I didnt want us to beat Balt. we only dropped one spot but, it put the Panthers ahead of us. The Panthers draft needs are pretty much the same positions we need. If we were going to shock everyone by selecting a RB in the first I can see Carolina taking the guy we want right before us, it will happen the whole draft..

(01-09-2017, 12:22 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Ok, well if anyone asks in 2017 why we don't get any respect we can point to the notion that Bengals fans were rooting for them to lose a to a 3rd string QB on the national stage.

So making that kick would gain us respect?

Well then, sign me up! Who doesn't love a bit of meaningless "respect" from the media that trashes our franchise constantly regardless.

But seriously...the media didn't give a shit if we made that kick either.

(01-08-2017, 10:28 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: You never want to get in the position, but we definitely were in that position during this game.

I don't know why making a meaningless field goal would be your preference. The game didn't change at all. Us winning that game wouldn't indicate us being a better team or being closer to playing better next year.

It would have been, literally, worthless.

And it would hurt our team to boot due to draft position.

I can't understand how any fan could possibly wan to win that particular game.

The other wins are different, as they were indications of our team playing well and everything. That is very important both for team cohesion and morale as well as hope for the following year.

But from the point where he lined up for that field goal to the moment he missed it, there is absolutely no reason why a fan would want him to make that kick.

So if a team starts the Year say 3-5...should they just lose out the rest of the way for a draft pick?

The reason you always play to win is it permeates your culture. When you intentionally try to lose, it creates a culture of losing.

The difference between the Bengals not winning a playoff game in 26+ years...and Roethlisberger winning 12 of them...is the Steelers don't accept losing. The Bengals do. Losing for a draft pick is the epitome of that...

Plus look over drafts historically...In some drafts the better players get drafted in the middle of the 1st Round...or 2nd Round. It's not like picking 3 spots higher guarantees you a great pick.

(01-09-2017, 12:48 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: So if a team starts the Year say 3-5...should they just lose out the rest of the way for a draft pick?

The reason you always play to win is it permeates your culture. When you intentionally try to lose, it creates a culture of losing.

The difference between the Bengals not winning a playoff game in 26+ years...and Roethlisberger winning 12 of them...is the Steelers don't accept losing. The Bengals do. Losing for a draft pick is the epitome of that...

Plus look over drafts historically...In some drafts the better players get drafted in the middle of the 1st Round...or 2nd Round. It's not like picking 3 spots higher guarantees you a great pick.

No, you don't lose out if you start 3-5. But if you start 5-8-1 and are statistically eliminated from the playoffs? Yea, play to win (which they did) but then, at the point of the kick.

It is 10-12. You've played to win all game. You put yourself in the position to win. And all you need to do is kick a field goal to win. The same kick that, if missed, you'd lose....

You want to lose. 

If you lose, you get something out of it. Better picks.

If you win, you get NOTHING out of it. And you get worse picks.

I don't see the argument. Other than the very binary and narrow minded "losing never good" approach.

(01-08-2017, 10:35 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: They will get killed, by three scores...

The reason?  The Pats defense is good enough to stifle their offense (so is most every team that isn't hurt by poor officiating). The Pats offense will do what the Bengals and Raiders would not:  throw the ball down the field.  The Texans have an excellent secondary, but they only have to defend the first 15 yards.  The Pats will go deep a couple times early to soften them up, then eat them up with short passes and their running game when the defense drops.  It sounds simple, but you have to have the personnel to stretch the field.  Tom doesn't have the same deep ball he used to, but they will still test them down the field.  

I believe the reason will definately be because of the Texans Offense against the Pats Defense.

This will make it much easier on Brady cause he will have a short field for most of the day.

But that Defense of the Texans will give him some troubles. Especially Clowney.

I don't see Brady going deep as much as you do SHRacer. More of what him and that Offense does best, pick the LB's
apart in the middle of the field with Edelman and particularly Bennett. This is how they will beat that great Defense.

Slants and post routes in the middle of the field.

(01-09-2017, 01:02 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: If you win, you get NOTHING out of it. And you get worse picks.

The Bengals haven't won a truly meaningful game since 1990 and they've had a slew of draft picks since then; many of which were very high.

(01-09-2017, 05:44 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The Bengals haven't won a truly meaningful game since 1990 and they've had a slew of draft picks since then; many of which were very high.

Yea, but that doesn't mean draft position doesn't matter.

What if, in 2010, the won a meaningless game and it dropped them to, let's say, #6 or #7.

AJ Green goes #4, Julio Jones goes #6. We miss out on both.

Then in the 2nd round, San Francisco decides to take Dalton because he's available, and then we take Kaepernick.

Our team looks completely different.

