Cool Cat

[Arizona]

the kid is only going to learn on the field. Whenever he starts he'll make mistakes, whether he starts this year or waits five more. It's like new drivers and accidents, not young drivers and accidents. If people didn't get their licenses until they were 20, 20 somethings would have the majority of accidents.

Your best bet for the future is to start him now, take the lumps, hell, write off the season if you need to, to develop the franchise qb that will lead your team for a decade.

actually, looking at it like that, I think you should start Kitna for the next five years...

[HoosierCat]

Once again, we're posting basically the same thing within 4 minutes of each other. I'm just going to go back to quoting you and adding ' Yeah. What he said "

Waitaminnit....why do I have to do all the work around here?

The only thing I would take slight exception with ( like last time ) is the notion that Kitna was to blame in the losses. I still think it had more to do with the poor performance of the O line than anything else.

"Blame" is a strong word, but the link between Jon's good/bad days and our wins & losses is too strong to ignore. And note it also cuts in the opposite direction: you'll get no argument from me that Kitna also carried this team in many of last year's victories. To this day I remain in awe of his performance at the end of the Pitt game, when he marched the team down the field, and on to victory, looking for all the world like the second coming of Johnny Unitas. Expecting Palmer to match that kind of performance is unrealistic, to say the least.

On the other hand, Jon had plenty of ugly games that Carson ought to be able to improve upon, even as a rook. Heck, if he just remembers to throw the ball away and preserve the FG opportunity at the end of the half...Jon, how many years you been playin' this game again?

Arizona's right: the kid will make his share of mistakes, but that's going to happen whenever he starts, and there's no better time than the present.

[Bobcat Bengal]

write off the season if you need to, to develop the franchise qb that will lead your team for a decade.

Arizona, there is no way we are writing off the season.

[redsfan2]

Once again, we're posting basically the same thing within 4 minutes of each other. I'm just going to go back to quoting you and adding    ' Yeah. What he said "

Waitaminnit....why do I have to do all the work around here?

The only thing I would take slight exception with ( like last time ) is the notion that Kitna was to blame in the losses. I still think it had more to do with the poor performance of the O line than anything else.

"Blame" is a strong word, but the link between Jon's good/bad days and our wins & losses is too strong to ignore. And note it also cuts in the opposite direction: you'll get no argument from me that Kitna also carried this team in many of last year's victories. To this day I remain in awe of his performance at the end of the Pitt game, when he marched the team down the field, and on to victory, looking for all the world like the second coming of Johnny Unitas. Expecting Palmer to match that kind of performance is unrealistic, to say the least.

On the other hand, Jon had plenty of ugly games that Carson ought to be able to improve upon, even as a rook. Heck, if he just remembers to throw the ball away and preserve the FG opportunity at the end of the half...Jon, how many years you been playin' this game again?

Arizona's right: the kid will make his share of mistakes, but that's going to happen whenever he starts, and there's no better time than the present.

Blame wasn't the best choice in words for what I was getting at.

An additional link that is too strong to overlook is the one that Kitnas poor performances were accompanied by poor performances by the runnning backs .......... both imho for the same reason ... poor play by the offensive line. We all know that when Kitna was pressured, that he didn't rattle but what he did do was try to play above his abilities and do too much. Since we all noticed it and talked about it, it's pretty safe to assume that the guys who plan defenses for a living picked up on it as well. He wasn't panicking, but he was still making bad judgements which had the same result.

If Palmer is going to have an advantage, I think it'll be the mindset in a second and long situation. I think Palmer won't be as apt to press because he'll have more faith in his ability to stretch the field. In spite of what Kitna says, he knew he couldn't do that effectively. He'll be more apt to take the short completion or even throw it away because he knows he'll be able to come back and give it another shot on 3rd down. Again, I don't think Palmer will be perfect, but I do think he'll be consistently competent and not cost us a lot of games. That's about as good as you can expect from year 1 of on the field competition.

Arizonas last sentence is probably our best assurance that it's time to start Palmer. The competition doesn't want to think about having to deal with him after he gets some on field experience.

[Barbarian]

And with the season that Kitna had last year, why not shelf Palmer for one more season???

