(01-31-2023, 10:56 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Mahommes was a project who was compared to Jay Cutler, pre draft:

Overview
Mahomes is a big, confident quarterback who brings a variety of physical tools to the party, but he's developed some bad habits and doesn't have a very repeatable process as a passer. Mahomes' ability to improvise and extend plays can lead to big plays for his offense, but he will have to prove he can operate with better anticipation and be willing to take what the defense gives him in order to win from the pocket. Mahomes will be a work in progress, but he's a high ceiling, low floor prospect.


So you had a player with issues, but massive upside and he was taken by the Chiefs who planned to sit him behind a veteran QB in Alex Smith where he could be developed by a QB guru in Andy Reid.

As for the franchise of the Chiefs, well I mean they at least brought people in and out.  The knock against the Bengals was that they had a 30 years playoff drought that involved a lot of "staying the course."  When we drafted Burrow we were a 2-14 team with a HC who looked to be in completely over his head and we hadn't won a playoff game since 1990 and we had the same stagnant/stubborn front office and owner running the show and saying stuff at press conferences that made Bengals fans groan.

It's hard to take Reid out of the Chiefs picture, because when he drafted Mahommes all 4 of his seasons as the HC in KC were winning seasons, with 3 playoff berths and a playoff win in there.  If the Chiefs had drafted Mahommes with Romeo Crenel going 2-14, then I think they're have gotten more grief, for sure.

With the Chiefs, it's a combo. Reid made them very good, but Mahomes took them from that level to that of a yearly title contender.

Before the Chiefs got Reid, they were also 2-14. They had at least 12 losses in 4 of their previous 6 seasons, and they hadn't won a playoff game since 1993, finally winning one in 2015 after a 22 year drought.

I don't think the situations are massively different.

It's hard to ask about a team over the course of 50 years. There are always ups and downs.

I will say this:

I started as a fan in 1980. In the 80s we were pretty good. Made the playoffs and a couple Super Bowls. I would have considered us a top 10 team in the NFL over that stretch.

Now - the 90s - 2001. We were easily the WORST FRANCHISE IN ALL OF SPORTS. It wasn't even close. So, I don't know how you factor that into the overall score, but it was bad.

Don't let any of the talking heads tell you different. but the Marvin era was a good stretch for this team. We were never a laughingstock and people always say we were terrible prior to Joe, but 5 straight playoff appearances in the early 2010s tells otherwise. The last years of Dalton and Marvin were a little rough, but not enough to put us in the lower half of the league.

(01-31-2023, 11:04 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: The 80’s were an eternity ago. Plenty of people didn’t even watch those teams play.

Touting “playoff appearances” as some big achievement is kind of embarrassing (we’re past that now). I’m honestly not sure what you’re going for with these weird threads you’ve been starting lately.

Football is odd.

A SB win brings pride, even if you weren't alive for it as many Steeler fans have some sort of misplaced (well, it's sports so it's all misplaced to us nobody fans if you want to get picky) pride in the 4 SBs that occured before any of them who are under the age of 50 could recall.  The Chicago Bears and their fans have been living off of that 1985 team for almost 40 years.  SB wins are forever, and people accept them as part of the team even if they weren't alive for it.

With that being said, NFL Championships prior to the SB era, despite being only slightly older than the oldest SB wins are deemed irrelevant and pathetic to cite.  A Steeler fan who trumpets the SB wins from 48-43 years ago with total relevance will scoff at a Browns fan trying to talk up Championships that aren't significantly older than that.

Playoff appearances?  Meh...I mean...that's a low bar for anyone outside of the fanbase to remember.  The Dolphins and Raiders made the playoffs twice in the past 7 years...who did they play against in the 2016 playoffs?  Does it matter?  Who'd remember that?

(01-31-2023, 11:04 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: The 80’s were an eternity ago. Plenty of people didn’t even watch those teams play.

Touting “playoff appearances” as some big achievement is kind of embarrassing (we’re past that now). I’m honestly not sure what you’re going for with these weird threads you’ve been starting lately.

