Does Marvin have a mental illness?

[HoosierCat]

If anything, 2007 vindicated the Bengals' spending a few picks over those six years (since you're including K-wash) trying to fill out key situational spots in the offense -- and highlighted how miserably they have failed.

It's vindication if you were attempting to point out how often the Bengals have used high draft picks on the same BACKUP offensive skill positions.

Yes, and it's too bad they didn't succeed, because the lack of those "BACKUP" players last season had a catastrophic effect on the offense.

The D "has no star players, and lacks true starters at multiple positions"? Well, that's hardly from a lack of trying, right?

The salary imbalance between offensive and defensive players is well documented and won't be repeated here.

That's good, since it's irrelevant. Money follows talent, right? And where is all the talent on the team? The offense, right? There, we have multiple Pro Bowl types, while on D, as you have already pointed out, we have none. Moreover, the lack of money spent on the D versus the O is also a function of the failure of picks like Pollack and Odell. had they lived up to their promise, both would have been in line for big deals that would make the balance sheet look better.

Two-thirds of their top draft picks over the last five years have been spent squandered in an attempt to get those stars and starters. But Pollack busted his neck and Odell drank too much and Ratliff and Miller sucked and on and on.

During the same time period the Bengals have spent 4 high draft picks on backup wideouts even though both starting wideouts are established pro Bowl players. And during that same time period they also saw fit to burn TWO even more valuable draft picks on the backup RB role despite already having Rudi Johnson, who just happened to be busy breaking most of the franchises rushing records.

Now that's a comittment.

And you can't show me anything comparable on the defensive side of the ball. And that's true because there are no examples of an already strong defensive position being made even stronger by a long and steady flow of role playing high draft picks manning every important backup position....extending all of the way to the depths of 4th wideout. He'll play about 15% of the snaps, right?

Meanwhile, on defense they're still attempting to find 11 starters.

Again you ignore 2007. More than that, you ignore arguments you've made elsewhere that the Bengals are unlikely to do well this season because they have huge question marks at (among other positions) RB and WR. The problem is not that the Bngals spent a small number of high picks on "BACKUP" offensive positions over the last five seasons, it's that they failed each and every time and had to keep doing it. And the crying need to have reliable players in those slots was amply demonstrated last year.

All this is, of course, beside the main point, which is that the Bengals have spent the vast majority of their top picks and free agent dollars on defense over the last five years. Which according to you indicates a lack of commitment to the D. Uh-huh.

[TippCityRick]

Man, I'd jump into this fray (because I have strong opinions that would agree & disagree with all ya all!), but I can't keep the Hair/DC tet-a-tet separated in my mind from the Hoosier/Hair rumble in my feeble mind. Go to it boys!! All three of you have valid points and I for one am enjoying the show!!

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Man, I'd jump into this fray (because I have strong opinions that would agree & disagree with all ya all!), but I can't keep the Hair/DC tet-a-tet separated in my mind from the Hoosier/Hair rumble in my feeble mind. Go to it boys!! All three of you have valid points and I for one am enjoying the show!!

Glad we can please.

[Walrus]

If anything, 2007 vindicated the Bengals' spending a few picks over those six years (since you're including K-wash) trying to fill out key situational spots in the offense -- and highlighted how miserably they have failed.

It's vindication if you were attempting to point out how often the Bengals have used high draft picks on the same BACKUP offensive skill positions. Sheesh, what did that list have on it? A 1st and a 2nd round pick burned on RB's who were never intended to be starters. And if that weren't enough, and it should be, the team also burned a 2nd and three 3rd down picks on a non-starting WR role during the same time period.

The D "has no star players, and lacks true starters at multiple positions"? Well, that's hardly from a lack of trying, right?

The salary imbalance between offensive and defensive players is well documented and won't be repeated here. All I'll say now is how thankful I am the Bengals chose not to spend two or three high draft picks on backup FB's during this same time period.

Two-thirds of their top draft picks over the last five years have been spent squandered in an attempt to get those stars and starters. But Pollack busted his neck and Odell drank too much and Ratliff and Miller sucked and on and on.

During the same time period the Bengals have spent 4 high draft picks on backup wideouts even though both starting wideouts are established pro Bowl players. And during that same time period they also saw fit to burn TWO even more valuable draft picks on the backup RB role despite already having Rudi Johnson, who just happened to be busy breaking most of the franchises rushing records.

Now that's a comittment.

And you can't show me anything comparable on the defensive side of the ball. And that's true because there are no examples of an already strong defensive position being made even stronger by a long and steady flow of role playing high draft picks manning every important backup position....extending all of the way to the depths of 4th wideout. He'll play about 15% of the snaps, right?

Meanwhile, on defense they're still attempting to find 11 starters.

