+- 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: Ranking the NFL backfields (Bengals #6) (/thread-677.html)
Ranking the NFL backfields (Bengals #6) - djs7685 - 06-18-2015
The Bengals' backfield is getting some love from Marc Sessler.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000496901/article/ranking-nfl-backfields-from-no-1-to-32?campaign=facebook_atn_sessler
RE: Ranking the NFL backfields (Bengals #6) - Brownshoe - 06-18-2015
(06-18-2015, 04:21 PM)djs7685 Wrote: The Bengals' backfield is getting some love from Marc Sessler.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000496901/article/ranking-nfl-backfields-from-no-1-to-32?campaign=facebook_atn_sessler
How is the Saints that high, and the Steelers that low?
RE: Ranking the NFL backfields (Bengals #6) - Bengal Dude - 06-18-2015
You know, I don't have a problem with our ranking on that list. I just don't agree with a lot of his other rankings. It's really tough for me to say the Jets are the 20th best RB group. That looks the #32 group to me.
RE: Ranking the NFL backfields (Bengals #6) - J24 - 06-18-2015
I don't think its that much of a stretch to say we have the best duo in the NFL.
RE: Ranking the NFL backfields (Bengals #6) - djs7685 - 06-18-2015
(06-18-2015, 04:57 PM)J24 Wrote: I don't think its that much of a stretch to say we have the best duo in the NFL.
I'd say it is.
6 is about right. No need to go full homer.
Murray & Mathews, Lynch & a sock full of dirt, and Bell & Williams are clearly better than Hill & Bernard at the moment.
That could change after this year, but I'd definitely say it's a stretch to claim Hill & Bernard are the best duo as of right now.
RE: Ranking the NFL backfields (Bengals #6) - OSUfan - 06-18-2015
(06-18-2015, 06:23 PM)djs7685 Wrote: I'd say it is.
6 is about right. No need to go full homer.
Murray & Mathews, Lynch & a sock full of dirt, and Bell & Williams are clearly better than Hill & Bernard at the moment.
That could change after this year, but I'd definitely say it's a stretch to claim Hill & Bernard are the best duo as of right now.
Why are you always such a downer to EVERYONE? I do not think it is that far a stretch to say our young duo could very well be near the top of the league.
RE: Ranking the NFL backfields (Bengals #6) - J24 - 06-18-2015
(06-18-2015, 06:23 PM)djs7685 Wrote: I'd say it is.I stand by what I say; there better backs than Hill & Benard but there not many better duos than them if any at all. I would easily take Benard over Matthews or an aging Williams BTW.
6 is about right. No need to go full homer.
Murray & Mathews, Lynch & a sock full of dirt, and Bell & Williams are clearly better than Hill & Bernard at the moment.
That could change after this year, but I'd definitely say it's a stretch to claim Hill & Bernard are the best duo as of right now.
RE: Ranking the NFL backfields (Bengals #6) - BritishBengal - 06-18-2015
It's too low. Vikings and Saints above??? Get out of here! Peterson hasn't played a full season since 2012 and is 30, after him McKinnon is talented enough but very unproven.
Saints starting tailback is a guy who has never gone over 1k yards and has never started more than 10 games.
Both the Bengals and Steelers should be sitting at either 3 and 4.
RE: Ranking the NFL backfields (Bengals #6) - djs7685 - 06-18-2015
(06-18-2015, 06:33 PM)OSUfan Wrote: Why are you always such a downer to EVERYONE? I do not think it is that far a stretch to say our young duo could very well be near the top of the league.
Yeah, I'm such a downer for telling someone to calm down on the orange koolaid, but at the same time I believe #6 is very accurate and could possibly be a spot or two higher arguably if we're only talking about duos and not entire backfields.
That's such a downer, I only think they're a top 5 duo in the NFL. You're such a dork.
RE: Ranking the NFL backfields (Bengals #6) - djs7685 - 06-18-2015
(06-18-2015, 06:49 PM)J24 Wrote: I stand by what I say; there better backs than Hill & Benard but there not many better duos than them if any at all. I would easily take Benard over Matthews or an aging Williams BTW.
If you think they're #1 currently, you might be a homer.
You should start some kind of Jeff Foxworthy-esque comedy tour with that. Basically just state every single opinion of yours and then say "you just might be a homer" afterwards, because you seem to think every last one of our players is one of the best at their respective position.
I've never seen you say a negative thing about a team that hasn't won a playoff game in a quarter of a century, I mean, it wouldn't kill you to be a little realistic sometimes.
RE: Ranking the NFL backfields (Bengals #6) - bfine32 - 06-18-2015
They did this on NFL Sirius Radio by Division. Jim Miller had us #1 (he said Andy put us over the top) and Pat Kirwan had us #2 (in the Division and quite possibly the NFL).
RE: Ranking the NFL backfields (Bengals #6) - bengalfan74 - 06-18-2015
They very easily could be the #1 duo at the end of this coming season. I think they're easily top 5 right now.
RE: Ranking the NFL backfields (Bengals #6) - OSUfan - 06-18-2015
(06-18-2015, 07:09 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Yeah, I'm such a downer for telling someone to calm down on the orange koolaid, but at the same time I believe #6 is very accurate and could possibly be a spot or two higher arguably if we're only talking about duos and not entire backfields.
That's such a downer, I only think they're a top 5 duo in the NFL. You're such a dork.
No you are a downer because you seem to try to crap on anything anyone states that is of a positive nature. The fact that you actually called me a "dork" (seriously?) speaks volumes. Have a nice day.
