PDA

View Full Version : Lots of love for Bengals from sites that do power rankings



macro
09-29-2005, 12:37 PM
ESPN has them at #4:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/powerranking

FOX Sports has them at #3:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/4910694

Sagarin Ratings at USA Today have them at #4:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl05.htm

If the Bengals are to have any chance whatsoever at a BCS bowl, these rankings will be of the utmost importance.

westofyou
09-29-2005, 12:39 PM
The Bengals point differential is awesome.

OldRightHander
09-29-2005, 12:55 PM
The Bengals point differential is awesome.

And likely to stay that way after playing Houston this week.

RedFanAlways1966
09-29-2005, 12:56 PM
Next to REDS red, I bleed Bengals orange. BUT (ugh!)... I am being cautiously optimistic. The thing that keeps ringing in my head is, "Who have the Bengals played so far?" Hey, all games count the same. But Cleveland (sorry, GAC!), this year's Minnesota and Chicago do not bring fear into anyone. I am probably just jilted by years of reading about a new year and then getting the same old results... hard to blame a die-hard for being cautiously optimistic at this point!

With that being said, I also consider that the Bengals have to finish 7-6 to be 10-6 for the season. 10-6 should get them into that thing called... uh, ummm, err, THE PLAYOFFS (hard for REDS/Bengals diehards to remember that P-word).

WHO-DEY!

p.s. - despite my cautious optimism, keep the positives coming macro! :)

Chip R
09-29-2005, 01:00 PM
Next to REDS red, I bleed Bengals orange. BUT (ugh!)... I am being cautiously optimistic. The thing that keeps ringing in my head is, "Who have the Bengals played so far?" Hey, all games count the same. But Cleveland (sorry, GAC!), this year's Minnesota and Chicago do not bring fear into anyone. I am probably just jilted by years of reading about a new year and then getting the same old results... hard to blame a die-hard for being cautiously optimistic at this point!

I'm no Bengals fan and you're right, the 3 teams they played shouldn't strike fear in the hearts of anyone. That said they did win and they will play CLE again along with the other 2 NFC teams in that division who aren't doing so well.

OldRightHander
09-29-2005, 01:04 PM
The thing that keeps ringing in my head is, "Who have the Bengals played so far?" Hey, all games count the same. But Cleveland (sorry, GAC!), this year's Minnesota and Chicago do not bring fear into anyone.

You have to remember some of the previous seasons where they would still beat the bad teams, but by very slim margins and when they played good teams they had a lot of those "almost" wins. Yes, they've been beating some so so teams, but they have been doing it convincingly, which is the way you're supposed to beat those teams.

TRF
09-29-2005, 01:05 PM
They roughed up a pretty good Bears defense. That speaks volumes. The Vikings are better than that game too, and could still be a force in the division.

I think they have not only a winning record this season, but at least 13 wins.

mark that down. i said 13 wins.

OldRightHander
09-29-2005, 01:20 PM
Also of note, has anyone noticed the game Culpepper had when he wasn't playing against the Bengals defense? Dilfer hasn't done too poorly either. Maybe those QBs looked bad because the defense made them look bad, not just because we caught them on an off day.

registerthis
09-29-2005, 01:37 PM
Also, the Bengals aren't just "beating" the bad teams, the games aren't even close. In years past, they would have beaten Cleveland 16-13, or whatever. This year, they trounce them. Ditto Chicago and Minnesota.

Twill be interesting to see how they fare against a more competitive opponent. Won't be Texas, though, I'm afraid.

OldRightHander
09-29-2005, 01:42 PM
Also, the Bengals aren't just "beating" the bad teams, the games aren't even close. In years past, they would have beaten Cleveland 16-13, or whatever. This year, they trounce them. Ditto Chicago and Minnesota.

Twill be interesting to see how they fare against a more competitive opponent. Won't be Texas, though, I'm afraid.

These games are still very imortant. If they can put together a good winning streak and build up a decent lead in the division before they have to play any really good teams, that would take some pressure off them during some of those tougher games.

