It sucks to be right all the time

[gregstephens]

Well, whaddya know? Kenny Watson CAN be a feature back AND the Bengals can win by running the football more. Who's your daddy? Who's your daddy?

[BengalBax]

Well, whaddya know? Kenny Watson CAN be a feature back AND the Bengals can win by running the football more. Who's your daddy? Who's your daddy?

I love it bro. Keep it coming!

[bengalboomer7]

Kenny had a good game against a team that had only four healthy defensive lineman by the time the game ended and was already the worst D in the league. He's been in the league awhile it would have happened already. He's a good, solid, backup, so let's not get carried away.

[gregstephens]

Kenny had a good game against a team that had only four healthy defensive lineman by the time the game ended and was already the worst D in the league. He's been in the league awhile it would have happened already. He's a good, solid, backup, so let's not get carried away.

<Doin' the Cabbage Patch, not feelin' the negative vibes>

Whoop whoop! Whoop whoop!

[HoosierCat]

Well, whaddya know? Kenny Watson CAN be a feature back AND the Bengals can win by running the football more. Who's your daddy? Who's your daddy?

Before you break your arm patting yourself on the back, you should know that there was no shortage of posters here who have been calling for more Watson, more D3, and less Rudi.

As for whether they can win by running more, yes -- but today was a poor example of that. They won today because the Bengals' MVP was Derek Anderson. Both Bengals' TDs came off turnovers that set them up deep in Cleveland territory, the first at the Cleveland 5, the second at the Cleveland 20. Outside of those 25 yards and 13 points, the "mighty" Bengals offense, even with Watson's performance, managed 245 yards and 6 points.

This game said very little about the run game. It said a whole hell of a lot about the Bengals' ability to win when they get a boatload of turnovers. But we knew that back in 2005.

[gregstephens]

Well, whaddya know? Kenny Watson CAN be a feature back AND the Bengals can win by running the football more. Who's your daddy? Who's your daddy?

Before you break your arm patting yourself on the back, you should know that there was no shortage of posters here who have been calling for more Watson, more D3, and less Rudi.

As for whether they can win by running more, yes -- but today was a poor example of that. They won today because the Bengals' MVP was Derek Anderson. Both Bengals' TDs came off turnovers that set them up deep in Cleveland territory, the first at the Cleveland 5, the second at the Cleveland 20. Outside of those 25 yards and 13 points, the "mighty" Bengals offense, even with Watson's performance, managed 245 yards and 6 points.

This game said very little about the run game. It said a whole hell of a lot about the Bengals' ability to win when they get a boatload of turnovers. But we knew that back in 2005.

First of all, my 'arm breaking' comes as a result of an exchange I had with EndTheDrought2007 on a thread called 'What the...', so, while I appreciate your concern, it doesn't directly relate to you. I know many folks have called for Kenny and/or DeDe--I do read the board.

Second, you sound like one of the typical Bengals nay-sayers that find bad in everything by the end of the season. Not saying I blame you, as I know how frustrating the Bengals roller coaster can be. However, I disagree with your analysis of the game. How can you possibly say today was a bad example of winning by running more? Today was a great example of the value of a running game. Without Watson's 130 yards on the ground and one touchdown, we lose the game. He gave us six points on the touchdown, and his running helped put us in field goal position both times. If this had been last week's crappy running performance, the Bengals cannot win that game. I also don't agree with you about the impact of the turnovers. They gave us four turnovers, only one of which directly led to points (the touchdown). We gave the ball back to them three times. The net impact isn't a 'boatload of turnovers'--it's plus one. Granted, that one led to our six points, putting us in the lead, but the turnovers didn't decide the game by themselves.

At the tail end of a crappy season, enjoy the moment. Shake the negative out of your fingertips.

[HoosierCat]

How can you possibly say today was a bad example of winning by running more?

Because most of the running was for naught. Without those two picks that set the team up at the 5 and 20, Watson still easily breaks 100 yards, but has no TDs and the Bengals lose 14-6.

[gregstephens]

How can you possibly say today was a bad example of winning by running more?

Because most of the running was for naught. Without those two picks that set the team up at the 5 and 20, Watson still easily breaks 100 yards, but has no TDs and the Bengals lose 14-6.

130 yards on the ground is never for naught. Even discounting the points that were the result of the Watson's runs, you are ignoring the fact that Watson kept the Bengals offense on the field and the Browns offense off, except for that third quarter. If Watson doesn't get those yards and chew up that clock, the Browns would eventually wear down our defense and put more points on the board.

[HoosierCat]

Even discounting the points that were the result of the Watson's runs, you are ignoring the fact that Watson kept the Bengals offense on the field and the Browns offense off, except for that third quarter. If Watson doesn't get those yards and chew up that clock, the Browns would eventually wear down our defense and put more points on the board.

Actually, Cleveland won TOP 33-27. Hardly a case of the Bengals chewing up the clock via the run (no surprise since most of Watson's yards came in he first half). And you ignore the bottom line: that almost all of Watson's run yards led to...6 points.

