PDA

View Full Version : Bengals own this town, not Reds...



KittyDuran
10-02-2005, 09:25 AM
so sez Paul Daughtery. Even tho' this topic was discussed on the Top 5: REDS Low 2005 One Game Attendances thread...I thought it deserved it's own thread... Discuss!

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051002/COL03/510020370

Sunday, October 2, 2005
Bengals own this town, not Reds
Baseball not king in Cincinnati now

By Paul Daugherty
Enquirer staff writer

Rest in peace, Baseball Town.

Perceptions die hard, memories even harder. One day you're the center of the universe, Rome in red and white, Big Red Machine-ing teams for a decade. The next, you're 25th in baseball in attendance, better only than permanent scrubs such as Pittsburgh and Tampa Bay.

The baseball memories are great here, but they don't sell tickets. Fathers playing catch with sons is a pretty image. It doesn't have much to do with fathers taking sons to the ballpark. The Reds drew less than 2 million fans this year, fewer than Milwaukee and Detroit. A little more than half what St. Louis attracted.

St. Louis is a baseball town. Boston, New York. Baseball towns. It has been said for so long about Cincinnati, it has been adopted as conventional wisdom:

This is a baseball town.

No it's not.

Not even close.

Hasn't been for 15 years, at least. It's a football place.

That's easy to say now. The Bengals lead the region in sports love. As many fans will tailgate today before Bengals-Texans as attended the Reds' Fan Appreciation Day last week. No one has to ask Who Dey? about the football team. Marvin Lewis is a god, Sparky Anderson is a scrapook. Jerry Narron, bless him, is just a baseball guy.

"People always saw more hope in football, even in the lean years," said UC professor Kevin Grace. Grace isn't a football guy. He teaches a class on the social history of ... baseball. "I think it started with 1988 (when the Bengals won the AFC title). That created an interest in football that's still there. There has been nothing dynamic about the Reds since 1990. We're going on 15 years of a boring team, one that doesn't hold any promise."

Even when the Bengals were bad and the Reds were (occasionally) brilliant, this was a football town. Until the weather turned unbearable, the 1990s Bengals, as bad a sports franchise as existed, still drew 50,000 for home games. During their regular seasons, the '88 Bengals prompted more of a civic buzz than the '90 Reds.

Cincinnati's demise as a baseball town has occurred as baseball has set attendance records two years in a row. The reasons are as sustained and obvious as the boos in May were for Danny Graves:

Middle-income fans turned off by '94 strike. Pete Rose's ouster. Marge Schott's embarrassments. Hastened and needless departures of winning managers. Inert management.

And, of course, the Reds stink. Have for five years. Probably will next year.

The Reds are hit by all the national trends, too: Perception that baseball is boring. Kids don't play baseball. Nobody can watch three hours of baseball on TV without a wakeup call. Football rocks.

Greg Rhodes runs the Reds Hall of Fame and Museum, next to the ballpark. He says it's cyclical. In the late 50s, when the team was routinely lousy, Powel Crosley entertained an offer from the Shea family in New York, to move the team. Rhodes recalls attendance being criminally anemic at Crosley Field, during the blistering pennant race of 1964.

He argues that the Reds hall and museum is unique in baseball, and wouldn't exist without the passion and history of the club. Yet Rhodes also says this: "There is such an appreciation here for the way generations of families relate to the Reds. It's very important to them in terms of their family lore. But that doesn't translate into buying tickets. There's a disconnect there I don't understand."

Nor do good baseball towns suffer from what Rhodes calls "the fair-weather phenomenon" evident here.

So while Reds fans embrace what used to be, Bengals fans can't wait for next Sunday. "So much of the love of (baseball) is based on nostalgia," Grace said. "But the 18-to-45 crowd doesn't care about that. Love and excitement are two different things."

Can Cincinnati be a baseball town again? Not the way it was 30 years ago. Football is America's game now. And Cincinnati's.

So long, Baseball Town. See you at the museum.

E-mail pdaugherty@enquirer.com

Phhhl
10-02-2005, 11:16 AM
Cincinnati fans love winning. That's just the way it is. This was a "football town" in 1988 too. I sold newspapers at the time, and I sold twice as many on Mondays after a Bengals game than at any time of the year. Why? Because they won. There is no subsititute for that. It's not a matter of being fair weather fans. It's a standard both pro franchises had better prioritize in order to be successful... "going forward".

Joseph
10-02-2005, 12:33 PM
I disagree. The Bengals weren't selling out when they weren't winning and the Reds aren't selling out because they aren't winning.

If the Reds ever sustain any level of winning over a couple seasons, the town will be Red and white, even on a football Sunday.

And Santo, isn't the very definition of 'fair weather fan' a fan who only roots for/cheers/attends games of a team that is winning?

People like winners and hate losers because somewhere in their mind they associate being a fan of a winning team as making them look a little better, like they are capable of choosing whats good vs whats bad. It makes them feel better about themselves to back a winner.

westofyou
10-02-2005, 12:45 PM
Sometimes it's a baseball town because of the long history of AA ball, sometimes it's a football town because of the great high school teams, sometimes it's a soccer town because there is a long history of soccer in the tri-state area, sometimes because of the Marlins it's a swimming town.

What it really is a is a town that loves winners and ignores losers.

The Reds have to really win to draw, not 85 win seasons. The proof is in the pudding, the Cincinnati fans will not watch losing teams near as much as winning teams.

ochre
10-02-2005, 01:56 PM
talk about comparing apples to goat entrails. There are vast differences between a sport that plays nearly every day and one that only plays one game a week. Its just as likely to be caused by the puerile, inane coverage/analysis by hacks like Daugherty. Not to mention that generally football has been more popular than baseball in the US since probably the late '70s.

Matt700wlw
10-02-2005, 02:42 PM
I don't know if the Bengals own this town yet, but if the Reds keep going down the road to nowhere, they will.

KronoRed
10-02-2005, 03:10 PM
If the Bengals tank then who owns the town? ;)

Matt700wlw
10-02-2005, 03:15 PM
If the Bengals tank then who owns the town? ;)

It's not the Bearcats.


Colerain!!!

RedsBaron
10-02-2005, 09:15 PM
The Bengals now own Cincinnati because they finally brought in someone competent to run the team in Marvin Lewis. The Reds need the baseball version of Lewis.

Phhhl
10-02-2005, 09:54 PM
[QUOTE=Joseph]And Santo, isn't the very definition of 'fair weather fan' a fan who only roots for/cheers/attends games of a team that is winning?[QUOTE]

In some instances, yes. But, when a fanbase, for legitimate reasons, senses that it is being made a fool of by ownership... I personally don't think that fanbase is out of line for not falling for it. After years of trying to cut corners in scouting and swindling the people of this city to get a new stadium, Mike Brown finally looked up one day, saw 25,000 people for an NFL football game (the greatest and most marketable sports league in the world) and realized he wasn't going to get by on smoke and mirrors anymore. He had to legitimately try and win. And, look at where the Bengals are today...

There is nothing wrong with fans holding a team accountable for the product it puts on the field. Let the Cardinals suffer 10-15 years of incompetence and losing and lets see if they are still beneficiaries of the "greatest fans in baseball".

harangatang
10-02-2005, 10:11 PM
If the Bengals tank then who owns the town? ;)

The Mighty Ducks

KittyDuran
10-02-2005, 10:41 PM
The Mighty Duckssorry, but they're gone...:(

KronoRed
10-02-2005, 11:14 PM
The arena team?

