Does Marvin have a mental illness?

[HoosierCat]

Again: are you seriously arguing that the fact the team paid guys like Palmer, Levi, Chad and TJ is proof that they aren't committed to the defense?

Sorry, but you're playing with your own strawman. Keep it up and you'll go blind.

You're the only poster who has mentioned Palmer or Levi, and we both know you did so only for the purpose of douchebaggery.

Well, then you'll have to enlighten me as to who you were referring to here:

You deliberately framed your question in a way that demands the reader ignore the vast number of offensive free agents the Bengals had kept over the years

If that's not Carson, Willie, Chad et.al., who is it?

To which you keep responding along the lines of..."It doesn't matter if the defense is poorly ranked or that it is has never performed at a high level.

I haven't mentioned the Bengals defensive ranking because it isn't relevant. You can be committed to something and still fail miserably at it -- and the Bengals defense is exhibit A. Take the LB corps (please!). During Marvin's tenure, they've drafted 8 LBs, including two first rounders, a second, and three thirds. On top of that they have lavished FA dollars on 'backers inside and out: extending Simmons, and bringing Hardy, Webster and most recently Jones in as starters. They also imported Jeanty from Canada. That's a baker's (backer's?) dozen right there, and we haven't even mentioned the various passers-by over the years, like Schlegal or Hannibal Navies. Far from indicating a lack of commitment, that's a pretty damn impressive investment in money and resources. That it hasn't worked has to do with a combination of bad choices and bad luck, not for any lack of trying.

[HairOnFire]

Again: are you seriously arguing that the fact the team paid guys like Palmer, Levi, Chad and TJ is proof that they aren't committed to the defense?

Sorry, but you're playing with your own strawman. Keep it up and you'll go blind.

Well, then you'll have to enlighten me as to who you were referring to here:

You deliberately framed your question in a way that demands the reader ignore the vast number of offensive free agents the Bengals had kept over the years

If that's not Carson, Willie, Chad et.al., who is it?

I know this is hard for you, but try to keep up.

Let's offered a disingenuous rant about how few FA's had been added to the Bengals from other teams.....puposely ignoring the nearly endless stream of elite level offensive FA's the team has kept. Why anyone would you even try making a point in the manner you did is beyond me. Regardless, I never mentioned any of those players by name because nobody ha offered ANY debate about the wisdom of retaining proven starters on ether side of the ball.

Furthermore, there are some things that aren't worth debating....including whether the offense has prospered from a longstanding FA strategy that has resulted in pro bowl player after pro bowl player being retained longterm.....or if the Bengals have mostly limited themselves in free agency to adding cheaper defensive players of far lower status.

Again, this has never been a debate about the wisdom of retaining proven starters on either side of the ball. Instead, we began by discussing whatever the so-called defensive "MASTER PLAN" might be, and the thread has since morphed into a discussion about the wisdom of using so many high draft assets on BACKUP offensive skill positions when so many STARTING defensive positions remain unsettled. And to put things in the proverbial nutshell, I'd say it's fair to question whether the amount of attention paid to each respective units, offense and defense, should ever be even remotely equal when one of those units has always played at a high level while the other one never has.

Frankly, it all seems like a simple stuff and probably shouldn't generate much debate. But then again, there's always guys like you who will deliberately ignore the subject at hand by asking retarded questions like..."Are you saying the Bengals should let Carson Palmer walk?" Because nobody has even hinted at that, right? And to continue pretending that anyone has would be disingenuous, amongst other things.

[HoosierCat]

Let's offered a disingenuous rant about how few FA's had been added to the Bengals from other teams

I think there's some words missing there, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say I said. Anyhow...

.....puposely ignoring the nearly endless stream of elite level offensive FA's the team has kept. Why anyone would you even try making a point in the manner you did is beyond me.

Well, the reason would be because:

nobody ha offered ANY debate about the wisdom of retaining proven starters on ether side of the ball.

Exactly. the Bengals retaining their own top talent on offense has no bearing on whether they are comitted to building the defense or not. Which is why I was confused that you brought it up...

you deliberately framed your question in a way that demands the reader ignore the vast number of offensive free agents the Bengals had kept over the years

Anyhow, to get back to the point...

