PDA

View Full Version : I think we should trade palmer



Bip Roberts
01-19-2008, 12:24 AM
Terrible year from a terrible QB who cant win any big games and has no team leadership abilities, if we can get like a 6th rounder for him it would be excellent considering the cap space we would save

acredsfan
01-19-2008, 12:28 AM
It's late and I'm tired, so I'm guessing that is pure sarcasm after the would you trade Chad Johnson thread. Seriously though, why would you start a thread like this?

WMR
01-19-2008, 12:29 AM
It's late and I'm tired, so I'm guessing that is pure sarcasm after the would you trade Chad Johnson thread. Seriously though, why would you start a thread like this?

Maybe this forum wasn't a good idea after all.

Bip Roberts
01-19-2008, 12:30 AM
It's late and I'm tired, so I'm guessing that is pure sarcasm after the would you trade Chad Johnson thread. Seriously though, why would you start a thread like this?
This just in Palmer just threw another INT to end a game

WMR
01-19-2008, 12:33 AM
The fact that the worst Bengals thread in the history of RedsZone was the FIRST new thread in Jungle Talk cannot be a good omen.

Bip Roberts
01-19-2008, 12:34 AM
The fact that the worst Bengals thread in the history of RedsZone was the FIRST new thread in Jungle Talk cannot be a good omen.

You cant tell me you wouldnt rather have Big Ben... Bengals scouting once again makes more mistakes that proves why they are the joke of the NFL.

WMR
01-19-2008, 12:35 AM
You cant tell me you wouldnt rather have Big Ben... Bengals scouting once again makes more mistakes that proves why they are the joke of the NFL.

Are you trying to become the first confirmed troll of the new forum?

Bip Roberts
01-19-2008, 12:36 AM
Are you trying to become the first confirmed troll of the new forum?

No... do you not listen to Alan Cutler? The guy is full of great points of view.

WMR
01-19-2008, 12:37 AM
No... do you not listen to Alan Cutler? The guy is full of great points of view.

Might want to include who you are quoting next time rather than posting it as though it is your own idea in an attempt to bait people.

acredsfan
01-19-2008, 12:38 AM
The fact that the worst Bengals thread in the history of RedsZone was the FIRST new thread in Jungle Talk cannot be a good omen. I certainly hope you aren't correct. It's a very good idea, as long as people act intelligently.

acredsfan
01-19-2008, 12:41 AM
Might want to include who you are quoting next time rather than posting it as though it is your own idea in an attempt to bait people.
Judging by this quote:
This just in Palmer just threw another INT to end a game
He's just trying to get under everybody's skin.

Bip Roberts
01-19-2008, 01:20 AM
Cant a guy have a little fun? Just go with it for once you stiffs

Screwball
01-19-2008, 03:31 AM
:bang:

The premise of the joke actually isn't a bad idea, but to start a thread on it smacks of bengals.com. Placing it in one of the pre-existing Chad threads would've sufficed.

Anyway, I'm stoked to see a Bengals forum on here. I look forward to hearing the intelligent and informed opinions I've grown accustomed to appreciating from RZ (yes, even you freedom haters that want to trade Chad ;)).

Cheers to the admins for making this happen. To Boss and GIK!:beerme:

Bip Roberts
01-19-2008, 03:36 AM
:bang:

The premise for the joke actually isn't a bad idea, but to start a thread on it smacks of bengals.com. Placing it in one of the pre-existing Chad threads would've sufficed.

At any rate, I'm stoked to see a Bengals forum on here. I look forward to hearing the intelligent and informed opinions I've grown accustomed to appreciating from RZ (yes, even you freedom haters that want to trade Chad ;)).

Cheers to the admins for making this happen. To Boss and GIK!:beerme:
It is kinda funny how quickly people assumed it was a joke even though it could be a legit argument yet with Chad its a serious discussion for some reason

Screwball
01-19-2008, 03:42 AM
It is kinda funny how quickly people assumed it was a joke even though it could be a legit argument yet with Chad its a serious discussion for some reason

Well, in fairness, Carson hasn't strongly hinted at a desire for a trade via the media.

And an argument to trade Carson actually makes less sense than trading Chad. And I'm one who doesn't think trading Chad makes sense...

GAC
01-19-2008, 08:24 AM
Well, in fairness, Carson hasn't strongly hinted at a desire for a trade via the media.

And an argument to trade Carson actually makes less sense than trading Chad. And I'm one who doesn't think trading Chad makes sense...

Exactly. And how does trading Palmer improve this team?

Bip Roberts
01-19-2008, 10:03 AM
Exactly. And how does trading Palmer improve this team?

How does trading chad improve this team? Also Chad hasn't said he wants traded, he said if hes the problem then then need to find a way to fix it.

Highlifeman21
01-19-2008, 10:05 AM
How does trading chad improve this team?

Both are bad moves.

I'd almost venture they are equally bad.

Bip Roberts
01-19-2008, 10:11 AM
Both are bad moves.

I'd almost venture they are equally bad.

:beerme:

GoReds33
01-19-2008, 10:15 AM
Exactly. And how does trading Palmer improve this team?It doesn't.

Palmer is still a franchise quarterback. Granted he's had a bad season, along with some consistency issues. So what? The whole team had a bad year. He knows that he has to get better, and from Palmer's work ethic, I see no reason that he won't.

Redhook
01-19-2008, 10:17 AM
I wouldn't trade Palmer for anyone else in the league except Manning or Brady. He'll be a Bengal for his entire career.

I would only trade Chad Johnson for someone like Urlacher.

Hopefully, Marvin and Mike don't flinch and try to get perceived value for Chad. I doubt it happens, but if Chad escalates this minor problem then you never know what could happen. Losing Chad would decimate the offense because TJ couldn't do much without Chad.

Bip Roberts
01-19-2008, 10:19 AM
Time to merge these threads now that I kinda got my point across :(

But yea no thanks im not trading Chad Johnson for another NFL player. Especially with out having any quality replacements

GAC
01-19-2008, 11:17 PM
How does trading chad improve this team? Also Chad hasn't said he wants traded, he said if hes the problem then then need to find a way to fix it.


