Bengals/Broncos: Bengals can clinch WC

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by Playadlc

It has nothing to do with the Bengals. The Jets have no talent, they benefited from a soft schedule, and slipped into the playoffs because of it.

I am not even sure if they are an average football team.

Seriously, this team lost to Cleveland.

As good as time as any for a step on to the soapbox. The NFL's "parity" scheduling method needs to go. It is patently unfair to have unbalanced schedules based on prior year performances. All teams should be given similar schedules, not the playoff teams from the prior year drawing the top of the non-division and non-conference games in the following year.

[George Foster]

Originally Posted by traderumor

As good as time as any for a step on to the soapbox. The NFL's "parity" scheduling method needs to go. It is patently unfair to have unbalanced schedules based on prior year performances. All teams should be given similar schedules, not the playoff teams from the prior year drawing the top of the non-division and non-conference games in the following year.

I agree. The Bengals playing New England, New Orleans, Colts, Denver, San Diego is brutal. But when you go 1-4 against these teams and lose to Tampa, you have to depend on Plunkett starting for the Raiders on Sunday

[macro]

Originally Posted by traderumor

As good as time as any for a step on to the soapbox. The NFL's "parity" scheduling method needs to go. It is patently unfair to have unbalanced schedules based on prior year performances. All teams should be given similar schedules, not the playoff teams from the prior year drawing the top of the non-division and non-conference games in the following year.

But there are only two games per season that are based on the previous year's finish. Fourteen of the sixteen games are already set for all NFL teams through the 2009 season.

[guttle11]

Originally Posted by macro

But there are only two games per season that are based on the previous year's finish. Fourteen of the sixteen games are already set for all NFL teams through the 2009 season.

But even that's horribly wrong. If you finish first or fourth, you should get a first and last place team in those games. If you finish second or third, you should get a second and third place team.

Last place teams should have to earn their way back to the top, not be given mediocrity.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by macro

But there are only two games per season that are based on the previous year's finish. Fourteen of the sixteen games are already set for all NFL teams through the 2009 season.

When the playoffs come down to the final week, you can see how those two games unfairly swing the schedule in favor of the perennial mediocre team, or the upstart team. Add to that it unfairly penalizes teams that happen to play in a tough division like the AFC North, and you have inequity that could be resolved by doing everything they can to make similar strength schedules.

[macro]

Originally Posted by guttle11

But even that's horribly wrong. If you finish first or fourth, you should get a first and last place team in those games. If you finish second or third, you should get a second and third place team.

Last place teams should have to earn their way back to the top, not be given mediocrity.

I hadn't thought about it that way, but you have a point. But the idea of "helping out" the last-place finishers while "punishing" the division winners was developed by Pete Rozelle back in the 70s. It has worked well for the league. At least there are only two games a year that are based on that these days.

Back in the days of 28 teams, the system you speak of was used for games within the conference. First-place teams played the first- and fourth-place teams in the other two divisions within the conference. In total, six games per season were determined by the previous year's finish.

[forfreelin04]

Originally Posted by guttle11

But even that's horribly wrong. If you finish first or fourth, you should get a first and last place team in those games. If you finish second or third, you should get a second and third place team.

Last place teams should have to earn their way back to the top, not be given mediocrity.

I disagree I think that's the beauty of the NFL system. It keeps the great teams on top of their game and gives the lowly teams a chance to make the playoffs if they play above average.

Last year, the Bengals had a great schedule, the Ravens were injured on defense and lacked a mistake free quarterback, and they played the NFC North (playing Minnesota in the midst of the Loveboat incident, Green Bay the guy running on the field to take the ball away from Farve, the Bears quarterback woes, and Matt Millens Detroit Lions speak for themselves). Not to mention, wasn't their a controversial call at the end of the Texan game last year? All these factors played into the Bengals favor and they capitalized.

