The more I look at Bengals History, the less I think the blame all fal

[Bearcat1975]

The more I look at Bengals History, the less I think the blame all falls on Mike Brown for any kind of "downfall" to the Bengals.

Consider the following:

1. Founder Paul Brown coached the team for its first three seasons, accumulating 15 wins and 27 losses and one tie.

Not exactly setting the world on fire. But hey, I'm sure the 1970's will be much better.

2. 1970's coaches and results:

Paul Brown: 40-32

Bill "Tiger" Johnson: 18-15 and he resigned after going 0-5 in 1978. Probably where Bruce Coslet got the idea.

Homer Rice: 8-19. Woot?

Forrest Gregg: 6-10 in 1980.

From 1968 to 1980 the Bengals had a whopping 3 playoff appearances. All losses.

3. The 1980s

Well there was 1981 and 1988 and most of us know. This was the Bengals decade to shine. Two Super Bowl appearances in the same decade!

4. Since then...

Since then, the Bengals have had 3 playoff appearances. 1 Win and 2 losses.

To me, the 1991-present Bengals look a lot like the 1968-1980 Bengals. Perhaps we are too hard on Mike Brown?

Here is where I got most of the info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_th...cinnati_Bengals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Bengals_seasons

Another curious fact: The Steelers smashing the Bengals in the proverbial mouth, followed by the Bengals caving in defeat, followed by the Steelers moving on to glory, is not a new concept at all.

Well before the Palmer injury, the Steelers had been humiliating the Bengals on their way to the playoffs for years. It was pretty much their M.O. throughout the 70s. Whenever the Bengals started to go on any kind of a roll, the Steelers would come to town, punch the Bengals in the mouth, then the Bengals fold.

Point being, it is easy to blame Mike Brown for the current state of the franchise. And rightly so, considering the past 20 years. But it isn't fair to judge the past 20 years against the whodey heyday of the 1980s. The 1980s were the peak of this franchise. And even then, they only made to the playoffs 3 out of the 10 years.

But take away the 1980s, and this franchise has been quite consistent from Paul Brown to Mike Brown. Consistently bad. From a results standpoint, I don't see much of a difference between Paul Brown and Mike Brown.

Thoughts here?

[Bearcat1975]

EDIT:

Contrasted the Steelers and Bengals results since 1968 when the Bengals got started:

1968-1980

Bengals playoff appearances: 3 ( all first round losses)

Steelers playoff appearances: 18 (4 Super Bowls, all wins)

1981-1990

Bengals playoff appearances: 7 (Two Super Bowl appearances. 4-3 in three playoff seasons)

Steelers playoff appearances: 6 (2-4 in four playoff seasons)

1991-2000

Bengals playoff appearances: 1 (a loss)

Steelers playoff appearances: 11 (5-6 with one Super Bowl appearance)

2001-2008

Bengals playoff appearances: 1 (a loss)

Steelers playoff appearances: 13 and counting (8-4 with one Super Bowl victory)

I would say things have been quite consistent over the decades. Even at their peak, the best the Bengals can seem to do is keep up with what the Steelers have maintained since 1968. Sickening isn't it? No wonder we hate the Steelers. Look what they do and look what the Bengals do. No plans for any change either, so to expect results to suddenly vary from the norm does not seem to make much sense.

Who Dey? Pretty obvious who dey.

[gregstephens]

The more I look at Bengals History, the less I think the blame all falls on Mike Brown for any kind of "downfall" to the Bengals.

Consider the following:

1. Founder Paul Brown coached the team for its first three seasons, accumulating 15 wins and 27 losses and one tie.

Not exactly setting the world on fire. But hey, I'm sure the 1970's will be much better.

2. 1970's coaches and results:

Paul Brown: 40-32

Bill "Tiger" Johnson: 18-15 and he resigned after going 0-5 in 1978. Probably where Bruce Coslet got the idea.

Homer Rice: 8-19. Woot?

Forrest Gregg: 6-10 in 1980.

From 1968 to 1980 the Bengals had a whopping 3 playoff appearances. All losses.

3. The 1980s

Well there was 1981 and 1988 and most of us know. This was the Bengals decade to shine. Two Super Bowl appearances in the same decade!

4. Since then...

Since then, the Bengals have had 3 playoff appearances. 1 Win and 2 losses.

