Bengals past and present taking jabs at team

[Hellbird]

No panic here. Long way to August. My main concern is o-line, but it was horrible last year, so it probably can't get much worse. A healthy Eifert, AJ, and one of the two 2nd year WR's play well we will be competitive again. The defense will be fine.

I'll buy you a steak dinner if the Bengals win a playoff game this year. ( I don't see them getting close to the playoffs, but we'll keep your optimism alive for the time being )

[futurecoach]

No, I wasn't wrong, I think it is now your chance to admit you were wrong. There is no way that any of our teams from 202-2014 were more talented than any of our SB teams or the 2005 team.

 

Wow! Facts say something different, and you still argue it.

 

I know you always value your opinion more than facts. Even though you like to use facts when arguing on Eli Manning with HB. So I guess you pick and choose when to use facts if its for or against what you say.

 

However I have some free time at the moment. So here are some stats.

 

In 2005 the Bengals passed for 3820 yards and had 32 TD passes. In 2013 the Bengals passed for 4136 yards and had 33 TDs. So the passing offense was better in 2013 in terms of yards and TDs. In 2005 the Bengals ran for 1900 yards and 15 TDs. In 2013 the Bengals ran for 1755 yards and 14 TDs. So in 2005 the running game was better in terms of yards and TDs.

 

The Bengals total offense in 2005 was 5730 yards and scored 421 points on the year. The Bengals total offense in 2013 was 5891 yards and scored 430 points on the year. So technically the 2013 offense was better by having more yards and points. However obviously those numbers are very close, so we can say they were pretty even.

 

Lets take a look at the defenses. In 2005 the defense finished 26th in the NFL in passing yards given up per game. In 2013 the defense finished 5th in the NFL in passing yards given up per game. In 2005 the defense finished 20th in the NFL in rushing yards given up per game. In 2013 the defense finished 5th in the NFL in rushing yards given up per game.

 

In 2005 the defense finished 22nd in the NFL in points given up per game, and 28th in total yards given up per game. In 2013 the defense finished 5th in the NFL in points per game and 3rd in the NFL in yards given up per game.

 

So basically the 2005 and 2013 offenses are a wash because both were very successful and had similar numbers, with 2013 being slightly better based on numbers. However its not even close when looking at the talent on the defense and how they produced in 2005 and 2013. The 2005 defense the only thing it did well was it did get interceptions. Which when they didn't get an interception, the other team usually scored because they never stopped anyone besides when they got an interception. Stats show that. Its not even close the rushing and passing defense in 2005 was horrible overall, while in 2013 it was a top 5 defense both rushing and passing.

 

2005 team finished in the top 5 in offense and 28th in defense. 2013 team finished 7th in offense, and 3rd in defense. Yet you still claim the 2005 team was more talented? Overall talent its not even close, and stats show that. Now if you want to say you thought the 2005 team had a better chance to go further, that's fine. I loved that 2005 team and wish we could have seen how they did with Palmer. However even though I loved that 2005 team too. In terms of overall talent, the 2013 had more talent than 2005, and most talent since the Super Bowl Teams.

 

I was pretty sure that was pretty apparent, and didn't think you could argue that anymore. Which is why I brought it up more as a joke. If I thought you would still disagree when facts even show otherwise, I would have never brought this debate back up.

Edited March 16, 2017 by futurecoach

[futurecoach]

No panic here. Long way to August. My main concern is o-line, but it was horrible last year, so it probably can't get much worse. A healthy Eifert, AJ, and one of the two 2nd year WR's play well we will be competitive again. The defense will be fine.

 

Agreed! Besides on Dalton, I find us agreeing on a lot this off season.

[UK#1fanisback]

The Bengals answer to the Oline was to sign Andre Smith who os probably the most out of shape lineman I ever seen and now move to guard a position he never played. Good stuff.

[Hellbird]

Wow! Facts say something different, and you still argue it.

 

I know you always value your opinion more than facts. Even though you like to use facts when arguing on Eli Manning with HB. So I guess you pick and choose when to use facts if its for or against what you say.

 

However I have some free time at the moment. So here are some stats.