I'll just say you're conveniently ignoring the large amount of money dedicated to the O-line, including Whitworth, another "backup" drafted in the 2nd round. Was it a mistake to draft him? Was it a mistake to pay him and our other excellent linemen well?

And what about all those "backup" receivers we drafted -- you imply that TJ was a pro bowler when we drafted Kelley Washington and Chris Henry. Not true. Those guys were drafted to be starters -- we didn't know at the time that TJ would get over his injury problems once and for all and be the monster receiver he is today. And this year we pick up 2 more recievers early when "both starting wideouts are established pro Bowl players." That's a very disingenuous critique to make when everyone knows the position one of those pro bowlers had put the team in (threatening to retire at the time of the draft) and the fact that the other pro bowler is in the last year of a contract which the team may or may not want/be able to extend...

[HoosierCat]

And what about all those "backup" receivers we drafted -- you imply that TJ was a pro bowler when we drafted Kelley Washington and Chris Henry. Not true. Those guys were drafted to be starters -- we didn't know at the time that TJ would get over his injury problems once and for all and be the monster receiver he is today. And this year we pick up 2 more recievers early when "both starting wideouts are established pro Bowl players." That's a very disingenuous critique to make when everyone knows the position one of those pro bowlers had put the team in (threatening to retire at the time of the draft) and the fact that the other pro bowler is in the last year of a contract which the team may or may not want/be able to extend...

Very true. I can only add that the selection of Chris Perry was hardly a luxury at the time, either. Rudi hadn't yet shown he could be a 16-game "bell cow" and moreover was headed into the final year of his contract. The Bengals would end up franchising him in early 2005 before reaching a six-year, $25 million deal. On top of that, it should be noted that the reason we ended up with Chris Perry instead of, say, Steven Jackson, is that the Bengals traded down in order to trade for a defensive player, Deltha O'Neal!

[TippCityRick]

And in all actuality, that was the SECOND trade down that year. We started with the 18th (me thinks) pick and traded that to Denver for O'Neal and the 24th. We then traded it to go down to the 26th, and Jackson was taken by the Rams at 25. We'll never know if we really had our eye on Perry or if we wanted Jackson and got scooped . . . or if we would take whichever one the Rams didn't take. But yes, we were taking a running back because our concern was that Rudi wasn't a complete back in that he wasn't (and still isn't) a receiving threat.

[HairOnFire]

Difference is the Patriots do it every year - it's not the exception proving the rule, it IS the rule.

Bull. You offered the Troy Brown example as proof of somethig, right? Well, the only thing notable about his example relates to the way the Patriots were able to stop the bleeding at an injury ravaged position by using a WR as an emergency CB. But the Patriots most definately do NOT face those types of injury issues each season. In fact, the story of the Patriots over the last few years is a team so loaded with FA talent most believe they've wrapped up a championship by mid-March.

Oh, please. I don't care why he's [bresnahan] gone, I'm just glad the Neanderthal's in somebody else's cave. Regardless of the semantics....

If you don't care about facts, and you've admitted multiple times that you don't, you're simply admitting your rant is built on ignorance. Frankly, I've long suspected as much, but it's rare to see someone openly embrace ignorance when the facts are so easily known.

Of course not, I was asking where the hell that [aggressive gameplans] had been. I was complaining when the morons inexplicably packed away - for the rest of the season - the single best gameplan they'd had in two years.

Inexplicable? Are you seriously suggesting your dumb ass couldn't figure out why the Bengals went into a conservative shell the moment every single LB on the roster was added to the endangered species list?

If the schemes work, Bres doesn't need to go.

But what if they lack the players needed to make the more aggressive schemes work? In fact, what if a team suffers so many injuries to the very heart of their defense that even basic vanilla schemes are unlikely to suceed due to the relative inexperience of replacement players?

Pick an argument and stick to it.

Is that strategy working for you? I mean c'mon, you've seemed clueless from the very first post you've written in this thread, and since then all you've done is show disdain for facts before pretending your dumb ass can't figure out how a half dozen injuries to a teams LB corp might force them to abandon their original plans.

If you watched that defense last year and honestly thought that was the best possible even with the available players then you wouldn't be able to tell football from cornhole, and I can't help you.

How are you, a person who admits he cares nothing about facts, supposed to help someone like me?

[Spor_tees]

Well a few more examples of where the Patriots have filled in position...Vrabel at FB. Look how they handled missing Rodney Harrison to injury, and what about how they can take guys that were scrubs on other team (a la ex-Bengal Hawkins) and make them into reasonable starters. Somehow, they get it done when it needs to happen. I think part of that is having a team full of guys committed to winning and not committed to standing in line to cash their pay checks. When you have guys that are starters, and obviously some of your best athletes on your team, and they will pull double duty on the field in order to help the team win, that says something. If the Bengals have injuries at a position they will put their 10 string scrub out there and watch him get waxed by the other team. Does this happen because the coaching staff doesn't have the creative ideas of a better way to fix the situation, or is it because they are full of self absorbed primadanas and street thugs? Maybe it's a mix off all of the above.

