One or two moves....

[*bfine32*]

(1 hour ago)rfaulk34 Wrote: Good thing you didn't add 2012 in there...

I could have made them look more inept and only went back a decade (3 wins), but I figured SINCE their last Superbowl was a good starting point and a dozen years may be enough to illustrate the point. 

We can just use the Zac era and Cincy still wins. Point being folks need to get off Baltimore nutz in efforts to make us look more inept. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(57 minutes ago)bfine32 Wrote: I could have made them look more inept and only went back a decade (3 wins), but I figured SINCE their last Superbowl was a good starting point and a dozen years may be enough to illustrate the point. 

We can just use the Zac era and Cincy still wins. Point being folks need to get off Baltimore nutz in efforts to make us look more inept. 

Baltimore has a QB choking in the biggest moments problem. At that point, do you get rid of a player of Jackson's caliber, or hope that at some point he overcomes that and wins a ring?

Would you just give up on a QB with his athletic ability and production over the last couple years?

Other than that, they are head and shoulders better than the Bengals in building a competitive, annual playoff team and they've dealth with a shit ton of injuries to multiple players. Hell, they didn't even need to suck so bad they got a franchise QB with the #1OA pick. 

You and luvnit both made comments about getting off baltimore to make the bengals look worse. The bengals front office does that well enough on their own. They don't need fans pointing it out. It's right there for everyone to see. 

[Luvnit2]

(51 minutes ago)rfaulk34 Wrote: Baltimore has a QB choking in the biggest moments problem. At that point, do you get rid of a player of Jackson's caliber, or hope that at some point he overcomes that and wins a ring?

Would you just give up on a QB with his athletic ability and production over the last couple years?

Other than that, they are head and shoulders better than the Bengals in building a competitive, annual playoff team and they've dealth with a shit ton of injuries to multiple players. Hell, they didn't even need to suck so bad they got a franchise QB with the #1OA pick. 

You and luvnit both made comments about getting off baltimore to make the bengals look worse. The bengals front office does that well enough on their own. They don't need fans pointing it out. It's right there for everyone to see. 

How do you take Baltimore is a great organization (which I stated and mentioned also) to say I was saying getting off Baltimore. I literally said they are better than the Bengals and did not trash them at all.

Oh well, I guess I live in your head for some reason 

[*rfaulk34*]

(42 minutes ago)Luvnit2 Wrote: How do you take Baltimore is a great organization (which I stated and mentioned also) to say I was saying getting off Baltimore. I literally said they are better than the Bengals and did not trash them at all.

Oh well, I guess I live in your head for some reason 

Keep dreaming, Champ. 

You said this.

(8 hours ago)Luvnit2 Wrote: The Ravens having one of the best FO's in football does not make our FO full of what crap you are personally attacking them with true.

Yes, Ravens have a great FO and so do Eagles, Bills, Chiefs and others.

 I admit our FO is not top 10.

Then i said this.

(51 minutes ago)rfaulk34 Wrote: Baltimore has a QB choking in the biggest moments problem. At that point, do you get rid of a player of Jackson's caliber, or hope that at some point he overcomes that and wins a ring?

Would you just give up on a QB with his athletic ability and production over the last couple years?

Other than that, they are head and shoulders better than the Bengals in building a competitive, annual playoff team and they've dealth with a shit ton of injuries to multiple players. Hell, they didn't even need to suck so bad they got a franchise QB with the #1OA pick. 

You and luvnit both made comments about getting off baltimore to make the bengals look worse. The bengals front office does that well enough on their own. They don't need fans pointing it out. It's right there for everyone to see. 

Which is exactly what you said i did. 

[*bfine32*]

(51 minutes ago)rfaulk34 Wrote: Baltimore has a QB choking in the biggest moments problem. At that point, do you get rid of a player of Jackson's caliber, or hope that at some point he overcomes that and wins a ring?

Would you just give up on a QB with his athletic ability and production over the last couple years?

Other than that, they are head and shoulders better than the Bengals in building a competitive, annual playoff team and they've dealth with a shit ton of injuries to multiple players. Hell, they didn't even need to suck so bad they got a franchise QB with the #1OA pick. 

