jad1 Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 That is one ugly fact.... we're 2 games better than Cincy... and we beat them for those over that span... 349834[/snapback] Post Cincy's record from the early 90's. That's the ugliest fact. Despite more than a decade of drafting early, this team has been in the perpetual dumper. Buffalo started rebuilding in 2001, and after 3 seasons, they posted a winning record. Rebuilding spans of 3-5 years are common in the NFL. The Bengals, however, haven't had a winning season since the first Bush administration. This is a crucial year for Cinci. If their defense doesn't deliver and the team finishes under .500, things could collapse on Lewis, making him the latest entrant in the parade of losers who have coached the Bengals since Sam Wyche. He'll need his defensive rookies to have steller seasons to avoid this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Watch Denver fall flat on its face. Gotta go with Tennessee though.....McNair can't stay healthy, Mason left, running game is Fra-Gee-Lay. Jeff Fisher is going to have some headaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Yeah I forgot about the Titans349674[/snapback] So you're saying you didn't remember the Titans? Truth is, I expect Volek to take over the reigns this year as soon as McNair tweaks the one part of his beaten body that hasn't been tweaked yet. THat means he'll make a late-season run. Personally, I expect the Raiders' D to lose for them this year. Here's hopin' JP doesn't give a crap about crossing the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Post Cincy's record from the early 90's. That's the ugliest fact. Despite more than a decade of drafting early, this team has been in the perpetual dumper. Buffalo started rebuilding in 2001, and after 3 seasons, they posted a winning record. Rebuilding spans of 3-5 years are common in the NFL. The Bengals, however, haven't had a winning season since the first Bush administration. 349847[/snapback] To each his own. Personally, the Bengals futility in the 90's doesn't make me feel any better about our team's failures this decade. The fact is this team hasn't made the playoffs in 6 years, or a division title in 10. I don't know about anybody else, but that bothers me. This also isn't just a continuation of the 2001 rebuilding project - that one already failed. That's why we're on our 2nd Head Coach, 3rd Offensive Coordinator, and 3rd QB since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Post Cincy's record from the early 90's. That's the ugliest fact. Despite more than a decade of drafting early, this team has been in the perpetual dumper. Buffalo started rebuilding in 2001, and after 3 seasons, they posted a winning record. Rebuilding spans of 3-5 years are common in the NFL. The Bengals, however, haven't had a winning season since the first Bush administration. This is a crucial year for Cinci. If their defense doesn't deliver and the team finishes under .500, things could collapse on Lewis, making him the latest entrant in the parade of losers who have coached the Bengals since Sam Wyche. He'll need his defensive rookies to have steller seasons to avoid this. 349847[/snapback] Hmm...they finished 8 - 8 with 18 players on the IR, and after a 1 and 5 start, Palmer went on fire, a team-record setting rb, a rookie MLB who filled in after game 2 and had 120 tackles, an all-pro cb, an all rookie FS, a OL that is very well-regarded - certainly moreso than the Bills, a WR core that most clubs would envy. Had Palmer and C Brabham not been injured, many folks would have picked CIN to beat BUF and they would have been in and BUF out in week 14. The run defense got burned by Jamal Lewis and Bettis - 2 players the Bills got burned by, also. They made off-season trades, have a so-called steal last year in DT Matthew Askew, were well-pleased with rookies Moore and Geathers, have decent punting, and good kicking from Shane Graham. They may indeed fall on their face, but they have a solid bunch that could make the grade. Why do you dislike them so? Most folks think they are a promising club... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuyInMalta Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 I'll go with Miami. The Titans at least have a decent QB (when healthy, McNair is fine...and Billy Volek really performed well last year). Plus, their WRs are deep and Chris Brown (with potentially Travis Henry) would provide a decent offensive punch. Plus, having Jeff Fisher as their coach always keeps their Defense playing hard. The Dolphins on the other hand have no QB, continually under-performing WRs, and either a rookie RB or a drugged out and 50 pounds lighter Ricky Williams. Not to mention a college head coach who has looked lost this offseason in running the team. Combine with that an O-Line worse than ours, no secondary and an overall Defense that is one step away from a retirement home cemetary and you have the 2nd worst AFC squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 To each his own. Personally, the Bengals futility in the 90's doesn't make me feel any better about our team's failures this decade. The fact is this team hasn't made the playoffs in 6 years, or a division title in 10. I don't know about anybody else, but that bothers me. This also isn't just a continuation of the 2001 rebuilding project - that one already failed. That's why we're on our 2nd Head Coach, 3rd Offensive Coordinator, and 3rd QB since. 349932[/snapback] I don't agree. We both know that NFL franchises follow cycles in terms eras of wins and losses, and that the rules and ecomonics of the league enforce this cyclical nature. 