Polian: Questioning Bengals playoff success "absurd"

[*Nately120*]

(05-19-2015, 05:43 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote:
Hey, atleast Rex showed up and played well. It was the other guys that didn't.

I must have missed the other 5 times Marvin was stuck with a FB at WR. Face it, Marvin couldn't "overcome" Palmer and Chad any better than he can "overcome" Dalton and AJ and so on. Marvin hasn't shown an ability to put it together regardless of who is playing at WR, etc. Maybe if we give him another decade and QB and WR combo we can see if the third time is the charm.

[3wt]

(05-19-2015, 05:45 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Oh come on. Burkhead ran a small handful of receiving routes and played in 10 totals snaps in that entire game.

You're trying to make it sound like he was a big part of the offense just because he got the starter designation from being on the field during the first offensive snap.

You're just proving the point that you called "piss poor" a little bit ago, this is kind of funny. You claim that I'm full of shit yet you're proving my point right here.

A homer using a broad statement to attempt to prove a point that is misleading to those not willing to dig into the details. Good job, thanks!

I'm not sure I understand the broadness of his statement or the point that is misleading.

We were missing enough of our starting players that we needed to use a running back as our slot receiver. I'm not going to say that we didn't have other factors involved besides injuries, but the injuries constituted a legitimate factor.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(05-19-2015, 07:11 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I must have missed the other 5 times Marvin was stuck with a FB at WR.  Face it, Marvin couldn't "overcome" Palmer and Chad any better than he can "overcome" Dalton and AJ and so on.  Marvin hasn't shown an ability to put it together regardless of who is playing at WR, etc.  Maybe if we give him another decade and QB and WR combo we can see if the third time is the charm.

True, i cannot disagree. He has been terrible as a coach in every Playoff game even with his stud players.

[djs7685]

(05-19-2015, 07:50 PM)3wt Wrote: I'm not sure I understand the broadness of his statement or the point that is misleading.

We were missing enough of our starting players that we needed to use a running back as our slot receiver.  I'm not going to say that we didn't have other factors involved besides injuries, but the injuries constituted a legitimate factor.

I understand that injuries were a legitimate excuse this time. I completely get that. I just think that mentioning Rex Burkhead as a "starting WR" is a bit misleading.

Bengals players by passing play snap count in the IND playoff game...

Sanu - 42
Tate - 41
Hewitt - 26
Hamilton - 26
Bernard - 25
Brock - 10
Burkhead - 7
Little - 4
Hill - 3

Look at that list and PLEASE tell me that saying "we were in such bad shape that Burkhead was a starting WR!" isn't a bit misleading. The fact that Tate played almost every passing snap and Hewitt and Hamilton(!!!!) played in over half of them is much more telling than "Burkhead was a starting WR!".

[Shake n Blake]

(05-19-2015, 06:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Giving the Head Coach too much credit kinda goes both ways don't it?

Are you talking about where I mentioned that the Lions made the playoffs twice with Bobby Ross?

I don't give Ross much credit for that either. He rode Barry just like Fontes did.

(05-19-2015, 06:40 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: There's always reason for optimism, even when your team loses 4 straight playoff games.

Nice. Maybe so, but when the head ball coach is 0-6 and the new core of players has lost 4 straight and can no longer use the "youth" excuse, it's not too promising. Even the players seem to be running out of things to say about it.

As I said, when your team goes 4-12, at least you can hope for a top QB in the draft or a new HC/direction.

We're rolling with the same QB, HC and direction. So I don't have much optimism for change. Also, the core of this team is no longer young.

[CornerBlitz]

(05-19-2015, 08:58 AM)djs7685 Wrote: Don't worry bfine, I'm here to help you. Let me explain why your insinuation of "The team/Marvin isn't that bad because we usually weren't favored anyway!" is a complete crock of shit.

1. Right off the bat, that means that Marvin can't lead a team to win as the underdog even ONCE out of 5 tries (actually 4 since we were favored twice NYJ/SD), and can't even win the 1 game (actually 2) where we were favored. When a logical person reads your statement, it immediately looks silly for this reason alone. You think you're giving the team/Marvin some slack, when in reality you're just further proving why they haven't been very good.

