omgdrdoom

BENGALS FANATIC
  • Content count

    746
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Everything posted by omgdrdoom

  1. I can agree with that. I've been accused of both as well, along with being accused of being a bleeding heart liberal and a cousin fucking conservative in the same day just depending on who decided to see my opinions on various subjects; so I understand exactly what you're talking about with that. As much as we disagree/have disagreed, I think we both believe a huge issue with this team starts at the very top. Our assistant coach/line coach hasn't produced a top running line in like 3 decades, but fuck, who cares right? We've had about 10 HC worthy coaches on our staff in the past 30 years, but let's make them empty promises instead of promoting them, because who gives a fuck? Akili Smith, Carson Palmer, Jonathan Joseph, whatever, I love this team too much to be done with it but so much makes me want to be done at times.
  2. This is why I have a huge issue with being one of the big ol' Bengals homers that defend the team at all costs. We kinda deserve the punishment sometimes. I love this team, but God damn dude. Didn't we try to promise Hue he could be HC at some point maybe, sorta, sometime if he stuck around for a few years? What in the actual fuck kind of OC negotiation is that???
  3. LOL holy shit. I just confused Vance Joseph with Coyle in the past however many posts and completely forgot that this happened with our coaching staff. That's my bad. OK, I'm with ya on Coyle then. Other than Dre Kirk's dramatic improvement in 2016, the secondary looked much worse than the previous year or two, so Coyle doesn't get that benefit of the doubt that VJ would have gotten with me. I actually wanted Vance as our DC so I don't know how the fuck I forgot that he was gone. Again, my bad, so yeah, we're good.
  4. Tackling has gone to shit, that's an absolute fact and I have no clue what the fuck happened to the team's form tackling last season. I also agree that the blitzing has been odd at times, I don't think Paulie G is the best D Coordinator in the league when it comes to setting the blitz. However, the defense has still been the team's strongest facet of the game even post-Zimmer. Trust me, i thought Guenther was the laziest hire possible and I criticized him in his first year for being Zimmer-lite and essentially a weaker version of our previous D. He has really turned the corner as a coordinator though, it seems like his study under Zimmer is really paying off. Our defense was very, very, very good in the 2nd half of last season. He's one of the few Bengals coaches that has impressed me quite a bit and made me eat some crow after talking shit on him. You don't have to agree, but I do think Guenth is a great coordinator at this point in his career and I'd take him over 75% of d coords in the league. Coyle, his body of work speaks for itself. We've had one of the best secondaries in the NFL year after year after year. Do you really have an issue with him? I'm very curious as to why specifically, if you do of course.
  5. I'd guess it's going to be Dre and WJIII on the outside with Shaw playing the slot and Dennard coming in when necessary, unless there's someone else on the roster that I'm forgetting about that plays the outside well enough. If the coaches think WJIII is ready to go then I'm ready to see him out there. I trust Coyle and Guenther more than almost any other coach on the team currently.
  6. Is it bad that part of me is happy he only got 1 game solely so I don't have to hear about how the league is out to get us?
  7. Ah sorry I must have missed that. Well, what about the 2nd part then? I'm genuinely curious because I hear the claim a lot that the older generations were tougher and whatnot, but I feel like it's nothing more than a myth. How would you know who is in pain and when they're playing through it or not? Just wondering if there's something I'm missing or if it's merely speculation that it happened more in the 50's than today for no real reason other than older people are viewed as more "tough" than today's youth, again, for seemingly no reason other than people want to shake their fist and be the alpha. Every generation thinks they're superior to the others for 1 reason or the other, and the time period we're talking about is the one where the "tough guy" older men seem to be from. Is it just the general perception of that generation or is it more than that?
  8. Is it possible that it's just smarter to not play through injury knowing you could miss a big payday if you'd happen to aggravate the injury? That's a bigger deal now than it was then, and I'd have to assume that at least plays some part in it. Also, I'd argue that you don't even know 99% of the time if a guy (in the 60's or 2017, either way) is "playing through pain" or not. How would you possibly know that?
  9. How much was on your invoice for the flag?
  10. I feel like part of the reason this board is so dead compared to others is because people are driven away by the constant reminder that you're "trolling" and "flaming" when trying to spark a discussion on this otherwise ghost town of a board.
