely caused him to need stitches.  The focus after this attack was not on right and wrong, but on victory through violence.  The other player committed an act that would be against the rules in the field of play!  Yet the player who swung the helmet was the "winner" and received no punishment and only praise.  Again, during a practice a player committed an act of violence that was considerably outside the rules even in the NFL.  The victim of this violence was blamed for not escalating the violence further.  What did the coaches want Tucker to do?  Should he have pulled a gun out of his sock?  Where is the line with violence?  The coaches will not decide right and wrong only winning and losing.  The coaches and players think that ingraining this culture of winning will help them win on Sundays, but what are the side effects?

I take a look at the side effects after the jump.

The culture of the NFL breeds violence into its players so intricately that scuffles and fights after the play are still important for the player to "win".  No altercation can ever be lost.  The players are indoctrinated to refuse to lose any physical or violent altercation.   Are we surprised when this mentality bubbles over into the players' off the field behavior?  The NFL is not alone in this as high school, college and even pee-wee level coaches are breeding violence into their players as well.  But pro coaches take it to the next level because the players earn their paychecks through increased levels of skill in violence.  More and better violence equals an increase in pay and increased standing and attention in society.  More violence equates to more cheers and more money.

Now, off the field, if a player is in an argument in a restaurant, bar or with a significant other and they are pushed to their breaking point – should we be surprised with the conditioning ingrained by the football culture comes through?  One could point to a few alleged incidents in the past year or so to make it clearer.  Steelers QB Ben Roethlisberger allegedly has serious issues with violence against women as he was accused of rape twice within a year.  Late WR Chris Henry of the Cincinnati Bengals reportedly jumped on the back of his girlfriend's truck as she was driving away when they were arguing.  There are plenty of examples within our own St. Louis Rams.  Steven Jackson was alleged to have beaten up his pregnant girlfriend.  Lawrence Phillips had many problems including driving his SUV through a field of football players who had just beaten him at a game.  Phillips reacted violently when he was confronted with a losing situation.  Additionally, Dominique Byrd stabbed someone at a bar with a broken bottle during an altercation.  There are plenty of examples of violence off the field by NFL players that could be sited and there are certainly more that do not see the light of day.

Obviously, most players are able to keep their violence on the field and their lives off the field separate at all times.  I do not seek to cast a wide net and implicate all players and all coaches, but I just wonder what violence a culture of violence creates.  There are obviously other problems with players that can lead to violence including too much money, a culture of "yes" people surrounding the players off the field.  Many players are allowed to do whatever they want off the field by coaches, college administrators and even their family that they feel overly entitled as well.  The problems with some players go beyond the culture of violence, but violence still permeates the NFL and football culture.

There are many more violence pastimes than the NFL that people enjoy with MMA and boxing as examples, but Ross Tucker ends with this quote:

[The NFL] is the last bastion of pure, unadulterated, testosterone-laden barbarism. That, of course, is a huge part of why it is so great and we love it so much.

I'm not quite sure how I even feel about this because I love football and the NFL, but I wonder what our money for tickets, merchandise and TV packages is paying for as the violence in the NFL only creates more violence.  Are we as fans at fault for supporting a institution that supports and ingrains such violence in young men?

I don't have all the answers and I don't think anyone does, but this is just something I was thinking about.  What do you think?

After a week now of non-stop criticism of Dolphins general manager Jeff Ireland, I thought the roller-coaster of media hype was finally over.

After all, Ireland apologized to Dez Bryant, after reportedly asking in pre-draft interviews whether his mother "was a prostitute".

Even though Ireland apologized, and numerous amounts of his co-workers that work with him in the league (other general managers, and front office workers), even his boss have accepted that what he did was not as foul as others outside of the league think, people continue to cry over this whole charade!

First Michael Silver of Yahoo Sports broke the story, and opened up the flood gates of criticism towards Ireland. Then Bryant just made it all worse by sitting back and watching, and acting like he was a harmed party in all of this.

Silver made the whole situation worse by breaking the story, and drawing all of the attention to Bryant and his mother.

But are we forgetting what might be the cause of this story?

Bryant was spurned by the Fins only days before the draft after the Dolphins traded for star wide receiver Brandon Marshall, instead of waiting to draft him.

Could this be the reason why Bryant told the media of his interview woes? Did Bryant sense that the Dolphins did not like him, and spread the word around the NFL of his potential character issues?

