+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (https://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: JUNGLE NOISE (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-2.html)
+--- Thread: Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think? (/thread-34806.html)
Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think? - Shake n Blake - 01-31-2023
The media seems to paint the Bengals as an abysmal franchise. Tbh, I don't think they down any other team quite like the Bengals. I'm under no delusion that the Bengals were one of the better teams by any stretch, but were we the worst? Or even bottom 5?
12 teams have never won a Super Bowl. Among those teams, the Bengals are one of 4 with multiple appearances.
From 1968 (the year the Bengals were founded) to 2019 (our last year without Joe), here is each non-champion's % of seasons making the playoffs:
Vikings - 57.7% (amazing that they haven't won one)
Titans - 36.5%
Texans - 33.3%
Panthers - 32.0%
Bills - 28.8%
Jags - 28.0%
Bengals - 26.9%
Falcons - 26.9%
Chargers - 26.9%
Browns - 26.5%
Lions - 23.1%
Cardinals - 15.4%
Now here's the % of seasons these teams won their division:
Vikings - 40.4%
Texans - 33.3%
Panthers - 24.0%
Bengals - 19.2%
Chargers - 19.2%
Browns - 16.3%
Jags - 16.0%
Cardinals - 15.4%
Bills - 13.5%
Falcons - 13.5%
Titans - 13.5%
Lions - 5.8%
Then you have some teams like the Jets that won 1 title (in the first year of the Bengals' existence), but they only have one SB appearance and 6 fewer division titles. Are they on a different level than the Bengals?
Also, I looked at the Chiefs for fun (and also bc I know they were nothing special prior to Reid and Mahomes), and they would be middle of the above pack in playoff appearances (14) and division titles (7) prior to Reid and Mahomes. They did win one SB way back in 1969 with Len Dawson.
So why didn't the media try to talk Herbert, Allen, Lawrence or Mahomes out of signing with those teams? Why does it feel like the Bengals get dismissed more than any of these teams?
How is the Chiefs getting Reid and Mahomes any different than us getting Zac and Burrow? Neither franchise had a great history prior to getting them.
RE: Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think? - Nicomo Cosca - 01-31-2023
31 years was one of the most embarrassing droughts in all of sports. Thankfully it’s the Lions problem now.
RE: Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think? - Shake n Blake - 01-31-2023
(01-31-2023, 10:00 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: 31 years was one of the most embarrassing droughts in all of sports. Thankfully it’s the Lions problem now.
True, but even I will admit there's more measures of success than just playoff wins.
Some of these teams have a few more playoff wins than us, but less Super Bowls and division titles.
RE: Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think? - michaelsean - 01-31-2023
(01-31-2023, 10:00 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: 31 years was one of the most embarrassing droughts in all of sports. Thankfully it’s the Lions problem now.
Hopefully next year they can make it the Dolphins problem.
RE: Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think? - Rubekahn29 - 01-31-2023
Even one playoff win of those 7 appearances would have eliminated a lot of garbage we endured. But those days are behind us.
RE: Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think? - Shake n Blake - 01-31-2023
I'm asking if we were a bottom 5 team considering all factors from 1968 to 2019. Not 1991 to 2019.
We all know about the playoff drought, but there are several other factors people should look at, imo.
RE: Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think? - Nicomo Cosca - 01-31-2023
(01-31-2023, 10:11 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I'm asking if we were a bottom 5 team considering all factors from 1968 to 2019.
We all know about the playoff drought, but there are several other factors people should look at, imo.
Bottom 5? No. But they were plenty mediocre between the 80’s and the current era.
RE: Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think? - Nately120 - 01-31-2023
(01-31-2023, 09:57 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: So why didn't the media try to talk Herbert, Allen, Lawrence or Mahomes out of signing with those teams? Why does it feel like the Bengals get dismissed more than any of these teams?
We had what, 7 one and done's over a period of 30 years? That's pretty bad, and even when we were good enough to make the playoffs we'd insantly faceplant.
Personally, I was over the "The Bengals are going to ruin Burrow" talk, but we have a thread where we are saying if Burrow had the Eagle's o-line he'd be in the SB right now, so it almost feels like we're back to square one on stuff like that. Meh, who knows...maybe we can build one.
Also, Mahommes, Allen, and Herbert weren't taken at #1 overall and they weren't burdened with being instant franchise changers like Burrow was. They were all high upside picks that needed work and development and were passed over by a number of teams.
