You really don't get it do you man? You just really don't. I said this was the most talented team since the 80's. Please show me where I said this team is definitely better? I have a feeling I will be waiting awhile. You took a comment of me saying this years team is the most talented and decided to twist and turn in it so you can try to find a way to disagree. .

I didn't twist it at all FC. You said it's the most talented team since the 80's and I said no they are not, the 2005 team was more talented.

You then disagreed and then I went position by position to prove you wrong.

 

simple as that, you were proven wrong but couldn't drop it, you are still talking about it.

 

Once you found you were wrong you tried to change what you meant and saying the deepest. Then after week 3 they have to sign a scrub safety that no one else wanted to replace a safety who was moved to LB because they had no one else...that doesn't show depth, that showsw lack of players to fill positions. So now I'm waiting to see how you try and twist it again.

 

Sorry FC, the 2005 team was better, why? because they had more talent.

I didn't twist it at all FC. You said it's the most talented team since the 80's and I said no they are not, the 2005 team was more talented.

You then disagreed and then I went position by position to prove you wrong.

 

simple as that, you were proven wrong but couldn't drop it, you are still talking about it.

 

Once you found you were wrong you tried to change what you meant and saying the deepest. Then after week 3 they have to sign a scrub safety that no one else wanted to replace a safety who was moved to LB because they had no one else...that doesn't show depth, that showsw lack of players to fill positions. So now I'm waiting to see how you try and twist it again.

 

Sorry FC, the 2005 team was better, why? because they had more talent.

The '05 team was much better at QB. After that you are just regurgitating names and picking nits. In defense of fc I never recall hearing anyone say the Bengals in '05 were the most talented team across the board in the NFL (on here or on tv), which I have heard multiple times about this season's version.

 

If I were picking between the two I would take the '13 version over '05? Why? Talent, shmalent. Both have their pros and cons, but the '05 team was led by Chad Johnson. He was the team leader, regardless of what anyone tries to tell you... that is all you need to know about the intangible makeup of that era of Bengal teams.

 

You two need to get a room.

The '05 team was much better at QB. After that you are just regurgitating names and picking nits. In defense of fc I never recall hearing anyone say the Bengals in '05 were the most talented team across the board in the NFL (on here or on tv), which I have heard multiple times about this season's version.

 

If I were picking between the two I would take the '13 version over '05? Why? Talent, shmalent. Both have their pros and cons, but the '05 team was led by Chad Johnson. He was the team leader, regardless of what anyone tries to tell you... that is all you need to know about the intangible makeup of that era of Bengal teams.

 

You two need to get a room.

First off I never said the 2005 team was said to be the most talented team in the NFL.

 

Secondly FC said this years team is the most talented bengals team since the 80's. I never said they weren't among the most in the league this year I said they aren't the most talented bengals team since the 80's. So that is the difference. And if you truly think the only thing better from the 2005 team was the QB then you are sorely mistaken. The wr group was better the o line was the best in the league. The only thing this years team has on them is the s line period.

My grades on the two Bengals teams in question:

 

2005 - B

2013 - incomplete

I didn't twist it at all FC. You said it's the most talented team since the 80's and I said no they are not, the 2005 team was more talented.

You then disagreed and then I went position by position to prove you wrong.

 

simple as that, you were proven wrong but couldn't drop it, you are still talking about it.

 

Once you found you were wrong you tried to change what you meant and saying the deepest. Then after week 3 they have to sign a scrub safety that no one else wanted to replace a safety who was moved to LB because they had no one else...that doesn't show depth, that showsw lack of players to fill positions. So now I'm waiting to see how you try and twist it again.

 

Sorry FC, the 2005 team was better, why? because they had more talent.

 

You went position by position with the starters, and I agree overall on offense THE STARTERS in 2005 overall were more talented, THE STARTERS! However as usual with you, you continually like to like to ignore the key word TEAM. Which does not mean starters, it does include backups too. So yeah you still don't get it.

Wow man just Wow....for a team that is the deepest in the league according to you they sure had to go and sign some scrubs just after the 3rd game of the year.......Again, you still talk about how deep this team is, yet you can't admit that maybe you were wrong. So now you are saying because they had to move a safety to LB they had to sign another safety...lol, how deep of a team is that when they have to move a safety to LB because they don't have the depth at LB and now go out and sign a scrub safety to take the place. lol. Classic, you will never own up to your shortfallings will you?

 

What shortfallings? I mean your shortfallings and not being able to comprehend that people are hurt, or you ability to just ignore it to support your argument. You once again wanted to conviently ignore that two of the backup corners have been out hurt in Dre and Ghee. You are smart enough to know that a hamstring injury is a nagging injury and can't take a chance of that flaring up in the game and him going out in the middle of the game with Hall. Adam Jones is already playing hurt, and now has the whole off the field incedent. The depth is there, however injuries happen and it happend to hit the secondary the most. Its really not that hard to understand man, unless you just want to ignore that which you are good at.

