(05-19-2015, 04:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

But it does dispute your main point for bringing up how we haven't been favored.

The fact that we weren't supposed to get blown out in those games makes your broad term of being "favored" or not just flat out dumb.

If you want to talk about being favored with somebody, you may want to be willing to look into more detail. It's stupid to just say if we were favored or not favored without talking point spread. You're intentionally posting very misleading information by using broad terms.

You never answered my questions when I asked if we were "supposed" to get blown out in those games which we weren't favored. The way you brought up odds suggests you don't find it to be a big deal since we weren't expected to win. If that's incorrect, again, please let me know. If that's correct, you should go tell the Raiders and Jags fans that they should be happy with their team because they aren't "supposed" to be good according to the odds. Seems legit.

(05-19-2015, 04:46 PM)djs7685 Wrote: But it does dispute your main point for bringing up how we haven't been favored.

The fact that we weren't supposed to get blown out in those games makes your broad term of being "favored" or not just flat out dumb.

If you want to talk about being favored with somebody, you may want to be willing to look into more detail. It's stupid to just say if we were favored or not favored without talking point spread. You're intentionally posting very misleading information by using broad terms.

You never answered my questions when I asked if we were "supposed" to get blown out in those games which we weren't favored. The way you brought up odds suggests you don't find it to be a big deal since we weren't expected to win. If that's incorrect, again, please let me know. If that's correct, you should go tell the Raiders and Jags fans that they should be happy with their team because they aren't "supposed" to be good according to the odds. Seems legit.

I think I have to agree with bfine on this one. However, I often think people try to make things much deeper than they actually are.

(05-19-2015, 04:50 PM)OSUfan Wrote: I think I have to agree with bfine on this one. However, I often think people try to make things much deeper than they actually are.

You're more than welcome to be wrong.

This is factual. Vegas odds are more than either being favored or not favored. if you want to bring Vegas into a discussion about the NFL, be prepared to talk about a point spread.

It's very misleading to try and pull what bfine and others do with the "we weren't favored so it's not that bad" mindset.

Of course you'd agree with a fellow extremist homer. SHOCKER!

The fact of the matter is that we get accused for looking "too deep" into things because the only way the homers make sense is to refuse to delve into details.

It's funny that some of us are accused of actually looking into things more than making broad statements. Don't talk about odds if you don't know much about odds.

(05-18-2015, 09:51 AM)McC Wrote: I don't think it's absurd at all.  Seems perfectly legit to question the lack of playoff success.  You would think in that many tries, a team could have stumbled onto a win.

In some people's minds, asking the question is somehow seen as diminishing the 40 wins.  It is not.  It's the lost opportunities.

And I don't really see anyone suggesting blow it all up.  

I don't disagree totally with staying the course.  It's the answer if the roster not being good enough was the sole answer to the question what happened.  

If the roster was good enough to win and didn't, then the answer might be different.

As usual i agree with McC. It is not only that we lost in the Playoffs all these times
in a row either. It is the way we lost and the fact Marv has been outcoached every
time in a big way.

Last year, i guess you might be able to give us a bit of a pass though with the injuries
to our weapons, but good coaches and QB's can overcome this and our Defense had
only some excuses.

This year i see us making the Playoffs but we need to see something different occurring
for me to believe we are going to win once we get there...

Namely Geno coming back to his old self, the D-line rushing the passer effectively, AD
improving immensely and our running game starting to really take off.

All is possible... we will see.

(05-19-2015, 05:00 PM)djs7685 Wrote: You're more than welcome to be wrong.

This is factual. Vegas odds are more than either being favored or not favored. if you want to bring Vegas into a discussion about the NFL, be prepared to talk about a point spread.

It's very misleading to try and pull what bfine and others do with the "we weren't favored so it's not that bad" mindset.

Of course you'd agree with a fellow extremist homer. SHOCKER!

I guess there really was not reason for you to go douche bag but hey feel free.

