(01-19-2020, 05:38 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Why are you pulling such a random and silly question out of your ass?

(01-19-2020, 05:52 AM)mikey6866 Wrote: If you want to talk historically cleveland has been much more sucessful based on their championships under paul brown.  I wasnt arguing that over the last 10 years we werent better.  I was clearly talking about currently which is all that really matters.  Im typing on my phone so I dont care about paragraphs.  Im about 99 percent sure you are the fella that was trying to tell me billy price was better than ragnow because I was disappointed detroit took him right before us.  Once billy price became a bengal I was really rooting for him and supported him like I will with burrow because im a bengal fan.  Anybody can cherry pick what they want to try and make their point.  I mean you said in the other thread joe burrow had a pretty good 2018.  You just havent decided to face reality yet

(01-19-2020, 05:58 AM)mikey6866 Wrote: Have you ever played football?  Football is the ultimate team sport.  Brady is the best qb of all time so why has he lost games?  Lsu was without a doubt the best TEAM in the nation.  Joe burrow didnt do that by himself.  By this logic every great qb should be undefeated.

Here is a new paragragh for you.  Tannehill is not and never will be as good as brady.  Thats just a crazy statement.  Next thing your gonna tell me is dilfer is better than marino cause he got a ring.

(01-19-2020, 06:04 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: I think you have me confused with someone else. I don’t ever remember pimping Billy Price. He’s awful. One of our biggest busts in recent memory.

Not sure how being on your phone prohibits you from using paragraphs (I also post on my phone). Not trying to be a dick, it’s just really hard on the eyes to read those giant walls of text.

But we’ll just have to agree to disagree on Burrow. Even if I’m not sure what “reality” I’m avoiding? The one where we’re in a position to draft a stud QB that just won the Heisman, set a bunch of records, and won the national championship...

But if the historical run he just went on didn’t convince you I’m certainly not going to.

(01-19-2020, 06:11 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Right. 42 year old Tom Brady with his 88.0 PR is clearly better than 31 year old Ryan Tannehill with his 117.5 PR...

Weren’t you just going on about how only the “now” matters??

(01-19-2020, 06:21 AM)mikey6866 Wrote: Lol ok.  Again by this logic you are emphaticly stating based on his rating that he is better than patrick mahomes too? His rating is best in league so by your statement he is better than brady because of his rating so hes better than brees, lamar jackson-mvp, pat mahomes ect.  Its just rediculous

(01-15-2020, 02:45 AM)yellowxdiscipline Wrote: The fans didnt do anything, the organization however took a generational talent with the first pick and then proceeded to let him waste away here.

(01-18-2020, 10:24 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Carson did do it.

We were probably the best team in the NFL in 2005. We had high expectations but failed to meet them for a variety of reasons not necessarily associated with "we bad" decisions from 2006 to 2008 (many were reverberating issues from Carson's 2005 injury). In 2009 we swept the division.

We were, by and large, a respectable team heading into 2010, where we became a bit of a circus with Chad going crazy and TO being just good enough to cause drama all over the place.

And then from 2012 to 2017, with Dalton, we were considered a playoff worthy franchise, although 2016 and 2017 did not go according to plan.

We still struggled with playoff wins but we were, in every conceivable way, turned around. A lot of that had to do with Carson Palmer turning the team around from its hilarious ineptitude before him (remember, before 2005, we hadn't hit .500 since 1990.)

And, what, now we have a few bad seasons and we're suddenly irredeemable again?

This is some bullshit spewing out of TJ's mouth.

(01-16-2020, 02:52 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Was his subjective non-factual opinion with no binding statements or stakes incorrect?

...No...

It was just him being a hater. There's nothing to be correct or incorrect about here.

(01-18-2020, 12:23 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Good stuff there.

I almost hesitate to take the time to make this post because i'm already sure it's going to mostly fall on deaf ears, or will just be looked over due to already set opinions (either way) that aren't likely to change, no matter what...

I've said before that a QB can make a huge difference on a losing team. There's a post around here somewhere about all of the things in his control and how one guys decisions could produce a completely different outcome, over the decisions that were made by the current QB. Better decisions, better ball placement, be pocket awareness, etc. 

If you take the Bengals record this past year and look at all the games lost by a touchdown or less, it's so easy to conclude that if a better QB makes a couple diffferent decisions, or is able to place the ball better, the team is automatically that many games better by changing a player at one single position. With that being said, even if you replaced the QB and won all those games, you're still looking at a .500 team. 

When you don't draft the right players, use free agency and create a system that fits your players talents, you have to work that much harder just to play winning football, let along make the playoffs and compete for a championship. That's where the blow back comes from in the video you posted, from the many talking heads out there. You're trying to compete while keeping yourself at a competitive disadvantage.

