We've heard this line of reasoning before with respect to how the Bengals dealt with Chad Johnson last year.
The line goes: the Bengals said they wouldn't trade him and they didn't...and good for them for not giving in to his demands which would set a bad precedent.
Peter King (scroll down) brings this up again. Saying:
The short view is, "Let's get rid of this unhappy jerk.'' The long view is, "This guy's a great player, he's a handful, but if we trade him, we're handing everyone else in the locker room a blueprint for how to shoot his way out of town. Plus, we won't get real value for him.'' I can't believe I just told the Denver Broncos to study the Bengals. Frightening.
Good point, Peter. But you're mistaking the Bengals stance on Chad as a well thought out tactic for what was really just another manifestation of Mike Brown's stubbornness and insistence on doing things his way (which has proven to be a failure). In an earlier post I'm too lazy to search for, I mentioned Mikey once said "If people would confront me, I would show them how to spell confrontation." Point is, making demands of Mikey will get you nowhere. He will not give you what you want out of principle, even if a reasonable solution presents itself.
In this case, that reasonable solution was Washington's offer of two draft picks for Chad...which Mike ignored. Peter acknowledges this. So basically, Peter is just saying in the nicest way possible that Mike Brown is a stubborn fool, but if the Broncos had adopted a stubborn stance in this particular instance it would have prevented the mess with Jay Cutler/Brandon Marshall.
My take: no franchise should ever take lessons from the Bengals and no one should give Mike credit for how he dealt with Chad - it's equivalent to giving him credit for being a curmudgeon.