(05-18-2015, 05:29 PM)Nately120 Wrote: You mean the Lion's of the 90s aren't well regarded for going one-n-done 5 times in 7 seasons?

No, no they aren't...in fact that is considered the franchise that squandered Barry Sanders.  Go figure.

Good comparison. Honestly, I forgot that the Lions made the playoffs that many times back then. They only won 1 playoff game during Barry's career. Such a shame.

(05-18-2015, 06:22 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Watching wins is far more exciting than watching losses, so I'd rather get the wins.  It's not much different in the end though, it's just a far bigger let down and it's more frustrating to go 11-5 and then one and done in the playoffs than to go 4-12 and be eliminated from playoff contention in week 11.

I'd rather win too. I'm just saying that I don't lose interest just because the team is losing. If I had that kind of attitude, I would've never made it through the 90's.

I'm also saying that when I'm almost positive the team is destined to lose in the playoffs, it kind of take away the luster of making the playoffs.

I get that only 1 team can win the Super Bowl each year, but I want to see the team progress, and they haven't done that over the last 4 years. They're stuck in a rut.

(05-19-2015, 12:51 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Good comparison. Honestly, I forgot that the Lions made the playoffs that many times back then. They only won 1 playoff game during Barry's career. Such a shame.


I'd rather win too. I'm just saying that I don't lose interest just because the team is losing. If I had that kind of attitude, I would've never made it through the 90's.

I'm also saying that when I'm almost positive the team is destined to lose in the playoffs, it kind of take away the luster of making the playoffs.

I get that only 1 team can win the Super Bowl each year, but I want to see the team progress, and they haven't done that over the last 4 years. They're stuck in a rut.

Which is one of the biggest reasons I'm not excited about this season at all. Same coach same qb same players. I just don't see any progress with this team or any reason to believe that this season will be different than prior years.

This team needs a shakeup but ole boy Mikey isn't willing to take any risks. He's satisfied with being competitive and then getting our teeth knocked in during the playoffs.

(05-18-2015, 08:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think we've lost 1 playoff game in the last 5 years, in which, we were favored.

Don't worry bfine, I'm here to help you. Let me explain why your insinuation of "The team/Marvin isn't that bad because we usually weren't favored anyway!" is a complete crock of shit.

1. Right off the bat, that means that Marvin can't lead a team to win as the underdog even ONCE out of 5 tries (actually 4 since we were favored twice NYJ/SD), and can't even win the 1 game (actually 2) where we were favored. When a logical person reads your statement, it immediately looks silly for this reason alone. You think you're giving the team/Marvin some slack, when in reality you're just further proving why they haven't been very good.

2. What were the lines in those games? Some people may be interested in that. I'm interested because I'm sure it will debunk your assertion even more...

Steelers -3 @ Bengals
Actual point differential: 14
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 11

So basically, for the slower crowd that wants to talk about Vegas odds mattering here, were the Bengals supposed to lose by 14??? No. If you want to bring up Vegas, you may want to know what you're talking about first. The Bengals were 3 point dogs, yet they lose by 14 and you're going to rationalize that by acting like it's not so bad since we weren't favored? Haha, good one. Let's keep looking at the odds since that's what you decided to bring up. Now, everybody remember, we were "supposed" to lose by 3, yet got blown out by 14.

Bengals -2.5 vs Jets
Actual point differential: 10
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 12.5

Texans -4 vs Bengals
Actual point differential: 21
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 17

Texans -4 vs Bengals
Actual point differential: 6
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 2

Bengals -2.5 vs Chargers
Actual point differential: 17
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 19.5

Colts -3 vs Bengals
Actual point differential: 16
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 13

Soooooooooooo, for those keeping track at home, what does this tell us?

It tells us that if you're going with the "odds matter" theme, then you have to give it an in depth look to see what the odds are really about. What the FACTS tell us, is that over the course of 6 playoff games under Marvin Lewis, the Cincinnati Bengals have given up.....*drum roll*

75 more points than they were "SUPPOSED TO" according to Vegas.