This past season, Dalton wasn't getting the job done so the team decided to try Ryan Finley. That obviously didn't work, so all the Dalton fans that are still hanging on came out and proclaimed "i told you so" (among other things...w/e). That doesn't mean Joe Burrow, or any other 1st round talent QB can't come in here and improve the team. The thing is, he may improve the team but that improvement is only going to be proportionate to how much the FO invests in free agency and how well they do in the draft, as well as implementing a scheme that works with the players you have. 

It's a 3 fold scenario. Burrow will improve the team to an extent. Then it's up to the FO to build a team and put in a scheme that works. For the life of me, i can't understand why that's not easy to see, from fans or the front office. The worst part is, up to right now, the front office doesn't seem to be able to see this, or they're just not able to do it. Or even worse, they're not willing to make the investment to do it. 

Aaaaaaand with that last paragraph, i've just thrown a damper on next season and they haven't even started training camp yet. Thanks Rick...

Or maybe i should be thanking Mike Brown for creating this whole mindset and solidifying it with almost 30 seasons of failure, shortcomings, hope and coming up just short. 

(01-18-2020, 10:24 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Carson did do it.

We were probably the best team in the NFL in 2005. We had high expectations but failed to meet them for a variety of reasons not necessarily associated with "we bad" decisions from 2006 to 2008 (many were reverberating issues from Carson's 2005 injury). In 2009 we swept the division.

We were, by and large, a respectable team heading into 2010, where we became a bit of a circus with Chad going crazy and TO being just good enough to cause drama all over the place.

And then from 2012 to 2017, with Dalton, we were considered a playoff worthy franchise, although 2016 and 2017 did not go according to plan.

We still struggled with playoff wins but we were, in every conceivable way, turned around. A lot of that had to do with Carson Palmer turning the team around from its hilarious ineptitude before him (remember, before 2005, we hadn't hit .500 since 1990.)

And, what, now we have a few bad seasons and we're suddenly irredeemable again?

This is some bullshit spewing out of TJ's mouth.

(01-19-2020, 04:24 PM)samhain Wrote: I believe the Bengals have one of the worst ownership groups in the league and won't argue against anyone that makes such an assertion. Still, I don't get why the Bengals' awful front office has any more potential to ruin Burrow than any number of other crappy ones around the league. The Browns are trash, and they appear to utilize all facets of personal acquisition regularly. Same with Detroit. Have they done any better than the Bengals over the last 10-20 years? I don't think anyone could argue that they have. Even with Baker and Stafford, they still manage to screw things up royally. The Skins are a franchise with a great history that's in total disarray and looks unlikely to change anytime soon.

If anything, the Bengals have at least managed to maintain consistency at the quarterback position in the last 2 decades. Cincinnati may have been a place where quarterbacks went to die in the 90's, but I don't see it that way currently.

Will they surround him with the kind of talent he needs? That remains to be seen. It's not impossible. Carson and Andy both had great supporting casts at least for a few seasons.

(01-19-2020, 04:38 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Fair post, and I agree they shouldn't be singling out the Bengals when the Browns, Lions and maybe the Dolphins are all probably worse. I also get the response that "at least those teams try". They spend in free agency and make changes. I'm starting to worry that our past success was 100% due to Marvin Lewis. Lord knows our front office doesn't go that extra mile, heck sometimes they don't go the first mile.

(01-19-2020, 04:51 PM)samhain Wrote: Yeah, agree about Marv.  When he interviewed in Dallas, I talked to a lot of Cowboys fans who scoffed at the idea of him getting that job.  I really don't think that your average bandwagon football fan understands what he accomplished working with this lead balloon of a front office.  He certainly has his own set of flaws in game management and discipline, but he's probably a lot better at what he does than a lot of people perceive him to be.  

(01-19-2020, 05:02 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: I don’t buy that it was all Marvin. He probably doesn’t get as much credit as he deserves, and there’s no denying he’s the main factor that turned us around, but he also had some good rosters to work with during some of our best seasons (05, 13-15). Marvin doesn’t get enough credit, but our FO gets no credit...

(01-19-2020, 05:02 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: I don’t buy that it was all Marvin. He probably doesn’t get as much credit as he deserves, and there’s no denying he’s the main factor that turned us around, but he also had some good rosters to work with during some of our best seasons (05, 13-15). Marvin doesn’t get enough credit, but our FO gets no credit...

(01-19-2020, 05:07 PM)jason Wrote: I think the front office gets so little credit because as time marches in it's starting to look like later round steals like Geno and Marvin Jones were dumb luck.

(01-19-2020, 05:15 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: That’s kind of silly. So they shouldn’t get any credit for hitting on higher drafted guys? They still made the picks. Cleveland drafted high for years and they certainly didn’t always get it right.

But if for some reason we’re only going off later round picks how about Lawson? Or Billings? Pretty good players, no?

(01-19-2020, 05:23 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Well clearly the front office is doing something wrong, eh? The roster is pretty bad right now. A couple hits doesn't change that.

(01-19-2020, 05:23 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Well clearly the front office is doing something wrong, eh? The roster is pretty bad right now. A couple hits doesn't change that.