Seen Wentz here, locally. He is not as bad as the jokes make him out to be. No problem with Joe having a Vet QB out there on the sidelines with him. Problem with Wentz, and many like him, is the cost. Forever benchwarmers are cheaper than "semi" successful vets. Bengals are counting coins right now. Not saying being cheap, before anyone starts that. Just they are going to try to keep the band together and that'll cost/

(08-13-2023, 09:29 PM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: Yes, they should be. If Joe goes down, we are screwed. Henne lead KC on a 95 yard TD dtive vs Jacksonville when Mahommes went down. I have zero faith in Browning or Siemian doing that.

But getting Joe & Tee signed should be priority #1. And I'd easily prefer getting Reader, Boyd, or Chido re-signed over a backup QB.  

Yes, we should be, but only at the right price.

You have so little faith in the team the Bengals have built, this team can win a game with browning or Siemian , it seems to be the best balanced team in the league and has the ability to win with an avg backup, also a bit of overreach after 1 preseason game and do you think Burrow would have put up 30 plus points playing with that line and wrs? Browing or Seiman would be elevated by better players around them .

When JB went down and we brought in Reid Stinnet I think that tells you all you need to know about how Cincy feels about its backup QBs.

(08-14-2023, 11:58 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: Now Sieman was playing with the 3s and 4s out there vs 2s and 3s   So im not sure.

If we do look for another QB it will likely be after Cuts have occured... Borrow looks like he will be back for the Opener.


Who is out there?

Unless you what Flacco/Foles?

Flacco was called Joe Cool as well so they might get along

This is where I am too. I'd like to see Trevor start in ATL to get a better idea on him. Also, as I noted in another thread, the refs were allowing our receivers to get mauled out there. A couple of no calls were on critical third downs that would've moved the chains.

(08-14-2023, 02:18 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Oh I know how you operate by now, lol (I don't mean that in a bad way).

I was just having fun with it, although sarcasm and humor often doesn't translate via text the way we want it to.

I think (as usual) the truth lies between the 2 extremes. We can't (or shouldn't) make sweeping judgements based on preseason games. Everything should be taken with a lump of salt. That said, even the teams themselves make some judgement calls based on preseason performances.

So I think it's fair for fans to do the same.

Of course, it's possible one of these guys comes out next week and throws 4 TD's in a half and puts some serious pressure on Joe Burrow. I'm kidding. I think.

Again, the truth is usually in the middle.

With everything in life..... especially these days.

(08-13-2023, 01:25 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm going to go ahead and say that I would not be comfortable with either Trevor Siemian or Jack Browning having to steer the ship for more than a series or two in regular season action.  Browning looks to have some steady in him to be developed, as he seemed to elevate TE Tanner Hudson when plays began to break down.  Browning looks to be worth keeping around and continuing his development.

Trevor Siemian on the other hand looked really lost and flustered, especially when you consider that he's got 8 years of experience, including 30 starts.  Not only did he look "lost" at times, I questioned what appeared to be a lack of effort.  Many of us seemed comfortable with him as backup QB when he was signed, but now I'm not so sure that he's the guy.

You do realize neither of these guys were playing with any starters or any type of game plan?

(08-15-2023, 10:16 AM)Wyche Wrote: This is where I am too. I'd like to see Trevor start in ATL to get a better idea on him. Also, as I noted in another thread, the refs were allowing our receivers to get mauled out there. A couple of no calls were on critical third downs that would've moved the chains.

Right and with them not playing with any starters on OL or WR its really really hard to gage... overall success but i think he is starting vs ATL

(08-15-2023, 10:20 AM)Daddy-O Wrote: You do realize neither of these guys were playing with any starters or any type of game plan?

You do realize that both of those guys play QB in practice every day with those same guys that were on the field Friday night, right?

I dislike Simeon. Period.

Browning had a bad outing Friday but i see a solid QB in him.

(08-15-2023, 01:54 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: You do realize that both of those guys play QB in practice every day with those same guys that were on the field Friday night, right?

In normal circumstances, yes. But with Joe out, they have been playing with the 1s haven't they? I haven't been keeping real close tabs, but I figure one of them has been predominantly practicing with the starters. Or have they been splitting that time?

(08-15-2023, 03:38 PM)Wyche Wrote: In normal circumstances, yes. But with Joe out, they have been playing with the 1s haven't they? I haven't been keeping real close tabs, but I figure one of them has been predominantly practicing with the starters. Or have they been splitting that time?