Wait..they're gone too ;)

Falls City Beer
10-02-2005, 11:18 PM
If the Bengals don't own the city of Cincinnati, then they should.

The Bengals organization took the leap, took the chance to be great. They may fall short, but they've made their way out of Plato's Cave.

redsrule2500
10-03-2005, 12:26 AM
Winning Team > Losing Team.

It's as simple as that.

kheidg-
10-03-2005, 02:48 AM
Bengals fans, enjoy the day today. You are not winning the Super Bowl. There is no possible (or logical) way.

KronoRed
10-03-2005, 05:17 AM
Bengals fans, enjoy the day today. You are not winning the Super Bowl. There is no possible (or logical) way.
Watch out..they get angry around here ;)

butlerbulldogs
10-03-2005, 10:04 AM
Bengals fans, enjoy the day today. You are not winning the Super Bowl. There is no possible (or logical) way.

still bitter about the 37-8 trouncing??

WMR
10-03-2005, 11:20 AM
Bengals fans, enjoy the day today. You are not winning the Super Bowl. There is no possible (or logical) way.

At least we're able to say our team name and Super Bowl in the same sentence.

How bad did the Vikings get whooped and how bad did they look yesterday?

BAD

BCubb2003
10-03-2005, 11:24 AM
talk about comparing apples to goat entrails. There are vast differences between a sport that plays nearly every day and one that only plays one game a week. Its just as likely to be caused by the puerile, inane coverage/analysis by hacks like Daugherty. Not to mention that generally football has been more popular than baseball in the US since probably the late '70s.

Yes, it's a pretty silly column. The Bengals season attendance record is a little more than a half million. They've set records the last two years. Not bad. But the Reds have drawn more than that for a season since 1944.

And the problems he cites are not about the baseballness of the town, but about the baseballness of baseball, and the weaknesses of the Reds.

redsfan30
10-03-2005, 11:40 AM
No possible (or logical) way?

1. Top five offense
2. Much improved overall defense who leads the league in takeaways.
3. Above average special teams.
4. Great coaching staff.

They may not go all the way, but to say they have no logical chance just isn't true.

As for the Bengals owning this town, I'm not sure. For the team to draw over 20,000 for a night game during the week in September when the team is out of the race by 104 games and the team ERA is something like 74.92 I think that says something about Reds fans. They want so bad for thier team to win. They know they probably won't, but they still come out to see them. Just imagine the attendance if they can put together a playoff run.

I'm 20 years old and wouldn't think of rooting for another team, even if they went 50-112 next year. I don't like the perception that kids only root for "good" teams.

CaiGuy
10-03-2005, 11:44 AM
Bengals fans, enjoy the day today. You are not winning the Super Bowl. There is no possible (or logical) way.
The Vikings aren't going to win 5 games. There is no possible (or logical) way.

Also, the Bengals are 4-0, but the Pats are 2-2.

johngalt
10-03-2005, 11:44 AM
Yes, it's a pretty silly column. The Bengals season attendance record is a little more than a half million. They've set records the last two years. Not bad. But the Reds have drawn more than that for a season since 1944.


Talk about silly. Don't you think the fact that the Reds play 73 more home games has a *little* something to do with that?

westofyou
10-03-2005, 12:00 PM
Bengals fans, enjoy the day today. You are not winning the Super Bowl. There is no possible (or logical) way.

3 years running the Reds team ERA was above 5.00

Recent history suggests that that's way more illogical than a winning season and a Super Bowl appearance in Gladiator Ball.

BCubb2003
10-03-2005, 01:00 PM
Talk about silly. Don't you think the fact that the Reds play 73 more home games has a *little* something to do with that?

That's my point. You can't compare the two. I wonder if the Bengals could draw 50,000 on a Tuesday in December, game 127.

CTA513
10-03-2005, 02:18 PM
Bengals fans, enjoy the day today. You are not winning the Super Bowl. There is no possible (or logical) way.

:all_cohol

smith288
10-03-2005, 02:50 PM
Bengals fans, enjoy the day today. You are not winning the Super Bowl. There is no possible (or logical) way.
Smack talk is weak. Either offer up some points to back up your talk or go away.

WMR
10-03-2005, 03:37 PM
Smack talk is weak. Either offer up some points to back up your talk or go away.

"RACK IT"

http://www.beatlestribute.com/Jim_Rome.jpg

kheidg-
10-03-2005, 03:46 PM
Smack talk is weak. Either offer up some points to back up your talk or go away.

4-0 does not mean you will win the Super Bowl. There are way better teams in the AFC. Try Pittsburgh, New England, San Diego, and Indy.

Look at who the Bengals have beaten. All likely non-playoff teams (besides maybe Chicago or Minn being that the North is the worst division in football.

@ Cleveland 27-13 - (Cleveland is horrible)
Minnesota 47-8 (Impressive win but Minnesota isn't much better than Cleveland)
Chicago 24-7 (Chicago has a good defense, but they do not have a good team)
Houston 16-10 (Beating Houston 16-10 is just barely skating by one of the worst teams in the league)

The teams the Bengals have beat have a combined record of 3-10. Give me a break guys. Playoffs are likely for ya but not much more. After the next 3 games you will know a lot more about your team.

kheidg-
10-03-2005, 03:51 PM
The Vikings aren't going to win 5 games. There is no possible (or logical) way.

Also, the Bengals are 4-0, but the Pats are 2-2.

Why does everyone assume that I love the Vikings. I actually really don't even like the Vikings much. Just because I live in Minnesota doesn't mean I'm a Vikes fan. I've been an Eagles fan all of my life and the day that the Bungles beat the Eagles (and not all their reserves as in last season) I will bow down to all of you.

kheidg-
10-03-2005, 03:58 PM
Smack talk is weak. Either offer up some points to back up your talk or go away.

Why don't you go cry some more.

CTA513
10-03-2005, 04:47 PM
Why does everyone assume that I love the Vikings. I actually really don't even like the Vikings much. Just because I live in Minnesota doesn't mean I'm a Vikes fan. I've been an Eagles fan all of my life and the day that the Bungles beat the Eagles (and not all their reserves as in last season) I will bow down to all of you.

:rolleyes:

zombie-a-go-go
10-03-2005, 04:48 PM
Why don't you go cry some more.

Chill, kids. This ain't Football Huddles. No need to get all up in each others' proverbial grills.

smith288
10-03-2005, 04:59 PM
4-0 does not mean you will win the Super Bowl. There are way better teams in the AFC. Try Pittsburgh, New England, San Diego, and Indy.

Look at who the Bengals have beaten. All likely non-playoff teams (besides maybe Chicago or Minn being that the North is the worst division in football.

