NYJ DL Sheldon Richardson suspended for Bengals game

[*SHRacerX*]

(07-08-2016, 05:08 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: We still played a backup QB for more than half of the Raiders game, and anyways it was their first game with their rookie WR and 2nd year QB. The defense played alright, because it didn't have to stop a running game. The defense can't stop the run w/o Burfict, and that let's other teams exploit our defense.

The Seahawks were playing like crap at this point of the year. They started out the year 2-4 with one of their wins against the Lions where they knocked the ball out of Johnsons hand while he was reaching over the goal line. It's not like they were even playing well at that point of the season, and we still let them have about 200 yards rushing. The defense stepped up in the 4th quarter, but just playing well in one quarter doesn't mean anything.

Yeah, the Chiefs were destroying a lot of people with their 1-6 record, right? The Chiefs weren't doing good. They just did good against us.

Bengals played 10 teams with Burfict, not 8. Three out of those 10 teams were in the top 3 offenses. So 4 bad offenses and 3 amazing offenses with 3 more just average offenses doesn't mean that we played a cupcake schedule. If you average all of the offensive rankings of the season w/o Burfict it comes to 15, and if you average all of the offenses when we had Burfict it comes to 16, so it's not like there's a huge difference between the kind of teams we faced.

Actually, the Chiefs were 1-2 when the Bengals played them after they had put up 27, 24, and 28 points against the Texans, Broncos, and Packers...three pretty good defenses, including the #1 defense in the NFL.  

They lost Jamaal Charles the week after the Bengals game.  

I think it is kind of funny how you actually made the point that there wasn't a big difference in the teams that the Bengals played before Burfict and after his return, yet the Bengals didn't lose a game without him.  You want to say "look at the stats", or "watch the games", but the reality of it is the Bengals defense played VERY WELL without Burfict.  

When you make statements about how the Bengals defense only played well "one quarter" against the Seahawks and you also make statements about how the Raiders had a second year QB with a rookie WR and other excuses, it makes you look like you are just making stuff up to support your argument.  And let's not forget that the games you are giving him full credit for making such a huge difference, he didn't play anywhere near to all the snaps.  

The Bengals defense was playing very well without Burfict.  I love the guy.  He is a difference maker, but to try and make it sound like they sucked without him is just not factual.