This year not as many situtations favored the Bengals extrinsically, but they played and coached poorly enough to make those situations even worse. The Tampa loss being a big one, the terrible first quarter at Baltimore, the second half collapse versus San Diego, the terrible game plans versus the Colts and the Falcons, and the lack of execution against a worse team at Denver. The only loss that was truly a loss was the one to New England and that was the given "let down" game. The only win where I felt they truly played a complete game was the 30-0 Browns beating. In KC, they benefited from the loss of Trent Green, they didn't play very well against the Steelers but still won, they lucked out against Carolina, they didn't play that well against a bad Raiders team, Drew Brees threw all over them at NO, they benefited from a bit of trickery against the Ravens, and in the first Browns game they lost their center and their linebacker for the rest of the season. All of these things compiled leads me to believe that the Bengals don't deserve to be in the playoffs because they didn't capatalize on opportunities to win. The Jets have for most of the year. Hats off to them!

[guttle11]

Originally Posted by forfreelin04

This year not as many situtations favored the Bengals extrinsically, but they played and coached poorly enough to make those situations even worse.

I think coaching is overrated. Talent is just as important. IMO an easy schedule can trump a lot of poor play and coaching. The only reason the Jets are in the playoff race is their schedule, there's no two ways about it.

Hats off to them for doing what was placed in front of them, I just don't think it's really fair that a team can have a schedule like that. There's way too big a gap under the current scheduling system.

I'm not just talking about the Bengals. The Jags deserve to go over the Jets, IMO. They beat them 41-0 and had a tougher schedule.

[WMR]

Originally Posted by Jpup

I do and that's what matters. Besides I know, at least, 1 other poster that does. I don't care about UK basketball or Bengal football, but it doesn't concern me if you do. Have a great day.

Actually what matters is that this is a Bengals thread. If you want to talk about Vince Young and the indomitable Tennessee Titans, start a thread about them.

You'll notice I and everyone else keeps respective discussions, whether it be about the foibles of Tubby Smith or the inherent evilness of Ohio State, in their respective threads.

Thank you for wishing me a great day. Good day to you as well.

[forfreelin04]

Originally Posted by guttle11

I think coaching is overrated. Talent is just as important. IMO an easy schedule can trump a lot of poor play and coaching. The only reason the Jets are in the playoff race is their schedule, there's no two ways about it.

Hats off to them for doing what was placed in front of them, I just don't think it's really fair that a team can have a schedule like that. There's way too big a gap under the current scheduling system.

I'm not just talking about the Bengals. The Jags deserve to go over the Jets, IMO. They beat them 41-0 and had a tougher schedule.

I'm going to totally agree with you on the Jets schedule. I had thought they beat some legit teams besides NE. After looking at the schedule, you are absolutely right. But, keep in mind, the Bengals had an easy schedule last year too which benefited them in getting to the playoffs and winning the division. I mean what was their toughest game last year: Indy at home, at Jacksonville, at Steelers? They won only one of those. This year the schedule demanded some improvement. I think it is obvious they have gotten worse thanks to injuries this year, the off the field problems, and bad schemes and play calling. Of course, I attribute most of the problems this year to a lack of execution by the players, but coaching played a big role.

I cannot agree with you on coaching in football being overrated. I think in some instances your agrument is certainly viable. Peyton Manning for example would probably thrive under any coach or the fact that Marvin has yet to improve the Bengals defense when he had such a great defense in Baltimore. Certainly, the Ravens defensive players far trump the Bengals in this category.

But..... I point towards the game plan and play calling. In baseball, your arguement holds weight. Since all the manager does is set the lineup, choose pitchers to pitch, and has certain control over situations such as bunting, stealing, or the occasional infield shift. But, in football, it's different. The coach is inside the quarterback's helmet calling alot of the plays. The coaches also draw up the plays. Especially, on the defensive side of the ball, the coach decides how to match up with that offense. Manning, himself, couldn't believe the Bengals game plan. It was like Jerry Narron playing his entire defense on the warning track so teams don't hit homeruns in GABP. In football, you have to play to the strengths of your team. Any idiot would have realized the reason why the Jags walloped the Colts was they have cut back runners. Rudi is, nor never has been, this. This was a flaw in COACHING. Also, how many times do the Bengals throw an incompletion on first down and then run the ball on second down? My guess is you've probably seen that alot. That's predictable play calling. The Broncos became wise to this and started putting more men in the box on second down after an incompletion. Dave Lapham pointed this out midway through the game and the Bengals continued to do it! This is bad coaching!!!