@ Cleveland 27-13 - (Cleveland is horrible)
Minnesota 47-8 (Impressive win but Minnesota isn't much better than Cleveland)
Chicago 24-7 (Chicago has a good defense, but they do not have a good team)
Houston 16-10 (Beating Houston 16-10 is just barely skating by one of the worst teams in the league)

The teams the Bengals have beat have a combined record of 3-10. Give me a break guys. Playoffs are likely for ya but not much more. After the next 3 games you will know a lot more about your team.
Was that so hard? Smack is for losers. Real discussion sparks the mind and informs the debate.

smith288
10-03-2005, 05:00 PM
Why don't you go cry some more.
Good Lord.... *where's the rolling eyes until they fall out smiley?*

Blimpie
10-03-2005, 05:04 PM
4-0 does not mean you will win the Super Bowl. There are way better teams in the AFC. Try Pittsburgh, New England, San Diego, and Indy.

Look at who the Bengals have beaten. All likely non-playoff teams (besides maybe Chicago or Minn being that the North is the worst division in football.

@ Cleveland 27-13 - (Cleveland is horrible)
Minnesota 47-8 (Impressive win but Minnesota isn't much better than Cleveland)
Chicago 24-7 (Chicago has a good defense, but they do not have a good team)
Houston 16-10 (Beating Houston 16-10 is just barely skating by one of the worst teams in the league)

The teams the Bengals have beat have a combined record of 3-10. Give me a break guys. Playoffs are likely for ya but not much more. After the next 3 games you will know a lot more about your team.Who all of these teams have beaten through Week # 4 is of little consequence. The Bengals, along with Indy, are still the only unbeatens of the bunch. Seeing as though we are talking about playoffs (which are decided by overall record) and not power rankings (which consider your opponents records), why not just take a look at the remaining schedules for the four "way better" AFC teams you cited? I did, and I think that you will realize that the Bengals have as good a chance as any of them to not only make the playoffs, but actually make some noise:

Cincinnati
Oct 9 @Jacksonville
Oct 16 @Tennessee
Oct 30 Green Bay
Nov 20 Indianapolis
Dec 18 @Detroit
Dec 24 Buffalo
Jan 1 @Kansas City

Pittsburgh
Oct 10 @San Diego
Oct 16 Jacksonville
Nov 6 @Green Bay
Nov 28 @Indianapolis
Dec 11 Chicago
Dec 18 @Minnesota
Jan 1 Detroit

Cincy and Pittsburgh play the same division teams, so that part of their schedules will cancel each other's out. If I am Cincy, I would much rather travel to Jax, Tenn, Det and KC than have to do Pittsburgh's dirty work by going to SD, GB, Indy and Minn. Advantage: Cincinnati

New England
Oct 9 @Atlanta
Oct 16 @Denver
Oct 30 Buffalo
Nov 7 Indianapolis
Nov 13 @Miami
Nov 20 New Orleans
Nov 27 @Kansas City
Dec 4 N.Y. Jets
Dec 11 @Buffalo
Dec 17 Tampa Bay
Dec 26 @N.Y. Jets
Jan 1 Miami

IMO, NE's division is comparable to Cincy's in that they both have two mediocre-->bad teams (NE has NYJ/Buff while Cincy has Balt/Hous). That's where the similarities end with their schedules. Most of NE's toughest games are on the road and they get unbeaten Tampa Bay thrown in there for good measure. Oh yeah, NE is also currently decimated by injuries. Advantage: Cincinnati

San Diego
Oct 10 Pittsburgh
Oct 16 @Oakland
Oct 23 @Philadelphia
Oct 30 Kansas City
Nov 6 @N.Y. Jets
Nov 20 Buffalo
Nov 27 @Washington
Dec 4 Oakland
Dec 11 Miami
Dec 18 @Indianapolis
Dec 24 @Kansas City
Dec 31 Denver

Enough already. That is positively the most brutal remaining schedule of any team in the NFL. Top to bottom, SD's may be the most competitive division within the AFC. Advantage: Cincinnati

Indianapolis
Oct 9 @San Francisco
Oct 17 St. Louis
Oct 23 @Houston
Nov 7 @New England
Nov 13 Houston
Nov 20 @Cincinnati
Nov 28 Pittsburgh
Dec 4 Tennessee
Dec 11 @Jacksonville
Dec 18 San Diego
Dec 24 @Seattle
Jan 1 Arizona

Here's the only team that you listed that has a truly decided advantage on Cincy. They play in the weakest AFC division and get to beat up on such dogs as Tenn and Houston twice this year. Other than Seattle, a few of their non-division foes don't strike fear into anybody (SF and Arizona). The good news is that Cincy will control their fate by playing Indy on Nov 20th...and it is in The Jungle. Advantage: Indianapolis


I think that Cincy and Pittsburgh will split their season series--so, if you ask me, Indianapolis is the only team you mentioned that I would fear. However, one team that you did not mention is Denver. IMO, they have all of the tools to make Cincy's playoff life miserable this season.

OldRightHander
10-03-2005, 05:10 PM
Ok, I'm going to get back to the topic of the thread, if that's ok with everyone. I don't think these days that either team really "owns" this city. I would venture that there are a good number of fans like me who like one team better than the other but are fans of both. If one is stinking but the other is doing well, we're going to be excited about the one that is doing well. Heck, we might even spend a bit more money on that team in the course of the season. If the Bengals were having one of their 90s type of seasons and the Reds were in the post season, folks would be saying that the Reds own the city. Some people will say that this is a baseball town and some will say that it's a football town. Baseball might have a longer tradition here, but I will say that this city is both. It just depends on what time of year and which team is doing better. Right now the Bengals are showing some signs of life and there is a bit of hope. There has been so much failure in this city for so many years that we are starved for success and at this point it might not matter much which team provides it. The Reds are my first love and always will be, but I'm going to enjoy what the Bengals are doing as long as it lasts. It's a good thing for the city if one of the two teams is having some success. It keeps the mood around here from being completely dismal.

Redleg75
10-03-2005, 05:39 PM
Would Skyline Chili own the city if neither the Bengals or Reds did?

paintmered
10-03-2005, 05:44 PM
Judging by the names on the buildings around this city, I'd say ownership belongs to a combination of the Lidner family and 5/3 Bank.

:p:

ochre
10-03-2005, 06:01 PM
Look at who the Bengals have beaten. All likely non-playoff teams (besides maybe Chicago or Minn being that the North is the worst division in football.

@ Cleveland 27-13 - (Cleveland is horrible)
Minnesota 47-8 (Impressive win but Minnesota isn't much better than Cleveland)
Chicago 24-7 (Chicago has a good defense, but they do not have a good team)
Houston 16-10 (Beating Houston 16-10 is just barely skating by one of the worst teams in the league)

The teams the Bengals have beat have a combined record of 3-10. Give me a break guys. Playoffs are likely for ya but not much more. After the next 3 games you will know a lot more about your team.
The Colts, whom you've annointed as better than the Bengals didn't look much/any better against the "horrible" Browns in a game at Indy than the Bengals did, yet Cincy played the Browns in Cleveland. The Bears defense was a legit test for the Bengals Offense. Are the Vikings that bad, or did the Bengals confuse them? Minnesota beat the Saints fairly convincingly.

Houston had the bye week to prep for the Bengals. Two weeks when well used to develop a scheme ought to be enough for professional players to put up the kind of effort we saw on Sunday.

I'm still not sold on the Bengals defense, but to paint them as a marginal team so far this season is disingenuous.