Next time somebody wants to bring up who is favored and who isn't in their argument, remember to look a bit deeper than just "hurr durr they weren't favored sometimes so Marvin iz gud".

(05-19-2015, 08:58 AM)djs7685 Wrote: Don't worry bfine, I'm here to help you. Let me explain why your insinuation of "The team/Marvin isn't that bad because we usually weren't favored anyway!" is a complete crock of shit.

1. Right off the bat, that means that Marvin can't lead a team to win as the underdog even ONCE out of 5 tries (actually 4 since we were favored twice NYJ/SD), and can't even win the 1 game (actually 2) where we were favored. When a logical person reads your statement, it immediately looks silly for this reason alone. You think you're giving the team/Marvin some slack, when in reality you're just further proving why they haven't been very good.

2. What were the lines in those games? Some people may be interested in that. I'm interested because I'm sure it will debunk your assertion even more...

Steelers -3 @ Bengals
Actual point differential: 14
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 11

So basically, for the slower crowd that wants to talk about Vegas odds mattering here, were the Bengals supposed to lose by 14??? No. If you want to bring up Vegas, you may want to know what you're talking about first. The Bengals were 3 point dogs, yet they lose by 14 and you're going to rationalize that by acting like it's not so bad since we weren't favored? Haha, good one. Let's keep looking at the odds since that's what you decided to bring up. Now, everybody remember, we were "supposed" to lose by 3, yet got blown out by 14.

Bengals -2.5 vs Jets
Actual point differential: 10
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 12.5

Texans -4 vs Bengals
Actual point differential: 21
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 17

Texans -4 vs Bengals
Actual point differential: 6
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 2

Bengals -2.5 vs Chargers
Actual point differential: 17
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 19.5

Colts -3 vs Bengals
Actual point differential: 16
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 13

Soooooooooooo, for those keeping track at home, what does this tell us?

It tells us that if you're going with the "odds matter" theme, then you have to give it an in depth look to see what the odds are really about. What the FACTS tell us, is that over the course of 6 playoff games under Marvin Lewis, the Cincinnati Bengals have given up.....*drum roll*

75 more points than they were "SUPPOSED TO" according to Vegas.

Next time somebody wants to bring up who is favored and who isn't in their argument, remember to look a bit deeper than just "hurr durr they weren't favored sometimes so Marvin iz gud".

But the injuries? The lack of experience? THE 90s!

(05-18-2015, 09:20 AM)PlayerFormerlyKnownAsMousecop Wrote: Polian seems to agree with my opinion that being a consistent playoff contender is the most important step towards getting to and winning a Super Bowl. 

We have not been a contender in any of our playoff games, not by a long shot. The fashion in which we get booted out of the playoffs is more embarrassing than not making them at all. That our fans laud the team for making a 60 minute cameo in the postseason is even more embarrassing than that. I used to make excuses, too. Then I saw what Marvin did against San Diego.

We got to play the weakest team in the playoffs, a warm weather, west coast team that we had already gone on the road and beaten a month prior, at one o' clock in the afternoon at home (where we were previously undefeated) in January. We got torn apart in every aspect of the game.

If you, as a coach, cannot win when the planets align to give you that many advantages, then there's to reason to assume you can do it at all.

(05-19-2015, 12:51 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Good comparison. Honestly, I forgot that the Lions made the playoffs that many times back then. They only won 1 playoff game during Barry's career. Such a shame.


I'd rather win too. I'm just saying that I don't lose interest just because the team is losing. If I had that kind of attitude, I would've never made it through the 90's.

I'm also saying that when I'm almost positive the team is destined to lose in the playoffs, it kind of take away the luster of making the playoffs.

I get that only 1 team can win the Super Bowl each year, but I want to see the team progress, and they haven't done that over the last 4 years. They're stuck in a rut.

