Beat - The - COLTS!!!!!!!

[mdccclxix]

No matter what, ya gotta want it and believe it Cincinnati.

BEAT

THE

COLTS!

[thatcoolguy_22]

Well...

BEAT
THE
BENGALS!

[Assembly Hall]

Beat

the

bengals

[bucksfan2]

This thread went south in a hurry.

[Razor Shines]

I don't think I can get on board with the title of this thread.

[Assembly Hall]

This thread went south in a hurry.


I do believe that be North!!!!!!!! LOL

[Donder]

Who do I think gonna beat the Bengals? The Colts.

BEAT

THE

BENGALS!

[Joseph]

If the Bengals don't win I might officially just give up on them. My wife's already converted to, gulp, the Bears. Frankly though at least its fun in Chicago at a game. TheBengals need to win to make it interesting.

[Assembly Hall]

If the Bengals don't win I might officially just give up on them. My wife's already converted to, gulp, the Bears. Frankly though at least its fun in Chicago at a game. TheBengals need to win to make it interesting.

Say what! The Bears? Well she better get used to losing for a few years. LOL At least the Bengals make the play-offs!

[dubc47834]

Colts dont need to beat the Bengals. The Bengals will beat the Bengals!!!

GO COLTS!!!

[mdccclxix]

Go Bengals [emoji110]

[mdccclxix]

The Bengals are hungrier. I can see a 7 point win. Jeremy Hill will have a hay day and make the Colts pay.

[Assembly Hall]

The Bengals are hungrier. I can see a 7 point win. Jeremy Hill will have a hay day and make the Colts pay.

I don't know about that, but that is why they play the games.

[Razor Shines]

The Bengals are hungrier. .

I don't even know what this means.

The Bengals have an overall better team, but the Colts have the best player at the most important position. I give the edge to the Bengals. There would not be a single team in the playoffs that I would feel confident that the Colts would beat. Having Luck at QB always gives the Colts a change against anybody but if the Bengals run the ball well and put together a few long drives it could be a tough night for the Colts.

[GAC]

Irregardless of that earlier stomping by the Colts, this is a different Bengals team and can win this game.

I thought they'd lose to Denver due to their run D being #2 in the NFL, and Dalton being Dalton. The Bengals rushed for 207 yds (Hill 147).

For the most part, Andrew Luck is Indy. Their running game is pretty so-so. Their offensive line is 7th when it comes to pass protection .... Cincy's is 5th though. But Indy's approach is to basically unleash Luck on you, with a pretty talented/diverse receiving corp, and dare you to stop them. But they are sorely lacking a balanced offensive attack. The Cowboys put a hurtin' on Indy. Now granted, Indy had already secured the division, but that was not the reason they got blown out. Dallas' defensive front (rush) is one of the best in the NFL. Indy had one run attempt, while Luck threw the ball 44 times for a grand total of 109 yds. Look what the hapless Browns did vs Indy.... pressure and relying on solid CB play.

The Bengal's defense has played exceptionally well over the last several weeks. But when one looks at how the Bengals have performed vs top 10 teams who posses a solid/elite QB, and excel at passing, they are 1-4. Again, the Bengals have struggled with injuries on defense which has been a factor.... but your secondary is going to face it's biggest test IMO.

So here is my biggest question (concern) for THIS game vs one of the NFL's best QBs/passing offenses..... will your CBs be up to the task? Newman, Jones, and Hall, are vets and good; but is age starting to show? Will more playing time be given to talented young players in Kirkpatrick and Dennard?

But get pressure on Luck and the Bengals have a solid shot IMO.

[cumberlandreds]

I was wondering after thirty year if Indy and Cincy had a rivalry. Looks like they do by the responses here. This should be a good game but I really think the Bengals will win.

[chicoruiz]

The Bengals got beaten physically by the Colts this season. As Cory Redding said, "We hit them until they just didn't want to get hit any more". Gio Bernard, in particular, took some hits that made me wince. We'll have to see if the Bengals use this as an opportunity to prove their physicality; if they're determined to dominate the lines of scrimmage, they can win.

[Assembly Hall]

Not that it matters but that Colts/Dallas unfurled quickly. On Dallas' first possession the Colts stopped them, but got called for a taunting penalty. Dallas kicks off and force a 3 and out. However on a beautiful fake punt play, the receiver drops the ball. Dallas punched it in, and the flood gates open from that point on.

[Hoosier Red]

I don't even know what this means.

The Bengals have an overall better team, but the Colts have the best player at the most important position. I give the edge to the Bengals. There would not be a single team in the playoffs that I would feel confident that the Colts would beat. Having Luck at QB always gives the Colts a change against anybody but if the Bengals run the ball well and put together a few long drives it could be a tough night for the Colts.
If not Hung-a-rier, does it matter if the Bengals are Ang-e-rier?

[GAC]

You guys are butchering the English language! :p

[dubc47834]

BAM...GO COLTS. I guess the Bengals are just starving now after this loss!!!

[Assembly Hall]

BAM...GO COLTS. I guess the Bengals are just starving now after this loss!!!


Geez man, don't rub salt in their wounds. Just shaking my head.

[Joseph]

BAM...GO COLTS. I guess the Bengals are just starving now after this loss!!!

It is just an awful franchise. Top to bottom.

[Sea Ray]

It is just an awful franchise. Top to bottom.

No, awful were the Dave Shula years. I never want to go back to that. This is fine and dandy compared to that time. In those yrs the Bengals would loss all their games in Sept and be out of it by the time the calendar clicked to Oct. Now we get to follow a team in the playoff hunt all year and usually see our team clinch a spot in the end.

[Assembly Hall]

No, awful were the Dave Shula years. I never want to go back to that. This is fine and dandy compared to that time. In those yrs the Bengals would loss all their games in Sept and be out of it by the time the calendar clicked to Oct. Now we get to follow a team in the playoff hunt all year and usually see our team clinch a spot in the end.