2. What were the lines in those games? Some people may be interested in that. I'm interested because I'm sure it will debunk your assertion even more...

Steelers -3 @ Bengals
Actual point differential: 14
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 11

So basically, for the slower crowd that wants to talk about Vegas odds mattering here, were the Bengals supposed to lose by 14??? No. If you want to bring up Vegas, you may want to know what you're talking about first. The Bengals were 3 point dogs, yet they lose by 14 and you're going to rationalize that by acting like it's not so bad since we weren't favored? Haha, good one. Let's keep looking at the odds since that's what you decided to bring up. Now, everybody remember, we were "supposed" to lose by 3, yet got blown out by 14.

Bengals -2.5 vs Jets
Actual point differential: 10
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 12.5

Texans -4 vs Bengals
Actual point differential: 21
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 17

Texans -4 vs Bengals
Actual point differential: 6
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 2

Bengals -2.5 vs Chargers
Actual point differential: 17
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 19.5

Colts -3 vs Bengals
Actual point differential: 16
Adjusted point differential w/ the spread: 13

Soooooooooooo, for those keeping track at home, what does this tell us?

It tells us that if you're going with the "odds matter" theme, then you have to give it an in depth look to see what the odds are really about. What the FACTS tell us, is that over the course of 6 playoff games under Marvin Lewis, the Cincinnati Bengals have given up.....*drum roll*

75 more points than they were "SUPPOSED TO" according to Vegas.

Next time somebody wants to bring up who is favored and who isn't in their argument, remember to look a bit deeper than just "hurr durr they weren't favored sometimes so Marvin iz gud".

This is arguably the greatest response to an idiotic comment in the history of Bengals message forums. Props to you my friend, WELL DONE.

[OSUfan]

(05-19-2015, 05:54 PM)Mr Jinx Wrote: That's very true, it is of course more than just 1 guy as you mentioned.  However, on your list it includes 1 guy who has done nothing at the NFL level yet (#4), two guys who have routinely been deemed just above useless (#3 and #6), and one guy who has been injured more than he has been healthy in his career (#5) so it is hard to be intellectually honest and throw him in there.  I would definitely give you #1 and #2.

Also, we lost by 16 so I'm not sure what you mean by "a game that Indy won with field goals".  They scored more points by touchdowns than we did entire points in the game.

Complete silliness.

[djs7685]

(05-20-2015, 02:02 AM)CornerBlitz Wrote: This is arguably the greatest response to an idiotic comment in the history of Bengals message forums. Props to you my friend, WELL DONE.

I just find it funny that it was written off since I accidentally read his original statement as 5 games and not 5 years for whatever reason. Whether that makes me unable to count, unable to read, or whatever else the homer crowd wants to claim, I think the rest of the post should give a nice look at how we weren't "supposed" to get blown out even though some people assert that it's not so bad since we weren't "supposed" to win. The point remains the same whether you take out that extra year or not.

Some people want to say that we weren't favored so it's not a big deal.

I say that if you want to talk odds, you better be ready to talk more than a generalized, blanket statement that doesn't even properly portray how being favored actually works. Omitting the point spread and actual margin of victory is just dumb.

Oh well, people will spin things to mislead the less informed more in the future, I just hope nobody falls for the crap without looking at all of the facts first. Bfine is well known for doing exactly what he did in this thread. He makes a broad claim just so he can say that he wasn't technically "wrong", because what he said was definitely the truth. He just ignores how misleading it is because he wants to claim "neutral" on every debate even though he's one of the biggest Marvin apologists on the boards. The Bengals certainly have only lost 1 playoff game in which they weren't favored in the last 5 years, but that only amounts to anything if you refuse to look into what that actually means and what you're trying to imply with that statement. Again, they weren't "supposed" to get blown out according to the odds, so it's absolutely no defense to the Bengals or Marvin to bring up being favored or not. It makes him look a LOT worse if you look at more than a generalized, goofy statement.