 

In 2005 the Bengals passed for 3820 yards and had 32 TD passes. In 2013 the Bengals passed for 4136 yards and had 33 TDs. So the passing offense was better in 2013 in terms of yards and TDs. In 2005 the Bengals ran for 1900 yards and 15 TDs. In 2013 the Bengals ran for 1755 yards and 14 TDs. So in 2005 the running game was better in terms of yards and TDs.

 

The Bengals total offense in 2005 was 5730 yards and scored 421 points on the year. The Bengals total offense in 2013 was 5891 yards and scored 430 points on the year. So technically the 2013 offense was better by having more yards and points. However obviously those numbers are very close, so we can say they were pretty even.

 

Lets take a look at the defenses. In 2005 the defense finished 26th in the NFL in passing yards given up per game. In 2013 the defense finished 5th in the NFL in passing yards given up per game. In 2005 the defense finished 20th in the NFL in rushing yards given up per game. In 2013 the defense finished 5th in the NFL in rushing yards given up per game.

 

In 2005 the defense finished 22nd in the NFL in points given up per game, and 28th in total yards given up per game. In 2013 the defense finished 5th in the NFL in points per game and 3rd in the NFL in yards given up per game.

 

So basically the 2005 and 2013 offenses are a wash because both were very successful and had similar numbers, with 2013 being slightly better based on numbers. However its not even close when looking at the talent on the defense and how they produced in 2005 and 2013. The 2005 defense the only thing it did well was it did get interceptions. Which when they didn't get an interception, the other team usually scored because they never stopped anyone besides when they got an interception. Stats show that. Its not even close the rushing and passing defense in 2005 was horrible overall, while in 2013 it was a top 5 defense both rushing and passing.

 

2005 team finished in the top 5 in offense and 28th in defense. 2013 team finished 7th in offense, and 3rd in defense. Yet you still claim the 2005 team was more talented? Overall talent its not even close, and stats show that. Now if you want to say you thought the 2005 team had a better chance to go further, that's fine. I loved that 2005 team and wish we could have seen how they did with Palmer. However even though I loved that 2005 team too. In terms of overall talent, the 2013 had more talent than 2005, and most talent since the Super Bowl Teams.

 

I was pretty sure that was pretty apparent, and didn't think you could argue that anymore. Which is why I brought it up more as a joke. If I thought you would still disagree when facts even show otherwise, I would have never brought this debate back up.

I will break down each one for you again, and then we can finally move on from this tired subject because in the end with a team as talented as you claim they were, they did absolutely nothing.

Now First you bring up passing game for the Bengals in 2005 compared to 2013, if you think Andy Dalton was anything near what Carson Palmer was/is you're insane. 2005 wins that easily Palmer>Dalton by a long shot.

Now all the other stats, I gave you before the defense was better in 2013 than 2005 but the offense players I'd take 2005 by a long shot over the whole of the offensive players in 2013 and not even close. You are trying to tell me that Dalton is better than Carson was in 2005? You trying to say that the 2013 O-Line man for man was better than the 2005 O-Line man for man? Not even close, the 2005 team had the best O-Line in all of football. You trying to say the WR corp of AJ Green, Mohumad Sanu and Marvin Jones JR was better than 2005's WR corp of Chad Johnson, TJ Houshmandzadah and Chris Henry? Not even close!!! You take AJ Green off the squad and you have scrubs. You telling me that Gio Bernard and Jeremy Hill are better than Jeremy Johnson and Rudi Johnson were back in 2005? Again not even close. Now 2013 OC was much better than Bob Bratkowski, that isn't close but OC's aren't part of the talent we are discussing. You give me 2005 offense with 2013 OC and the Bengals break every record there is.

 

Now going back to QB's where I still can't understand how you think Dalton was better than Palmer...the 2 seasons you bring up, 2005 and 2013, well I sure would hope Dalton would have more yards passing, he had almost 100 more pass attempts and with that wsaid he still doesn't come close to what Carson did in 2005. The 2 QB's in those seasons stats were as follows. Palmer 67.8% compl % Dalton 61% Carson 12 INT's Dalton 20 INT's. and with almost 100 more pass attempts Dalton still only had 1 more TD, that doesn't come close to what Palmer did in 2005 32-33 TD's.