Heath
10-03-2005, 07:55 PM
I'm convinced the if Art Modell doesn't screw up and buy the Browns & toss out Paul Brown like garbage, I'm of the opinion that the Bengals don't get an NFL expansion team until 1976 or even later (Cincinnati Colts anyone?) If there were no Bengals, one or both happens.

1 - The Royals are now playing in a refurbished Riverfront Coliseum
2 - The Stingers are now playing in a refurbished Riverfront Coliseum

If that happened, along with the Reds, would their even be the need for pro football in Cincinnati?

Just a question.......

kheidg-
10-03-2005, 07:58 PM
The Colts, whom you've annointed as better than the Bengals didn't look much/any better against the "horrible" Browns in a game at Indy than the Bengals did, yet Cincy played the Browns in Cleveland. The Bears defense was a legit test for the Bengals Offense. Are the Vikings that bad, or did the Bengals confuse them? Minnesota beat the Saints fairly convincingly.

Houston had the bye week to prep for the Bengals. Two weeks when well used to develop a scheme ought to be enough for professional players to put up the kind of effort we saw on Sunday.

I'm still not sold on the Bengals defense, but to paint them as a marginal team so far this season is disingenuous.

I simply said that a Super Bowl is dreaming of something that likely won't happen. Granted, when this is the team's first 4-0 start since the Ickey days I see where a lot of the optimism comes from. Chad Johnson is definitely in the top 3 WR in the league - after that none of the players are elite. Deltha O'Neal is a good corner but will he keep it up all season and revert back to his early Denver form?

How good this team really is will be decided in the next few games. If they continue to win, playoff berth is inevitable. Once they are in the playoffs they will still have to face the likes of San Diego, Indy, KC, NE, and Pitt - not the teams they played to start the season (CLE, Minn, Hou, Chicago). Let's see what happens when they face some real competition.

kheidg-
10-03-2005, 08:00 PM
The Colts, whom you've annointed as better than the Bengals didn't look much/any better against the "horrible" Browns in a game at Indy than the Bengals did, yet Cincy played the Browns in Cleveland.

Also, I think you would have to be smoking some serious crack to that the Bengals are better (right now) than the Colts.

paintmered
10-03-2005, 08:10 PM
Also, I think you would have to be smoking some serious crack to that the Bengals are better (right now) than the Colts.

This belongs in the non-bb thread.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40261

Edit: Sorry to single you out like this, this whole thread now belongs in the non-bb forum.

Blimpie
10-04-2005, 11:08 AM
I simply said that a Super Bowl is dreaming of something that likely won't happen. Granted, when this is the team's first 4-0 start since the Ickey days I see where a lot of the optimism comes from. Chad Johnson is definitely in the top 3 WR in the league - after that none of the players are elite.Just speaking about their offense, T.J. Houshmanzada has shown that last year was no fluke. Carson Palmer just had his fourth straight start with a QB Rating that exceeded 100.0. Without knowing what your definition of "elite" is, all I can say is that the league is taking notice. Come Pro Bowl time, I suspect that their team will be well represented.


How good this team really is will be decided in the next few games. If they continue to win, playoff berth is inevitable. Once they are in the playoffs they will still have to face the likes of San Diego, Indy, KC, NE, and Pitt - not the teams they played to start the season (CLE, Minn, Hou, Chicago). Let's see what happens when they face some real competition.I would argue that a playoff berth is already almost inevitable. According to the league, teams that start 4-0, make the playoffs nearly 80% of the time. By the way, NE and KC are not shoo-ins for the playoffs at this point. Look at their schedules, please and show me where another 7-8 wins will come for both of them....

kyred14
10-04-2005, 11:58 AM
I would argue that a playoff berth is already almost inevitable. According to the league, teams that start 4-0, make the playoffs nearly 80% of the time. By the way, NE and KC are not shoo-ins for the playoffs at this point. Look at their schedules, please and show me where another 7-8 wins will come for both of them....

Why does everyone love KC so much? I'll go on record right now that they miss the playoffs again. Their defense is still terrible. They MIGHT go 8-8. The Bengals are SO much better than KC. Better O, Better D, Better everything.

macro
10-04-2005, 12:53 PM
The teams the Bengals have beat have a combined record of 3-10.

The deceptive part about the 3-10 record of their opponents is that those teams are 3-6 in games not played against the Bengals, so they're not as sorry as the 3-10 combined recored would seem to indicate. Also, consider who their opponents have played so far.

GAC
10-04-2005, 02:27 PM
The Bengals now own Cincinnati because they finally brought in someone competent to run the team in Marvin Lewis. The Reds need the baseball version of Lewis.

They already got it.... JERRY!

http://www.shop4photos.net/graphics/170/170317.jpg

OldRightHander
10-04-2005, 03:17 PM
The deceptive part about the 3-10 record of their opponents is that those teams are 3-6 in games not played against the Bengals, so they're not as sorry as the 3-10 combined recored would seem to indicate. Also, consider who their opponents have played so far.

That is a valid point. The Browns went up to Lambeau and beat the Packers, which isn't an easy thing to do, even this year when everyone has been beating the Packers. Minnesota looked pretty good the week after playing the Bengals too.

kheidg-
10-04-2005, 07:46 PM
The deceptive part about the 3-10 record of their opponents is that those teams are 3-6 in games not played against the Bengals, so they're not as sorry as the 3-10 combined recored would seem to indicate. Also, consider who their opponents have played so far.

Good point. But plain and simple Cleveland, Minnesota, Chicago, and Houston are not playoff contenders.

Cleveland and Houston will likely challenge for the worst team in the league.

Minnesota and Chicago only have a chance at playoffs because their division sucks.

kheidg-
10-04-2005, 07:47 PM
Just speaking about their offense, T.J. Houshmanzada has shown that last year was no fluke. Carson Palmer just had his fourth straight start with a QB Rating that exceeded 100.0. Without knowing what your definition of "elite" is, all I can say is that the league is taking notice. Come Pro Bowl time, I suspect that their team will be well represented.


TJ has looked great and I'm loving it because he is on my fantasy team. He still is not elite. My definition of "elite" is Top 5 at their position. Nobody on the Bengals outside of Chad Johson is elite (as of now).

WMR
10-05-2005, 12:53 AM
TJ has looked great and I'm loving it because he is on my fantasy team. He still is not elite. My definition of "elite" is Top 5 at their position. Nobody on the Bengals outside of Chad Johson is elite (as of now).

http://nflfreaks.com/images/Players/NFLF-Carson_Palmer_120504.jpg

There aren't four QBs in the NFL I take right now over Carson Palmer.

Peyton Manning and Mike Vick. That's it.

Nobody has got 2 "Elite" receivers if they're following your definition.

Who has two of the top five WRs in the game? That's a silly definition of determining TJ's eliteness. Is he one of the top five slot receivers in the game? One of the top five #2 receivers in the game? YES.

Look at the offensive line as a whole. Is it one of the top five in the game? Who knows for sure, but it's sure as heck up there.

How many "Elite" players does Philly have?

Two and Donovan?

Steve4192
10-09-2005, 10:31 AM
Cleveland and Houston will likely challenge for the worst team in the league.
I'll grant you that Houston stinks, but from what I've seen of the Browns, Crennell is going to lead them to respectability THIS year. If Marvin Lewis could turn a horrid 2-14 squad into a 0.500 team, I see no reason to think Romeo can't do the same with the 4-12 Browns team he inherited. They have played everyone tough and their two losses are to teams with a combined 8-0 record. Don't be shocked to see the Browns win 7 or 8 games this year.