And to put things in the proverbial nutshell, I'd say it's fair to question whether the amount of attention paid to each respective units, offense and defense, should ever be even remotely equal when one of those units has always played at a high level while the other one never has.

And that's just it. Treatment hasn't been "remotely equal." The bulk of top draft picks and outside FAs have been dedicated to the defense. The failure of the D to improve is an issue of bad choice and bad luck, not a lack of attention.

[HairOnFire]

I haven't mentioned the Bengals defensive ranking because it isn't relevant.

Wow. In a debate that constantly swirls around things like what is or isn't an essential need or luxury you're now going to pretend respective levels of performance are irrelevant?

Could you be any more disingenuous?

You can be committed to something and still fail miserably at it --

True, but for most of us being committed means doing everything in your power to improve in an area that is a major priority. And along those lines, can you really say the Bengals are doing everything they possibly can to help a 27th ranked defense when you see them add 5 new pass catchers to a passing game that already has the type of talent the Bengals have? Are you now claiming the defense lacks for nothing? The answer is obviously no, the Bengals haven't done everything they could. At best, it can be argued they've done all they're willing to do.

During Marvin's tenure, they've drafted 8 LBs, including two first rounders, a second, and three thirds.

Which points to a greater level of committment? Using six 1st day draft picks on the three starting LB positions OR four first day draft picks on a single backup WR role? The answer is obvious, isn't it? Furthermore, factor in the first day draft assets burned on another offensive backup position, the 3rd down RB role, and you end up with an equal number of first day picks used on two offensive BACKUP roles as were used on three starting LB roles.

[HairOnFire]

Let's offered a disingenuous rant about how few FA's had been added to the Bengals from other teams

I think there's some words missing there, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say I said. Anyhow...

My bad. It should read..."You offered a disingenuous rant...."

Actually, it would have been more accurate to say you offer nothing but disingenuous rants, but I digress.

Exactly. the Bengals retaining their own top talent on offense has no bearing on whether they are comitted to building the defense or not.

So having a roster full of proven offensive starters has no bearing on a teams need for additional expensive offensive weapons to be used in part-time roles? That's retarded.

And on the other side of the coin, an almost total lack of proven starters on defense should have no bearing on how lavishly a team can address those previously mentioned backup offensive positions? That's equally retarded.

[HoosierCat]

You can be committed to something and still fail miserably at it --

True, but for most of us being committed means doing everything in your power to improve in an area that is a major priority.

And the Bengals have. Again, that it hasn't worked out has to do with poor choices and bad luck, not a lack of effort. But let's not use them as an example, let's look at a team they are often compared to, the Colts. Great offense, not much defense, right? No surprise, then, that over the past six drafts, the Colts have spent 66% of 1-3 rounders on defense. But I guess Tony Dungy isn't committed to building a defense?

Or let's look at Baltimore. They already have a good defense, right? Offense is the problem. And I bet you can figure how their top picks break down? Yep: 63% offense in round 1-3 over the last six years. But of course everyone knows Brian "offensive genius" Billick wasn't interested in the O...

Bottom line: the Bengals have worked just as hard over the past six year as the Colts have at building a defense and the Raven have at building an offense.

So having a roster full of proven offensive starters has no bearing on a teams need for additional expensive offensive weapons to be used in part-time roles? That's retarded.

Nope, that's just maintainence. You are talking about an average of one whole draft pick a year.

[HairOnFire]

You are talking about an average of one whole draft pick a year.

Say it correctly. It's an average of one first day draft asset burned over and over again on two backup offensive skill positions. Positions that most successful teams predominantly fill using more modest resources. Furthermore, it's an average of one first day draft asset burned over and over again on positions the Bengals had needlessly turned over due to their greedy desire to have big play producers in every conceivable offensive role.....even at the expense of a Bengal defense that has lacked true proven starters at numerous positions every single year. Including the coming one.

Nope, that's just maintainence.

