Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think?
#37
(02-01-2023, 12:51 AM)Nately120 Wrote: 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.


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."

It was a much more obvious tank job, for sure. Them rolling with Curtis Painter and whoever the other guys were would be like if we'd rolled with Ryan Finley for all of 2019 instead of just 3 games to ensure the losing train kept rolling until we had a firm hold on the top pick.

Ours may have been a bit improvised while knowing we wouldn't win much with that roster, while the Colts just completely laid down.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
Reply/Quote





Messages In This Thread
RE: Were the pre-Joe Bengals as bad as most think? - Shake n Blake - 02-01-2023, 01:04 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 14 Guest(s)