Mike Brown hopes Adam Jones can change; we know Bengals owner won’t

When news broke of the most recent Adam Jones arrest broke, the first reaction was obvious: “Same old Pacman!”

Now that Mike Brown has declared he will give Jones another chance with the team, we're in much the same position: "Same old Bengals owner!"

But is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Regardless of what one might think of Paul Brown’s son, the 81-year-old is one thing: Consistent.

His justification for keeping the embattled cornerback on the roster came as little surprise yesterday (if they were going to release him, certainly they would have done it by now).

"I don't know that I have been perfect in my lifetime, either," Brown told the team website. "I probably did some things I wish I hadn't. Most people would probably have to admit to that. He didn't hurt anybody physically. He just hurt himself by how he comported himself. In some ways that's punishment enough right there. You have to live with that."

Brown, too, has to live with it as the owner of the team, and to his credit he acknowledged that.

Apparently he’s OK with headlines about the bad-news Bengals being recycled, and quite honestly at this point in his career I’m not sure Jones is good enough to justify keeping simply as part of a win-at-all-costs mentality (which I’m sure played a large role in acquiring him in the first place many years ago).

Brown really does seem to buy into the “redeemer” label he gave himself years ago even as I’m sure many people cynically conclude he made his team a home for wayward souls during the Marvin Lewis rebuild because it was a way to get top talent at cut-rate prices.

The former is confirmed by his reference to liking Jones personally and not wanting his daughter to be collateral damage in cutting Jones loose despite his repeated run-ins with the law.

"It's a bigger picture than one incident. And I get to be the one that sits in the chair to decide that. So I have chosen to decide it the way I am deciding it. I'm going to give him a chance. I hope it comes out right for him, for his family and for us. I know there are critics. I understand. But that is a full answer."

I actually respect Brown for not caring much, if at all, about the public relations aspect of things.

He should do what he believes is right regardless of what people like me think.

Still, the question about what another decision like this represents to the rest of the locker room has to be up for debate.

If you’re a Bengals player, is this proof the owner has your back when you make a mistake? If so, does that engender loyalty in the long run?

Or is it a sign anything goes? Nearly no manner of misbehavior matters as long as you show contrition because the owner is a softy? And does that translate to sloppy play on the field?

I wrote at the time of Jones’ arrest letting him go could send a message the ship was tightening as a crucial offseason (that’s arguably not going very well so far) began, but obviously that didn’t happen.

Next we’ll just have to see how this latest act of leniency is reflected in the locker room and by extension on the field.

Everyone knows what they’re getting from Mike Brown.

His team remains more of a mystery.

About the Author