Rebuking the "Signing Henry was a Football Decision" Nonsense

The Mike Brown apologists out there who are supportive of the Bengals' decision to re-sign Henry seem to keep pointing out that signing Henry was necessary because of the teams lack of depth at WR.  Chad Johnson's injury only exacerbated the situation, these morons claim, and that Mike Brown made a football decision and signed a guy to a cheap contract who can come in and contribute immediately (well, starting Week 5 when he comes off suspension and is finally allowed to practice with the team and compete in games). 

WDR has discussed our opposition to this decision on many grounds - undercutting Marvin Lewis and removing any locker room control that was left, among others. But Henry's contribution to the team last year, the impetus for the signing for many, has also been exaggerated. 

Let's break it down:

Henry's contribution did not start until Week 9 as he was suspended for the first 8 weeks of the season.  During this stretch, the toughest of the Bengals season, the team went 2-6.  A 3rd WR might have been useful.

When Henry was active, the team was 5-3.  "Huzzah!" exclaim the ignorant.   "Henry led the team to a 5-3 record!"  However, simply logic demands a closer investigation. 

Of the Bengals 5 wins during that stretch, Henry only played a significant role in one - Week 10 vs the Ravens when he had a big catch for 50 yards and ended up with 4 receptions for 99 yards (0 TDs).  In the other 4 Bengal wins during this stretch, Henry had a COMBINED 4 catches for 80 yards. 

So are these unimpressive stats worth all the collateral damage that signing Henry has (and will have) caused?  The answer is a clear "no fucking way."

Comments

[yuri kim]

While I don't disagree with the sentiment that resigning Henry was a bad idea, it's impossible to point only to stats and say Henry was or was not significant in those games.

[Paul Katz]

Why in the hell is Henry wearing a boa in court? Put bad fashion sense in the Henry con's department.