This team needs to tank

[Gamma Ray Tan]

(03-14-2019, 03:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Patrick Mahomes has nothing to do with anything we are discussing.  WTF are you even talking about?

Actually it has everything to do with what we are talking about. McC has realized that he can't say he would rather have Mahomes at QB without his whole argument collapsing in on itself. Much like you saying Bengals don't need to obtain better players, just better coaching to average or below average players and then they'll get better...maybe. 

[*PhilHos*]

(03-14-2019, 03:51 PM)Gamma Ray Tan Wrote: Actually it has everything to do with what we are talking about. McC has realized that he can't say he would rather have Mahomes at QB without his whole argument collapsing in on itself. Much like you saying Bengals don't need to obtain better players, just better coaching to average or below average players and then they'll get better...maybe. 

So you're saying if the Bengals somehow got Patrick Mahomes, we'd win the Super Bowl? I don't see how you can make that claim.

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2019, 03:51 PM)Gamma Ray Tan Wrote:  Much like you saying Bengals don't need to obtain better players, 

(03-14-2019, 03:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Of course better players are important,

This is fun. 

[XenoMorph]

we had a Tank before but it didn't work out for the long term

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Johnson

[*PhilHos*]

(03-14-2019, 04:08 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: we had a Tank before but it didn't work out for the long term

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Johnson

Heck, the Browns have been tanking for YEARS and the best they did was 7 wins (1 win better than a team dealing with a ton of injuries).

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-14-2019, 11:35 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I'd imagine no GM has ever had as many high draft picks as Mike Brown...what's another one going to do for us?  Just a quick count, but the guy has had 14 top 10 draft picks as a GM.  I wonder what the record is for one man to get?

Since 1966, Bengals have only had 3 1st Round, Number 1 draft picks..
1994 Dan Wilkenson
1995 Kijana Carter
2003 Carson Palmer

Since 1966
Tampa Bay 5
Atlanta 4
Buffalo 4
Cleveland 4
Indianapolis 4
New England 4

[HuDey]

I started reading the last couple of pages of this thread and have now lost all track of what subject is even the purpose of it.

[Gamma Ray Tan]

(03-14-2019, 03:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  Better coaching and player development which also includes coaching.  The Rams made a quantum leap improvement in their QB production from '17 to '18 without bringing in a new QB.

Of course better players are important, but since there is a salary cap it is important to make "smart" free agent choices instead of just signing the biggest name players who will blow your cap if they bust.

So let me ask you again.  How do YOU think a team gets better?

Do equate “smart” with “cheap”......

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2019, 04:19 PM)HuDey Wrote: I started reading the last couple of pages of this thread and have now lost all track of what subject is even the purpose of it.

[*PhilHos*]

(03-14-2019, 04:19 PM)HuDey Wrote: I started reading the last couple of pages of this thread and have now lost all track of what subject is even the purpose of it.

That's one of the many things I love about this board. I'll go to a thread with multiple pages that I've not read, read the first page and then read the most current page and just marvel at where the conversation has ended up.

It's awesome.

That said, this thread is apparently about people wanting the Bengals to lose games and that only getting better players improves a team that coaching has nothing to do with it. Also Patrick Mahomes.

[NKURyan]

If you're the type of person who spends all day crying and whining about the front office and their ability to put together a good team, but then turn around and expect that same front office to successfully use tanking to build a better team... well, you realize how silly that sounds, don't you?

"I have no faith in our front office to put together a winner. The Bengals should tank so the front office can put together a winner." Real sensible.

[*PhilHos*]

(03-14-2019, 04:31 PM)NKURyan Wrote: If you're the type of person who spends all day crying and whining about the front office and their ability to put together a good team, but then turn around and expect that same front office to successfully use tanking to build a better team... well, you realize how silly that sounds, don't you?

"I have no faith in our front office to put together a winner. The Bengals should tank so the front office can put together a winner." Real sensible.

Excellent point. You, my good sir (or ma'am, I don't judge), get some rep.

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2019, 04:27 PM)Gamma Ray Tan Wrote: Do equate “smart” with “cheap”......

Is this a statement or a request?

Did you accidently leave out a word or two?

Could you please use enough proper syntax for me to understand what you are trying to say?

