Login

**AussieBengal** · 08-20-2018, 03:30 AM

Which would you prefer?

A team that is consistently making the playoffs and competing for the championship but just falls short

or

one perfect season where the team goes all the way and wins the Superbowl but for 20 years either side of it has minimal success.

The reason I ask is that is the exact scenario that the other team in my life had. I support the Wests Tigers in the National Rugby League here in Australia. Since 1990 they have made the playoffs on 3 occasions, the last time being in 2011 and on the weekend loss a game that put them out of the running for the playoffs for this year.

Though in 2005 a miracle happened and despite being second last in the competition at the halfway part of the season they stormed through the 2nd half of the year and won the competition. Before that year they hadn't made the playoffs in 15 years and after that year it was another 5 years before they would make the playoffs again.

So what would you prefer, a team that is always competing but just falls short or that one perfect year where a miracle occurs?

**Bilbo Saggins** · 08-20-2018, 04:53 AM

Superbowl is the goal. Sustained success is the goal the season after, though perhaps your best shot to win a super bowl is to aim for sustained success every year.

fredtoast · 08-20-2018, 09:03 AM

I live in the present, not the past.

A Super Bowl win 3 years ago would be meaningless if we go 4-12 this year.

Nothing sadder than people who try to use past success to make them feel better about the present.

The city of Cleveland has as many NFL Championships as Pittsburgh. Hear many Browns fans talking shit to the rest of the league about that?

**The Real Deal** · 08-20-2018, 09:06 AM

Obviously super bowl is what we all want to see. But this is a loaded question because as much as I want to see a super bowl victory, I don’t want it at the expense of not getting another one and largely becoming completely irrelevant. But if I choose be competitive but always fall short, that doesn’t make sense either. Impossible question to answer, at least for me it is.

fredtoast · 08-20-2018, 09:09 AM

(08-20-2018, 09:03 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I live in the present, not the past.

A Super Bowl win 3 years ago would be meaningless if we go 4-12 this year.

Nothing sadder than people who try to use past success to make them feel better about the present.

The city of Cleveland has as many NFL Championships as Pittsburgh. Hear many Browns fans talking shit to the rest of the league about that?

Just to clarify a little. A team should shoot for sustained success, but if they are in a position where they believe they are close enough to winning it all that one player will make a difference I have no problem with sacrificing some talent or money to make that one big move.

But that is only if a team got close by working toward sustained success. I don't think a team can just go out one year and "load up" on free agents in order to make a title run.

***SHRacerX*** · 08-20-2018, 09:12 AM

They shouldn't be mutually exclusive, but Super Bowl...hands down. That is what is so frustrating about this team. I feel like they are so close, but they just miss one key step (the right side of the offensive line) and it is because (IMHO) they just couldn't throw in the towel on Ced and Fish. Bobby Hart is no prize but he is clearly beating out those two.

If only they could have moved up and gotten Orlando Brown. Despite his combine, that man is a mammoth designed to be a RT. I would have taken him in a heartbeat over Jefferson and Walton. And that isn't hindsight, I was screaming that during the draft.

**Hoofhearted** · 08-20-2018, 10:14 AM

Define minimal success? Is that a .500 team? If so, give me a Super Bowl win with mediocrity reigning supreme for two decades. We've had a lot of practice and dealing with that. Plus, what's the old saying? Flag fly forever? I'll take that because I feel like the Bengals are your first example given here.

**AussieBengal** · 08-20-2018, 10:23 AM

(08-20-2018, 09:12 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: They shouldn't be mutually exclusive, but Super Bowl...hands down. That is what is so frustrating about this team. I feel like they are so close, but they just miss one key step (the right side of the offensive line) and it is because (IMHO) they just couldn't throw in the towel on Ced and Fish. Bobby Hart is no prize but he is clearly beating out those two.

If only they could have moved up and gotten Orlando Brown. Despite his combine, that man is a mammoth designed to be a RT. I would have taken him in a heartbeat over Jefferson and Walton. And that isn't hindsight, I was screaming that during the draft.

They aren't usually mutually exclusive, in fact usually in most sports you need the sustained success to get the championship. It's just something I've been thinking about the last few day after the other team I love failed to make the playoffs again.

The unlikely run they had to win the competition and the night they finally won was amazing and really was a highlight of my life but its been 13 years since then and only 2 playoff appearance since so its been running through my head if I would give up the miracle that it really was to have a more consistent team. I know my answer but was wondering what other would want.

