(11-14-2018, 12:39 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: We have to be realistic. You can paint a pig red but its still a pig. If the same players play this week then sadly the outcome won't be much different.

So you honestly think the George Iloka was the difference between a #16 defense and a #32 defense?

(11-14-2018, 03:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you honestly think the George Iloka was the difference between a #16 defense and a #32 defense?

We also had minter and chris Smith,seems like there was a couple others. Did we have dansby too i forget. Plus a good tez and vigil.oh and adam jones.

(11-13-2018, 06:57 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, if they made a necessary change last year, and then made another big effort to correct a mistake this year, doesn't that sort of invalidate your earlier statement?

I am saying ML has pulled the plug on two coaches to salvage a season, but above him no changes are ever made. Mikey plays along with the ML show, won't dip too far into free agency, won't move the organization at a faster pace towards larger goals. It is like - we finally start shit canning poor coaches but why did it take since 1991? Mikey the tree sloth won't move fast enough. 

(11-14-2018, 03:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you honestly think the George Iloka was the difference between a #16 defense and a #32 defense?

No but Burfict, Dennard and Vigil might. Bates has outperformed Iloka. I believe the major problem is the lack of pressure on the QB. zero sacks against Steelers(46 pass plays) and zero sacks on NO. There were two sacks at KC but a total of only -5 yds telling me they were coverage sacks.

(11-14-2018, 01:09 PM)Nately120 Wrote: You and I are talking about two different things here.  There are so many Marvin/defense threads I'll admit I'm losing track of stuff here...main thing, our defense will get "better" because we only play 2 good offenses for the rest of the regular season.



I suppose they will be more motivated in the short-term, but Marvin hand-picked the guy they wanted gone so badly.  It's only fair they should be miffed at Marvin and slack off for him eventually.

It doesn't matter who we play , if the players don't start playing better Lamar Jackson will do what Cam Newton did. The Bengals have a way of making rookie QBs look like world beaters.

(11-14-2018, 04:11 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: It doesn't matter who we play , if the players don't start playing better Lamar Jackson will do what Cam Newton did. The Bengals have a way of making rookie QBs look like world beaters.

That's not true and has been debunked in the past.

Edit: Just in the past 4 seasons alone (excluding this year):

2017: 2-2

Dehone Kizer (CLV): 16/34, 118 yards, 0 TD, 1 INT, 48.3 rating.
18/31, 268 yards, 0 TD, 0 INT, 86.5 rating, 1 FL.
Deshaun Watson (HOU): 15/24, 125 yards, 0 TD, 0 INT, 75.9 rating. Did have the long-ass rush that indeed hurt us, but Vinny Rey sucks.
Mitchell Trubisky (CHI): 25/32, 271, 1 TD, 0 INT, 112.4 rating.


2016: 2-1

Kevin Hogan (CLV): 12/24, 100 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT, 24 Rating. He did have that long-ass rush, but the game was put away at that point and it was garbage time.
Carson Wentz (PHI): 36/60(!), 308 yards, 1 TD, 3 INT, 58.2 rating.
Dak Prescott (DAL): 18/24, 227 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT, 117.9 rating, 1 FL.

2014: 2-0

Johnny Manziel (CLV): 10/18, 80 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT, 27.3 rating.
Blake Bortles (JAX): 22/33, 247 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT, 96.4 rating.

So, that makes our record 6-3 against rookies since 2014.

In all but 2 games, we've forced a turnover and only 2 games have been over 100 rating.

(11-14-2018, 04:12 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: That's not true and has been debunked in the past.

Edit: Just in the past 4 seasons alone (excluding this year):

2017: 2-2

Dehone Kizer (CLV): 16/34, 118 yards, 0 TD, 1 INT, 48.3 rating.
                             18/31, 268 yards, 0 TD, 0 INT, 86.5 rating, 1 FL.
Deshaun Watson (HOU): 15/24, 125 yards, 0 TD, 0 INT, 75.9 rating. Did have the long-ass rush that indeed hurt us, but Vinny Rey sucks.
Mitchell Trubisky (CHI): 25/32, 271, 1 TD, 0 INT, 112.4 rating.


