1988 Bengals vs 2015 Bengals

[jfkbengals]

Our current defense isn't very good. We have a good pass rush with the lead, and that's about it.

Woods and Brooks would destroy us, leaving Boomer's play fake to essentially score at will.

'88, hands down.

[EatonFan]

(10-19-2015, 10:35 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: Our current defense isn't very good.  We have a good pass rush with the lead, and that's about it.

Woods and Brooks would destroy us, leaving Boomer's play fake to essentially score at will.

'88, hands down.

Boomer's play action was truly amazing.  So many times he'd fake out the cameraman.

I think it would be a high scoring game and '88 knew how to run the ball when they had the lead.  The first team to get up by 9 points would likely keep it.

Would be close.  If 88 kept pounding it they could wear out the 15 D.  If 88 got into a passing frenzy, they could not keep pace.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(10-19-2015, 05:49 PM)Wilikn Wrote: Oft ignored in that season, Joe Nash's behavior started a chain reaction prompting the NFL to rule the "no-huddle offense" illegal two hours before the AFC championship game kicked off.

This was influenced by Marv Levy's declaration that the offense was illegal.  So very odd that Marv "invented" the no-huddle offense one year later.

The Bengals staple that whole season was not available to them in the final two games.

Wyche called the League's bluff in that one mere hours before kickoff of the AFCCG.  By threatening to turn them in for tampering with the odds on the betting lines , we were able to continue to run the no huddle.  The "sugar huddle" was what got disallowed....but if memory serves , that was earlier in the year.

[HarleyDog]

This team would have won 10 superbowls straight in that era. Players today are stronger and faster the 27yrs ago. Yhe only edge I wough give our team in 88 would be physical and mental toughness moons over the players today.

[Psycholomonkey]

(10-20-2015, 07:48 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: This team would have won 10 superbowls straight in that era. Players today are stronger and faster the 27yrs ago. Yhe only edge I wough give our team in 88 would be physical and mental toughness moons over the players today.

This is the only real answer, but many people don't like it.  Nostalgia and whatnot.  Ok maybe not 10 straight superbowls, but even that isn't entirely ridiculous given how athletes have progressed. 

[Wilikn]

(10-20-2015, 07:09 AM)Wyche Wrote: Wyche called the League's bluff in that one mere hours before kickoff of the AFCCG.  By threatening to turn them in for tampering with the odds on the betting lines , we were able to continue to run the no huddle.  The "sugar huddle" was what got disallowed....but if memory serves , that was earlier in the year.

The aspect deemed illegal was the changing of personnel if I remember right.

The Bengals would have 12/13 on the field, pull one or two off just before snapping and the defense could not match up.

Yeah, that's plenty illegal now.  It wasn't then, at least not until the AFC title game. 

Willing to be corrected here.  I've not exactly done extensive research.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(10-20-2015, 07:48 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: This team would have won 10 superbowls straight in that era. Players today are stronger and faster the 27yrs ago. Yhe only edge I wough give our team in 88 would be physical and mental toughness moons over the players today.

.....and coaching 

(10-20-2015, 09:35 AM)Wilikn Wrote: The aspect deemed illegal was the changing of personnel if I remember right.

The Bengals would have 12/13 on the field, pull one or two off just before snapping and the defense could not match up.

Yeah, that's plenty illegal now.  It wasn't then, at least not until the AFC title game. 

Willing to be corrected here.  I've not exactly done extensive research.

Yeah...the changing of the personnel was what was referred to as "the sugar huddle".  They would essentially have different personnel packages (i.e. fullback, TE, extra wideout, what have you) in the huddle at the same time, then keep the package they wanted based on defensive personnel and send the extra two or three guys they didn't want off of the field.  It was genius, you couldn't defend it.

Here's an interesting read on it....

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/wyche-nfl-tried-halt-no-211552505--nfl.html

Quote:"I immediately told the NFL delegate along with the referee who was in the office there with me and (current Bengals owner) Mike Brown, I said 'Go get Pete Rozelle on the phone right now because I want to tell him that he's interfering with the competitive balance of this game, and if we get penalized and lose this ballgame, the first thing I'm bringing up in the press conference is this conversation and there are a lot of gamblers out there who aren't going to be very happy.'


"It wasn't 20 seconds before he came back, he left the room and came back -- I'm not exaggerating -- I bet it wasn't 20 seconds. 'Uh, commissioner says go ahead and use the no-huddle, no problem,' " Wyche said.

[Wilikn]

(10-20-2015, 10:29 AM)Wyche Wrote: Yeah...the changing of the personnel was what was referred to as "the sugar huddle".  They would essentially have different personnel packages (i.e. fullback, TE, extra wideout, what have you) in the huddle at the same time, then keep the package they wanted based on defensive personnel and send the extra two or three guys they didn't want off of the field.  It was genius, you couldn't defend it.

Here's an interesting read on it....

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/wyche-nfl-tried-halt-no-211552505--nfl.html

I prefer to think the Bengals whip the dog out of San Fran if not for the NFL's cheating ways.

Any facts to the contrary, especially given how much time has passed, are of no consequence (to me).

[Wilikn]

(10-20-2015, 08:08 AM)Psycholomonkey Wrote: This is the only real answer, but many people don't like it.  Nostalgia and whatnot.  Ok maybe not 10 straight superbowls, but even that isn't entirely ridiculous given how athletes have progressed. 

Kinda ruins similar discussions.  IMO, size and speed should be measured against the era, not over eras.  For example, the Bengals OLine was quite large in 1988 so their size should not be a negative.  

After all, no one claiming Barry Sanders wasn't an NFL caliber RB because he'd be too small and too slow to play the position in 2015.  The reality is, if he played in 2015, he'd likely weigh more than 203 lbs.

[ItsOdellThurman]

It's amazing how only 27 years apart can feel like forever. The sport is so much different now. It's almost impossible to compare teams or players.

[BengalChris]

(10-19-2015, 03:03 PM)Curtis85 Wrote: Well the 88 team made it to the Superbowl. Let's hope this 2015 team can win a playoff game.

I went with the 88 team for this reason. The 2015 team still has a lot to accomplish.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(10-20-2015, 11:20 AM)Wilikn Wrote: I prefer to think the Bengals whip the dog out of San Fran if not for the NFL's cheating ways.

Any facts to the contrary, especially given how much time has passed, are of no consequence (to me).

With Krumrie and Billups hanging on to the ball, we win anyway.....

[GodHatesBengals]

Man, imagine Munoz, Montoya and Co. battling Geno, Dunlap, and the rest. THAT would be a hell of a match up.

[FloridaBengal]

One this is for sure, the kicking game has evolved over the last 27 years. Jim Breech was 68.8% on FG's that year and was 2/5 on FG's between 40 and 50 yards and 0/1 over 50. Also, missed 3 XP's of the 20 yard variety.

Scott Fulhage punted for 38 yards gross.

(Probably a comment on kicking/punting in general .... )