2008 wasn't exactly yesterday either. Are you capable of discussion without veiled insults? You are the only person on here that seems to percieve everything as some kind of shot or disrespect towards Burrow. It's highly annoying.

The point of this thread is obvious. I think we had some good teams and years in our past, and I get a little tired of hearing "yeah Burrow is great, but the franchise is terrible". The franchise smartly tanked at the right time. They built a great staff and also drafted extremely well over the last several years. Which they've done a lot of under Tobin through the years.

Burrow is fantastic. The best QB we've ever had by a long shot, but the Bengals weren't the Detroit Lions prior to his arrival.

(01-31-2023, 11:10 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: With the Chiefs, it's a combo. Reid made them very good, but Mahomes took them from that level to that of a yearly title contender.

Before the Chiefs got Reid, they were also 2-14. They had at least 12 losses in 4 of their previous 6 seasons, and they hadn't won a playoff game since 1993, finally winning one in 2015 after a 22 year drought.

I don't think the situations are massively different.

It's different because you brought up Mahommes who was taken to be a project in a perfect situation.  When the Chiefs went 2-14 they did so when the draft famously had zero QBs worth a 1st round pick much less the 1st overall.  They got rid of Matt Cassel and Romeo Crenel and got Andy Reid and Alex Smith, turned the team from 2-14 to 11-5 on a dime and eventually drafted a project QB to develop.

We went 2-14, kept the coach that went 2-14 and drafted a 1st overall pick QB to start on day 1.  Both teams did the right thing in the end, but you have to admit we took the riskier route. 

(01-31-2023, 11:22 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It's different because you brought up Mahommes who was taken to be a project in a perfect situation.  When the Chiefs went 2-14 they did so when the draft famously had zero QBs worth a 1st round pick much less the 1st overall.  They got rid of Matt Cassel and Romeo Crenel and got Andy Reid and Alex Smith, turned the team from 2-14 to 11-5 on a dime and eventually drafted a project QB to develop.

We went 2-14, kept the coach that went 2-14 and drafted a 1st overall pick QB to start on day 1.  Both teams did the right thing in the end, but you have to admit we took the riskier route. 

I guess it does make more sense that the media would accredit more of our success to Burrow when we were 2-14 immediately prior to his drafting. As opposed to the Chiefs, who were already contending with Reid when they got Mahomes.

Still, I don't see the media constantly saying the Chiefs were a bad franchise prior to Reid.

We did take the riskier route, but I think both teams handled the situations as they should have. Our rebuild was just a bit more lengthy, and bc of that, I don't think we really got to properly guage whether or not Zac was a decent HC. Which was very risky when you take a QB as obviously talented as Burrow.

(01-31-2023, 11:38 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I guess it does make more sense that the media would accredit more of our success to Burrow when we were 2-14 immediately prior to his drafting. As opposed to the Chiefs, who were already contending with Reid when they got Mahomes.

Still, I don't see the media constantly saying the Chiefs were a bad franchise prior to Reid.

We did take the riskier route, but I think both teams handled the situations as they should have. Our rebuild was just a bit more lengthy, and bc of that, I don't think we really got to properly guage whether or not Zac was a decent HC. Which was very risky when you take a QB as obviously talented as Burrow.

I still think this whole tank and rebuild start to the ZT era is hindsight.  Things obviously worked out, but ZT was brought in to get Dalton and Green and John Ross back into the playoffs by replacing Marvin's outdated defensive-minded plan with a an offensive-minded young HC who had just been part of a SB run. Well, Ross was more of a player who "proved" that Marvin simply couldn't or wouldn't do what needed to be done to unlock this team's potential. ZT was supposed to be an instant upgrade with a roster that still had "win now" potential.

Our total suckage in 2019 and Burrow's ghastly injury in 2020 played an essential role in getting us where we are now, but I don't recall us expecting either to happen.  Going into the 2019 we had a poll on how many wins we'd get that year.  I recall picking 8 wins, and I think most folks hovered around "a bit better than Mavin has been doing lately."  I don't recall anyone saying we were tanking or needed to tank or we'd just flat out win 2 game.  Well, someone probably picked that.