Drafting 4 new pass catchers AFTER you've already added another in FA isn't maintenance. It's a luxury. And it's unsustainable.

[GapControl]

I'm going to throw in here. Most of you consider me a lurker, simply reading posts here or there and not contributing. I am guilty of this, I think. Personally, I am more interested in the nuts and bolts of the franchise than the occasional national hyped media story. Anyway, only a fan like Hoosier could offer such a fine debate on the losing point. Hair is relentless in his attack and counterattack, repeatedly punishing Hoosier on the ropes and backing him into corners... only for Hoosier to continue taking a hell of a beating then land a stif jab or hook to the ribs. It is most unfortunate for Hoosier though, that he came into the fight disingeniously trained.

The Bengals front office is clearly biased toward buiding an offensive juggernaut. Many of us are aware the team leans heavily toward the pocket quarterback, electrifying runner and sticky-handed catcher. The Brown family has always believed and proven through draft picks and as of late, free agency, the following: defensive players do not require skills like offensive players; defensive players need to have high aptitude and be athletic enough to be molded into the system or position. Aside from Simmons, Spikes, Wison, Wilkinson, and a couple more, top round talent has not been drafted for the defense.

Case in point, the Bengals do not treat the defensive line with the same respect in draft position or money as they do the offensive line. Consider J. Thornton. He is payed handsomely (even though he is minimal at best) but his backups have not been Peko finally arrived but cannot supplant him in the starter's role. For years, the team rallied around Justin Smith for the line only because he possessed the only real talent. No FAs or picks were brought in to back him up in high rounds. This example proves anectdotelly the team doesn't draft or pay for defensive depth.

No matter where Hoosier or Hair's debate ends the basic point that the team overdrafts and overspends on backup offensive talent and not on backup (depth) defensive talent can not be ignored or cleverly debated.

[HoosierCat]

The Bengals front office is clearly biased toward buiding an offensive juggernaut. Many of us are aware the team leans heavily toward the pocket quarterback, electrifying runner and sticky-handed catcher. The Brown family has always believed and proven through draft picks and as of late, free agency, the following: defensive players do not require skills like offensive players; defensive players need to have high aptitude and be athletic enough to be molded into the system or position. Aside from Simmons, Spikes, Wison, Wilkinson, and a couple more, top round talent has not been drafted for the defense.

Welcome to the party, Gap. Six year ago, the above would have been absolutely right. In the six years prior to Marvin's arrival, the Bengals had 20 top-three draft picks, and split them 50/50 between offense and defense. But that's just my point: at least on draft day, this is no longer true. Since Lewis' arrival, the team has increased its defensive drafting to two-thirds of top picks, in-line with what other teams around the league do when trying to build an anemic unit into something decent. As for not drafting top-round defensive talent, c'mon: Rivers, Hall, Joseph, and Pollack were our last four first-round picks!

Case in point, the Bengals do not treat the defensive line with the same respect in draft position or money as they do the offensive line. Consider J. Thornton. He is payed handsomely (even though he is minimal at best) but his backups have not been Peko finally arrived but cannot supplant him in the starter's role. For years, the team rallied around Justin Smith for the line only because he possessed the only real talent. No FAs or picks were brought in to back him up in high rounds. This example proves anectdotelly the team doesn't draft or pay for defensive depth.

That the Bengals have ignored the defensive tackle position has long been a complaint of mine. But that's an issue of style, not ignoring the defense. They have been drafting LBs, corners and safeties first. As for no backup for Smith, how long has 3rd rounder Frostee Rucker been rotting on the bench?

No matter where Hoosier or Hair's debate ends the basic point that the team overdrafts and overspends on backup offensive talent and not on backup (depth) defensive talent can not be ignored or cleverly debated.

Sorry, but that "basic point" is simply an assertion that doesn't hold up to the facts.

[HairOnFire]

.... only a fan like Hoosier could offer such a fine debate on the losing point.

