Palmer4HOF Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='426428' date='Jan 13 2007, 11:07 AM']Fair enough if you want to discuss them starting the game, willie however did miss most of the colts game, Carson while missing 0 really want back in form in terms of mechanics for a good part of the year. And if were speaking about injuries/suspentions (to me they both mean a player is out, reguardless of the why) the starters would have been Simmons/Odell/David. And do we count Stieney being in all 16 games when he was the starter for a good part of one of them at center? If so that means Guycheck was out for that good part of the time, not to mention the game he was hurt and Wilkerson took over. Yes we should have been able to overcome injuries/suspentions, but when do we start talking about the number of games missed by impact players due to those making enough of a difference. Im saying that in combination with the tougher schedule put us right were we are a field goal or two away from being in the playoffs. It should be a testament to how deep we indeed are that we even kept in it till the last week. Most teams as soon as they lose their starting LT are done, that happened to the Cowboys last year.[/quote] I mean should we start breaking down who was listed as probable and questionable every week too? God damn... its fucking football. I get what you are saying that games started might be decieving or what not but I don't know how much proof that you need? EVERY team has to shuffle starters, replace starters, deal with nagging injuries etc... Also, suspensions don't count. Shit like that is inexcusable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palmer4HOF Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 Im starting to think I need a break from go-bengals for a week or so... I feel like many fans have begun making excuses for our mediocre season or trying to explain why we went 8 - 8 instead of listing reasons why we should have been better. Shit happens to every team and we STILL had a chance to recover this season but we let it crumble. It just blows my mind that every fan is not questioning coaches or management or players for a 8 - 8 season with ALL the talent we have. I think I'm starting to develop hatred towards certain members and I don't think thats good for a mod to have ... I'm giving myself a week vacation from posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 [quote name='Palmer4HOF' post='426430' date='Jan 13 2007, 11:11 AM']I mean should we start breaking down who was listed as probable and questionable every week too? God damn... its fucking football. I get what you are saying that games started might be decieving or what not but I don't know how much proof that you need? EVERY team has to shuffle starters, replace starters, deal with nagging injuries etc... Also, suspensions don't count. Shit like that is inexcusable.[/quote] I agree they are inexcusable, and they piss me off as much as you. But they do mean the player wasnt able to help his team on the feild. Were in agreement that every team has them, but all Im saying is when does it change what the team can do, how many teams shuffled the line as much as we did? And how many teams already had a bad defence and lost their more important players on it that didnt suck. Were in agreement that it kept us out of the superbowl. I dont know that we will agree that it kept us out of the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 [quote name='Palmer4HOF' post='426431' date='Jan 13 2007, 11:15 AM']Im starting to think I need a break from go-bengals for a week or so... I feel like many fans have begun making excuses for our mediocre season or trying to explain why we went 8 - 8 instead of listing reasons why we should have been better. Shit happens to every team and we STILL had a chance to recover this season but we let it crumble. It just blows my mind that every fan is not questioning coaches or management or players for a 8 - 8 season with ALL the talent we have. I think I'm starting to develop hatred towards certain members and I don't think thats good for a mod to have ... I'm giving myself a week vacation from posting.[/quote] Bro, I AM blaming the players (moreso) in combination with the coaches (position coaches mostly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChosenOne Posted January 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 [quote name='Palmer4HOF' post='426419' date='Jan 13 2007, 10:51 AM']So for total 47 ... or Pollack 57 I think my math is right... The surprising thing is that the defense actually had less starters lost than the offense by a significant margin EDIT: I think my extra number is because I included the Deltha suspension in my math. I guess it's really 46 (or 56 using Pollack)[/quote] This is exactly the math I did. Glad you were able to follow it. [quote name='Palmer4HOF' post='426431' date='Jan 13 2007, 11:15 AM']Im starting to think I need a break from go-bengals for a week or so... I feel like many fans have begun making excuses for our mediocre season or trying to explain why we went 8 - 8 instead of listing reasons why we should have been better. Shit happens to every team and we STILL had a chance to recover this season but we let it crumble. It just blows my mind that every fan is not questioning coaches or management or players for a 8 - 8 season with ALL the talent we have. I think I'm starting to develop hatred towards certain members and I don't think thats good for a mod to have ... I'm giving myself a week vacation from posting.[/quote] Like I said at the end of the original post, I didn't mean to make this an "excuse post." There's no excuse for losing to a fucking 4-12 team in Tampa Bay even if the refs blew a call, or ever blowing a 21 point lead in the second half regardless of who you're playing, or our repeated miscues against the Broncos and stealers. Those last two being the most important: a championship-caliber team plays with all the urgency and discipline they can muster in those two must-win games, rather than a complete lack of it. I understand this, and I am NOT making excuses. I am trying to muster optimism for next season because the mood around here is pretty bleak. Since you're taking a break from posting I'm not going to debate any of your other points, because it would just encourage you to respond. This is why I didn't post for a while until yesterday. Because we care so much about the team, we all get pissed off, worked up, frustrated when the team is so disappointing, and the forums can be a hostile place, where people take things a little too personally. I myself probably would have flamed the shit out of someone. I think a break will help you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texbengal Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 The guy that wrote the article is Rick Gosselin, the NFL beat writer for the Dallas Morning News. He's one of the most plugged-in and respected NFL media guys out there. He's the same guy who developed the ST team rankings that are shared at the end of each year, and his draft board right before the draft is uncannily accurate, since he talks to a lot of NFL GMs and scouts and puts it together a day or two beforehand. I've heard him talk about starters lost to injury a lot. His analysis over the years suggests that any time a team goes over about 35 games lost to starters, the likelihood of having a productive (read: make the playoffs) season drops off -- by a lot. The Patriots that won the SB were a glaring exception, but generally speaking, having a healthy team makes a huge difference. Last year's SB combatants (Seattle and Pitt) were very healthy, too - as I recall, both under 15 games total, and Dallas Cowboy SB teams in the 90s were under 20 also - I recall him discussing this on the radio one day (I live in Dallas). As far as the Bengals go, on offense, you had: Jones (10) plus parts of two other games) Braham (14) TJ (2) Williams (3) for 29 total on defense: Thornton (2 - he was listed as a starter for one game, and got hurt in warmups and didn't play) Pollack (in effect, 16 - he was active for game 1, but didn't play, and in game 2, 2 plays total before getting hurt) Thurman (16 - not an injury, but a missing starter nonetheless) Simmons (5, plus two others in which he didn't start, and played sparingly both games... one, I think, was only 1 series at the start of the game) D-Jax (4 games) O'Neal (3 games, plus several others where he played sparingly) and I didn't include Jeanty at 4 games, since I counted Pollack. for a total of 46 games (or 30 if you don't include Odell) So, that's 59 games lost due to injury. and then, some key players on top of that... Chris Perry, 2nd back and 3rd-down back - 10 games, plus sparingly in several others Kevin Kaesviharn, 3rd safety and dime back - 2 games plus a half Antonio Chatman. starting PR and 4th WR - 13 games, plus played limited time in 2 other games Tab Perry, starting KR, best ST player and 5th WR - 14 games Anthony Wright - 2nd string QB - 3 games Chris Henry - 3rd WR, and resident imbecile - 3 games suspension/coach's decision Deltha O'Neal - starting CB - 1 game suspension - coach's decision (DUI) ... and I didn't count some other ST guys like Anthony Mitchell, Rashad Bauman, Greg Brooks, etc., or Jonathan Fanene, who missed 10 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChosenOne Posted January 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 [quote name='texbengal' post='426464' date='Jan 13 2007, 12:54 PM']The guy that wrote the article is Rick Gosselin, the NFL beat writer for the Dallas Morning News. He's one of the most plugged-in and respected NFL media guys out there. He's the same guy who developed the ST team rankings that are shared at the end of each year, and his draft board right before the draft is uncannily accurate, since he talks to a lot of NFL GMs and scouts and puts it together a day or two beforehand.[/quote] Very cool. I'll have to keep an eye out for more articles from him. He seems like a good writer and very knowledgeable about his football, and I love to read articles from people like that as opposed to most of the ESPN bobblehead types who don't really know their ass from a hole in the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 [quote name='texbengal' post='426464' date='Jan 13 2007, 12:54 PM']The guy that wrote the article is Rick Gosselin, the NFL beat writer for the Dallas Morning News. He's one of the most plugged-in and respected NFL media guys out there. He's the same guy who developed the ST team rankings that are shared at the end of each year, and his draft board right before the draft is uncannily accurate, since he talks to a lot of NFL GMs and scouts and puts it together a day or two beforehand. I've heard him talk about starters lost to injury a lot. His analysis over the years suggests that any time a team goes over about 35 games lost to starters, the likelihood of having a productive (read: make the playoffs) season drops off -- by a lot. The Patriots that won the SB were a glaring exception, but generally speaking, having a healthy team makes a huge difference. Last year's SB combatants (Seattle and Pitt) were very healthy, too - as I recall, both under 15 games total, and Dallas Cowboy SB teams in the 90s were under 20 also - I recall him discussing this on the radio one day (I live in Dallas). As far as the Bengals go, on offense, you had: Jones (10) plus parts of two other games) Braham (14) TJ (2) Williams (3) for 29 total on defense: Thornton (2 - he was listed as a starter for one game, and got hurt in warmups and didn't play) Pollack (in effect, 16 - he was active for game 1, but didn't play, and in game 2, 2 plays total before getting hurt) Thurman (16 - not an injury, but a missing starter nonetheless) Simmons (5, plus two others in which he didn't start, and played sparingly both games... one, I think, was only 1 series at the start of the game) D-Jax (4 games) O'Neal (3 games, plus several others where he played sparingly) and I didn't include Jeanty at 4 games, since I counted Pollack. for a total of 46 games (or 30 if you don't include Odell) So, that's 59 games lost due to injury. and then, some key players on top of that... Chris Perry, 2nd back and 3rd-down back - 10 games, plus sparingly in several others Kevin Kaesviharn, 3rd safety and dime back - 2 games plus a half Antonio Chatman. starting PR and 4th WR - 13 games, plus played limited time in 2 other games Tab Perry, starting KR, best ST player and 5th WR - 14 games Anthony Wright - 2nd string QB - 3 games Chris Henry - 3rd WR, and resident imbecile - 3 games suspension/coach's decision Deltha O'Neal - starting CB - 1 game suspension - coach's decision (DUI) ... and I didn't count some other ST guys like Anthony Mitchell, Rashad Bauman, Greg Brooks, etc., or Jonathan Fanene, who missed 10 games.[/quote] Great post. Now all that said, there is an issue somewhere when the backups dont have enough pride in their job to put in the overtime needed to become at least close to the quality the starters are, hell at least enough to not suck. I put that on those guys, others are putting it on the coaches. [quote name='TheChosenOne' post='426467' date='Jan 13 2007, 12:57 PM']Very cool. I'll have to keep an eye out for more articles from him. He seems like a good writer and very knowledgeable about his football, and I love to read articles from people like that as opposed to most of the ESPN bobblehead types who don't really know their ass from a hole in the ground.[/quote] No kidding, Im going to have to book mark his name come draft time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bengal Migration| Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='426471' date='Jan 13 2007, 06:04 PM']Great post. Now all that said, there is an issue somewhere when the backups dont have enough pride in their job to put in the overtime needed to become at least close to the quality the starters are, hell at least enough to not suck. I put that on those guys, others are putting it on the coaches. No kidding, Im going to have to book mark his name come draft time.[/quote] if the backups were good enough to have pride alone make the difference, the team would not have been where they were before marvin arrived. unlike new england and their run despite injuries a few years back, we have zero depth, by comparison. we're getting there, which is the only reason we were close to making the playoffs with all of those injuries, but it's going to take a couple more years of marvin-quality draft picks before we have the type of depth that can sustain and make a trip to the playoffs with this level of injuries... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oldschooler Posted January 14, 2007 Report Share Posted January 14, 2007 [quote name='Palmer4HOF' post='426414' date='Jan 13 2007, 09:37 AM']OLD, i like having debates with you because you bring facts and substance to the table, but I want to talk about the Bengals, not the Jets or Chiefs. The Bengals from the first game of the year were presented a schedule that they had to play. The schedule was set 4 years ago and the only games that were different were us playing New England and Indy.[/quote] Thanks. And I was talking about the Bengals. I only mentioned the Jets and Chiefs because they also lost to teams they should have beaten, but were still Playoff teams. [quote]I understand your point of trying to explain why things happened, I'm trying to say it shouldn't have happened the way it went. Things happened to this team this year that other teams may or may not have happened to either. Fact of the matter is that 11 teams suffered more critical injuries than us, and 4 of those teams still made the playoffs. Fact is that New England had WAY more injuries than us in 03 and won the superbowl.