2 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

The onus for this week is on Zac. This is a game where he needs to game plan creatively with the personnel available.

I agree, that and a convincing victory.

Watching the Fins' players on the bench at the end of their game yesterday, it looked someone knocked them down and took their lunch money.

Dolphins win does Zack Taylor get fired?

57 minutes ago, MaddenCurse44 said:

Dolphins win does Zack Taylor get fired?

That would be bad for you, it could improve the Bengals. LOL

I don't see that happening.

16 hours ago, MaddenCurse44 said:

Dolphins win does Zack Taylor get fired?

Honestly, I wouldn't be against that. As they will have a bye week coming up after that, and would be the time to make that move if you were going to do it.

Interesting stats I heard about the Bengals offense. They are once again one of the worst rushing offenses in the NFL - currently 2nd to last. Despite going under center more and working on running the ball all offseason, the Bengals are worse this year running it.

2 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

. They are once again one of the worst rushing offenses in the NFL - currently 2nd to last.

Add to that when Burrow was ask about it after the loss Sunday the ratio was about 80%-passing to 20%-running. He said "I think we need to throw it more". lol

11 minutes ago, 16thBBall Fan said:

Add to that when Burrow was ask about it after the loss Sunday the ratio was about 80%-passing to 20%-running. He said "I think we need to throw it more". lol

So, who is actually running the show?

21 minutes ago, 4 Quarters said:

So, who is actually running the show?

Good point. A perfect example is in Kansas City look at how much better the team and Mahomes looks this year compared to last year with really the only difference is adding Kenneth Walker and now they have a legit running game.

2 hours ago, 16thBBall Fan said:

Good point. A perfect example is in Kansas City look at how much better the team and Mahomes looks this year compared to last year with really the only difference is adding Kenneth Walker and now they have a legit running game.

The Bengals are just like the Reds. Really not good people running the day to day operations and the ownership doesn't care as long as they make money.

1 hour ago, 4 Quarters said:

The Bengals are just like the Reds. Really not good people running the day to day operations and the ownership doesn't care as long as they make money.

So, so tired of this completely worn out and false take about Bengals ownership not caring about winning and not spending money. How many top end contracts and free agent signings do the Bengals need to do to get people to stop with this comment?

Edited October 6Oct 6 by Voice of Reason

51 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

So, so tired of this completely worn out and false take about Bengals ownership not caring about winning and not spending money. How many top end contracts and free agent signings do the Bengals need to do to get people to stop with this comment?

Help me out here. For 7 seasons under Taylor we are 54/65, for 16 seasons under Lewis we were 123/132. Darn sure something wrong.

54 minutes ago, 4 Quarters said:

Help me out here. For 7 seasons under Taylor we are 54/65, for 16 seasons under Lewis we were 123/132. Darn sure something wrong.

It isn't because of the owner being cheap. Especially since Taylor got here. Numerous free agent signings in the Taylor era. They signed Joe, Jamarr and T. No one thought they could pull that off. An owner who won't spend money is not the problem. That is my point.

The operations and front office decision making - legit to question that strongly.

Edited October 7Oct 7 by Voice of Reason

5 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

It isn't because of the owner being cheap. Especially since Taylor got here. Numerous free agent signings in the Taylor era. They signed Joe, Jamarr and T. No one thought they could pull that off. An owner who won't spend money is not the problem. That is my point.

The operations and front office decision making - legit to question that strongly.

Ok. it was either sign some of these guys or he would have been ran out of town, yes he did spend, but not wisely.

4 minutes ago, 4 Quarters said:

Ok. it was either sign some of these guys or he would have been ran out of town, yes he did spend, but not wisely.

That is an interesting point. Who should not have been signed? I can think of one that I don't like - the extension they just gave Orlando Brown. I feel good about everyone else that I can think of. And I like them not signing Hendrickson.

3 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

That is an interesting point. Who should not have been signed? I can think of one that I don't like - the extension they just gave Orlando Brown. I feel good about everyone else that I can think of. And I like them not signing Hendrickson.

Agree with you on Brown and Hendrickson. Really would not have done Higgins.