To me, the 1991-present Bengals look a lot like the 1968-1980 Bengals. Perhaps we are too hard on Mike Brown?

Here is where I got most of the info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_th...cinnati_Bengals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Bengals_seasons

Another curious fact: The Steelers smashing the Bengals in the proverbial mouth, followed by the Bengals caving in defeat, followed by the Steelers moving on to glory, is not a new concept at all.

Well before the Palmer injury, the Steelers had been humiliating the Bengals on their way to the playoffs for years. It was pretty much their M.O. throughout the 70s. Whenever the Bengals started to go on any kind of a roll, the Steelers would come to town, punch the Bengals in the mouth, then the Bengals fold.

Point being, it is easy to blame Mike Brown for the current state of the franchise. And rightly so, considering the past 20 years. But it isn't fair to judge the past 20 years against the whodey heyday of the 1980s. The 1980s were the peak of this franchise. And even then, they only made to the playoffs 3 out of the 10 years.

But take away the 1980s, and this franchise has been quite consistent from Paul Brown to Mike Brown. Consistently bad. From a results standpoint, I don't see much of a difference between Paul Brown and Mike Brown.

Thoughts here?

The 91-present Bengals look a lot like the 1968-1980 Bengals? Here's what you got to factor in. You can't count the '68-'70 Bengals for two reasons. One, it was an expansion team, and, Panthers/Jaguars notwithstanding, expansion teams historically start off lousy. See Seahawks, Buccaneers, current Browns. Two, they were an AFL team, which meant, anticipated merger notwithstanding, they weren't getting the cream of the crop in terms of signings and drafts.

So, going into the 1970's. The Bengals in the seventies were always competitive. They finished the decade four games over five hundred. They had six winning seasons, three losing seasons and one even. In fact, the Bengals of the eighties that you have given a pass because of the two moments of glory, only finished ten games over five hundred. The Bengals since then? 56 games under five hundred for the 1990's. One winning season (before SoP took over), one even season and eight losing seasons.

This decade? 27 games under five hundred. One winning season. Three even seasons. Five losing seasons.

I applaud your statistical research, but there is no comparing pre-SoP Bengals and SoP Bengals.

[Bearcat1975]

So, going into the 1970's. The Bengals in the seventies were always competitive. They finished the decade four games over five hundred. They had six winning seasons, three losing seasons and one even. In fact, the Bengals of the eighties that you have given a pass because of the two moments of glory, only finished ten games over five hundred. The Bengals since then? 56 games under five hundred for the 1990's. One winning season (before SoP took over), one even season and eight losing seasons.

This decade? 27 games under five hundred. One winning season. Three even seasons. Five losing seasons.

Ouch.

I am pretty hard on Mike Brown, like most Bengals fans are, but I thought I might have found a positive spin to Mike Brown's ineptitude.

But as you have pointed out, very little seems to compare with the depths the Bengals have "achieved" since Paul Brown died.

The other constant though...the Bengals constantly being pwned by the Steelers. Hard to argue with that one.

[Ox]

Ugh. The Steelers dominance here makes me writhe in pain.

Facts are facts but it's still sickening.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

<--- Sees thread trying to give Mike Brown credit for the way he runs the Bengals, develops headache, head hurting bad now, exploding....must log-off....

[gregstephens]

So, going into the 1970's. The Bengals in the seventies were always competitive. They finished the decade four games over five hundred. They had six winning seasons, three losing seasons and one even. In fact, the Bengals of the eighties that you have given a pass because of the two moments of glory, only finished ten games over five hundred. The Bengals since then? 56 games under five hundred for the 1990's. One winning season (before SoP took over), one even season and eight losing seasons.

This decade? 27 games under five hundred. One winning season. Three even seasons. Five losing seasons.

The other constant though...the Bengals constantly being pwned by the Steelers. Hard to argue with that one.

Another interesting stat...if I recall the numbers correctly...In the decade of the 70s, the Bengals were 6-14 to the Steelers. In the 90s, they were 7-13. There is no arguing the overall dominance of the Steelers, although, thanks primarily to a vast Bengals domination in the 80s (13-7), we're only 15 games under five hundred to the Steelers in the history of the franchise (30-45). How is this an odd number, you might ask, since they play twice a year every year? In the strike shortened season of 1982, they only played once .