I'd say he's not offering a debate at all. In act, I'd have to say at every opportunity he's attempted to change the subject or derail the thread completely by offering nothing but blatant disingenuous ranting and silly dictionary distractions. Worse, he openly declared the debate over a couple of weeks ago and apparently only returns to the thread three or four times a day to put out logic fires or to correct whatever silly errors he just made.

Hair is relentless in his attack and counterattack, repeatedly punishing Hoosier on the ropes and backing him into corners...

And how am I punishing the man? By staying firmly on topic, right? Meanwhile, Hoosier can't find enough reasons to NOT talk about the subject at hand. Instead, he offers one strawman argument after another, including a precious little bit of worthless fluff about the Bengals allowing Carson Palmer to walk away. He then turns to waiver wire acquisitions as some sort of hard proof of the Bengals level of comittment. Oh, and if the reader needs further proof of the Bengals good intentions....he's willing to discuss the Indianapolis Colts.

....only for Hoosier to continue taking a hell of a beating then land a stif jab or hook to the ribs.

But that's just the thing. Disingenuous punches don't land. All they do is tire and fatique the combatants. And there's the rub because not only hasn't Hoosier made a single worthwhile point in this entire thread, the sad truth of the matter is he never will.

[HairOnFire]

No matter where Hoosier or Hair's debate ends the basic point that the team overdrafts and overspends on backup offensive talent and not on backup (depth) defensive talent can not be ignored or cleverly debated.

But there's nothing very clever about a disingenuous rant, is there? Haven't we learned from this thread how those types of responses are characterized by false candor?

Regardless, you seem to be saying the case isn't closed as some had claimed......and that will do for now.

[HairOnFire]

Six year ago, the above would have been absolutely right.

Actually, it hasn't even been six months since the Bengals added five new pass catchers to an already potent offensive attack.....thereby demonstrating how the Bengals are still doing what they've always done.

[HoosierCat]

Six year ago, the above would have been absolutely right.

Actually, it hasn't even been six months since the Bengals added five new pass catchers to an already potent offensive attack.....thereby demonstrating how the Bengals are still doing what they've always done.

Actually, it hasn't been six months since the Bengals spent their fourth straight first round pick on a defensive player, the first time that's ever happened in the 40-year history of the team.

[HoosierCat]

I'd say he's not offering a debate at all. In act, I'd have to say at every opportunity he's attempted to change the subject or derail the thread completely by offering nothing but blatant disingenuous ranting and silly dictionary distractions.

That's funny, considering the first person in this thread to retreat into semantics was...you.

Worse, he openly declared the debate over a couple of weeks ago and apparently only returns to the thread three or four times a day to put out logic fires or to correct whatever silly errors he just made.

Actually, the problem is your habit of saying something, then denying you said it, then dismissing its importance and finally...contending that I actually said it. Let's take, as an example:

Instead, he offers one strawman argument after another, including a precious little bit of worthless fluff about the Bengals allowing Carson Palmer to walk away.

Uh-huh. Let's trace that one, shall we? It started with your comment here:

You deliberately framed your question in a way that demands the reader ignore the vast number of offensive free agents the Bengals had kept over the years, and you did so because you thought such a narrow question gave you an important debating point....something that's far more important to you than "the point at hand".

Hmmm, so I ignored offensive free agents they had retained? OK. Let's put them in the discussion. So I replied:

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that your definition of "commitment to defense" meant not only that the team had to spend all its draft picks and free agent dollars on defenders, but also to decline to re-sign guys like Chad, TJ, Carson, Levi, etc. But OK, if you want to argue that the Bengals should let, say, Carson walk to prove their commitment to defense, be my guest.

Which led to your swift backpedal:

Now you dig in your heels and try to pretend someone actually suggested this team lets Carson Palmer walk, right?

Well, yes, you did, as I noted next.

Wouldn't Carson Palmer be one of those "vast number of offensive free agents the Bengals had kept over the years"? Fine, let's include those players in the debate. How do the extensions of Palmer, Levi, Chad, TJ etc., demonstrate their lack of commitment to the defense? What players who they have let walk on D should they have given these big bucks to instead?

For the next couple of posts, you furiously dodge the isssue, until I finally present you with your own words again. Your weak final reply?