I know SR. Too many "Debbie Downers" out there. I don't think they remember the lean years, or were/are too young.

[Joseph]

No, awful were the Dave Shula years. I never want to go back to that. This is fine and dandy compared to that time. In those yrs the Bengals would loss all their games in Sept and be out of it by the time the calendar clicked to Oct. Now we get to follow a team in the playoff hunt all year and usually see our team clinch a spot in the end.

This hurts worse than watching a team you know has no chance. To consistently tease and tantalize and never deliver....no thanks. I was here thru Shula and Jeff Blake and Coslet and all that, at least then I could just kick back and watch a game and be surprised when we won one now and then.

[redsfanmia]

It is just an awful franchise. Top to bottom.

The colts were an awful franchise until the owner relinquished contral of football decisions, Jimmy Irsay hired a legit gm in 94 or 95 and I think the colts have missed the play offs 4 or 5 times since then.

[Sea Ray]

This hurts worse than watching a team you know has no chance. To consistently tease and tantalize and never deliver....no thanks. I was here thru Shula and Jeff Blake and Coslet and all that, at least then I could just kick back and watch a game and be surprised when we won one now and then.

You need to learn coping skills. I won't let them hurt me. A game like this where I know how it's going to turn out, I just tape and decide later whether I want to put myself through the misery...and the answer's no. I move on, look towards the future and hopefully another playoff chase in 2015. If they lose all their Sept games then I'll be longing for yrs like the past 4

[Sea Ray]

The colts were an awful franchise until the owner relinquished contral of football decisions, Jimmy Irsay hired a legit gm in 94 or 95 and I think the colts have missed the play offs 4 or 5 times since then.

There's nothing fancy about how the Colts have found success. They managed to suck enough to get the #1 pick when Peyton and Luck were on the Board. It's as simple as that.

[George Anderson]

There's nothing fancy about how the Colts have found success. They managed to suck enough to get the #1 pick when Peyton and Luck were on the Board. It's as simple as that.
The Colts have great ownership who knows what it takes to win. The same cant be said with the Bengals.

[redsfanmia]

There's nothing fancy about how the Colts have found success. They managed to suck enough to get the #1 pick when Peyton and Luck were on the Board. It's as simple as that.

There have been many teams with the top pick who blew it,.

[Assembly Hall]

There's nothing fancy about how the Colts have found success. They managed to suck enough to get the #1 pick when Peyton and Luck were on the Board. It's as simple as that.

Whoa, they won a Super Bowl before they came to Indy and played in another. They were pretty dang good in the mid to late 70's as well.

[Revering4Blue]

There's nothing fancy about how the Colts have found success. They managed to suck enough to get the #1 pick when Peyton and Luck were on the Board. It's as simple as that.

Please.

Freeney, Sanders and Wayne, to name a few, just appeared out of nowhere?

[George Anderson]

Please.

Freeney, Sanders and Wayne, to name a few, just appeared out of nowhere?

If it was not for Jim Irsay putting Bill Polian in as GM, instead of Manning and James we could of had Ryan Leaf, Ricky Williams and a franchise ultimately in LA.

The same could be said about Ryan Grigson and his pick of Luck over RG3.

[Hoosier Red]

The colts were an awful franchise until the owner relinquished contral of football decisions, Jimmy Irsay hired a legit gm in 94 or 95 and I think the colts have missed the play offs 4 or 5 times since then.

To be fair, much of that has been on the shoulders of two QB's taken #1. Not that having a GM hasn't helped, but if the GM was in position to draft #2 in 1998 or in 2012, it's fair to ask how many playoffs they make.

[Hoosier Red]

There have been many teams with the top pick who blew it,.

That's true. But Simply having the opportunity to take Manning and Luck was all the difference in the world. They weren't left picking whomever was left out of Luck/RGIII or Manning/Leaf

[redsfanmia]

To be fair, much of that has been on the shoulders of two QB's taken #1. Not that having a GM hasn't helped, but if the GM was in position to draft #2 in 1998 or in 2012, it's fair to ask how many playoffs they make.
The Colts had some success with Bill "who the hell is Mel Kiper Jr?" Tobin before we drafted Manning. More to my point the BEngals still don't have a gm and the owner still has say in player personnel.

[Revering4Blue]

To be fair, much of that has been on the shoulders of two QB's taken #1. Not that having a GM hasn't helped, but if the GM was in position to draft #2 in 1998 or in 2012, it's fair to ask how many playoffs they make.

To suggest that the Colts ability to sustain success so long is based upon two franchise QBs? Well, that's a good argument.

To suggest that the Colts success is only due to drafting Manning and Luck? With all due respect -- and this directed at the initial post, not yours -- is ridiculous.

[Revering4Blue]

That's true. But Simply having the opportunity to take Manning and Luck was all the difference in the world. They weren't left picking whomever was left out of Luck/RGIII or Manning/Leaf

I don't know about that.

To suggest at the time of each respective draft that the talent gap between Manning and Leaf and Luck and RGIII was/is as wide as it is/was (if any) is revisionist history at best. Several GMs -- past or present-- easily could have/would have blown it.

[dubc47834]

Geez man, don't rub salt in their wounds. Just shaking my head.

LOL...had to do it man. All in good fun tho!

[Assembly Hall]

LOL...had to do it man. All in good fun tho!

LOL.......I hear ya!!!!!!

[Sea Ray]

The Colts have great ownership who knows what it takes to win. The same cant be said with the Bengals.

They've found what it takes to win, not because of great ownership, but because of the timeliness of a couple very poor seasons. I give ownership NO credit in discovering Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck. Without those two, the franchise would be mediocre at best

[Sea Ray]

There have been many teams with the top pick who blew it,.

