.jpg)
2008 Browns training camp
Having fun at the Clark County Fair
Fire in Park Layne
Chick Ludwig covers the Cincinnati Bengals. He also writes about his other passions: college football, basketball and golf.Home > Blogs > Chick Ludwig At Large > Archives > 2008 > May > 02 > Entry
Rivers deserves uniform number “55,” not Brooks
RIVERS THE NEXT JIM LeCLAIR
My friend, Debbie Schoborg, a lifelong Cincinnati Bengals fan and season-ticket holder, has a great idea.
Make Ahmad Brooks give uniform number 55 to first-round draft pick Keith Rivers.
Rivers will wear the number with HONOR, just like he did at the University of Southern California, where “55” is the Trojans’ Holy Grail, worn only by the best of the best, such as Junior Seau. Willie McGinest, Chris Claiborne … and Rivers.
Brooks doesn’t deserve “55.” He smeared the Bengals’ image with his recent arrest.
“I love Keith Rivers!” Debbie writes. “He is not going to be pushed around. I can’t wait to see him play. I think the Bengals should make Brooks give him 55 to wear. After all, Rivers would do honor to the number, the same as my favorite Bengal of all time, Jim LeClair.”
Amen, Debbie. I’m with you.
Permalink | Comments (6) | Post your comment | Categories: Bengals
Comments
By TJ Jackson
May 2, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this
I understand the overall sentiments here, but a couple of issues: 1) Ahmad Brooks was not arrested, and the fact that the woman allegedly punched waited 3 weeks to file charges is raising some suspicions. I am not defending Brooks here, just stating some facts. 2) It is common for players who want another player’s jersey number to pay them for it, usually around 20k. Rivers will esily be able to afford 20k as the 10th overall pick. On the other hand, if Brooks is waived, he can simply request the number change and will almost certainly be accomodated by the team.By Homer J
May 2, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this
Count me in for giving Rivers #55. That said the biggest jersey number debate is that of #51 currently worn by Corey Mays. Prior to his “transgressions” that number belonged to Odell Thurman and hundreds of fans own that jersey and have continued to wear it to games for the last 3 years. If there is any number that should be changed it should be this one not just for Thurman, but for the fans. Back to Brooks, for anyone who thinks he should be waived needs to take a reality check. Nobody knows what happened here it very easily could have been an acident as he was reported to be upset at the time and he is a rather large fellow. Additionally, the 3 weeks passing before it was reported sounds a little fishy to me. Lets all take a deap breath and remember stuff happens, Brooks has shown no issues prior to this incident and should be warned but nothing further. Remember, each individual is owed his own judgement, not thrown on the pile because a of other players past issues.By Halftime
May 2, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this
Chick - I love your blog and read it every day. I find you to be the best of the local sports writers - even if you went to Elder (West Hi grad here). That said, I think you need to change a couple of things in your blog as they are not factually correct. In your most recent post you said “and his recent arrest” when in fact Brooks has not been arrested. In your previous post you said he was charged. Again, not so. He had a complaint filed against him. That is all (to this point anyway). Anyone can file a complaint against anyone else. I could file a complaint against you. But it would not mean you were charged nor would it mean you were arrested.By W Pence
May 2, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this
Chick refers to Brooks’ recent arrest. Geoff Hobson of bengals.com says Brooks has not been arrested. Who’s telling the truth?By Mike
May 2, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this
Chickster, how about innocent until proven guilty? He hasn’t even been arrested yet and our city is not the most racially tolerant. Who the heck knows what happened but there certainly appears to be holes in the story.By Brian
May 2, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this
I agree with TJ. I’m hardly a thug-Bengal apologist, but this (woman’s) story just isn’t adding up.