To return to the point in your OP, we did not win because we ran the football more. We won because Derek Anderson picked today to implode, and Hall and Nduke were in position to take advantage -- and did.

That isn't to say the Bengals don't need to run more...they do. But again, this game is a poor example to use to illustrate that point.

[DuffMan]

that fumble didn't help...

[ArmyBengal]

Hmmmmm, Kenny Watson has his two best games against two of the worst defenses in the league in the Jets and the Browns and suddenly he's a "feature" back ?? Not hardly... While I love seeing the running game and like the fact Watson has been at least solid, I'm not ready say anything more than that. How can you ?? Hell, they almost found a way to lose that game and Watson's fumble towards the end of the game giving the Browns one last attempt at winning was hardly a good thing.

While I'm not one of those who "likes" to look at the bad, I just don't see how it can be so rosey from the other perspective.

Watson = Backup

WHODEY !!!

[gregstephens]

Hmmmmm, Kenny Watson has his two best games against two of the worst defenses in the league in the Jets and the Browns and suddenly he's a "feature" back ?? Not hardly... While I love seeing the running game and like the fact Watson has been at least solid, I'm not ready say anything more than that. How can you ?? Hell, they almost found a way to lose that game and Watson's fumble towards the end of the game giving the Browns one last attempt at winning was hardly a good thing.

While I'm not one of those who "likes" to look at the bad, I just don't see how it can be so rosey from the other perspective.

Watson = Backup

WHODEY !!!

What is wrong with you people? What has Watson done or not done that shows you he CAN'T be a feature NFL back? I mean, he has 694 yards this season in limited playing time, six rushing touchdowns, two 130 yards rushing games, and is averaging 4.4 yards per carry on the season. You think his successes are only against lousy defenses? In two games against Pittsburgh, he averaged 4.6 yards per carry. 88 yards on 19 carries in game one, 23 yards on a mere 5 carries in game two. He averaged 4.2 yards per carry in 13 carries against the vaunted Patriots. He also has 363 yards receiving this season, giving him a total of over 1,000 all purpose yards on the year. Yeah, he lost a fumble in the Browns game, and fumbled three times this season--same as Rudi Johnson this season, but you only get 2.9 yards per carry and three rushing touchdowns with Rudi. Has Watson proven he is a feature back? No, because, despite his successes, Marvin won't commit to giving him a legitimate shot. So how can I say he's anything more than solid? I watch the games! He's explosive and moves the chains. He's physical. He can catch and make good gains on dump plays. If he had 330 + carries a season, he'd be a feature back. Do the math.

[rwalling]

Well, whaddya know? Kenny Watson CAN be a feature back AND the Bengals can win by running the football more. Who's your daddy? Who's your daddy?

I suppose if you extend that to being a self-important, arrogant tool, I agree it must suck to be you.

[gregstephens]

Even discounting the points that were the result of the Watson's runs, you are ignoring the fact that Watson kept the Bengals offense on the field and the Browns offense off, except for that third quarter. If Watson doesn't get those yards and chew up that clock, the Browns would eventually wear down our defense and put more points on the board.

Actually, Cleveland won TOP 33-27. Hardly a case of the Bengals chewing up the clock via the run (no surprise since most of Watson's yards came in he first half). And you ignore the bottom line: that almost all of Watson's run yards led to...6 points.

To return to the point in your OP, we did not win because we ran the football more. We won because Derek Anderson picked today to implode, and Hall and Nduke were in position to take advantage -- and did.

That isn't to say the Bengals don't need to run more...they do. But again, this game is a poor example to use to illustrate that point.

Cleveland won the time of possession, but if Watson doesn't move those chains and get those yards in the first half, Cincinnati produces so many more of its trademark 'three and outs' they are famous for, giving the Browns more opportunities and more points. The passing game was total crap Sunday. If the running game had either fizzled or not been used, as in the Niners game, the Bengals would have been down by half, playing catch-up the rest of the game, which they can no longer play. And you are wrong about the points. Watson's success on the ground led directly to six points, but moved the team within position for at least one of the field goals, thus nine of nineteen points in a game that was won by only five.

We didn't win because Anderson imploded because, guess what? So did Palmer. They cancel each other out. If two or three of those picks would've went back for touchdowns, like Carson and Arizona, I'd agree with you. They didn't. We held on to win, not exclusively, but due in large part, to a solid running game in the first half of the game. Without that running game, Cleveland gets more shots at the ball in the first half and starts putting points on the board. While the defense played well in picking off Anderson, any sound football coach or expert will tell you you cannot rely on that to win games.

[gregstephens]

Well, whaddya know? Kenny Watson CAN be a feature back AND the Bengals can win by running the football more. Who's your daddy? Who's your daddy?

I suppose if you extend that to being a self-important, arrogant tool, I agree it must suck to be you.

