HoosierCat Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 With the proviso that offseason power rankings are about as useful as a screen door on a submarine, King ranks the Bengals at 24.24. Cincinnati. Talked to Marvin Lewis the other day (more on that conversation in the Tuesday column), and he sounded very much like this is going to be a No-More-Mr.-Nice-Guy season. It was right about that time that Kentucky authorities said starting linebacker Ahmad Brooks had a June court date for allegedly punching a woman in the face.Hey. Look on the bright side. At least Chad Johnson hasn't opened his mouth this month. Yet.Lewis made it clear the Bengals were drawing a line in the sand with Johnson, which is just another reason to think this could be a season of distractions that could once more derail the Bengals. By the way, this super offense, with the great receivers? Outscored by five points last year. Hard to imagine Cincinnati turning it around this year.All the teams between 19 and 25 are in his "could go anywhere from 6-10 to 10-6" group, which is fair IMO. Will be interesting to see what he has to say about Marvin tomorrow.Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cincyhokie Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 The Jets at 13???? Seriously, Petey. The Ravens ahead of the Bengals??? He mentions addition by subtraction for other teams but when the Bengals make changes, nothing. It's nothing new, though, even when the Bengals were winning the AFCN in 2005, King consistently had nothing to say about them other than negative comments and backhanded compliments.I would put the Bengals anyhwere between 17-20. Ahead of the Ravens and ahead of the Jets for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregstephens Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 Peter who? Oh, that's right. He's about at 24 on my power rankings of intelligent and knowledgable sports writers. Rick Riley ranks about 19, so that should give you a reference point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted May 5, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 Peter who? Oh, that's right. He's about at 24 on my power rankings of intelligent and knowledgable sports writers. Rick Riley ranks about 19, so that should give you a reference point.Well, say what you want, but the fact remains that No. 9 in the draft equates to a 24th place finish. Whether King has other teams ranked too high is another issue. We all think and hope (and, for those so inclined, pray) that the Bengals have improved, but until we get to September, nothing is proven. If anything, lumping us in a group that at least has a chance of going 10-6 is probably generous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregstephens Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 Peter who? Oh, that's right. He's about at 24 on my power rankings of intelligent and knowledgable sports writers. Rick Riley ranks about 19, so that should give you a reference point.Well, say what you want, but the fact remains that No. 9 in the draft equates to a 24th place finish. Whether King has other teams ranked too high is another issue. We all think and hope (and, for those so inclined, pray) that the Bengals have improved, but until we get to September, nothing is proven. If anything, lumping us in a group that at least has a chance of going 10-6 is probably generous.Hey, he might be right on the dot about the team's finish. We may even be worse. I subscribe to the whole 'blind squirrel finding a nut now and then' theory. Still think King's an idiot. He's not objective. He's always put down the Bengals. I'm not giving him any credit just because he happens to be right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted May 5, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 Still think King's an idiot.On that I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwedge Posted May 6, 2008 Report Share Posted May 6, 2008 Peter who? Oh, that's right. He's about at 24 on my power rankings of intelligent and knowledgable sports writers. Rick Riley ranks about 19, so that should give you a reference point.Well, say what you want, but the fact remains that No. 9 in the draft equates to a 24th place finish. Whether King has other teams ranked too high is another issue. We all think and hope (and, for those so inclined, pray) that the Bengals have improved, but until we get to September, nothing is proven. If anything, lumping us in a group that at least has a chance of going 10-6 is probably generous.Hey, he might be right on the dot about the team's finish. We may even be worse. I subscribe to the whole 'blind squirrel finding a nut now and then' theory. Still think King's an idiot. He's not objective. He's always put down the Bengals. I'm not giving him any credit just because he happens to be right now.No argument from me!! The guy is a friggin idiot... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregCook Posted May 6, 2008 Report Share Posted May 6, 2008 Peter who? Oh, that's right. He's about at 24 on my power rankings of intelligent and knowledgable sports writers. Rick Riley ranks about 19, so that should give you a reference point.Well, say what you want, but the fact remains that No. 9 in the draft equates to a 24th place finish. Whether King has other teams ranked too high is another issue. We all think and hope (and, for those so inclined, pray) that the Bengals have improved, but until we get to September, nothing is proven. If anything, lumping us in a group that at least has a chance of going 10-6 is probably generous.Hey, he might be right on the dot about the team's finish. We may even be worse. I subscribe to the whole 'blind squirrel finding a nut now and then' theory. Still think King's an idiot. He's not objective. He's always put down the Bengals. I'm not giving him any credit just because he happens to be right now.No argument from me!! The guy is a friggin idiot...Name a big name sports reporter that is not1. Lazy2. Pompass3. Rarely informed4. Peddlers of rumorsHowever, having said that, I'd be surprised if we aren't drafting ahead of #9 in 2009. They'll have too many rookies and 2ed year players starting for a good year in 2008. Look, Marvin White, Duke, Hall, Rivers, Odell, Sims, Simpson/Caldwell as likely starters or major contributors this year and all with 1 or 0 years on the field.We all saw how the offense struggled last year and its not going to be better this year. Simpson & Caldwell will take at least one year to contribute in major ways. Running backs are mostly one year older and finally, WhursChad? Injuries will be the difference maker, figure 20th with a injury free year and with normal Bengal injuries, figure 28th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalPimp Posted May 6, 2008 Report Share Posted May 6, 2008 Peter King is a TOOL.Repeat...Peter King is a TOOL.Every year the same crap. He is majorly biased, and annually ranks crappy teams fairly high because of his ties tocertain organizations(exclusive stories,breaking reports,player/coach access).That being said....NO WAY the Bengals finish last in their division.....What a TOOL!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COB Posted May 7, 2008 Report Share Posted May 7, 2008 King's NFL writing is grotesque. I'm half surprised he even bothers to write anything about Cincinnati anymore. I listen to Sirius' NFL channel a lot when I'm driving, and they rarely mention the Bengals. A steady diet of Dallas, Atlanta, Washington, and a few other large market teams dominate their coverage. That's half of it. The other half is them verbally ejaculating every time anyone mentions Bill Parcells. Ever hear Randy Cross talk about Cincinnati? He's on Sirius in the mornings. His coverage of the Bengals makes Peter King look like a Bengal cheerleader. Cross' voice just drips with contempt every time he talks about the Bengals. So, while I agree that Peter King is a tool, at least he bothers to cover the Bengals a little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakq27 Posted May 7, 2008 Report Share Posted May 7, 2008 King's NFL writing is grotesque. I'm half surprised he even bothers to write anything about Cincinnati anymore. I listen to Sirius' NFL channel a lot when I'm driving, and they rarely mention the Bengals. A steady diet of Dallas, Atlanta, Washington, and a few other large market teams dominate their coverage. That's half of it. The other half is them verbally ejaculating every time anyone mentions Bill Parcells. Ever hear Randy Cross talk about Cincinnati? He's on Sirius in the mornings. His coverage of the Bengals makes Peter King look like a Bengal cheerleader. Cross' voice just drips with contempt every time he talks about the Bengals. So, while I agree that Peter King is a tool, at least he bothers to cover the Bengals a little.Yeah Randy Cross was in the right place at the right time in SF as far as I am concerned. He has never impressed me as an analyst.King still harbors some kind of grudge from his days here in Cincinnati. I'll be somewhere along the line, the old man dressed him down and hasn't forgotten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.