I've never advocated trading Chad.

Bip Roberts
01-19-2008, 11:20 PM
I've never advocated trading Chad.

I must have misunderstood then. :(

GAC
01-19-2008, 11:32 PM
It doesn't.

Palmer is still a franchise quarterback. Granted he's had a bad season, along with some consistency issues. So what? The whole team had a bad year. He knows that he has to get better, and from Palmer's work ethic, I see no reason that he won't.

Comparing this season with previous seasons, I don't see where he had a really bad year, other then his INTs were up. He threw for the most yardage he ever has (4131).

And one of the causes IMO is that the Bengals offensive line was weaker this year then in previous, due guys being injured or lost in the off-season. Players like Steinbach were missed.

This whole team struggled and appeared out of sync. They came out of '06 with key players suspended, others suffering injuries, and even guy recovering while still playing (Joseph). Their running game struggled because Rudi was hurt, even though Watson had a productive season (763 yds, 7 Tds).

Not having Chris Henry,that 3rd receiving threat, really hurt this offense IMO. It allowed teams to concentrate more on CJ and TJ. Especially, again, when your running game was struggling.

The team went 7-9; but IMO, I don't think they are as bad, or in dire shape, as some may think.

TC81190
01-19-2008, 11:44 PM
Comparing this season with previous seasons, I don't see where he had a really bad year, other then his INTs were up. He threw for the most yardage he ever has (4131).

And one of the causes IMO is that the Bengals offensive line was weaker this year then in previous, due guys being injured or lost in the off-season. Players like Steinbach were missed.

This whole team struggled and appeared out of sync. They came out of '06 with key players suspended, others suffering injuries, and even guy recovering while still playing (Joseph). Their running game struggled because Rudi was hurt, even though Watson had a productive season (763 yds, 7 Tds).

Not having Chris Henry,that 3rd receiving threat, really hurt this offense IMO. It allowed teams to concentrate more on CJ and TJ. Especially, again, when your running game was struggling.

The team went 7-9; but IMO, I don't think they are as bad, or in dire shape, as some may think.


Agreed. Even in a so called "off year", Carson threw for a career high and franchise record in passing yards.

Bip Roberts
01-20-2008, 12:32 AM
It was very much an off year regardless of the passing record.

GAC
01-20-2008, 06:52 AM
It was an "off year" all around for the entire team. There were several mitigating, and aggravating, factors that hurt this team. Carson Palmer, and even Chad Johnson (as much as I think the guy is an ass) were small parts of that equation.

What are the question marks facing the Bengals in '08?

Obviously the defense and a new defensive coordinator. I liked the fact that the Bengals played some youth at the corners. Guys like Joseph, who was still recovering, played better. Guys like O'Neal need to retire. The Bengals were 26th in the NFL in Passing Yds Allowed/Game at 230, and 9th in Rushing Yds Allowed/Game at 118. Definite room for improvement. I really think what hurt the Bengals was in the LBing department with the loss of Thurman and Brooks (injury). But they've also got some age in guys like Myers, Robinson, and Thorton on the line. Their defensive line didn't do much of a job pressuring QBs. The team was dead last in sacks with 22.

In the last two seasons the Bengals have "slid" in the Take Away/Give Away department to a +5. In 2005 they led the NFL with a +25 (simply phenomenal).

Running game. Rudi struggled with injury obviously. Up until '07 he's carried the load for this team. Is his career basically done? Some advocate so. Between Rudi, Kenny, and Dorsey, the team rushed for 1443 yds in '07. As much as I like Kenny Watson (178 ATT/763 YDS) he is a year older then Rudi. So who is the answer at RB for the Bengals in '08? Dorsey? Or do they continue to try and "squeeze" what they can out of the tandem of all three?

And we won't even talk about Chris Perry. What a bust.

When I look at both sides of the ball for the Bengals in '07, IMHO, the bigger question marks or issues that need to be addressed are on the defense. On the offensive side, as a whole, it's not an issue of talent as much as it's getting back in sync and getting their heads together. I personally think it was more psychological (head games) on the offensive side then anything. If Henry can get his act together, the Bengals have, IMO, a solid receiving corp in Johnson, TJ, and Henry. The talent is definitely there. I just think two of those three are head cases. ;)

Bip Roberts
01-20-2008, 10:24 AM
Its hard to call players who have been injured "bust" especially how good he was when he wasn't injured.

Dorsey isnt an every down back.

rotnoid
01-20-2008, 10:29 AM
A first round draft choice as oft injured as Perry certainly qualifies as a bust in most eyes.

Bip Roberts
01-20-2008, 11:26 AM
A first round draft choice as oft injured as Perry certainly qualifies as a bust in most eyes.

Bust seems just to be the wrong word :o

Screwball
01-20-2008, 11:42 AM
Comparing this season with previous seasons, I don't see where he had a really bad year, other then his INTs were up. He threw for the most yardage he ever has (4131).

And one of the causes IMO is that the Bengals offensive line was weaker this year then in previous, due guys being injured or lost in the off-season. Players like Steinbach were missed.


I believe they actually set a franchise record for least sacks given up in a season (17). And that's down from 36 (!) given up in the year before when the line was decimated with injuries (most notably Rich Braham). I do think the line struggled in run blocking (that's where we really missed Steinbach and, not to mention, Willie Anderson) much moreso, although a lot of that could just seem like it due to Rudi J's individual ineffectiveness.

And yet, despite that franchise record, Carson threw 20 INTs, or just five less than the last two years combined. Given the importance of turnovers in the NFL, and Carson may have actually cost us a game or two (the Arizona game comes to mind) by himself. That's just not like him.

Personally though, I agree with you in that I don't think he had a particularly bad year overall. Not by any reasonable benchmarks anyway. In fact, I'd argue he's largely a victim of his own lofty standards. 26 TDs, 65% completion percentage, 4,100+ yards and an 87 passer rating are dang good numbers all things considered. It's just that when you factor in the INTs, he had a down year compared to '06 and certainly '05. Or, in other words, he didn't turn in Superman performances like so many have come to expect of him week in and week out.