Before Burrow we were the textbook definition of mediocre. Not great by any means, but not total crap either.

Just thankful now we have all the right pieces from the top down to compete year in and year out.

(01-31-2023, 11:47 PM)The American Dream Wrote: Before Burrow we were the textbook definition of mediocre. Not great by any means, but not total crap either.

Just thankful now we have all the right pieces from the top down to compete year in and year out.

Rep for the Barf sig.

(01-31-2023, 11:47 PM)The American Dream Wrote: Before Burrow we were the textbook definition of mediocre. Not great by any means, but not total crap either.

Just thankful now we have all the right pieces from the top down to compete year in and year out.

The 5 straight one and dones to kick off the Dalton/Green era are interesting.  The first two were encouraging, even in a loss because we were a young team that had purged the 2010 season and the frustrations of the Palmer/Chad era.  I feel like the tide turned once we lost to the Chargers, because that's when people were really on board and we were supposed to finally make some noise in the post season.  We followed that with losses to the Colts and Steelers that were helped along by key injuries, but still...as any Bills fan from the 90s will tell you, showing the entire NFL that you have a clear ceiling is a way for what was once a level of success to start looking like failure.

Keep in mind too, if we beat the Chiefs two years in a row in the AFC title game in their stadium that would have made their own usually impressive post seasons start to look very "fail" as well.  It's all relative. 

(01-31-2023, 11:47 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Rep for the Barf sig.

Haha thanks Bengalholic did a great job on it.

Mel Brooks is a comedic legend!And John Candy was too of course!

(01-31-2023, 11:45 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I still think this whole tank and rebuild start to the ZT era is hindsight.  Things obviously worked out, but ZT was brought in to get Dalton and Green and John Ross back into the playoffs by replacing Marvin's outdated defensive-minded plan with a an offensive-minded young HC who had just been part of a SB run. Well, Ross was more of a player who "proved" that Marvin simply couldn't or wouldn't do what needed to be done to unlock this team's potential. ZT was supposed to be an instant upgrade with a roster that still had "win now" potential.

Our total suckage in 2019 and Burrow's ghastly injury in 2020 played an essential role in getting us where we are now, but I don't recall us expecting either to happen.  Going into the 2019 we had a poll on how many wins we'd get that year.  I recall picking 8 wins, and I think most folks hovered around "a bit better than Mavin has been doing lately."  I don't recall anyone saying we were tanking or needed to tank or we'd just flat out win 2 game.  Well, someone probably picked that.

I'll admit that it's a bit of hindsight, but I just look at it as evolving your opinion when presented with new evidence. In 2019, I think most of us probably still believed in Dalton (ok, this one is probably 50/50), Green, Atkins, Dunlap, Burfict, etc.

In truth, most of our talent was closer to the end than most of us realized at the time. I'd like to believe the staff and FO were more aware of this than fans were. We tend to be a sentimental bunch.

Assuming they were aware of this, I'd say they were only kept due to contract guarantees. Besides, new regimes usually tend to = a new core of players, yet we mostly trotted out the same guys, many of which did not seem to fit our new schemes.

Then as contracts allowed us to more reasonably move on from the old core, we started to do so. Gradually reshaping the team entirely.

I get if you or others don't want to believe that's what happened, as we will never know for sure, but when I look at the big picture, that's what I see. Look at how bad Lou's defense was back then vs once the roster was fully turned over. It's a complete 180.

(01-31-2023, 11:52 PM)The American Dream Wrote: Haha thanks Bengalholic did a great job on it.

Mel Brooks is a comedic legend!And John Candy was too of course!

Fun football fact...John Candy was a part-owner of the Toronto Argonauts when they won the Grey Cup in 1991, so his name is forever engraved upon Canadian football history, if nothing else.

(01-31-2023, 11:58 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I'll admit that it's a bit of hindsight, but I just look at it as evolving your opinion when presented with new evidence. In 2019, I think most of us probably still believed in Dalton (ok, this one is probably 50/50), Green, Atkins, Dunlap, Burfict, etc.