And you must live a miserable life if you only reply to a forum post to be an insulting, non-productive prick. Everyone else here on this thread has had good, spirited football conversation based on facts and well-reasoned opinions, even if they don't all agree. Either offer up something constructive and analytical, or go screw yourself.

[Who?]

Even discounting the points that were the result of the Watson's runs, you are ignoring the fact that Watson kept the Bengals offense on the field and the Browns offense off, except for that third quarter. If Watson doesn't get those yards and chew up that clock, the Browns would eventually wear down our defense and put more points on the board.

Actually, Cleveland won TOP 33-27. Hardly a case of the Bengals chewing up the clock via the run (no surprise since most of Watson's yards came in he first half). And you ignore the bottom line: that almost all of Watson's run yards led to...6 points.

To return to the point in your OP, we did not win because we ran the football more. We won because Derek Anderson picked today to implode, and Hall and Nduke were in position to take advantage -- and did.

That isn't to say the Bengals don't need to run more...they do. But again, this game is a poor example to use to illustrate that point.

Cleveland won the time of possession, but if Watson doesn't move those chains and get those yards in the first half, Cincinnati produces so many more of its trademark 'three and outs' they are famous for, giving the Browns more opportunities and more points. The passing game was total crap Sunday. If the running game had either fizzled or not been used, as in the Niners game, the Bengals would have been down by half, playing catch-up the rest of the game, which they can no longer play. And you are wrong about the points. Watson's success on the ground led directly to six points, but moved the team within position for at least one of the field goals, thus nine of nineteen points in a game that was won by only five.

We didn't win because Anderson imploded because, guess what? So did Palmer. They cancel each other out. If two or three of those picks would've went back for touchdowns, like Carson and Arizona, I'd agree with you. They didn't. We held on to win, not exclusively, but due in large part, to a solid running game in the first half of the game. Without that running game, Cleveland gets more shots at the ball in the first half and starts putting points on the board. While the defense played well in picking off Anderson, any sound football coach or expert will tell you you cannot rely on that to win games.

You didn't win because Anderson imploded? Are you kidding me? He literally gave your offensive 14 points, the game wouldn't have been close had Anderson not been a jackass on his last two passes of the first half.

[gregstephens]

Even discounting the points that were the result of the Watson's runs, you are ignoring the fact that Watson kept the Bengals offense on the field and the Browns offense off, except for that third quarter. If Watson doesn't get those yards and chew up that clock, the Browns would eventually wear down our defense and put more points on the board.

Actually, Cleveland won TOP 33-27. Hardly a case of the Bengals chewing up the clock via the run (no surprise since most of Watson's yards came in he first half). And you ignore the bottom line: that almost all of Watson's run yards led to...6 points.

To return to the point in your OP, we did not win because we ran the football more. We won because Derek Anderson picked today to implode, and Hall and Nduke were in position to take advantage -- and did.

That isn't to say the Bengals don't need to run more...they do. But again, this game is a poor example to use to illustrate that point.

Cleveland won the time of possession, but if Watson doesn't move those chains and get those yards in the first half, Cincinnati produces so many more of its trademark 'three and outs' they are famous for, giving the Browns more opportunities and more points. The passing game was total crap Sunday. If the running game had either fizzled or not been used, as in the Niners game, the Bengals would have been down by half, playing catch-up the rest of the game, which they can no longer play. And you are wrong about the points. Watson's success on the ground led directly to six points, but moved the team within position for at least one of the field goals, thus nine of nineteen points in a game that was won by only five.

We didn't win because Anderson imploded because, guess what? So did Palmer. They cancel each other out. If two or three of those picks would've went back for touchdowns, like Carson and Arizona, I'd agree with you. They didn't. We held on to win, not exclusively, but due in large part, to a solid running game in the first half of the game. Without that running game, Cleveland gets more shots at the ball in the first half and starts putting points on the board. While the defense played well in picking off Anderson, any sound football coach or expert will tell you you cannot rely on that to win games.

You didn't win because Anderson imploded? Are you kidding me? He literally gave your offensive 14 points, the game wouldn't have been close had Anderson not been a jackass on his last two passes of the first half.

Palmer imploded too. Those picks don't mean a thing if you don't capitalize. As the Bengals have shown this season, they can force turnovers, only to go three and out and not take advantage.

[Spor_tees]

Comparing Anderson's 4 picks, 2 of which came on consecutive throws to end the half, versus Palmer's 2 picks....no those do not cancel each other out

[gregstephens]

I can't believe any of you people think the Bengals win that game on a seventy yard rushing day. No one has discredited the defense efforts in the game, and yes Anderson's interceptions impacted the game, as did Palmer's. If you think we could have run the ball like we did in San Francisco and still won that game, you are dilusional.

[HoosierCat]

I can't believe any of you people think the Bengals win that game on a seventy yard rushing day.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. But they definitely don't win if Anderson doesn't throw two picks that set our anemic O up for easy scores. It's just that simple.