 

You have your defense, I will take my offense by a mile, not one position on offense was better than 2005's.

 

 

Oh and FC, one last parting shot to prove my point...2005 team had more Pro Bowl players that year than the 2013 team

*Mic Drop*

Edited March 16, 2017 by Hellbird

[theguru]

Just when I thought you two Diehard Fans were about to get along... BOOM! :idunno:

[futurecoach]

@Hellbird for some reason it is not letting me quote your whole post. However this is my response to it. First your math was a little off. In 2005 Palmer threw 538 passes, and in 2013 Dalton threw 587 passes. So that means Dalton threw 49 more passes, not 100. In fact even if you round, I not sure in what universe 49 would round to 100. So admit the 50 more passes Dalton threw is the reason why he had more than 300 yards that year than Palmer. Yards per attempt Palmer threw for 6.8 yards pet attempt, while Dalton threw for 6.7 yard per attempt. So if they both had the same amount of attempts, they still would be right around the same number.

 

As for the line I would take Whitworth over Levi Jones. At LG Steinbach was definitely better. At Center Braham and Kyle Cook were basically the same player. At RG I take Zeitler over Bobby Williams. Now RT obviously Willie Anderson over Andre Smith. So both had two positions on the line they were better at, and center IMO pretty even.

 

WR I agree TJ better than Marvin Jones, and Chris Henry better than Sanu. Chad and Green are even though I would say Green is better. At TE its not even close 2013 was way better, its not even a discussion. At RB I would take Hill and Gio over Johnson, and Johnson. Hill gets those short yards, and a TD machine, and Gio brings something out of the back field that the Bengals didn't have since James Brooks. So that is fine I will give you the slight edge on offense for 2005. However its not even close on defense.

 

Plus basically you seem to think since maybe 6 or 7 players were better, than means the team itself was more talented? What? Hence the argument you could never seem to understand. Every single time, I have said overall talent. The overall talent was not even close.

 

By the way as for your Pro Bowl Mic Drop. Since you want to say even though Daltons numbers were right with Palmer, it doesn't mean he was as talented. That means you think production is different than talent correct? So lets take a look at this. I will be fair with this TJ Houshamazedh even though he wasn't a pro bowler that year, he ended up being a pro bowler a few times after that year and great numbers. So IMO he was a pro bowl talent on that 2005 team correct? Talent is talent, and so I would include him as a pro bowl talent on that team, even though he wasn't a pro bowler in 2005.

 

Counting players who made the Pro Bowl for the years before 2005, during 2005, and after 2005. That 2005 team had 7 guys on their roster who was pro bowl talent, who were Pro Bowlers at that time or after. The 2013 team on that team ended up having 11 guys who made the pro bowl, or ended up being pro bowlers. Which shows the overall talent they had.

 

So once again 7 overall Pro Bowl type players on the 2005 roster, and 11 Pro Bowl Type Players on the 2013 roster. So yeah you're mic drop, class dismissed.

[futurecoach]

Just when I thought you two Diehard Fans were about to get along... BOOM! :idunno:

 

I like Hellbird, good guy. However he is very hard headed, and flips things when its convient for him. If numbers support him like in his Eli debate he uses them. If numbers don't support him, he doesn't like them. Dalton and Palmer have basically same numbers in 2005 and 2013, but he uses his opinion and says you can't compare the two. When it's Eli though, its all about the numbers when he tries to prove Eli isn't that good lol.

 

So good guy just on this one he can't get over he was wrong. Or I guess should say still 4 years later still doesn't grasp the concept of overall talent. The 2013 team as a whole was more talented overall than the team in 2005. Yeah no doubt the 2005 team had some players that would have been great to have in 2013 too. However in terms of overall talent at every position, its not really even that close. He doesn't grasp the overall talent. Plus if he wants to talk about top talent. Then 2013 had 11 guys were were pro bowlers or eventually pro bowlers. While 2005 only had 7.

 

However besides this old debate, me and him do agree on a lot. I brought this up as a joke, because surely didn't think anyway he would argue it still. I was obviously wrong in that assumption lol.