Very rarely does the top pick include a choice of a player like Luck or Manning. Those guys come around once in a decade at best. Very rarely does the #1 pick give you a shot at a can't miss NFL QB. The analogy to what you're saying is that any team in the NBA with a #1 pick can do what Cleveland did. No, they can't 'cause there's not a LeBron James available every year

[Sea Ray]

Whoa, they won a Super Bowl before they came to Indy and played in another. They were pretty dang good in the mid to late 70's as well.

I'm not going to get into a discussion of the things ownership did right and wrong in the past 50 yrs. Moving the team from Baltimore and the trade of John Elway, etc...

[Sea Ray]

Please.

Freeney, Sanders and Wayne, to name a few, just appeared out of nowhere?

Those are nice players but how many games did Indy win with those players the yr Peyton had to sit out with a neck injury?

[Sea Ray]

To suggest that the Colts ability to sustain success so long is based upon two franchise QBs? Well, that's a good argument.

To suggest that the Colts success is only due to drafting Manning and Luck? With all due respect -- and this directed at the initial post, not yours -- is ridiculous.

Let's just say that it was "mainly" because of those two players. Take those guys out of the mix and the history looks completely different. I'd go so far as to say, if you think the Colts would have achieved anywhere near the level of success that they did, THAT would be ridiculous

[dubc47834]

Very rarely does the top pick include a choice of a player like Luck or Manning. Those guys come around once in a decade at best. Very rarely does the #1 pick give you a shot at a can't miss NFL QB. The analogy to what you're saying is that any team in the NBA with a #1 pick can do what Cleveland did. No, they can't 'cause there's not a LeBron James available every year

Whoa man, calm down, the Bengals arent being eliminated from NFL participation forever, just this year! If I recall right, RG3 was being debated as the #1 pick also. Although Luck was the consensus #1.

[Hoosier Red]

I don't know about that.

To suggest at the time of each respective draft that the talent gap between Manning and Leaf and Luck and RGIII was/is as wide as it is/was (if any) is revisionist history at best. Several GMs -- past or present-- easily could have/would have blown it.
I don't mean to suggest they shouldn't get credit for choosing correctly. But a lot of it comes down to luck in a) having the #1 pick in right year as opposed to when Jamarcus Russell was consensus #1 pick. But more to the point luck that they were the #1 pick and not left with what was still there. San diego and Washington weren't any more foolish for making their choice after the "right" choice in each situation had already been drafted.

[George Anderson]

Whoa man, calm down, the Bengals arent being eliminated from NFL participation forever, just this year! If I recall right, RG3 was being debated as the #1 pick also. Although Luck was the consensus #1.

Luck was the consensus #1 pick but RG3 was very much also in the conversation also.

The real gem was when the Colts took Manning over Leaf. I remember well it was 50/50 on who should be the number 1 pick between the two. Manning was thought at the time to have the intelligence and maturity to play the position while it was thought Leaf had the better physical tools. Taking Manning was not a slam dunk decision by any means in 97'.

[Razor Shines]

Let's just say that it was "mainly" because of those two players. Take those guys out of the mix and the history looks completely different. I'd go so far as to say, if you think the Colts would have achieved anywhere near the level of success that they did, THAT would be ridiculous

Well sure you start going back and taking the super stars away from sports franchises and things will turn out differently.

[George Anderson]

Let's just say that it was "mainly" because of those two players. Take those guys out of the mix and the history looks completely different. I'd go so far as to say, if you think the Colts would have achieved anywhere near the level of success that they did, THAT would be ridiculous

Like I said in a previous post, Luck was the likely consensus #1 pick although RG3 supporters did make a lot of noise thinking he should be the #1 pick. However with Manning and Leaf it was hardly a no brainer to take Manning. Leaf and Manning were both considered equals prior to the draft.

Oh and look at the draft picks Bill Polian made during his tenure with the Colts. You will see names like Edgerrin James, Dwight Freeney, Dallas Clark, Bob Sanders and Reggie Wayne. Not to even mention key free agent signings like Adam Vinatieri. The biggest difference between the Colts and the Bengals the past 15 years is the Colts have a competent owner who is smart enough to sit back and let football people make decisions while the Bengals do not.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/draft.htm

[paintmered]

It is really hard for a team to be bad with a top quarterback.

Here are the top QBs in the league by QB rating (min. 400 pass attempts).

1. Tony Romo, 113.2
2. Aaron Rodgers, 112.2
3. Ben Roethlisberger, 103.3
4. Peyton Manning, 101.5
5. Tom Brady, 97.4
6. Drew Brees, 97.0
7. Andrew Luck, 96.5
8. Russel Wilson, 95.0
9. Matt Ryan, 93.9
10. Philip Rivers, 93.8

7 of the top 8 are with playoff teams. Carson Palmer would have been 8th on this list but he didn't have enough pass attempts.

For some deeper reading: http://www.footballperspective.com/correlating-passing-stats-with-wins/

[villain612]

They've found what it takes to win, not because of great ownership, but because of the timeliness of a couple very poor seasons. I give ownership NO credit in discovering Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck. Without those two, the franchise would be mediocre at best

The Colts were fortunate to have a top pick at the right time for those players, but not giving the Colts front office any credit for their player personnel decisions is ridiculous.

Pro Bowlers drafted since 2000:
TY Hilton - 3rd Round - 92nd overall
Joseph Addai - 1st Round - 30th overall
Antoine Bethea - 6th Round - 207th overall
Bob Sanders - 2nd Round - 44th overall
Dallas Clark - 1st Round - 24th overall
Robert Mathis - 5th Round - 138th overall
Cato June - 6th Round - 198th overall
Dwight Freeney - 1st Round - 11th overall
Reggie Wayne - 1st Round - 30th overall
Marcus Washington - 2nd Round - 59th overall

The draft is part science and part luck, sure. But they've been on the right side of player evaluation more times than not. They chose Edgerrin James over Ricky Williams and everyone thought they were crazy. Went with Manning over Leaf. Resisted the RGIII temptation and took the pocket passer Luck. Those weren't slam dunks as much as you'd like to think. Considering how many times Cincinnati has picked near the top of the draft over the last few decades, I think that proves that picking the right players is hard.