  11. Uhhhhh The Rattler not in the top 10 at all and Chad #4? I don't know about all that. I'm a huge Ocho fan, but no.
  12. I guess I'm missing the point because I see all of that stuff still happening today. I see modern hits that would have ended the smaller athletes of the 30's. I see RBs blocking in literally every single NFL game every single week. QBs are trying to get the calls to help give their team an advantage, call it crying all you'd like. I have no idea how TV timeouts and product placement have anything to do with anything. Sure, some rules are relaxed and some things have changed. Call it soft all you'd like, but a lot of the stuff done is because of safety. Now, does the NFL honestly give a shit about player safety? Not over making a buck, which I'll agree with, but they are still trying to implement new rules to protect these guys in some way. My arguments were mostly against Mr. "Go ahead and talk to me about JJ Watt dominating back then--I will laugh in your face." which is highly laughable. Whether the game is more "real" right now or 70 years ago doesn't matter too much. I prefer modern football but I also respect the old game as well. I'm just not going to pretend those rough n' tough hard nosed men of the 40's would be destroying Geno Atkins and Carlos Dunlap. LO fucking L. That type of argument reminds me of Stealers fans that think their Pittsburgh fandom makes them tough, blue collar "real men". For some reason, certain people feel the need to defend the old players to the extent they do because it somehow has something to do with their masculinity or their generation's toughness.
  13. Riley There are a ton of guys up for debate to put in the top 5/10 but I think Riley should be one of the few locks, so I'll say he should be #3 just because I view a lot of other choices as debatable.
  14. The only thing factual about what you said was that there were less rules. Everything else is, again, opinion. I'm sure there are facts you could point out that lead you to your opinions though, which is fine if you want to disagree with my thoughts. Sorry, but the whole fact/opinion thing is a huge pet peeve of mine. I love to debate and discuss, but it's nice if both sides understand that almost everything we're going to talk about is simply our opinions on the matter. You may feel strong about something and have plenty of facts to support your thoughts, but it still doesn't make some of this stuff a matter of fact. Anyway, I have a great appreciation for a lot of older players, even the ones I never got to see play. Hell, I mentioned in one of my posts above that I thought Ron Wolf had the best team overall, and Brett Favre is the most "modern" player you'll find on his list. I'm just not going to be delusional and claim all of those guys from the 1960's would even stand a chance against the likes of Geno Atkins, JJ Watt, Von Miller, Aaron Donald, etc. etc. These aren't just some scrub "thug" low football IQ players we're talking about, we're talking about the best of now vs the best of then. The best of 2017 eats the best of 1967 for lunch 10 out of 10 times. It's not even taking a shot at the older guys either, but athletes have evolved (even without touching the steroid topic). Diet, exercise, training regiment, workouts, and more have changed drastically over the past decade, let alone us talking about 40+ years ago with most of these players.
  15. Yeah, brain damage sure is cool and REAL. I wish I could have walked fifteen miles in the snow to see some REAL football. Jim Ringo is about the size of a 2017 punter, so I guess you got me there. I don't care how much older folks that are behind the times laugh at me, JJ Watt would make every single linemen pre-1980 his bitch. Couldn't care less what the "back in my day...*shakes fist*" crowd has to say about that. The "toughest man" in 1950 wasn't going up against the modern genetic freak athlete, they were going up against other 1950's men, I'm not sure how you keep missing that key point. Please try and tell me those farce of "athletes" in the sport 70 years ago are even remotely close in strength, technique, and raw talent as the players we're seeing enter the NFL today. You probably will, but ya shouldn't. I have respect for what a lot of those older guys did for the game and how they played, but comparing them to modern athletes is flat out absurd. Your opinions aren't facts, just like mine aren't, yet you keep displaying yours as a matter of fact which is highly obnoxious. A lot of younger guys that love sports today have a bigger problem with the older generation acting the way you do more so than they have a problem with old school football.
