The Bengals are better without Brian Simmons?

by Josh Kirkendall on Feb 28, 2007 8:03 PM EST in I Wonder..

If you understand the team's decision to cut ties with Brian Simmons, then perhaps you're a more understanding person than I am. If you're confident that the current group of linebackers will be enough to ensure 2007 success, then you're more confident than I am. If you believe the team is better off by cutting Simmons, then you're more optimistic than I am.

First, the Simmons-less linebacker group.

Odell Thurman	While the continuous spin remains that Thurman could be 50/50 on his return, no one has explained Thurman's future. Is he coming back? Are we waiting on him? Is there any reason to promote nothing but spin on Thurman?
David Pollack	While his recovery should remain priority #1, it doesn't change the fact that it leaves a massive hole in the team's defensive foundation.
Ahmad Brooks	There's no reason for anyone to believe that Brooks will be worth anything in 2007. Hobson even made sure that we were reminded that Brooks wasn't even dressed up in the final two games this season.
A.J. Nicholson	Like Brooks, Nicholson's future is a toss up. Is he worth anything? Is he a diamond in the rough? The point is we have no idea.
Rashad Jeanty	Was mostly solid on the field during his rookie season. However Jeanty missed some time due to injury.
Andre Frazier	Mostly special teams player that offered limited help on the defense.

That's the 2007 linebackers. Welcome. Caleb Miller and Landon Johnson, being restricted free agents are still waiting tenders. But as of right now, are unsigned.

The money saved towards the cap is near $3 million. Hardly enough to sign a comparable replacement. However, the Bengals went from non-factor to potential player in free agency. Unless you take Lewis for his word and believe that the team will remain in the corner of the room -- quiet and out of the way.

If you can tell me we'll be fine, then you're a much more optimistic person than I am.

Perhaps this is one of those things I should just wait and see.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I don't necessarily think we're better...

The LBs we have may have as much or more athletic ability the Simmons, but the experience that was lost is great. I've always been OK w/ Simmons over the years, but, I never had the "WOW" feeling about him.

I would be surprised if they feel Brooks is ready. He must shown them something after the season was over. 'Cause he sure wasn't displaying it on the field at the end of the season.

by sledridge @ Cincy Jungle on Feb 28, 2007 9:04 PM EST reply actions

Re:

Simmons had been the Bengals starting middle LB from his rookie season through the 2002 season; but about six weeks after Lewis arrived, he had lost that job. Based on what? On film study, I guess. Lewis replaced him with Kevin Hardy, a Free Agent linebacker who had never before played the middle. By the end of 2003, Lewis was no longer happy with Hardy; but that didn't help Simmons win back his old job. Instead, Lewis made another big Free Agent signing, Nate Webster of the Bucs; and when Webster tore up his knee in the third game of the season, Lewis kept Simmons outside and instead turned to his two rookie third-round LB draftees, first Caleb Miller, and then, for most of the season, Landon Johnson. Simmons stayed outside in 2005 when rookie Odell Thurman manned the middle. Based on this, it looks clear that Lewis didn't think Simmons could play MLB for him. But then last season, Simmons suddenly regained his old middle linebacker position. What was that about? In retrospect, it appears that Lewis had settled on Landon Johnson and Rashad Jeanty as his starting outside LBs, and didn't want to move them around. At the beginning of the season, Odell Thurman was expected to be back by game 5. So Lewis put Simmons back in as MLB in what I suspect was intended as a temporary move, pending Thurman's return. But why Simmons and not, say, Caleb Miller as MLB? Maybe he wasn't yet completely soured on Simmons?; maybe he had concerns about Miller?; maybe, with Jeanty starting on the outside, he wanted a guy with more experience than Miller in the middle? Who knows?

Then Thurman got caught driving drunk after the Pittsburgh game, and Lewis's plans were screwed. He stayed with Simmons two more games until he got hurt; then put Ahmad Brooks in as starter in Game 5; and when Simmons came back from his injury in Game 7, as the Bengals themselves tell the story on Brooks's player page, Brooks remained as MLB and Simmons was moved to the outside as Jeanty was injured. In other words, according to the Bengals, Simmons essentially lost the MLB role to Brooks! So Lewis again had decided Simmons couldn't play MLB for him. But Brooks couldn't yet handle the position, so then he went with Caleb Miller. I had though after the Baltimore and Cleveland games that Lewis had settled on Miller as his MLB. But something happened and Miller got yanked, and Simmons was moved back to MLB, just in time for the Bengals defense to slide back into early and mid-season mediocrity and help lose three critical games.

It's obvious that Lewis wasn't happy with Simmons almost from the get go, considered him essentially a backup by last year, and had completely soured on Simmons by the end of the season. Does Lewis blame Simmons for the last three losses? Did he conclude that Simmons had lost a step? Did he intend to give Simmons one last chance, but got annoyed at Simmons's comments? Maybe Mark Curnutte will post some more info on this.

by etabby on Feb 28, 2007 9:49 PM EST reply actions

Hmmmm

Good analysis etabby, but I am still not sold on this move. In a defense that needs as much experience as it can get, throwing out Simmons seems to be a bad move. I have to believe that Lewis has another plan up his sleeve and I sure hope Plan A isn't Thurman. Not that he won't be back, but it isn't 100% for sure plus he hasn't played in a year. As already pointed out, Brooks and AJ have nearly zilch experience. Oh boy, let's hope something unexpected happens.

by DUVols on Mar 1, 2007 5:39 AM EST up reply actions

RE:

We'll find out Friday (free agency)

by Josh Kirkendall on Mar 1, 2007 9:22 AM EST up reply actions

RE:

Excellent perspective. Basically you're saying a majority of Simmons' playing time was because of injuries to others. Never thought about it, but you're onto something -- hence why you guys should comment all the time to balance this place out. :-)

by Josh Kirkendall on Mar 1, 2007 9:19 AM EST up reply actions

re:

Yep, that's how it looks to me, injuries and suspensions.

It's striking, seeing how much Lewis trusts his rookies. He's quite willing to start them. I think if Pollack had stayed healthy, Simmons would have been a backup in 2005.

by etabby on Mar 1, 2007 10:31 AM EST up reply actions

RE:

Yea, that's pretty apparent. Which I don't have a problem with because this defense is in complete need of an overhaul.

by Josh Kirkendall on Mar 1, 2007 10:47 AM EST up reply actions

Simmons

Maybe Lewis just feels the need to shake things up. Let's face it, the defense has cost the team dearly in each of Lewis's seasons (except 2005-06). I wouldn't mind getting some new guys into the mix to see what they can do.

The Curly R: Blogging the Redskins

by Brandon @ Cincy Jungle on Mar 1, 2007 8:21 AM EST reply actions

RE:

You know ultimately, I agree Brandon. I just didn't expect it to be Simmons first. Although, I wonder if the change, along with others, are a sign of Lewis feeling he's on the hot seat.

by Josh Kirkendall on Mar 1, 2007 9:16 AM EST up reply actions