I don't blame the media for resenting the Bengals though. They were riding that Bengals train a few times, and we always made their predictions look bad come playoff time.

(05-08-2018, 02:43 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote:  But you could make an argument for us not improving as much as those that ended in the same approximate area as us.

I have to admit that I have not looked at all the gains and losses from all the other teams, but I know that for every team that signed a high quality free agent another team lost one.  So it is impossible for every team to improve in free agency.  The total losses are equal to the total gains.

Then with the draft we addressed two needs with our first two picks..  "Draft grades" at this point are meaningless.  No one knows which players are going to be good and which ones are going to flop, but unless a team had multiple high level picks it is hard to claim that anyone added more talent than we did with 4 in the first 78 selections.

So I don't see how so many teams could have gotten better than us when we did not lose anyone.

(05-08-2018, 03:47 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I think 29 is ridiculous and 22 to 25 is what we should be ranked if no problems were fixed. That's where a 7-9 team belongs. This team was clearly torpedoed by an abysmal o-line. We respond by bringing in one of the best o-line coaches (based on success) in the NFL, trading for a top 10 LT and taking a stud C in the draft. 

Yes the offense put up atrocious numbers last year, but you have to consider things. For one, we changed OC's on the fly and Lazor had no chance to install his own system. Second, the o-line clearly wrecked everything. This team has the pieces and established QB to be successful on offense. The offense - because of the o-line - also did the defense no favors. They did struggle on 3rd downs, but again, the talent is there. This includes emerging young players in WJ3 and Carl Lawson.

There are 12 playoff teams every year. I'd start the Bengals out in the 16-19 range with plenty of room to move up. Even with that league-worst line, this team still managed 7 wins. We didn't go 3-13. I see this as a playoff caliber roster that got derailed by terrible line play. We mostly fixed that on paper. 

I don't think any team on our level or below us last year improved as much as we did, and I don't think any non-playoff team had one problem that clearly sank them like we did. It was pretty clear what was holding us back. Even Marv (who normally doesn't publically criticize players) said as much:



It wasn't just Ogbuehi. It was Bodine as well. We took 2 major weaknesses on the line and probably turned them into strengths. I don't think it's homerism to suggest that could have a major impact, and lead us from 7 wins back to 10-11 wins.

Kind of o/t, but another interesting quip from that article was the talk about the RG situation.  They mentioned that the play of Westerman and Redmond after being relegated to the bench prior was a part of why Frank Pollack was brought in.  Why on earth would you not play your best players?

(05-08-2018, 04:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have to admit that I have not looked at all the gains and losses from all the other teams, but I know that for every team that signed a high quality free agent another team lost one.  So it is impossible for every team to improve in free agency.  The total losses are equal to the total gains.

Then with the draft we addressed two needs with our first two picks..  "Draft grades" at this point are meaningless.  No one knows which players are going to be good and which ones are going to flop, but unless a team had multiple high level picks it is hard to claim that anyone added more talent than we did with 4 in the first 78 selections.

So I don't see how so many teams could have gotten better than us when we did not lose anyone.

Agreed.....the only FA we lost was viewed as an Achilles heel on this team.

Well these guys are always wrong pretty much. We have taken our weaknesses this Offseason and improved on them
after we won 7 games with probably the worst Center and LT in the NFL. Newsflash, we replaced these weaknesses
with a 1st round dominating run blocking Center and a proven LT.

There will be some growing pains and the coaches will need some time to gel but there is no reason to not expect a
much better season with Frank Pollack as the new O-line coach and Bill Lazor actually having an Offseason to impliment
his own playbook on Offense.

Look for an improved run game that will help keep the Defense fresh and take pressure off of Dalton.

We are a top 10 ranked team if we are healthy no question. To have us ranked 29th is just crazy.

(05-08-2018, 03:51 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I don't blame the media for resenting the Bengals though. They were riding that Bengals train a few times, and we always made their predictions look bad come playoff time.

I think the Air went out of the Bengal's balloon with the National Media after it seemed all but certain that Marvin was not going to return as the Head Coach. Media types were excited that change was coming. Then the Bengals gave him a two year contract extension.

Media and Analyst types seemed very surprised that the Bengals extended Marvin again and seemed to imply that doing so meant the Bengals were not pursuing winning the same way other NFL organizations would, since they would Fire or not retain a Head Coach much more quickly. They would many times mention Marvin's 0 and 7 playoff record when speaking of his new extension.

