Jungle Noise Logic

[Shake n Blake]

I just don't get what you're trying to prove, bfine. Most of the fan base (and coaches and players) have their heart's set on a playoff win. Obviously winning a championship is the #1 goal for all teams, but for a core group that's gone 0-4 in the playoffs and a fan base that hasn't seen a win in 25 years, it's obviously going to be the #1 goal outside of winning it all.

Perhaps you're able to look at all wins the same, thus more wins = better, but I think most fans (as well as the coaches and players) place far more value on that elusive playoff win than a couple more regular season wins.

[CageTheBengal]

Can we just get to the point?

[The Real Deal]

(12-28-2015, 03:16 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I just don't get what you're trying to prove, bfine. Most of the fan base (and coaches and players) have their heart's set on a playoff win. Obviously winning a championship is the #1 goal for all teams, but for a core group that's gone 0-4 in the playoffs and a fan base that hasn't seen a win in 25 years, it's obviously going to be the #1 goal outside of winning it all.

Perhaps you're able to look at all wins the same, thus more wins = better, but I think most fans (as well as the coaches and players) place far more value on that elusive playoff win than a couple more regular season wins.

That sig :heart:  :heart:

[*bfine32*]

(12-28-2015, 03:16 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I just don't get what you're trying to prove, bfine. Most of the fan base (and coaches and players) have their heart's set on a playoff win. Obviously winning a championship is the #1 goal for all teams, but for a core group that's gone 0-4 in the playoffs and a fan base that hasn't seen a win in 25 years, it's obviously going to be the #1 goal outside of winning it all.

Perhaps you're able to look at all wins the same, thus more wins = better, but I think most fans (as well as the coaches and players) place far more value on that elusive playoff win than a couple more regular season wins.

Perhaps not trying to "prove" anything. Just getting a feel for the pulse of the boards. 

[masonbengals fan]

This team needs a playoff win. There is no disputing that. Had to vote "A".

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(12-28-2015, 01:38 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Few injuries? Dalton? Eifert? Burfict? IIoka? Jones? Smith? Dennard? I would say we have had a few crucial injuries with our franchise QB being extremely tough to overcome for any team.

This team has three players (Dennard, Flowers, and Wright) on IR.  Dalton, Eifert, Iloka, Jones, and Smith have missed a combined 10 games so far.  Yes, that is a very low amount of injuries.  In fact, there is only one team in the league which has lost more games to injury this year....the Miami Dolphins.

EDIT:  Here is a infographic that backs my claim.  The farther to the left the team name is, the fewer games lost to injury it has had.  The farther to the right, the more games lost.   Wins and losses are charted on the Y axis.  Can't find the Bengals, you say?  Why, they're that tiny dot to the top left of Denver.  See, the size of the circle represents the quality of player lost (starter, backup, 3rd stringer), and the Bengals, until a couple of weeks ago had not lost anyone of any real significance.

The Bengals have been incredibly fortunate to be so healthy this season.

[Shake n Blake]

(12-28-2015, 03:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps not trying to "prove" anything. Just getting a feel for the pulse of the boards. 

If that's the case, then I apologize. Your usual snarkiness combined with the title "jungle noise logic" made me think you were going somewhere with this.

[Luvnit2]

(12-28-2015, 03:28 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: This team has three players (Dennard, Flowers, and Wright) on IR.  Dalton, Eifert, Iloka, Jones, and Smith have missed a combined 10 games so far.  Yes, that is a very low amount of injuries.  In fact, there is only one team in the league which has lost more games to injury this year....the Miami Dolphins.

EDIT:  Here is a infographic that backs my claim.  The farther to the left the team name is, the fewer games lost to injury it has had.  The farther to the right, the more games lost.   Wins and losses are charted on the Y axis.  Can't find the Bengals, you say?  Why, they're that tiny dot to the top left of Denver.  See, the size of the circle represents the quality of player lost (starter, backup, 3rd stringer), and the Bengals, until a couple of weeks ago had not lost anyone of any real significance.

The Bengals have been incredibly fortunate to be so healthy this season.

So in your little graph, AD being hurt is the same as a kicker getting hurt? Both are starters, but one is a lot more valuable and a much bigger loss.