Jaycint
09-29-2005, 02:35 PM
They roughed up a pretty good Bears defense. That speaks volumes. The Vikings are better than that game too, and could still be a force in the division.

I think they have not only a winning record this season, but at least 13 wins.

mark that down. i said 13 wins.

Good points TRF. I remember in the week leading up to the Viking game how so many were saying "now you guys are gonna get the real test", "the Vikings aren't patsies like Cleveland", etc etc. And after that in the week leading up to the Bears game message boards were flooded with "let's see how they do against the best defense in the league", "the Bears are the class of that division, the Bengals are in trouble on the road", etc etc.

The thing is I don't hear many people saying that maybe they looked as bad as they did when they played us because of what we DID as opposed to what the Bears and Vikes DIDN'T do. I mean is it totally outside the realm of possibility to think that we are good enough this year to make other teams look really bad?

The Vikes bounced back fairly decent this past week against the Saints, Cleveland won on the road at Green Bay which is never easy regardless of how well many expect the Packers to do this season, and the Bears will win more games than people expect this year with that defense. The common denominator with all of them is they ran into a far superior team.

registerthis
09-29-2005, 02:43 PM
These games are still very imortant.
I'm not saying that they aren't. In fact, just the opposite--I'm saying these games are a good indicator of this team, because in years past they would have barely squeeked by against the Clowns, but now they throttle them--as a truly good team should.

OldRightHander
09-29-2005, 02:59 PM
I'm not saying that they aren't. In fact, just the opposite--I'm saying these games are a good indicator of this team, because in years past they would have barely squeeked by against the Clowns, but now they throttle them--as a truly good team should.

Well, I wasn't really intending to say that you said they aren't important. Maybe I didn't word myself quite properly. Anyway, it's nice that we can even be having this discussion. It's been too many years. Maybe if they can spank Indy, then folks will stop selling them short.

RedFanAlways1966
09-29-2005, 03:41 PM
Rankings for the Bengals opponents thus far...

Cleveland: ESPN - 27 ; FOXSP - 27 ; USA - 21
Minnesota: ESPN - 19 ; FOXSP - 23 ; USA - 18
Chicago: ESPN - 25 ; FOXSP - 21 ; USA - 22

MWM
09-29-2005, 03:57 PM
Well, they only gained 244 yards against the Bears. The good news was that they didn't need to go very far to score. But they struggled for much of the game against that defense.

registerthis
09-29-2005, 04:02 PM
Well, they only gained 244 yards against the Bears. The good news was that they didn't need to go very far to score. But they struggled for much of the game against that defense....and still put up 24 points.

The Bears have one of th ebetter defenses in the league. If we can put up 24 points on them, I feel pretty good about things.

Falls City Beer
09-29-2005, 05:30 PM
...and still put up 24 points.

The Bears have one of th ebetter defenses in the league. If we can put up 24 points on them, I feel pretty good about things.

Let's not kid ourselves: blowing out a team--any team--on their property is an accomplishment not to be trifled with.

ochre
09-29-2005, 05:52 PM
Well, they only gained 244 yards against the Bears. The good news was that they didn't need to go very far to score. But they struggled for much of the game against that defense.
I usually grouse about the Buckeye's style of play with a lead (largely because Ohio State seems to think 3 pts is enough of a lead), but I think Lewis nailed it for the Bengals, given the game situation and the weather. Once Cincinnati jumped out to a lead, their play-calling became quite conservative from what I could tell. That's not a total explanation for the low yardage totals.

Looking at those rankings for the Browns, Vikings and Bears and I have to wonder if they aren't being subconsciously penalized for losing to the Bengals. As much as people have talked about the Bengals being improved, in the minds of many they are still the Bengals.

MWM
09-29-2005, 07:44 PM
I'm not suggesting it wasnt' an accomplishment. I was only responding to the idea that the Bengals walked all over the Bears defense.