In truth, most of our talent was closer to the end than most of us realized at the time. I'd like to believe the staff and FO were more aware of this than fans were. We tend to be a sentimental bunch.

Assuming they were aware of this, I'd say they were only kept due to contract guarantees. Besides, new regimes usually tend to = a new core of players, yet we mostly trotted out the same guys, many of which did not seem to fit our new schemes.

Then as contracts allowed us to more reasonably move on from the old core, we started to do so. Gradually reshaping the team entirely.

I get if you or others don't want to believe that's what happened, as we will never know for sure, but when I look at the big picture, that's what I see. Look at how bad Lou's defense was back then vs once the roster was fully turned over. It's a complete 180.

I mean, I think we lucked into Burrow because even teams that are rebuilding have a hard time going 2-14.  As underwhelming as we had been during the tail end of the Marvin era, going 2-14 was unreasonably bad for us.  We needed to match our worst season in history and we managed to do it in a year where the first pick got us Burrow, not Mayfield, or Goff, or Kyler Murray etc.  Getting Chase was another bit of luck given the odds against us being bad enough to get the 4th pick with Burrow under center, but he wasn't under center, so we got it.  I wouldn't call it regular ol' luck since it involved injury, but again...we defied the odds and got a great player for it when the odds were against us having that chance.

But as I said before, when you get lucky you need to make the most of that luck and build upon it and we have, so alls well that ends well and so on.

(01-31-2023, 11:19 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: 2008 wasn't exactly yesterday either. Are you capable of discussion without veiled insults? You are the only person on here that seems to percieve everything as some kind of shot or disrespect towards Burrow. It's highly annoying.

The point of this thread is obvious. I think we had some good teams and years in our past, and I get a little tired of hearing "yeah Burrow is great, but the franchise is terrible". The franchise smartly tanked at the right time. They built a great staff and also drafted extremely well over the last several years. Which they've done a lot of under Tobin through the years.

Burrow is fantastic. The best QB we've ever had by a long shot, but the Bengals weren't the Detroit Lions prior to his arrival.

Yeah, that's a stretch.  It's impossible to compare QBs fairly from era to era.  How would Greg Cook have done had he not been denied a career?  How would Anderson and Esiason have performed (with their quality o-lines) in a pass happy era when you can't breathe heavy on a QB and the WRs are free to roam?  Love Burrow, but the recency bias skews perspective.

(02-01-2023, 12:33 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I mean, I think we lucked into Burrow because even teams that are rebuilding have a hard time going 2-14.  As underwhelming as we had been during the tail end of the Marvin era, going 2-14 was unreasonably bad for us.  We needed to match our worst season in history and we managed to do it in a year where the first pick got us Burrow, not Mayfield, or Goff, or Kyler Murray etc.  Getting Chase was another bit of luck given the odds against us being bad enough to get the 4th pick with Burrow under center, but he wasn't under center, so we got it.  I wouldn't call it regular ol' luck since it involved injury, but again...we defied the odds and got a great player for it when the odds were against us having that chance.

But as I said before, when you get lucky you need to make the most of that luck and build upon it and we have, so alls well that ends well and so on.

Oh no doubt. Luck is usually involved when it comes to getting a clear cut guy like that, but if I don't call the Colts lucky for getting Peyton and a guy literally named Luck, why would I shade my own team by boiling it all down to luck?

Also, Burrow and Chase may be like a young Tom and Randy, but even those guys wouldn't win like this without a good cast around them. The FO and staff did a good job of getting the right pieces around Joe and Chase. Injured o-line aside.

Let's just hope we take a couple more linemen in the draft. Jonah and La'el haven't proven to be very durable, and Joe was heavily neutered on what he could do in the AFCC game due to how bad the blocking was.

(02-01-2023, 12:44 AM)ElkValleyBengal Wrote: Yeah, that's a stretch.  It's impossible to compare QBs fairly from era to era.  How would Greg Cook have done had he not been denied a career?  How would Anderson and Esiason have performed (with their quality o-lines) in a pass happy era when you can't breathe heavy on a QB and the WRs are free to roam?  Love Burrow, but the recency bias skews perspective.