Or, on the other hand, with the year Kitna had last year, why not start Palmer? Aren't you the one insisting that their "mediocre" 8-8 record doesn't prove anything and they're still "Bungles"? Well, as I've pointed out numerous times before, the most direct correlation between the Bengals' winning and losing last year was the good or bad performance of one Jon Kitna. The defense averaged almost exactly the same number of points allowed in our 8 wins versus our 8 losses; however the offense scored something like 30 points, on average, in our 8 wins versus about 13 in our 8 losses. In the 8 wins, Kit was something like 10 to 1 TDs vs INTs, in the 8 losses he was around 2 to 1 INTs to TDs.

So, how do you know that Carson isn't going to fall flat on his ass???

How do you know that Kitna would get any better? "Mediocre," you keep telling us, isn't good enough, and Jon was one of the biggest (if not the biggest) reason we were "mediocre" last season. In fact, history argues he'll slip: he led Seattle to the playoffs in 1999 with a 23 TD, 16 INT performance -- then the Hags went 6-10 the following year while he threw 19 INTs to 18 TDs.

Starting Palmer this year has Mike Brown written all over it.

Starting Palmer makes sense both financially and in football terms. By the time Palmer lines up behind center against the Jets this fall, he will have had the equivalent of three training camps' worth of snaps (thanks to all the extra camps Marvin got as a rookie coach) as well as time in some/all of 8 preseason games. With the likes of Lewis, Zampese and Kitna around, he has coaching/mentoring that's second to none in the league. He has a Pro Bowl WR and a solid wideout corps to throw to, a solid RB with a first round pick for depth -- and a bulldozing FB -- to take the pressure off the passing game, and the best offensive line the Bengals have fielded in many a long season. In short (too late) unlike most rookie QBs, who get thrown into the fire on crappy teams, Palmer is stepping into a rookie QB's dream scenario. There is absolutely no reason to expect failure and every reason to expect at least modest success. As for the greatness...it'll come.

Once again, we're posting basically the same thing within 4 minutes of each other. I'm just going to go back to quoting you and adding ' Yeah. What he said "

The only thing I would take slight exception with ( like last time ) is the notion that Kitna was to blame in the losses. I still think it had more to do with the poor performance of the O line than anything else. Some better play calling wouldn't have hurt either ...... but that's another topic.

Ok, Redsfan--all good points. I have one more argument, then I quit.

What if you put a defense behind Kitna??? One that doesn't give up 140 yards on the ground to some no-name named Shipp??? One that doesn't "almost" give up the game at Baltimore??? One that can stop somebody on the ground.

Theoretically, the Bungles are going to have the same problems as last year--and that's stopping someone on the ground defensively. It doesn't matter which "Klingler" you have in there taking the snaps.

I totally agree that placing the blame on Kitna for the losses last year was misplaced blame. It should have been on the defense. They couldn't stop anyone.

[redsfan2]

And with the season that Kitna had last year, why not shelf Palmer for one more season???

Or, on the other hand, with the year Kitna had last year, why not start Palmer? Aren't you the one insisting that their "mediocre" 8-8 record doesn't prove anything and they're still "Bungles"? Well, as I've pointed out numerous times before, the most direct correlation between the Bengals' winning and losing last year was the good or bad performance of one Jon Kitna. The defense averaged almost exactly the same number of points allowed in our 8 wins versus our 8 losses; however the offense scored something like 30 points, on average, in our 8 wins versus about 13 in our 8 losses. In the 8 wins, Kit was something like 10 to 1 TDs vs INTs, in the 8 losses he was around 2 to 1 INTs to TDs.

So, how do you know that Carson isn't going to fall flat on his ass???

How do you know that Kitna would get any better? "Mediocre," you keep telling us, isn't good enough, and Jon was one of the biggest (if not the biggest) reason we were "mediocre" last season. In fact, history argues he'll slip: he led Seattle to the playoffs in 1999 with a 23 TD, 16 INT performance -- then the Hags went 6-10 the following year while he threw 19 INTs to 18 TDs.

Starting Palmer this year has Mike Brown written all over it.

Starting Palmer makes sense both financially and in football terms. By the time Palmer lines up behind center against the Jets this fall, he will have had the equivalent of three training camps' worth of snaps (thanks to all the extra camps Marvin got as a rookie coach) as well as time in some/all of 8 preseason games. With the likes of Lewis, Zampese and Kitna around, he has coaching/mentoring that's second to none in the league. He has a Pro Bowl WR and a solid wideout corps to throw to, a solid RB with a first round pick for depth -- and a bulldozing FB -- to take the pressure off the passing game, and the best offensive line the Bengals have fielded in many a long season. In short (too late) unlike most rookie QBs, who get thrown into the fire on crappy teams, Palmer is stepping into a rookie QB's dream scenario. There is absolutely no reason to expect failure and every reason to expect at least modest success. As for the greatness...it'll come.