Josh Allen was taken after Mayfield and Darnold, who went to the Browns and Jets so they were the franchises that were questioned when it comes to ruining QBs, not so much the Bills as Allen was a "wait and see" sort of prospect.
Mahommes was the 2nd QB off the board in 2017 and he also sat for almost all of his 1st year behind Alex Smith in Andy Reid's system, so the media was all in on that situation.
I'm just saying when the Bears or Browns or Jets take the first QB off the board they get the same sort of "They're gonna wreck this kid" narrative that we got with Burrow. I also bet the Jeff Fisher-era Rams got a lot of skepticism drafting Goff at #1 overall after getting zilch out of Sam Bradford. We aren't alone in stuff like this, because when you take a QB at #1 your team has issues and your franchise as a whole is probably one that gets questioned. Such is life.
RE: Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think? - ElkValleyBengal - 01-31-2023
The Bengals were really good in the early-mid 70s. Unfortunately for them the Dolphins, Steelers, and Raiders were legendary.
They were off and on in the 80s, really good a couple years in the early 80s and in '88.
They were the laughing stock of the league in the 90s, though they did make the playoffs after the '90 season.
They had some good teams in the mid and late 2000s.
They had some good teams with sustained success in the early-mid 2010s.
The only thing the Bengals have never really had is sustained post-season success. As everyone knows this was the first time the franchise had seen consecutive seasons with post-season success. In terms of public image, the Bengals still carry the baggage of the 90s.
RE: Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think? - Nately120 - 01-31-2023
(01-31-2023, 10:16 PM)ElkValleyBengal Wrote: The only thing the Bengals have never really had is sustained post-season success. As everyone knows this was the first time the franchise had seen consecutive seasons with post-season success. In terms of public image, the Bengals still carry the baggage of the 90s.
Another thing is that even when we were decent in the Marvin era, we'd lose most of our prime time games and all of our playoff games, and a lot of the time it didn't seem to matter who we were playing, we'd just lose. When you are a small market team without a history of SBs from years past to bolster your image you get lost in the mix, so any time a casual crowd would watch us we'd come off as a decent team that can't even look decent when all eyes are on us.
That hurts the brand, for sure.
RE: Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think? - samhain - 01-31-2023
I don't know if they were the worst, but the 90's is a pretty big blemish.
Also, the sheer domination of this team by their most hated rival in the Marvin era felt pretty bush league.
The current team loses division games, but I don't see them getting consistently dominated by them for 16 straight years like that.
It used to feel like a goddamned Super Bowl win when the Bengals beat Pittsburgh. It's still nice, but not nearly the same.
I think that's a sign of higher expectations.
RE: Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think? - ElkValleyBengal - 01-31-2023
(01-31-2023, 10:25 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Another thing is that even when we were decent in the Marvin era, we'd lose most of our prime time games and all of our playoff games, and a lot of the time it didn't seem to matter who we were playing, we'd just lose. When you are a small market team without a history of SBs from years past to bolster your image you get lost in the mix, so any time a casual crowd would watch us we'd come off as a decent team that can't even look decent when all eyes are on us.
That hurts the brand, for sure.
Excellent point.
RE: Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think? - Frank Booth - 01-31-2023
Marvin Lewis era? Seemed like a good stable franchise to me. Only thing they were missing was playoff wins
RE: Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think? - Shake n Blake - 01-31-2023
(01-31-2023, 10:13 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Bottom 5? No. But they were plenty mediocre between the 80’s and the current era.
I agree, but the media doesn't talk about this franchise like it was mediocre. They talk like it was the worst franchise in the NFL or very close to it.
(01-31-2023, 10:15 PM)Nately120 Wrote: We had what, 7 one and done's over a period of 30 years? That's pretty bad, and even when we were good enough to make the playoffs we'd insantly faceplant.
True, but with most of these mediocre to bad franchises, I can cherry pick long periods of losing with little to no playoff wins.
Then a team like the Chiefs gets Reid and Mahomes, and suddenly they're a great franchise? How were the Chiefs prior to Reid any better than the Bengals?
(01-31-2023, 10:25 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Another thing is that even when we were decent in the Marvin era, we'd lose most of our prime time games and all of our playoff games, and a lot of the time it didn't seem to matter who we were playing, we'd just lose. When you are a small market team without a history of SBs from years past to bolster your image you get lost in the mix, so any time a casual crowd would watch us we'd come off as a decent team that can't even look decent when all eyes are on us.