We've done pretty well QB wise as a franchise, minus the 90s where everything was crap.  Anderson, Esiason, Burrow and even on occasion Palmer and Dalton compared favorably to their peers operating within the same timeframe and rules set.  As much as the new rules would have benefitted them, I'm not sure Anderson and especially Esiason would have wanted their careers to take place during the Mike Brown era, though.

(02-01-2023, 12:45 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Oh no doubt. Luck is usually involved when it comes to getting a clear cut guy like that, but if I don't call the Colts lucky for getting Peyton and a guy literally named Luck, why would I shade my own team by boiling it all down to luck?

Well, the Colts made their own luck to get Luck by legit tanking.  I suppose you could argue they were "lucky" that Peyton Manning had a surprise(?) neck injury that would sideline him for the whole season late enough for them to fail to address their lack of a viable backup.  I actually recall that season, at least a bit, because I was living in Chicago and hanging around with a chick from Indiana who was a Colts fan and it was like "Oh yea surprise Peyton isn't playing this year, at all.  Ok, time to start the season."

(02-01-2023, 12:51 AM)Nately120 Wrote: We've done pretty well QB wise as a franchise, minus the 90s where everything was crap.  Anderson, Esiason, Burrow and even on occasion Palmer and Dalton compared favorably to their peers operating within the same timeframe and rules set.  As much as the new rules would have benefitted them, I'm not sure Anderson and especially Esiason would have wanted their careers to take place during the Mike Brown era, though.


Well, the Colts made their own luck to get Luck by legit tanking.  I suppose you could argue they were "lucky" that Peyton Manning had a surprise(?) neck injury that would sideline him for the whole season late enough for them to fail to address their lack of a viable backup.  I actually recall that season, at least a bit, because I was living in Chicago and hanging around with a chick from Indiana who was a Colts fan and it was like "Oh yea surprise Peyton isn't playing this year, at all.  Ok, time to start the season."

It was a much more obvious tank job, for sure. Them rolling with Curtis Painter and whoever the other guys were would be like if we'd rolled with Ryan Finley for all of 2019 instead of just 3 games to ensure the losing train kept rolling until we had a firm hold on the top pick.

Ours may have been a bit improvised while knowing we wouldn't win much with that roster, while the Colts just completely laid down.

Nobody in the national media cares about the Bengals. They were happy to have the Bengals be the Washington Generals of the AFC Central/North and not throw any wrenches into their Browns/Ravens/Steeler story lines.

Even as the Lewis Bengals started to turn things around there was always something to bring that "same old Bengals" story line to the fore. Dillon wanting out, player troubles on and off the field, Palmer wanting out, the Chad/TO distraction, etc. And then finally as they put all that behind them there was the playoff futility story.

The dark years of the 90s set a narrative they have never escaped from. Bad teams, dysfunctional teams, no fans, fans with bags over their heads, CHEAP OWNER, etc. The narrative was expanded upon during the Marvin years to include out of control, thugs, criminals, and chokers on the big stage. Most reporters are too lazy to check out the reality and most shock jock sports talking heads don’t care if it’s changed. They will continue to bring up 30 year old narratives.

Some of that is changing with Joey and Zac. Though to put more behind them winning that big diamond ring would be a great next step

Signing JoeyB to a long term contract paying him millions of dollars is important too in changing outsiders tunes.

90s decade killed us and even when we became competitive in 2000s we had stigma could not shake and funny when we made playoffs 5 straight years which was is not easy stigma continued with playoff drought. In our division since 2012 we have tied with Ravens for most divisional Champs with 5. No doubt there has been bias just compare how they talk about the Browns franchise at times with less stigma though they has been worse franchise than us in 90s. Here is something more amazing than our previous drought in playoffs, how about not winning your own division for the past 34 seasons since 1989. Maybe now with our success it will put to rest the bias narrative about our franchise history compared to some others.