Yachtzee
09-29-2005, 08:42 PM
Well, It looks like Jason Whitlock over at ESPN.com is keeping the faith.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=whitlock/050929&num=0


With average play from the QB position, the Chicago Bears could've upset the overhyped Cincinnati Bengals. Instead of average QB play, the Bears are stuck with rookie Kyle Orton, who threw five interceptions last week.

GAC
09-29-2005, 08:46 PM
Next to REDS red, I bleed Bengals orange. BUT (ugh!)... I am being cautiously optimistic. The thing that keeps ringing in my head is, "Who have the Bengals played so far?" Hey, all games count the same. But Cleveland (sorry, GAC!), this year's Minnesota and Chicago do not bring fear into anyone. I am probably just jilted by years of reading about a new year and then getting the same old results... hard to blame a die-hard for being cautiously optimistic at this point!

With that being said, I also consider that the Bengals have to finish 7-6 to be 10-6 for the season. 10-6 should get them into that thing called... uh, ummm, err, THE PLAYOFFS (hard for REDS/Bengals diehards to remember that P-word).

WHO-DEY!

p.s. - despite my cautious optimism, keep the positives coming macro! :)

Hey! I may be a die-hard Dawg fan, but I said the best thing the Bengals organization ever did was hire Lewis. And I said that back when they did it. ;)

I think the Bengals will go 12-4 (maybe 13-3), but I'll stick with 12-4.

Now - as for my Browns.... I'm impressed by what I have seen so far.The changes and clearing out of deadwood in the off-season, the hiring of Savage, Crennel, and Carthon are pluses, and have put us on the right track.

We have vastly improved our Offensive line with a couple guys who have Super Bowl experience. Droughns is a solid RB, and I like our receiving corp (even with Winlsow out).

We have to quit shooting ourselves in the foot. We had 21 pts lost in that Bengal game (2 TDs called back for stupid penalties, and a dropped TD pass in the endzone).

We were 14 pt underdogs going into Indy's in-door stadium, and played them boys tough. Not upset over a 13-6 loss. Again - we shot ourselves in the foot with the STUPID taunting calls, a TD called back on a questionable call, and a TD catch dropped by Bryant (who otherwise has had a good year).

Going into last week's games, the Bengals had the #1 offense, and the Browns was 4th. Palmer was #2 in QB rating, and Dilfer was 4th.

Our problem, which everyone knew about going in, would be our defnese (especially run defense). Trying to get acclimated to a new system (3-4) takes time and the right personnel (lnebackers). But Andre Davis his doing a great job. Leads the NFL in tackles. But I like the attitude and approach that Crennel has brought to this organization (similar to what Lewis has done). Both of these coaches are ethical and quality guys.

I long for the days when both the Browns and Bengals are competitive power houses once again. The competition is good. ;)

Northern Dancer
09-29-2005, 08:48 PM
Stupid TSN - they have them rated at #11.

http://www.tsn.ca/nfl/feature.asp?fid=824

But then again, what do 'us' Canucks know? :dunno:

OldRightHander
09-29-2005, 09:25 PM
Stupid TSN - they have them rated at #11.

http://www.tsn.ca/nfl/feature.asp?fid=824

But then again, what do 'us' Canucks know? :dunno:

You guys still produced Warren Moon, so that's not a bad effort. Plus, your country is home to my second favorite sport after baseball. I like baseball, hockey, and football, in that order, but if the Bengals keep playing well, that sport might move into a tie for second.

MWM
09-29-2005, 09:25 PM
Jason Whitlock < Andy Furman

Jaycint
09-30-2005, 07:29 AM
Sounds to me like Jason Whitlock and Randy Cross must be dating. If Cross would have been any more anti-Bengals in the tv broadcast the other day he might as well have thrown on a Bears cap and a Walter Payton throwback jersey.

Whitlock falls into the category of sports fan/analyst/columnist that is gonna have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the belief that the Bengals are a respectable team now. And to add even more frustration to it, when they finally lose a game this year, even if it isn't till the 10th game of the year, guys like Whitlock will say "told ya so!"

