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.
Help stamp out, eliminate, and do away with redundancy.
The Bengals point differential is awesome.
And likely to stay that way after playing Houston this week.Originally Posted by westofyou
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!
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.
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.
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.
Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum.
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.
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.
We'll burn that bridge when we get to it.
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.
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.
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.
We'll burn that bridge when we get to it.
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.
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
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.
Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote