Jump to content

Questions for the old farts


Recommended Posts

Not even that old - I'm not that far behind ya... was watching Missing Rings of the 88 Bengals - which will move you to tears. Just 'stop the count' at about 37 minutes in.

 

I was a teen in the late 80's, so followed the team, but really only got to watch a couple games a year, being in Houston. So I was off chasing girls, etc etc... here's my question(s):

 

1) Take off your homer glasses for a moment - was Stanley Wilson really that good, and how much of a difference do you think would it really have made had he stayed sober?

2) How bad was the public perception of the team in the strike year of 87 - keeping in mind of course that this was before the lost decade, and before PB died for us not in the know.

 

Would love to hear your recollections. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Stanley Wilson blow was more of an emotional one than on the field. James Brooks was the main RB but Stanley Wilson was a nice Robin to Batman. If they'd lost him with a week to prepare, it would have been better. Also they feared for his wellbeing given his circumstances. The Tim Krumrie injury was much more injurious to their chances. All that said, if Lewis Billups holds onto an interception in his hands, I like our chances to win

 

The public perception of the team was no big deal in 1987. Once the strike was over, so were the hard feelings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stanley Wilson was one 100% genuine bad asss mother bumper.  Collinsworth once said his own teammates were scared of him.

JMHO but I am convinced there was some conspiracy theory Super Bowl fixing based on getting him drugged up our of his mind

the night before.  

 

If I recall correctly, the replacement quarterback did not throw a single pass.

 

All told to me by a friend, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Cat said:

Not even that old - I'm not that far behind ya... was watching Missing Rings of the 88 Bengals - which will move you to tears. Just 'stop the count' at about 37 minutes in.

 

I was a teen in the late 80's, so followed the team, but really only got to watch a couple games a year, being in Houston. So I was off chasing girls, etc etc... here's my question(s):

 

1) Take off your homer glasses for a moment - was Stanley Wilson really that good, and how much of a difference do you think would it really have made had he stayed sober?

2) How bad was the public perception of the team in the strike year of 87 - keeping in mind of course that this was before the lost decade, and before PB died for us not in the know.

 

Would love to hear your recollections. 

I am old, and was fortunate enough to have experienced SB 23 in Miami for a week prior to the game plus the game itself. Will start there.

 

I first heard of Wilson's situation the morning of the SB, while listening to the radio during breakfast at the South Beach hotel we were staying at. It was very upsetting. I do remember thinking we had Stanford Jennings on the bench--and he had done some nice things during the season--so he could be used, even though he was more in the James Brooks role than Stanley's. As it turned out, it was just a so-so rushing day by Brooks and Woods and SF was playing the run pretty well. As such, I am not sure Wilson would have made that much of an impact on the field. And Jennings scored our only TD (a kick return). Let's just say, I don't remember saying to anyone in the stands that day "wish Stanley Wilson was here". No one else did either. I remember being much more frustrated with the lackluster passing attack than anything else. 

 

'87 was weird from the start. That crazy last-play win by SF at Riverfront was like few I have ever witnessed in person. I had flashbacks this past Sunday on the twin 4th and 1's of that last idiotic sweep on 4th down Sam forced in the '87 SF game. From high to low in one fell swoop. The subsequent strike didn't sit well, and at least the fans I hung with at the time, were all vehemently anti-player--Esiason in particular. The Replacement Games were, on the other hand, actually refreshing despite the horrid lack of talent. I went to both of them at Riverfront, and even sat in my regular seats--although it would have been easy to move down to the lower levels. The team never recovered after the strike. One of the most distinct signs hanging in the endzone at the last home game was a bedsheet with "C'Ya Sam"painted on it. PB didn't blame him for the "aberration" of the season, and the next season proved that keeping him was the right thing to do. 

 

I could write books on all of the "old times" experiences. Happy to share more.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, High School Harry said:

Stanley Wilson was one 100% genuine bad asss mother bumper.  Collinsworth once said his own teammates were scared of him.

JMHO but I am convinced there was some conspiracy theory Super Bowl fixing based on getting him drugged up our of his mind

the night before.  

 

If I recall correctly, the replacement quarterback did not throw a single pass.

 

All told to me by a friend, of course.

Adrian Breen was 3-8 for 9 yards and a TD, in that show-stopping 10-9 loss to SD at Riverfront. 

 

I was sitting in my regular seat in Section 326 that day. Not another soul around me. lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stanley Wilson was a very talented RB that had a lot of trouble in his past.  He had seemed to be beyond it, but he fell off the wagon at the worst possible time.  He was popular with the team and it hurt.  
 

When Tim Krumrie went down it just seemed that fate was against us. The Bengals fought valiantly, but couldn’t make enough plays to stop Montana and the Niners.  
 

The strike pissed people off, but folks got over it quickly.  The 80s were a time where unions were on the fall.  In the 70s major unions were exposed as being mob run, so they didn’t have a lot of support.  Throw in the fact that many of us were happy to have any job and players making a lot of money didn’t get much sympathy.  We know a lot more about how much money NFL owners make today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, High School Harry said:

Stanley Wilson was one 100% genuine bad asss mother bumper.  Collinsworth once said his own teammates were scared of him.

JMHO but I am convinced there was some conspiracy theory Super Bowl fixing based on getting him drugged up our of his mind

the night before.  

 

If I recall correctly, the replacement quarterback did not throw a single pass.

 

All told to me by a friend, of course.

The smoking man?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I recall was that the Wilson news was the morning of the SB. He was the "second banana" to Brooks and was never a feature in the fullback role. He was a tough MF who got you "those" yards. If Vontaze Burfict was a fullback, he was Stanley Wilson.

You know the story, or can look it up. It was embarrassing, instead of being asked about beating the 49ers before the game, they were being asked about Stanley. He was also very charismatic... A lot of guys really cared about him and their friend was going through something. Think about the Chris Henry situation and how it affected teammates. They knew Wilson was troubled, much like we knew Chris has his demons... Didn't make it any less sad if he would have been caught smoking a joint before the Stealers game.

Someone f---ed the bride on our wedding day. It was a gut punch. A kick in the nards. And the game was close enough that you have to wonder. Even if Wilson's individual production wouldn't have tipped the scales, did he create enough of a distraction and emotional burden on a team that should have been focused on the biggest game of their life? He was certainly a convenient scapegoat in the furious aftermath.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some thoughts from this old head:

 

---The Wilson loss was massive because, as we know now, Boomer had sustained an injury to his left arm at some point late in the season that cut the heart out of the downfield passing game and the team had shifted late to being primarily reliant on defense and running game - and Wilson gave them a three-headed monster component to Brooks and Woods which was truly important late - and not having him really  REALLY hurt. We know now that they had built significant parts of the offensive gameplan for the Super Bowl on Wilson. 

 

---the strike. I remember being furious at Boomer and the players for how dug in they were - but that 1987 season had already gone off the rails from raised expectations due to the I -still-can't-speak-of-it-rationally home loss to the 49ers pre-strike. the end of that game was a coaching abomination unto God and I am still not over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, LostInDaJungle said:

What I recall was that the Wilson news was the morning of the SB. He was the "second banana" to Brooks and was never a feature in the fullback role. He was a tough MF who got you "those" yards. If Vontaze Burfict was a fullback, he was Stanley Wilson.

You know the story, or can look it up. It was embarrassing, instead of being asked about beating the 49ers before the game, they were being asked about Stanley. He was also very charismatic... A lot of guys really cared about him and their friend was going through something. Think about the Chris Henry situation and how it affected teammates. They knew Wilson was troubled, much like we knew Chris has his demons... Didn't make it any less sad if he would have been caught smoking a joint before the Stealers game.

Someone f---ed the bride on our wedding day. It was a gut punch. A kick in the nards. And the game was close enough that you have to wonder. Even if Wilson's individual production wouldn't have tipped the scales, did he create enough of a distraction and emotional burden on a team that should have been focused on the biggest game of their life? He was certainly a convenient scapegoat in the furious aftermath.

 


Part of the problem was Wilson was missing for like three days.  No one knew where he went. He was binging somewhere in Miami and possibly dead.  It was a very heavy thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though it hurt the psychology of the team more, losing Wilson for the execution portion of the game was significant as well.    Stanley was our Tom Rathman.  He was a blocking back who excelled as a receiver as well.    It altered the game plan IMHO.    Wilson averaged almost 8 carries a game during the regular season and was our junk yard dog blocking back. Pound for pound James Brooks was as good as a blocking back there is, but he was only 175 lbs.    So in a close game like SB 23.  It's impact was significant. 