8432

[redsfanmia]

Very rarely does the top pick include a choice of a player like Luck or Manning. Those guys come around once in a decade at best. Very rarely does the #1 pick give you a shot at a can't miss NFL QB. The analogy to what you're saying is that any team in the NBA with a #1 pick can do what Cleveland did. No, they can't 'cause there's not a LeBron James available every year
Revisionist history on the Manning pick, he was by no means a slam dunk no brainer top pick, 17 years later he was but not at the time.

[George Anderson]

Just an interesting FYI but at a banquet a few years back I personally asked Bill Polian if they ever considered taking Leaf over Manning. His response was no. He basically said that they knew Leaf had talent but felt he had huge character issues. Turns out he was right.

[Assembly Hall]

Just an interesting FYI but at a banquet a few years back I personally asked Bill Polian if they ever considered taking Leaf over Manning. His response was no. He basically said that they knew Leaf had talent but felt he had huge character issues. Turns out he was right.

LOL........well Bill wasn't wrong on too many things when it came to running the Colts.

[George Anderson]

LOL........well Bill wasn't wrong on too many things when it came to running the Colts.

His drafting late in his tenure as Colts GM stunk, but the period from 97' to around 04' was steller.

[Sea Ray]

Like I said in a previous post, Luck was the likely consensus #1 pick although RG3 supporters did make a lot of noise thinking he should be the #1 pick. However with Manning and Leaf it was hardly a no brainer to take Manning. Leaf and Manning were both considered equals prior to the draft.

Oh and look at the draft picks Bill Polian made during his tenure with the Colts. You will see names like Edgerrin James, Dwight Freeney, Dallas Clark, Bob Sanders and Reggie Wayne. Not to even mention key free agent signings like Adam Vinatieri. The biggest difference between the Colts and the Bengals the past 15 years is the Colts have a competent owner who is smart enough to sit back and let football people make decisions while the Bengals do not.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/draft.htm

You are correct that there was a Manning/Leaf discussion prior to the draft. I thought that was nuts but of course I'm a U of Tenn guy so maybe that's where I'm coming from, but the point is that the Colts had the shot at Peyton and 31 other teams did not. That's pure luck. Ditto for the 2011 draft re: Andrew Luck

[Kingspoint]

Worst decision of 2014 in Cincinnatidom was the promotion of Hue Jackson to Offensive Coordinator.

Worst decision of 2013 in Cincinnatidom was the move-and-promise-of-being-the-next-Offensive-Coordinator of Hue Jackson to Runningbacks Coach.

Worst decision of 2012 in Cincinnatidom was the made-up positions of "special assistant" to the Defensive Backs and Special Teams for Hue Jackson (with the unwritten promise that he'll be promoted to Offensive Coordinator after Gruden).

[redsfanmia]

Worst decision of 2014 in Cincinnatidom was the promotion of Hue Jackson to Offensive Coordinator.

Worst decision of 2013 in Cincinnatidom was the move-and-promise-of-being-the-next-Offensive-Coordinator of Hue Jackson to Runningbacks Coach.

Worst decision of 2012 in Cincinnatidom was the made-up positions of "special assistant" to the Defensive Backs and Special Teams for Hue Jackson (with the unwritten promise that he'll be promoted to Offensive Coordinator after Gruden).

Not a fan of Hue Jackson?

[Assembly Hall]

Not a fan of Hue Jackson?

It has to be his brother-in-law!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

[thatcoolguy_22]

Another tidbit on the Colts draft history; when they drafted Freeney at #11 the talking heads roasted Polian for the reach. Freeney was considered a late 1st rounder at best and he went 11. I found an old mock draft to show where he was more expected to fall. Anyone with ESPN insider can see the bio of Freeney prior to being drafted.

http://nor.scout.com/story/45039-2002-nfl-draft-mock-draft

[fearofpopvol1]

I'm not going to get into a discussion of the things ownership did right and wrong in the past 50 yrs. Moving the team from Baltimore and the trade of John Elway, etc...

To be fair, Elway refused to play for the Colts. He basically pulled an Eli.

[Revering4Blue]

To be fair, Elway refused to play for the Colts. He basically pulled an Eli.

This is true.

A few asides to this:

* Reportedly, years later, a beat writer close to the Broncos and Elway stated that had Elway known at the time (no one did) that the Colts were moving into a dome in Indy, he wouldn't have forced a trade.

* Even though he was heading into his second year and had yet to establish himself --sadly, for mainly off-field reasons, he never did -- the Colts had drafted Art Schlichter #2 overall in '82, who was considered a QB talent on par with Marino and Elway. Based on pure talent alone, it was hard to argue the aforementioned point. At some point, either Schlichter or Elway was going to be dealt, anyway.

*At the time of the 83' Draft, a trade was arranged with the Raiders, who offered a package centered around QB Marc Wilson, whom many experts and fans felt should have been starting ahead of Jim Plunkett, but fell apart at the last minute.

Nevertheless, the Colts later settled on a package from Denver which included local hero QB Mark Hermann, who wasn't starting QB material, a recent draftee -- G Chris Hinton, who turned out to be an All-Pro and 7 time Pro Bowler -- and a future #1 pick, which turned out to be a solid guard: Ron Solt.

Revisionist history, I know, but the Colts would have most likely been better off accepting the Cowboys' offer of a package centered around QB Danny White -- the Cowboys had QB Gary Hogeboom (traded to the Colts years later) at the time -- and draft picks.

[Assembly Hall]

To be fair, Elway refused to play for the Colts. He basically pulled an Eli.