Once again, we're posting basically the same thing within 4 minutes of each other. I'm just going to go back to quoting you and adding ' Yeah. What he said "

The only thing I would take slight exception with ( like last time ) is the notion that Kitna was to blame in the losses. I still think it had more to do with the poor performance of the O line than anything else. Some better play calling wouldn't have hurt either ...... but that's another topic.

Ok, Redsfan--all good points. I have one more argument, then I quit.

What if you put a defense behind Kitna??? One that doesn't give up 140 yards on the ground to some no-name named Shipp??? One that doesn't "almost" give up the game at Baltimore??? One that can stop somebody on the ground.

Theoretically, the Bungles are going to have the same problems as last year--and that's stopping someone on the ground defensively. It doesn't matter which "Klingler" you have in there taking the snaps.

I totally agree that placing the blame on Kitna for the losses last year was misplaced blame. It should have been on the defense. They couldn't stop anyone.

Hell don't quit now. This is why we're all here and we're finally coming to some common ground. Before I go on though ..... these are Joiseys comments and not mine. Mine were similar but these are his so " all good points " props go to Joisey.

Defense needs to step up and that's not going to get an argument from me. Whether it improves or not reamins to be seen, but like I said on another thread I know of some defensive coaches who better hope it does or it's their ass.

Joisey does make a good point that the points we gave up in our wins and losses aren't that far apart, but to me that's kinda beside the point. Your offense shouldn't have to score every time they get the ball in order to win the game. In at least one other game .... namely Arizona, the score wasn't that high and we still couldn't get a win that we clearly should have. In Oakland it was an int followed by the D's inability to stop the Raiders ..... same in Buffalo when a guy who hadn't caught a ball all day burned us on 4th and a mile.

Team losses are like team wins ....... they are both team efforts. Since we had as many wins as losses, it's pretty easy to cite an example of the offense / defense stepping up for every time they didn't.

The whole team has to get better. It was better last year than the year before. LeBeau's team would have finished last years schedule as probably the first team to go 0 and 16. The players knew that the coaches not only didn't know what they were doing .... but didn't care as well. This team knows that Lewis wants to win and that if they don't contribute they will go the way of Spikes ... Dillon .... Foley .... O'dwyer and about 31 other guys. Yeah ... I know I'm an optimist, but I'm a realist as well. For the first time in years I know that I know the guys on the team will either play better or be replaced by others who will. At the very least, I won't have to sit and watch underhanded left handed shovel passes from confused right handed quarterbacks who go back to the sideline and get a pat on the back instaed of a kick in the ass.

[HoosierCat]

We all know that when Kitna was pressured, that he didn't rattle but what he did do was try to play above his abilities and do too much. Since we all noticed it and talked about it, it's pretty safe to assume that the guys who plan defenses for a living picked up on it as well. He wasn't panicking, but he was still making bad judgements which had the same result.

If Palmer is going to have an advantage, I think it'll be the mindset in a second and long situation. I think Palmer won't be as apt to press because he'll have more faith in his ability to stretch the field. In spite of what Kitna says, he knew he couldn't do that effectively. He'll be more apt to take the short completion or even throw it away because he knows he'll be able to come back and give it another shot on 3rd down. Again, I don't think Palmer will be perfect, but I do think he'll be consistently competent and not cost us a lot of games. That's about as good as you can expect from year 1 of on the field competition.

What he said.

[HoosierCat]

What if you put a defense behind Kitna??? One that doesn't give up 140 yards on the ground to some no-name named Shipp??? One that doesn't "almost" give up the game at Baltimore??? One that can stop somebody on the ground.

Theoretically, the Bungles are going to have the same problems as last year--and that's stopping someone on the ground defensively. It doesn't matter which "Klingler" you have in there taking the snaps.

I totally agree that placing the blame on Kitna for the losses last year was misplaced blame. It should have been on the defense. They couldn't stop anyone.

