omgdrdoom

BENGALS FANATIC
  • Content count

    708
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Community Reputation

262 The F'n Man!

About omgdrdoom

  • Rank
    Veteran

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
  1. Yeah I don't see why not. I'm not a guy that believes there's an anti-Bengals, pro-Stealers bias in the officiating. There have been bad calls in Bengals/Stealers games for sure, look at the non-call on the Gio hit in that same game. That was bullshit. Doesn't prove a bias, but it was still total bullshit IMO. Do you think Vontaze should have been flagged for kneeing Big Jen in the shoulder after the injury-sack in that playoff game? That was a bonehead move in my eyes, it was a very blatant knee strike but wasn't going to do much damage so I'm not sure what Burfict was going for exactly. It happened though, and it was a huge non-call for us.
  2. It was Blandino (VP of officiating, not on the field) that said that he didn't believe it was a catch, but they shouldn't have overturned it once it was ruled a catch. The maintaining possession rules are so subjective that I can see why Bengals fans or anti-Stealers fans would have an issue with it, but it was the right call to keep it as it stood after calling it a catch on the field. The guy you're trying to use to prove how it wasn't a catch agrees, so obviously you should now too, right?
  3. The flip catch? I mean, by the rules and prior calls made, subjectively, it's a catch. I was drunk and pissed off when it happened in real time but I've watched it dozens of times since then and completely understand how it could be ruled a catch, especially when it was initially a catch on the field. You can't really overturn that. What about #DezCaughtIt??? Dallas has a much larger market than those cheese heads in bumfuck Wisconsin. That's a very controversial call right there, the Martavis one, not so much.
  4. I assume the ones where we lost have stuck in your mind so you probably remember more of them. I also assume that if I went back and watched a bunch of games and pointed out huge calls in our favor, they'd not be considered "questionable calls" by a lot of people on here. It's all subjective in the end, we can leave it at me believing that NFL officials are inconsistent because they can be and are human beings and can't always get every call 100% "right", and you go with small market teams get hosed intentionally. It's fine if you want to believe that, I just disagree with that strongly. I'll say that I do believe bad calls happen, and hell, some of them could even be intentional at times, I just don't think it runs rampant through the sport on a regular basis. There are some shady people in every occupation, referees aren't above that, but I don't think it's some huge, elaborate Roger Goodell conspiracy theory.
  5. I don't know, I've seen every team in the league get their share of bad calls and media scrutiny. Hell, the NFL has hammered the Patriots on some of the most petty bullshit I've seen in my life. The Cowboys don't get beat up by the media because they don't have a bunch of shithead players doing shithead things. Same with the Jaguars but they aren't large market media darlings. The common denominator in who gets "picked on" is the amount of shit head players, not the size of the market. I wish more people would come to that realization. As far as bad calls go, Bengals fans focus on Bengals bad calls and have an extreme bias. Same with other fanbases. I'd bet that you (and most others here) would list teams that get an "unfair advantage" and then I'd bet those are your least favorite teams. I bet your favorite teams are the ones that get the majority "bad calls". It's the way it is, objectivity is rare, and that's fine, I just wish more people could see that it's mostly bias in your own eyes and not some NFL conspiracy (someone is going to lose their fucking mind over that word). NFL officials are definitely inconsistent, I say that a lot, but that doesn't mean that it's proof that there is some kind of bias. You're free to believe what you'd like, but IMO they're just inconsistent because they get to play by a subjective set of rules, where other folks see those subjective rules as a tool for Goodell to use against the small market Bengals.
  6. Good thing we're all fans of #teamslikethebengals instead so we can sit around and whine about how the league is out to get us at every possible angle you can take