Depends on how you look at it. Elway had the opportunity to play MLB. He was a second round pick of the Yankees and if I remember right, actually played for one of their minor league affiliates and received a good chunk of change in doing so. He didn't want to play for Baltimore, but he had other options other than Eli.

[Sea Ray]

To be fair, Elway refused to play for the Colts. He basically pulled an Eli.

I was referring to the return they got for him and the decision to draft him knowing all of this. You're absolutely right that they never had any shot of him playing in Indy. The final point is that if the Indy ownership was as great as was claimed around here, then why wouldn't Elway be thrilled to be drafted by them?

[Assembly Hall]

I was referring to the return they got for him and the decision to draft him knowing all of this. You're absolutely right that they never had any shot of him playing in Indy. The final point is that if the Indy ownership was as great as was claimed around here, then why wouldn't Elway be thrilled to be drafted by them?

Really SR? C'mon man. They were in Baltimore at the time and Bob Irsay was in charge. It really has nothing to do with Indy especially after his son took over control.

[Sea Ray]

Really SR? C'mon man. They were in Baltimore at the time and Bob Irsay was in charge. It really has nothing to do with Indy especially after his son took over control.

I thought that era of Colts history was fair game when someone in this thread said this:


Whoa, they won a Super Bowl before they came to Indy and played in another. They were pretty dang good in the mid to late 70's as well.

[Assembly Hall]

Just shaking my head SR.....just shaking my head. The Colts have been a stellar organization....minus a few years from the late 70's until the mid 80's. Elway fell in those down years. The organization arguably has the two greatest QB's in NFL history up until this point. We don't know what Luck is gonna do, but it is looking pretty damn good so far. Since Jim Irsay took the team over, he wants to win.

[redsfanmia]

I thought that era of Colts history was fair game when someone in this thread said this:

I think my original point was that the Colts started winning once Jimmy Irsay took over because he hired a general manager and took a more hands off approach to the on field products. The Colts are kinda of the opposite of the Bengals in that the father/son had combo has been different. Paul Brown ran a successful organization and Mike not so much. Bob Irsay was an unsuccesful owner and Jimmy (while having personal demons) is a very successful owner.

[Sea Ray]

Just shaking my head SR.....just shaking my head. The Colts have been a stellar organization....minus a few years from the late 70's until the mid 80's. Elway fell in those down years. The organization arguably has the two greatest QB's in NFL history up until this point. We don't know what Luck is gonna do, but it is looking pretty damn good so far. Since Jim Irsay took the team over, he wants to win.

My point is that they had some very good fortune along the way. Had Mike Brown had the opportunity to draft Peyton and Luck things would have looked rosey here too. In fact bad luck can hit a franchise just as easily. Bad luck hit the Brown family in two huge ways. One was Greg Cook getting injured so early in his promising career. The other was the USFL signing Steve Young the year Cincinnati had the #1 pick in the draft.

[George Anderson]

My point is that they had some very good fortune along the way. Had Mike Brown had the opportunity to draft Peyton and Luck things would have looked rosey here too. In fact bad luck can hit a franchise just as easily. Bad luck hit the Brown family in two huge ways. One was Greg Cook getting injured so early in his promising career. The other was the USFL signing Steve Young the year Cincinnati had the #1 pick in the draft.

Mike Brown may have lucked out and drafted Manning and Luck but there is no gaurantee the Bengals would of had any type of success. It is kinda like if the Reds had Johnny Bench but no Rose, Morgan or Perez. There were more great players on the Colts teams than just Manning and Luck and considering Browns history I doubt he would of drafted the players the Colts did to make them great.

[fearofpopvol1]

My point is that they had some very good fortune along the way. Had Mike Brown had the opportunity to draft Peyton and Luck things would have looked rosey here too. In fact bad luck can hit a franchise just as easily. Bad luck hit the Brown family in two huge ways. One was Greg Cook getting injured so early in his promising career. The other was the USFL signing Steve Young the year Cincinnati had the #1 pick in the draft.

The Bengals have had the number 1 draft pick in 1994 and 1995 both and could've had Steve McNair, Kerry Collins, Marshall Faulk, Warren Sapp etc. They took far worse players. But the real standout is 1999. The Bengals had the 3rd pick and took Akili Smith. They had the option instead of taking...Edgerrin James, Rickey Williams, Torry Holt, Champ Bailey, Daunte Culpepper etc. Heck, even in 2000 they picked Peter Warrick instead of Jamal Lewis, Thomas Jones, Brian Urlacher, Sebastian Janikowski, Shaun Alexander.

I root for the Bengals (over any team not named the Colts). But you have to be honest, the ownership and draft decisions they've made until recently have been downright awful. They blew a lot of high draft picks over the years...maybe more than any other team in the league or certainly way up the list. And to compare the Bengals to the Colts I think is outrageous too. During the Manning era, the Colts pretty much picked at the end of the first round and hit on an awful lot of picks.

And lastly, it's a joke that Marvin Lewis still has a job. He's a bad coach and the team needs new blood.

[Revering4Blue]

As Sea Ray points out, the Bengals encountered bad luck, no doubt about it. That stated, George and fop hit the nail on the head about the failures of Brown until recently. Granted, Dan Wilkinson was far from a bust and I view Ki-Jana Carter the same way as I view Steve Emntman: There's no telling how good either one of them could have been if injuries hadn't ushered them to the sidelines.

What puzzled me the most about the 90's drafting for the Bengals, given the fact that they often had multiple holes to fill, was the reluctance to trade down and stockpile picks -- not taking the Saints offer in '99, the prime example. That's more than revisionist history, as that team needed more than a franchise QB.