Minnesota and Chicago only have a chance at playoffs because their division sucks.
Take a look at all the preseason rags, and you'll see that most of 'em believed the Vikings were second only to the Eagles in the NFC. They averaged 23 ppg without Moss last year (versus 26 ppg with him), so no one could have forseen their total implosion on offense. The Vike's problem was that their defense surrendered 29 ppg in their losses, including a whopping nine games where they gave up 25+ points. They appeared to have fixed the defense with the additions of Sam Cowart, Napolean Harris, Fred Smoot, Darren Sharper and Pat Williams. Most pundits believed they were a shoe-in for the playoffs.

Steve4192
10-09-2005, 10:43 AM
My definition of "elite" is Top 5 at their position. Nobody on the Bengals outside of Chad Johson is elite (as of now).
I dunno about that.

Big Willie is a no-doubter as a top five RT.

Carson is certainly playing like a top five guy at QB. Dating back to last season, he has a string of 7 or 8 consecutive games with a triple-digit passer rating. Outside of Brady/Peyton, I can't think of anyone who is clearly better than Carson.

Rudi and Tory James are coming off pro-bowl appearances. Deltha O'Neal will be there this year. Barring injury, Madieu Williams and Odell Thurman are both going to make their share of pro-bowls in the near future.

Steve4192
10-09-2005, 10:47 AM
Deltha O'Neal is a good corner but will he keep it up all season and revert back to his early Denver form?
I have to assume you meant his LATE Denver form, because O'Neal's EARLY Denver form was leading the NFL in interceptions and a trip to Hawaii in 2001. Take a look at O'Neal's career and you will see his recent performance is pretty much in line with the norm, and his 2003 struggles are looking more and more like an outlier. I think we ARE seeing Deltha revert to his early Denver form as one of the best ballhawks in the league.

Cedric
10-09-2005, 11:46 AM
Willie Anderson is elite. Shayne Graham is pretty much elite as his position. Carson Palmer is for sure elite.

wheels
10-09-2005, 01:29 PM
I'd go as far to say that the entire offensive unit is elite.

They've got so many weapons at the skill positions that it boggles the mind, coupled with a scheme that maximizes them, and a big armed to QB to get them the ball...And, oh yeah, they don't turn the ball over.

The offensive line is banged up, but they've got depth there that most teams covet.

Credit is due there, and they'll get it when the dust clears on this season.

Is it good enough to get them to the Super Bowl?

Not yet, but give the defense another year to catch up, and it won't be such an iffy proposition.

kheidg-
10-10-2005, 01:49 AM
There aren't four QBs in the NFL I take right now over Carson Palmer.

Peyton Manning and Mike Vick. That's it.



4 QB's ight now? Yes I can think of a few and Vick isn't one of them. Tom Brady, Brett Farve, Donovan McNabb, Peyton Manning. Also I think I'd have to strongly think of taking Matt Hasselbeck, Steve McNair, Daunte Culpepper, and Marc Bulger before Carson.


Nobody has got 2 "Elite" receivers if they're following your definition.

Who has two of the top five WRs in the game? That's a silly definition of determining TJ's eliteness. Is he one of the top five slot receivers in the game? One of the top five #2 receivers in the game? YES.

Good point. I wasn't trying to imply that TJ wasn't a very good #2 receiver.


Look at the offensive line as a whole. Is it one of the top five in the game? Who knows for sure, but it's sure as heck up there.

Wasn't really thinking of the line as a whole. More of individual players.


How many "Elite" players does Philly have?
Two and Donovan?

I would say these guys would all be Top 5 at their position: Donovan McNabb, Brian Dawkins, Jeramiah Trotter, David Akers, Michael Lewis, Tra Thomas.

Lito Sheppard, Sheldon Brown, Hank Fraley, Jevon Kearse, Jon Runyan would all have to get consideration.

kheidg-
10-10-2005, 01:51 AM
I'll grant you that Houston stinks, but from what I've seen of the Browns, Crennell is going to lead them to respectability THIS year. If Marvin Lewis could turn a horrid 2-14 squad into a 0.500 team, I see no reason to think Romeo can't do the same with the 4-12 Browns team he inherited. They have played everyone tough and their two losses are to teams with a combined 8-0 record. Don't be shocked to see the Browns win 7 or 8 games this year.


Good call on the Browns, another win today. Maybe not as bad as I thought, but still not a playoff team.

kheidg-
10-10-2005, 01:53 AM
I have to assume you meant his LATE Denver form, because O'Neal's EARLY Denver form was leading the NFL in interceptions and a trip to Hawaii in 2001. Take a look at O'Neal's career and you will see his recent performance is pretty much in line with the norm, and his 2003 struggles are looking more and more like an outlier. I think we ARE seeing Deltha revert to his early Denver form as one of the best ballhawks in the league.

Exactly what I said. Deltha returning to his EARLY Denver form. I never said late Denver form.

kheidg-
10-10-2005, 01:54 AM
I'd go as far to say that the entire offensive unit is elite.

They've got so many weapons at the skill positions that it boggles the mind, coupled with a scheme that maximizes them, and a big armed to QB to get them the ball...And, oh yeah, they don't turn the ball over.



Ooops...

Jaycint
10-10-2005, 11:20 AM
Ooops...

Couldn't resist huh? Why even feign objectivity in this discussion? And your list of "elite" Philly players is way off by the way. WilyMO got it right when he listed McNabb and TO. None of those other scrubs you named belong in a list of "elite" players. Maybe Akers, but let's be honest, he's a kicker. And if you're gonna run guys like Tra Thomas out there as elite then Willie Anderson is ultra-elite.

By the way I can assure you that if you were one of the 32 NFL GM's today you would be the one and only that would take Matt Hasselback, Marc Bulger, or Steve McNair over Palmer. Even Favre at this point in his career almost no one would take him over Palmer. The list of QB's CLEARLY better than Palmer starts and ends with Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Donovan McNabb.

wheels
10-10-2005, 11:43 AM
Ooops...

:rolleyes:

Jaycint
10-10-2005, 11:50 AM
:rolleyes:

He's obviously only here for one reason wheels. There's a big ole Bengal hating troll just desperatley trying to break out from underneath his skin.

westofyou
10-10-2005, 11:52 AM
1960

Jaycint
10-10-2005, 11:59 AM
1960


http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nfl/philly/1960Eagles2.JPG

I tried to do a zoom on the pic but I couldn't find Kearse or McNabb or Westbrook or Tra Thomas or David Akers in this pic. :)

redsfan30
10-10-2005, 12:03 PM
After sleeping on it, I'm very proud of the effort the Bengals put forth last night. The Bengals of old would have rolled over and played dead after being down 13-0 early on the road against a good team. Not this group. They fought all the way back and were in a very good position to win that football game in the last 2 minutes.

This team is going to win some more football games. Just don't tell that to kheidg.

kyred14
10-10-2005, 12:27 PM
This team is going to win some more football games. Just don't tell that to kheidg.