Regardless, I never mentioned any of those players by name because nobody ha offered ANY debate about the wisdom of retaining proven starters on ether side of the ball.

Now, how's that for disingenuity? "I never mentioned any of those players by name?" Technically true -- not "by name" -- but functionally a lie. But that's only the warm up for part two: "nobody ha offered ANY debate about the wisdom of retaining proven starters on ether side of the ball." In other words, my alleged "deliberate framing" of the debate you objected to to start this whole thing was actually the right way to approach things since there's no debate about the wisdom of retaining proven starters on either side of the ball!

Any then, of course, comes the crowing glory above:

Instead, he offers one strawman argument after another, including a precious little bit of worthless fluff about the Bengals allowing Carson Palmer to walk away.

Sorry, not my strawman. That one's yours.

[HairOnFire]

Actually, it hasn't been six months since the Bengals spent their fourth straight first round pick on a defensive player, the first time that's ever happened in the 40-year history of the team.

Proving exactly what? That a defense that has NEVER performed well might need more help than the already potent offense?

Well there's a bombshell.

I already know the answer to this question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Who has bothered claiming the defense doesn't need or deserve more attention than the offense? Absolutely nobody but you, right? You're the only one attempting to use meaningless numbers to prove the addition of all 5 new pass catchers was an essential need for THIS team right NOW, and wasn't a luxury at all.

And yet, here's what Marvin Lewis just said about the Bengals offensive plans for this season......"We may be in more formations without three wide receivers."

And why did he make that claim?

Well, Lewis acknowledged the teams desire to play more 2 TE sets coupled with an oft repeated desire to use more check down options....something he admits the team will attempt this season by predominately using weapons (Perry, Chatman, Utect, Holt, etc) that were already on the roster when FOUR more draft picks were used on aditional pass catchers.

[HoosierCat]

I already know the answer to this question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Who has bothered claiming the defense doesn't need or deserve more attention than the offense? Absolutely nobody but you, right?

Actually, the answer would be "absolutely nobody." No one has said the defense doesn't deserve more attention. My point, in fact, is that since 2004 it has been getting far more attention!

[HairOnFire]

Now, how's that for disingenuity?

Ask GapControl. He doesn't have a dog in this fight, but he's read the entire thread and reluctantly concluded your rant was disingenuous from the very start, as most observers would.

Technically true ---- but functionally a lie.

I'd say you're the expert on telling functional lies. After all, your rants have now been described by multiple posters as disingenuous. In short, deliberately fake and misleading. Thus, they're a complete waste of everyones time.....including yours.

[HairOnFire]

No one has said the defense doesn't deserve more attention. My point, in fact, is that since 2004 it has been getting far more attention!

Your latter point is fittingly pointless unless you're prepared to argue the defense doesn't need more help. And along those lines you probably can't do better than repeating your silly rant about how a CURRENT ranking of 27th out of 32 teams is somehow irrelevant. [sarcasm]

Regardless, since you're finally willing to admit what is painfully obvious to everyone else, that the defense does indeed deserve more attention than it just got, well case closed I guess.

[HoosierCat]

No one has said the defense doesn't deserve more attention. My point, in fact, is that since 2004 it has been getting far more attention!

Your latter point is fittingly pointless unless you're prepared to argue the defense doesn't need more help.

What the defense needs is fewer drunks, busts and broken necks. Lack of attention hasn't been the problem, as the eye-popping number of wasted draft picks on the defensive side of the ball since '04 attests.

[HairOnFire]

What the defense needs is fewer drunks, busts and broken necks. Lack of attention hasn't been the problem....

But you're talking about starting defensive positions. Yet the exact same things mentioned above can be said of both of the backup offensive skill positions I keep reminding you of. For example, how many WR's would have been drafted this year if Chris Henry didn't like a little sauce with his hookers? None? Or maybe one? Or what happens if Chris Perry doesn't get hurt over and over again? No Kenny Irons to join him on IR, right?