You don't lose interest when the team is losing? I was a fan in the 90s as well, but I can guarantee I'm a lot more engaged and interested in the outcomes when the team is competing for a spot in the playoffs week in and week out.

(05-19-2015, 08:58 AM)djs7685 Wrote: Don't worry bfine, I'm here to help you. Let me explain why your insinuation of "The team/Marvin isn't that bad because we usually weren't favored anyway!" is a complete crock of shit.

1. Right off the bat, that means that Marvin can't lead a team to win as the underdog even ONCE out of 5 tries (actually 4 since we were favored twice NYJ/SD), and can't even win the 1 game (actually 2) where we were favored. When a logical person reads your statement, it immediately looks silly for this reason alone. You think you're giving the team/Marvin some slack, when in reality you're just further proving why they haven't been very good.

2. What were the lines in those games? Some people may be interested in that. I'm interested because I'm sure it will debunk your assertion even more...

Steelers -3 @ Bengals
Actual point differential: 14
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 11

So basically, for the slower crowd that wants to talk about Vegas odds mattering here, were the Bengals supposed to lose by 14??? No. If you want to bring up Vegas, you may want to know what you're talking about first. The Bengals were 3 point dogs, yet they lose by 14 and you're going to rationalize that by acting like it's not so bad since we weren't favored? Haha, good one. Let's keep looking at the odds since that's what you decided to bring up. Now, everybody remember, we were "supposed" to lose by 3, yet got blown out by 14.

Bengals -2.5 vs Jets
Actual point differential: 10
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 12.5

Texans -4 vs Bengals
Actual point differential: 21
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 17

Texans -4 vs Bengals
Actual point differential: 6
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 2

Bengals -2.5 vs Chargers
Actual point differential: 17
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 19.5

Colts -3 vs Bengals
Actual point differential: 16
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 13

Soooooooooooo, for those keeping track at home, what does this tell us?

It tells us that if you're going with the "odds matter" theme, then you have to give it an in depth look to see what the odds are really about. What the FACTS tell us, is that over the course of 6 playoff games under Marvin Lewis, the Cincinnati Bengals have given up.....*drum roll*

75 more points than they were "SUPPOSED TO" according to Vegas.

Next time somebody wants to bring up who is favored and who isn't in their argument, remember to look a bit deeper than just "hurr durr they weren't favored sometimes so Marvin iz gud".

Right of the bat- Your corrections in parenthesis demonstrates you inability to simply go back 5 years, the Jets game was actually after the 2009 season. So for the "slower" crowd that was 6 years ago not 5. So "hurr durr your counting skills iz not gud"

Secondly- Lot of words to agree with the fact that we have lost 1 playoff game, in which we were favored, in the past 5 years. The Bengals are only 1 of 4 teams to make the playoffs every year for the past 4 years. Yet, some folks have to "look a bit deeper" for a reason to be mad.

Next time someone wants to announce their presence with authority on here remember don't look like an idiot when trying to do so.

(05-18-2015, 05:29 PM)Nately120 Wrote: You mean the Lion's of the 90s aren't well regarded for going one-n-done 5 times in 7 seasons?

No, no they aren't...in fact that is considered the franchise that squandered Barry Sanders.  Go figure.

(05-19-2015, 12:51 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Good comparison. Honestly, I forgot that the Lions made the playoffs that many times back then. They only won 1 playoff game during Barry's career. Such a shame.

It's a great comparison. Look at all the success the Lions have had since firing that coach that could win in the playoffs. It appears they adopted the "we just won't go" mentality,

Their fans must be stoked.

(05-19-2015, 02:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's a great comparison. Look at all the success the Lions have had since firing that coach that could win in the playoffs. It appears they adopted the "we just won't go" mentality,

Their fans must be stoked.