While perusing the Bengals thread, another thing I cannot understand is why so many just shrug their shoulders stating to the effect Well, at least this isn't the 90's anymore, kind of like the position of Well, this is a heck of a lot better than the Lost Decade for the Reds. I wish to offend no one who holds the aforementioned views, but IMHO, they are both strawman arguments. I realize and acknowledge that the Bengals were beaten up last Sunday, especially at the skill positions, but were I a Bengals fan, I'd be ticked off that my team has failed to advance in the Playoffs with, other than QB, the best set of skill position weapons in the division, much as I feel that the Reds are failing big time by not advancing in the Playoffs with the the Base and pitching staff the last two or three years. Should three years or so pass and the Colts do not advance deep into the Playoffs with Luck at QB, I'll start seriously questioning the Colts' front office, just as I question the Reds' brass (and some question the Bengals' powers-that-be) now.

[Assembly Hall]

The other was the USFL signing Steve Young the year Cincinnati had the #1 pick in the draft.

Young didn't do squat at Tampa Bay.

[Assembly Hall]

Mike Brown may have lucked out and drafted Manning and Luck but there is no gaurantee the Bengals would of had any type of success. It is kinda like if the Reds had Johnny Bench but no Rose, Morgan or Perez. There were more great players on the Colts teams than just Manning and Luck and considering Browns history I doubt he would of drafted the players the Colts did to make them great.

George, I responded to SR's post before I read yours!

But you are dead on. SR brought up Steve Young. He was horrid with the Bucs in his 2 seasons there and decided to go in a different direction. He then gets traded to a great organization and the rest is history.

[Assembly Hall]

As Sea Ray points out, the Bengals encountered bad luck, no doubt about it. That stated, George and fop hit the nail on the head about the failures of Brown until recently. Granted, Dan Wilkinson was far from a bust and I view Ki-Jana Carter the same way as I view Steve Emntman: There's no telling how good either one of them could have been if injuries hadn't ushered them to the sidelines.

What puzzled me the most about the 90's drafting for the Bengals, given the fact that they often had multiple holes to fill, was the reluctance to trade down and stockpile picks -- not taking the Saints offer in '99, the prime example. That's more than revisionist history, as that team needed more than a franchise QB.

While perusing the Bengals thread, another thing I cannot understand is why so many just shrug their shoulders stating to the effect Well, at least this isn't the 90's anymore, kind of like the position of Well, this is a heck of a lot better than the Lost Decade for the Reds. I wish to offend no one who holds the aforementioned views, but IMHO, they are both strawman arguments. I realize and acknowledge that the Bengals were beaten up last Sunday, especially at the skill positions, but were I a Bengals fan, I'd be ticked off that my team has failed to advance in the Playoffs with, other than QB, the best set of skill position weapons in the division, much as I feel that the Reds are failing big time by not advancing in the Playoffs with the the Base and pitching staff the last two or three years. Should three years or so pass and the Colts do not advance deep into the Playoffs with Luck at QB, I'll start seriously questioning the Colts' front office, just as I question the Reds' brass (and some question the Bengals' powers-that-be) now.

Not to offend any Bengal fans but Cincinnati is just a poorly ran organization. I suppose one could chalk it up to bad luck, injuries, or whatever. But from an outsider, it is not ran correctly.

As far as the fan base being "Ho Hum" about the lack of play-off success....things could be worse I suppose.

[George Anderson]

Not to offend any Bengal fans but Cincinnati is just a poorly ran organization. I suppose one could chalk it up to bad luck, injuries, or whatever. But from an outsider, it is not ran correctly.

As far as the fan base being "Ho Hum" about the lack of play-off success....things could be worse I suppose.

The thing Bengals fans have to be optimistic about is Mike Brown is old and not going to be around forever. Redsfanmia hit the nail on the head when he said the Bengals arr going through what the Colts went through before Bob Irsay died and Jim took over. It flat out sucked having an owner in Bob who was meddlesome and had not a clue about football. Lets hope for the Bengals sake when MB dies his relatives learn from his mistakes like Jim Irsay learned from his dad.

[Sea Ray]

Mike Brown may have lucked out and drafted Manning and Luck but there is no gaurantee the Bengals would of had any type of success. It is kinda like if the Reds had Johnny Bench but no Rose, Morgan or Perez. There were more great players on the Colts teams than just Manning and Luck and considering Browns history I doubt he would of drafted the players the Colts did to make them great.

No guarantee indeed but I like their chances. A Hall of Fame QB means more to a team than any one player in baseball.

[Sea Ray]

Not to offend any Bengal fans but Cincinnati is just a poorly ran organization. I suppose one could chalk it up to bad luck, injuries, or whatever. But from an outsider, it is not ran correctly.

As far as the fan base being "Ho Hum" about the lack of play-off success....things could be worse I suppose.

I'm not going to defend Mike Brown but just for the sake of discussion...where do you think the Bengals would be if instead of Akili Smith to Andy Dalton, they'd had Peyton and Luck? I'll argue that they'd have won a few playoff games at the very least...

[Assembly Hall]

I'm not going to defend Mike Brown but just for the sake of discussion...where do you think the Bengals would be if instead of Akili Smith to Andy Dalton, they'd had Peyton and Luck? I'll argue that they'd have won a few playoff games at the very least...

Well, with the talent they have right now....Manning or Luck would probably make them Super Bowl contenders.

[Sea Ray]

Well, with the talent they have right now....Manning or Luck would probably make them Super Bowl contenders.

Hence my point. The difference isn't ownership. It's a franchise QB

[Assembly Hall]

Hence my point. The difference isn't ownership. It's a franchise QB

Well you asked me about Manning and Luck. One is a sure fire HOFer and the other is well on his way. What is your definition of a franchise QB?

[George Anderson]

Hence my point. The difference isn't ownership. It's a franchise QB

Yep this Bengals team would no doubt be a SB contender if they had Luck or Manning at QB. However Bengals teams of say prior to 2009 wouldnt have a chance at the SB with either at QB. The Bengals have gotten better recently and from I understand MB has relented some of the decision making. So yes it does come down to the ownership a franchise has. The Bengals ownership still sucks but not as bad as it did say 5 years ago.

[Revering4Blue]

Hence my point. The difference isn't ownership. It's a franchise QB

Not really.

Remove The Manning and Luck eras from the equation and the Colts still have more Playoff wins than the Bengals the last 25 years, both on the road without an injured Marshall Faulk. Was Jim Harbaugh a franchise QB?

[Assembly Hall]

Not really.

Remove The Manning and Luck eras from the equation and the Colts still have more Playoff wins than the Bengals the last 25 years, both on the road without an injured Marshall Faulk. Was Jim Harbaugh a franchise QB?

And a Quentin Coryatt dropped pass interception from going to the Super Bowl that year!!!!!!!! Ya just had to remind didn't you Rev?

[Sea Ray]

Well you asked me about Manning and Luck. One is a sure fire HOFer and the other is well on his way. What is your definition of a franchise QB?

Those two qualify. This is about those two

[Sea Ray]

Yep this Bengals team would no doubt be a SB contender if they had Luck or Manning at QB. However Bengals teams of say prior to 2009 wouldnt have a chance at the SB with either at QB. The Bengals have gotten better recently and from I understand MB has relented some of the decision making. So yes it does come down to the ownership a franchise has. The Bengals ownership still sucks but not as bad as it did say 5 years ago.

I disagree. I think the 2005 Bengals had a shot at the SB with Carson Palmer at QB. The 2006 Bengals narrowly missed the playoffs. Any team in the playoffs with Peyton has a shot at the SB

[Assembly Hall]

Those two qualify. This is about those two


That is why I asked you about your definition of a franchise QB. There is a difference between franchise and HOFer. Kenny Stabler, Joe Theisman, Ken Anderson, and Phil Simms were all pretty dang good.

[Revering4Blue]

That is why I asked you about your definition of a franchise QB. There is a difference between franchise and HOFer. Kenny Stabler, Joe Theisman, Ken Anderson, and Phil Simms were all pretty dang good.

It is a flat-out travesty that Ken Anderson isn't, as of today, a HOFer.......same with Ken Riley.

[Assembly Hall]

It is a flat-out travesty that Ken Anderson isn't, as of today, a HOFer.......same with Ken Riley.

What about Stabler? I often wonder how many Super Bowls the Raiders would have won if the Dolphins and the Steelers weren't in the way.

[Revering4Blue]

Young didn't do squat at Tampa Bay.

As you pointed out, trading Young to the 49ers, and into the West Coast Offense, did wonders for Young. And the Bengals did draft Boomer Esiason in that same '84 draft.

Back to the Bucs at that time, allowing QB Doug Williams to jump to the USFL with no attempt to retain him and giving up what turned out to be top pick in the '84 draft to Cincy for a QB that couldn't even beat out Turk Schonert for the backup QB job were both beyond stupid. Hugh Culverhouse was so bad of an owner that he made Mike Brown look like Art Rooney.

[Assembly Hall]

As you pointed out, trading Young to the 49ers, and into the West Coast Offense, did wonders for Young. And the Bengals did draft Boomer Esiason in that same '84 draft.

I am pretty sure Young was in the supplemental draft.

As far as the Bucs, I thought were right on the cusp in those days. They made some absolute bone headed moves to set their organization back quite a few years.

[dubc47834]

Not to offend any Bengal fans but Cincinnati is just a poorly ran organization. I suppose one could chalk it up to bad luck, injuries, or whatever. But from an outsider, it is not ran correctly.As far as the fan base being "Ho Hum" about the lack of play-off success....things could be worse I suppose.



This is my thoughts exactly. You can blame it on bad luck in the draft, but there are 6 rounds. You dont have to draft a manning/Luck to build a very good organization. Have some of their top level draft picks not panned out...sure, but when you go entire drafts and years without having a good draft you're not going to have a very good organization. You'll have to rely on free agents, and we know how that turns out!

[George Anderson]

I guess Jim Irsay screwed up because he wasted alot of money on hiring Bill Polian and Ryan Grigson as GM's. I mean after the Colts drafted Manning and Luck, they could have hired a blind chimp to make the rest of the picks.

[Revering4Blue]

I guess Jim Irsay screwed up because he wasted alot of money on hiring Bill Polian and Ryan Grigson as GM's. I mean after the Colts drafted Manning and Luck, they could have hired a blind chimp to make the rest of the picks.

Game..

Set...

Match!

[villain612]

Hence my point. The difference isn't ownership. It's a franchise QB

Russell Wilson. Joe Flacco. Eli Manning.

Those are the last 3 super bowl winning QB's.

Yeah, you definitely need a franchise QB. But you don't need a hall of famer if you draft well at other positions.

[Assembly Hall]

Russell Wilson. Joe Flacco. Eli Manning.

Those are the last 3 super bowl winning QB's.

Yeah, you definitely need a franchise QB. But you don't need a hall of famer if you draft well at other positions.

Although I agree you need a franchise QB, there have been exceptions. Brad Johnson and Mark Rypien come to mind.....but there were a lot of pieces around them.

[Sea Ray]

Russell Wilson. Joe Flacco. Eli Manning.

Those are the last 3 super bowl winning QB's.

Yeah, you definitely need a franchise QB. But you don't need a hall of famer if you draft well at other positions.

So true. And I'd say all 3 of those organizations are better than the Colts and the Bengals

[Assembly Hall]

So true. And I'd say all 3 of those organizations are better than the Colts and the Bengals

SR, have you been drinking again?

[paintmered]

Out of the 2011 QB class, there are three guys that are established starters in the NFL: Cam Newton, Andy Dalton, and Colin Kaepernick. The three had pretty similar but mediocre stats in 2014.

I'd rather have A.J. Green and Dalton than any of Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert, or Christian Ponder.

