I like how you break up your really long posts into paragraphs. I can read one or two and then come back. Just like a book.

^still laughing.:clap:

FC, all I read in your 17 paragraph response was blah blah blah.

 

Like I said, you wanted everyone to believe you were the first to mention how talented the team was and all of a sudden everyone on here followed behind your ingenius discovery and then the national media then started following your advice also. I showed where you were the lemming you've always been and instead of being original you simply repeated what was said by some national talking heads. You didn't need to write a book to say you right HB, I simply repeated what others said.

 

I showed post where you said just that.

 

Buh bye

Keep it simple FC

 

you said they were the most talented team

i said they werent

 

The team lost its first game in the playoffs against the worst team ( 2nd worst because apparently it is clear the Bengals were the worst) in the playoffs

 

Thats the only proof I need to show I was right and you again were wrong.

 

The most talented team doesn't lose to the lowest seeded playoff team AT HOME

 

So please show me where I was wrong. I've asked over and over again and you have showed us zilch.

nuff said

Keep it simple FC

 

you said they were the most talented team

i said they werent

 

The team lost its first game in the playoffs against the worst team ( 2nd worst because apparently it is clear the Bengals were the worst) in the playoffs

 

Thats the only proof I need to show I was right and you again were wrong.

 

The most talented team doesn't lose to the lowest seeded playoff team AT HOME

 

So please show me where I was wrong. I've asked over and over again and you have showed us zilch.

nuff said

 

Your over-generalizations are comical. They lost their first round game so they were the worst team in the playoffs? What about the panthers? Packers? Eagles? And most talented does not always mean most wins. Look at the Yankees. I would love to watch football in whatever fantasy world you live in.

Your over-generalizations are comical. They lost their first round game so they were the worst team in the playoffs? What about the panthers? Packers? Eagles? And most talented does not always mean most wins. Look at the Yankees. I would love to watch football in whatever fantasy world you live in.

 

I wouldn't. It seems miserable.

FC, all I read in your 17 paragraph response was blah blah blah.

 

Like I said, you wanted everyone to believe you were the first to mention how talented the team was and all of a sudden everyone on here followed behind your ingenius discovery and then the national media then started following your advice also. I showed where you were the lemming you've always been and instead of being original you simply repeated what was said by some national talking heads. You didn't need to write a book to say you right HB, I simply repeated what others said.

 

I showed post where you said just that.

 

Buh bye

 

Keep it simple FC

 

you said they were the most talented team

i said they werent

 

The team lost its first game in the playoffs against the worst team ( 2nd worst because apparently it is clear the Bengals were the worst) in the playoffs

 

Thats the only proof I need to show I was right and you again were wrong.

 

The most talented team doesn't lose to the lowest seeded playoff team AT HOME

 

So please show me where I was wrong. I've asked over and over again and you have showed us zilch.

nuff said

 

I asked you to show me where I was wrong, and your best argument is they lost in the first round and that your opinion is that means they were not as talented as said haha. As I said checkmate happened awhile ago for you, game over. Move on.

Your over-generalizations are comical. They lost their first round game so they were the worst team in the playoffs? What about the panthers? Packers? Eagles? And most talented does not always mean most wins. Look at the Yankees. I would love to watch football in whatever fantasy world you live in.

 

I wouldn't. It seems miserable.

 

I agree I wouldn't want to either.

Your over-generalizations are comical. They lost their first round game so they were the worst team in the playoffs? What about the panthers? Packers? Eagles? And most talented does not always mean most wins. Look at the Yankees. I would love to watch football in whatever fantasy world you live in.

Oh sorry, I should of said worst AFC team in the playoffs. We'll take the loser of the 6 seed vs 3 seed in the NFC and put them with the Bengals then to make you happy.

 

Most talented may not mean most wins but it sure in the heck doesn't mean 1st round loss again.

Thatnis what the Bungals did again. Most talented doesn't lose everytime.

 

So in your little world, the Bengals were the best team in the playoffs? How do you figure that?

 

I watch football in the real world, you know where a team that loses in the first round against a 6 seed does not equate to the best team in the playoffs like you seem to believe.

Edited January 16, 201412 yr by Hellbird

I asked you to show me where I was wrong, and your best argument is they lost in the first round and that your opinion is that means they were not as talented as said haha. As I said checkmate happened awhile ago for you, game over. Move on.

Hey Einstein, you asked me to show you proof they weren't the most talented and I did. I asked you for proof they are the most tale Ted and you have nothing. At least I am willing to show proof to support my side, you refuse to show anything. All you do is say checkmate lol. You have nothing to support your side, why? You afraid or what? Just show me proof the Bengals are the most talentd team. If they ate you should have something, anything....come on, you and reds have nothing.