Because of a meaningless win.

That's the kind of stuff that could truly affect this franchise. But a win back in 2010? It would have zero impact today.

That's why I call this line of thinking narrow minded.

The idea that winning one more game is developing a "winner's attitude" that "may or may not cultivate a winning atmosphere" in the following year, but missing that one key player in the draft by a pick or two could lead to your team failing for an additional 5 to 10 years.

(01-09-2017, 05:54 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yea, but that doesn't mean draft position doesn't matter.

What if, in 2010, the won a meaningless game and it dropped them to, let's say, #6 or #7.

AJ Green goes #4, Julio Jones goes #6. We miss out on both.

Then in the 2nd round, San Francisco decides to take Dalton because he's available, and then we take Kaepernick.

Our team looks completely different.

Because of a meaningless win.

That's the kind of stuff that could truly affect this franchise. But a win back in 2010? It would have zero impact today.

That's why I call this line of thinking narrow minded.

The idea that winning one more game is developing a "winner's attitude" that "may or may not cultivate a winning atmosphere" in the following year, but missing that one key player in the draft by a pick or two could lead to your team failing for an additional 5 to 10 years.

For some reason i never thought of it this way. Wild.

(01-09-2017, 05:54 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yea, but that doesn't mean draft position doesn't matter.

What if, in 2010, the won a meaningless game and it dropped them to, let's say, #6 or #7.

AJ Green goes #4, Julio Jones goes #6. We miss out on both.

Then in the 2nd round, San Francisco decides to take Dalton because he's available, and then we take Kaepernick.

Our team looks completely different.

Because of a meaningless win.

That's the kind of stuff that could truly affect this franchise. But a win back in 2010? It would have zero impact today.

That's why I call this line of thinking narrow minded.

The idea that winning one more game is developing a "winner's attitude" that "may or may not cultivate a winning atmosphere" in the following year, but missing that one key player in the draft by a pick or two could lead to your team failing for an additional 5 to 10 years.

Ehh, fine.  I'm just jealous we aren't the Browns.  They're picking first. If only Dalton would have had a lousy season we'd probably be picking in the top 5. I hate the fact that he succeeds. Thankfully we had not one, but two kickers who helped get us a better draft pick! Also, did you see those dumbass Steelers winning a playoff game? Idiots are going to be picking like...20-something. Dopes.

Remember when we stole that IR-ed corner from them since we had a higher draft pick? Those fools got some guy who is playing well as a rookie in the playoffs. Idiots.

(01-09-2017, 07:33 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ehh, fine.  I'm just jealous we aren't the Browns.  They're picking first.  If only Dalton would have had a lousy season we'd probably be picking in the top 5.  I hate the fact that he succeeds.  Thankfully we had not one, but two kickers who helped get us a better draft pick!  Also, did you see those dumbass Steelers winning a playoff game?  Idiots are going to be picking like...20-something.  Dopes.

Remember when we stole that IR-ed corner from them since we had a higher draft pick?  Those fools got some guy who is playing well as a rookie in the playoffs.  Idiots.

Remaining closed to my point is your choice. I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot force him to drink.

(01-09-2017, 05:54 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yea, but that doesn't mean draft position doesn't matter.

What if, in 2010, the won a meaningless game and it dropped them to, let's say, #6 or #7.

AJ Green goes #4, Julio Jones goes #6. We miss out on both.

Then in the 2nd round, San Francisco decides to take Dalton because he's available, and then we take Kaepernick.

Our team looks completely different.

Because of a meaningless win.

That's the kind of stuff that could truly affect this franchise. But a win back in 2010? It would have zero impact today.

That's why I call this line of thinking narrow minded.

The idea that winning one more game is developing a "winner's attitude" that "may or may not cultivate a winning atmosphere" in the following year, but missing that one key player in the draft by a pick or two could lead to your team failing for an additional 5 to 10 years.

Here is the main reason we never make it to the dance and its the only main reason,Our coaching staff accepts losing time and time again and the winning teams NEVER ACCEPT LOSING AT ALL.They refuse to live that way and will NEVER accept losing.We have  the mindset here that will allow players to fail.The winning franchises will always win as that is who they are.We have as good of talent as all the rest,but they are not given proper training and coaching to get ahead,look how many players have left here and have gone on to be stars.Its  how they are coached,barr nothing else.If you are  hoping this coaching staff will ever win,its will not.Marvin is just too nice of a guy.He will never run up the score,will never coach his players to have the killer instinct.Instead he coaches them to be nice guys.It is maddening to watch top talent players not get to the next level and its all because of the laid back mindset of this coaching staff.BELIEVE THIS.ITS NOT THE PLAYERS,MIKE TOMLIN could take our players and make them winnners, and that is the stone truth.Marvin does not have THE DNA OF A WINNNING COACH.He is not a winner with the way he coaches,its just a FACT,FOLKS.DO NOT THINK he will change,even if he gets to the playoffs he will not go any further.we are doomed to live as losers.