Degenerate39
01-20-2008, 11:51 AM
You cant tell me you wouldnt rather have Big Ben... Bengals scouting once again makes more mistakes that proves why they are the joke of the NFL.

I'd take Carson Palmer over Big Ben 100 times out of 100

GoReds33
01-20-2008, 11:54 AM
I'd take Carson Palmer over Big Ben 100 times out of 100I wouldn't. Ben is younger, and had a better statistical season. If anything, they are equals.

Highlifeman21
01-20-2008, 01:30 PM
I wouldn't. Ben is younger, and had a better statistical season. If anything, they are equals.

They are different style QBs.


QB Comparison

Player G Comp/G Att/G % Yds/G Avg/Att. TD:INT Sack RTG RushYds/G RushTD
Carson 61 21 33 64% 244 7.3 1.65 97 90.1 2.21 2
Ben 56 16 25 63% 208 8.1 1.56 146 92.5 9.19 8


Calling them equal is a hard thing to do b/c of their different styles. Carson is your prototypical lack of mobility pocket passer. His success is determined through the air, and by not making mistakes. Ben is what I like to call a mobile pocket passer. Defenses leaguewide have to respect his legs, while simultaneously respecting his arm. The strength of Pitt's running game allows Ben to not have to throw the ball so much a game. Ben's in a system that is 54% run/46% pass. Carson's in a system that is 58% pass/42% run. Carson has to throw the ball due to the Bengals having a lack of a legitimate ground threat.

As a passer, I think Carson has the edge. As a complete QB, I think Ben has a noticeable advantage.

Bip Roberts
01-20-2008, 01:56 PM
I wouldn't. Ben is younger, and had a better statistical season. If anything, they are equals.

Wow

redhawkfish
01-20-2008, 02:15 PM
Wow! Another Ben/Carson debate! :rolleyes: I think every board I visit has this argument. I personally think its cool that fans of both teams will get too see a true rivalry between two excellent quarterbacks for many years. Just think of all the QB's Bengal fans had to endure since Boomer, and the ones the Steeler's had since Bradshaw.:eek:

I would love to know the record of total games two QB's have played in against each other.

GAC
01-20-2008, 06:42 PM
Its hard to call players who have been injured "bust" especially how good he was when he wasn't injured.

You must be referring to his Michigan years, because since he's been a Bengal, even when he wasn't hurt and did play, his performance was pretty spotty. In four years the guy has played in 22 games, and 14 of those were in 2005 where he didn't exactly put up stellar numbers.

The guy has been a bust, regardless if injury is the cause.

AmarilloRed
01-20-2008, 06:50 PM
Every team in the NFL would want a quarterback like Carson Palmer. I am not a Bengals fan, but if I was, I would do everything reasonable to keep my franchise quarterback.

Bip Roberts
01-20-2008, 07:08 PM
You must be referring to his Michigan years, because since he's been a Bengal, even when he wasn't hurt and did play, his performance was pretty spotty. In four years the guy has played in 22 games, and 14 of those were in 2005 where he didn't exactly put up stellar numbers.

The guy has been a bust, regardless if injury is the cause.

For what his roll was he put up great numbers. 51 receptions and 4.6 ypc on the ground and was a huge part of our offense in 05

GAC
01-20-2008, 07:48 PM
For what his roll was he put up great numbers. 51 receptions and 4.6 ypc on the ground and was a huge part of our offense in 05

A pretty small window.

Ki-jana Carter, who everyone would agree was a bust in his injury plagued 4 years with the Bengals, had a 5.4 YPC.

Bip Roberts
01-20-2008, 07:59 PM
A pretty small window.

Ki-jana Carter, who everyone would agree was a bust in his injury plagued 4 years with the Bengals, had a 5.4 YPC.

Im not saying Perry hasnt been disappointing, im just saying I dont think injuries make a player a bust. I think bust is more because he just couldnt hack it talent wise in the NFL.

Its a pointless argument i regret starting :)

GAC
01-20-2008, 08:39 PM
To me, a "bust" does not necessarily, in every instance, say it's the player's fault. It just simply means that they came in with high expectations, such as a #1 pick who possessed immense talent while in college, and for whatever reason(s) it didn't pan out.

The league, historically, has been scattered with them. Especially at QB....Rick Mirer, David Klingler, Joey Harrington, Heath Shuler, Todd Marinovich,

Screwball
01-23-2008, 01:37 PM
I wasn't sure whether to put this in a new thread or not, but it seems to go with any Palmer discussion so I just went ahead and put it in this one. From Mark Curnutte's blog (http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/bengals/):



It's estimated that 80 percent of the Palmer throws in 2007 that looked errant were indeed the responsibility of receivers running the incorrect route, even by a yard or two. The line protected the quick-thinking Palmer, who rarely holds onto the football too long, with a frachise single-season low 17 sacks. The team's receivers need to regain the route-running discipline that abandoned them too frequently this past season. A consistent run offense also would help.


I'm not sure how accurate these "80% estimations" are, but if they're in the ballpark it gives me a new perscpective on the passing offense. It's hard to imagine WRs as talented and experienced as TJ and Chad (not to mention Henry, Chatman, Tab Perry, etc.) lacking the discipline to run crisp, precise routes, yet a few key incompletions and INTs (Pats game before the half) seem to support the notion.

If only Hue Jackson would come back... :pray:

WMR
01-23-2008, 01:46 PM
If that's true, it's beyond pathetic.

Highlifeman21
01-23-2008, 01:53 PM
If that's true, it's beyond pathetic.

Not sure on the accuracy of that %, but how many times do you see Chad and Carson arguing on the sideline after an incompletion or an INT?

Seems there might be some fire as the cause of this smoke.

cincrazy
01-23-2008, 05:44 PM
Terrible year from a terrible QB who cant win any big games and has no team leadership abilities, if we can get like a 6th rounder for him it would be excellent considering the cap space we would save

I hope you're kidding. I'm not reading any more through this thread than the first post, but I truly, truly hope that you're not serious.