**BuzzCityBengal** · 08-20-2018, 10:32 AM

This is a tough question. I think I’ll go with sustained success. The SB would be great, but I don’t know if o could handle 20 years of miserable Sundays

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

***Benton*** · 08-20-2018, 10:35 AM

Success is a Superbowl. So, sustained Superbowls.

**AussieBengal** · 08-20-2018, 10:35 AM

(08-20-2018, 10:14 AM)Hoofhearted Wrote: Define minimal success? Is that a .500 team? If so, give me a Super Bowl win with mediocrity reigning supreme for two decades. We've had a lot of practice and dealing with that. Plus, what's the old saying? Flag fly forever? I'll take that because I feel like the Bengals are your first example given here.

Ok, The Wests Tigers which is the other team I am talking about has a .433 winning record since the year 2000 despite winning the championship in 2005 and have made the playoffs in 2005, 2010 and 2011.

Yes I have a habit of following teams that struggle to be consistent.

***Nately120*** · 08-20-2018, 04:12 PM

How is this even a hypothetical with a team that hasn't finished higher than 12th place in the NFL in 27 years? I don't get it. Maybe I'm spoiled by our recent relative success, but I'd take a SB win somewhere between 2003 and today rather than the real-life memories I have of:

getting Kimo-ed out of the playoffs in 2005
flopping against Mark Sanchez and the Jets in 2009
flopping against TJ Yates and the Texans in 2011
scoring an amazing 3 points on offense against the Texans in 2012
not losing at home until it counted the most vs the Chargers in 2013
watching our discarded scrapheap RB run over us in 2014
not being amazed the Bengals found a way to beg the Steelers to humilaite them yet again in 2015

Dear lord, how could anyone want to trade that collage of beautiful memories and champagne-soaked dreams for a single stupid world title! I'll take 7 12th place participation trophies every time.

***Nate (formerly eliminate08)*** · 08-20-2018, 07:06 PM

(08-20-2018, 04:53 AM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: Superbowl is the goal. Sustained success is the goal the season after, though perhaps your best shot to win a super bowl is to aim for sustained success every year.

I agree with Bilbo. Little bit of both, would i love a SB? Of course but that would also just suck to just lose for 20 years after...

**Millhouse** · 08-20-2018, 07:25 PM

Superbowl

**J24** · 08-20-2018, 07:27 PM

Both

**grampahol** · 08-20-2018, 08:00 PM

We could be like Cleveland and enjoy dead last place every season just for the Clevelandesque version of the super bowl which is the #1 overall pick in the draft.

**jorev5** · 08-20-2018, 09:15 PM

I think I might take 1 superbowl victory and not mind going through the 90's again.

**bengaltruth** · 08-20-2018, 09:48 PM

(08-20-2018, 03:30 AM)AussieBengal Wrote: Which would you prefer?

A team that is consistently making the playoffs and competing for the championship but just falls short

or

one perfect season where the team goes all the way and wins the Superbowl but for 20 years either side of it has minimal success.

The reason I ask is that is the exact scenario that the other team in my life had. I support the Wests Tigers in the National Rugby League here in Australia. Since 1990 they have made the playoffs on 3 occasions, the last time being in 2011 and on the weekend loss a game that put them out of the running for the playoffs for this year.

Though in 2005 a miracle happened and despite being second last in the competition at the halfway part of the season they stormed through the 2nd half of the year and won the competition. Before that year they hadn't made the playoffs in 15 years and after that year it was another 5 years before they would make the playoffs again.

So what would you prefer, a team that is always competing but just falls short or that one perfect year where a miracle occurs?

BOTH, New England has had it for over a decade now, of course they do cheat to win at all cost. But its kind of which came first the chicken or the egg.

**BengalFanInNJ** · 08-20-2018, 11:23 PM

I'd take a Super Bowl win with 20 years of "crap" as long as there was the occasional 9-7 record and no 12-game losing streak to the Steelers.

**AussieBengal** · 08-21-2018, 12:55 AM

(08-20-2018, 11:23 PM)BengalFanInNJ Wrote: I'd take a Super Bowl win with 20 years of "crap" as long as there was the occasional 9-7 record and no 12-game losing streak to the Steelers.

You would make a great Wests Tigers supporter because that is exactly what we had lol. This year we have had an 11-11 season with 2 games to go.

I'd take the miracle Superbowl win too!

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me