Not without Matt Hasselbeck. ;) :rolleyes:

Blimpie
10-10-2005, 01:13 PM
Where's the love for Trent Green in this thread? By far...the most underrated QB in the league...seriously.

kheidg-
10-10-2005, 03:20 PM
Where's the love for Trent Green in this thread? By far...the most underrated QB in the league...seriously.

Forgot about Trent Green. I think I may take Palmer over him though...

kheidg-
10-10-2005, 03:23 PM
He's obviously only here for one reason wheels. There's a big ole Bengal hating troll just desperatley trying to break out from underneath his skin.

I don't hate the Bengals, never have. In fact, I kinda like them. If you actually read my posts I am simply saying that you guys are overestimating how good this team really is.

As far as me only being here for one reason, that reason is good discussion. I've been a member on this board for a very long time and to say that I am a troll is very far from the truth.

kheidg-
10-10-2005, 03:26 PM
Not without Matt Hasselbeck. ;) :rolleyes:

Give me a reason that Hasselbeck is worse than Palmer. In fact, if you check the statistics last year they are pretty much even with the edge given to Hasselbeck. I'd love to see what he could do with a stud receiver like Chad Johnson.

ochre
10-10-2005, 03:35 PM
Give me a reason that Hasselbeck is worse than Palmer. In fact, if you check the statistics last year they are pretty much even with the edge given to Hasselbeck. I'd love to see what he could do with a stud receiver like Chad Johnson.
While Johnson might be a stud, you are placing too much emphasis on the impact he provides Palmer. The thing I am most impressed with about Palmer is how well he moves the ball around. They missed TJ as much last night as they would have missed Johnson if he were out, if not more.

kheidg-
10-10-2005, 03:46 PM
Couldn't resist huh? Why even feign objectivity in this discussion? And your list of "elite" Philly players is way off by the way. WilyMO got it right when he listed McNabb and TO. None of those other scrubs you named belong in a list of "elite" players. Maybe Akers, but let's be honest, he's a kicker. And if you're gonna run guys like Tra Thomas out there as elite then Willie Anderson is ultra-elite.


I would say Willie Anderson and Tra Thomas are about even. I don't see where you get off saying Tra Thomas is elite and Anderson ultra-elite.

Name 5 free safeties better than Brian Dawkins.
Name 5 middle line backers better than Jeramiah Trotter.
Name 5 corner backs better than Lito Sheppard and Sheldon Brown.
Name 5 strong safeties better than Michael Lewis.

Sheppard and Brown are young and maybe shouldn't be included on this list, but...


Dave Spadaro, of PhiladelphiaEagles.com, citing a report by Sports Illustrated's Paul Zimmerman, reports Philadelphia Eagles CB Sheldon Brown only allowed one touchdown despite facing 117 passes last season. Furthermore, Brown allowed a mere two completions on 24 deep passes, which ranked second in the league.

As far as Tra Thomas. Try to name 5 better left tackles. It will be pretty hard considering Thomas' resume.


Earned his fourth selection to the NFC Pro Bowl squad in 2004, but did not play in the game. Also named All-NFC by Pro Football Weekly.

Earned his third Pro Bowl selection his first as a starter, in 2002. He, RT Jon Runyan, and RG Jermane Mayberry were the first trio of Eagles offensive linemen to ever go to the Pro Bowl in one season.

Also an All-Pro selection in 2002 by AP, The Sporting News, USA Today Sports Weekly. Was also named All-NFC by Pro Football Weekly.


Brian Westbrook, Jevon Kearse, and Jon Runyan also deserve legitimate consideration.

kheidg-
10-10-2005, 03:50 PM
While Johnson might be a stud, you are placing too much emphasis on the impact he provides Palmer. The thing I am most impressed with about Palmer is how well he moves the ball around. They missed TJ as much last night as they would have missed Johnson if he were out, if not more.

Not to slight TJ, he is a good player. But Palmers TD/INT was 18/18 last year. To say that he would have had an even TD/INT ratio without CJ's 9 TDs is far fetched.

ochre
10-10-2005, 04:02 PM
Not to slight TJ, he is a good player. But Palmers TD/INT was 18/18 last year. To say that he would have had an even TD/INT ratio without CJ's 9 TDs is far fetched.
I'm talking about right now. Based on observing the games. I'm talking about the types of routes TJ runs. Chris Henry is much more like CJ, than he is like TJ. The overall impact on last night's game is what I was referring to. You know, the part where I said "they missed TJ ... last night".

Its 9 TDs to 2 INTs so far this year by the way. I guess that doesn't factor into the discussion. Go on, beating your drum though. I'm sure you must get some satisfaction out of the dead horse like thumps it makes.

redsfan30
10-10-2005, 04:02 PM
Not to slight TJ, he is a good player. But Palmers TD/INT was 18/18 last year. To say that he would have had an even TD/INT ratio without CJ's 9 TDs is far fetched.
His "rookie" year, of course he's going to go more for his playmaker. Why wouldn't he?

One thing he has learned is that he's got so much other talent to work with other than Chad that it's scary. He trusts his 2 through 4 recievers and probably wouldn't have a problem at all going to any one of them in any situation.

kheidg-
10-10-2005, 04:18 PM
I'm talking about right now. Based on observing the games. I'm talking about the types of routes TJ runs. Chris Henry is much more like CJ, than he is like TJ. The overall impact on last night's game is what I was referring to. You know, the part where I said "they missed TJ ... last night".

Its 9 TDs to 2 INTs so far this year by the way. I guess that doesn't factor into the discussion. Go on, beating your drum though. I'm sure you must get some satisfaction out of the dead horse like thumps it makes.

I realized that you were referring to last night with TJ. I just thought I would throw in last years stats when you said I was putting too much emphasis on how much CJ means to Palmer. 9 TD's 2 INT's so far this year, pretty damn impressive. Lets see him keep it up before we rush to any judgements. What has impressed me this season however, is Carson's tendancy to spread the ball around more - which only will do great things for the Palmer/Johnson/TJ combo.

Boss-Hog
10-10-2005, 04:54 PM
It's 11 TD's and 2 INT's after last night's game

ochre
10-10-2005, 05:07 PM
It's 11 TD's and 2 INT's after last night's game
My bad. The Bengals.com still had him as 9 and 2.

Oh yeah, Palmer and Hasselhof have one opponent in common. Compare their lines :)

Jaycint
10-10-2005, 05:45 PM
I would say Willie Anderson and Tra Thomas are about even. I don't see where you get off saying Tra Thomas is elite and Anderson ultra-elite.

Name 5 free safeties better than Brian Dawkins.
Name 5 middle line backers better than Jeramiah Trotter.
Name 5 corner backs better than Lito Sheppard and Sheldon Brown.
Name 5 strong safeties better than Michael Lewis.

Sheppard and Brown are young and maybe shouldn't be included on this list, but...


As far as Tra Thomas. Try to name 5 better left tackles. It will be pretty hard considering Thomas' resume.



Brian Westbrook, Jevon Kearse, and Jon Runyan also deserve legitimate consideration.




Name 5 free safeties better than Brian Dawkins.

Ed Reed
Roy Williams
Rodney Harrison (when healthy)
Tony Parrish
Troy Polamalu



Name 5 middle line backers better than Jeramiah Trotter.