As I said in a long-ago (what, about 3 months) discussion with Kirk, even the '85 Bears defense would have had a tough time going 8-8 when the offense averages less than 2 TDs a game half the time. Was it the defenses's fault that we lost the first game vs. Pitt last year? They only gave up 17 points...but we could only score 10. How about the infamous Arizona game? Another 17 point performance by the D sunk by 14 on the offense's part. Thank gawd for Peter Warrick or we might have lost the KC game. The D held the unbeaten Chiefs to 19 points but the offense could only score 17...it was Warrick's 68 yard punt return for 7 that made the difference. And let's not even revisit that Buffalo disaster...

The defense needs improvement, yes, but the bottom line is that the winning team is the one that scores the most points. Even a better D might not have helped much last year because of our offensive ups and downs, whether you want to blame them on Kitna, play calling, the o-line, or other demon of your choice.

[redsfan2]

We all know that when Kitna was pressured, that he didn't rattle but what he did do was try to play above his abilities and do too much. Since we all noticed it and talked about it, it's pretty safe to assume that the guys who plan defenses for a living picked up on it as well. He wasn't panicking, but he was still making bad judgements which had the same result.

If Palmer is going to have an advantage, I think it'll be the mindset in a second and long situation. I think Palmer won't be as apt to press because he'll have more faith in his ability to stretch the field. In spite of what Kitna says, he knew he couldn't do that effectively. He'll be more apt to take the short completion or even throw it away because he knows he'll be able to come back and give it another shot on 3rd down. Again, I don't think Palmer will be perfect, but I do think he'll be consistently competent and not cost us a lot of games. That's about as good as you can expect from year 1 of on the field competition.

What he said.

I had that one coming.

[Barbarian]

What if you put a defense behind Kitna???  One that doesn't give up 140 yards on the ground to some no-name named Shipp???  One that doesn't "almost" give up the game at Baltimore???  One that can stop somebody on the ground.

Theoretically, the Bungles are going to have the same problems as last year--and that's stopping someone on the ground defensively.  It doesn't matter which "Klingler" you have in there taking the snaps.

I totally agree that placing the blame on Kitna for the losses last year was misplaced blame.  It should have been on the defense.  They couldn't stop anyone.

As I said in a long-ago (what, about 3 months) discussion with Kirk, even the '85 Bears defense would have had a tough time going 8-8 when the offense averages less than 2 TDs a game half the time. Was it the defenses's fault that we lost the first game vs. Pitt last year? They only gave up 17 points...but we could only score 10. How about the infamous Arizona game? Another 17 point performance by the D sunk by 14 on the offense's part. Thank gawd for Peter Warrick or we might have lost the KC game. The D held the unbeaten Chiefs to 19 points but the offense could only score 17...it was Warrick's 68 yard punt return for 7 that made the difference. And let's not even revisit that Buffalo disaster...

The defense needs improvement, yes, but the bottom line is that the winning team is the one that scores the most points. Even a better D might not have helped much last year because of our offensive ups and downs, whether you want to blame them on Kitna, play calling, the o-line, or other demon of your choice.

Wait a sec, Joisey.

On the Arizona Game--in the final quarter, the only thing the "defense" had to do was make a stop. Instead, the "defense" let the Arizona "offense" make a 7-minute drive against them.

How is this the offense's fault???

Better yet, how is this Jon Kitna's fault???

[Kirkendall]

When the Bengals offense had problems, I really don't think it was player related, rather Bob Bratkowski (sp) had a horrible time trying to stay calm and relaxed. He threw way too many times in games we were down only by a TD or FG and forgot about about the running game. I hope his formula changes next season.

[HoosierCat]

Wait a sec, Joisey.

On the Arizona Game--in the final quarter, the only thing the "defense" had to do was make a stop. Instead, the "defense" let the Arizona "offense" make a 7-minute drive against them.

How is this the offense's fault???

Better yet, how is this Jon Kitna's fault???

Yup, the D gave up a 7-minute drive -- in the third quarter. After which, despite the blazing heat of the Arizona desert, they clamped down and zeroed the Cards out for the remainder of the game. By contrast, the Bengals offense put up a big fat goose egg in the second half of the game (and Kirk's right that, especially after piling up 14 points in the first half, that suggests some serious coaching issues with Brat and halftime adjustments). As for Jon, he was vintage Kitna that day: 2 picks to 1 TD pass, and a couple of fumbles (neither, thankfully, lost). The offense was an anemic 30% on 3rd downs and 0-1 on 4th-down attempts. The running game was almost nonexistent; Rudi did score but had only about 35 yards total; Dillon had 5.

