Is there ever a time in life that selfish is good? Chad Johnson said yea, football.
The Cincinnati Bengals' wide receiver broke seven days of silence on Tuesday in an interview with ESPN Radio's Stephen A. Smith.
"Everybody loves to use that selfish word and make it a negative," Johnson said. "Man, it's very much so a positive. You've got to want it. You've got a different type of breed that plays this game. I'm a different type of breed and I approach it differently from everybody else. I'll let you know I want it, and I'm going to let you know I'm going to go get it. That might rub off the wrong way and put too much pressure on those around me. If they don't have any selfishness to 'em, then that's part of the reason why we are 2-5."
He may have a point that being selfish is good. But there's also the fact that when you appear like a spoiled brat to your quarterback and head coach, that selfish quickly becomes a negative. And doesn't it strike you as funny that he knows it "might" rub his teammates the wrong way and he's perfectly accepting of that?
When people ask an opinion of the receiver, I honestly don't know what to say. Let's be honest. Whether his numbers show it or not, Chad gives us our best chance to win. Without him, T.J. Houshmandzadeh is neutralized -- like most receivers that do not have a good #2. Chris Henry isn't dependable. Glenn Holt, who puts it on the line every play, isn't a #1 or #2 receiver. Antonio Chatman is an injury report veteran. Skyler Green? With this roster, or likely the receivers coming out of college, no one can replace the production of Chad Johnson -- at least not right away.
At the same time, you have to wonder if there's truth that he's a complete disruption. You have to wonder if selfishness is the reason he spoke down to Palmer causing observers to wonder if this team is lost and out of control. Lockerroom chemistry, or the lack of, is the quickest downfall of any team. If there's in-fighting among teammates, then more times than not, the team suffers horribly.
I don't know what to say. I like the guy. I thought in 2002 and 2003, when he first reached national interest, that he was a positive influence on the team's perception. Rather than talking about the bitter history of the Bengals, people focused on Chad. The fun loving jokester felt like a natural comedian in front of the camera. Really, it was nice the media had fun with him rather than the constant reminders of how the term, "Bungles" came to be.
Has it become so diluted of the current plight with the team that we, fans, have to point fingers at the team's best player? Well, yea. We're not winning with the team's best player. And he keeps talking about himself. Thoughts?