Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think?

[*Nately120*]

(02-01-2023, 12:44 AM)ElkValleyBengal Wrote: Yeah, that's a stretch.  It's impossible to compare QBs fairly from era to era.  How would Greg Cook have done had he not been denied a career?  How would Anderson and Esiason have performed (with their quality o-lines) in a pass happy era when you can't breathe heavy on a QB and the WRs are free to roam?  Love Burrow, but the recency bias skews perspective.

We've done pretty well QB wise as a franchise, minus the 90s where everything was crap.  Anderson, Esiason, Burrow and even on occasion Palmer and Dalton compared favorably to their peers operating within the same timeframe and rules set.  As much as the new rules would have benefitted them, I'm not sure Anderson and especially Esiason would have wanted their careers to take place during the Mike Brown era, though.

(02-01-2023, 12:45 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Oh no doubt. Luck is usually involved when it comes to getting a clear cut guy like that, but if I don't call the Colts lucky for getting Peyton and a guy literally named Luck, why would I shade my own team by boiling it all down to luck?

Well, the Colts made their own luck to get Luck by legit tanking.  I suppose you could argue they were "lucky" that Peyton Manning had a surprise(?) neck injury that would sideline him for the whole season late enough for them to fail to address their lack of a viable backup.  I actually recall that season, at least a bit, because I was living in Chicago and hanging around with a chick from Indiana who was a Colts fan and it was like "Oh yea surprise Peyton isn't playing this year, at all.  Ok, time to start the season."