[HairOnFire]

[quote name='HoosierCat' post='251323' date='Jul 31

Money follows talent, right? And where is all the talent on the team? The offense, right? There, we have multiple Pro Bowl types, while on D, as you have already pointed out, we have none.

[Spor_tees]

Money follows talent, right? And where is all the talent on the team? The offense, right? There, we have multiple Pro Bowl types, while on D, as you have already pointed out, we have none.

And despite all of these things, which you acknowledge without complaint, the Bengals just burned half of their highest draft assets on two players who will BACKUP the teams TWO starting Pro Bowl wideouts. By design neither player will be considered potential starters for years, and will now battle it out to see which of them gets to play more often. The winner will play roughly 30% of all offensive snaps while the loser settles for something like 15%.

And that's by design, right?

They drafted 2 WR's high for reasons you are conveniently ignoring. They had no idea on how the Chad Johnson situation was going to shake out, and TJ is a free agent after this year and will more than likely need to be replaced. Given the track record of rookie WR's starting in the NFL and the numbers they produce, it makes since to fill the need this year and then have them as a starter next year in the second year of their career. Hair you know this and you ignored it to argue your point with Hoosier...you must just be in an arguing mood!

[HairOnFire]

All this is, of course, beside the main point, which is that the Bengals have spent the vast majority of their top picks and free agent dollars on defense over the last five years. Which according to you indicates a lack of commitment to the D. Uh-huh.

You couldn't do it, could you? You couldn't think of a single example where the Bengals used a steady stream of high draft picks on a defensive position that was already secure. And that's true because about half of the defensive starting jobs are still unsettled. Yet on the offensive side of the ball I can quickly point to MULTIPLE high draft picks being burned on 3rd down RB's, 3rd or even 4th wideouts, or backup O-Lineman.

So tell me again about the teams unshakable commitment to defense.

[Spor_tees]

All this is, of course, beside the main point, which is that the Bengals have spent the vast majority of their top picks and free agent dollars on defense over the last five years. Which according to you indicates a lack of commitment to the D. Uh-huh.

You couldn't do it, could you? You couldn't think of a single example where the Bengals used a steady stream of high draft picks on a defensive position that was already secure. And that's true because about half of the defensive starting jobs are still unsettled. Yet on the offensive side of the ball I can quickly point to MULTIPLE high draft picks being burned on 3rd down RB's, 3rd or even 4th wideouts, or backup O-Lineman.

So tell me again about the teams unshakable commitment to defense.

You need to look at it another way though Hair, how many high draft picks were spent on defense at the same position where an already high draft pick was underachieving. There are plenty of those, and that is something that is unavoidable, or avoidable depending on whether you are a Marvin Lewis supporter or not. When you have a defensive team full of high draft choices yet your NFL ranking is consistently in the bottom 25% of the league, is that poor draft evaluation, or is it a sign that your coach is poor at bringing the best out of his players?

[HairOnFire]

Not true. Those guys were drafted to be starters --

Bull. Most of the players mentioned were drafted to be role players. By the Bengals own admission Washington was drafted soley as a 3rd WR, Perry was drafted to be a change-of-pace 3rd down back, Henry was drafted to fill the same 3rd WR role that Washington had once filled, Irons was drafted to be whatever it was Perry was supposed to be, and Simpson AND Caldwell were drafted to fill the same 3rd WR role that Washington and Henry once manned. Frankly, that's a crazy amount of resources used to fill part-time roles.

That's a very disingenuous critique to make when everyone knows the position one of those pro bowlers had put the team in (threatening to retire at the time of the draft) and the fact that the other pro bowler is in the last year of a contract which the team may or may not want/be able to extend... --

The Bengals have made it clear Chad isn't going anywhere, and Marvin Lewis just said re-signing TJ was the Bengals biggest priority. So what happens if things work out exactly as the Bengals hope?

No open starting jobs for years, right?

[HairOnFire]

Very true. I can only add that the selection of Chris Perry was hardly a luxury at the time, either.

Bull. The Chris Perry selection was first described as a luxury pick only a few seconds after Tag's handed Perry a Bengal hat. And it's been overwhelmingly viewed as a luxury pick from that moment on.

Rudi hadn't yet shown he could be a 16-game "bell cow" and moreover was headed into the final year of his contract.

Personally, I had no doubts about Rudi's ability to be an every down back, and have always felt the predominate reason Perry was selected in the 1st round was to gain bargaining leverage used during negotiations with Rudi, and as insurance for the possibility he couldn't be retained. And BTW, those same contract realted matters also explains why Simpson AND Caldwell are Bengals. (Just ask Walzav.)

[HairOnFire]

If the Bengals have injuries at a position they will put their 10 string scrub out there and watch him get waxed by the other team.

That's only true on defense. If the Bengals have an offensive skill position injury they can turn to all of those 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks that were burned because somebody elses contract was expiring.

[HairOnFire]

When you have a defensive team full of high draft choices yet your NFL ranking is consistently in the bottom 25% of the league, is that poor draft evaluation, or is it a sign that your coach is poor at bringing the best out of his players?

Where are the high draft choices on the defensive line? Rucker was a late 3rd. Geathers and Peko were 2nd day selections. Sheesh, Pat Sims is the highest drafted defensive lineman in the Marvin Lewis era and he was selected a full round after the Bengals made Jerome Simpson the richest #4 wideout in the NFL.

[HoosierCat]

You couldn't do it, could you? You couldn't think of a single example where the Bengals used a steady stream of high draft picks on a defensive position that was already secure.

What, you mean like drafting Hall after already having two starting CBs, including another first round pick and a Pro Bowler?

There. Happy now?

[HoosierCat]

Personally, I had no doubts about Rudi's ability to be an every down back, and have always felt the predominate reason Perry was selected in the 1st round was to gain bargaining leverage used during negotiations with Rudi, and as insurance for the possibility he couldn't be retained. And BTW, those same contract realted matters also explains why Simpson AND Caldwell are Bengals. (Just ask Walzav.)

Woah, now, watch out, you're undermining your own arguments. Make up your mind. Were Perry and Simpson and Calwell luxuries, or necessities due to contract issue? Can't have it both ways.

[membengal]

For me, drafting wide receivers high was a necessity due to three factors:

1. Chris Henry's flakiness

2. CJ and TJs age

3. CJ's tantrum.

The first two were the most important factors, as far as I was concerned.

30 isn't ancient at wide receiver, but it isn't spring chicken either, and I argued long this off-season that particular position needed fresh blood. Since the CJ draft, only Henry had been taken on the first day at WR. Seven years and one first day receiver? That is a long time between drinks of replenishment. They needed to address that position, and I am glad they did.

[HairOnFire]

Make up your mind. Were Perry and Simpson and Calwell luxuries, or necessities due to contract issue? Can't have it both ways.

It's not as hard to figure out as you're pretending. They're luxury picks that were made, in part, because of other players contract issues. And once those contract issues are resolved the so-called replacement players quickly find themselves fighting for playing time the roles of 3rd down back, 3rd wideout, or if you prefer....3rd nipple.

[HairOnFire]

.... I argued long this off-season that particular position needed fresh blood.

I remember, and you'll hear no complaint from me should you wish to begin calling yourself the first-born Bastard Son of Paul Brown.

[membengal]

I've been called worse.

[HairOnFire]

I've been called worse.

It's who we are.

All of us.

Including those of us who are nearly passed out.

[HoosierCat]

Make up your mind. Were Perry and Simpson and Calwell luxuries, or necessities due to contract issue? Can't have it both ways.

It's not as hard to figure out as you're pretending. They're luxury picks that were made, in part, because of other players contract issues.

Uh-uh. Sorry, but you don't get to redefine the word "luxury" to make your argument. By definition, a luxury is something you don't need, not something that maybe has a use.

So just to recap: we have established that the Bengals used two-thirds of their top draft picks on defense over the last five drafts. We have established that there were actual reasons for minority of the offensive picks they made during the same period (i.e. NOT luxuries). We have even established that they have, indeed, drafted defense when they already had multiple high-level players on the roster (i.e. defensive "BACKUPS"). In short, we have established that the proposition that the Bengals are not committed to building a defense is a crock of sh*t.

Case closed.

[HairOnFire]

Uh-uh. Sorry, but you don't get to redefine the word "luxury" to make your argument.

You still think you get to speak for me? What would ever let you believe you're capable of doing that?

By definition, a luxury is something you don't need, not something that maybe has a use.

So by your definition a luxury item is something that has no use whatsoever? Well that's just idiotic and ample proof of why I refuse to allow the likes of you to speak for me.

A luxury car can still be used for transportation, right? Nevermind the fact that it may be just one of a dozen cars in the driveway...you can use it for practicle reasons if you choose. Yet it's still considered a luxury item. More? A fur coat costing several million dollars can still be used for warmth. And second and third homes can always be used for shelter, especially if they're located on the beach or in close proximity to ski resorts. More? A diamond ring has no practicle use that I can think of, but people use them for lots of things....including impressing the ski pants off of the pretty girls. But all of these things are considered luxury items because their cost can't be justified as a practicle expense.

Case closed.

Well, maybe the grownups will get a chance to speak now that you're finished impressing yourself.