  7. Elite level pass rushing is also extremely important. How many 4-3 LDEs are better than Carlos Dunlap? Maybe 1? The dude is insanely underrated even by Bengals fans. His pressures per snap have come at a ridiculous rate throughout his career and nobody comes close to batting balls at the line like he did last year. His sack numbers have been fine for a few years but you don't need 20 sacks to be a good DE regardless of what the shock jock sports analysts and casual NFL fans on Facebook want to see. Dunlap is one of our best players by a wide margin IMO. If you told me we absolutely HAVE to keep Andy as 1 of the 3, as crazy as this sounds, I'd probably say to keep Dunlap over Green in that case. Dunlap and Atkins are special talents at their respective positions, as is Green, but keeping your top tier LDE with no depth behind him is more important than keeping Green when we do have WR depth. I'm honestly not sure you'd need to protect Andy. He isn't some young developmental QB anymore. He's going to be 30 this year and has pretty much been a middle of the road to fringe top 10-12 QB his entire career outside of 2015 where he looked great. Some teams have young(er), elite, non-QB players (like us) so it's not like Andy would be the only unprotected starting QB out there. I'm not trying to bash the guy or say that we don't need him, but I'm just not sure he'd be the choice for the expansion team even if we did leave him available. We have a ton of young, upcoming players that I'm sure a new team would love to have. Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuttttt again, this right here is why the "you can only protect 3" would NEVER happen in the NFL and why this hypothetical would make more sense if the list had to be a lot longer. There's a 0% chance they would let an expansion team be made up of players of Dalton, Dunlap, Burfict, Green, etc. caliber.
  8. Yep, I try to be a "positive" fan myself, but I just can't ignore the deficiencies in a team that obviously has issues. Not to mention, what fun would a message board be with purely "wooo everything the Bengals do is just so awesome sauce!!!!" circle jerking? Would there be any active threads whatsoever if we all agreed on everything? It takes 2 sides to tango, so whether you love or hate the extremists on either (or both) sides, we wouldn't have message boards without them. I complain a lot about people being extreme and solely focusing on one side of the coin almost 100% of the time, but I also realize that if those people weren't around then I'd probably have nobody to discuss/argue with. Meh, it is what it is.
  9. Exactly, the player list for NFL expansion teams to choose from is a bunch of bottom tier backups and then a handful of decent players with shitty contracts that a team is trying to dump without dead money and whatnot. It's much different from the NHL which is where people playing these hypotheticals are getting the X number of protected players thing from. Of course any of these "games" serve no real purpose than just sparking discussion, but it's mostly silly because even if the NFL went the route of the NHL, it would be a MUCH higher number than 3 players protected. A team of the 4th best player from 32 NFL teams would go 19-0 without even trying. It would be a Pro Bowl roster, even the backups.
  10. Look at it on the bright side. If he blows all of his cash real quick, maybe he'll play even harder to score another big contract.
  11. As much as I think that music sucks and whatnot, at least he's not running around picking up 100k bar tabs ala Gronk. I'd rather see a dude invest money into a friend's soon to be failed career than that kind of shit.
  12. NHL teams got to protect 7 or 8 of their players, essentially their best goalie and a couple of their top lines worth of players. I think the NFL version would be a lot more interesting to look at what a potential expansion team could look like if the NFL did something similar but allowed more guys to be protected. Going by the idea of this thread, just think about an NFL team with the 4th best player from all 32 teams. That would be absolutely absurd.
  13. No, it's not really like the NHL at all. The last NFL expansion draft, each team made 5 players available with some pretty lenient criteria. The Texans built their team (mostly) from the scrapheap of NFL backups. 3 isn't nearly enough players on an NFL sized roster, but I'd go with Green, Dunlap, and Atkins in this hypothetical scenario. Dunlap is specifically because I'd assume most teams will value their elite edge rushers VERY highly, so the expansion team would be looking for guys just like Dunlap to be unprotected.
  14. I'm pretty sure this has happened with a 1st rounder literally every year after AJ in 2011, right?
  15. I believe they have a deal in place that lets them use it occasionally, but only on the terms of UC and from what I've read in the past the Bengals rarely use it. Last I read a year or two ago it was an extremely small number of trips they made to UC over a few years prior combined. I'll try to see if I can find the actual numbers though. So far I found something from December of 2014 that said the Bengals were planning to use the UC practice bubble for the week leading up to the Colts playoff game and that they only used it 2 times prior to that during the entire 2014 season.