[gregstephens]

The more I look at Bengals History, the less I think the blame all falls on Mike Brown for any kind of "downfall" to the Bengals.

Consider the following:

1. Founder Paul Brown coached the team for its first three seasons, accumulating 15 wins and 27 losses and one tie.

Not exactly setting the world on fire. But hey, I'm sure the 1970's will be much better.

2. 1970's coaches and results:

Paul Brown: 40-32

Bill "Tiger" Johnson: 18-15 and he resigned after going 0-5 in 1978. Probably where Bruce Coslet got the idea.

Homer Rice: 8-19. Woot?

Forrest Gregg: 6-10 in 1980.

From 1968 to 1980 the Bengals had a whopping 3 playoff appearances. All losses.

3. The 1980s

Well there was 1981 and 1988 and most of us know. This was the Bengals decade to shine. Two Super Bowl appearances in the same decade!

4. Since then...

Since then, the Bengals have had 3 playoff appearances. 1 Win and 2 losses.

To me, the 1991-present Bengals look a lot like the 1968-1980 Bengals. Perhaps we are too hard on Mike Brown?

Here is where I got most of the info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_th...cinnati_Bengals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Bengals_seasons

Another curious fact: The Steelers smashing the Bengals in the proverbial mouth, followed by the Bengals caving in defeat, followed by the Steelers moving on to glory, is not a new concept at all.

Well before the Palmer injury, the Steelers had been humiliating the Bengals on their way to the playoffs for years. It was pretty much their M.O. throughout the 70s. Whenever the Bengals started to go on any kind of a roll, the Steelers would come to town, punch the Bengals in the mouth, then the Bengals fold.

Point being, it is easy to blame Mike Brown for the current state of the franchise. And rightly so, considering the past 20 years. But it isn't fair to judge the past 20 years against the whodey heyday of the 1980s. The 1980s were the peak of this franchise. And even then, they only made to the playoffs 3 out of the 10 years.

But take away the 1980s, and this franchise has been quite consistent from Paul Brown to Mike Brown. Consistently bad. From a results standpoint, I don't see much of a difference between Paul Brown and Mike Brown.

Thoughts here?

The 91-present Bengals look a lot like the 1968-1980 Bengals? Here's what you got to factor in. You can't count the '68-'70 Bengals for two reasons. One, it was an expansion team, and, Panthers/Jaguars notwithstanding, expansion teams historically start off lousy. See Seahawks, Buccaneers, current Browns. Two, they were an AFL team, which meant, anticipated merger notwithstanding, they weren't getting the cream of the crop in terms of signings and drafts.

So, going into the 1970's. The Bengals in the seventies were always competitive. They finished the decade four games over five hundred. They had six winning seasons, three losing seasons and one even. In fact, the Bengals of the eighties that you have given a pass because of the two moments of glory, only finished ten games over five hundred. The Bengals since then? 56 games under five hundred for the 1990's. One winning season (before SoP took over), one even season and eight losing seasons.

This decade? 27 games under five hundred. One winning season. Three even seasons. Five losing seasons.

I applaud your statistical research, but there is no comparing pre-SoP Bengals and SoP Bengals.

Oh dear God...I just realized what I typed. Since SoP took this franchise over in 1991, the Bengals have had ONE freaking winning season out of 18!

The Lions have six winning seasons in that time period. Crap, from 1991 to this season, the Arizona Cardinals have TWO.

[COB]

The more I look at Bengals History, the less I think the blame all falls on Mike Brown for any kind of "downfall" to the Bengals.

Most of the posters in here are probably organizing a hit squad to visit your house tomorrow.

[Kazkal]

The more I look at Bengals History, the less I think the blame all falls on Mike Brown for any kind of "downfall" to the Bengals.

Most of the posters in here are probably organizing a hit squad to visit your house tomorrow.

I was thinking of men in white coats.

[Bearcat1975]

The more I look at Bengals History, the less I think the blame all falls on Mike Brown for any kind of "downfall" to the Bengals.

Most of the posters in here are probably organizing a hit squad to visit your house tomorrow.

Well I have kind of rethought that whole statement.

Is Mike Brown to blame for the 1 winning season in 18 ineptitude?

Without a doubt.