2016: 2-1

Kevin Hogan (CLV): 12/24, 100 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT, 24 Rating. He did have that long-ass rush, but the game was put away at that point and it was garbage time.
Carson Wentz (PHI): 36/60(!), 308 yards, 1 TD, 3 INT, 58.2 rating.
Dak Prescott (DAL): 18/24, 227 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT, 117.9 rating, 1 FL.

2014: 2-0

Johnny Manziel (CLV): 10/18, 80 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT, 27.3 rating.
Blake Bortles (JAX): 22/33, 247 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT, 96.4 rating.

So, that makes our record 6-3 against rookies since 2014.

In all but 2 games, we've forced a turnover and only 2 games have been over 100 rating.

Yeah those games were with a decent defense. Lamar Jackson has the ability to beat this defense without completing 50% of his passes because of his ability to run. Brown ,Burfict and Vigil not practicing makes it look like a long day. But on the good side we may be able to hold them under 500yds. 

(11-14-2018, 04:52 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: Yeah those games were with a decent defense. Lamar Jackson has the ability to beat this defense without completing 50% of his passes because of his ability to run. Brown ,Burfict and Vigil not practicing makes it look like a long day. But on the good side we may be able to hold them under 500yds. 

You never qualified what kind of Ds we had or what the situation was the game; merely that we crumble against rookie QBs.

I can come up with reasons (legitimate) for the 3 losses, to make it look like we could've beaten them/held them down, had everything gone right.

- Prescott really did nothing, it was all Elliot.
- Watson did nothing, we just had a terrible offense under Zampese.
- Trubisky didn't do anything, we were super demoralized after Marvin announced he would leave and our players wanted to jump off a cliff.

See?

The fact is that under NORMAL circumstances, rookie QBs don't do that much damage against us and par for the course should continue.

(11-14-2018, 05:11 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: You never qualified what kind of Ds we had or what the situation was the game; merely that we crumble against rookie QBs.

I can come up with reasons (legitimate) for the 3 losses, to make it look like we could've beaten them/held them down, had everything gone right.

- Prescott really did nothing, it was all Elliot.
- Watson did nothing, we just had a terrible offense under Zampese.
- Trubisky didn't do anything, we were super demoralized after Marvin announced he would leave and our players wanted to jump off a cliff.

See?

The fact is that under NORMAL circumstances, rookie QBs don't do that much damage against us and par for the course should continue.

If they lose they will be 6-4, one game over five hundred, against rookies the last four years. The Browns wins can't count because their whole team sux. I guess I just remember Oswieler, Field Yates and the rest of the nobodys who beat us in the past.

(11-14-2018, 06:14 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: If they lose they will be 6-4, one game over five hundred, against rookies the last four years. The Browns wins can't count because their whole team sux. I guess I just remember Oswieler, Field Yates and the rest of the nobodys who beat us in the past.

2 games over .500

Yes they can, because they are still rookies; again, not qualifying things.

Osweiler wasn't a rookie when we lost to him (he was in his *4th* year, come on man), Field Yates is a reporter, isn't he?

You're looking for TJ Yates and if those are the only two you can think of (with one of them not even being a rookie), then it means we HAVEN'T done that bad against rookie QBs, have we?

(11-14-2018, 06:21 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: 2 games over .500

Yes they can, because they are still rookies; again, not qualifying things.

Osweiler wasn't a rookie when we lost to him (he was in his *4th* year, come on man), Field Yates is a reporter, isn't he?

You're looking for TJ Yates and if those are the only two you can think of (with one of them not even being a rookie), then it means we HAVEN'T done that bad against rookie QBs, have we?

Oswieler was starter for Denver after Manning got hurt, so basically a rookie. He was a defacto number two QB. You only remember what you want to remember to boost your view.  Manzeil, Kizer and the other no name QB had no chance with the pitiful teams they were on. Take your blinders off and see what everyone else sees( I don't mean your buddies who also refuse to face reality)

(11-14-2018, 07:17 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: You only remember what you want to remember to boost your view. 