You and luvnit both made comments about getting off baltimore to make the bengals look worse. The bengals front office does that well enough on their own. They don't need fans pointing it out. It's right there for everyone to see. 

Did you notice those DNQ years by BAL? It's because we had a coach and QB who built a competitive annual playoff team during that period. I'm pretty stoked about the team that wins when it gets there.

But, you're not alone. The Commish loves Baltimore, too. He changed the rules mid-season to try to help them take the division and home game from Cincy because they're a "better organization.".. 

Folks may not need fans pointing out the Bengal FO doesn't do "well enough", but it damn sure doesn't stop some from doing it over and over and over and over and over and over again. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(29 minutes ago)bfine32 Wrote: Did you notice those DNQ years by BAL? It's because we had a coach and QB who built a competitive annual playoff team during that period. I'm pretty stoked about the team that wins when it gets there.

Buy, you're not alone. The Commish loves Baltimore, too. He changed the rules mid-season to try to help them. 

Folks may not need fans pointing out the Bengal FO doesn't do "well enough", but it damn sure doesn't stop some from doing it over and over and over and over and over and over again. 

Right.

When you're in the public spotlight and you suck over and over and over and over and over and over again, compared to your peers, people might point it out a couple times. 

Or maybe, if others didn't try so hard (not you) to point out how well the Bengals do their job, when they really don't, then people might not highlight it so much. 

[*bfine32*]

(26 minutes ago)rfaulk34 Wrote: Right.

When you're in the public spotlight and you suck over and over and over and over and over and over again, compared to your peers, people might point it out a couple times. 

Or maybe, if others didn't try so hard (not you) to point out how well the Bengals do their job, when they really don't, then people might not highlight it so much. 

But you're the one who said folks don't need to point it out. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(25 minutes ago)bfine32 Wrote: But you're the one who said folks don't need to point it out. 

Right. That's the problem. It should be obvious, but apparently it's not, so...i need to remind foo's. 

[*bfine32*]

(23 minutes ago)rfaulk34 Wrote: Right. That's the problem. It should be obvious, but apparently it's not, so...i need to remind foo's. 

So, do they need it or not? You're talking in circles.

You can be a fan of the BAL model all you want; I like what Cincy has done over the last few years. 

Imma ask a question IDK the answer to. Has any AFC other than KC won more playoff games than Cincy in the last 4-years? I know only one AFC tam has stopped KC in that timeframe and it damn sure ain't the Ravens, They haven't beat them in the playoff in over a decade.

[Nicomo Cosca]

(15 minutes ago)bfine32 Wrote: So, do they need it or not? You're talking in circles.

You can be a fan of the BAL model all you want; I like what Cincy has done over the last few years. 

Imma ask a question IDK the answer to. Has any AFC other than KC won more playoff games than Cincy in the last 4-years? I know only one AFC tam has stopped KC in that timeframe and it damn sure ain't the Ravens, They haven't beat them in the playoff in over a decade.

More? No. Buffalo is tied with 5 over that timeframe.

[*rfaulk34*]

(15 minutes ago)bfine32 Wrote: So, do they need it or not? You're talking in circles.

You can be a fan of the BAL model all you want; I like what Cincy has done over the last few years. 

Imma ask a question IDK the answer to. Has any AFC other than KC won more playoff games than Cincy in the last 4-years? I know only one AFC tam has stopped KC in that timeframe and it damn sure ain't the Ravens, They haven't beat them in the playoff in over a decade.

I'm not talking in circles. I'm saying it should not need to be pointed out. Then someone(s) come along and go on and on about how well they're doing....nvm. Lemme just get to that question so we can move on. 

Chiefs - 11
Eagles - 6
'niners - 6
Rams - 5
Bills - 5
Bengals - 5

Then it's a few teams with 2. So Cincy and the Bills and the Bills can't get by the Chiefs. Burrow and Brady are the only AFC QBs to get by Mahomes. 

P.S. I'm not a "fan" of Baltimore's model. I simply replied to a post that compared Baltimore to Cincy.