Of all playoff teams.. Bengals have the most...

[RoyleRedlegs]

(03-20-2016, 10:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes you do.  Otherwise you would not claim that it is impossible to disagree with you unless losing in the first round is acceptable.  The fact is that it is possible to disagree with you and still not be satisfied that we lose in the first round.  I am pretty sure that if your football knowledge was infallible you would be working for an nFL team right now.

What is sad about you is that you have to make up stuff to cry about.  

You claim the Bengals never have rookies contribute and that is a complete lie.  

Never claimed that. Try again numbnuts. 

You claim they never change, yet since we made the playoffs in 2011 we have turned over almost half of our starting lineup and gone through 2 DCs and 3 OCs.  

Lol. Losing them to other teams when you can't stop it is unavoidable. Only numbnuts fred would praise them for that. 

You claim the Bengals won't spend money yet last year they spent OVER the NFL league salary cap.

How much was spend trying to get better and not just simply retain? 

You claim that every other team gets better in free agency, but in fact every big signing by one team is a loss by another team.  So it is impossible for every team to get better in free agency every year.  

Again, never claimed this. More fred bullshit. No one is this stupid except you. 

Basically you claim the Bengals suck at drafting and never sign free agents yet you have no explanation of why they have won so many more games than most every other team in the league over the last 5 years.

And now you are too chicken to make a bet to back up what you were whining about.  Why ***** and moan about the team being the same when you KNOW it will not be the same.  .  .  .  unless you just love to cry.

another horseshit post by the resident king of horseshit. 

Fred, you are not good at this. Stop and stick to PnR. It suits your brand of bullshit better. 

[RoyleRedlegs]

And btw fred, didn't you backtrack on a bet on the old board?

[fredtoast]

(03-20-2016, 10:42 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: You claim they never change, yet since we made the playoffs in 2011 we have turned over almost half of our starting lineup and gone through 2 DCs and 3 OCs.  


Lol. Losing them to other teams when you can't stop it is unavoidable. Only numbnuts fred would praise them for that. 

Right.  Obviously the Bengals should be ripped to pieces when the coordinators they hire are so good at their jobs that other teams hire them away as head coaches.

I mean that proves how bad the team sucks, right?  What kind of loser front office hires coordinators that are among the best in the league?

[fredtoast]

(03-20-2016, 10:42 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: You claim the Bengals won't spend money yet last year they spent OVER the NFL league salary cap.

How much was spend trying to get better and not just simply retain? 

Here we are back at the argument that free agent losses do not count when looking at free agency.  Every team that signs a free agent gets better, but the teams that lose these free agents do not lose anything.  Instead of spending money to "retain" guys like Green, Burfict, and Dalton we should spend all of our money to "get better" in free agency.

But since you asked we made a big move last year to bring in Michael Johnson.

[fredtoast]

(03-20-2016, 10:42 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: You claim the Bengals never have rookies contribute and that is a complete lie.  

Never claimed that. Try again numbnuts. 

C'mon, man.  You clearly said we could not be any better this year becuase we have the "same team".  when I ask you about the draft this is what you said.

(03-20-2016, 02:50 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: How many rookies play more than special teams for us? 
How many rookies see significant enough snaps to change the make up of the team? 

Not many.

Then when i showed you that we have averaged 1-2 rookies with major impacts over the last 7 years you tried to claim that didn't mean anything.

[fredtoast]

Finally I want to point out something about Royal. Whenever i make him look bad all he can do is rely on personal insults instead of football knowledge.

[fredtoast]

(03-20-2016, 10:47 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: And btw fred, didn't you backtrack on a bet on the old board?

I did back out of a bet, but it was before anything had changed that would effect my chances of winning.  I have never backed out of a bet after I lost or when something happened to change my chances of winning.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-17-2016, 10:19 AM)ochocincos Wrote: Adam Jones and Pat Sims haven't been factored into this yet. The number will drop drastically. The Bengals should then be right there with Carolina and Minnesota.

Adam Jones and Pats Sims now factored into that link. Bengals still 10th with $21.3m... I guess they need $21.3m for injuries, rookies, and Mike Brown's backup longsnapper contract.

Near Carolina now, but Vikings are still like $6.2m less than the Bengals.

[milksheikh]

(03-21-2016, 10:46 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Adam Jones and Pats Sims now factored into that link. Bengals still 10th with $21.3m... I guess they need $21.3m for injuries, rookies, and Mike Brown's backup longsnapper contract.

Near Carolina now, but Vikings are still like $6.2m less than the Bengals.

