Bovada doesn't like us

[Hoofhearted]

We got worst after FA?   They're saying we have the second to worst shot at winning Super Bowl 53. Makes you wonder what the "weight" of Marv o-pher carries?

[bambino5130]

Just got back from Vegas, and they had the Bengals 80-1 for SB win and like 40-1 to win NFC North

[t3r3e3]

(03-22-2018, 03:11 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: We got worst after FA?   They're saying we have the second to worst shot at winning Super Bowl 53. Makes you wonder what the "weight" of Marv o-pher carries?

Vegas isn’t stupid. The biggest move we made in FA/offseason was retaining Marvin. In other words, 0 chance of winning a Lombardi.

[Hoofhearted]

(03-22-2018, 03:14 PM)bambino5130 Wrote: Just got back from Vegas, and they had the Bengals 80-1 for SB win and like 40-1 to win NFC North

So pretty close. I have a really hard time understanding it after we got better after their 2/5 publication.

[Hoofhearted]

(03-22-2018, 03:16 PM)t3r3e3 Wrote: Vegas isn’t stupid.  The biggest move we made in FA/offseason was retaining Marvin.  In other words, 0 chance of winning a Lombardi.

2011 they predicted us to win right around 2 games.... so they're not always the sharpest tool in the shed. 

[dnkw]

(03-22-2018, 03:14 PM)bambino5130 Wrote: Just got back from Vegas, and they had the Bengals 80-1 for SB win and like 40-1 to win NFC North

I don't rate our chances of winning the NFC North at all. 

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-22-2018, 03:16 PM)t3r3e3 Wrote: Vegas isn’t stupid.  The biggest move we made in FA/offseason was retaining Marvin.  In other words, 0 chance of winning a Lombardi.

So bringing in Pollack wasn't a big move and letting PA go?

Bringing in Austin, Van Pelt, Bicknell weren't big moves?

Trading for Cordy Glenn wasn't a big move?

Getting Preston Brown, NFL leading tackling LB was not a big move?

I can understand the O-7 argument with Merv and that holding a lot of weight but this team had its best Offseason
in recent memory and the Draft isn't even here yet.

[XenoMorph]

(03-22-2018, 03:14 PM)bambino5130 Wrote: Just got back from Vegas, and they had the Bengals 80-1 for SB win and like 40-1 to win NFC North

I would bet against them winning the NFC north every year  seems a very safe bet.

[HarleyDog]

Well, you gotta admit, even with all the changes, Marvin is still there. After 0-7 in the playoffs, expecting him to miraculously rise up and win a Lombardi this year would be equal to expecting Brad to rise and start tap dancing his way to a title on Americas Got Talent? Actually, I have more belief Brad could pull it off more than I believe Marvin could.

[J24]

Fake News we are not that far away but in fairness we do have questions.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-22-2018, 03:26 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Well, you gotta admit, even with all the changes, Marvin is still there. After 0-7 in the playoffs, expecting him to miraculously rise up and win a Lombardi this year would be equal to expecting Brad to rise and start tap dancing his way to a title on Americas Got Talent? Actually, I have more belief Brad could pull it off more than I believe Marvin could.

Harley...

Still man, those are a lot of good changes for the better. I don't find it as impossible as i once did.

[depthchart]

(03-22-2018, 03:17 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: So pretty close. I have a really hard time understanding it after we got better after their 2/5 publication.

I am no expert but don't betting odds factor in what it takes to actually get someone to take the bet.

In other words, they have to make the Bengals odds payoff at a high rate in order to get people to bet on the Bengals.

If this is so, then NFL fans have little respect for the Bengals and won't place money on them without high payoffs per dollar bet.

If the Jets draft a rookie QB that people believe in, then they may pass up the Bengals as more fans start believing in the Jets.

[*Nately120*]

(03-22-2018, 03:18 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: 2011 they predicted us to win right around 2 games.... so they're not always the sharpest tool in the shed. 

Good ol' Cincinnati, where going 9-7 with a 1-6 record against teams with a winning record and getting embarrassed in the playoffs by a 3rd string rookie QB is the ultimate middle finger to the doubters.

[XenoMorph]

(03-22-2018, 04:06 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Good ol' Cincinnati, where going 9-7 with a 1-6 record against teams with a winning record and getting embarrassed in the playoffs by a 3rd string rookie QB is the ultimate middle finger to the doubters.

making the playoffs with a rookie QB and #1 WR when predicted to finish dead last... was a decent accomplishment...

Must have been good coaching to get us there.

(Texans D was >>>> than our D that game)

Would Dalton be viewed more favorably if we didn't make the playoffs those first 2 years?

[grampahol]

Pundits and odds makers.. hmm.. Which should I trust more ?
Pundits are just looking for ratings so check them off my trustability list right away  
Odds makers want my money and I don't particularly trust anyone who would take all my money over a  bet on football .
I guess I'll have to trust my gut. 

[*Nately120*]

(03-22-2018, 04:08 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: making the playoffs with a rookie QB and #1 WR when predicted to finish dead last... was a decent accomplishment...

Must have been good coaching to get us there.

(Texans D was >>>> than our D that game)

Would Dalton be viewed more favorably if we didn't make the playoffs those first 2 years?

Look, I was pleasantly surprised by the 2011 team but people act like we were the 1980 USA hockey team toppling the USSR team, or something.  This isn't a knock on Dalton, but if you look beyond the W/L records and the invitation to flop in the playoffs twice, the difference between the 2009, 2010, and 2011 teams is pretty negligible.  We didn't actually turn the corner until 2012.

[*PhilHos*]

I don't care about the odds (insert Han Solo quote) of Cincy winning a Super Bowl considering Merv's re-hire, but how is Cleveland not the team with the worst odds? Seriously? Even with Merv and his 0-fer in the playoffs, there's a better chance of making the playoffs, and all it takes is a little bit of luck (well, maybe like a TON of luck), but Merv could find himself int he Super Bowl and you never know.

Cleveland could very well be starting a rookie QB and while that doesn't automatically mean a losing season, it's a pretty sure bet they won't even be in the playoffs let alone winning the Super Bowl.

[XenoMorph]

(03-22-2018, 04:29 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Look, I was pleasantly surprised by the 2011 team but people act like we were the 1980 USA hockey team toppling the USSR team, or something.  This isn't a knock on Dalton, but if you look beyond the W/L records and the invitation to flop in the playoffs twice, the difference between the 2009, 2010, and 2011 teams is pretty negligible.  We didn't actually turn the corner until 2012.

no I agree and the rest of the AFC was just that bad that our team was able to make it in.    We probly should not have made the playoffs until 2013 really..
2013(jay, Andys and Greens 3rd year) and 2015(hues 2nd and AJ and Daltons 5th years) were our best years.... 2014 we still made it but were serverlly limping by time playoffs came around.  then it went south after the 2015 season with losing WR 2 and 3 then the next year losing the best 2 OL guys on a not so great OL...  

Not to mention the coaching turnover... (mainly from guys getting promoted to other teams)

[Hoofhearted]

(03-22-2018, 04:06 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Good ol' Cincinnati, where going 9-7 with a 1-6 record against teams with a winning record and getting embarrassed in the playoffs by a 3rd string rookie QB is the ultimate middle finger to the doubters.

When did betting come with asterisks?

[SunsetBengal]

(03-22-2018, 03:14 PM)bambino5130 Wrote: Just got back from Vegas, and they had the Bengals 80-1 for SB win and like 40-1 to win NFC North

Good year to bet on the Bengals!  40-1 for winning the division?  That's very attainable.