But, besides the 1980's, things have never really been good in Bengal land. Even at their best, the Bengals haven't been able to do more than stay on par with the Steelers.

Now I would like to give every Bengals fan optimism for the future:

Paul Brown's Bengal record by himself as an owner is pretty bad.

Mike Brown's Bengal record by himself as an owner is pretty bad.

But together, in the 1980's, they went to 2 Super Bowls.

Now,

Mike Brown's Bengal record by himself as an owner is pretty bad.

And Katie Blackburn's record by herself would probably be pretty bad too.

But together...perhaps we are on the cusp of another 1980's?!?!

[HoosierCat]

The more I look at Bengals History, the less I think the blame all falls on Mike Brown for any kind of "downfall" to the Bengals.

Most of the posters in here are probably organizing a hit squad to visit your house tomorrow.

Well I have kind of rethought that whole statement.

Well, if anyone shows up to take you down, let me know and I'll come over and help you defend your place.

The numbers can be juggled any number of ways, but the bottom line is that, at best, the Bengals were generally the dreaded "competitive" while Brown Sr. was around. But they were never a consistent winner and never won it all. And all the front office factors that frustrate fans to no end today were put in place by Paul: family-first, team-second; cheap, cheap, cheap; change is bad, etc.

Mike has shown he's no Paul. But when you talk about Paul Brown's legacy, the conversation pretty much ends in Cleveland.

[mmcaulay]

The more I look at Bengals History, the less I think the blame all falls on Mike Brown for any kind of "downfall" to the Bengals.

Most of the posters in here are probably organizing a hit squad to visit your house tomorrow.

Well I have kind of rethought that whole statement.

Is Mike Brown to blame for the 1 winning season in 18 ineptitude?

Without a doubt.

But, besides the 1980's, things have never really been good in Bengal land. Even at their best, the Bengals haven't been able to do more than stay on par with the Steelers.

Now I would like to give every Bengals fan optimism for the future:

Paul Brown's Bengal record by himself as an owner is pretty bad.

Mike Brown's Bengal record by himself as an owner is pretty bad.

But together, in the 1980's, they went to 2 Super Bowls.

Now,

Mike Brown's Bengal record by himself as an owner is pretty bad.

And Katie Blackburn's record by herself would probably be pretty bad too.

But together...perhaps we are on the cusp of another 1980's?!?!

Paul Brown by himself is pretty bad? In 1968 when the Bengals started, it was much harder for an expansion team to do anything right away, no free agency or salary cap. In 1970, the 3rd season of their existence, the Bengals won the AFC central, an incredible achievement under the system in place at that time.

According to you the 1st 3 years weren't too good, I think he did damn well. From 72-77 the Bengals either made the playoffs or were in contention for the playoffs late in the year, no losing seasons. 78-80 was a very bad stretch but they were able to win the AFC championship in '81 right after that. To compare the 68-80 Bengals to the Steelers of that time, probably the greatest team ever assembled, and say Paul Brown is pretty bad 'cause he did worse that the Steelers is a very poor argument. Paul Brown took an expansion team from nothing and put a consistently competitive team on the field in a very short time, not bad at all.

[gregstephens]

The more I look at Bengals History, the less I think the blame all falls on Mike Brown for any kind of "downfall" to the Bengals.

Most of the posters in here are probably organizing a hit squad to visit your house tomorrow.

Well I have kind of rethought that whole statement.

Well, if anyone shows up to take you down, let me know and I'll come over and help you defend your place.

The numbers can be juggled any number of ways, but the bottom line is that, at best, the Bengals were generally the dreaded "competitive" while Brown Sr. was around. But they were never a consistent winner and never won it all. And all the front office factors that frustrate fans to no end today were put in place by Paul: family-first, team-second; cheap, cheap, cheap; change is bad, etc.

Mike has shown he's no Paul. But when you talk about Paul Brown's legacy, the conversation pretty much ends in Cleveland.

First, the original topic said the SoP Bengals were no worse than the pre-80s Bengals. There is no 'juggling' of numbers. This is clearly not a factual statement. The 70s Bengals were not only competitive, which I'm not sure why that's so dreaded when most Bengals fans would kill for that now, but they actually WERE consistent. Six winning seasons out of ten is consistent. One winning season out of ten, or two if 2009 goes better than expected, is not consistent.

