This is the dumbest debate I've seen in a while. Probably no one would take Brown over Atkins, and that is that. Stats be damned.

(07-07-2016, 11:33 PM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: This is the dumbest debate I've seen in a while.  Probably no one would take Brown over Atkins, and that is that.  Stats be damned.

I'm assuming you mean Donald, but pretty much everyone outside of Bengal fans thinks that Donald is better than Atkins.

(07-06-2016, 05:12 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Carr was hurt about middle of the 2nd quarter of the game, so it's not like he was in there long. Plus Carr was still getting used to his new rookie #1 receiver.

The defense still played like crap against the Seahawks. They let them stay on the field forever by letting them have about the same amount of rushing yards as what Wilson had through the air. The defense didn't play a good game against the Seahawks by any means.

They let Alex Smith have the most yards of his career against us. Letting him have almost 400 yards, and the run game had a little over 100 yards too. I don't think the defense stopped them from scoring once. Good thing our offense was going off at that point, or we would have lost.

The Bengals also played Arizona (who was the #1 offense), and Pittsburgh twice (who was the #3 offense). So, it's not like the Bengals had a cupcake schedule in the second half of the season.

The defense looked a lot worse before Burfict came back. It shows in the stats, and if you actually watch the game.

This "if you watch the game" crap is tired and weak, but since you still insist on arguing the same point:

Carr was injured right before halftime.  And with Carr, they got ZERO points....in their stadium....in week 1 of the NFL.  Looking at what the Raiders did to some other teams, it was a heck of an effort by the defense.  

Regardless what you say about the defense playing like "crap" against the Seahawks, they gave up 17 points to them.  The same Seahawks that put of 39 against the steelers and 38 against the Vikings.  17 points, and they shut them down on three straight drives to get the ball back to the offense, allowing for the comeback victory.  

As far as Alex Smith having his best day against the Bengals, he got ZERO TDs, and 21 points, all in FGs.  The chiefs were destroying teams at that point, and they still had Jamal Charles at that time of the season.  The Bengals defense held them to 21.  

Arizona put up huge numbers (and actual points, which is all that really matters) against Cincy after Burfict's return.  

The fact that you say they didn't play cupcakes (referring to the offenses on the other team) the second half of the season is questionable, when they played a hapless Browns team twice, a pathetic Rams team, and a horrible 49er team.  That's the 3 worst offenses in the league, played 4 out of 8 games.  

Sorry, shoe, I love Burfict too, but the defense played well with and without him. 

(07-08-2016, 12:20 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: I'm assuming you mean Donald, but pretty much everyone outside of Bengal fans thinks that Donald is better than Atkins.

Yeah, I meant Donald.  Don't know where I came up with Brown. 

(07-08-2016, 07:09 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: This "if you watch the game" crap is tired and weak, but since you still insist on arguing the same point:

Carr was injured right before halftime.  And with Carr, they got ZERO points....in their stadium....in week 1 of the NFL.  Looking at what the Raiders did to some other teams, it was a heck of an effort by the defense.  

Regardless what you say about the defense playing like "crap" against the Seahawks, they gave up 17 points to them.  The same Seahawks that put of 39 against the steelers and 38 against the Vikings.  17 points, and they shut them down on three straight drives to get the ball back to the offense, allowing for the comeback victory.  

As far as Alex Smith having his best day against the Bengals, he got ZERO TDs, and 21 points, all in FGs.  The chiefs were destroying teams at that point, and they still had Jamal Charles at that time of the season.  The Bengals defense held them to 21.  

Arizona put up huge numbers (and actual points, which is all that really matters) against Cincy after Burfict's return.  

The fact that you say they didn't play cupcakes (referring to the offenses on the other team) the second half of the season is questionable, when they played a hapless Browns team twice, a pathetic Rams team, and a horrible 49er team.  That's the 3 worst offenses in the league, played 4 out of 8 games.  

Sorry, shoe, I love Burfict too, but the defense played well with and without him. 

We still played a backup QB for more than half of the Raiders game, and anyways it was their first game with their rookie WR and 2nd year QB. The defense played alright, because it didn't have to stop a running game. The defense can't stop the run w/o Burfict, and that let's other teams exploit our defense.

The Seahawks were playing like crap at this point of the year. They started out the year 2-4 with one of their wins against the Lions where they knocked the ball out of Johnsons hand while he was reaching over the goal line. It's not like they were even playing well at that point of the season, and we still let them have about 200 yards rushing. The defense stepped up in the 4th quarter, but just playing well in one quarter doesn't mean anything.

