(10-06-2015, 01:20 PM)tigershrimp Wrote: The Seahens laid an egg last night. If not for Megatron's carelessness then the subsequent refereeing mishap, they'd have lost to an 0-3 Loins squad. At home.

Short week. Road game. Lynch not 100% with a hammy. 

Cincinnati should be able to hang 30 on 'em. 

(10-07-2015, 11:19 AM)rungiorun25 Wrote: I just did a little research and there is no concrete stat for it, but wanted to see how we have fared against "super bowl contenders" in the Jungle since AD-AG era began.

I came to a record of around 9-6.  My list is not 100% accurate because I'm sure I missed a couple teams, but I have:
2014 - 2-1 (Ravens and Broncos W, Steelers L)
2013 - 5-0 (Steelers, Packers, Pats, Colts, Ravens W)
2012 - 2-2 (Ravens and Giants W, Steelers and Broncos L)
2011 - 0-3 (Niners, Steelers, Ravens L)

Like I just went off memory, I don't remember if some of those are teams were true contenders or if some teams were really contenders that I missed..

But looking further, were 7 of our last 8 victorious...we have only lost to one true contender from the NFC since the era has begun as well. 

Bengals have fared very well against the NFC teams since Dalton-Green arrived..and I see the trend continuing this weekend against another super bowl contender from the NFC

Bengals - 31
Seahawks - 20

(10-07-2015, 11:24 AM)djs7685 Wrote: I do know that we played the Ravens and Steelers twice in each of those years that you listed. You have us as 5-0 in 2013 yet we lost to both the Steelers and Ravens that year. We also beat San Diego in the regular season in 2013 and they should be considered a contender since they did beat us in the playoffs that same season. Also, I wouldn't consider teams that didn't even make the playoffs that year as "contenders". Steelers and Ravens missed playoffs in 2013, Steelers missed in 2012. This is also just off the top of my head, so there could be some stuff I'm missing.

(10-07-2015, 11:53 AM)rungiorun25 Wrote: Yeah but I was basing it off games played in Cincy..that's what my first sentence mentioned..sorry for the confusion.

we played SD in SD that year though didn't we? I cant remember.

(10-06-2015, 07:51 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Right. Their defense finished 9th that year, but Tavaris Jackson was no Russell Wilson. He was decent though, at least against us. TJack actually threw for 323 yards in that game. We stuffed Lynch. The Seahawks should be 1-3 right now, as the officials gifted them a win at home against a disappointing Lions team. I think they're vulnerable at this point.

Considering all factors (we're at home, Lynch has a hammy issue, Seahawks offense looks weak, our offense is loaded with weapons) I just think this might be a fairly comfortable win (10 points or so). We'll see. 

(10-06-2015, 08:09 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: The Seahawks have given up 34 points to the Rams and 27 to the Packers in their 2 road games this year. 

The Bengals have averaged 30.6 points per game over their last 18 home games, scoring 30+ 11 times.

So yeah. Maybe not as preposterous as you think.

(10-05-2015, 04:11 AM)2ndHalfAdjustment Wrote: I believe a lot rides on the MNF matchup. If Seattle loses there, I don't think there's a chance in hell that they lose here. They would come out with an intensity that the Bengals probably wouldnt be able to match.

That being said, I don't see Seattle losing tomorrow, and I think we trounce them at home. 33-17.

(10-07-2015, 12:02 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Ohhh I didn't even see the "in the Jungle" clause on that. Yeah, San Diego was in San Diego for the regular season game.

That's my bad. That seems pretty accurate then, with the exception of some of those teams not really being all that great in those specific years. I'm not sure you can call an 8-8 team contenders even though they're always a tough matchup and we did end up splitting with both in 2013.

The Bengals have been a really good home team for the past few years, hopefully that continues.

(10-07-2015, 06:21 PM)The Dangler Wrote: All these numbers that some of you are putting up regarding Seattle's D are skewed since Kam Chancellor didn't play in the first 3 games. They're a whole different defense with him on the field. I personally worry about the punching that Seattle does on D for the ball with AJ's and Jeremy's ball security issues. We can't afford to turn the ball over in this game.

(10-07-2015, 06:21 PM)The Dangler Wrote: All these numbers that some of you are putting up regarding Seattle's D are skewed since Kam Chancellor didn't play in the first 3 games. They're a whole different defense with him on the field. I personally worry about the punching that Seattle does on D for the ball with AJ's and Jeremy's ball security issues. We can't afford to turn the ball over in this game.