RE: Ranking the NFL backfields (Bengals #6) - J24 - 06-18-2015
(06-18-2015, 07:11 PM)djs7685 Wrote: If you think they're #1 currently, you might be a homer.You think Deangelo Williams is better than Bernard or Hill or Matthews is better than them? Your going to question me when you spew that nonsense?
You should start some kind of Jeff Foxworthy-esque comedy tour with that. Basically just state every single opinion of yours and then say "you just might be a homer" afterwards, because you seem to think every last one of our players is one of the best at their respective position.
I've never seen you say a negative thing about a team that hasn't won a playoff game in a quarter of a century, I mean, it wouldn't kill you to be a little realistic sometimes.
RE: Ranking the NFL backfields (Bengals #6) - Nately120 - 06-19-2015
They otter be pretty good, but I'm more on board because those so-called "experts" we love to discredit are high on them, too. Bengals fans get pants-peeingly terrified at how awesome the offense is going to be on such a regular basis that it's hard to take it seriously.
And yes, Hill and Bernard may very well be better than Bell and that bum behind him, but I also recall some nuts around here wishing we'd trade or turn Gio into a WR just so he doesn't get in the way of Hill getting 50 carries per game. It's the off-season...wackiness rules. I'm just wondering who we're gonna beat in the Super Bowl!~
RE: Ranking the NFL backfields (Bengals #6) - BFritz21 - 06-19-2015
(06-18-2015, 06:23 PM)djs7685 Wrote: I'd say it is.
6 is about right. No need to go full homer.
Murray & Mathews, Lynch & a sock full of dirt, and Bell & Williams are clearly better than Hill & Bernard at the moment.
That could change after this year, but I'd definitely say it's a stretch to claim Hill & Bernard are the best duo as of right now.
If we use them properly, with Hill as the workhorse and then get Gio the ball in space, we'll have the best duo, hands down.
He led all NFL rushers in yards in the second half of the season, and that was with not even getting 20 carries in half of the games. Of the half that he didn't get 20 carries, he only got over 15 carries in one of them!
Give Gio the ball deep in the backfield and let him pick his spots, on a sweep, or just have him run a pass route out of the backfield (or even as an outlet) and teams are so beat-up from trying to stop Hill that they have no prayer of keeping up with Gio.
I believe that they'll prove they're higher by season's end, but six is fair for now.
RE: Ranking the NFL backfields (Bengals #6) - djs7685 - 06-19-2015
(06-18-2015, 11:36 PM)J24 Wrote: You think Deangelo Williams is better than Bernard or Hill or Matthews is better than them? Your going to question me when you spew that nonsense?
Well if you think about it logically, no I never said either of those.
Murray AND Mathews > Hill AND Bernard
Bell AND Williams > Hill AND Bernard
I know that may be tough to decipher for an adult that isn't sure which "your" to use at a given moment.
Saying Pittsburgh has a better duo right now isn't saying Williams is better than Hill or Bernard necessarily, but Bell is better than Hill by enough of a margin for the duo to reign supreme even if Bernard is better than DeAngelo (but Williams is probably better due to his career).
You specifically and many others here are way too wrapped up in paper talent and being a huge homer than looking at what has actually happened on the field in these guys' careers.
It's funny that you say I'M the one spewing "nonsense" because I may think a guy with a very solid professional career as a starting RB could possibly be better than a guy with 2 years experience as a backup.
Bernard is pretty good and I love the potential of Hill in the future. I think they could cement the #1 duo status this season and our backfield could be 1-3 as a whole as well. As of RIGHT NOW, it's going full blown homer to discredit Le'Veon Bell and DeAngelo Williams.
RE: Ranking the NFL backfields (Bengals #6) - PhilHos - 06-19-2015
(06-18-2015, 07:09 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Yeah, I'm such a downer for telling someone to calm down on the orange koolaid,
Yes, you are. What's wrong with some homerism? I mean, it's not like he's being an irrational homer, claiming Eiffert is the greatest TE in the history of the NFL for example.
Dude thinks our RBs are tops in the league. You claim they're top 5. That's a difference of 4 whole spots. So, why rain on his parade?
RE: Ranking the NFL backfields (Bengals #6) - SHRacerX - 06-19-2015
(06-18-2015, 04:36 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: How is the Saints that high, and the Steelers that low?
I thought the same thing. If the Bengals can get Burkhead involved this year after seeing what he could do as a receiver, I think they could be at or very close to the #1 backfield in all of football. Remember, the defenses that the Eagles saw twice a season: Cowboys, Redskins, Giants. Bengals face Browns, steelers, and Ravens. It seems on the surface that the Eagles might be falling in to the Bengals trap of making the playoffs but being a one-and-done. They need a better oline if they are going to be able to move the ball against playoff-caliber defenses.
That is why I am so happy with the depth at the offensive line this season. It won't be "Smith is out, there goes the run game" any longer.
RE: Ranking the NFL backfields (Bengals #6) - djs7685 - 06-19-2015
(06-19-2015, 11:22 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes, you are. What's wrong with some homerism? I mean, it's not like he's being an irrational homer, claiming Eiffert is the greatest TE in the history of the NFL for example.
Dude thinks our RBs are tops in the league. You claim they're top 5. That's a difference of 4 whole spots. So, why rain on his parade?
It's just obnoxious to see the team getting some love from analysts and the media and people have to immediately put the foot down on the gas as quickly as they can. There's being reasonable and there's being ridiculous. IMO, calling them the best backfield or best duo in the NFL right now is ridiculous, they haven't proven it yet but I do believe they can in the near future. You may disagree, but I'm still entitled to my very reasonable opinion that can be backed up with plenty of data.
Over the top homerism annoys me (and I believe saying they're #1 is definitely homerism). It annoys you that I'm bothered by people acting like extreme homers. Different things annoy different people, such is life.