PFF believes the Bengals' roster has gotten worse.

[XenoMorph]

(06-18-2015, 11:30 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Who ever thought LeBeau was a negative? The guy is one of the best if not the best DC in the game.

no im pretty sure its been LeBeau thats had our number all these years... glad to see him gone

[*Nately120*]

(06-18-2015, 11:56 AM)djs7685 Wrote: Did you ever read the mothership threads that discussed the Steelers?

LeBeau was considered far past his sell-by date according to much of Jungle Noise. He got hammered for using out of date schemes with old, wrinkled players that should have retired 5 years ago.

Now, Pittsburgh sucks because they started finding young, upcoming replacements for these same guys that got thrashed for being too old and abused.

JN logic 101. I'm not saying that you did this yourself, but there are/were plenty of Bengals' fans that just refuse to give our division rivals credit no matter what they do.

That was my point...nailed it.  If you look at our old threads I assure you people were citing the Steelers' 97 year old DC and over-the-hill personnel as a reason they were declining or going to decline.  Then the Steelers fire LeBeau, twist Troy and Kiesel's (and Harrison's?) arms until they retire and draft new personnel and we are excited because NEW players and a NEW DC are going to cause their decline.

Hey, I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm just calling us out for being biased and full o' crap at times.

[Brownshoe]

(06-18-2015, 11:56 AM)djs7685 Wrote: Did you ever read the mothership threads that discussed the Steelers?

LeBeau was considered far past his sell-by date according to much of Jungle Noise. He got hammered for using out of date schemes with old, wrinkled players that should have retired 5 years ago.

Now, Pittsburgh sucks because they started finding young, upcoming replacements for these same guys that got thrashed for being too old and abused.

JN logic 101. I'm not saying that you did this yourself, but there are/were plenty of Bengals' fans that just refuse to give our division rivals credit no matter what they do.

I think it's funny they would try to say that he wasn't that good... lol he had the #1 defense 5 out of 10 years he was at Pittsburgh. He even had the #2 defense a few times when he wasn't #1. LeBeau has been the best DC in the NFL for a long time IMO.

[fredtoast]

(06-18-2015, 12:51 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Hey, I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm just calling us out for being biased and full o' crap at times.

But the same logic applies to the people who bash the Bengals for letting free agents leave and drafting their replacements.  

When the Steelers do it they are smart, but when the Bengals do it they are stupid and don't care about winning.

[*Nately120*]

(06-18-2015, 12:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But the same logic applies to the people who bash the Bengals for letting free agents leave and drafting their replacements.  

When the Steelers do it they are smart, but when the Bengals do it they are stupid and don't care about winning.

True, but I think certain franchises have a better history of not missing a beat on such things.  Believe me, I wanted SO SO SO much for the Steelers to stink after San Antonio Holmes and later Mike Wallace left, but alas, they did not.  If the Bengals let AJ Green walk I would be more likely to cite the Corey Dillon situation than the Mike Wallace one. That's not a perfectly symmetrical argument, but you get it. I have to admit the fact that we give the Steelers hell for going 8-8 says a lot about the standards to which we hold them, as well.

[Hoofhearted]

(06-18-2015, 12:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But the same logic applies to the people who bash the Bengals for letting free agents leave and drafting their replacements.  

When the Steelers do it they are smart, but when the Bengals do it they are stupid and don't care about winning.

Wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that they are perennial SB winners?   

[fredtoast]

(06-18-2015, 01:51 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: Wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that they are perennial SB winners?   

That is exactly what it has to do with.  People make all their judgments based on reputation instead of reality.

[*Nately120*]

(06-18-2015, 02:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is exactly what it has to do with.  People make all their judgments based on reputation instead of reality.

True, but I think there is more than zero reality in the reputations involved in this case.

[Hoofhearted]

(06-18-2015, 02:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is exactly what it has to do with.  People make all their judgments based on reputation instead of reality.

I believe it's called benefit of the doubt. Put these two teams total history side by side and ask yourself which one you believe is more "realistic" to know what it takes to win a SB.

[djs7685]

(06-18-2015, 02:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is exactly what it has to do with.  People make all their judgments based on reputation instead of reality.

You always used to say this on the mothership and would then ignore my responses, but I guess I'll try again here.

Do you not realize that those teams have their reputation BECAUSE of reality?? What do you think "reputation" means?

It's sort of funny because you seem to think "reality" is whatever fredtoast's opinion of the day is, when in actual reality, we're the ones being realistic by using reputation to help base our opinions. For somebody that constantly harps on using facts in debate, you should be more willing to understand why people give the benefit of the doubt to those that deserve it.