(05-19-2015, 05:02 PM)djs7685 Wrote: The fact of the matter is that we get accused for looking "too deep" into things because the only way the homers make sense is to refuse to delve into details.

It's funny that some of us are accused of actually looking into things more than making broad statements. Don't talk about odds if you don't know much about odds.

Your assumptions are piss poor my friend.

(05-19-2015, 05:31 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote:
As usual i agree with McC. It is not only that we lost in the Playoffs all these times
in a row either. It is the way we lost and the fact Marv has been outcoached every
time in a big way.

Last year, i guess you might be able to give us a bit of a pass though with the injuries
to our weapons, but good coaches and QB's can overcome this and our Defense had
only some excuses.

This year i see us making the Playoffs but we need to see something different occurring
for me to believe we are going to win once we get there...

Namely Geno coming back to his old self, the D-line rushing the passer effectively, AD
improving immensely and our running game starting to really take off.

All is possible... we will see.

I would love to see a coach overcome Rex Burkhead as their starting slot receiver.

(05-19-2015, 05:02 PM)djs7685 Wrote: The fact of the matter is that we get accused for looking "too deep" into things because the only way the homers make sense is to refuse to delve into details.

It's funny that some of us are accused of actually looking into things more than making broad statements. Don't talk about odds if you don't know much about odds.

It is just as silly to suggest that you would not be complaining if we had lost by smaller margins.

(05-19-2015, 05:36 PM)OSUfan Wrote: I would love to see a coach overcome Rex Burkhead as their starting slot receiver.

Hey, atleast Rex showed up and played well. It was the other guys that didn't.

(05-19-2015, 05:31 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote:
As usual i agree with McC. It is not only that we lost in the Playoffs all these times
in a row either. It is the way we lost and the fact Marv has been outcoached every
time in a big way.

Last year, i guess you might be able to give us a bit of a pass though with the injuries
to our weapons, but good coaches and QB's can overcome this and our Defense had
only some excuses.

This year i see us making the Playoffs but we need to see something different occurring
for me to believe we are going to win once we get there...

Namely Geno coming back to his old self, the D-line rushing the passer effectively, AD
improving immensely and our running game starting to really take off.

All is possible... we will see.

SOMEBODY, be it coach or player or head cheerleader, needs to find a way to get the entire team to rise up instead of lay down. It's really THAT simple.

If AJ Hawk can impart his knowledge of how to win a SB, throughout the year and then especially in the playoffs, if he can somehow show them the way, then I won't care if he doesn't make a single tackle all year.

If one guy refuses to be denied, then maybe another guy jumps in with both feet and then maybe it spreads.

And, for crying out loud, just once act like you believe you can win.

Playoff football is every bit as much about attitude as schemes. The team that wants it more usually wins. The team that isn't sure they can win never does.

Until someone steps up and really leads, it'll just be more of the same.

(05-19-2015, 05:36 PM)OSUfan Wrote: I would love to see a coach overcome Rex Burkhead as their starting slot receiver.

Oh come on. Burkhead ran a small handful of receiving routes and played in 10 totals snaps in that entire game.

You're trying to make it sound like he was a big part of the offense just because he got the starter designation from being on the field during the first offensive snap.

You're just proving the point that you called "piss poor" a little bit ago, this is kind of funny. You claim that I'm full of shit yet you're proving my point right here.

A homer using a broad statement to attempt to prove a point that is misleading to those not willing to dig into the details. Good job, thanks!

(05-19-2015, 05:43 PM)McC Wrote: SOMEBODY, be it coach or player or head cheerleader, needs to find a way to get the entire team to rise up instead of lay down.  It's really THAT simple.  

If AJ Hawk can impart his knowledge of how to win a SB, throughout the year and then especially in the playoffs. if he can somehow show them the way, then I won't care if he doesn't make a single tackle all year.  

If one guy refuses to be denied, then maybe another guy jumps in with both feet and then maybe it spreads.  