 

Sad. At least try next time lol. You've been owned.

Oh sorry, I should of said worst AFC team in the playoffs. We'll take the loser of the 6 seed vs 3 seed in the NFC and put them with the Bengals then to make you happy.

 

Most talented may not mean most wins but it sure in the heck doesn't mean 1st round loss again.

Thatnis what the Bungals did again. Most talented doesn't lose everytime.

 

So in your little world, the Bengals were the best team in the playoffs? How do you figure that?

 

I watch football in the real world, you know where a team that loses in the first round against a 6 seed does not equate to the best team in the playoffs like you seem to believe.

 

Did I say they were the best team? Most talented does not mean they are the best team. And I didn't even say they were the most talented. They did. All I'm saying is it is possible to have the most talents and lose in the first round.

 

So answer this.. If San Diego beat Denver last weekend. Which wasn't that far from happening. Does that make Denver the worst team in the playoffs? By your theories on here, it should. It would chalk up to no playoff wins and a loss to the 6th seed.

Did I say they were the best team? Most talented does not mean they are the best team. And I didn't even say they were the most talented. They did. All I'm saying is it is possible to have the most talents and lose in the first round.

 

So answer this.. If San Diego beat Denver last weekend. Which wasn't that far from happening. Does that make Denver the worst team in the playoffs? By your theories on here, it should. It would chalk up to no playoff wins and a loss to the 6th seed.

The 6th seed team in each conference usually dictates they are one of the least likely to advance meaning the higher seeds are usually favored. Every playoff game that weekend came down to the last min or so of the game, except for one, do you know which one? One game that weekend was picked by the so called experts with the largest point spread, guess which team had the largest point spread in their favor? The answer to both questions is the Bengals.

 

That meant the Bengals were supposed to have the easiest path to round 2. They instead were the only team to be blown out against the lowest seeded team in the AFC playoffs. I'm very sorry my friend, but that tells me they were far from one of the best teams in the playoffs and that is exactly what you referred to them being when you said they weren't one of the worst teams in the playoffs yet just like FC you have nothing to support your claim. I take losing to a 6 seed proves more so they were among the worst than being one of the best.

The 6th seed team in each conference usually dictates they are one of the least likely to advance meaning the higher seeds are usually favored. Every playoff game that weekend came down to the last min or so of the game, except for one, do you know which one? One game that weekend was picked by the so called experts with the largest point spread, guess which team had the largest point spread in their favor? The answer to both questions is the Bengals.

 

That meant the Bengals were supposed to have the easiest path to round 2. They instead were the only team to be blown out against the lowest seeded team in the AFC playoffs. I'm very sorry my friend, but that tells me they were far from one of the best teams in the playoffs and that is exactly what you referred to them being when you said they weren't one of the worst teams in the playoffs yet just like FC you have nothing to support your claim. I take losing to a 6 seed proves more so they were among the worst than being one of the best.

 

That's all fantastic. Now.. You going to answer my question? If Denver (the 1 seed) loses to San Diego, does that make Denver the worst team in the playoffs? Because surely, by your theory, a 1 seed losing to the 6 seed is much worse than the 3 seed losing to the 6.

That's all fantastic. Now.. You going to answer my question? If Denver (the 1 seed) loses to San Diego, does that make Denver the worst team in the playoffs? Because surely, by your theory, a 1 seed losing to the 6 seed is much worse than the 3 seed losing to the 6.

Deffinately, a 1 seed losing to a 6 seed is worse than 3 losing to a 6. The problem though is that didn't happen. Also, if the Bengals were among the best, why were they only a 3 seed? Even more proof they were farther from being the best than the worst. The loss only pushed them even closer to the bottom of that list.

 

Your over-generalizations are comical. They lost their first round game so they were the worst team in the playoffs?

to answer that, it deffinatly proves they weren't among the best doesn't it?

And you still have not answered my question. Once again, if Denver loses to San Diego, does that make Denver the worst team in the playoffs?

 

And as far as facts go with you. What's the point? The savior himself could come down and smack you with some facts and you'd argue with him.

 

You do realize what your saying is like saying that in 2008 when the giants who were a 5 seed beat the patriots who were 19-0 going into the game made the patriots the worst team in the playoffs right? Worse than the Bengals even because the patriots lost to someone 4 seeds lower and the bengals lost to someone 3 seeds lower. Can you not see how idiotic that is?