That hurts the brand, for sure.
This is probably a huge part of it. Without the championship past, and a long bad stretch during the 90s, we have not done enough since to clear that stench. At least prior to Burrow. Marvin had a good run, but then we became a running joke for a different reason.
Still, the Cardinals have been way worse than us in every regard, and even they seem to get more respect than us. Maybe it's also partly Mike Brown and his lack of charisma?
RE: Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think? - Nicomo Cosca - 01-31-2023
(01-31-2023, 10:44 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Still, the Cardinals have been way worse than us in every regard, and even they seem to get more respect than us. Make it's also partly Mike Brown and his lack of charisma?
Cardinals had that Super Bowl run with Warner. Like it or not, a lot people only remember what teams do in the playoffs.
RE: Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think? - Emphasis - 01-31-2023
For a long time, we were good enough to make it into the playoffs but not advance any further. We now have the personnel across the board to completely change that script.
RE: Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think? - Shake n Blake - 01-31-2023
(01-31-2023, 10:47 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Cardinals had that Super Bowl run with Warner. Like it or not, a lot people only remember what teams do in the playoffs.
...and we had 2 Super Bowl runs in the 80s, to go with far more playoff appearances and division titles.
Tbh, I think the casual fan only remembers Super Bowls. Not that the Jags once beat the Steelers in the Wild Card.
Big fans will or should remember who was good, not just who won playoff games.
RE: Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think? - Nately120 - 01-31-2023
(01-31-2023, 10:44 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Then a team like the Chiefs gets Reid and Mahomes, and suddenly they're a great franchise? How were the Chiefs prior to Reid any better than the Bengals?
Mahommes was a project who was compared to Jay Cutler, pre draft:
Overview
Mahomes is a big, confident quarterback who brings a variety of physical tools to the party, but he's developed some bad habits and doesn't have a very repeatable process as a passer. Mahomes' ability to improvise and extend plays can lead to big plays for his offense, but he will have to prove he can operate with better anticipation and be willing to take what the defense gives him in order to win from the pocket. Mahomes will be a work in progress, but he's a high ceiling, low floor prospect.
So you had a player with issues, but massive upside and he was taken by the Chiefs who planned to sit him behind a veteran QB in Alex Smith where he could be developed by a QB guru in Andy Reid.
As for the franchise of the Chiefs, well I mean they at least brought people in and out. The knock against the Bengals was that they had a 30 years playoff drought that involved a lot of "staying the course." When we drafted Burrow we were a 2-14 team with a HC who looked to be in completely over his head and we hadn't won a playoff game since 1990 and we had the same stagnant/stubborn front office and owner running the show and saying stuff at press conferences that made Bengals fans groan.
It's hard to take Reid out of the Chiefs picture, because when he drafted Mahommes all 4 of his seasons as the HC in KC were winning seasons, with 3 playoff berths and a playoff win in there. If the Chiefs had drafted Mahommes with Romeo Crenel going 2-14, then I think they're have gotten more grief, for sure.
RE: Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think? - Nately120 - 01-31-2023
(01-31-2023, 10:44 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Still, the Cardinals have been way worse than us in every regard, and even they seem to get more respect than us. Maybe it's also partly Mike Brown and his lack of charisma?
The Cardinals get shellacked, especially when you point out that they've been as bad if not worse than us during the bad years and they've only managed to have a few good years coming from "end of the road" vets in Warner and Palmer who were really brought in because they have a slew of young QBs they drafted or made trades for who went total bust like Matt Leinart, Kevin Kolb, Josh Rosen, and Kyler Murray is hardly looking like a 1st overall pick QB so far.
It's quite noted that the Cardinals kill young QBs, so you have to go back to 1998 to see them win a playoff game with a QB under hell....probably 35 or so.
RE: Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think? - Nicomo Cosca - 01-31-2023
(01-31-2023, 10:53 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: ...and we had 2 Super Bowl runs in the 80s, to go with far more playoff appearances and division titles.
Tbh, I think the casual fan only remembers Super Bowls. Not that the Jags once beat the Steelers in the Wild Card.
Big fans will or should remember who was good, not just who won playoff games.
The 80’s were an eternity ago. Plenty of people didn’t even watch those teams play.
Touting “playoff appearances” as some big achievement is kind of embarrassing (we’re past that now). I’m honestly not sure what you’re going for with these weird threads you’ve been starting lately.