Perhaps Paul Brown set some bad things in motion with how he ran the team, but back in the seventies through the mid-eighties, most NFL franchises were run with similar philosophies. The difference was, most franchises changed with the times while ours under SoP did not. Paul was a much better evaluator of talent than SoP, looking at the great Bengals' names of the 70s and 80s compared to the dreck that played for this franchise from 91-2004. So, SoP should hand those duties over. But he won't

No, the Paul Brown Bengals never won the big one. Guess what? Neither did the Oilers. The Browns in their heyday. The Broncos until the turn of the millenium. The great Rams teams of the 70s and 80s. A lot of teams have never won the big one. The Bengals did, however, get there twice, which is still pretty good and much better than we can expect from the SoP era.

You can rush over there to defend his place all you want, but it is an indefensible position.

[HairOnFire]

Wow, some of you guys suck hard.

This one isn't worth much time but if we're going to be Bengal fans lets at least get our history straight.

First, the expansion Bengals head coached by Paul Brown managed to set two winning related records that stood for decades, and would have stood even longer had the rules for building expansion teams not been changed. (Jacksonville, Carolina, Cleveburg, Houston, etc.) Those records? Most wins in debut season AND quickest to reach a playoff berth. So let's cut the crap about whether or not Paul Brown could still coach or whether or not he had left his trick bag in Cleveburg. He didn't.

What he left in Cleveburg was...(wait for it)....whatever was left of his youth. And because of that unfortunate reality Paul Brown, from the very start, openly spoke about ending his coaching career as soon as he felt the Bengals franchise was on solid footing. And with that accomplished Paul Brown did what he had always planned to do....guide the franchise from upstairs.

If there's fault to be found it relates to Paul Browns priorities during this time period, as he steadily positions himself from a figurehead/minority owner with a now laughable two percent stake.........into a majority owner with full control. But remember two things here. First, the stock purchase options that few felt Brown could take advantage of were part of the lure that attracted Paul Brown to Cincy's bid for an expansion team. So props to pops for doing what few felt was financially possible. Second point? Brown was able to accomplish the once thought impossible act in large measure because very few of the Bengals original ownership group were even interested in long-term ownership of any sports franchise, and most very happily sold their shares after meeting their original financial goals.

Next, the Steelers of the 70's are often called the greatest team in the history of the NFL and with that type of monster growing in it's backyard it's hardly suprising the still-upstart Bengals of the day failed to break through until Pittsburgh's dynasty finally crumbled. But break through they did, first with a Super Bowl team most credit Paul Brown for building, and later in the decade reappearing with another Super Bowl contender that Paul insisted was mostly his sons creation. Debate that point all you want, but it wasn't until the old man passed that the oxcart finally left the roadway in favor of the ditch.

Last point. Too little credit is given to the business sense of both Paul and Mike Brown....as it's likely Cincinnati wouldn't have been granted even a lowly AFL franchise without the former, and wouldn't have kept it without the latter.

[HoosierCat]

First, the original topic said the SoP Bengals were no worse than the pre-80s Bengals.

Actually, no, the OP said he didn't see much of a difference. Me, I'm looking for Lombardis, and the cupboard is as bare now as it was then. No one remember who comes in second, after all.

The 70s Bengals were not only competitive, which I'm not sure why that's so dreaded when most Bengals fans would kill for that now, but they actually WERE consistent. Six winning seasons out of ten is consistent.

One season above .500. Lo, how expectations have fallen. As for why "competitive" is dreaded, that's why.

Perhaps Paul Brown set some bad things in motion with how he ran the team, but back in the seventies through the mid-eighties, most NFL franchises were run with similar philosophies. The difference was, most franchises changed with the times while ours under SoP did not.

That's because the primary goal of both FoM and SoP was gaining control of the franchise. The path Mikey followed was laid down by his dad.

Paul was a much better evaluator of talent than SoP, looking at the great Bengals' names of the 70s and 80s compared to the dreck that played for this franchise from 91-2004. So, SoP should hand those duties over. But he won't

No argument there. But again, that's FoM for you. Who do you think put Pete Brown in the scouting chair?