Yeah, the Chiefs were destroying a lot of people with their 1-6 record, right? The Chiefs weren't doing good. They just did good against us.

Bengals played 10 teams with Burfict, not 8. Three out of those 10 teams were in the top 3 offenses. So 4 bad offenses and 3 amazing offenses with 3 more just average offenses doesn't mean that we played a cupcake schedule. If you average all of the offensive rankings of the season w/o Burfict it comes to 15, and if you average all of the offenses when we had Burfict it comes to 16, so it's not like there's a huge difference between the kind of teams we faced.

Burfict and Geno both suck. There. Is everybody happy?

(07-08-2016, 05:08 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: We still played a backup QB for more than half of the Raiders game, and anyways it was their first game with their rookie WR and 2nd year QB. The defense played alright, because it didn't have to stop a running game. The defense can't stop the run w/o Burfict, and that let's other teams exploit our defense.

The Seahawks were playing like crap at this point of the year. They started out the year 2-4 with one of their wins against the Lions where they knocked the ball out of Johnsons hand while he was reaching over the goal line. It's not like they were even playing well at that point of the season, and we still let them have about 200 yards rushing. The defense stepped up in the 4th quarter, but just playing well in one quarter doesn't mean anything.

Yeah, the Chiefs were destroying a lot of people with their 1-6 record, right? The Chiefs weren't doing good. They just did good against us.

Bengals played 10 teams with Burfict, not 8. Three out of those 10 teams were in the top 3 offenses. So 4 bad offenses and 3 amazing offenses with 3 more just average offenses doesn't mean that we played a cupcake schedule. If you average all of the offensive rankings of the season w/o Burfict it comes to 15, and if you average all of the offenses when we had Burfict it comes to 16, so it's not like there's a huge difference between the kind of teams we faced.

Actually, the Chiefs were 1-2 when the Bengals played them after they had put up 27, 24, and 28 points against the Texans, Broncos, and Packers...three pretty good defenses, including the #1 defense in the NFL.  

They lost Jamaal Charles the week after the Bengals game.  

I think it is kind of funny how you actually made the point that there wasn't a big difference in the teams that the Bengals played before Burfict and after his return, yet the Bengals didn't lose a game without him.  You want to say "look at the stats", or "watch the games", but the reality of it is the Bengals defense played VERY WELL without Burfict.  

When you make statements about how the Bengals defense only played well "one quarter" against the Seahawks and you also make statements about how the Raiders had a second year QB with a rookie WR and other excuses, it makes you look like you are just making stuff up to support your argument.  And let's not forget that the games you are giving him full credit for making such a huge difference, he didn't play anywhere near to all the snaps.  

The Bengals defense was playing very well without Burfict.  I love the guy.  He is a difference maker, but to try and make it sound like they sucked without him is just not factual.  

(07-09-2016, 07:43 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Actually, the Chiefs were 1-2 when the Bengals played them after they had put up 27, 24, and 28 points against the Texans, Broncos, and Packers...three pretty good defenses, including the #1 defense in the NFL.  

They lost Jamaal Charles the week after the Bengals game.  

I think it is kind of funny how you actually made the point that there wasn't a big difference in the teams that the Bengals played before Burfict and after his return, yet the Bengals didn't lose a game without him.  You want to say "look at the stats", or "watch the games", but the reality of it is the Bengals defense played VERY WELL without Burfict.  

When you make statements about how the Bengals defense only played well "one quarter" against the Seahawks and you also make statements about how the Raiders had a second year QB with a rookie WR and other excuses, it makes you look like you are just making stuff up to support your argument.  And let's not forget that the games you are giving him full credit for making such a huge difference, he didn't play anywhere near to all the snaps.  

The Bengals defense was playing very well without Burfict.  I love the guy.  He is a difference maker, but to try and make it sound like they sucked without him is just not factual.  

lol you do realize when you give some context into how much points they scored against the Texans, Broncos, and Packers it makes that argument look silly, right? Against the Texans the Chiefs defense gave their offense the ball in the red zone multiple times, and against the Broncos there was a pick 6 and a fumble that put the chiefs near the goal line. Their offense really didn't do much in those games, and their defense helped them out a ton. Then you act like the Packers have some kind of good defense. They're a mediocre defense.

How is that making things up? They did only play good against the Seahawks for one quarter, and the Raiders were working with a 2nd year QB with a rookie WR in his first game.