Kind of hard to be a good QB when you have no RB, whiny receiver's, and an offensive line that's a turnstile.

Not to mention an awful coaching staff and an impatient fan base.

Oh, and the worst front office management in football.

Other than that, his supporting cast was great.

Put Big Ben on the Bengals and he throws 10 TD's and 30 picks

Cedric
01-23-2008, 06:22 PM
I wouldn't. Ben is younger, and had a better statistical season. If anything, they are equals.

Ben is younger and..... that's about it.

Comparing Ben to Carson year in and year out you won't find those numbers to be close. Ben has benefitted greatly from one of the best organizations in sports while Carson has languished with the worst franchise in sports.

No scout or NFL coaching member would take Ben over Carson.

BuckeyeRedleg
01-23-2008, 06:27 PM
Ben is younger and..... that's about it.

Comparing Ben to Carson year in and year out you won't find those numbers to be close. Ben has benefitted greatly from one of the best organizations in sports while Carson has languished with the worst franchise in sports.

No scout or NFL coaching member would take Ben over Carson.

Well said.

WMR
01-23-2008, 06:31 PM
Carson is a top 5 QB.

Roethlisberger might--MIGHT--be top 20.

He benefits from all the reasons excellently elucidated by Mr. Cedric.

Oxilon
01-23-2008, 09:16 PM
Roethlisberger might--MIGHT--be top 20.

He benefits from all the reasons excellently elucidated by Mr. Cedric.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here...

Cedric
01-23-2008, 09:32 PM
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here...

After the top five or so Qb's I just don't see any difference. It's the second hardest position to evaluate in all of football and that's why people like Brady/Romo can become pro bowlers and possible HOF's.

The system is usually the biggest help for a player. Carson has been hindered by an innefficient offense that is obsolete. It's time he gets a system that best maximizes his talent. He needs a system that relies on his great deep accuracy but also allows for ball control when the situation arises. I'm not the only Bengal fan that is sick and tired of the high risk routes that we see on third and 2 or third and 3. It's just like how an NBA guard needs a mid range game, Carson needs a TE and players out of the backfield to ease the amount of hits he takes and allows the offense to keep the ball. Our inneficiency on offense the last two years has really hurt the play of the defense also. Offense, Defense, and Special teams all rely on one another to win football games. The Bengals brass has never fully grasped that.

traderumor
01-24-2008, 09:17 AM
Offense, Defense, and Special teams all rely on one another to win football games. The Bengals brass has never fully grasped that.See, ced, this is where you lose people like me in your argumentation. It is great to make nice long deadpans of each and every draft pick of the Marvin era, but you are oversimplifying the reasons that the franchise is in its current state and making a reductionist argument that the leadership do not understand the most basic of football principles. This is a fundamental that high school coaches know, perhaps even biddy league (since fans understand it).

In the practical world of putting together an NFL roster, this is why teams will win or lose football games, but I do not think it is because any of them do not understand the concept of the three primary areas of a football team. What it comes down to is "guns and butter," and right now the Bengals have allocated a lot of resources on the offensive side of the ball and the cheaper D players flamed out either through injury, off-field issues, or a poor draft pick. The special teams suffered due to injury, some flamed draft picks and losing some depth to free agency.

Cedric
01-24-2008, 04:33 PM
See, ced, this is where you lose people like me in your argumentation. It is great to make nice long deadpans of each and every draft pick of the Marvin era, but you are oversimplifying the reasons that the franchise is in its current state and making a reductionist argument that the leadership do not understand the most basic of football principles. This is a fundamental that high school coaches know, perhaps even biddy league (since fans understand it).

In the practical world of putting together an NFL roster, this is why teams will win or lose football games, but I do not think it is because any of them do not understand the concept of the three primary areas of a football team. What it comes down to is "guns and butter," and right now the Bengals have allocated a lot of resources on the offensive side of the ball and the cheaper D players flamed out either through injury, off-field issues, or a poor draft pick. The special teams suffered due to injury, some flamed draft picks and losing some depth to free agency.

Of course they understand it's importance. They just don't have any idea how to create it and sustain it.

traderumor
01-24-2008, 08:26 PM
Of course they understand it's importance. They just don't have any idea how to create it and sustain it.That's not what you said. You said they don't grasp the concept. Which is it?

GAC
01-24-2008, 08:44 PM
After the top five or so Qb's I just don't see any difference. It's the second hardest position to evaluate in all of football and that's why people like Brady/Romo can become pro bowlers and possible HOF's.

The system is usually the biggest help for a player. Carson has been hindered by an innefficient offense that is obsolete. It's time he gets a system that best maximizes his talent. He needs a system that relies on his great deep accuracy but also allows for ball control when the situation arises. I'm not the only Bengal fan that is sick and tired of the high risk routes that we see on third and 2 or third and 3. It's just like how an NBA guard needs a mid range game, Carson needs a TE and players out of the backfield to ease the amount of hits he takes and allows the offense to keep the ball. Our inneficiency on offense the last two years has really hurt the play of the defense also. Offense, Defense, and Special teams all rely on one another to win football games. The Bengals brass has never fully grasped that.

Some of what you say may be true. I especially agree on the TE. But have injuries, and maybe even age in some instances, also played into that "weakening"?

And while I think there was some sort of "disconnect" between Carson and his receivers not always being on the same page - who do you blame? An individual player(s) or the offensive scheme?

I don't know what you mean by inefficiency? If one looks at the major offensive stats, from overall offense, completion %, passing yardage total and per game, etc., the Bengals are right there hovering in the top 10.

What has slid, and again it was due to injury IMO, was in the overall running game where they were bottom tier. If you have trouble running the ball, then the passing game suffers.

Even in the Give Away/Take Away column they were 6th in the NFL at +6.

And here is another "trinket" that came to me.....

If it's going to be contended that it's simply the offensive scheme, meaning the talent is there; then couldn't the same possibly be asserted on the defensive side and why they fired Bresnahan? There is talent there; but the scheme is wrong.