We still have the most cap

[RoyleRedlegs]

(03-21-2016, 08:30 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Right.  Obviously the Bengals should be ripped to pieces when the coordinators they hire are so good at their jobs that other teams hire them away as head coaches.

I mean that proves how bad the team sucks, right?  What kind of loser front office hires coordinators that are among the best in the league?

No but it's unavoidable. So stop acting like it's them doing it to intentionally get better. That's the point. 

(03-21-2016, 08:34 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Here we are back at the argument that free agent losses do not count when looking at free agency.  Every team that signs a free agent gets better, but the teams that lose these free agents do not lose anything.  Instead of spending money to "retain" guys like Green, Burfict, and Dalton we should spend all of our money to "get better" in free agency.

But since you asked we made a big move last year to bring in Michael Johnson.

MJ wasn't a big move. I mean keeping mediocre-average players. Your Vincent Rey, Pat Sims, Rey Maualuga...etc etc and essentially seeming disinterested in actually trying to improve there. But shh...don't let things like that get in your way. 

(03-21-2016, 08:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: C'mon, man.  You clearly said we could not be any better this year becuase we have the "same team".  when I ask you about the draft this is what you said.




Then when i showed you that we have averaged 1-2 rookies with major impacts over the last 7 years you tried to claim that didn't mean anything.

Yes. Because "not many" is not the same as "never". Wouldn't a lawyer understand that? 1 a year for the last 3 years....sounds like "not many" to me. Only you could would quote me actually saying "not many" and try to argue it means "never"

(03-21-2016, 08:47 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Finally I want to point out something about Royal. Whenever i make him look bad all he can do is rely on personal insults instead of football knowledge.

You've never made me look bad. I have repeatedly called you out because YOU started the personal insults between the two of us and have actually repeatedly brought me up in threads I wasn't even posting in just to take cheap shots. So live with the consequences of your choices.  You vastly overrate your "football knowledge" and routinely accuse me of not having any. We go over this all the time. I have used visual evidence to back up my arguments many times. You ignored it and went straight to "Oh so you know more than..." I made a long entirely football oriented post on Russel Bodine that turned into you just trying to attack my "football knowledge".  You are the worst at this on the board so don't you accuse others of it. Live with your own medicine. 

(03-21-2016, 08:48 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I did back out of a bet, but it was before anything had changed that would effect my chances of winning.  I have never backed out of a bet after I lost or when something happened to change my chances of winning.

Are you ***** kidding me?

So you admit to backing out of a bet, but want to call someone else a chicken? 
Asshole. 

[fredtoast]

(03-21-2016, 11:45 AM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: No but it's unavoidable. So stop acting like it's them doing it to intentionally get better. That's the point. 

What a perfect example of the mental gymnastics you will go through to rip the Bengals.



"The Bengals suck because they don't fire coordinators who do their job so well other teams hire them as head coaches."






You have to be deep down the hater rabbit hole to not realize how stupid that sounds.

[Bengalholic]

The name calling that is occurring in this thread needs to stop. If you can't make your point/argument without resorting to personal insults, then just don't make the post at all.

[fredtoast]

(03-21-2016, 11:45 AM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: MJ wasn't a big move. 

So now 4 year $20 million contract for a starting DE is not a big move?  This getting silly.

(03-21-2016, 11:45 AM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote:  I mean keeping mediocre-average players. Your Vincent Rey, Pat Sims, Rey Maualuga...etc etc and essentially seeming disinterested in actually trying to improve there. But shh...don't let things like that get in your way. 

But you are simply wrong.  The Bengals look at overall value and decide the players they sign give them a better chance of winning that the ones they don't sign.  I realize this is hard for you to grasp, but juts because the Bengals disagree with you does not mean they are not trying.  This is what is so frustrating about dealing with you.  you refuse to admit that there is any possible way to disagree with what you want to do.  You keep claiming that the only possible way a team could disagree with you is if they did not want to win.

[fredtoast]

(03-21-2016, 11:45 AM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Yes. Because "not many" is not the same as "never". Wouldn't a lawyer understand that? 1 a year for the last 3 years....sounds like "not many" to me. Only you could would quote me actually saying "not many" and try to argue it means "never"

Lawyers look at what is called the "totality of the evidence".  When you claimed that we would have the same team even after the draft there is really no other way to interpret that than you stating that we would not get any impact from any rookie.

And I love the wya you look at such a small window (last 3 years) in order to try and twist the facts to fit your argument yet you STILL FAIL because even going by the average of the last three years we ill have a major impact from a rookie.  which clearly means the team will NOT be the same as last year.