Now...looking back at a game like that...are the offensive changes set for 2005 any real surprise? Palmer can throw picks and fumble just as well as Jon, I'm sure. Obviously the o-line and the run game weren't distinguishing themselves, thus we have a new first-round pick in the backfield and two new o-linemen. I think it's pretty clear that Marvin & Co. are determined to stamp out the boom/bust nature of last year's offense, even if that means trading a little bit of the "boom" for a little less "bust." Like the old saying goes, the best defense is a good offense, and if we can get an offense that can consistently score points, that will free up the D to be more aggressive with blitzes and going after the ball in coverage.

I'm not trying to absolve the defense of its share of blame for last year's 8-8 record, but simply pointing out that the D was consistently, constantly poor and that the offense, when it went out and executed, consistently overcame the poor defensive performance and carried the team to victory. The problem was that the offense could not go out and execute consistently -- and this despite being in the same system with many of the same skill players and same coaches for three straight years. The $64K question is whether this failure to execute is primarily a coaching/playcalling-related issue, as Kirk suggests, or a player-related issue, as Marvin appears to believe given the retention of Brat and the offensive player decisions made so far this offseason?

[kevnz]

The $64K question is whether this failure to execute is primarily a coaching/playcalling-related issue, as Kirk suggests, or a player-related issue, as Marvin appears to believe given the retention of Brat and the offensive player decisions made so far this offseason?

Both. With the offseason additions I think Marvin has said that they need to run more to help Carson...I think a lot of Brat's problems were that he had too much faith in Kitna, but with a young QB in there he might want to slow it down a bit more.

[Barbarian]

The $64K question is whether this failure to execute is primarily a coaching/playcalling-related issue, as Kirk suggests, or a player-related issue, as Marvin appears to believe given the retention of Brat and the offensive player decisions made so far this offseason?

Both. With the offseason additions I think Marvin has said that they need to run more to help Carson...I think a lot of Brat's problems were that he had too much faith in Kitna, but with a young QB in there he might want to slow it down a bit more.

I hope you're right about that Kev. Palmer is going to struggle at first (that's a given--most 1st time starting NFL QBs do)--so the Bungles need to rely on the running game.

Drunkowski pissed me off a few times last year with his play calling. A couple of failed runs, and it was "pass happy" time for the Offense. I was reminded of the "nifty" playcalling at OSU during the John Cooper Years (ala Matt Keller up the middle for 3 consecutive times).

I can never understand the Bob Drunkowski playcalling. When you had Corey Dillon as a RB (other than last year), how do you let a game get away from you??? It's baffling.

As for this year, I agree totally--keep the ball on the ground and give Palmer a chance to slowly integrate in the offense.

Let's just hope Rudi turns out to be the man.

[schweinhart]

The off. gameplan last year in the last 2 games was more than baffling. It was GD idiocy.

Why all the 1st down passing against the Rams when Warrick is out, the Rams ML is out, their best pass rusher DE on your strong side to run is weak against the run, and you have a back who is running through and past people?

But I still don't think run, run, run is the answer in 2004. Palmer is handling his situation more like Aikman than Leaf and the year of mental prep on the sidelines will serve him well.

The answer I see is more outlet options for Palmer off a few simple sets, with one being a 3 WR set of small fasties (Johnson & Johnson & Warrick) like the Pats bread and butter. Run Chad vertical and the other two straight at an LB or CB in zone then they split. This freezes the LBs and safeties, which would help Chad and the run. The Pats got two rings with this and simplified things for Brady without the need for a feature RB. With Kevin Faulk they have a pass situation RB who can also run the ball to further keep defenses off balance. We had one in Bennett, but Watson will have to do until Perry proves he's the one for the job.

[redsfan2]

The $64K question is whether this failure to execute is primarily a coaching/playcalling-related issue, as Kirk suggests, or a player-related issue, as Marvin appears to believe given the retention of Brat and the offensive player decisions made so far this offseason?

The " so far " is the key point in this statement. He's sticking with these guys ... so far. They've evidently convinced him that they could have gotten the job done with the schemes they were using if only they'd had better players to work with.

Well .... he got them their new players and if they don't show significant improvement, guess who is going to find they're on the top step of the guillotine ?????????? It may start with position coaches, but believe me it'll end up with the coordinators if it comes to that. :player: