What legacy does the Dalton Generation of the Bengals have ?

As a culture do we put to much emphasis on winning championships? If you look at all the games played over the last 4 years the Bengals are consistently one of the best teams in football, but have this stigma attached to them that because they lost 4 football games they're are a team with only the appearance of greatness. Let's be fair in the NFL it is hard to win football games. There are a ton of factors that come into play that create a perfect storm for success with coaching decisions, on field play, injuries, and pressure.

What is more important to have a yearly contender waiting for that perfect storm or to have a single flash that results in a championship?

Would you trade 10 years of consistently good play with winning seasons for a single Superbowl?

Championships do matter, but as most will point out, you need to get there to have a chance.

But I have to ask why is it one extreme or another? so why is it if we win a (hypothetical) SB, we have 10 years of crappy football? Why cant we have a SB followed by 10 years of winning better than 50% of our games or so?

No one says we can't but do you think a team like the bengals are better than the 49rs. A good example would be the NY Giants the year they won the superbowl. not an overly impressive team before during or after that year, but they showed up and played lights out for the playoffs and SB. I am not taking a stance in either direction, but I am curious how people judge success over the long term or is it game to game.

How much value do you put on a single playoff game in comparison to a season of work. Someone might say that the normal season is just an audition to play a game that matters and that if you lose the first game of the playoffs you basically accomplished nothing.

I don't see why some people think it is impossible to be BOTH happy with a team that makes the playoffs, but upset when they lose in the playoffs.

A playoff loss can not go back in time and remove the joy I received from all the regular season victories. And a playoff loss one season can not travel into the future and make me happy after a regular season loss the next year.

(09-15-2015, 01:56 PM)Okeana Wrote: No one says we can't but do you think a team like the bengals are better than the 49rs.  A good example would be the NY Giants the year they won the superbowl.  not an overly impressive team before during or after that year, but they showed up and played lights out for the playoffs and SB.  I am not taking a stance in either direction, but I am curious how people judge success over the long term or is it game to game.  

How much value do you put on a single playoff game in comparison to a season of work.  Someone might say that the normal season is just an audition to play a game that matters and that if you lose the first game of the playoffs you basically accomplished nothing.

Well the Super Bowl is the ultimate goal of every team, or so they all say.  If that's the case then losing the first playoff game is no different than losing the second or even the conference championship.  But to say in doing so you "basically accomplish nothing" seems a little over the top to me.

To that end, every team measures success differently; there's no doubt the Patriots measure success differently than that of the Browns, Raiders, Jag's, etc.

If you equate the NFL to the real world, Tom Brady and Bill Belicheat wouldn't get a raise by making the playoffs, whereas the typical bottom feeders would get a nice merit increase by doing the same.  Success is variable and dependent upon the individual / team - regardless of what they say their goals are at the beginning of the year.  IMO

(09-15-2015, 12:57 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: Championships do matter, but as most will point out, you need to get there to have a chance.

But I have to ask why is it one extreme or another? so why is it if we win a (hypothetical) SB, we have 10 years of crappy football? Why cant we have a SB followed by 10 years of winning better than 50% of our games or so?

It's the nature of a hypothetical "would you rather" question.  You have to have one or the other or else it isn't much of a discussion.  My take on the Bengals of today is that like the Bills of the 90s we have been so consistent in both good AND bad ways that our successes are sort of held against us.  I can't blame non fans for taking that approach and I have to admit if the Steelers imploded 4 times a row in the playoffs I wouldn't be telling all the people laughing to shut up and respect 4-straight playoff appearances. 

(09-15-2015, 02:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't see why some people think it is impossible to be BOTH happy with a team that makes the playoffs, but upset when they lose in the playoffs.

A playoff loss can not go back in time and remove the joy I received from all the regular season victories.  And a playoff loss one season can not travel into the future and make me happy after a regular season loss the next year.

This makes sense to me.  I'd imagine if you asked a Bills fan to recount the 90s he would have a mix of "well, making the Super Bowl was great, but after a few losses it started to get kind of cruel."

Cincinnati Bengals legacy -- We are the team that constantly falls flat on their face when there is any sort of hope. We have a habit of falling back to earth when reaching orbit, and a very long past of misfortune and mishaps. This has changed over the years, but even now, the legacy of the Bengals is the team that "isn't good enough.". It is what it is, and hopefully we will change that. Remember that the Seahawks had a very similar legacy until recently. I think we could change our image much like the Seahawks, but we will have to wait and see.

(09-15-2015, 12:51 PM)Okeana Wrote: What legacy does the Dalton Generation of the Bengals have ?

As a culture do we put to much emphasis on winning championships?  If you look at all the games played over the last  4 years the Bengals are consistently one of the best teams in football, but have this stigma attached to them that because they lost 4 football games they're are a team with only the appearance of greatness.  Let's be fair in the NFL it is hard to win football games.  There are a ton of factors that come into play that create a perfect storm for success with coaching decisions, on field play, injuries, and pressure.  

What is more important to have a yearly contender waiting for that perfect storm or to have a single flash that results in a championship?

Would you trade 10 years of consistently good play with winning seasons for a single Superbowl?

Still being written.