As for broken necks, my understanding is they can't be ignored or wished away....and simply noting how often things have gone wrong previously doesn't erase a teams current level of need. In fact, if you truly want to get better you probably go forward knowing the costs you face are no less than when you first came up with the original plan.

[HoosierCat]

What the defense needs is fewer drunks, busts and broken necks. Lack of attention hasn't been the problem....

But you're talking about starting defensive positions.

And you're arguing about the starting D finishing 27th. It didn't do so because of a lack of attention, but because of a lack of that attention's success. To put it simply, you're welded to what I consider the absurd position that a healthy Brooks and Pollack, and a sober Odell, would not have made 2007's defense better.

[HairOnFire]

To put it simply, you're welded to what I consider the absurd position that a healthy Brooks and Pollack, and a sober Odell, would not have made 2007's defense better.

Once again I find you arguing points nobody has bothered making.

(((sigh)))

It's almost remarkable how you can manage to find still another way to make another useless argument, but at least you've stopped arguing the argument long enough to attempt being relevant.

So there's that.

Nobody is attempting to refight the battles of 2007 or to argue that things wouldn't have been better if the original plan wouldn't have blown up. In fact, I said exactly that at the start of this thread, right? The plan doesn't change just because all of the peices are broken, ehh?

So if it's not about 2007 then what is it about?

Well, it's about putting the best defense possible on the field in 2008, isn't it?

And on that score, long before the Bengals drafted their 4th new pass catcher the Bengals already knew Ben Utect was signed and in the fold, they already had reason to expect Chris Perry's return, they already knew Pollack's neck was broken and he was likely to retire, and apparently they had already written off any future contributions from Odell. Furthermore, knowing what they did about Brook's groin injury they must have had plenty of doubts about his return as well. After all, he'd never proven himself as a starter at any position and was coming off a serious season ending injury. Finally, the Bengals have admitted none of the young pass catchers just drafted will be ready to contribute in a meaningful way anytime soon.

But why am I reminding you of all of this again?

You've already admitted the current defense still needs help.

Help it didn't get.

Frankly, I'd say for a really absurd position how about you arguing that adding all four rookie pass catchers was an essential need for this team right now.

[HoosierCat]

So if it's not about 2007 then what is it about?

It is, to quote you, whether the Bengals are the "bastard sons of Paul Brown" in their manic lust for offensive players -- a theory no longer supported by their draft and FA priorities over the last five seasons. Which is why you're reduced to this:

Well, it's about putting the best defense possible on the field in 2008, isn't it?

And precisely what have the Bengals done on offense in 2008 that damaged the D? Where was the stud defender that all that offensive spending kept them from signing in FA? Who was that Pro Bowl prospect at SAM in round two?

[HairOnFire]

....whether the Bengals are the "bastard sons of Paul Brown" in their manic lust for offensive players -- a theory no longer supported by their draft and FA priorities over the last five seasons.

No longer supported? How dumb are you? They just selected four new pass catchers in a single draft....after signing another pass catcher in FA. Aren't those moves recent enough for you? And can you really justify the cost of adding all of those offensive weapons to THIS team now?

Really? All freaking five of 'em?

And precisely what have the Bengals done on offense in 2008 that damaged the D?

Again, how dumb are you? They just selected four new pass catchers in a single draft....after signing another pass catcher in FA. That's alot of attention being devoted to a passing game that is still the envy of most teams. By comparion, you admit the defense still needs far more help than it got. So why didn't it get more?

Where was the stud defender that all that offensive spending kept them from signing in FA? Who was that Pro Bowl prospect at SAM in round two?

So you're now going to pretend that no additional defensive help could have been found? And of course you'll frame your latest worthless rant in such a manner that immediately rejects anything but Pro Bowl help riding to the rescue, ehhh?

[HoosierCat]

No longer supported? How dumb are you? They just selected four new pass catchers in a single draft

Not so dumb that I continue to whine about things like using a 7th round pick (!!) on a WR as "proof" the Bengals aren't dedicated to the defense.

So you're now going to pretend that no additional defensive help could have been found?

Again, what's your complaint? Who didn't they get that they could have? Some seventh-round scrub?