(01-09-2017, 07:33 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ehh, fine.  I'm just jealous we aren't the Browns.  They're picking first.  If only Dalton would have had a lousy season we'd probably be picking in the top 5.  I hate the fact that he succeeds.  Thankfully we had not one, but two kickers who helped get us a better draft pick!  Also, did you see those dumbass Steelers winning a playoff game?  Idiots are going to be picking like...20-something.  Dopes.

Remember when we stole that IR-ed corner from them since we had a higher draft pick?  Those fools got some guy who is playing well as a rookie in the playoffs.  Idiots.

Drafting top tier players from college is just a small small fraction of trying to get to the dance,the biggest challenge to getting in the dance comes from top coaches that know how and will get them to have the winning edge and that takes a ton of coaches all pulling for winning and not accepting any thing less.Great teams have great winning attitudes and will accept nothing else but winning.Yes you must have great players playing great,but ask any winning franchises players and they will all say its their coaches getting it done and making sure all their players play to win,nothing else matters to them and the franchise.COACHING IS THE MAIN REASON,AND DRAFTING COMES IN SECOND.

(01-09-2017, 09:52 PM)fortyyearfan Wrote: Drafting top tier players from college is just a small small fraction of trying to get to the dance,the biggest challenge to getting in the dance comes from top coaches that know how and will get them to have the winning edge and that takes a ton of coaches all pulling for winning and not accepting any thing less.Great teams have great winning attitudes and will accept nothing else but winning.Yes you must have great players playing great,but ask any winning franchises players and they will all say its their coaches getting it done and making sure all their players play to win,nothing else matters to them and the franchise.COACHING IS THE MAIN REASON,AND DRAFTING COMES IN SECOND.

I agree. Our coaches don't seem to be able to develop the young players that they draft. Look how many years it takes some of our 1st Round picks to get playing time...That's on the position coaches.

(01-09-2017, 04:07 AM)TKUHL Wrote: I didnt want us to beat Balt. we only dropped one spot but, it put the Panthers ahead of us. The Panthers draft needs are pretty much the same positions we need. If we were going to shock everyone by selecting a RB in the first I can see Carolina taking the guy we want right before us, it will happen the whole draft..

Word, wish we lost. 

(01-09-2017, 05:54 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yea, but that doesn't mean draft position doesn't matter.

What if, in 2010, the won a meaningless game and it dropped them to, let's say, #6 or #7.

AJ Green goes #4, Julio Jones goes #6. We miss out on both.

Then in the 2nd round, San Francisco decides to take Dalton because he's available, and then we take Kaepernick.

Our team looks completely different.

Because of a meaningless win.

That's the kind of stuff that could truly affect this franchise. But a win back in 2010? It would have zero impact today.

That's why I call this line of thinking narrow minded.

The idea that winning one more game is developing a "winner's attitude" that "may or may not cultivate a winning atmosphere" in the following year, but missing that one key player in the draft by a pick or two could lead to your team failing for an additional 5 to 10 years.

This really highlights the disadvantages of sports that have a draft, and why I am glad that most of the sports I follow do not have one. There should never be an incentive to lose games. Teams that intentionally tank ruin the fidelity and legitimacy of a competition.

(01-09-2017, 09:47 PM)fortyyearfan Wrote: Here is the main reason we never make it to the dance and its the only main reason,Our coaching staff accepts losing time and time again and the winning teams NEVER ACCEPT LOSING AT ALL.They refuse to live that way and will NEVER accept losing.We have  the mindset here that will allow players to fail.The winning franchises will always win as that is who they are.We have as good of talent as all the rest,but they are not given proper training and coaching to get ahead,look how many players have left here and have gone on to be stars.Its  how they are coached,barr nothing else.If you are  hoping this coaching staff will ever win,its will not.Marvin is just too nice of a guy.He will never run up the score,will never coach his players to have the killer instinct.Instead he coaches them to be nice guys.It is maddening to watch top talent players not get to the next level and its all because of the laid back mindset of this coaching staff.BELIEVE THIS.ITS NOT THE PLAYERS,MIKE TOMLIN could take our players and make them winnners, and that is the stone truth.Marvin does not have THE DNA OF A WINNNING COACH.He is not a winner with the way he coaches,its just a FACT,FOLKS.DO NOT THINK he will change,even if he gets to the playoffs he will not go any further.we are doomed to live as losers.