 

 But the loss of Tim Krumrie as catastrophic.    He was the anchor, the guts, the heart and soul of our defense.  You can't just replace a sideline to sideline NOSE TACKLE.  David Grant played the best game of his career, I think, in that SB,   But Grant's best isn't even at the level of Krumrie's worst.

 

As far as the strike,   It had exact, zip, zero, nada effect.  I went to training camp a few times before the 1988 season and it was laughs and work and business as usual.  In fact, Boomer seemed to go out of his way to welcoming to fans and entertain them.    I have a vivid recollection of him coming to the sideline during warmup calisthenics,  and grab this 11 yo pudgy boy with a football jersey,   introduce him to the crowd as a "mini-Blados".  Plopped him next to Blados and he did a set of calisthenics with the team.   Pretty much, the fans were won back over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, High School Harry said:

Saw in a list of 2021 NFL passings that old Bengal, Neal Craig, also died.

Overlooked here, as far as I know and not sure when or the circumstances

but another old timer gone.

(of note... he "dated" a distant cousin of mine)

He was one of my favs in the early days.   Not so much because of his play, but I liked his name, Cornelius Craig.   I was just a kid, gimmee slack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, UncleEarl said:

Stanley Wilson was a very talented RB that had a lot of trouble in his past.  He had seemed to be beyond it, but he fell off the wagon at the worst possible time.  He was popular with the team and it hurt.  
 

When Tim Krumrie went down it just seemed that fate was against us. The Bengals fought valiantly, but couldn’t make enough plays to stop Montana and the Niners.  
 

The strike pissed people off, but folks got over it quickly.  The 80s were a time where unions were on the fall.  In the 70s major unions were exposed as being mob run, so they didn’t have a lot of support.  Throw in the fact that many of us were happy to have any job and players making a lot of money didn’t get much sympathy.  We know a lot more about how much money NFL owners make today. 

 

 

Even at a somewhat young age I remember that happening and all the wind in our sails just kind of fell out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Le Tigre said:

I could write books on all of the "old times" experiences. Happy to share more.  

Hell yeah, man - I love this stuff. I'm enjoying reading everyone's replies.

 

I was barely 15 during the SB 23 - seeing Krumrie's leg flop around really fucked with my head (I had not seen Theisman's break until years later). It legit soured my stomach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Cat said:

Hell yeah, man - I love this stuff. I'm enjoying reading everyone's replies.

 

I was barely 15 during the SB 23 - seeing Krumrie's leg flop around really fucked with my head (I had not seen Theisman's break until years later). It legit soured my stomach.

The play his leg was snapped, happened on the opposite side of the field from where I was--didn't see it happen. The jumbotron at Joe Robbie Stadium showed it after he was taken off, and it was a gut-puncher. I was actually sporting his #69 that day. What was noticeable after, was that David Grant came in at NT and played like a wild man--a big disrupter and had their up the middle offense frustrated the entire day. Although Timmy's influence was definitely missed, David Grant filled in very adequately.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want Krumrie in the ring of honor next year..

 

Tough as nails and played his heart out every down..

A fan favorite..

Definition of a true football warrior.

 

Hes not in the best of health so honor him while he can enjoy it..

 

What fan would object?.

I think none..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, claptonrocks said:

I want Krumrie in the ring of honor next year..

 

Tough as nails and played his heart out every down..

A fan favorite..

Definition of a true football warrior.

 

Hes not in the best of health so honor him while he can enjoy it..

 

What fan would object?.

I think none..

 

 

 

Krumrie, and Willie after that I'm open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, High School Harry said:

No disrespect to Willie but there are other, older players who are or are possibly more deserving.

Isaac Curtis jumps to mind immediately.

With the passing of Ross Browner—and his great career on the defensive line—his bookend (and a Bengals sack leader) Eddie Edwards comes to mind. 
 

image.jpeg.e1c62e04e46f571f9381c7c56fc8dd43.jpeg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...