Quick Hits: Bengals Hope To Copy Rams' Super Rebound; Postseason OT Revamped

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-31-2022, 12:36 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I just think there's miscommunication between the two arguing sides here. Improving the roster is undoubtedly the biggest contribution, which I think is the main point Fred is making. This isn't debatable, to be honest - the team brought in better players, so the team was better. However, ZT did a great job of bringing in high-quality guys. This likely improved team chemistry, morale and all of that fun stuff. 

Being a "leader" doesn't win games if the player isn't good, though. That's the whole point. The college football landscape is littered with high quality teammates who are strong leaders. A lot of them aren't very good, though. Burrow is a great leader, but he is also a fantastic QB. Hilton is a great lockerroom guy, but he is also a good corner. Hendrickson is a great teammate, but he is also a fantastic DE. The same goes for Logan Wilson, and a lot of other players on the team. Good players win games. The lockerroom stuff helps in an unknown capacity, but the biggest change was that Cincinnati became inundated with quality players (aside from OL). 

I don't think Cincinnati's roster is really that much worse than any of the other past Super Bowl teams. There have been better, sure, but the Bengals have a strong roster. Especially going into this season. They had some luck throughout the season, were fortunate with an easier schedule and got hot at the right time. 

On the flip side, we've seen teams load up on talent, and not do squat. You really need a little of both. Now that we know how toxic it is behind the scenes in Washington, it may shed light on why their fantasy FA hauls didn't yield anything....or Philly's "dream team".