Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise

(12-07-2018, 08:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: [ -> ]And they were proven correct when he couldn't play for other coaches and other teams.

Yay! - It was a bad draft pick and not bad coaching?

(12-07-2018, 09:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: [ -> ]Not sure what you mean, but it is still a stupid quote.

Most people fail or succeed because of their skills and/or resources, but those who succeed just because they were born with more skills or resources often refuse it admit this and instead give credit to their superior character or tenacity.  It sounds much better to claim success due to "just wanting it more than you did" instead of "I was a high school drop out who was extremely lucky that my mother had a rich boyfriend who helpd me into the business at his company."  The guy probably does have some smarts, but he still owed a lot of his success to good fortune. 

EVERY team in the NFL performs worse when their key starters are out with injury.  It is not an "excuse".  It is a fact.  Some have more depth and deal with it better, but I've seen the best teams lose games due to injuries to key players. And even teams like the Eagles last year were just a fluke.  If their coaches could overcome any obstacle then they would be better than 6-6 this year.  I've even seen studies showing that over the years the winningest teams are usually the healthiest teams.  But it is hard to just look at the numbers because Green and Eifert are the only two "elite" talents we have had on offense other than when Whit was here.  Losing one or both of them was tough on us.  

When a rich kid wrecks his Porsche his dad lends him the Benz while the 911 is in the shop.  Marvin had a few flashy toys, but when one broke he either had to ride the bus or drive his dad's 10-year-old PT Cruiser.  A J McCarron was the exception.  He was a solid back up.  Not the star some people here imagined, but pretty damn good for a #2 QB on the Bengals.

The Eagles winning the SB was about a team and coach that desperately wanted to win. Let’s not act like winning a SB is a “fluke”. It was earned. They were not as talented, but all were in it for a single cause. Your example here falls short because the Bengals don’t have that kind of desire to win. They accept and reward mediocrity. That’s a fact as well. Maybe they can win with key injuries if they wanted it bad enough but we’ll never know for sure

(12-07-2018, 11:47 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: [ -> ]Yay! - It was a bad draft pick and not bad coaching?

Realistically it was both.

He played his butt off in college but they didn't use him as a receiving threat.

You just don't pick the player if you don't plan on using him to his strengths.

Same with Gresham.

What's the point?

Yet they pick Eifert and play him exactly as he should have been as a receiving TE.

That's the point.

Is Eifert a better player?  Most certainly because that is what he excels at.

Gresham's performance after leaving the Bengals are all on the backside of his career.

Coffman struggled with injuries and struggled in the NFL.

When he was a fresh rookie he should have been plugged in like Eifert was.  At least attempted.  Instead he was inactive.

Again. That was my point.  Not that he failed.

They never even tried to get him on the field when our TE play was not great and didn't do much as receivers.

Dan Coats and JP Foschi?  C'mon man.

(12-08-2018, 10:06 AM)Hoofhearted Wrote: [ -> ]The Eagles winning the SB was about a team and coach that desperately wanted to win. Let’s not act like winning a SB is a “fluke”. It was earned. They were not as talented, but all were in it for a single cause. Your example here falls short because the Bengals don’t have that kind of desire to win. They accept and reward  mediocrity. That’s a fact as well. Maybe they can win with key injuries if they wanted it bad enough but we’ll never know for sure

How exactly do you measure each teams level of desire?

What are the current rankings?

Or do you have to wait until after the games are played to decide?

"The Eagles won because they wanted it more."
"How can you tell they wanted it more?"
"Because they won."

(12-08-2018, 12:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: [ -> ]How exactly do you measure each teams level of desire?

What are the current rankings?

Or do you have to wait until after the games are played to decide?

"The Eagles won because they wanted it more."
"How can you tell they wanted it more?"
"Because they won."

The Eagles won because they still had a lot of talent and the coaching staff adapted the offense to Foles strengths, which he executed exceptionally .

It had nothing to do with the fans. 

The Bengals have their QB go down, once this year and once when they were 10-2 and what did they do to adapt the offense to fit the replacement QB? Nothing. They ran the same offense to lesser productivity. 

Off the top of my head, there are probably at least 5 things the Bengals could try differently--some of them things other offenses do successfully--yet they don't. They stick with the same stale, lackluster game plans that lead to losing records. 

(12-07-2018, 11:18 AM)Hoofhearted Wrote: [ -> ]"If it's important to you, you'll find a way. If not, you'll find an excuse." ~ Ryan Blair

Well if you get both of your arms cut off and someone asks you to do a push up, Im sure that some people would say you had an excuse not to be able to. 

I get what you are saying but I think that having all three together could have made a difference, especially in the Steelers game. 

(12-07-2018, 08:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: [ -> ]Eifert made his money being able to get in and out of cuts like a WR.  Kroft and Uzo can't do that.

:andy:

(12-07-2018, 10:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: [ -> ]Sure they can.  I just don't like the ones who had some amazing good luck to generate quotes about how his success was all due to his character and tenacity.

And Bill Gates would 100% disagree with the idea that the only reason people fail is because they make excuses.  That is why he spends billions of his own dollars helping the disadvantaged instead of just accusing them of making excuses.