Ray Lewis
Brian Urlacher
Jonathan Vilma
Zach Thomas
James Farrior
Ted Bruschi (when healthy)



Name 5 corner backs better than Lito Sheppard and Sheldon Brown.

Chris McAlister
Champ Bailey
Ty Law
Nate Clements
Gary Baxter



As far as Tra Thomas. Try to name 5 better left tackles. It will be pretty hard considering Thomas' resume.

Orlando Pace
Walter Jones
Jonathan Ogden
Flozell Adams
Jordan Gross
Chris Samuels
John Tait
Willie Roaf



Brian Westbrook, Jevon Kearse, and Jon Runyan also deserve legitimate consideration.

If Westbrook gets consideration then Rudi does. I mean it's borderline homerism to say he deserves consideration in the top 5 RB's in football. Jevon Kearse is a shell of what he was in Tennessee. I can count how many times I've seen a Sportscenter highlight of him this year on, well let's see, no fingers.

By the way I seriously doubt that you really like the Bengals and enjoy watching them play. It's one thing to say that but then you contradict it with the rest of your posts. I don't think any people on here have the feeling that the Bengals are headed to the Super Bowl. Playoffs? Yeah. Super Bowl? No. People are excited about it and I get the feeling from reading your posts that you don't want Cincy fans to be able to have that excited feeling about the NFL. Like excitement is some precious little commodity that Bengals fans don't yet deserve.

kheidg-
10-10-2005, 06:43 PM
Ed Reed
Roy Williams
Rodney Harrison (when healthy)
Tony Parrish
Troy Polamalu

Roy Williams, Tony Parrish, and Troy Polamalu are not better than Dawkins.



Ray Lewis
Brian Urlacher
Jonathan Vilma
Zach Thomas
James Farrior
Ted Bruschi (when healthy)

A very good bunch. Lewis, Urlacher and Thomas likely got him beat but I wouldn't say any of the others are any better than Trotter.



Chris McAlister
Champ Bailey
Ty Law
Nate Clements
Gary Baxter

Ty Law is better. I would not say that any of these other guys are better than Brown or Sheppard. Clements is about as good as either of them. Champ Bailey and McAlister are good but they are as overrated as they come. There is no way Gary Baxter is as good.



Orlando Pace
Walter Jones
Jonathan Ogden
Flozell Adams
Jordan Gross
Chris Samuels
John Tait
Willie Roaf


Maybe Pace, Roaf, Ogden and Adams. But the rest of these guys aren't any better than Thomas.





If Westbrook gets consideration then Rudi does. I mean it's borderline homerism to say he deserves consideration in the top 5 RB's in football.


Teams don't have to plan to stop Rudi like they do Westbrook. Westbrook is the best receiving RB in football.



By the way I seriously doubt that you really like the Bengals and enjoy watching them play. It's one thing to say that but then you contradict it with the rest of your posts.

I would like to know where I said I hate the Bengals. Also, is it a requirement that if you post on this board and love the Reds that you must love the Bengals as well? I am simply stating (as I have many times throughout this thread) that you have an horribly unrealistic view of what your team really is because they played 4 crappy teams prior to this week.



I don't think any people on here have the feeling that the Bengals are headed to the Super Bowl. Playoffs? Yeah. Super Bowl? No. People are excited about it and I get the feeling from reading your posts that you don't want Cincy fans to be able to have that excited feeling about the NFL. Like excitement is some precious little commodity that Bengals fans don't yet deserve.

Good job buddy. You feel better? You can have all the excitement you want just don't go have a hissy fit when someone tells you their opinion.

Jaycint
10-10-2005, 08:08 PM
Roy Williams, Tony Parrish, and Troy Polamalu are not better than Dawkins.


A very good bunch. Lewis, Urlacher and Thomas likely got him beat but I wouldn't say any of the others are any better than Trotter.


Ty Law is better. I would not say that any of these other guys are better than Brown or Sheppard. Clements is about as good as either of them. Champ Bailey and McAlister are good but they are as overrated as they come. There is no way Gary Baxter is as good.



Maybe Pace, Roaf, Ogden and Adams. But the rest of these guys aren't any better than Thomas.





Teams don't have to plan to stop Rudi like they do Westbrook. Westbrook is the best receiving RB in football.


I would like to know where I said I hate the Bengals. Also, is it a requirement that if you post on this board and love the Reds that you must love the Bengals as well? I am simply stating (as I have many times throughout this thread) that you have an horribly unrealistic view of what your team really is because they played 4 crappy teams prior to this week.



Good job buddy. You feel better? You can have all the excitement you want just don't go have a hissy fit when someone tells you their opinion.


1. I'm not your buddy.

2. I'm not having a fit, you are because you're afraid the Bengals are moving out of the nice little comfortable corner that you and all the other haters have had them in for the last 15 years. I mean, who will you make fun of now?

3. I guess it's up to personal opinion whether or not you think the guys I listed are better than your beloved Eagles that you think all are in the fast lane to Canton, OH.

4. My view of this team isn't unrealistic. Are you saying that this team isn't playoff caliber? I stated earlier we will make the playoffs but not the Superbowl. Explain to me how that's unrealistic.

5. Westbrook isn't the best receiving RB in football. LT is. Of course you'll just respond and tell me I'm wrong so what's the point.

While we are talking about crappy teams that we have played let's examine the Eagles schedule to date:

San Francisco @ home - Easily the worst team in football. Good job drubbing that powerhouse.

Oakland @ home - One of the worst defenses in football. Oakland has one win against a mediocre Dallas team, that worked you over yesterday by the way.

Atlanta on the road - Look at that, played a quality team and lost.

Kansas City on the road - Were getting their butt handed to them then came back against that 85 Bears-like KC defense.

Dallas on the road - discussed above.

So I wouldn't be talking about the Bengals weak schedule if I were you. Reminds me of an old saying about glass houses and stones.

kheidg-
10-11-2005, 02:12 AM
1. I'm not your buddy.

Okay...


2. I'm not having a fit, you are because you're afraid the Bengals are moving out of the nice little comfortable corner that you and all the other haters have had them in for the last 15 years. I mean, who will you make fun of now?

Sounds like a fit. Sounds like you have some serious issues with people crapping on your team the last 15 years. I'm sorry but it wasn't me. There are still plenty of teams to make fun of, namely the ones that the Bengals played in weeks 1-4.


4. My view of this team isn't unrealistic. Are you saying that this team isn't playoff caliber? I stated earlier we will make the playoffs but not the Superbowl. Explain to me how that's unrealistic.

I wasn't saying you personally. I was saying "you" meaning all of the people that replied saying that the Bengals and Carson Palmer were the next coming of the Cowboys and Troy Aikman. If you re-read any of my posts you will get it.


5. Westbrook isn't the best receiving RB in football. LT is. Of course you'll just respond and tell me I'm wrong so what's the point.

This isn't a post against you, I don't understand why you think I am attacking you by just disputing your claims with facts.

LT is likely the best receiving back, but Westbrook isn't but an inch behind. Check out the stats.

Westbrook (33 games) 135 catches- 1327 YDS - 44.8 YPG - 10.1 AVG 13 TDs
Tomlinson (35 games) 162 catches - 1228 YDS - 30.0 YPG - 7.5 AVG 5 TDs

I'd say the edge almost goes to Westbrook.