I will say this - what hurt the Bengals the most this season IMO is not their offense, but their defense. The Bengals scored; but sadly enough, so did their opponent (pts allowed). That is where their emphasis needs to be.

Their offensive line did a good job in protecting Carson; but a very inconsistent job in opening holes for the running game.

And on the defensive side, I really think losing Thurman and Pollack hurt them.

It will be interesting as to what they will draft. LBers? Defensive or offensive linemen?

Cedric
01-24-2008, 11:55 PM
That's not what you said. You said they don't grasp the concept. Which is it?

I'm not trying to flip flop here. In my earlier post I was stating that I believe the Bengals organization doesn't grasp how to allocate their resources to develop a winning team. That isn't even mentioning the fact that Marvin hasn't done even a decent job of constructing the most important part of a football team. He has completely messed up the Oline that was great and hasn't come close to putting together a Dline.

Anyone with vision could see that the Bengals had issues with the age of Anderson and Braham. Marvin has focused early picks on replacements for each and yet hasn't created any stability. All of these problems come from the basic premise that the Bengals don't scout well, hence they draft bad and have no depth.

Cedric
01-25-2008, 12:06 AM
Some of what you say may be true. I especially agree on the TE. But have injuries, and maybe even age in some instances, also played into that "weakening"?

And while I think there was some sort of "disconnect" between Carson and his receivers not always being on the same page - who do you blame? An individual player(s) or the offensive scheme?

I don't know what you mean by inefficiency? If one looks at the major offensive stats, from overall offense, completion %, passing yardage total and per game, etc., the Bengals are right there hovering in the top 10.

What has slid, and again it was due to injury IMO, was in the overall running game where they were bottom tier. If you have trouble running the ball, then the passing game suffers.

Even in the Give Away/Take Away column they were 6th in the NFL at +6.

And here is another "trinket" that came to me.....

If it's going to be contended that it's simply the offensive scheme, meaning the talent is there; then couldn't the same possibly be asserted on the defensive side and why they fired Bresnahan? There is talent there; but the scheme is wrong.

I will say this - what hurt the Bengals the most this season IMO is not their offense, but their defense. The Bengals scored; but sadly enough, so did their opponent (pts allowed). That is where their emphasis needs to be.

Their offensive line did a good job in protecting Carson; but a very inconsistent job in opening holes for the running game.

And on the defensive side, I really think losing Thurman and Pollack hurt them.

It will be interesting as to what they will draft. LBers? Defensive or offensive linemen?

Controlling possession is the key to winning in the NFL. I don't have numbers in front of me but it seemed to me that the Bengals offense didn't sustain enough possession because of a myriad of factors. Some of that, IMO, is based on the fact the Bengals vertical passing game is too risky for the reward. Talent does come into play also. The Bengals have not created a stable Oline that can control the ball on the ground.

If you even take a look at the college title game you could see how a teams lack of sustained possession hinders the whole team. The Buckeyes were not able to sustain any long time drives and it affected the defense invariably. That's one of the main reasons that you rarely see a team win super bowls without controlling the clock and scoring. IMO the team with the most talent to never win a Super Bowl were the late 80's, early 90's Houston Oilers. Those teams relied too heavily on the offensive side of the ball and neglected the impact this had on the defense. It's common sense that a defense being on the field for way too long is devastating in post season games which are both high pressure and highly physical games.

The Bengals were 25th this year and 27 last year in TOPG from NFL.com. Some of that is not being able to stop the run and some of that is inefficient offense, IMO.

traderumor
01-25-2008, 09:27 AM
I'm not trying to flip flop here. In my earlier post I was stating that I believe the Bengals organization doesn't grasp how to allocate their resources to develop a winning team. That isn't even mentioning the fact that Marvin hasn't done even a decent job of constructing the most important part of a football team. He has completely messed up the Oline that was great and hasn't come close to putting together a Dline.

Anyone with vision could see that the Bengals had issues with the age of Anderson and Braham. Marvin has focused early picks on replacements for each and yet hasn't created any stability. All of these problems come from the basic premise that the Bengals don't scout well, hence they draft bad and have no depth.Actually, I was the one stating that the problem was an allocation of resources issue (inability, failure for controllable and uncontrollable reasons), your stance was that the Bengals do not grasp the interaction of the O, D and teams to make a good franchise (ignorance and incompetence). It seems you might finally be grasping that you are grossly overstating your case at every turn.

Cedric
01-26-2008, 02:52 AM
Actually, I was the one stating that the problem was an allocation of resources issue (inability, failure for controllable and uncontrollable reasons), your stance was that the Bengals do not grasp the interaction of the O, D and teams to make a good franchise (ignorance and incompetence). It seems you might finally be grasping that you are grossly overstating your case at every turn.

You made a point I agreed with. I never once disagreed with you or started a pissing match about it. I realize you are looking for anything to bash me on and that's fine.

What's the difference between grasping the interaction and actually producing it? Isn't my stating that the Bengals don't realize how to build all three components what I said? I would say you are right when you say incompetent. I think their drafting and overall usage of resources has shown their inability to grasp how to build a complete team.

Honestly I don't care if the Bengals realize the importance of all three areas of the game. I just want to see them actually show me they realize it by their talent acquisitions. If it's semantics and you feel like you "caught" me than kudos.

Maybe we should start a Bip Roberts/Traderumor vs Cedric thread and quit boring others.

By the way for Bip... Why did you choose a user name like Bip Roberts? Do you call off work all the time and generally show a bad attitude and lack of work ethic?

:) all in fun Bip. Don't get all feisty on me.

Bip Roberts
01-26-2008, 03:10 AM
Bip Roberts is the best player in reds history thats why.

GAC
01-26-2008, 05:55 AM
The Bengals were 25th this year and 27 last year in TOPG from NFL.com. Some of that is not being able to stop the run and some of that is inefficient offense, IMO.