No, the Paul Brown Bengals never won the big one. Guess what? Neither did the Oilers. The Browns in their heyday. The Broncos until the turn of the millenium. The great Rams teams of the 70s and 80s. A lot of teams have never won the big one. The Bengals did, however, get there twice, which is still pretty good and much better than we can expect from the SoP era.

I'll pass on further Super Bowl losses, thank you...

[Bearcat1975]

The more I look at Bengals History, the less I think the blame all falls on Mike Brown for any kind of "downfall" to the Bengals.

Most of the posters in here are probably organizing a hit squad to visit your house tomorrow.

Well I have kind of rethought that whole statement.

Is Mike Brown to blame for the 1 winning season in 18 ineptitude?

Without a doubt.

But, besides the 1980's, things have never really been good in Bengal land. Even at their best, the Bengals haven't been able to do more than stay on par with the Steelers.

Now I would like to give every Bengals fan optimism for the future:

Paul Brown's Bengal record by himself as an owner is pretty bad.

Mike Brown's Bengal record by himself as an owner is pretty bad.

But together, in the 1980's, they went to 2 Super Bowls.

Now,

Mike Brown's Bengal record by himself as an owner is pretty bad.

And Katie Blackburn's record by herself would probably be pretty bad too.

But together...perhaps we are on the cusp of another 1980's?!?!

Paul Brown by himself is pretty bad? In 1968 when the Bengals started, it was much harder for an expansion team to do anything right away, no free agency or salary cap. In 1970, the 3rd season of their existence, the Bengals won the AFC central, an incredible achievement under the system in place at that time.

According to you the 1st 3 years weren't too good, I think he did damn well. From 72-77 the Bengals either made the playoffs or were in contention for the playoffs late in the year, no losing seasons. 78-80 was a very bad stretch but they were able to win the AFC championship in '81 right after that. To compare the 68-80 Bengals to the Steelers of that time, probably the greatest team ever assembled, and say Paul Brown is pretty bad 'cause he did worse that the Steelers is a very poor argument. Paul Brown took an expansion team from nothing and put a consistently competitive team on the field in a very short time, not bad at all.

Very sound points you make...all of them. Just trying to find an angle where Mike Brown doesn't end up looking like a complete turd. Playing with the numbers, my above hypothesis almost seems plausible.

But yeah, in reality, there has never been a stretch of ineptitude in the NFL like Mike Brown's stretch.

[HairOnFire]

But yeah, in reality, there has never been a stretch of ineptitude in the NFL like Mike Brown's stretch.

Pound him. Few will care.

That said, lay off the old man.

[gregstephens]

First, the original topic said the SoP Bengals were no worse than the pre-80s Bengals.

Actually, no, the OP said he didn't see much of a difference. Me, I'm looking for Lombardis, and the cupboard is as bare now as it was then. No one remember who comes in second, after all.

The 70s Bengals were not only competitive, which I'm not sure why that's so dreaded when most Bengals fans would kill for that now, but they actually WERE consistent. Six winning seasons out of ten is consistent.

One season above .500. Lo, how expectations have fallen. As for why "competitive" is dreaded, that's why.

Perhaps Paul Brown set some bad things in motion with how he ran the team, but back in the seventies through the mid-eighties, most NFL franchises were run with similar philosophies. The difference was, most franchises changed with the times while ours under SoP did not.

That's because the primary goal of both FoM and SoP was gaining control of the franchise. The path Mikey followed was laid down by his dad.

Paul was a much better evaluator of talent than SoP, looking at the great Bengals' names of the 70s and 80s compared to the dreck that played for this franchise from 91-2004. So, SoP should hand those duties over. But he won't

No argument there. But again, that's FoM for you. Who do you think put Pete Brown in the scouting chair?

No, the Paul Brown Bengals never won the big one. Guess what? Neither did the Oilers. The Browns in their heyday. The Broncos until the turn of the millenium. The great Rams teams of the 70s and 80s. A lot of teams have never won the big one. The Bengals did, however, get there twice, which is still pretty good and much better than we can expect from the SoP era.

I'll pass on further Super Bowl losses, thank you...

To follow your logic in terms of the Super Bowl losses, then the eighties were the same as the ninties were the same as this decade. Or the Lions' 0-16 season is the same as the Patriots 16-0 season from last year.