[WeezyBengal]

(03-14-2019, 01:20 PM)grampahol Wrote: I hate to break the bad news, but the Bengals organization is in business to turn profit. Winning is secondary and always will be. Wining is nice and all, but if you're not making enough profit it's meaningless. They're never going to be a dynasty team so one great season might be in the cards, but this is a billionaires game, not one run by actual fans nor for the fans. It's a business run by billionaires to extract every last nickle possible from you.
Think about this.. The Browns, perpetually in last place over the past decade were still making a buttload of money and able to pay huge salaries , but at the same time they traded people left and right with absolutely no loyalty to anyone and especially unloyal to their fan base...as long as the organization turned profit losing is acceptable.. . I know that sounds counterintuitive, but it's how things work.
I wouldn't be surprised if the browns win one season then trade away ALL their pieces again to suck another 20 years and just spend the money on rich boy toys.. 

You are exactly right. 

[WeezyBengal]

(03-14-2019, 01:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  More because they get good by not blowing cap space on huge free agent contracts that bust.

Some of you still are not getting it, so let me put it this way.  There are lots of teams who sign big name free agents and DON'T GET BETTER.

There is no proof that signing big name free agents will make a team better.  Some get better and some get worse.

The LA Rams would disagree with you. 

[WeezyBengal]

(03-14-2019, 02:34 PM)McC Wrote: Are you really overlooking what is probably the most important element of the Patriots' success?  It is so insanely obvious that I'm not even gonna say it.

Is Rex Burkhead better than Todd Gurley, for instance?  Did the Pats win a SB with Troy Brown their best receiver against the Greatest Show on Turf?

Take your time.  It'll eventually dawn on you.

And really, sarcasm when so obviously wrong is not a good look.

Brilliant coaching and a non inept organization. Something the Bengals have neither of. 

The book is out on Taylor, but the chips are stacked against him. 

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2019, 04:36 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: The LA Rams would disagree with you. 

No they would not.  The Rams would 100% agree that there are lots of teams that don't sign big name free agents and get better while there are also teams that sign big name free agents that don't get better.

If you want to play this game for every team you list that signed big name free agents and got better I can list a team that did not sign big name free agents and still got better or else a team that signed big name free agents and did not get better.

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2019, 04:39 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Because losing games eventually results in winning more games. 

No it does not.

There are teams that eventually get better after being losers for a long time, but that does not mean losing made then better.

But if you want to argue the point then tell me how much losing is needed to make a winner?  Bengals once went 14 years without a winning record.  How much did losing 13 games in 1991 contribute to us finally having a winning season in '05?

[WeezyBengal]

(03-14-2019, 04:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No they would not.  The Rams would 100% agree that there are lots of teams that don't sign big name free agents and get better while there are also teams that sign big name free agents that don't get better.

If you want to play this game for every team you list that signed big name free agents and got better I can list a team that did not sign big name free agents and still got better or else a team that signed big name free agents and did not get better.

Acquiring talent makes you better. The Bengals are PASSIVE in acquiring the best talent that they can in free agency every year. It's nothing new...that's how they have approached free agency as far back as I can remember. 

To sit here and say that acquiring good players in free agency (or big names as you like to call them) doesn't make your team better is completely asinine. 

The Rams used free agency to sign quality guys to supplement an already quality team...like many winning teams do in the NFL. They added pieces to their puzzle. The Bengals added Bobby Hart and Preston Brown. You tell me how this ends up... 

[Gamma Ray Tan]

(03-14-2019, 03:53 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So you're saying if the Bengals somehow got Patrick Mahomes, we'd win the Super Bowl? I don't see how you can make that claim.

Would he HELP them win the Super Bowl? That is the question. I’ve been arguing “ to my utter surprise “ that in general, getting Better players (in this case free agency) would make the Bengals a better team. I believe that successful teams generally have the better players on them. Seems simple right? Evidently NOT! It has been contested that getting a few better “more expensive” players in free agency would not help this team win....even though the Bengals have never even tried that philosophy, it is being shot down as ludicrous by some. Ok, so if I ask you who would you rather have at QB Mahomes or Dalton....most would say, probably, Mahomes .... I would, but why?..is it because he’s BETTER? of course! We always choose to have the better player on our team, but to argue that getting mediocre talent every year in free agency and by some miracle expect them to turn into Pro Bowlers......argggh! Just sign the Pro Bowler.....it’s just easier. You don’t have to sign every big name free agent, but to sit back and tell us Bobby Hart (not to pile on....just an example) will be awesome this year and no one in free agency was better....really a mute point I guess....this team is in rebuilding mode.