Take your blinders off and see what everyone else sees( I don't mean your buddies who also refuse to face reality)

(11-14-2018, 06:14 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote:  I guess I just remember Oswieler, Field Yates and the rest of the nobodys who beat us in the past.

Too funny.

(11-14-2018, 06:21 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: Osweiler wasn't a rookie when we lost to him (he was in his *4th* year, come on man),

(11-14-2018, 07:17 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: Oswieler was starter for Denver after Manning got hurt, so basically a rookie.

  

(11-14-2018, 07:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote:   

I wondered when you and the rest of the rah-rah crowd would come out after eating crow last week. I don't believe you even watch the games. How's 10-6 looking to you now? If they continue to play the same way they will be damn lucky to make it to8-8. What do you think Swami.

(11-14-2018, 07:48 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: I wondered when you and the rest of the rah-rah crowd would come out after eating crow last week. I don't believe you even watch the games. How's 10-6 looking to you now? If they continue to play the same way they will be damn lucky to make it to8-8. What do you think Swami.

At least I am man enough to stand behind my convictions.

How about you?

(10-29-2018, 08:29 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: Half way to ten wins while having a multitude of injuries. Hopefully we get some of the injured back in two weeks and improve on both sides of the ball. The Bengals have not given up so we shouldn't either. 

(11-14-2018, 08:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: At least I am man enough to stand behind my convictions.

How about you?

That was before they knew they lost AJ and did absolutely nothing to shore up the offense and allowed another 500+ game to an opponent. If the real Burfict Vigil and Dennard come back they still may come back and get in the PO's. Otherwise stick a fork in them they are done.

(11-14-2018, 05:11 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: You never qualified what kind of Ds we had or what the situation was the game; merely that we crumble against rookie QBs.

I can come up with reasons (legitimate) for the 3 losses, to make it look like we could've beaten them/held them down, had everything gone right.

- Prescott really did nothing, it was all Elliot.
- Watson did nothing, we just had a terrible offense under Zampese.
- Trubisky didn't do anything, we were super demoralized after Marvin announced he would leave and our players wanted to jump off a cliff.

See?

The fact is that under NORMAL circumstances, rookie QBs don't do that much damage against us and par for the course should continue.

Please tell me how good the Bengals are against rookie QBs. This one can't throw so they only had to stop the run. Over 200 yds rushing ain't gonna get it done. Stick a fork in them they are done.

I think Marv benefited from having an immense collection of talent on his defenses.

- LB coach in Pittsburgh, back when they had Gred Lloyd and Kevin Greene
- Ravens had Ray Lewis, Rod Woodson, Tony Siragusa, Sam Adams, Chris McAlister, Duane Starks, Jamie Sharper, Peter Boulware and Rob Burnett
- The Redskins had LaVar Arrington, Jessie Armstead, Jeremiah Trotter, Champ Bailey, Darrell Green, Bruce Smith and Dan Wilkinson

What an embarrassment of riches he had to work with. Now I'm not saying Marv is a total fraud, but with this list of talent, it'd be hard to fail.

(11-14-2018, 08:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: At least I am man enough to stand behind my convictions.

How about you?

I'd say he takes in all he sees and adjusts his outlook accordingly? 

When the Bengals were 5-3, I was pretty happy with that. We'd been sketchy - at best - on the field, and still came out with a winning record. With the BYE to heal and make adjustments, I thought we were in a good spot. We promptly came out and lost the next 2 games in embarrassing fashion. Now my outlook isn't so rosy.

(11-19-2018, 02:36 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I'd say he takes in all he sees and adjusts his outlook accordingly? 

When the Bengals were 5-3, I was pretty happy with that. We'd been sketchy - at best - on the field, and still came out with a winning record. With the BYE to heal and make adjustments, I thought we were in a good spot. We promptly came out and lost the next 2 games in embarrassing fashion. Now my outlook isn't so rosy.

Me too. Already thinking of what else to do Sundays.