     

I don't know Fred, i wouldn't celebrate this acting like you beat down the man lol

(12-08-2018, 11:04 AM)BengalsRocker Wrote: [ -> ]Realistically it was both.

He played his butt off in college but they didn't use him as a receiving threat.

You just don't pick the player if you don't plan on using him to his strengths.

Same with Gresham.

What's the point?

Yet they pick Eifert and play him exactly as he should have been as a receiving TE.

That's the point.

Is Eifert a better player?  Most certainly because that is what he excels at.

Gresham's performance after leaving the Bengals are all on the backside of his career.

Coffman struggled with injuries and struggled in the NFL.

When he was a fresh rookie he should have been plugged in like Eifert was.  At least attempted.  Instead he was inactive.

Again. That was my point.  Not that he failed.

They never even tried to get him on the field when our TE play was not great and didn't do much as receivers.

Dan Coats and JP Foschi?  C'mon man.

Exactly, they just don't use players to their strengths, especially if they are not first rounders.

Doesn't matter where you are drafted, every player that is drafted has their own strengths, use them as such.

Eifert was a first rounder and they knew how to use him cause he was a first rounder with crazy talent that couldn't be ignored.

High commodity.

(12-07-2018, 10:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: [ -> ]Sure they can.  I just don't like the ones who had some amazing good luck to generate quotes about how his success was all due to his character and tenacity.

And Bill Gates would 100% disagree with the idea that the only reason people fail is because they make excuses.  That is why he spends billions of his own dollars helping the disadvantaged instead of just accusing them of making excuses.

     

Just saw this.  Lol

This is also the first season where AJ, Eifert, and Dalton have all ended up on IR.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-07-2018, 09:46 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: [ -> ]Hmmm.......like someone's dad who gave him a football team?  He should have stuck to lawyering because he's a 26 year abject failure at his football gig.

So someone who drops out of school can't be successful?  Should be looked down upon?  What are you saying?  I'm sure Bill Gates would disagree.

Except he's made billions of dollars which by most standards it pretty successful EXCEPT it's pretty damn close to impossible to not make billions of dollars with an NFL franchise..Even Mike Brown couldn't screw that up even if he tried.. 

(12-07-2018, 11:06 AM)ochocincos Wrote: [ -> ]I saw this posted on Twitter yesterday, thought it was worth posting here...
https://twitter.com/SandoESPN/status/1070785922071973889

While I don't think the playoff games would have been some offensive masterpiece with all of them together, I think it's worth pointing out that when your starting QB and top two receiving stars aren't on the field together in the playoffs, it's going to be (much) more difficult scoring points.

Excuses for dismal performances. The only one of those playoff games the team came close to winning was the one Dalton didn't play in, so that blows that whole theory up.

Anyone expecting Eifert to be healthy in the late season just hasn't been paying attention to his career. He's never healthy late in the season.

(12-09-2018, 10:58 PM)BengalChris Wrote: [ -> ]Excuses for dismal performances. The only one of those playoff games the team came close to winning was the one Dalton didn't play in, so that blows that whole theory up.

Anyone expecting Eifert to be healthy in the late season just hasn't been paying attention to his career. He's never healthy late in the season.

Just because Dalton didn't play in the 2015 game that was close doesn't mean it would have gone worse with Dalton. Your logic is flawed. McCarron's stat line that game was a measly 56% completion percentage for 212 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT. It was the defense that kept the team in the game. It would/could have easily been the same (if not better) with Dalton, especially given how Dalton's season was going before his injury.

The last statement is actually false. Eifert has played in two postseasons, 2013 and 2015. The correct statement would have been he's usually not healthy late in the season, and for that I would definitely agree.

(12-09-2018, 10:58 PM)BengalChris Wrote: [ -> ]The only one of those playoff games the team came close to winning was the one Dalton didn't play in, so that blows that whole theory up.

We only lost by 6 points on the road to a 13 win Texans team in Dalton's second season.

(12-10-2018, 02:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: [ -> ]We only lost by 6 points on the road to a 13 win Texans team in Dalton's second season.

Didn't our defense score our only TD and more points in that game than our offense? Oh, yes they did. It doesn't matter how many wins the other team had, Bengals were never close. Our offense had a total of 198 yards and was 0-9 on 3rd down conversions. God it was just awful.

(12-10-2018, 07:17 PM)BengalChris Wrote: [ -> ]Didn't our defense score our only TD and more points in that game than our offense? Oh, yes they did. It doesn't matter how many wins the other team had, Bengals were never close. Our offense had a total of 198 yards and was 0-9 on 3rd down conversions. God it was just awful.

We were within a td at Houston's 36 with 2 minutes left.

Total yards and third down conversions do not decide who wins a game.  Points do.

(12-10-2018, 07:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: [ -> ]We were within a td at Houston's 36 with 2 minutes left.

Total yards and third down conversions do not decide who wins a game.  Points do.

Yep! And our offense scored exactly 6 of those points. Can't win with an offense that can only score two FGs.