1999 was the final chapter of the SB era teams, and the talent was dry from a decade of drafting late compounded by poor decisions. The salary cap was a mess due to overpaying aging veterens for a last SB run. Donahoe came in at the bottom of the cycle in 2001, and despite the coaches and QBs who have been let go, there is no doubt that he is architect that led the team back to posting a winning record. The Bengals on the other hand, despite drafting high for 15 years, have been stuck at the bottom of the cycle for 15 years. So to compare the Bengals with the Bills during the last six years, while the Bills were declining and rebuilding, is misleading. The Bills have been navigating through a natural cycle common to all teams, while the Bengals have just flat-out sucked. That was the point of my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 I don't agree. We both know that NFL franchises follow cycles in terms eras of wins and losses, and that the rules and ecomonics of the league enforce this cyclical nature. 1999 was the final chapter of the SB era teams, and the talent was dry from a decade of drafting late compounded by poor decisions. The salary cap was a mess due to overpaying aging veterens for a last SB run. Donahoe came in at the bottom of the cycle in 2001, and despite the coaches and QBs who have been let go, there is no doubt that he is architect that led the team back to posting a winning record. The Bengals on the other hand, despite drafting high for 15 years, have been stuck at the bottom of the cycle for 15 years. So to compare the Bengals with the Bills during the last six years, while the Bills were declining and rebuilding, is misleading. The Bills have been navigating through a natural cycle common to all teams, while the Bengals have just flat-out sucked. That was the point of my post. 349952[/snapback] I guess the B'gals and you are alike..they can never change. I guess we have to agree to forget the 10-year Bill's drought against MIA, of course..the Dennis Shaws, the Marangi's, the Phil Doaks, the Walt Patulski's, the Richmond Flowers, etc. I was there for that MIA desert, BTW... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Hmm...they finished 8 - 8 with 18 players on the IR, and after a 1 and 5 start, Palmer went on fire, a team-record setting rb, a rookie MLB who filled in after game 2 and had 120 tackles, an all-pro cb, an all rookie FS, a OL that is very well-regarded - certainly moreso than the Bills, a WR core that most clubs would envy. Had Palmer and C Brabham not been injured, many folks would have picked CIN to beat BUF and they would have been in and BUF out in week 14. The run defense got burned by Jamal Lewis and Bettis - 2 players the Bills got burned by, also. They made off-season trades, have a so-called steal last year in DT Matthew Askew, were well-pleased with rookies Moore and Geathers, have decent punting, and good kicking from Shane Graham. They may indeed fall on their face, but they have a solid bunch that could make the grade. Why do you dislike them so? Most folks think they are a promising club... 349939[/snapback] Actually I don't dislike them. I drafted both the Johnson boys in the first round of my FFL draft last season, and they lead me to the championship. Believe me, outside of the Bills game, I rooted for these guys, and they delivered (for me, at least). However, despite their injury issues, they have more defensive problems than you let on. They gave up 48 and 34 points to the Browns, 27 to the Titans, 31 to the Jets, and 38 to the Eagles. That's not even counting the 33 points given up to the Bills, 7 of which came against the "decent" punting team. The defense has got to mature before the team can take the next step. In games I watched, they weren't always fundamentally sound, which is suprising considering who their head coach is. So they are promising, but they're young, mistake-prone, and inconsistant. They're going to have to take a big step foward to break out of the 8-8 rut they're in, and if the offense falters, they could easily slip back to a losing record. That's my objective take on them now, however, I think we can both agree that the team was a joke during the 90s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 I guess the B'gals and you are alike..they can never change. I guess we have to agree to forget the 10-year Bill's drought against MIA, of course..the Dennis Shaws, the Marangi's, the Phil Doaks, the Walt Patulski's, the Richmond Flowers, etc. I was there for that MIA desert, BTW... 349958[/snapback] Yeah, I was there too. The 70's were a pretty sad time for the Bills (outside of 73 and 74, of course). I've had my fill of Jim Ringos and Stew Barbers. For a Bills fan, you're really sensitive to any criticism of the Bengals. I didn't think criticizing a team for 15 years of ineptitude was really going over the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 I don't agree. We both know that NFL franchises follow cycles in terms eras of wins and losses, and that the rules and ecomonics of the league enforce this cyclical nature. 