[WhoDeyWho]

(05-19-2015, 11:44 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Nice. Maybe so, but when the head ball coach is 0-6 and the new core of players has lost 4 straight and can no longer use the "youth" excuse, it's not too promising. Even the players seem to be running out of things to say about it.

As I said, when your team goes 4-12, at least you can hope for a top QB in the draft or a new HC/direction.

We're rolling with the same QB, HC and direction. So I don't have much optimism for change. Also, the core of this team is no longer young.

You mean like a Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck? How often do those guys come around? How has the eternal draft search gone for our neighbors to the North?

I'll take my chances with a relatively young (the core players were rookies or younger when our 4 year playoff streak started) team than a #1 pick.

[WhoDeyWho]

(05-19-2015, 09:13 PM)djs7685 Wrote: I understand that injuries were a legitimate excuse this time. I completely get that. I just think that mentioning Rex Burkhead as a "starting WR" is a bit misleading.

Bengals players by passing play snap count in the IND playoff game...

Sanu - 42
Tate - 41
Hewitt - 26
Hamilton - 26
Bernard - 25
Brock - 10
Burkhead - 7
Little - 4
Hill - 3

Look at that list and PLEASE tell me that saying "we were in such bad shape that Burkhead was a starting WR!" isn't a bit misleading. The fact that Tate played almost every passing snap and Hewitt and Hamilton(!!!!) played in over half of them is much more telling than "Burkhead was a starting WR!".

I think the fact that Burkhead even lined up at all in the playoff game was telling seeing as how he basically saw no snaps on offense the entire year. Then all of a sudden I'm at the game and he is lined up at WR.

[*Nately120*]

(05-19-2015, 11:44 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Are you talking about where I mentioned that the Lions made the playoffs twice with Bobby Ross?

I don't give Ross much credit for that either. He rode Barry just like Fontes did.

Fun fact: the only game the Detroit Lions won in the past 57 years saw Barry Sanders rush for 69 yards (which includes a monster 47-yard TD) BUT here are some telling stats as well.

Toy Aikman.....11 for 16 for 114 yards, 0 TDs and 1 INT 63.0 Rating
Erik Kramer.....29 for 38 for 341 yards, 3 TDs and 0 INT 129.4 Rating

Barry Sanders is one of the greatest to ever play, but the truth is that Troy Aikman got spanked by an undrafted free agent that was the team's backup. It's just hard to win any game, much less one in the playoffs when your QB puts up a fraction of the numbers the other guy does.

[*bengalfan74*]

You can chop up the stats a hundred different ways. You can blame it on the QB, you can blame it on the OC or DC. You can pull out the injury excuse. You can say blah, blah forever.

But this simple fact still remains true ! We've looked like we didn't belong in every playoff game we've been in save a few minutes here and there. We've been outscored in a bad way in the 2nd half of each and every single playoff game we've been in. We have 13 total 2nd half points in 6 tries.

We've been outcoached, outhearted, outclassed every time. And the one and only absolute constant is the guy standing on the sideline arms folded across chest with the thousand yard stare - Marvin Lewis

[*Nately120*]

(05-20-2015, 12:09 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: We've been outcoached, outhearted, outclassed every time. And the one and only absolute constant is the guy standing on the sideline arms folded across chest with the thousand yard stare - Marvin Lewis

Yeah, but Bruce Coslet!!!!

[djs7685]

(05-20-2015, 09:47 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: I think the fact that Burkhead even lined up at all in the playoff game was telling seeing as how he basically saw no snaps on offense the entire year.  Then all of a sudden I'm at the game and he is lined up at WR.

I do understand that, and Burkhead lining up at WR for even 1 snap is crazy.

I guess I just have the issue with people going on and on about how "no QB in the world could overcome having Burkhead at WR!", when it's honestly a bit misleading. Andy didn't really have to overcome that either seeing as Burkhead barely played. Yes, the fact that he was on the field at all wasn't a great sign, I'll agree with everybody there.