What players have left here and gone on to be stars?

If you look at most of our free agents, they go on to underachieve or just get approximately to where they were while here.

Michael Johnson and Anthony Collins crashed and burned as soon as they left the team.

Stacy Andrews, TJ Houshmandzadeh, Jermaine Gresham, Andrew Hawkins, Andre Caldwell, Jonathan Fanene, Jerome Simpson, Eric Steinbach, Andre Smith, Madieu Williams, Mohamed Sanu all had mediocre to good careers once leaving the Bengals...even Marvin Jones was only approximately as good in Detroit as he was here.

Reggie Nelson had a good year in Oakland, but even he was a BUST before getting here. The Bengals and their "losing ways" literally turned him into an amazing player.

Justin Smith was a star in San Francisco, but he was a star here as well so, you can't count him.

Looking back as far as 2010, the only two players that may have actually improved after free agency were Jonathan Joseph and Evan Mathis.

Jonathan Joseph is debatable because we saw him flourishing in his final year here (similar to what we're seeing with Dre this year). So not sure you can count him.

And Evan Mathis was great when played here but wasn't given playing time. That is the one I could see an argument for "players have left here and have gone on to be stars" but...I wouldn't say he became a star. He just became what he was when he was playing here. A good guard.

So who am I missing? I feel there has to be someone that I'm missing in order for you to make that statement. I just couldn't find it. Free agency information is very spotty before 2005, so maybe someone between 2003 and 2005?

(01-10-2017, 09:29 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: What players have left here and gone on to be stars?

If you look at most of our free agents, they go on to underachieve or just get approximately to where they were while here.

Michael Johnson and Anthony Collins crashed and burned as soon as they left the team.

Stacy Andrews, TJ Houshmandzadeh, Jermaine Gresham, Andrew Hawkins, Andre Caldwell, Jonathan Fanene, Jerome Simpson, Eric Steinbach, Andre Smith, Madieu Williams, Mohamed Sanu all had mediocre to good careers once leaving the Bengals...even Marvin Jones was only approximately as good in Detroit as he was here.

Reggie Nelson had a good year in Oakland, but even he was a BUST before getting here. The Bengals and their "losing ways" literally turned him into an amazing player.

Justin Smith was a star in San Francisco, but he was a star here as well so, you can't count him.

Looking back as far as 2010, the only two players that may have actually improved after free agency were Jonathan Joseph and Evan Mathis.

Jonathan Joseph is debatable because we saw him flourishing in his final year here (similar to what we're seeing with Dre this year). So not sure you can count him.

And Evan Mathis was great when played here but wasn't given playing time. That is the one I could see an argument for "players have left here and have gone on to be stars" but...I wouldn't say he became a star. He just became what he was when he was playing here. A good guard.

So who am I missing? I feel there has to be someone that I'm missing in order for you to make that statement. I just couldn't find it. Free agency information is very spotty before 2005, so maybe someone between 2003 and 2005?

I'd say many more washed out with their new teams and were waived after a year.

Steinbach was pretty good for a while when he left.

Justin Smith was the big one that left and while his play was around the same as it was here...he was defensive MVP level in SF. Of course, he was on a really good team at the time.

Spikes gained more notoriety too than he would of here.

A lot of it was these guys just gained more media exposure because they were on winners.

The guy that was average here and became a star once he left was Evan Mathis. Had he stayed here, I doubt he developed like that. I've read an interview where he credited the Eagles line coach and their blocking scheme with his development.

(01-10-2017, 10:47 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I'd say many more washed out with their new teams and were waived after a year.

Steinbach was pretty good for a while when he left.

Justin Smith was the big one that left and while his play was around the same as it was here...he was defensive MVP level in SF. Of course, he was on a really good team at the time.

Spikes gained more notoriety too than he would of here.

A lot of it was these guys just gained more media exposure because they were on winners.

The guy that was average here and became a star once he left was Evan Mathis. Had he stayed here, I doubt he developed like that. I've read an interview where he credited the Eagles line coach and their blocking scheme with his development.

Are you suggesting that PA is NOT the great O-line coach he and MB think he is?

(01-06-2017, 11:14 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Anyone think he missed the kick on purpose under someone else's direction?

"Hurt your chances at getting signed by another team and ruin future earnings by intentionally missing this kick"

(01-09-2017, 08:58 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Remaining closed to my point is your choice. I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot force him to drink.

I get your point.  Draft position is more important than a meaningless win once the season is over.  I understand that, and I suppose once we see who we draft we can decide if that is true or not.  I'm just not as into rooting for losses on national TV to 3rd string QBs as you are.  Take away my fan-card, I guess.