RedFanAlways1966
09-30-2005, 07:51 AM
Sounds to me like Jason Whitlock and Randy Cross must be dating.

Make it a threesome... with Paul Zimmerman, the supposed "NFL expert" at Sports Illustrated. He had predicted the Bengals to lose against both the Vikings and da Bears. WRONG! I noticed that he did not touch the Bengals-Texans game in this week's SI. Evidently he cannot seem to get himself to say/write that the Bengals will win.

GAC
09-30-2005, 08:05 AM
One thing that Bengal and Brown fans have in common (or should at least) is their hatred of the Steelers.

I'd drag my wife by the hair over two miles of broken glass to spit on a Steeler jersey! :lol:

macro
09-30-2005, 08:35 AM
Well, It looks like Jason Whitlock over at ESPN.com is keeping the faith.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=whitlock/050929&num=0

Oh, and he added this little nugget:


If the Bengals get by Houston this weekend, which I don't expect, they'll lose on the road at Jacksonville.

Is he on drugs? I seldom ever send emails to writers, but I've just got to hear his justification on this one.

Dan
09-30-2005, 08:37 AM
Well, It looks like Jason Whitlock...

Having seen that guy a few times on The Sports Reporters, my opinion is that he's a complete imbecile.

Jaycint
09-30-2005, 08:58 AM
Oh, and he added this little nugget:



Is he on drugs? I seldom ever send emails to writers, but I've just got to hear his justification on this one.

Oh I'm getting ready to email him right now too, can't wait to see the response, if he even bothers to reply.

OldRightHander
09-30-2005, 09:12 AM
Oh I'm getting ready to email him right now too, can't wait to see the response, if he even bothers to reply.

Don't hold your breath. I emailed and wrote Fox about their All Star game broadcast and didn't even get an acknowledgement of my message.

dsmith421
09-30-2005, 09:48 AM
Oh I'm getting ready to email him right now too, can't wait to see the response, if he even bothers to reply.

He also opined on PTI that Lance Armstrong was not an athlete.

Kind of funny, coming from a guy who weighs four bills.

OldRightHander
09-30-2005, 09:54 AM
He also opined on PTI that Lance Armstrong was not an athlete.

All I know is that I can go out and ride 10 or 20 miles around where I live and only go up very moderate hills and I will be wiped out. Then I watch some of the highlights from France and see these guys going up mountains. Nobody is going to tell me they aren't athletes.

Jaycint
09-30-2005, 10:13 AM
All I know is that I can go out and ride 10 or 20 miles around where I live and only go up very moderate hills and I will be wiped out. Then I watch some of the highlights from France and see these guys going up mountains. Nobody is going to tell me they aren't athletes.

My thoughts exactly, I go to the gym and ride a stationary bike for about 6 miles every other day and by the time I am done I am exhausted.

GAC
09-30-2005, 10:43 AM
I got a stationary bike too. Just dusted it the other day! :lol:

But then I'm one of those guys whose metabolism is so hyper that it makes people mad to see me eat like I do and not gain a LB. ;)

MWM
09-30-2005, 11:12 AM
Hey GAC, what are the chances you could tickets to the Michigan State game? BTW, I scored an extra ticket for the OSU-Michigan game through a trade. I now have 3 tickets. Get to work.

TeamSelig
09-30-2005, 11:44 AM
I was guessing 10-6, but after looking at the schedule, I think it would possible for 13-3 or so.

Jaycint
09-30-2005, 12:04 PM
I was guessing 10-6, but after looking at the schedule, I think it would possible for 13-3 or so.


Shhhhhhh, don't let Jason WHitlock or Randy Cross hear you say that. We are the lowly Bengals and we need to be kept in our place!

Blimpie
09-30-2005, 12:33 PM
And likely to stay that way after playing Houston this week.Is it just me, or is anybody else worried about this weekend's game? I still like the Bengals straight up, but the 9.5 points they are giving to Houston has got me a tad bit worried.