Andy did have WRs on the field for the majority of the game, they just weren't very good ones. Believe it or not, the Bengals won games early in the year with a Sanu/Tate/Sanzenbacher/Gresham receiving corp. Is Sanu/Tate/Hamilton/Hewitt THAT much of a difference? I don't know, but that's one of the reasons this playoff game was a big disappointment to me regardless of the injuries. We still won games with guys like Brandon Tate and Dane Sanzenbacher having to be on the field early in the season, yet we got blown out in the playoffs and everyone is cool with using the injury excuse.

Again though, I DO cut the team some slack because of injuries last year, and I wasn't as disappointed as the Chargers game the year before, but I still think they should have looked even a little more competitive than they did this past year.

[*bengalfan74*]

(05-20-2015, 12:19 PM)djs7685 Wrote: I do understand that, and Burkhead lining up at WR for even 1 snap is crazy.

I guess I just have the issue with people going on and on about how "no QB in the world could overcome having Burkhead at WR!", when it's honestly a bit misleading. Andy didn't really have to overcome that either seeing as Burkhead barely played. Yes, the fact that he was on the field at all wasn't a great sign, I'll agree with everybody there.

Andy did have WRs on the field for the majority of the game, they just weren't very good ones. Believe it or not, the Bengals won games early in the year with a Sanu/Tate/Sanzenbacher/Gresham receiving corp. Is Sanu/Tate/Hamilton/Hewitt THAT much of a difference? I don't know, but that's one of the reasons this playoff game was a big disappointment to me regardless of the injuries. We still won games with guys like Brandon Tate and Dane Sanzenbacher having to be on the field early in the season, yet we got blown out in the playoffs and everyone is cool with using the injury excuse.

Again though, I DO cut the team some slack because of injuries last year, and I wasn't as disappointed as the Chargers game the year before, but I still think they should have looked even a little more competitive than they did this past year.

Agree, X2

[Mr Jinx]

(05-19-2015, 06:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Burfict has played in 37 games in his career and missed 11

Oops! My mistake, I completely blanked on his first season, brain fart there, thanks for pointing it out!

[Mr Jinx]

(05-19-2015, 06:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Eifert had over 500 receiving yards as a rookie.  

Gresham is a Pro Bowl player and Smith was one of the best RTs in the league in both '12 and '13.

Burfict has only missed 11 games in 3 NFL seasons.


Thanks so much for showing the knowledge level of the typical hater.

Ooh, 500 receiving yards in an entire season, oh boy! It was actually 455 yards after looking it up, good for 115th place in 2013, not exactly showing a whole lot there.

Andy Dalton was a pro bowl player last year too, so I put no stock in that title.

Agreed on Smith in 2012 and 2013, he was a beast. 2014 he was not very good though, which is the year we were discussing.

Yup, I screwed up on Burfict, don't know what I was thinking there.

And if by hater you mean a fan who thinks they had little chance to win in the playoffs last season, well I guess I'm a hater then. So be it.

[Mr Jinx]

(05-20-2015, 05:52 AM)OSUfan Wrote: Complete silliness.

Such an enlightening reply, thanks for that.  Still waiting on the explanation of how the Colts beat us by kicking field goals when we lost by 16.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(05-20-2015, 12:09 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: You can chop up the stats a hundred different ways. You can blame it on the QB, you can blame it on the OC or DC. You can pull out the injury excuse. You can say blah, blah forever.

But this simple fact still remains true ! We've looked like we didn't belong in every playoff game we've been in save a few minutes here and there. We've been outscored in a bad way in the 2nd half of each and every single playoff game we've been in. We have 13 total 2nd half points in 6 tries.

We've been outcoached, outhearted, outclassed every time. And the one and only absolute constant is the guy standing on the sideline arms folded across chest with the thousand yard stare - Marvin Lewis

So damn true man!!!

[Devils Advocate]

You can take the Jungle Noise from the posters, but you can't take the posters from Jungle Noise.