If you can't see how much better the Bengals defense is with Burfict then I don't know what to tell you. I guess just pay more attention to what's happening.

(07-07-2016, 05:44 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: lol, if Atkins was able to stay on the field he would. Donald is able to stay on the field longer because he has more stamina than Atkins. I don't see how anyone could think that being on the field longer is a negative. Only a homer would think that honestly. Why would you think that we would take Atkins off of the field? The only reason why anyone would do that is because he's tired, and they want him to stay fresh. You don't have a better argument. Your argument is "I just feel like he's better". My argument is "Look at the stat sheet".

The stat sheet has proven that Donald is a better DT. Geno has almost nothing better than Donald in the stat sheet.

We use more of a rotation on our DL, that doesn't mean Geno has less stamina than Aaron.

Not saying this is a negative on Donald either. Yes, we like to keep our guys fresh, this does not make them worse either.

It is the smarter way to use your DL. Geno is more disruptive than Donald, he blows up O-lines and throws O-lineman around
like ragdolls. The only DL i think is more disruptive is JJ Watt. Sorry you do not see this of your own DT on your fave team.

(07-12-2016, 03:51 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: We use more of a rotation on our DL, that doesn't mean Geno has less stamina than Aaron.

Not saying this is a negative on Donald either. Yes, we like to keep our guys fresh, this does not make them worse either.

It is the smarter way to use your DL. Geno is more disruptive than Donald, he blows up O-lines and throws O-lineman around
like ragdolls. The only DL i think is more disruptive is JJ Watt. Sorry you do not see this of your own DT on your fave team.

If Atkins was able to stay in longer then he wouldn't be rotated out as fast. This does prove that Atkins has less stamina than Donald.

And Donald doesn't blow up O-lines, and throw them around like rag dolls? You should watch other teams, and not just the Bengals if you want to make a definitive statement like Atkins is better than Donald. Sorry that I watch every team and not just my favorite, and that I can have an unbiased opinion about players on different teams.

(07-02-2016, 04:17 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Atkins isn't the best DT in the league, and Burfict is close to the best in the league. The last full year Burfict was healthy he lead the league in tackles. The only LB that would fit in our defense as a LB that would be better is Kuechly.

If you look at our defense ANY time Burfict is out of the game it's VERY VERY noticeable how much worse we are doing. If you look at 2014 when Burfict was playing we were doing great on defense. One of the best in points allowed. When Burfict couldn't get back on the field our defense looked like crap.

The defense plays good w/o Atkins and plays like crap w/o Burfict. It seems pretty obvious that Burfict means more to the defense than Atkins. Team records isn't following my logic at all. It's showing a team stat and not a defensive stat. Our defense could shut an opponent out and we could still lose.

Burfict is the MVP of our defense, and if you can't see it then you need to re-watch a lot of our games.

I'm sorry but in 2014 when he was a shell of his former self recovering from the injury our dline had the fewest sacks in the nfl comes back in 2915 and they have one of the best

(07-13-2016, 02:52 AM)Jpoore Wrote: I'm sorry but in 2014 when he was a shell of his former self recovering from the injury our dline had the fewest sacks in the nfl comes back in 2915 and they have one of the best

I guess Micheal Johnson replacing Gilberry and Geathers had nothing to do with that. In 2013 after Atkins was injured we still had 18 sacks the remaining 7 games (which averaged out to be 2.5 sacks a game). We were averaging 2.7 sacks a game before Atkins went down. Now why didn't our sacks go way down when Atkins left in 2013? Looking at the stats it looks like it's more likely that the loss of Micheal Johnson hurt the amount of sacks we had (since we didn't have a replacement for our 2nd DE), because when we got Johnson back the sacks went back to normal, and when we first lost Atkins the sacks didn't go down that much at all.

(07-12-2016, 11:59 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: If Atkins was able to stay in longer then he wouldn't be rotated out as fast. This does prove that Atkins has less stamina than Donald.

No, it proves that the Rams have less depth at DT than the Bengals. 

(07-13-2016, 07:19 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: No, it proves that the Rams have less depth at DT than the Bengals. 

If Atkins could go all game you know we wouldn't take him off of the field. The reason why you take someone like Atkins off the field is when they're tired. Donald is able to stay on the field longer because he has more stamina. Once he gets tired the same thing happens. They rotate another DT on the field and let him rest.

Why else would they rotate Atkins off the field?