  16. Deion was the first CB taken though, so I see that as patience and excellent value for Wolf to have picked him up at #38. If this was just a straight ranking of the best NFL players of all time, then I'd probably agree with ya. Just look at who took Bradshaw. I'm not one for bashing every broadcaster and analyst claiming this huge anti-Bengals or pro-Stealers bias or whatever, but Fouts is a fucking turd. I'm not surprised one bit that his first few rounds include a punter, kicker, and Terry Bradshaw. As far as analysis over the entire draft goes from me after looking over the rosters more... IMO John Wooten has the best offense. I see at least 2 others that I'm sure some folks would argue, but I love Wooten's picks. Montana, the Juice, Thorpe, Art Monk, Hayes, Newsome, and then a killer old school line. I'm sure some people would view Bill Polian or Gil Brandt as having a more stacked offense, but I personally like every single player choice on Wooten's entire offense and there are a couple on each of the other lists that I'm not in love with. I really like Ron Wolf's defense despite not being alive to see a lot of the guys play. He spent a lot of early picks on D but still managed to put together a nice looking offense as well. I may have to say that his team impresses me the most overall. Peter King and Bob McGinn seemed to take a lot more modern players than the other guys which would make sense depending on how you look at the draft. I see it as each of the players vs other players of their time, but obviously someone like JJ Watt would completely dominate the league if he could time travel back to 1950. I think a lot of the active players could have been taken later in the draft so some of those picks could be seen as a reach.
  17. Without the glitz, all he did was win......against a bunch of other people without the glitz as well. That's the point. The game was slower, guys weren't the athletic freaks they are today. Fred made a joke about the game being slow back then, which it kinda was, so I don't see anything out of line there. Not sure what got you bothered. To your other statement, you and all of the others on this board are free to believe whatever you'd like about the NFL being fixed, but I wouldn't say they're "facts". That word means something very specific and the game being "REAL" along with the supposed "NFL intervention" is nothing but your opinions on the subject.
  18. John Turney's team looks awesome outside of that Richard Sherman pick, wtf? He's not even the best current CB and there were still a lot of all time greats available.
  19. 2016 - WJIII - DNP 2015 - Paul Dawson - scrub 2014 - Dennard - 41 snaps 2013 - Hunt - scrub 2012 - Dre Kirk - limited snaps in 4 games 2011 - Moch - scrub 2010 - Dunlap I'm not trying to use this post to complain about our defensive picks as much as I just wanted to point out how strange this seems. There are obviously some exceptions to this theory (Dunlap, Dre Kirk's present play, Boling, Bodine), but I feel like the average draft position of our defensive starters is muuuuuch lower than the offense. This is of course speaking of players we've drafted ourselves. Maybe we should exclusively draft O in rounds 1-3 and D in the later rounds. Obviously I'm kind of joking with that, but if you look at our recent draft history it doesn't seem like the worst idea in the world. Sorry for the semi-derailment, but seeing your list made me realize how many of our starters/key contributors on offense were high round picks.
  20. I'm not saying we didn't have a lot of key injuries or anything that year because we obviously did, but... The whole "Burkhead was our top wideout!" narrative that runs around on various Bengals message confuses me. I see it all over the place and I don't get it. Rex Burkhead played 9 total snaps on offense in that WC game. He wasn't lined up at WR in all of those. I understand that the premise of the statement is pointing out how Green, Jones, and Eifert were all injured, but maybe pointing out that Brandon Tate had to play 79% of O snaps at outside WR is more telling than Burkhead playing <15% of them.
  21. RBs and TEs are typically thrown at more often with the Bengals defense than most other NFL teams. Last year, only 1 defense had more TE targets per game, 3 teams had more RB targets per game. In 2015, our defense gave up the most TE targets by a wide margin, 4 teams had more RB targets per game. I actually had to go back to 2010 to find a year where we were better than league average with TE or RB targets per game. We've had excellent secondary and D-line play for years now and you can't have 11 All-Pro starters. There has been a clear issue with our LBs in coverage and it seems the Bengals have prioritized other parts of the field. This isn't bashing the Bengals D because they've been VERY good for a while now, but there are obvious holes and that is with LBs in coverage and just covering anyone outside of the top 1-2 WRs on the field in general. We shut down the big play, we shut down top WRs, and we typically shut down the run; however, we struggle with mid-range middle of the field yardage compared to most NFL teams. The numbers back it up. I'd agree that the numbers could be a bit inflated due to QBs having to look elsewhere when their WR1/2 are blanketed, but we've also seen some BAD linebacker coverage over the years too and some really piss poor tackling recently.
  22. Mike Brown wouldn't give Jonathan Joseph a free Gatorade and you want a hat? Good luck with that.
  23. Isn't it very possible that Dillon was much better than Hill, BJGE, and Benson, Paul Alexander is out of touch with today's NFL, and/or those old lines weren't as bad as you're saying they are? I don't follow the logic of your post if you're trying to say that it's somehow hypocritical to shit on PA in 2017 while also loving Dillon's late 90's to early 2000's dominance.