I agree to a point Ced. But the difference in TOPG between the Bengals (25th) and the Steelers (1st) is 4 minutes/G. I don't know if that is a great disparity. Maybe. But the inability in having a consistent running attack is intrical to TOPG.

This is why, IMHO, it's not about Carson Palmer (or his receivers). When a defense knows you are having problems running the ball, then they are going to adjust their scheme accordingly. Even when you have talented receivers as the likes of CJ and TJ. That "lack" in the running game is putting too much pressure on Carson and the receiving corp IMO.

You did hit a "sore spot" for the Bengals in the TE position. A BIG sore spot. Reggie Kelley ain't it. 30th in the NFL with 20 receptions, 42nd in Yards/Games (14.1), 39th in Yards (211), 38th in Avg (10.5), and zero TDs. That is pitiful.

Just as a comparison.... Cleveland's Winslow was 3rd in the NFL in Receptions (82), Yards/Game (69.1), and Yards (1106). 8th in Avg (13.5) and TDs (5).

The Bengals and Browns also have "secondary" TEs in Coats and Heiden respectively; but their impact was pretty inconsequential overall.

Bengal Passing stats.....

ATT/G ... 35.9 (8th)
AVG ...... 7.2 (10th)
RATING .. 86.7 (10th)
COMP % ... 64.9 (5th)
PASSING ON 1ST DOWN ... 213 (4th). 37% (6th)

Bengal Rushing stats....

ATT/G .... 26 (23rd)
AVG ...... 3.7 (28th)
Running on 1ST DOWN).... 81 (24th). 19.5% (24th)

The Bengals relied way too much IMO on the passing/receiving of Carson, CJ and TJ, to lead them to victory. That's predictability to a defense.

Yachtzee
01-26-2008, 07:13 AM
I agree to a point Ced. But the difference in TOPG between the Bengals (25th) and the Steelers (1st) is 4 minutes/G. I don't know if that is a great disparity. Maybe. But the inability in having a consistent running attack is intrical to TOPG.

This is why, IMHO, it's not about Carson Palmer (or his receivers). When a defense knows you are having problems running the ball, then they are going to adjust their scheme accordingly. Even when you have talented receivers as the likes of CJ and TJ. That "lack" in the running game is putting too much pressure on Carson and the receiving corp IMO.

You did hit a "sore spot" for the Bengals in the TE position. A BIG sore spot. Reggie Kelley ain't it. 30th in the NFL with 20 receptions, 42nd in Yards/Games (14.1), 39th in Yards (211), 38th in Avg (10.5), and zero TDs. That is pitiful.

Just as a comparison.... Cleveland's Winslow was 3rd in the NFL in Receptions (82), Yards/Game (69.1), and Yards (1106). 8th in Avg (13.5) and TDs (5).

The Bengals and Browns also have "secondary" TEs in Coats and Heiden respectively; but their impact was pretty inconsequential overall.

Bengal Passing stats.....

ATT/G ... 35.9 (8th)
AVG ...... 7.2 (10th)
RATING .. 86.7 (10th)
COMP % ... 64.9 (5th)
PASSING ON 1ST DOWN ... 213 (4th). 37% (6th)

Bengal Rushing stats....

ATT/G .... 26 (23rd)
AVG ...... 3.7 (28th)
Running on 1ST DOWN).... 81 (24th). 19.5% (24th)

The Bengals relied way too much IMO on the passing/receiving of Carson, CJ and TJ, to lead them to victory. That's predictability to a defense.

Predictability was a problem. I think it's part scheme, part talent. The Bengals were definitely hurt by losing Braham and Steinbach from the line this year, along with some of the injuries/suspensions on offense. That, in turn, made deficiencies elsewhere all the more glaring. I think Reggie Kelly has always been more help in blocking rather than pass catching. However, they didn't need much pass catching from their TE when they had Chad, TJ, Henry, and Tab Perry, along with a solid running game with Rudi and either Watson or Chris Perry out of the back field. Throwing a lot of passes to the TE just wasn't a big part of the scheme.

When they lost Tab Perry and Chis Perry to injury and Henry to suspension, that meant they were going to have to rely on Kelly in more of a pass catching role. Especially since the receivers the Bengals brought in to replace TP and Henry had bad cases of the dropsies. But Kelly either must not be that hot at pass catching or else they needed him to hold his blocks a little longer before releasing into his pattern on passing plays to help the OL. On running plays, the loss of Braham and Steinbach made the running game far less effective, forcing the Bengals into more passing plays. The end result was that Palmer had to force more throws to Chad and TJ.

I think on offense they need to find some depth/upgrades on the OL, especially at C, and also pick up a pass catching TE. I think it's important because it gives the offense more options on passing plays, especially if your #3 receiver can't stay on the field because of behavioral problems and your #4 receiver is an injury risk.

That being said, I'd still rather the Bengals focus their offseason efforts in upgrading the D first. Getting a few more stops on D might also help Palmer by taking some pressure off of him so that he no longer feels he has to win the game on his own.

GAC
01-26-2008, 07:32 AM
Predictability was a problem. I think it's part scheme, part talent. The Bengals were definitely hurt by losing Braham and Steinbach from the line this year

Wholeheatedly agree there. And we Brown fans thank you for Steinbach. ;)


I think Reggie Kelly has always been more help in blocking rather than pass catching. However, they didn't need much pass catching from their TE when they had Chad, TJ, Henry, and Tab Perry, along with a solid running game with Rudi and either Watson or Chris Perry out of the back field. Throwing a lot of passes to the TE just wasn't a big part of the scheme.

Throwing a lot of passes to the TE may not be a part of the scheme; but don't you think it adds to the predictability, and that it should become a bigger part of that scheme?

And I disagree Yachtzee that they didn't need it simply because they had Chad, TJ, and Henry (whom they didn't have for a good part of this season). I believe you need to have that diversity (or as you stated - options).

Do you mean that at some point, before the injuries and suspensions, they didn't need it? But that has now changed?


When they lost Tab Perry and Chis Perry to injury and Henry to suspension, that meant they were going to have to rely on Kelly in more of a pass catching role. Especially since the receivers the Bengals brought in to replace TP and Henry had bad cases of the dropsies. But Kelly either must not be that hot at pass catching or else they needed him to hold his blocks a little longer before releasing into his pattern on passing plays to help the OL. On running plays, the loss of Braham and Steinbach made the running game far less effective, forcing the Bengals into more passing plays. The end result was that Palmer had to force more throws to Chad and TJ.

Again I agree. Especially the last statement (with the emphasis on "force"). There was just too much "pressure", or maybe reliance is the better word, on Palmer and your two "key" receivers to carry this team.


That being said, I'd still rather the Bengals focus their offseason efforts in upgrading the D first. Getting a few more stops on D might also help Palmer by taking some pressure off of him so that he no longer feels he has to win the game on his own.

Yep. And I stated that earlier. While their running game needs to be addressed, their main emphasis this off season should be on the defense.

What is it with Cincy teams (Reds/Bengals) who have issues with defense and runs allowed? :lol:

Bip Roberts
01-26-2008, 10:41 AM
I cant wait till the browns go back to sucking next year. :o

GAC
01-26-2008, 11:32 AM
I cant wait till the browns go back to sucking next year. :o

Maybe you should be more concerned for your own team. ;)

But it's not like you haven't been wrong before.

Bip Roberts
01-26-2008, 11:54 AM
Maybe you should more concern for your own team. ;)

But it not like you haven't been wrong before.

Im never wrong and I enjoy the miserable company.

BLEEDS
02-06-2008, 02:10 PM
Ben is younger and..... that's about it.


Don't think much about hardware eh? He is also head and shoulders above Carson in Leadership.



Comparing Ben to Carson year in and year out you won't find those numbers to be close. Ben has benefitted greatly from one of the best organizations in sports while Carson has languished with the worst franchise in sports.

That is true. They are also perfect fits for the teams they play for. One is substance over style, smash-mouth, no nonsense TEAM driven, etc. The other is style over substance, a better Fantasy Football team. A Myriad of offensive weapons that can't even be the best team in its own state.



No scout or NFL coaching member would take Ben over Carson.

Again, maybe in a Fantasy Football draft, but if you were building a franchise NFL team, you might be surprised.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Bip Roberts
02-06-2008, 02:14 PM
Ben is head and shoulders above Carson in leadership? Also since when does rings mean you are a better player?

and no NFL scout would take Ben over Carson

BLEEDS
02-06-2008, 02:19 PM
Ben is head and shoulders above Carson in leadership? Also since when does rings mean you are a better player?


Not so much the hardware itself, but he's a Playoff-saavy veteran, at 25, and has put his team on his shoulders - and won - did you watch the 2005 playoffs? @ Bengals, @ Indy, @ Denver?

He plays big in big games.

Wake me the next time Palmer wins a playoff game, 'cause it will be the first.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

acredsfan
02-06-2008, 02:30 PM
He plays big in big games.
Yeah, hence the worst QB rating in Super Bowl history. HE doesn't play big in big games, his defense and rushing cast play big in big games. Give me a break, when you pass 20 times a game you can't play "BIG". Yeah, as a Bengals fan I hate the Steelers, but they are a better team because they have the D and running game going. What do the Bengals have? A passing game, but even that suffers from the lack of the running game. In the NFL you have to be good at running the ball and defense. The passing game is somewhat of a luxury, it can make good Defenses and Running games better, but without the supporting phases it is useless.

Carson is the better QB, no doubt. Give me what you want about the better leader and all, but put some of our players on the Steelers and you'd have the same problem. That's not Carson's fault, it's the organization.

Bip Roberts
02-06-2008, 03:05 PM
Not so much the hardware itself, but he's a Playoff-saavy veteran, at 25, and has put his team on his shoulders - and won - did you watch the 2005 playoffs? @ Bengals, @ Indy, @ Denver?

He plays big in big games.

Wake me the next time Palmer wins a playoff game, 'cause it will be the first.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

His career QB rating in the playoffs is 77.7 or something, and the D had much more to do with that super bowl than he did.

BLEEDS
02-06-2008, 03:06 PM
Rudi Johnson is no joke. He always kills the Steelers. I don't think they know what to do with all those weapons/ego's, so they go for the Fantasy Stats.

Neither of this years QB's in the Superbowl had huge QB ratings. Again, I don't care about QB ratings, I care about wins/losses. Managing and Leading a team ARE traits that don't show up in the stat book. That's the problem with today's "ratings", they don't look at intangibles, everything you want to say is "team based"...

Sure the Steeler D is better than the Bengals. Maybe if you drafted/paid other positions instead of your Fantasy offensive studs, you'd be more balanced. That doesn't make your QB better because your team is worse.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Bip Roberts
02-06-2008, 03:08 PM
Might was well put Ben in the hall of fame then.

BLEEDS
02-06-2008, 03:10 PM
His career QB rating in the playoffs is 77.7 or something.

What is Carson's? He came up big (or went down hard, I can't remember.... in one game - or was it one pass? Kitna played marvelously though, actually MUCH better than Carson would have. Makes you wonder.

BTW, I think Ben put a 145+ QB rating on the Bengals in the playoffs, and was over 100 for the full 2005 post season.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

BLEEDS
02-06-2008, 03:11 PM
Might was well put Ben in the hall of fame then.

He's definitely on his way. Carson is on his way to being like a Manning though. (Archie).

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Bip Roberts
02-06-2008, 03:12 PM
What is Carson's? He came up big (or went down hard, I can't remember.... in one game - or was it one pass? Kitna played marvelously though, actually MUCH better than Carson would have. Makes you wonder.

BTW, I think Ben put a 145+ QB rating on the Bengals in the playoffs, and was over 100 for the full 2005 post season.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Do you read what you type before you hit submit reply?

BLEEDS
02-06-2008, 03:18 PM
Do you read what you type before you hit submit reply?