Nothing more dangerous than a winless team coming off a bye-week...coming to play a team that has been told for three weeks how good it is...just sayin'

OldRightHander
09-30-2005, 12:38 PM
Is it just me, or is anybody else worried about this weekend's game? I still like the Bengals straight up, but the 9.5 points they are giving to Houston has got me a tad bit worried.

Nothing more dangerous than a winless team coming off a bye-week...coming to play a team that has been told for three weeks how good it is...just sayin'

I think that happened to the Bengals in '88. They were 6-0 and going in to play a winless team and lost. I can't remember who the team was, but it was a road game. You always have to be sure not to have a letdown against the bad teams because they're going to be pumped to try to knock off an unbeaten team. Remember what we did to KC a couple years ago? Then again, that was a home game. Houston is playing on the road this week. If the Bengals play their game, they'll win by a good margin.

Blimpie
09-30-2005, 12:41 PM
Also, the Bengals aren't just "beating" the bad teams, the games aren't even close. In years past, they would have beaten Cleveland 16-13, or whatever. This year, they trounce them. Ditto Chicago and Minnesota.

Twill be interesting to see how they fare against a more competitive opponent. Won't be Texas, though, I'm afraid.I agree that they are currently trouncing teams, but their defense isn't going to intercept five passes every game. Carson Palmer isn't going to going to complete 71.2 % of his passes for the season.

They are much improved, but the meat of their schedule still awaits them. People who are talking thirteen wins need to have their heads examined. I say that they will go 10-6 and make some noise in the playoffs... :beerme:

GAC
09-30-2005, 01:07 PM
Hey GAC, what are the chances you could tickets to the Michigan State game? BTW, I scored an extra ticket for the OSU-Michigan game through a trade. I now have 3 tickets. Get to work.

I'll give it my best shot Mike. I'll go across the street and talk with the neighbor.

But you do realize that if you go over and tailgate that you can always get tix (and not at exhorbant prices either). I have friends that do it every home game.

GAC
09-30-2005, 01:09 PM
They didn't trounce my Browns. Check out the stats. ;)

Both offenses were moving the ball up and down the field. I'm not saying we would have won; but we shot ourselves in the foot in that game over a sure 14 pts. ;)

macro
09-30-2005, 01:25 PM
I think that happened to the Bengals in '88. They were 6-0 and going in to play a winless team and lost. I can't remember who the team was, but it was a road game.

The Bengals were indeed 6-0 before losing at New England, which was 2-4 entering the game. I'll never forget Irving Fryar dancing around in front of the crowd when it became apparent that the Patsies were going to win the game. I never liked him after that.

Although the Bengals went only 6-4 in the regular season after that 6-0 start, they didn't have to sweat too much in their two playoff games, and were the best team in the NFL in 1988. Yes, the Cincinnati Bengals had the best team in the NFL in 1988.

TeamSelig
09-30-2005, 02:49 PM
13 wins isn't that far fetched. Look at their schedule. 3 tough games, 2 against Pitts & 1 against Indy. Unless if they screw up something, they should beat everyone else.

macro
09-30-2005, 03:18 PM
13 wins isn't that far fetched. Look at their schedule. 3 tough games, 2 against Pitts & 1 against Indy. Unless if they screw up something, they should beat everyone else.

Oh, there are lots of games that will be tough:

at Jacksonville
at Tennessee (no, I'm not kidding)
at Kansas City
at Baltimore (never take a game in Baltimore for granted)

along with the two Pittsburgh games and the Colts game that you mentioned.

I also wouldn't chalk these two up as wins just yet:

Buffalo
at Detroit

Really, though, all this is idle banter at this point. There will be some teams that are expected to be tough that won't be and vice versa. It happens that way every year.

OldRightHander
09-30-2005, 03:34 PM
Is anyone else listening to Lance right now with David Pollack? It's fairly interesting.