(07-13-2016, 03:56 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: I guess Micheal Johnson replacing Gilberry and Geathers had nothing to do with that. In 2013 after Atkins was injured we still had 18 sacks the remaining 7 games (which averaged out to be 2.5 sacks a game). We were averaging 2.7 sacks a game before Atkins went down. Now why didn't our sacks go way down when Atkins left in 2013? Looking at the stats it looks like it's more likely that the loss of Micheal Johnson hurt the amount of sacks we had (since we didn't have a replacement for our 2nd DE), because when we got Johnson back the sacks went back to normal, and when we first lost Atkins the sacks didn't go down that much at all.

Oh, and it probably doesn't help that we had a rookie DC in 2014.

(07-12-2016, 11:59 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: If Atkins was able to stay in longer then he wouldn't be rotated out as fast. This does prove that Atkins has less stamina than Donald.

And Donald doesn't blow up O-lines, and throw them around like rag dolls? You should watch other teams, and not just the Bengals if you want to make a definitive statement like Atkins is better than Donald. Sorry that I watch every team and not just my favorite, and that I can have an unbiased opinion about players on different teams.

I watched Aaron Donald at Notre Dame and was hoping he would fall to us so we could put him next to
Geno. I have seen the guy play and like i said he is a fine DT, he is not the penetrating pass rushing DT
that Geno is. This is my opinion.

I watch every team including the Rams and this does not change this.

Funny how you are such a homer of certain players on this team that don't deserve it and seem like a
hater on others that do deserve praise like Atkins.

I love both Atkins and Burfict and am proud to have both on my team but in the end i truly believe that
Atkins makes a bigger impact. Burfict is the brains behind the Defense, so you are correct about that and
that Donald is a very good DT. I just disagree that he is better than Atkins.

Geno opens it up for Carlos Dunlap. I heard at one time we had the two highest sack DL players in the
NFL last year with these two.

(07-13-2016, 11:52 AM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: I watched Aaron Donald at Notre Dame and was hoping he would fall to us so we could put him next to
Geno. I have seen the guy play and like i said he is a fine DT, he is not the penetrating pass rushing DT
that Geno is. This is my opinion.

I watch every team including the Rams and this does not change this.

Funny how you are such a homer of certain players on this team that don't deserve it and seem like a
hater on others that do deserve praise like Atkins.

I love both Atkins and Burfict and am proud to have both on my team but in the end i truly believe that
Atkins makes a bigger impact. Burfict is the brains behind the Defense, so you are correct about that and
that Donald is a very good DT. I just disagree that he is better than Atkins.

Geno opens it up for Carlos Dunlap. I heard at one time we had the two highest sack DL players in the
NFL last year with these two.

Atkins is better than Donald as a pass rusher, but not by a lot. The thing is being a DT isn't all about rushing the passer. It's about stopping the run too, and Donald does that a lot better. That's why Donald is better than Atkins. Donald can keep up with Atkins against the pass and is better against the run.

I back up all of my opinions with good evidence that supports my claim to any player I am a "homer" for and a "hater" for. It's not like I blindly hate or prop people up. I watch almost every game for every team in the league for the past few years, so I have a lot of exposure with other teams and players, so that's how I form my opinions about them.

I love both Atkins and Burfict too, but I just think that Burfict is a much bigger piece for our defense than Atkins is, and I have shown you evidence to back that up. Without Burfict the defense has a massive hole in it. The team is horrible against the run without him, and he gets the defense set on the field. It seems like everyone on defense plays better with him on the field.

(07-13-2016, 01:18 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Atkins is better than Donald as a pass rusher, but not by a lot. The thing is being a DT isn't all about rushing the passer. It's about stopping the run too, and Donald does that a lot better. That's why Donald is better than Atkins. Donald can keep up with Atkins against the pass and is better against the run.

I back up all of my opinions with good evidence that supports my claim to any player I am a "homer" for and a "hater" for. It's not like I blindly hate or prop people up. I watch almost every game for every team in the league for the past few years, so I have a lot of exposure with other teams and players, so that's how I form my opinions about them.

I love both Atkins and Burfict too, but I just think that Burfict is a much bigger piece for our defense than Atkins is, and I have shown you evidence to back that up. Without Burfict the defense has a massive hole in it. The team is horrible against the run without him, and he gets the defense set on the field. It seems like everyone on defense plays better with him on the field.

Thats all good. I think we have both argued our points out. I like Donald a lot but i wouldn't trade Geno for him.

I still have my homerism going for Geno and you make very sound points. In the end i think in the trenches is where
games are won, but like you said Burfict gets the Defense set and helps us big time against the run. I agree with a lot
of what you say here...