stephen a smith

[fredtoast]

(11-02-2018, 01:54 PM)hoosierbengal Wrote: I never really understand the debate on who is more at fault for the Bengals shortcomings Mike Brown or Marvin Lewis. To what end is the debate? As long as Mike Brown owns the team and Marvin is the head coach the Bengals are what they are. Seems like a fruitless debate.

Actually it is a very important debate when it comes to the question of how much better we would be with another coach.

[t3r3e3]

(11-02-2018, 03:46 PM)bengalhoel Wrote: We need one (or two) of those blond haired, gold - digging bimbos like those Hugh Hefner girls to keep Mike Brown occupied until we can win a Super Bowl or he dies. 

Problem is, them girls like expensive things. A trip to Wendy’s in the Lumina ain’t gonna keep them occupied for long.

[Shake n Blake]

(10-31-2018, 11:33 PM)bengalhoel Wrote: I think so too. Steelers have been destroying us since 1991 literally and figuratively.

Jeff Blake had a better record (as a Bengal) vs the Steelers than Palmer or Dalton. Think about that one for a minute.

Looking over this thread, it looks like Marv has a lifetime pass to never win a playoff game. "Remember deh 90's???" Smh...at this point I barely do since it's been so long.

[*bengalfan74*]

(11-03-2018, 07:25 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Jeff Blake had a better record (as a Bengal) vs the Steelers than Palmer or Dalton. Think about that one for a minute.

Looking over this thread, it looks like Marv has a lifetime pass to never win a playoff game. "Remember deh 90's???" Smh...at this point I barely do since it's been so long.

I' ll never understand the "we can't let Marvin go because we might get worse" line of thinking ! It makes zero sense to me.

It just boggles my mind that people are willing to stay mediocre forever rather than rolling the dice after 16 years of ho hum.

[Shake n Blake]

(11-03-2018, 07:40 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: I' ll never understand the "we can't let Marvin go because we might get worse" line of thinking ! It makes zero sense to me.

It just boggles my mind that people are willing to stay mediocre forever rather than rolling the dice after 16 years of ho hum.

I think those people place more value on the regular season and less value on championships than the typical fan. No other way to explain it.

[Circleville Guy]

Mike and Marvin have worked together to assemble enough talent to make the playoffs 7 times. Marvin doesn’t get that talent up against the Steelers, in Prime Time or in the Playoffs and that is all on Marvin. Mike is content with making the playoffs because of the years before Marvin and that all falls on Mike Brown. It’s a 2headed monster, Marvin craps his pants in big games and Mike’s desire to be a SB Champ isn’t worth risking an every other year playoff birth to him.

[bengalhoel]

(11-03-2018, 07:25 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Jeff Blake had a better record (as a Bengal) vs the Steelers than Palmer or Dalton. Think about that one for a minute.

Looking over this thread, it looks like Marv has a lifetime pass to never win a playoff game. "Remember deh 90's???" Smh...at this point I barely do since it's been so long.

That is crazy. We didnt even sniff the playoffs with Blake either and he could beat  the Steelers semi regularly. 

I think maybe since Marvin is from Pittsburgh that he might be sabotaging us. 

[Nicomo Cosca]

(11-04-2018, 07:37 AM)bengalhoel Wrote: That is crazy. We didnt even sniff the playoffs with Blake either and he could beat  the Steelers semi regularly. 

I think maybe since Marvin is from Pittsburgh that he might be sabotaging us. 

It’s simple, the Steelers didn’t have a HOF QB in the 90’s and weren’t as good.

[Shake n Blake]

(11-04-2018, 07:37 AM)bengalhoel Wrote: That is crazy. We didnt even sniff the playoffs with Blake either and he could beat  the Steelers semi regularly. 

I think maybe since Marvin is from Pittsburgh that he might be sabotaging us. 

I just looked it up to make sure, and Blake was 4-5 against the Steelers as a Bengal. I want to say Palmer was 4-8 and Dalton is like 3-11.

I get that we "own" Baltimore and Baltimore sorta "owns" Pitt, but nobody is dominating quite like Pitt dominates the Bengals.

(11-04-2018, 08:53 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: It’s simple, the Steelers didn’t have a HOF QB in the 90’s and weren’t as good.

Your first statement might be true, but not the second one. 

The Steelers were just as dominant in the 90's. During the Blake era (94-99), the Steelers went 57-39 with a Super Bowl appearance and 3 conference championship appearances. 

For comparison, over the last 6 years, the Steelers are 61-35 with 0 Super Bowl appearances and 1 conference championship appearance. 

Even with Kordell at QB, they were a FAR better team than the Bengals. So how was Blake able to go 4-5 against them, when superior QB's (Palmer and Dalton) are much worse?

[bengalhoel]

(11-04-2018, 03:02 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I just looked it up to make sure, and Blake was 4-5 against the Steelers as a Bengal. I want to say Palmer was 4-8 and Dalton is like 3-11.

I get that we "own" Baltimore and Baltimore sorta "owns" Pitt, but nobody is dominating quite like Pitt dominates the Bengals.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25071963/nfl-28-3-numbers-tom-brady-new-england-patriots-dominance-buffalo-bills

At least we arent the worst. lol

[THE PISTONS]

(11-04-2018, 03:02 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I just looked it up to make sure, and Blake was 4-5 against the Steelers as a Bengal. I want to say Palmer was 4-8 and Dalton is like 3-11.

I get that we "own" Baltimore and Baltimore sorta "owns" Pitt, but nobody is dominating quite like Pitt dominates the Bengals.


Your first statement might be true, but not the second one. 

The Steelers were just as dominant in the 90's. During the Blake era (94-99), the Steelers went 57-39 with a Super Bowl appearance and 3 conference championship appearances. 

For comparison, over the last 6 years, the Steelers are 61-35 with 0 Super Bowl appearances and 1 conference championship appearance. 

Even with Kordell at QB, they were a FAR better team than the Bengals. So how was Blake able to go 4-5 against them, when superior QB's (Palmer and Dalton) are much worse?

I think it's more their management philosophy that beats us than anything else. They typically beat our lines up and can run the ball against us very well. That's been the difference.

Honestly, Geoff Hobson was on a Pittsburgh radio station talking before we played them last time. While his stories on Bengals.com sound like Homer pieces, he actually pointed out something like the difference has been the Steelers can run the ball which is the difference.

Having a HOF QB doesn't hurt either though.

You look at the game earlier in the year and while the score was close, the Steelers had way more yards than us.

[Shake n Blake]

(11-04-2018, 04:43 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I think it's more their management philosophy that beats us than anything else. They typically beat our lines up and can run the ball against us very well. That's been the difference.

Honestly, Geoff Hobson was on a Pittsburgh radio station talking before we played them last time. While his stories on Bengals.com sound like Homer pieces, he actually pointed out something like the difference has been the Steelers can run the ball which is the difference.

Having a HOF QB doesn't hurt either though.

You look at the game earlier in the year and while the score was close, the Steelers had way more yards than us.

The Steelers have all of those things when they play the Ravens, and the Ravens are more than competitive against them.

CP and Andy > Flacco. As for all the yardage/running etc, that's all scheme/Marv related. Marv can't beat the Steelers, and his record reflects that.

Bengals all-time vs Steelers:

Pre-Marv: 27-36 (.429)
With Marv: 8-25 (.242)

The Steelers have been a great franchise pretty much since the Bengals came into existence, and that pre-Marv record includes 12 years of awful Bengals teams. Yet his record is significantly worse. It's mind-boggling. Give it a few more seasons, and Marv will have as many losses to the Steelers as every Bengals coach in the 35 years that preceded him.