We beat the Ravens this week.

[derekshank]

Let me rephrase what I think in another way:

The game can play out many ways: either team gets up big, it's close throughout, it's a turnover fest, it's a shootout

Looking at this, in most scenarios I see the Ravens winning, and the limiting factor is the Ravens defense. If the Bengals get up big early, I'll give it to the Bengals. If it's a turnover fest (both teams), I'll give it to the Bengals b/c the offense is more productive than ours.

But, any other scenario, the Ravens win. There is no question about physicality and style, to state otherwise just doesn't make sense. If it's close, I'll give it to our defense to make a play. If the Ravens get up big early, then replay of last game. If the Bengals turn it over, goodnight.

A fair analysis. I very much doubt the Bengals turn it over. Palmer usually plays so well against the Ravens, and we had played 4 straight terrible games on offense coming into the Baltimore game. Now, we've played 3 straight great games on offense. I don't expect you'll see the same team (and by the way... we were in that game until the end, despite our poor play).

One thing I'll argue you on... If it's a shoot-out, we simply have more experience than you. We'll beat you in a shoot-out. But if your defense frustrates us, and we only come up with 14-17 points, the opposite is true. Our team is not as experienced in winning close, low scoring games.

[walzav29]

Palmer and this offense are on a mission. Blow out city.

[schweinhart]

If you're dominant on both sides of the ball then how were the ravens able to dominate the T.O.P. in the manner that they did?

The answer is clear that we are not "dominant" on both sides of the ball (besides... I think schweinhart was referencing the play of the lines... not the entire team). I don't think anyone would describe our defense as "dominant."

No one would describe the Bengals defense as dominant...at least with a stright face.

Yes the brutal I'm talking about is the trenches on both sides. Offensively, not just the lineman but Jeremi Johnson and Reggie Kelly decking LBs on lead blocks in the Power I, Kenny Watson on blitz pick ups sawing off LBs and safeties (no you won't see him do what Willie Parker did last week and pass on the LB off the edge for a DB up the middle).

Defensively, brutal smacks of run and the one area of improvement for the Bengals on that side of the ball has been the D-line's ability to keep the middle from opening up like a GD pasture, which has been a bane for years up until this year. They're physical and they're hard to move.

Unfortunately for the Bengals, none of this has translated into dominance on either side of the ball this year because the secondary has gotten picked apart too much from a lot of their own doing but also from the lack of pass rush and the offense sputtered while Palmer struggled to hone his aim amidst a shuffling cast of linemen and receivers.

The Ratbirds did an excellent job last game controlling the clock on offense through 3rd down conversions, including the worst to watch which was McNair making B-Rob, Thornton and finally Ahmad Brooks miss late in the game. But take away the 14 point spot to start the game, it's more like a 20-12 game and this conversation probably isn't taking place.

[walzav29]

It's funny. If the Bengals don't give up 14 points in the first 5 minutes, this game would be for the division lead. It would be the 7-4 Bengals vs the 8-3 Ravens. It's the records that are misleading. Blowout.

[Stripes]

It's funny. If the Bengals don't give up 14 points in the first 5 minutes, this game would be for the division lead. It would be the 7-4 Bengals vs the 8-3 Ravens. It's the records that are misleading. Blowout.

I like it.

If the Ravens weren't playing for the division championship, I'd probably agree... but I just can't muster that sort of confidence. If the Bengals' offense gets off to a solid start, then I'll be more inclined to think about a good butt whoopin'.