Fred's opinion =/= factual or reality
Reputation based on facts = reality

It's funny how you just post hoping everyone on here is a big dummy and won't be able to see through your ruse and be able to pick apart your silly comments like this post.

If you have to choose between Aaron Rodgers or Johnny Manziel to lead your team in a two minute drill, who would you choose and why?

Aaron Rodgers, because he has the reputation of being a great NFL QB, and Manziel doesn't. Whether you like it or not, reputation is based on reality, so stop with your constant bullshit of "judge based on reality instead of reputation!". Reputation IS reality, numbnuts.

[fredtoast]

(06-18-2015, 03:23 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: I believe it's called benefit of the doubt. Put these two teams total history side by side and ask yourself which one you believe is more "realistic" to know what it takes to win a SB.

This is just ridiculous.  The Steelers have had one winning season in the last three years.

Apparently the teams they were playing on the field did not get the memo that the Steelers are great no matter what they do because they have some Super Bowls in the past.

[fredtoast]

(06-18-2015, 03:54 PM)djs7685 Wrote: You always used to say this on the mothership and would then ignore my responses, but I guess I'll try again here.

Do you not realize that those teams have their reputation BECAUSE of reality?? What do you think "reputation" means?

In my version of reality the Steelers have had one winning season in the last three years.

"Reputation" means nothing when they play the games on the field.

For some reason all the other teams in the NFL do not realize that the Steelers can't make any mistakes because they won some Super Bowls in the past.

[J24]

(06-18-2015, 08:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: In my version of reality the Steelers have had one winning season in the last three years.

"Reputation" means nothing when they play the games on the field.

For some reason all the other teams in the NFL do not realize that the Steelers can't make any mistakes because they won some Super Bowls in the past.

Not to mention there 0 for 2 in there last two playoff games.

[Hoofhearted]

(06-18-2015, 08:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: In my version of reality the Steelers have had one winning season in the last three years.

"Reputation" means nothing when they play the games on the field.

For some reason all the other teams in the NFL do not realize that the Steelers can't make any mistakes because they won some Super Bowls in the past.

awww, always to fit an agenda. gotcha. Lets try it this way...

If reputation means nothing, then why is Hue trying so hard to shake the "choke artist/embarrassment" label from his team? 

Or Andy trying to throw less picks? I mean it's not broke right? We have a winning season and consistent PO berth, right? 

So how in the world can our OC come out and say this with all the success we have had? 

[Hoofhearted]

(06-18-2015, 08:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is just ridiculous.  The Steelers have had one winning season in the last three years.

Apparently the teams they were playing on the field did not get the memo that the Steelers are great no matter what they do because they have some Super Bowls in the past.

Ok, now lets look at the whole picture Fred. Which one is us? 

Regular season record:168-135-1
PO: 15-8


Regular season record: 326-395-3
PO: 5-13



Regular season record: 580-524-20
PO: 33-22



Regular season record:505-442-13

PO:16-20

[djs7685]

(06-18-2015, 08:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: In my version of reality the Steelers have had one winning season in the last three years.

"Reputation" means nothing when they play the games on the field.

For some reason all the other teams in the NFL do not realize that the Steelers can't make any mistakes because they won some Super Bowls in the past.

Let's talk in "reality" for a minute. Let's not put words in each others mouth and let's not act like people are saying stuff that they aren't.

NO ONE in Jungle Noise that isn't obviously trolling (I haven't even seen trolls say it actually) has ever said that the Steelers can't make any mistakes or that they're perfect.

However, if the same guys that won those shiny trophies n' stuff are still in charge in Pittsburgh, and the same guys that haven't won a playoff game in 25 years are still in charge in Cincinnati........which will receive more benefit of the doubt when making certain moves? I don't know, but I'll probably cut the Steelers some slack when they make a mistake here and there. They have the track record to still be considered a GREAT sports franchise even if they have a couple of 8-8 season (omg so bad, right???). Meanwhile, you keep defending every last damn move of a team that hasn't proven anything past being invited to the dance a few times.

If you want to receive the benefit of the doubt from sports fans, then you have to be a good franchise. To be a good franchise, you need some combination of Super Bowl victories, playoff wins, and consistent regular season winning. Believe it or not, the Bengals are on their way to seeing more respect than ever, but they just aren't there yet. Watch them win a couple of playoff games with this team in 2015 and the last 25 years will slowly start to drift away. There will absolutely be some people that are doom and gloom and will talk about the "quarter century of failure", but that's going to happen anywhere. Hell, I live near Pittsburgh and there are Steelers fans that act miserable even after they win a Super Bowl! It happens everywhere, so my points aren't including the extremists on either side.