Hey, don't look at me! I wanted to keep Marvin/Carson/Chad/TO and everyone else involved in the 2010 season because "Hey, 4-12 is bad, but remember when we were like 2-14 back in the 90s? No thanks, man!"

(05-18-2015, 09:20 AM)PlayerFormerlyKnownAsMousecop Wrote: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/nfl/bengals/2015/05/17/bengals-bill-polian/27479191/

This actually reminds me of a poll I posted back on the old message board, about whether or not it was necessarily relevant that the Bengals haven't won a playoff game in over 20 years.

Polian seems to agree with my opinion that being a consistent playoff contender is the most important step towards getting to and winning a Super Bowl. 

Drafting for depth and building a powerful roster is the most effective way to build a team, IMHO. And with New England and Denver seemingly going through their own troubles with their quarterbacks and rosters our time may come sooner than later.

I agree, Player. But it is a process that is not typically rewarded with instant gratification. Some would trade their left nut for instant gratification - but I don't know that route would be sustainable. I'm in for the long-haul. DyNASTY!

(05-18-2015, 01:40 PM)yellowxdiscipline Wrote: I don't know about you guys, but id rather be the team that has enough sustainable success in the regular season to make it to the playoffs only to lose in the 1st round, than be the team that never makes it there. I'll take 5 years of 1st round loses, then not making it in over a decade. (cough.... Cleveland..... cough)

'Sustainable' is key word here - props!

(05-18-2015, 07:52 PM)OSUfan Wrote: If this team were healthy against Indy they would have won the game. There are changes being made to improve from the Indy game. Marvin Jones healthy, Tyler Eifert healthy, AJ Green healthy.

How can just assume this? They got routed by Indy already in the regular season and had AJ Green then. Eifert has not proven to be a NFL caliber player at all yet (before anyone jumps on this notice the YET!) and there's no way Jones could swing a game that far.

Not only that, but we weren't even competitive in that game.

(05-18-2015, 12:45 PM)ExtraRadiohead Wrote: People are going to bash because they're emotional and understandably want a playoff win but going to the playoffs consistently is a huge step for this franchise. Obviously it hasn't been enough so far but it's night and day from the Palmer era.

Trouble players are gone, wins are up, drafting better all around and they're retaining the majority of the players they shoot for. If they can keep building off of what they've achieved thus far life should be good for Bengals fans in the future.

Now, if you could just convince the entire fan-base of this, we'd be a much happier 'community?'

(05-19-2015, 01:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Right of the bat- Your corrections in parenthesis demonstrates you inability to simply go back 5 years, the Jets game was actually after the 2009 season. So for the "slower" crowd that was 6 years ago not 5. So "hurr durr your counting skills iz not gud"

Secondly- Lot of words to agree with the fact that we have lost 1 playoff game, in which we were favored, in the past 5 years. The Bengals are only 1 of 4 teams to make the playoffs every year for the past 4 years. Yet, some folks have to "look a bit deeper" for a reason to be mad.

Next time someone wants to announce their presence with authority on here remember don't look like an idiot when trying to do so.

You have absolutely nothing for the fact that I completely debunked your stupid claim. Now you're calling names.

Whether you go back 1 year or 10 years, the fact remains that using Vegas odds makes it look WORSE for Marvin and the Bengals, not better.

In the last 6 playoff games, the Bengals have lost by a combined 75 more points than we were "supposed to" using the odds that YOU wanted to bring up. Try to spin it however you'd like, but that just makes Marvin look like a piss poor coach in the playoffs if you're willing to look at the facts and not just what bfine wants to believe.

I'm not "mad" about anything, I just think it's funny that you are one of the few left that insist on propping up Marvin for being a mediocre coach. OH WAHHHH IT'LL BE THE 90'S AGAIN IF WE FIRE HIM!!!!!!!

(05-19-2015, 03:51 PM)djs7685 Wrote: You have absolutely nothing for the fact that I completely debunked your stupid claim.