While we are talking about crappy teams that we have played let's examine the Eagles schedule to date:

San Francisco @ home - Easily the worst team in football. Good job drubbing that powerhouse.

Oakland @ home - One of the worst defenses in football. Oakland has one win against a mediocre Dallas team, that worked you over yesterday by the way.

Atlanta on the road - Look at that, played a quality team and lost.

Kansas City on the road - Were getting their butt handed to them then came back against that 85 Bears-like KC defense.

Dallas on the road - discussed above.

So I wouldn't be talking about the Bengals weak schedule if I were you. Reminds me of an old sayin about glass houses and stones.

Ask anyone with a half brain in the world and they would tell you that they'd rather play against: at Jacksonville, at Cleveland, vs. Minnesota, vs. Houston, at Chicago rather than who the Eagles played: at KC, at Atlanta, at Dallas, vs. SF, vs. Oakland.

It isn't even a comparison. I don't understand how you could think it is. KC, Atlanta, and Dallas are all playoff caliber teams. Oakland's defense isn't near as bad as you say it is. The are 1-3 but all three games they lost have been close: at Philadelphia (lost by 3), at New England (10), vs. KC (6). Not exactly blowouts and not exactly against poor teams.

Jaycint
10-11-2005, 09:19 AM
Sounds like a fit. Sounds like you have some serious issues with people crapping on your team the last 15 years. I'm sorry but it wasn't me. There are still plenty of teams to make fun of, namely the ones that the Bengals played in weeks 1-4.


Yeah I do have issues with people crapping on my team. You're right. And I get the feeling that's what you are doing when you make comments about how we haven't played anybody, Steve McNair is a better QB than Palmer, etc etc etc.



I wasn't saying you personally. I was saying "you" meaning all of the people that replied saying that the Bengals and Carson Palmer were the next coming of the Cowboys and Troy Aikman. If you re-read any of my posts you will get it.

It's not just people on this board comparing Palmer to Aikman and the Bengals offense in general the early 90's Cowboys. If I had a dollar for every analyst I have heard make the comparison I wouldn't have to pay for lunch this whole week. You act like it's only poor misinformed Bengal fans having delusions of grandeur or something.



This isn't a post against you, I don't understand why you think I am attacking you by just disputing your claims with facts.

LT is likely the best receiving back, but Westbrook isn't but an inch behind. Check out the stats.

Westbrook (33 games) 135 catches- 1327 YDS - 44.8 YPG - 10.1 AVG 13 TDs
Tomlinson (35 games) 162 catches - 1228 YDS - 30.0 YPG - 7.5 AVG 5 TDs

I'd say the edge almost goes to Westbrook.

Nice numbers and yes they are comparable stats wise in the receiving game but let's be honest, who are you taking on your team if you have a choice?

Running backs I would rather have than Westbrook:
LT
Priest
Alexander
McGahee
Edge
Julius Jones
Deuce
Jamal Lewis

That's just off the top of my head though, there could be a few more.



Ask anyone with a half brain in the world and they would tell you that they'd rather play against: at Jacksonville, at Cleveland, vs. Minnesota, vs. Houston, at Chicago rather than who the Eagles played: at KC, at Atlanta, at Dallas, vs. SF, vs. Oakland.

It isn't even a comparison. I don't understand how you could think it is. KC, Atlanta, and Dallas are all playoff caliber teams. Oakland's defense isn't near as bad as you say it is. The are 1-3 but all three games they lost have been close: at Philadelphia (lost by 3), at New England (10), vs. KC (6). Not exactly blowouts and not exactly against poor teams.

Oh so now who's being sensitive and defending their team's schedule? You're right, KC, Atlanta and Dallas are all playoff caliber teams, and you lost two of three, would have been three for three if KC's defense wasn't doing their best mid-90's Bengals impression.

Uh actually yeah, Oakland's defense IS as bad as I say it is. They are currently 29th out of 32 teams in total defense. Decent against the run but absolutely horrible against the pass, which I'm guessing if I went and looked is how you guys beat the crap out of them.

By the way please don't try to defend KC as some sort of world beater. You wanna talk about a paper tiger they are the perfect example. No defense to speak of and unless they jump out early, heck sometimes even when they do jump out early, they fold up like a cheap tent.

So see I could sit here and rip apart the Eagles schedule if I wanted to too. Not a single victory on that list that makes me say "Damn, that's impressive".

My point is regardless of the Bengals schedule to date they have beaten those teams and done it decisively. In the past they would have scraped by on a field goal or lost by a field goal to the teams they have played so far. This year they have dominated them like they should, like any good team would. They played a team in Jax Sunday night that is comparable in talent and lost at the end of the game on the road. Nothing horrible in that, if the game was here we probably win.

kheidg-
10-11-2005, 03:35 PM
Yeah I do have issues with people crapping on my team. You're right. And I get the feeling that's what you are doing when you make comments about how we haven't played anybody, Steve McNair is a better QB than Palmer, etc etc etc.



In case you forgot Steve McNair was MVP of the NFL just two years ago. Not a bad person to be worse than.



Nice numbers and yes they are comparable stats wise in the receiving game but let's be honest, who are you taking on your team if you have a choice?

Running backs I would rather have than Westbrook:
LT
Priest
Alexander
McGahee
Edge
Julius Jones
Deuce
Jamal Lewis

That's just off the top of my head though, there could be a few more.


RBs I'd rather have than Westy: LT, Alexander, Edge. That is only 3. Give me a reason why you'd take McGahee, Julius, Deuce (who is out with yet another season ending injury), Lewis (who basically has quit on his team). Priest is understandable but these other guys are not as good as of yet.



Uh actually yeah, Oakland's defense IS as bad as I say it is. They are currently 29th out of 32 teams in total defense. Decent against the run but absolutely horrible against the pass, which I'm guessing if I went and looked is how you guys beat the crap out of them.


Only if you say so. They aren't good, I'll give you that. They have only given up 30 points once this season. There are worse defenses out there. The Eagles beat every team by the pass, not the run. Westy did average over 5 yards per carry though...

WMR
10-11-2005, 04:40 PM
Ummm, I'd take Rudi over Westbrook too. Put Westbrook in an offense where he actually has to run between the tackles and he's towards the bottom of the pack. The dude can catch, but he isn't even a true RB.

Boss-Hog
10-11-2005, 06:02 PM
Deuce (who is out with yet another season ending injury)

Isn't this the first time he's suffered a season ending injury in the NFL?

Jaycint
10-11-2005, 10:07 PM
Isn't this the first time he's suffered a season ending injury in the NFL?

Yeah I think so. He missed 3 or 4 games with a high ankle sprain last year but it didn't end his season.

kheidg-
10-12-2005, 03:16 AM
Yeah I think so. He missed 3 or 4 games with a high ankle sprain last year but it didn't end his season.

You're right. But he was injured for the better part of the season last year but played through it (which I suppose is justification for his numbers being down).

Jaycint
10-12-2005, 09:34 AM
You're right. But he was injured for the better part of the season last year but played through it (which I suppose is justification for his numbers being down).

To me it's really sad that Deuce has a case of china doll syndrome. I think if his health wasn't a question he would be mentioned in the same breath with the top 3 or 4 backs in the league.