Yes, and the two's and three's, or at least I would think that to be the case.

(08-15-2023, 01:58 PM)Housh Wrote: I dislike Simeon. Period.

Browning had a bad outing Friday but i see a solid QB in him.

I like Browning as well. But let’s face it no team with an elite QB can survive their injury.

Should've kept Brandon Allen

Still think they should've drafted Buechele last year or someone else similarly of a similar skillset to Burrow

Yes. We need a new backup

Hell, yeah. Unfortunately there's no one particularly OK out there. If the Bengals could get an average young QB and groom him behind Joe for 3 years, playing him in pre-season, a few snaps during cleanup, and late in the season when games don't matter, How could you not trade that player to a needy team for extra picks?

Back-up QBs behind Favre what the Packers got for them.
Mark Brunell 1993 113th pick traded 2 years later as an RFA for 3rd and 5th rounders
Matt Hassellbeck 1998 187th pick traded in 2001 along with 17th pick for 10th pick and 3rd rounder.
Also behind Favre, but not traded: Aaron Rodgers.
So a 1st round pick-24, a 5th round pic, and a 6th round pick for Aaron Rodgers, 2 3rds, a 5th and moving up from #17 to #10. Yeah, I want me some of that.

(08-15-2023, 09:09 PM)puddycat Wrote: Hell, yeah.  Unfortunately there's no one particularly OK out there.  If the Bengals could get an average young QB and groom him behind Joe for 3 years, playing him in pre-season, a few snaps during cleanup, and late in the season when games don't matter, How could you not trade that player to a needy team for extra picks?

Back-up QBs behind Favre what the Packers got for them.
Mark Brunell 1993 113th pick traded 2 years later as an RFA for 3rd and 5th rounders
Matt Hassellbeck 1998 187th pick traded in 2001 along with 17th pick for 10th pick and 3rd rounder.
Also behind Favre, but not traded: Aaron Rodgers.
So a 1st round pick-24, a 5th round pic, and a 6th round pick for Aaron Rodgers, 2 3rds, a 5th and moving up from #17 to #10.  Yeah, I want me some of that.

Sorry, not quite making the connection between backups behind Favre and what the Packers attained for Rodgers having to do with the Bengals not having a competent looking backup QB behind Joe Burrow.  You may be onto something, but you're going to have to do a little more leg work, in order to make it cohesive.

(08-15-2023, 09:41 AM)bfine32 Wrote: When JB went down and we brought in Reid Stinnet I think that tells you all you need to know about how Cincy feels about its backup QBs.

Yep. They get cheap guys for around $1 million. Some teams invest much more.

(08-15-2023, 09:09 PM)puddycat Wrote: Hell, yeah.  Unfortunately there's no one particularly OK out there.  If the Bengals could get an average young QB and groom him behind Joe for 3 years, playing him in pre-season, a few snaps during cleanup, and late in the season when games don't matter, How could you not trade that player to a needy team for extra picks?

Back-up QBs behind Favre what the Packers got for them.
Mark Brunell 1993 113th pick traded 2 years later as an RFA for 3rd and 5th rounders
Matt Hassellbeck 1998 187th pick traded in 2001 along with 17th pick for 10th pick and 3rd rounder.
Also behind Favre, but not traded: Aaron Rodgers.
So a 1st round pick-24, a 5th round pic, and a 6th round pick for Aaron Rodgers, 2 3rds, a 5th and moving up from #17 to #10.  Yeah, I want me some of that.

So draft QB, develop them for 3 years...then trade them?

(08-15-2023, 04:05 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: I like Browning as well. But let’s face it no team with an elite QB can survive their injury.

It depends on the injury though. If it’s something like 3-4 games in the middle of a key time, and the backup can get you half of those wins or more then that position becomes an invaluable one worth spending the money on. Problem is, you never know, that backup QB might never see a snap so it’s a tough call.

(08-15-2023, 09:15 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Sorry, not quite making the connection between backups behind Favre and what the Packers attained for Rodgers having to do with the Bengals not having a competent looking backup QB behind Joe Burrow.  You may be onto something, but you're going to have to do a little more leg work, in order to make it cohesive.

Well if we have elite weapons, elite coaching, and all that jazz then we should be able to plug a nobody QB in and he can Matt Flynn his way to an inflated performance and we can ship him off for picks to some dumbass team.