[*Nately120*]

Winning a playoff game beats not winning one, but I'm not holding my breath for the "recognition" being 1-7 in the post-season is going to get Marvin and the Bengals.

[masonbengals fan]

No, but it sure beats 0-8

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(12-28-2015, 04:44 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: So in your little graph, AD being hurt is the same as a kicker getting hurt? Both are starters, but one is a lot more valuable and a much bigger loss.

In my "little graph" (I guess that's what we call something when we're butthurt over being wrong), I have shown evidence that supports my statement of this season having "relatively few injuries".  Are you going to be able to support your statement that I am wrong?  Doubtful, but I'm sure you'll try to twist stuff around anyway.

Is a QB injury more impactful than an injury to a kicker?  Certainly.  No one is claiming that it isn't.  Are you really going to mis-represent this season as being injury plagued because Dalton will be out for 3 games?  Can you really say that compared to other teams we've had a lot of injuries?

[Shake n Blake]

(12-28-2015, 04:46 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Winning a playoff game beats not winning one, but I'm not holding my breath for the "recognition" being 1-7 in the post-season is going to get Marvin and the Bengals.

Idk, but a "1" looks a lot better than a "0" to me. A playoff win would pretty much cement Marv's legacy here, as well as Dalton's and some of the other players. They've already managed to make so much positive history here in the regular season. Ending that awful playoff streak would be a huge feather in their cap.

[MrRager]

(12-28-2015, 04:44 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: So in your little graph, AD being hurt is the same as a kicker getting hurt? Both are starters, but one is a lot more valuable and a much bigger loss.

Obviously not. Why would Baltimore's circle be bigger than New England's even though the Patriot players have missed more starts. JC even mentioned that it takes into account the quality of players. This is graph reading 101. 

Another big thing is that we lost Dalton and Eifert so late in the season. Dalton will miss AT MOST <4 games this year. That is less significant than say missing Suggs for 15 games. 

[tigerseye]

So what's the point?

[Bengal Dude]

It obviously has to be option A. We have the longest drought of all 32 NFL teams in playoff victories. Look at how many times people only point out the playoff futility as to why they should bet against us. Yes, it would suck to lose in the divisional round, but we'd finally have that much needed victory and get a lot of pressure off of the team's shoulders.

[masonbengals fan]

(12-28-2015, 05:02 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Idk, but a "1" looks a lot better than a "0" to me. A playoff win would pretty much cement Marv's legacy here, as well as Dalton's and some of the other players. They've already managed to make so much positive history here in the regular season. Ending that awful playoff streak would be a huge feather in their cap.

You nailed it.

[Aquapod770]

The Capitals had a lot of seasons in the mid-00's when they'd finish as the top team in the NHL, but then lose their first series. It didn't take away any of the sting knowing that "well at least we were the best team in the league!"

[*Awful Llama*]

(12-28-2015, 07:22 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: The Capitals had a lot of seasons in the mid-00's when they'd finish as the top team in the NHL, but then lose their first series. It didn't take away any of the sting knowing that "well at least we were the best team in the league!"

It doesn't.  Getting a #1 seed and then losing the first game after four previous, consecutive one-and-dones makes you hands-down, no doubt about it, chokers in the extreme.

Take the WC win and celebrate it, FFS.  You haven't had one since January 6, 1991.  1991!!!  How the hell does a bye and sitting around waiting for football top that?   

[Johnny Cupcakes]

Let's look at this from a different angle now.

We no longer will get the #2 seed (most likely)....meaning that if everything holds pat, we'll face the Jets in the wildcard round as the 3 and 6 seeds. In bfine's scenario, this game would be a win.

Now, would you trade that win for a win yesterday against the Broncos?

[CincyProduct]

(12-27-2015, 08:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just wanted to pose this question to see if the board stays true to their "logic".

Which is a more successful season?

Scenario A:
We lose out and get the #3 seed, we beat NYJ in the Wildcard round, and then lose at Denver the following week.

Scenario B:
We win out, NE loses out and we get the #1 seed. We get a bye and lose to KC in the Divisional Round.

All games are close.












***********NOTICE: I said "more", so that means pick between the 2 given options; not add a 3rd**********

I think it's unanimous we all want super bowl and this team is good enough to win it.