I think they have dismissed the Bengals for not doing what they deemed an obvious move to make. Bengals going way against the NFL grain which has most coaches on shorter leashes.

Signals to media types (whether right or wrong) that winning playoff games and more is not what Bengals Ownership requires from it's Head Coach. The Bengals chose the 15 year and counting status quo thus seeing no need for a change.

They abandon the Bengals via low Power Rankings since they see the Bengals abandoning the desire to pressure their Head Coach with a typical NFL time horizon to succeed in or be replaced. 

A you don't care so we won't care type of response from Media and Analysts. 

(Fair or Unfair is in the eye of the beholder)

(05-08-2018, 04:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have to admit that I have not looked at all the gains and losses from all the other teams, but I know that for every team that signed a high quality free agent another team lost one.  So it is impossible for every team to improve in free agency.  The total losses are equal to the total gains.

Then with the draft we addressed two needs with our first two picks..  "Draft grades" at this point are meaningless.  No one knows which players are going to be good and which ones are going to flop, but unless a team had multiple high level picks it is hard to claim that anyone added more talent than we did with 4 in the first 78 selections.

So I don't see how so many teams could have gotten better than us when we did not lose anyone.

There seems to be the perception at ESPN that we didn't do much this offseason other than trade for Glenn and sign a bunch of backups or guys on 1 year deals.

I however see it as us sureing up 3-4 spots that had pretty bad starters last year.

(05-08-2018, 04:04 PM)Wyche Wrote: Kind of o/t, but another interesting quip from that article was the talk about the RG situation.  They mentioned that the play of Westerman and Redmond after being relegated to the bench prior was a part of why Frank Pollack was brought in.  Why on earth would you not play your best players?

Ego? He did the same thing with not-so-nasty Nate and Evan Mathis.

(05-08-2018, 04:26 PM)depthchart Wrote: I think the Air went out of the Bengal's balloon with the National Media after it seemed all but certain that Marvin was not going to return as the Head Coach. Media types were excited that change was coming. Then the Bengals gave him a two year contract extension.

Media and Analyst types seemed very surprised that the Bengals extended Marvin again and seemed to imply that doing so meant the Bengals were not pursuing winning the same way other NFL organizations would, since they would Fire or not retain a Head Coach much more quickly. They would many times mention Marvin's 0 and 7 playoff record when speaking of his new extension.

I think they have dismissed the Bengals for not doing what they deemed an obvious move to make. Bengals going way against the NFL grain which has most coaches on shorter leashes.

Signals to media types (whether right or wrong) that winning playoff games and more is not what Bengals Ownership requires from it's Head Coach. The Bengals chose the 15 year and counting status quo thus seeing no need for a change.

They abandon the Bengals via low Power Rankings since they see the Bengals abandoning the desire to pressure their Head Coach with a typical NFL time horizon to succeed in or be replaced. 

A you don't care so we won't care type of response from Media and Analysts. 

(Fair or Unfair is in the eye of the beholder)

Fair enough and hard to blame them there. Marvin has led a lot of successful regular seasons though.

If this were a odd-of-winning-a-playoff-game power ranking, I'd understand being at the bottom.

(05-08-2018, 05:11 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Ego? He did the same thing with not-so-nasty Nate and Evan Mathis.

Evan Mathis started in front of Nate Livings in '09 until he was injured.

In 2010 Mathis was out of shape and did not deserve to start over Livings.

(05-08-2018, 03:01 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: okay but then apply that logic around the rest of the league.

I really don’t think that’s the point. Teams that have had consecutive losing seasons and don’t go on free agent splurges won’t appear in a lot of most improved lists


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(05-08-2018, 05:13 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Fair enough and hard to blame them there. Marvin has led a lot of successful regular seasons though.

If this were a odd-of-winning-a-playoff-game power ranking, I'd understand being at the bottom.

It seems to me that the Bengals are being "dissed" in various Power Rankings.

Low hanging fruit for them to diss the Bengals and unlikely they will get criticized by their peers for doing it.

Winning and earning respect is the only way to counter it.

(05-08-2018, 05:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Evan Mathis started in front of Nate Livings in '09 until he was injured.

In 2010 Mathis was out of shape and did not deserve to start over Livings.

That was even faster than I thought you'd be.

I've read a couple old articles to jog my memory, including this one:

https://www.cincyjungle.com/2011/4/29/2142575/evan-mathis-its-not-been-fun-in-cincinnati

I saw no mention of injury or being out of shape. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but if it were as serious as you say, I'd think most articles would mention it.