[theguru]

I like Hellbird, good guy. However he is very hard headed, and flips things when its convient for him. If numbers support him like in his Eli debate he uses them. If numbers don't support him, he doesn't like them. Dalton and Palmer have basically same numbers in 2005 and 2013, but he uses his opinion and says you can't compare the two. When it's Eli though, its all about the numbers when he tries to prove Eli isn't that good lol.

 

So good guy just on this one he can't get over he was wrong. Or I guess should say still 4 years later still doesn't grasp the concept of overall talent. The 2013 team as a whole was more talented overall than the team in 2005. Yeah no doubt the 2005 team had some players that would have been great to have in 2013 too. However in terms of overall talent at every position, its not really even that close. He doesn't grasp the overall talent. Plus if he wants to talk about top talent. Then 2013 had 11 guys were were pro bowlers or eventually pro bowlers. While 2005 only had 7.

 

However besides this old debate, me and him do agree on a lot. I brought this up as a joke, because surely didn't think anyway he would argue it still. I was obviously wrong in that assumption lol.

 

Don't get me involved, I love me some @Hellbird

[futurecoach]

Don't get me involved, I love me some @Hellbird

 

I do too. Obviously we just completely disagree on this lol. I am sure he will have a nice response back, and then we probably just need to agree to disagree on this again haha.

[Hellbird]

Just when I thought you two Diehard Fans were about to get along... BOOM! :idunno:

we

get along great. Got to get FC better this past year and have talked

many times

in person. I still like him, I just have a different view of what talent means. I equate most talented to mean the players. FC equates it to most yards etc. that's all.

[Hellbird]

@Hellbird for some reason it is not letting me quote your whole post. However this is my response to it. First your math was a little off. In 2005 Palmer threw 538 passes, and in 2013 Dalton threw 587 passes. So that means Dalton threw 49 more passes, not 100. In fact even if you round, I not sure in what universe 49 would round to 100. So admit the 50 more passes Dalton threw is the reason why he had more than 300 yards that year than Palmer. Yards per attempt Palmer threw for 6.8 yards pet attempt, while Dalton threw for 6.7 yard per attempt. So if they both had the same amount of attempts, they still would be right around the same number.

 

As for the line I would take Whitworth over Levi Jones. At LG Steinbach was definitely better. At Center Braham and Kyle Cook were basically the same player. At RG I take Zeitler over Bobby Williams. Now RT obviously Willie Anderson over Andre Smith. So both had two positions on the line they were better at, and center IMO pretty even.

 

WR I agree TJ better than Marvin Jones, and Chris Henry better than Sanu. Chad and Green are even though I would say Green is better. At TE its not even close 2013 was way better, its not even a discussion. At RB I would take Hill and Gio over Johnson, and Johnson. Hill gets those short yards, and a TD machine, and Gio brings something out of the back field that the Bengals didn't have since James Brooks. So that is fine I will give you the slight edge on offense for 2005. However its not even close on defense.

 

Plus basically you seem to think since maybe 6 or 7 players were better, than means the team itself was more talented? What? Hence the argument you could never seem to understand. Every single time, I have said overall talent. The overall talent was not even close.

 

By the way as for your Pro Bowl Mic Drop. Since you want to say even though Daltons numbers were right with Palmer, it doesn't mean he was as talented. That means you think production is different than talent correct? So lets take a look at this. I will be fair with this TJ Houshamazedh even though he wasn't a pro bowler that year, he ended up being a pro bowler a few times after that year and great numbers. So IMO he was a pro bowl talent on that 2005 team correct? Talent is talent, and so I would include him as a pro bowl talent on that team, even though he wasn't a pro bowler in 2005.

 

Counting players who made the Pro Bowl for the years before 2005, during 2005, and after 2005. That 2005 team had 7 guys on their roster who was pro bowl talent, who were Pro Bowlers at that time or after. The 2013 team on that team ended up having 11 guys who made the pro bowl, or ended up being pro bowlers. Which shows the overall talent they had.

 

So once again 7 overall Pro Bowl type players on the 2005 roster, and 11 Pro Bowl Type Players on the 2013 roster. So yeah you're mic drop, class dismissed.