You have an issue with my post? Please do tell. Or is this a riddle? Try to add some value.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Bip Roberts
02-06-2008, 03:20 PM
You have an issue with my post? Please do tell. Or is this a riddle? Try to add some value.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Kitna played better than Palmer would have played? Troll your little boat somewhere else.

BLEEDS
02-06-2008, 03:23 PM
Kitna played better than Palmer would have played? Troll your little boat somewhere else.

He played awesome in the first half. Veteran saavy-ness. However it caught up with him. He made A LOT of plays that Carson could not, because he is a different QB - more mobile and runs. Carson can't throw on the run.

I doubt you woudl have been up 17-7 with Carson in there.

Did you watch the game?!?!

PEACE

-BLEEDS

WMR
02-06-2008, 03:23 PM
Not so much the hardware itself, but he's a Playoff-saavy veteran, at 25, and has put his team on his shoulders - and won - did you watch the 2005 playoffs? @ Bengals, @ Indy, @ Denver?

He plays big in big games.

Wake me the next time Palmer wins a playoff game, 'cause it will be the first.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

LMAO, the only reason the Squealers beat the Bengals in that playoff game was b/c of Kimo, aka THE HITMAN. :rolleyes:

WMR
02-06-2008, 03:24 PM
Kitna played better than Palmer would have played? Troll your little boat somewhere else.

"Troll your little boat"

That's a good one. :lol:

Bip Roberts
02-06-2008, 03:27 PM
He played awesome in the first half. Veteran saavy-ness. However it caught up with him. He made A LOT of plays that Carson could not, because he is a different QB - more mobile and runs. Carson can't throw on the run.

I doubt you woudl have been up 17-7 with Carson in there.

Did you watch the game?!?!

PEACE

-BLEEDS

I wonder how the Bengals won 11 games in 05 with Palmer in there at all. With the all world veteran saavy Kitna we probably would have went 16-0 because he just makes more plays.

Bip Roberts
02-06-2008, 03:28 PM
Has Ben ever won a game where the Steelers havent rushed for over 90 yards?

BLEEDS
02-06-2008, 03:41 PM
Has Ben ever won a game where the Steelers havent rushed for over 90 yards?

Don't know - is that a bad thing? We like to RAM IT DOWN PEOPLE'S THROATS in the second half after we've built a lead....

SO, your rushing game has to suck before you can be a good QB?!?!

90 yards isn't that hard to get - unless you're the Bengals I suppose, is that your point? Yes, we realize that the Bengals aren't a balanced playoff team. Again, that doesn't make your QB better.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Bip Roberts
02-06-2008, 03:42 PM
Don't know - is that a bad thing? We like to RAM IT DOWN PEOPLE'S THROATS in the second half after we've built a lead....

SO, your rushing game has to suck before you can be a good QB?!?!

90 yards isn't that hard to get - unless you're the Bengals I suppose, is that your point? Yes, we realize that the Bengals aren't a balanced playoff team. Again, that doesn't make your QB better.

PEACE

-BLEEDS
I didnt know being on a good team makes you a better QB.

Cedric
02-08-2008, 09:58 AM
What is Carson's? He came up big (or went down hard, I can't remember.... in one game - or was it one pass? Kitna played marvelously though, actually MUCH better than Carson would have. Makes you wonder.

BTW, I think Ben put a 145+ QB rating on the Bengals in the playoffs, and was over 100 for the full 2005 post season.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Pretty close to flaming territory. This isn't some random website where smack talk is the majority of the posts. I don't have any clue why you continue to mouth Carson Palmer of all Bengals. Why again is he to blame for getting his knee blown out? Why is he "flashy"? I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. Carson isn't exactly acting like Jim Mcmahom out there.

Stay away from mouthing someone for getting his knee torn up in a football game. That isn't the way we work here bud.

cincrazy
02-24-2008, 06:00 PM
He played awesome in the first half. Veteran saavy-ness. However it caught up with him. He made A LOT of plays that Carson could not, because he is a different QB - more mobile and runs. Carson can't throw on the run.

I doubt you woudl have been up 17-7 with Carson in there.

Did you watch the game?!?!

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Keep it classy

cincrazy
02-24-2008, 06:01 PM
I didnt know being on a good team makes you a better QB.

I feel bad for Carson. Put him on a good team, with a stable franchise, and he's already been to the playoffs multiple times, if not a Super Bowl winner. It's sad, really.

GoReds33
02-24-2008, 08:06 PM
I feel bad for Carson. Put him on a good team, with a stable franchise, and he's already been to the playoffs multiple times, if not a Super Bowl winner. It's sad, really.To be honest, he's on a good team. He's got one of the most talented offenses in the league. He's got two All-Pro wide recievers. He's got a former Pro Bowl running back. He's got quite possibly the greatest tackle in the game today when he's healthy. Most quarterbacks would kill for that kind of talent. Then he goes out, and this offense is all the suddden mediocre. I'm a Bengals fan, but I can't argue with the stats. I honestly think this team would have been better off with Ben Roethlisberger as the quarterback last year.

By the way, I sure hope I'm wrong and Palmer has a comeback year next year.

cincrazy
02-24-2008, 08:39 PM
To be honest, he's on a good team. He's got one of the most talented offenses in the league. He's got two All-Pro wide recievers. He's got a former Pro Bowl running back. He's got quite possibly the greatest tackle in the game today when he's healthy. Most quarterbacks would kill for that kind of talent. Then he goes out, and this offense is all the suddden mediocre. I'm a Bengals fan, but I can't argue with the stats. I honestly think this team would have been better off with Ben Roethlisberger as the quarterback last year.

By the way, I sure hope I'm wrong and Palmer has a comeback year next year.

I see where your going with your argument, but I disagree in a way. There's no question about the talent, but it's not WINNING talent. When things get bad, Chad, T.J., and the rest of them sulk and pout and curl up in a ball on the bench. Whereas a guy like Hines Ward will go right back at you and bust you in the mouth (as much as I can't stand the guy).

The Bengals are the complete opposite of the Steelers. They're a chatoic franchise ran by a joke of an owner with hardly any scouts, while the Steelers have been looked over by the Rooney family for many, many years