WMR
09-30-2005, 06:49 PM
My Email to Jason Whitlock:

Man you are quite the idiot.

Hmm... Indy won't be able to beat San Fran b/c it's "so hard to win on the road," yet you then say that Tampa Bay is going to go on the road and do the exact same thing!!!!


You talk about how difficult it is to win on the road, yet you don't give credit to the Bengals for doing just that!!

Daunte Culpepper threw 5 interceptions, so did Kyle Orton; are we to believe that starting Jeff Blake would have made the difference?

You are truly a moron and I hope that they aren't paying you for these "opinions."



LOL, I figured "what the hey" and went for the gusto.
The dude isn't even logical in his Bengal-bashing!
He talks about the difficulty of winning on the road and then discredits the Bengals for doing just that; LOL, if Jeff Blake played the Bears win that game?!?! PLEASEEEEEE

WMR
09-30-2005, 09:01 PM
Is anyone else listening to Lance right now with David Pollack? It's fairly interesting.

Hey ORH, can you summarize what Pollack and Lance talked about?

I didn't get to hear it and would really appreciate hearing what Pollack had to say.

OldRightHander
09-30-2005, 09:21 PM
Hey ORH, can you summarize what Pollack and Lance talked about?

I didn't get to hear it and would really appreciate hearing what Pollack had to say.

I was listening while I was working, so there was a lot I didn't get that well, but he talked a lot about the transition from college to the pros and how he was doing trying to learn a new position. He talked about how in college he was primarily a down lineman and never had to drop into pass coverage, so that was the biggest transition. Lance asked him a lot about what life was like in the NFL, what their practice schedules are like and what road trips are like. He opened up a restaurant/pub kind of place down in Georgia with some friend he has known for years and Lance had some questions about that.

There were a few non sports things that impressed me about him. He talked about how he's really still trying to learn and he doesn't feel like he's anywhere near where he needs to be, but he's spending a lot of time listening to the veteran players and trying to pick their brains. He seemed to have a huge amount of respect for the veteran players and for his coaches. Lance asked him if he was disappointed not to be getting that much playing time and he said that he just wanted to help the team however he can and his playing time will increase when he progresses better. I think he said something like, "Sure I would like to be out there making more plays, but I have to do what the team needs right now and keep working on improving my game." At least it was something like that. He had nothing but praise for Odell Thurman, saying that Thurman was way ahead of him. I don't remember much else of detail, just that he talked a lot about their routine, how team meetings are held and when they turn in on Saturday nights before game days. He seemed to be pretty well spoken and to have a good attitude. He didn't want to say much about the holdout though. I was hoping he would address that more, but it didn't seem like a real comfortable topic for him at the moment. That's what I can remember. Perhaps someone else heard the show and can fill in any gaps that I left.

Joseph
09-30-2005, 10:12 PM
You basically got it all ORH. Few little tidbits I'll add though. His cafe is called Pollack's Press, which his friend came up with, but David thinks is kind of dumb. He said the work day was basically about 7-8 in the morning all the way thur until 7-8 at night.

The thing I found most interesting was he seemed to really have a solid sense of humor, making fun of Lance whenever he really got the chance.

His attitude about Cincinnati was something along the lines of he wasn't here when all the losing took place and he didn't care about it because they didn't intend to ever experience that again in Cincinnati.

macro
10-15-2005, 12:26 AM
Okay, I love my Bengals, but this is just crazy...

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/power-rankings.htm

USA Today has the Bengals ranked #2 in the NFL in their latest rankings.

:eek:

ochre
10-15-2005, 11:44 AM
Okay, I love my Bengals, but this is just crazy...

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/power-rankings.htm

USA Today has the Bengals ranked #2 in the NFL in their latest rankings.

:eek:
They have to be at this stage. THe defense is still rankings inflated from the heavy turnover games early on. They will regress back to being a mediocre defensive team by the end of the year. The Offense appears to be for real though and it should be enough to keep them bobbing up towards the top all year.