Lol, wait a minute. You're now counting other years to give you credence because the one season you, and I repeat YOU chose in 2013 couldn't cut it. So you're including other years for pro bowls for your team lol? Then take out all the orovlowlers who weren't first selections from your squad that only got in because other players declined such as dalton etc.

 

sorry, doesn't work that way or I could go back to 1989 if I wanted.

 

Now back to the pro bowl, I remember another year where you among others still claimed the Bengals amongst the most talented in the entire league still had less

pro bowlers than the Cleveland Browns lol

 

Sorry I would take both rb's in Johnson and Johnson over the 2013 backs in a heartbeat. Rudi alone was considered at the time to be 1 or 2nd best fb in the entire NFL and signed a contract extension reflecting that after the season.

[futurecoach]

Lol, wait a minute. You're now counting other years to give you credence because the one season you, and I repeat YOU chose in 2013 couldn't cut it. So you're including other years for pro bowls for your team lol? Then take out all the orovlowlers who weren't first selections from your squad that only got in because other players declined such as dalton etc.

 

sorry, doesn't work that way or I could go back to 1989 if I wanted.

 

Now back to the pro bowl, I remember another year where you among others still claimed the Bengals amongst the most talented in the entire league still had less

pro bowlers than the Cleveland Browns lol

 

Sorry I would take both rb's in Johnson and Johnson over the 2013 backs in a heartbeat. Rudi alone was considered at the time to be 1 or 2nd best fb in the entire NFL and signed a contract extension reflecting that after the season.

 

AHHHHH! You still don't get it! lol Most OVERALL TALENTED TEAM! Now you act like since 2005 had one more pro bowler total for that season, that means the team as a whole was more talented? What!?! If I said 2013 top 5 players were more talented than the top 5 players from 2005. Then yes you would have a strong case for being right, and probably would be right. However as I have said from the beginning, I have always said overall team. Which means from starters 1 through 22, and even guys behind them. As an overall team 2013 was the most talented since the Super Bowl years and stats prove that. So with injuries, and all the things that happened in a year. Including losing Geno Atkins halfway through that season. The team still finished top 7 in offense, and top 3 in defense. Both sides of the ball were in the best in the NFL. While in 2005 only the offense was in the best in the NFL.

 

As overall talent is concerned, as I have stated many times. Its 2013, not 2005. We can sit here and wonder all day long, what may have happened in 2005 if Palmer doesn't get hurt. Maybe they win, maybe they don't. However as we have seen in Lewis's other 6 playoff games, they ended up losing those too. So not much reason to believe he does great that game and as a coach ends up beating the eventual super bowl champs. So your argument that since 2013 lost in the 1st round hold no weight, because 2005 they did too, and no one knows for sure if they do or not with Palmer. What we do know is in 2013 they were top 3 in defense and top 7 in offense. In 2005 only one side of the ball was good, while the other side of the ball was horrible. So as an overall team in terms of talent 2013 was better.

 

I still have no idea how you can continue to argue that 2005 was overall more more talented. Yet somehow you keep arguing that, even though stats don't back you up at all.

 

So to save us from continuing this route. I guess we need to retire this for good and agree to disagree. Because overall we seem to agree on a lot of the other stuff now. Just obviously we won't agree on this lol.

 

What we can agree on is we both want Marvin gone, and we both rather the Bengals go with McCarron.

[futurecoach]

we

get along great. Got to get FC better this past year and have talked

many times

in person. I still like him, I just have a different view of what talent means. I equate most talented to mean the players. FC equates it to most yards etc. that's all.

 

Agreed. But yes we do seem to disagree on what talent means. Which seems to be the debate. I keep talking about overall talent, and you seem to be talking about on a few players, and equate that to the whole team talent. Besides that were good

[Hellbird]

If you measure talent by a scale of 1-10 and say 2013 team had 12 players of talent scale of 5's but the 2005 team only had 8 players that reached the talent scale but those 8 had talent level of 9. I'd take the 8 players with talent of 9 over the 12 players with talent if 5.

 

I like the 9 level talent players...quality...over the 5 level of talent...quantity.

 

That's our difference. I think talent of 9's has a much better chance of winning than the 12 5's. So although you may think there areote players that are considered "talented" I prefer the 8 "extra talented" because they can do more