1999 was the final chapter of the SB era teams, and the talent was dry from a decade of drafting late compounded by poor decisions. The salary cap was a mess due to overpaying aging veterens for a last SB run. Donahoe came in at the bottom of the cycle in 2001, and despite the coaches and QBs who have been let go, there is no doubt that he is architect that led the team back to posting a winning record. The Bengals on the other hand, despite drafting high for 15 years, have been stuck at the bottom of the cycle for 15 years. So to compare the Bengals with the Bills during the last six years, while the Bills were declining and rebuilding, is misleading. The Bills have been navigating through a natural cycle common to all teams, while the Bengals have just flat-out sucked. That was the point of my post. 349952[/snapback] Well again, I'm not going to argue about the Bengals and the 90's. My point was, 6 years in this day & age is an eternity to rebuild, and regardless of who is to blame for that, the reality is this franchise hasn't gotten it done. You keep pointing to last year's "winning record" as if it's a sure thing that they will continue to progress this coming season with the extra year's time to rebuild. I hope it happens, but it doesn't always work that way (see 6-10 in 2003 after 8-8 in 2002); so I'm only going by what has happened up until now. How are we going to spin this rebuilding project if God forbid we're 6-10 again this year - it will then be 7 years and counting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CentralVaBills Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 To each his own. Personally, the Bengals futility in the 90's doesn't make me feel any better about our team's failures this decade. The fact is this team hasn't made the playoffs in 6 years, or a division title in 10. I don't know about anybody else, but that bothers me. This also isn't just a continuation of the 2001 rebuilding project - that one already failed. That's why we're on our 2nd Head Coach, 3rd Offensive Coordinator, and 3rd QB since. 349932[/snapback] Good God BO, did Jim Nantz really say that? Is he a fudgepacker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Well again, I'm not going to argue about the Bengals and the 90's. My point was, 6 years in this day & age is an eternity to rebuild, and regardless of who is to blame for that, the reality is this franchise hasn't gotten it done. You keep pointing to last year's "winning record" as if it's a sure thing that they will continue to progress this coming season with the extra year's time to rebuild. I hope it happens, but it doesn't always work that way (see 6-10 in 2003 after 8-8 in 2002); so I'm only going by what has happened up until now. How are we going to spin this rebuilding project if God forbid we're 6-10 again this year - it will then be 7 years and counting? 350106[/snapback] I remember there was much more griping back in the 80s about the length of time from Chuck Knox's team winning the division and Norwood's kick in 88, beating the Jets in OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Hmm...they finished 8 - 8 with 18 players on the IR, and after a 1 and 5 start, Palmer went on fire, a team-record setting rb, a rookie MLB who filled in after game 2 and had 120 tackles, an all-pro cb, an all rookie FS, a OL that is very well-regarded - certainly moreso than the Bills, a WR core that most clubs would envy. Had Palmer and C Brabham not been injured, many folks would have picked CIN to beat BUF and they would have been in and BUF out in week 14. The run defense got burned by Jamal Lewis and Bettis - 2 players the Bills got burned by, also. They made off-season trades, have a so-called steal last year in DT Matthew Askew, were well-pleased with rookies Moore and Geathers, have decent punting, and good kicking from Shane Graham. They may indeed fall on their face, but they have a solid bunch that could make the grade. Why do you dislike them so? Most folks think they are a promising club... 349939[/snapback] Jamal Lewis didn't play vs the Bills he was serving a 2 game suspension. Chester taylor finished with 21 carries for 89 yards. Jerome Bettis also didn't play week 17. Wille parker however did burn us for 19 carries and 102 yards. This wasn't too correct you just that we got burned by people we shouldn't have. We had a habit of letting nobody backs beat us up like sammy morrs, willie parker, chester taylor. While we shut down guys like shaun alexander and curtis martin. Now while Their offense is very potent, their defense leaves a lot to be desired, especially in the way of run defense ranking 26th in yards 22nd in yards per attempt and 12th in td's compared to us who ranked 7th in rush yards allowed 3rd in yards per attempt and 2nd in td's. I just don't see it with their defense. With that said however Carson Palmer is easily the best qb in that division, and yes I'm confident enough to say that even though he's only played half a season. They're my pick to take the afc north this year. Any Team with Kyle F'n Boller the clowns is a division cincy can win. Roethlisberg will take a big nose dive this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 I remember there was much more griping back in the 80s about the length of time from Chuck Knox's team winning the division and Norwood's kick in 88, beating the Jets in OT. 350146[/snapback] Yeah, fortunately I'm only 24. Because of the unusual success the team had when I initially became a fan, I resisted complaining much after '94, '97, '01, etc... But I think the statute of limitations is up on sounding like a spoiled brat, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohninMinn. Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Yeah, fortunately I'm only 24. Because of the unusual success the team had when I initially became a fan, I resisted complaining much after '94, '97, '01, etc... But I think the statute of limitations is up on sounding like a spoiled brat, no? 350280[/snapback] The statute has been extended by starting a rookie RJ jr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Titans for sure, but if they get Travis...they'll still be the worst. By the way, I think the Raiders are going to beat some good teams this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts