49 out of 53

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Bgal' post='719568' date='Oct 30 2008, 10:42 AM']It's always the same old story. Rebuilding... young team. Maybe in 2014 we'll have another first round playoff loss and consider all this worth it. What were they doing before rebuilding in 2003? Lots of drafts that didn't work out and injuries. Same shit.[/quote]


Obviously things changed in 2003.
The 42-46 record since then would indicate as much.
That is in 5 and a half seasons.

This Franchise won 55 games TOTAL in the
12 seasons prior to 2003.

And before that, Mike Brown was doing things
the way he was taught to do things. But the
NFL changed as soon as he gained control, (plan B Free Agency)
So the things he was taught, didn`t work. At all, obviously.

[scharm]

[quote name='SF2' post='719517' date='Oct 30 2008, 09:59 AM']So? I never said Blake was better than Carson, just said Blake led offensive teams were not much different rating wise than Carson's.

Carson is a better QB but my point was more that many on this board have an inflated perception of how good our offense was when it was healthy and in its prime. The point is Palmer's best 3 years team wise are hardly better than Blakes 3 best years. Sure, he had a better QB rating but that did not translate into an elite offense.

The point is we had a good offense for a few years, nothing more. It was not a dominant offense except for MAYBE 2005. Two years it was good, NOT GREAT. With the weapons we had you would have thought we were in the top 20% every year but it only happened once.[/quote]

Very true. Even worse when you consider Blake had considerably less talent surrounding him.

[|SF2|]

[quote name='oldschooler' post='719546' date='Oct 30 2008, 11:44 AM']50% is average.
20% is well above average.[/quote]

Our offense has only been in the top 20% once since Carson has been here. Again, my point is many Bengal fans have the misbelief that this has been one of the top offenses in the league until this year. Its simply not true.

We have been very good but not ELITE. Sure we have been a lot better than pre Marvin but we were dreadful in the late 90s.

Hell, Boomer led teams were in the top 4 spots 4 of 5 years with the Superbowl team ranked 1. That would be considered an elite offense.

I think the offense was given more credit than it was due because Chad was flashy and we threw downfield (exciting) a lot more than most teams. Also, when we began winning we became sort of a novelty and trendy team to watch and support.

[oldschooler]

[quote name='SF2' post='719614' date='Oct 30 2008, 12:14 PM']Our offense has only been in the top 20% once since Carson has been here. Again, my point is many Bengal fans have the misbelief that this has been one of the top offenses in the league until this year. Its simply not true.

We have been very good but not ELITE. Sure we have been a lot better than pre Marvin but we were dreadful in the late 90s.

Hell, Boomer led teams were in the top 4 spots 4 of 5 years with the Superbowl team ranked 1. That would be considered an elite offense.

I think the offense was given more credit than it was due because Chad was flashy and we threw downfield (exciting) a lot more than most teams. Also, when we began winning we became sort of a novelty and trendy team to watch and support.[/quote]



They have been one of the top Offenses, up until this year.
Have they been ELITE? (what you consider top 20%)No.
But they have been one of the top Offenses.

They were 10th in scoring in 2004. I know, not top 20%,
but still, a top 10 scoring Offense. And basically Carson's rookie year.

They were 8th in scoring in 2006. I know, not top 20%,
but they were in the top 25% that season.

They were 11th in scoring in 2007. I know, not top 20%
or even top 10, but they averaged more points per game
in 2007, than they did in 2006 and 2004.

In every season Palmer has played, with the exception
of this one, the Bengals Offense has averaged about 24 points ppg.

And they did this while losing some of their best players
on the O-line, and a number of RBs and WRs.

Anyway, what is it that you`re really trying to say?
The Offense is over rated?

[|OneHeartBeat|]

All this thread really proves is that we have no depth. But worse than that is these guys play with no pride or no heart and that's why we cant overcome some of these injuires like other teams can IMO.

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='SF2' post='719534' date='Oct 31 2008, 01:27 AM']Because top 10 is typically used when you grade on a 100 point scale not on a 32 point scale. Furthermore, the top 10 in pro football is not nearly the same as the top 10 in say college football, basketball etc...

Being in the top ten in the NFL is not the same.

Percentages tell the true story. If my kid said he was in the top 10 in his class (18 students) does that mean he is excellent or maybe just average?

The perception is we have had an awesome offense. The truth is it was great one year, and good for a few others.

During the great 49er runs they were ranked #1 in offense 4 years in a row and the top three or better 6 years in a row. The Rams were #1 three years in a row, Indy 4th or better 8 of the last 9 years.

We hit 6th once and 8th another. 10 and 11th as well but thats not GREAT, only good. Excluding this year we have had a good offense on the average but not GREAT. Keep in mind our defense has sucked as well so you should expect MORE scoring from an offense in this situation, not less.

We have had a good offense under BRAT, NOTHING MORE.[/quote]
There's a whole lot of truth in there..