After all, the Dolphins did hold private interviews with him, and the Dolphins did trade for Marshall not long after these interviews. So something must have gone pretty wrong for the Dolphins to go out and trade some of their coveted draft picks (two 2nd rounders).

Now that Bryant has accepted Irelands apology, Bryants mother seems to think that she deserves one as well.

Well, she may get an apology, but it will not be from Ireland. If anyone should give her an apology, it should be her son, Dez, or Michael Silver himself for bringing the embarrassment upon her family.

It was Dez's fault that he did not respond to the question appropriately enough to cause the Dolphins to draft him this year. It was Dez's fault for even telling the story of an interview that most regard of private. It was Dez's fault for revealing the exact person that posed the question to him in the same interview. It was then Michael Silver's fault for breaking the story, and slaughtering Ireland in the story in question.

All of these accusations against Ireland are ridiculous. The man was just doing his job in asking a question, that while it may have been over the line, was intended to see how Dez would react to a little adversity. As you can see, this young man did not react as well as the Fins would have liked, and so they went with the more experienced Marshall.

I'll back up Ireland on this subject all the way. Things were taken way out of context, and there should be no reason why anyone from the NFL offices should jump in, and there should be no reason why anything should be changed about the way these PRIVATE interviews are conducted.

Teams have the right to ask as many, and ludicrous of questions as they like. They are paying young men in their low 20's millions of dollars to play a game that requires both mental and physical toughness beyond belief. So don't shoot these front office personnel for asking questions that could save their jobs or not.

After all, Bryant was a first round prospect, and aren't first round draft picks how general managers make their living? If Ireland pulled the trigger on the wrong guy, he very well could have lost his job. Let's be thankful that he did not pick Bryant, because from what I can tell, he does not have the goods that the NFL requires.

Maybe he should be a full-time snitch instead of a full-time football player.

Yes, Darren Sharper is back!

Sharper and the Saints agreed to a one year deal today which paves the way for the play making safety to return to the Black and Gold. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Sharper returns to the Saints after a record breaking season. His 9 INTs this season led the league and he set a league mark for most INT return yards in a season.

"We have said since the end of the season that we would love to have Darren back in a Saints uniform for 2010 and I'm glad we've been able to make that happen," general manager Mickey Loomis said. "Darren was an integral part of our Super Bowl-winning team and we look forward to having him back."

Sharper just finished his first free-agent visit to Jacksonville last week. While the talks seemed positive, no contract was offered to Sharper.

While many rejoice in New Orleans upon Sharper's return, it will be interesting to find out what role Sharper will have on defense. Will he continue to be the ball hawk he was last season in Gregg William's blitz-happy scheme? Will he give way playing time to an eventual successor, possibly Malcolm Jenkins?

Also, how healthy will Sharper be coming into the season and also throughout the season? Adam Schefter of ESPN reported today that Sharper had microfracture surgery during the offseason. While it is a fairly common procedure to athletes. It is the same surgery which Amare Stoudemire had and was forced to miss the greater part of one season after soreness and complications from the surgery. Others like Chris Webber and Penny Hardaway were not the same players they once were after the procedure.

One thing is for sure as far as Sharper is concerned. Pain or not, he will find a way to make plays.

As we all know, David Vobora was suspended 4 games last season for using a banned supplement.  Vobora claims he was told the supplement in question was OK for use.  However, when he had the supplement in question sent to the lab it tested positive for methyltestosterone, which is a steroid.

Here's where the story breaks down a little to he said/they said.  Vobora said he used "SWATS: The Ultimate Spray", which SWATS website calls the most advanced and most effective in the world.  It contains deer antler velvet and IGF-1, which increases muscle mass.

Vobora did not buy the spray from the website, instead was given the spray from an unnamed endorser of the product.  The product's owners say that the spray does not contain steroids and they say that Vobora took other supplements that must have been the problem.  But, that makes very little sense since Vobora got his "Ultimate Spray" tested and it came up positive.

The moral of the story here for the kids is: do not take anything from a random "endorser" and treat what he or she says as gospel.  It seems like Vobora got deceived either accidentally or maliciously by whomever gave him the substance.  Buy the supplement from the website, keep the receipt and then if everything goes pear-shaped, you will have a leg to stand on.  Do not trust what some mysterious endorser gives you.