[Sea Ray]

SR, have you been drinking again?

Just tellin' it like it is. Be careful about the rose colored glasses

[Assembly Hall]

Just tellin' it like it is. Be careful about the rose colored glasses


No, you are telling it like the way you see it..........the Seahawks have just had recent success, and the Giants either win the Super Bowl or suck. Now Baltimore is right on par with Indy.

[Sea Ray]

No, you are telling it like the way you see it..........the Seahawks have just had recent success, and the Giants either win the Super Bowl or suck. Now Baltimore is right on par with Indy.

The Seahawks' success hasn't just been recent. They went to the Super Bowl ten yrs ago, tore it down and now they're back again.

The Giants either win or suck? They haven't been as bad as the Colts were a few yrs ago. Tom Coughlin is a whale of a coach

[Assembly Hall]

The Seahawks' success hasn't just been recent. They went to the Super Bowl ten yrs ago, tore it down and now they're back again.

The Giants either win or suck? They haven't been as bad as the Colts were a few yrs ago. Tom Coughlin is a whale of a coach


I looked it up and I could be wrong....but in the last 20 years including this year. The Colts have failed to make the play-offs a grand total of 4 times. That span saw 5 different coaches, three different starting QB's, and a couple of super bowl appearances.

So I guess it depends on what your criteria is.

[Sea Ray]

I looked it up and I could be wrong....but in the last 20 years including this year. The Colts have failed to make the play-offs a grand total of 4 times. That span saw 5 different coaches, three different starting QB's, and a couple of super bowl appearances.

So I guess it depends on what your criteria is.

It's been a fun time to be a Colts fan. My point is that 14 of those 16 appearances included either Peyton or Andrew Luck behind center. That's the single most significant reason for the Colts success

[Assembly Hall]

It's been a fun time to be a Colts fan. My point is that 14 of those 16 appearances included either Peyton or Andrew Luck behind center. That's the single most significant reason for the Colts success

I attribute it to a well ran organization as well. I didn't look to see if there was a team that has had more success in those years as far as play-off appearances go.

[Sea Ray]

I attribute it to a well ran organization as well. I didn't look to see if there was a team that has had more success in those years as far as play-off appearances go.

It's a factor but not the biggest. Let's compare to Green Bay. They owe their success to two Hall of Fame QBs too but acquiring Favre and Rodgers involved a lot more than having the #1 overall pick in the draft. They had to scout, acquire and train these guys to be great. Those two were passed on but almost every other franchise. No way Peyton and Luck would have been passed by so many.

Getting lucky is a part of sports success. The Chicago Bulls are lucky Michael Jordan wasn't the #1 pick that year. The SF 49ers were lucky that Lewis Billups dropped that INT in the end zone in the Super Bowl and that the Detroit Lions missed an easy game winning FG enroute to another world championship

[Assembly Hall]

I cant argue with the lucky aspect. It happens in life as well. But once again, the Colts might have had the #1 overall to get Peyton and Luck. But they were not clear cut to many people. If the Bengals would have had those picks they would have taken Leaf and RG3! LOL

The Packers and the Niners also had quite a few pieces around their QB's. They were/are well ran organizations. I will have to look up Green Bay in the last 20 years.

[RedEye]

I cant argue with the lucky aspect. It happens in life as well. But once again, the Colts might have had the #1 overall to get Peyton and Luck. But they were not clear cut to many people. If the Bengals would have had those picks they would have taken Leaf and RG3! LOL

The Packers and the Niners also had quite a few pieces around their QB's. They were/are well ran organizations. I will have to look up Green Bay in the last 20 years.

I think the Luck or RG3 debate for #1 was largely a media creation. Luck was the best prospect in college football for at least 2 years prior to that draft. He was a no brainer there for Indy.

[Assembly Hall]

I think the Luck or RG3 debate for #1 was largely a media creation. Luck was the best prospect in college football for at least 2 years prior to that draft. He was a no brainer there for Indy.

I cant disagree with that.

I did look up Green Bay for the last 20 years. They missed the playoffs 5 times.

[Dom Heffner]

It's been a fun time to be a Colts fan. My point is that 14 of those 16 appearances included either Peyton or Andrew Luck behind center. That's the single most significant reason for the Colts success

I 'll agree with you here and it says a lot about the NFL's product where getting lucky and drafting an elite QB will make you dominant for more than a decade.

[George Anderson]

I cant argue with the lucky aspect. It happens in life as well. But once again, the Colts might have had the #1 overall to get Peyton and Luck. But they were not clear cut to many people. If the Bengals would have had those picks they would have taken Leaf and RG3! LOL

The Packers and the Niners also had quite a few pieces around their QB's. They were/are well ran organizations. I will have to look up Green Bay in the last 20 years.
The Bengals would have taken a lineman. Mikey wouldnt wanna pay the big bucks Leaf or RG3 would of wanted.

[Assembly Hall]

I 'll agree with you here and it says a lot about the NFL's product where getting lucky and drafting an elite QB will make you dominant for more than a decade.

That be 2 decades, and when it is all said and done, it might be 3! There is a reason there is a horseshoe on the side of the helmet, blind luck.

[Sea Ray]

The Bengals would have taken a lineman. Mikey wouldnt wanna pay the big bucks Leaf or RG3 would of wanted.

All kidding aside, one thing Mike Brown understands is that a QB is key and you pay anything in order to get one. He did that with Carson Palmer and even when Boomer was here, he was the highest paid player in the league for awhile.

[Assembly Hall]

All kidding aside, one thing Mike Brown understands is that a QB is key and you pay anything in order to get one. He did that with Carson Palmer and even when Boomer was here, he was the highest paid player in the league for awhile.

How was Jeff Blake's salary?

[Sea Ray]

How was Jeff Blake's salary?

Overpaid

[Assembly Hall]

Overpaid

Now that made me chuckle!!!!!!!!!