My personal opinion in that TJ is better than Chad and I would not trade either of them.
They should never have let Steinbach go. Big mistake. IMO, the difference between the Browns and Bengals in 2007 (3 games) was Steinbach.
My personal opinion in that TJ is better than Chad and I would not trade either of them.
They should never have let Steinbach go. Big mistake. IMO, the difference between the Browns and Bengals in 2007 (3 games) was Steinbach.
or it was two starting OT being injured most of the year, having no running game... having to play games with 5th string line backers.Originally Posted by BuckeyeRedleg
Just saw on ESPNews that he Bengals don't expect to trade Chad
I think the benefit the Bengals had with Steinbach over what they had this year was that Steinbach can slide over to tackle or center when the starter gets hurt at those positions. I would have felt better with Steinbach in there as Ghiachuc's backup than Stepanovich. I don't know it it would have made a three-game difference, but I think the running game would have been better with Steinbach than it was without him.
Wear gaudy colors, or avoid display. Lay a million eggs or give birth to one. The fittest shall survive, yet the unfit may live. Be like your ancestors or be different. We must repeat!
Nah, it was Steinbach. Having him would have helped the first two reasons on your list (injuries to OL and running game).
As for the defense, even with it's cursed luck and injuries, it still was better than Cleveland's with all that went wrong.
Letting Steinbach go was preventable and inexcusable, unlike injuries and bad luck.
Just beating the Browns in Cleveland is a two game swing. I think Steinbach was worth that and 1 more game.
We were a 8 win team with steinbach in 06 and a 7 win team with out him + all those problems in 07... Im going to go with Solid QB play and having a starting RB that was worthy of the position had more to do with the Browns winning 10 games than 1 free agent guard
That's good news. It can keep the focus where it needs to be--the D
And they went 11-5 with him in 2005. 11 + 8 + 8 = 27 wins in three years. That's nine wins a year. Then they win 7 this year. There's two wins right there. Beating Cleveland with one of those two puts them at 9-7 and us at 9-7. There's the three games I'm talking about.
Good OL's produce good RB's. Unless you are talking LT or Westbrook, etc. RB's are a dime a dozen. It's what up front that counts.
Thats the most confusing thing ive ever read. You cant pin anything on 1 player... what if Thurman was a part of us winning 11 games in 05, he very well could have been... you cant just say well its because Steinbach . Us beating the browns in Cleveland wouldnt have made us a 9-7 team... it would have made us an 8-8 team im not really sure what you even mean by that general statement.
Steinbach was a good player but he isnt the sole reason like you are trying to make him out to be. Browns drafted Joe Thomas, added a proven NFL back with a mission and found a semi decent QB. Thats where their wins came from not just the addition of Steinbach.
Hey, Bip.
Lighten up.
Wow brilliant
The Bipster is very angry.
If you say so.
No need to get angry, Bipster. We're having a discussion on Bengal football. Nobody should get to upset over a discussion such as this.
My opinion is that a guy like Steinbach was the difference between the Browns and Bengals and it's not that difficult to formulate this opinion. They barely lost to the Browns in Cleveland and they lost a few other games they very easily could have won. Especially when you consider that both Willie and Levi played hurt all year and the running game (as you said) struggled. One more dominant lineman gives them flexibility with those injuries and opens up the running game, which in turn, makes Carson not a sitting duck back there.
Beat Cleveland and Cleveland is 9-7 right there. Win one other game (which was easily possible consdiering they lost a few close ones) and the Bengals are 9-7.
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