Finally, coaching is not overrated in football because the coach is supposed to make his great players better and his average players great. A great example is OSU. John Cooper terrible coach, but did he have talent Wow!! That is not to say that the Tressel coached teams are not talented, but he won a championship with Craig Krenzel! He may win another championship with yet another quarterback that probably won't even sniff the first round of the draft! That's good coaching...... I know its college, but its unlikely good coaching just disappears in the pros.

[guttle11]

Originally Posted by forfreelin04

I'm going to totally agree with you on the Jets schedule. I had thought they beat some legit teams besides NE. After looking at the schedule, you are absolutely right. But, keep in mind, the Bengals had an easy schedule last year too which benefited them in getting to the playoffs and winning the division. I mean what was their toughest game last year: Indy at home, at Jacksonville, at Steelers? They won only one of those. This year the schedule demanded some improvement. I think it is obvious they have gotten worse thanks to injuries this year, the off the field problems, and bad schemes and play calling. Of course, I attribute most of the problems this year to a lack of execution by the players, but coaching played a big role.

I cannot agree with you on coaching in football being overrated. I think in some instances your agrument is certainly viable. Peyton Manning for example would probably thrive under any coach or the fact that Marvin has yet to improve the Bengals defense when he had such a great defense in Baltimore. Certainly, the Ravens defensive players far trump the Bengals in this category.

But..... I point towards the game plan and play calling. In baseball, your arguement holds weight. Since all the manager does is set the lineup, choose pitchers to pitch, and has certain control over situations such as bunting, stealing, or the occasional infield shift. But, in football, it's different. The coach is inside the quarterback's helmet calling alot of the plays. The coaches also draw up the plays. Especially, on the defensive side of the ball, the coach decides how to match up with that offense. Manning, himself, couldn't believe the Bengals game plan. It was like Jerry Narron playing his entire defense on the warning track so teams don't hit homeruns in GABP. In football, you have to play to the strengths of your team. Any idiot would have realized the reason why the Jags walloped the Colts was they have cut back runners. Rudi is, nor never has been, this. This was a flaw in COACHING. Also, how many times do the Bengals throw an incompletion on first down and then run the ball on second down? My guess is you've probably seen that alot. That's predictable play calling. The Broncos became wise to this and started putting more men in the box on second down after an incompletion. Dave Lapham pointed this out midway through the game and the Bengals continued to do it! This is bad coaching!!!

Finally, coaching is not overrated in football because the coach is supposed to make his great players better and his average players great. A great example is OSU. John Cooper terrible coach, but did he have talent Wow!! That is not to say that the Tressel coached teams are not talented, but he won a championship with Craig Krenzel! He may win another championship with yet another quarterback that probably won't even sniff the first round of the draft! That's good coaching...... I know its college, but its unlikely good coaching just disappears in the pros.

I agree with you, my point is that I don't think you can put one above the other. It's why I don't buy the Jets being more disciplined and better coached stance some people have taken. I find it hard to believe they'd be anywhere close to the playoffs with the Bengals, Jaguars, or Chiefs schedule. But...rules are rules and them's the breaks.

If the Jets win next Sunday, congrats. I'll wish them the best of luck. However, Go Raiders!

[forfreelin04]

Originally Posted by guttle11

I agree with you, my point is that I don't think you can put one above the other. It's why I don't buy the Jets being more disciplined and better coached stance some people have taken. I find it hard to believe they'd be anywhere close to the playoffs with the Bengals, Jaguars, or Chiefs schedule. But...rules are rules and them's the breaks.

If the Jets win next Sunday, congrats. I'll wish them the best of luck. However, Go Raiders!

Sorry for taking it the wrong way. I agree with you anyone who loses to the Browns does not deserve a shot in the playoffs! Sorry Browns fans..... go Phil Dawson! Go Raiders! And also you might want to cheer for the 49ers (against Broncos) and the Cheifs versus Jags. The second playoff scenario might actually be more likely than the first.

[Oxilon]

I don't understand how rooting for the 49ers (Broncos losing) makes a difference. If the Broncos lose next weekend, they'll have the same record as us. But since they beat us, they'll hold any tiebreaker over us. So, isn't our only chance of getting into the playoffs lie in the Raiders' hands?

[Hoosier Red]

But if the Broncos lose and the Chiefs win, they lose the tie breaker to the chiefs who in turn lose the tie breaker to the Bengals.

[Red Leader]

The NFL definitely needs a BCS-like system. :