I understand Super Bowl wins are the goal. From that perspective, every season there are 31 failures in the NFL. That does not mean there were 31 terrible seasons. At least if the Bengals were a 'competitive' team that were capable of winning almost any game they played and left open the possibility of reaching the Super Bowl, it would be exciting to watch their games. I'll take Super Bowl losses any day of the week as opposed to a team that I know has no chance of even reaching the playoffs before the first kickoff of the season. As it is now, outside of 2005, it hasn't been fun to watch the Bengals self destruct since 1991.

To say whether the original post was if the SoP Bengals was no worse than the 70s Bengals, or if the original post was that there wasn't much difference between the two is a semantic bunch of bull. The questions are the same on a practical level. The SoP Bengals are much worse than the 70s Bengals, and therefore, we do see much difference between the two.

[gregstephens]

Last point. Too little credit is given to the business sense of both Paul and Mike Brown....as it's likely Cincinnati wouldn't have been granted even a lowly AFL franchise without the former, and wouldn't have kept it without the latter.

I could never fault SoP's business sense for two reasons. One, he has managed to consistently make a tidy little profit for the past 18 years by producing pure crap. As the Big Three automakers are discovering, that's not possible in just any industry. Two, not only did he keep the Bengals here, which I think we all agree would be a disaster if the Bengals relocated, he hoodwinked that stadium out of the county and its taxpayers in the process. There is nothing SoP has done from a business perspective that would ever keep him awake at night in regret.

[HoosierCat]

To follow your logic in terms of the Super Bowl losses, then the eighties were the same as the ninties were the same as this decade.

Yup, thats pretty much it. The song that never ends.

I understand Super Bowl wins are the goal. From that perspective, every season there are 31 failures in the NFL. That does not mean there were 31 terrible seasons.

No, just 31 seasons that amounted to the same end: not the champ.

I'll take Super Bowl losses any day of the week as opposed to a team that I know has no chance of even reaching the playoffs before the first kickoff of the season.

One of these days I'll have to introduce to my buddy Chris the Buffalo Bills fan. Trust me, he doesn't share your view on SB losses...

To say whether the original post was if the SoP Bengals was no worse than the 70s Bengals, or if the original post was that there wasn't much difference between the two is a semantic bunch of bull.

Coming from a lawyer I will take that as a compliment.

The questions are the same on a practical level. The SoP Bengals are much worse than the 70s Bengals, and therefore, we do see much difference between the two.

Yeah, one is held in high regard for having some winning seasons while never grabbing the brass ring, while the other is reviled for having few winning seasons while never grabbing the brass ring.

[HairOnFire]

To follow your [Hoosier] logic in terms of the Super Bowl losses, then the eighties were the same as the ninties were the same as this decade. Or the Lions' 0-16 season is the same as the Patriots 16-0 season from last year.

Variations on a theme?

I'm suddenly reminded of Hoosier's earlier and equally funny "results are all that matter" rant about Carson Palmer being no better than Fitzpatrick.

I think it's fair to say being a Bengal fan is hard on all of us and we each deal with it in whatever ways we can. That said, there are times when I worry about some of you.

[HairOnFire]

Coming from a lawyer I will take that as a compliment.

What? I thought Greg was a pastor with one of those degrees you earn by mail...like veterinary assistant, accountant, or ham radio builder. Now you're telling me he's an attorney?

Seems like somebody has found a way to shovel smoke all seven days of the week.

[gregstephens]

To follow your [Hoosier] logic in terms of the Super Bowl losses, then the eighties were the same as the ninties were the same as this decade. Or the Lions' 0-16 season is the same as the Patriots 16-0 season from last year.

Variations on a theme?

I'm suddenly reminded of Hoosier's earlier and equally funny "results are all that matter" rant about Carson Palmer being no better than Fitzpatrick.

I think it's fair to say being a Bengal fan is hard on all of us and we each deal with it in whatever ways we can. That said, there are times when I worry about some of you.

I had actually forgotten the Palmer/Fitz rant.

And I completely agree with the second part of your statement.

[gregstephens]

Coming from a lawyer I will take that as a compliment.

What? I thought Greg was a pastor with one of those degrees you earn by mail...like veterinary assistant, accountant, or ham radio builder. Now you're telling me he's an attorney?

Seems like somebody has found a way to shovel smoke all seven days of the week.

Hey hey hey, buddy boy...ah skip it.