Instead, most sites and fans seemed puzzled by the benching.

(05-08-2018, 05:38 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: That was even faster than I thought you'd be.

I've read a couple old articles to jog my memory, including this one:

https://www.cincyjungle.com/2011/4/29/2142575/evan-mathis-its-not-been-fun-in-cincinnati

I saw no mention of injury or being out of shape. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but if it were as serious as you say, I'd think most articles would mention it.

Instead, most sites and fans seemed puzzled by the benching.

well to be fair on that cincy jungle is just a blog ran by folks like you and me

Do we have to say it?

"I see better than I hear."

I see efforts at improvement. We'll see how much fruit those efforts bear.

(05-08-2018, 05:27 PM)BenZoo2 Wrote: I really don’t think that’s the point. Teams that have had consecutive losing seasons and don’t go on free agent splurges won’t appear in a lot of most improved lists


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess that the fact that this was consensus panned as an almost historically weak free agent class should have nothing to do with splurging - as in not splurging when there is nothing worth buying actually makes sense?

How about that instead we used trading to land a really good LT? And landed one of the few worthwhile free agents in the class too?

(05-08-2018, 05:13 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Fair enough and hard to blame them there. Marvin has led a lot of successful regular seasons though.

If this were a odd-of-winning-a-playoff-game power ranking, I'd understand being at the bottom.

Exactly !

Like others have said we went 7-9 last year with the worst O-line coach/O line around and surprise the worst offense. And it's not like Merv hasn't won a bunch of regular season games.

So how they see this team as not improving this off season is quite the mystery ? 29th ? seriously

I'd set the bar at 8 games, I'd say that's our least amount of wins. How many we go above that is debatable and I want to wait and see more myself before I say.

We should at least be twenty perhaps a touch higher ?

Just typical Bengal Hate ! Now like you say playoff win is another story.

(05-08-2018, 01:52 PM)Neon Icon Wrote: ESPN be hatin! I see no way that we don't atleast rank in the same position as we finished last year. But, with Glenn, Price, Brown...I think we've atleast improved some.


NFL Power Rankings: Who's rising, falling after the draft

29. Cincinnati Bengals
2017 record: 7-9
Post-free-agency ranking: 22

Each of the past three first-round picks by the Bengals played fewer than 100 snaps in his rookie season, and only one of the drafted players logged at least 50 percent of the team's offensive or defensive snaps his rookie season. This year could be different, though, as first-round pick Billy Price is likely to be the starting center.

A lot of folks in the media just don't study the Bengals much, if at all. The OL was just awful last year, Eifert was down all year long, Ross was a negative.

Glenn, while not as good as Whit, is miles better than Ogbuehi. Price should be significantly better than Bodine and if Price does get beat by a guy expect him to make the guy pay.

We did lose Adam Jones and that will affect the secondary some because he's better than Kirkpatrick, but Jackson is better than both of them. ESPN will gladly see that Jackson didn't play his rookie year, but they don't see that he was ready to come off IR but the team brought back the wrong guy, and they don't see that Jackson is already one of the better corners in the league.

More importantly than all of that is there's a new attitude from the new coaches that fans seem to see as a long needed change. ESPN, since they really don't study the Bengals much they don't see that these things occurred.

Either that or they are right and we are all very wrong for seeing that these are very positive moves.

(05-08-2018, 02:00 PM)Jakeypoo Wrote: We're a sneaky Superbowl contender if healthy. Good pass rush, improved offensive line,  good secondary,  good QB , and good offensive  weapons.  ESPN doesn't like Dalton so that's why they have us so low.

ESPN only really sees the Bengals prime time games and, well, to put it mildly, Dalton has not played well in prime time. His 0-4 playoff record is tied for worse in NFL history. His 1 TD 6 INTS 4 FUMS in the playoffs is pretty damn bad.

And that's what ESPN sees when they see Dalton.

ESPN also sees that Marvin Lewis is 0-7 (all time NFL worst) in the playoffs with the Bengals and they don't see that he has what it takes to win. Us fans see that sometimes as well and very recently.

I think health gonna b a big factor.

Glenn has missed half of Buffalos games over the past 2 years. Eifert misses a lot of games. So does Burfict.

If we can get those guys playing in most of the games, we should b good.

I could not care less where ESPN or anyone else places the Bengals in their power rankings. These rankings serve as click-bait, and fans eat 'em up. Bengals finish the season #1, and I'll be happy. That's truly the only number that matters.