The numbers in the 0-6 playoff games are so bad and it doesn't help that the team barely has looked competitive in the second half of any of the games. It's embarrassing. Making the playoffs for a few straight years is nice and everything, but being the 10th-12th best team in the league year after year after year is only going to gain you so much respect. There's a point where that plateaus and you need to get over that new hump to go to the next level. We beat the streak of being a shitty franchise and never making the playoffs, and that's awesome to see as a fan! Being in 12th place every year isn't as big of a deal as some want to make it though.

[fredtoast]

(06-19-2015, 08:42 AM)djs7685 Wrote: However, if the same guys that won those shiny trophies n' stuff are still in charge in Pittsburgh, and the same guys that haven't won a playoff game in 25 years are still in charge in Cincinnati........which will receive more benefit of the doubt when making certain moves?

You have clearly forgotten my original point.  I said that people criticize the Bengals when they do THE EXACT SAME THING as other teams.

[fredtoast]

(06-19-2015, 08:22 AM)Hoofhearted Wrote: awww, always to fit an agenda. gotcha. Lets try it this way...

If reputation means nothing, then why is Hue trying so hard to shake the "choke artist/embarrassment" label from his team? 

Or Andy trying to throw less picks? I mean it's not broke right? We have a winning season and consistent PO berth, right? 

So how in the world can our OC come out and say this with all the success we have had? 

Hue said he wants to change our reputation because he wants to win.  

He could care less if fans automatically think everything he does is great just because he has won some post season games.

[BengalChris]

(06-11-2015, 12:34 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: From Coley Harvey...

The Cincinnati Bengals aren't as good a team as they were 12 months ago.

That's the opinion of a team of Pro Football Focus analysts who updated their rankings of all 32 NFL rosters on Wednesday. The rankings come in part from PFF's complex grading system and an evaluation of deeper-level statistics and analytics of the players on the current rosters.

If you recall, last offseason PFF ranked each team based on the number of elite or high-quality players they had in their starting ranks. After ranking seventh in 2014, the Bengals' roster was ninth in this year's rankings. Cincinnati's roster has, on paper, gotten worse, according to PFF's metrics.

"The Bengals are a team with a lot of talent that is being weighed down by their quarterback," PFF's blurb on this year's Bengals roster said.

Specifically, Andy Dalton's inconsistent nature was a point of contention, as was the inclusion of Domata Peko, A.J. Hawk, Rey Maualuga, Russell Bodine and Mohamed Sanu in Cincinnati's starting lineup. PFF believes each of those players can be upgraded.

Many fans, citing PFF's grades, would agree.

Read more @ ESPN

Well, I understand where they're coming from. But 2014 was a definite down year for the Bengals. The top players were Jeremy Hill, Carlos Dunlap, Adam Jones (as returner), the secondary overall and the OL. The QB, DL and LBs all had just plain bad years. Green did pretty well, but injures cut his playing time.

[Luvnit2]

(06-11-2015, 12:34 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: From Coley Harvey...

The Cincinnati Bengals aren't as good a team as they were 12 months ago.

That's the opinion of a team of Pro Football Focus analysts who updated their rankings of all 32 NFL rosters on Wednesday. The rankings come in part from PFF's complex grading system and an evaluation of deeper-level statistics and analytics of the players on the current rosters.

If you recall, last offseason PFF ranked each team based on the number of elite or high-quality players they had in their starting ranks. After ranking seventh in 2014, the Bengals' roster was ninth in this year's rankings. Cincinnati's roster has, on paper, gotten worse, according to PFF's metrics.

"The Bengals are a team with a lot of talent that is being weighed down by their quarterback," PFF's blurb on this year's Bengals roster said.

Specifically, Andy Dalton's inconsistent nature was a point of contention, as was the inclusion of Domata Peko, A.J. Hawk, Rey Maualuga, Russell Bodine and Mohamed Sanu in Cincinnati's starting lineup. PFF believes each of those players can be upgraded.

Many fans, citing PFF's grades, would agree.

Read more @ ESPN

If I read this correctly, this means from a talent view point, the Bengals are rated a good team, but nowhere near elite talent needed to win a Super Bowl by PFF. They are saying it would take a good coaching job to get a playoff win as 9th ranked talent falls into a first round playoff loss in 2015. The have others in the AFCN ranked above us so they are predicting we have a shot at the playoffs as a wild card (on the road in 2015).

I don't disagree with these rankings at all. I feel some of our fans think we had in the past and have now top 5 talent, I have never believed we did.