No doubt you somehow think, you completely debunked the claim that we lost 1 playoff game in the last 5 years, in which we were favored.


Good work.

(05-19-2015, 04:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt, you completely debunked the claim that we lost 1 playoff game in the last 5 years, in which we were favored.


Good work.

No, what I debunked was that your little stat there isn't telling the whole story.

Were we "supposed" to get blown out in all of those games?

How many of those games did the Bengals cover the spread?

Don't bring up odds if you clearly don't have a clue on how they work.

(05-19-2015, 04:10 PM)djs7685 Wrote: No, what I debunked was that your little stat there isn't telling the whole story.

Were we "supposed" to get blown out in all of those games?

How many of those games did the Bengals cover the spread?

Don't bring up odds if you clearly don't have a clue on how they work.

No doubt, you "debunked' a lot of things that were not stated.

Good Job

(05-19-2015, 04:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt, you "debunked' a lot of things that were not stated.

Good Job

Are you trying to sound dopey intentionally here or not? It really seems that you're trying hard

YOU brought up being favored. Your insinuation is that it's not so bad that the Bengals lost since they weren't favored, is that correct or do I have that wrong?

My point is simply that you have no idea what the **** you're talking about by bringing up odds because, according to Vegas, the Bengals weren't supposed to get blown out since they covered the spread in a total of ZERO playoff games.

You're trying to use them not being favored as a pat on the back to Marvin and the organization when in reality, if you knew anything about gambling, football isn't just about being favored or not. There's a point spread that you obviously know nothing about.

Don't bring up shit that you're clueless on. I'm sure you won't listen to that advice though like the stubborn "Switzerland" that you are.

Stop trying to claim those things weren't stated by you. The second you brought up being favored, everything dealing with odds comes into play. I'm sorry that you're just so clueless when it comes to what YOU brought up that you just can't comprehend it.

(05-19-2015, 02:42 PM)Mr Jinx Wrote: How can just assume this?  They got routed by Indy already in the regular season and had AJ Green then.  Eifert has not proven to be a NFL caliber player at all yet (before anyone jumps on this notice the YET!) and there's no way Jones could swing a game that far.

Not only that, but we weren't even competitive in that game.

It is not about the single player rather the group of players. Let's look at it more closely.

1) AJ Green was out
2) Marvin Jones was out
3) Jermaine Gresham was out
4) Tyler Eifert was out
5) Vontaze Burfict was out
6) Andre Smith was out


I think those 6 players make a profound difference in a game that Indy won with field goals.

(05-19-2015, 04:21 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Are you trying to sound dopey intentionally here or not? It really seems that you're trying hard

YOU brought up being favored. Your insinuation is that it's not so bad that the Bengals lost since they weren't favored, is that correct or do I have that wrong?

My point is simply that you have no idea what the **** you're talking about by bringing up odds because, according to Vegas, the Bengals weren't supposed to get blown out since they covered the spread in a total of ZERO playoff games.

You're trying to use them not being favored as a pat on the back to Marvin and the organization when in reality, if you knew anything about gambling, football isn't just about being favored or not. There's a point spread that you obviously know nothing about.

Don't bring up shit that you're clueless on. I'm sure you won't listen to that advice though like the stubborn "Switzerland" that you are.

Stop trying to claim those things weren't stated by you. The second you brought up being favored, everything dealing with odds comes into play. I'm sorry that you're just so clueless when it comes to what YOU brought up that you just can't comprehend it.

I will entertain this one last time and address it no further. Cause it has gotten too silly.

I stated that the Bengals have lost 1 playoff game in the last 5 years in which we were favored.  

You tried to add a year and post stats that we lost by more than we were supposed to in an effort to “debunk” this claim and you did so in an extremely condescending manner. However, neither your added perimeters, your failed attempts at condescension, nor your vast knowledge of how Vegas works; do anything to dispute what was stated.