And, for crying out loud, just once act like you believe you can win.

Playoff football is every bit as much about attitude as schemes.  The team that wants it more usually wins.  The team that isn't sure they can win never does.

Until someone steps up and really leads, it'll just be more of the same.

Yeah, need to get that heart of a champion going.

We have had no heart in the Playoffs from what i have seen.

This team has the talent, they just need the WILL.

(05-19-2015, 05:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is just as silly to suggest that you would not be complaining if we had lost by smaller margins.

Do you know me? Do you know my thoughts more than I know them? No, you don't.

I can't speak for everybody, but I'd certainly not be so pissed about the playoff games if the Bengals looked competitive even a little bit more than they have.

I have an issue with them looking flat out unprepared in almost every quarter of every playoff game under Marvin. I'd be more lenient with Marv if the games were a bit closer. I don't know if I'd be thrilled that he's still the coach, but I'd absolutely not have called for his head as much and I wouldn't spend as much time on here arguing about him.

(05-19-2015, 04:28 PM)OSUfan Wrote: 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.

That's very true, it is of course more than just 1 guy as you mentioned. However, on your list it includes 1 guy who has done nothing at the NFL level yet (#4), two guys who have routinely been deemed just above useless (#3 and #6), and one guy who has been injured more than he has been healthy in his career (#5) so it is hard to be intellectually honest and throw him in there. I would definitely give you #1 and #2.

Also, we lost by 16 so I'm not sure what you mean by "a game that Indy won with field goals". They scored more points by touchdowns than we did entire points in the game.

(05-19-2015, 12:56 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: 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.

Not really. I still watch every game. Instead of focusing on (lack of) team success, I watch to see which young players might be breaking through. There's always reasons for optimism, even in losing seasons. Does that mean I enjoy losing as much as winning? No, but I'm still very interested.

(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.

I assume you're talking about Wayne Fontes, as he's the one who won the playoff game. Fontes went 5-11 in his last season. The man who replaced him (Bobby Ross) made the playoffs twice in 3 seasons. So firing Fontes isn't what sent the Lions into a downward spiral. You're giving Fontes way too much credit.

The fall of the Lions had everything to do with the best RB off all-time retiring and Matt Millen taking over as GM.

(05-19-2015, 05:54 PM)Mr Jinx Wrote: and one guy who has been injured more than he has been healthy in his career (#5) so it is hard to be intellectually honest and throw him in there.  I would definitely give you #1 and #2.

Burfict has played in 37 games in his career and missed 11

(05-19-2015, 05:59 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I assume you're talking about Wayne Fontes, as he's the one who won the playoff game. Fontes went 5-11 in his last season. The man who replaced him (Bobby Ross) made the playoffs twice in 3 seasons. So firing Fontes isn't what sent the Lions into a downward spiral. You're giving Fontes way too much credit.

The fall of the Lions had everything to do with the best RB off all-time retiring and Matt Millen taking over as GM.

Giving the Head Coach too much credit kinda goes both ways don't it?

(05-19-2015, 05:54 PM)Mr Jinx Wrote: That's very true, it is of course more than just 1 guy as you mentioned.  However, on your list it includes 1 guy who has done nothing at the NFL level yet (#4), two guys who have routinely been deemed just above useless (#3 and #6), and one guy who has been injured more than he has been healthy in his career (#5) so it is hard to be intellectually honest and throw him in there.  I would definitely give you #1 and #2.

Eifert had over 500 receiving yards as a rookie.

Gresham is a Pro Bowl player and Smith was one of the best RTs in the league in both '12 and '13.

Burfict has only missed 11 games in 3 NFL seasons.


Thanks so much for showing the knowledge level of the typical hater.

(05-19-2015, 05:59 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: There's always reasons for optimism, even in losing seasons. Does that mean I enjoy losing as much as winning? No, but I'm still very interested.

There's always reason for optimism, even when your team loses 4 straight playoff games.