[/quote]Yes it`s a fact that 4 teams made the playoffs that had starters that missed more games. But who were those starters ? Who were their backup`s ? We all know they played a weaker schedule. We all know their QB wasn`t injured in the Playoffs last season. We all know they weren`t missing their first and second round draft picks from last season. And their first round pick from 2004. The Bengals might have had less starters injured, but they had key back up`s (Tab Perry, Chirs Perry for example) missing most of the season too. There`s more to the conversation than "Well this team worked through the injuries, so the Bengals should have too !" Sometimes a back up is better than the player he replaced, and only needed a shot to prove it on the field, during a game. Sometimes that back up is a back up because he isn`t ready to to be on the field so much, for a lot of reasons. Ahmad Brooks for example. The 2003 Patriots were defending Super Bowl Champs, and their QB wasn`t coming back from a career threatening injury, while playing behind a make shift O-line, with a crappy Defense. The 2003 Patriots were part of a Dynasty. I don`t think it`s fair to compare the Bengals to such a team. Because really, no team compares to them. [quote]Now we can either say "hey this is why we lost", or we could say "hey, this is why we SHOULD have won". It's two different ways of looking at things. Obviously the Bengals chose to crumble instead of shine. We had a chance to beat Denver, and Pitt and Tampa and Atlanta and we could have very easily been 12 - 4 instead of 8 - 8. Injuries or schedule or not, we still had a chance but our lack of mental toughness hurt us.[/quote] Well, you can say it shouldn`t have happened, and I could even agree, but that won`t change what actually happened. So I think it`s best to try and understand why it happened, instead of saying it shouldn`t have happened. Because at the end of the day, it still happened. They not only should have won, they could have won. You look at it like they crumbled, I look at it like this just wasn`t their year. [quote]You can blame the bad snap or the bad FG or whatever, but there are countless other plays within those games that just as easily contributed to those losses.[/quote]Sure there were countless plays. But they actually lost on the last play of those games. If they had made those plays, we`re having a different conversation. [quote name='Palmer4HOF' post='426431' date='Jan 13 2007, 10:15 AM']Im starting to think I need a break from go-bengals for a week or so... I feel like many fans have begun making excuses for our mediocre season or trying to explain why we went 8 - 8 instead of listing reasons why we should have been better. Shit happens to every team and we STILL had a chance to recover this season but we let it crumble. It just blows my mind that every fan is not questioning coaches or management or players for a 8 - 8 season with ALL the talent we have. I think I'm starting to develop hatred towards certain members and I don't think thats good for a mod to have ... I'm giving myself a week vacation from posting.[/quote] God damn dude. People are trying to shed a positive light, about your favorite team`s miserable season, and that makes you hate them ? If you wanna bash players and coaches, and talk about what should have been, then feel free. But that`s not me. Never has been, never will be. Sounds like you not only should take a break, but you should also lighten up. I`ve been attacked by all kinds of people, in all kinds of ways. But I never hated anyone. I hated their views, or the way they attacked me. But I always looked at the personal attacks like, can`t attack the argument, so attack the person. There are a lot of people here that have different views than I have, on a lot of different subjects. You either have to agree to disagree, or just bash each other til you`re beating a dead horse. But there shouldn`t be any hatred involved, because we`re all here because we love the Bengals. Well, I`m pretty sure we`re all here because we love the Bengals. I can`t speak for everyone. And some sure don`t act like the love them sometimes ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 14, 2007 Report Share Posted January 14, 2007 [quote]God damn dude. People are trying to shed a positive light, about your favorite team`s miserable season, and that makes you hate them ? If you wanna bash players and coaches, and talk about what should have been, then feel free. But that`s not me. Never has been, never will be. Sounds like you not only should take a break, but you should also lighten up. I`ve been attacked by all kinds of people, in all kinds of ways. But I never hated anyone. I hated their views, or the way they attacked me. But I always looked at the personal attacks like, can`t attack the argument, so attack the person. There are a lot of people here, that have different views than I have, on a lot of different subjects. You either have to agree to disagree, or just bash each other til you`re beating a dead horse. But there ishouldn`t be any hatred involved, because we`re all here because we love the Bengals. Well, I`m pretty sure we`re all here because we love the Bengals. I can`t speak for everyone. And some sure don`t act like the love them...[/quote] Amen Brother amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.