Bengals- One of the best over next 3 years?

[BengalChris]

(07-02-2015, 09:52 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Being a Bengals fan is a real trip.  I can't imagine telling the fan of any non-Browns team that there is no way we can win a playoff game if we replace the guy who is 0-6 in the postseason and not being laughed at.

I don't think anyone would be laughing at the Bengals for replacing Lewis for postseason failure. The Broncos fired John Fox (a team that went to the SB only last year) and the 49ers fired the Michigan guy (a team that went to the SB 2 years ago). If a SB is the goal, then losing badly in 6 straight wildcard appearances isn't a step forward or even a step closer. Somewhere in that time they'd have to push beyond the wildcard round.

If a team isn't going to be good enough to earn a first round bye then the road to a SB win is paved with 4 straight playoff games, each one against a better and better opponent. So if you go 0-6 in an ugly way, the confidence that you'll ever go 4-0 is pretty much a big goose egg.

You can only say "next year will be better" so many times before people stop believing.

[*SHRacerX*]

(07-01-2015, 04:49 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I think the argument to that would be 1991-2004 and/or the drafting of Akili Smith...or something to that effect.  I guess we only choose to mention the 90s when it comes to scaring people out of wanting to replace Marvin Lewis, eh?  I don't want to derail a positive thread, but lordy acting like Mike Brown doesn't have ample suckage on his resume?  For shame.

There were a lot of teams that would have drafted Reinard Wilson, Ki-Jana Carter, Akili Smith, David Klingler.  The fact that they were among the greatest NFL busts of all time (all of them!) killed this team in that era.  Without the rookie wage scale, drafting at the top of the draft was placing a HUGE bet on one player, because he was going to be paid a ton before he took one snap.  These four busts handicapped the Bengals tremendously.  The fact that they had a decent run in 95 with Blake and Pickens was at least showing that there was some talent despite the financial burden of those draft picks. 

The arrival of the rookie wage scale allows teams to survive the drafting of Christian Ponder, Blaine Gabbert, and Jake Locker.  So, if anything, Mike Brown (it is really Katie, Troy, and Marv) have done an excellent job in a more competitive environment. 

[Luvnit2]

(07-01-2015, 04:49 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I think the argument to that would be 1991-2004 and/or the drafting of Akili Smith...or something to that effect.  I guess we only choose to mention the 90s when it comes to scaring people out of wanting to replace Marvin Lewis, eh?  I don't want to derail a positive thread, but lordy acting like Mike Brown doesn't have ample suckage on his resume?  For shame.

Well, I hear all the time there were major rule changes for the game on the field from the 90's and mid 2000's through 2010.

Well, the argument works in Mike Brown's favor as well. The new CBA in 2011 is a major change in the rookie pool and salary cap structure. Since 2010, MB and the front office has been great at building a solid roster.

[*Nately120*]

(07-06-2015, 09:13 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: There were a lot of teams that would have drafted Reinard Wilson, Ki-Jana Carter, Akili Smith, David Klingler.  The fact that they were among the greatest NFL busts of all time (all of them!) killed this team in that era.

Point taken, but Smith and Klinger are less defensible because we were offered a king's ransom for our Smith pick and refused it (I honestly doubt a lot of teams would have turned down that offer) and we sort of reached for Klingler.  Then again, both picks were also busts because we threw them into terrible situations rather than, you know, trading down to build the rest of the team.

Honestly, we should have traded down in 2003 and dealt the Palmer pick, too.  This team could have won 0 playoff games with Leftwich/Boller/Grossman.

[*SHRacerX*]

(07-06-2015, 12:55 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Point taken, but Smith and Klinger are less defensible because we were offered a king's ransom for our Smith pick and refused it (I honestly doubt a lot of teams would have turned down that offer) and we sort of reached for Klingler.  Then again, both picks were also busts because we threw them into terrible situations rather than, you know, trading down to build the rest of the team.

Honestly, we should have traded down in 2003 and dealt the Palmer pick, too.  This team could have won 0 playoff games with Leftwich/Boller/Grossman.

My point was that many teams would have selected them as early first round talent.  No one could see that Smith and Klingler would be so inept.  However, that is what teams w/o a QB end up doing:  reaching for what is perceived to be the best talent available.  The Bengals had no QB and needed to get one.  If either one of those guys ended up being Aaron Rogers, the world would be quite different.

[grampahol]

OSU It might shock you to learn that most everyone change over time. Some people are able to change, some not, but it's very evident that the front office has changed considerably from the 90's.
For that matter I used to drink nearly every day and use lots of drugs. It's been quite some time since those times and I no longer drink or use illicit drugs. I've fundamentally changed my life and outlook on life so it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Mike Brown has also changed along with the team.