The '05 team was much better at QB. After that you are just regurgitating names and picking nits. In defense of fc I never recall hearing anyone say the Bengals in '05 were the most talented team across the board in the NFL (on here or on tv), which I have heard multiple times about this season's version.

 

If I were picking between the two I would take the '13 version over '05? Why? Talent, shmalent. Both have their pros and cons, but the '05 team was led by Chad Johnson. He was the team leader, regardless of what anyone tries to tell you... that is all you need to know about the intangible makeup of that era of Bengal teams.

 

You two need to get a room.

 

Haha. It really comes down to this, if anyone else besides me had posted that this is the most talented team since the 80's he probably wouldn't have even said a word because that is something that is pretty obvious about the talent on the team. Even people with no bias at all, people who use to laugh at the Bengals are even saying it. However since it was me, he had to try to argue it.

 

When it comes to which team was better, I can buy his argument on the 2005 team being better. Because the most talented teams aren't always the best teams. We know what the 2005 team did, but as someone mentioned the 2013 team is still in question on how it will do.

First off I never said the 2005 team was said to be the most talented team in the NFL.

 

Secondly FC said this years team is the most talented bengals team since the 80's. I never said they weren't among the most in the league this year I said they aren't the most talented bengals team since the 80's. So that is the difference. And if you truly think the only thing better from the 2005 team was the QB then you are sorely mistaken. The wr group was better the o line was the best in the league. The only thing this years team has on them is the s line period.

 

Thats the thing you once again are only talking about the starters. The starters on 2005 offense was more talented overall but 2013 team has closed the gap, especially if the QB steps up. The 2013 team on defense has a lot more talent than 2005. The backups are head and shoulders above basically anyone on the 2005 teamI will always love that 2005 team though and wish we could have seen what would have happened if Palmer didn't get hurt.

Thats the thing you once again are only talking about the starters. The starters on 2005 offense was more talented overall but 2013 team has closed the gap, especially if the QB steps up. The 2013 team on defense has a lot more talent than 2005. The backups are head and shoulders above basically anyone on the 2005 teamI will always love that 2005 team though and wish we could have seen what would have happened if Palmer didn't get hurt.

Yo genius....news flash, starters the main thing with any team when talking about players!!! You can't win many games if your starters aren't any good. How can you even think you have the most talented team if your starters aren't as good as other starters from a different team?

IF you admit the 2005 starters were better than this year then how in the world can you think this team is better? That makes absolutley no sense at all and is what drives me nuts about your answers, you continuosly change your stance because you can't admit that you were wrong. You were probably one of those geniuses who said the 2009 team was the most talented since the 80's also. You do realize the same crap comes up about every 4 years and just like last time they made that statement it wasn't even close to the truth.

 

Do you want to say that the 2nd stringers are the most talented since the 80's? B ecause that is exactly what you are saying. When you say the 2013 team is the most talented since the 80's then you mean they have better starters etc. When you now say 2005 team had better starters but this team is still more talented, then that means you think the 2nd string on this years team is better than 2nd string on 22005 which I am not even going to get into because who knows who is better when you don't see the majority of them play....it's all on paper or in your imaginiation.

 

The proof is in what happens on the field. Now when a safety gets moved to LB and tthe team has to go out and pick up a scrub safety after only 3 weeks, that tells me this team isn't deep at a lot of positions, but you think they are. Again you won't admit you overthought it and simply went by what someone on the radio said and because it was a positive remark about the bengals you took it as the bible. The problem is when you are proven mistaken you can't admit it even when you do admit someone else was right such as the 2005 team.

 

Now you go off on the deep run thing, wherever that came up, i don't know but had nnothing to do with this subject. It's funny though, you never did say what 80's team is more talented than this one.

You want to talk about the backups on the 2005 vs 2013 team? I can do that too

 

2005 RB > 2013 RB's

2005 WR> 2013 WR's

2005 QB> 2013 QB

2005 O-Lineman > 2013 O-Lineman

 

Talking about backups here as in RB's #3

Talking about backup WR's talking #3 and #4

talking about backup QB #2

same with O-Line

Make it stop!!

It's the song that never ends....

 

Really surprised the '05 Bengals didn't enter the playoffs 16-0.

 

 

Just stoking the fire.

It's the song that never ends.... Really surprised the '05 Bengals didn't enter the playoffs 16-0. Just stoking the fire.

 

How long has it been since the Bengals have won a playoff game?

How long has it been since the Bengals have won a playoff game?

 

1990 I believe

I was going to guess the 1770s but 1990 sounds about right.