walzav29 Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 I notice that when I discuss this with friends who don't follow the Bengals they say the 05 Bengals, but I think it's just because they were better offensively. I say this version is better. The Bengals haven't been given any shot. At least I've heard no one pick them. Hopefully the whole defense - running game thing kicks in at playoff time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsbengalsbucks Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 I want the 2005 offense and the 2009 defense!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregstephens Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 I want the 2005 offense and the 2009 defense!!!'Nuff said. That combo would be a legitimate SB contender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wpeldios Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 I notice that when I discuss this with friends who don't follow the Bengals they say the 05 Bengals, but I think it's just because they were better offensively. I say this version is better. The Bengals haven't been given any shot. At least I've heard no one pick them. Hopefully the whole defense - running game thing kicks in at playoff time.Keeping in mind I am a huge fan of running the football and playing defense, I think this years team is the better team hands down. Figured I'd look at it a little more.This years team is 5th in total defensive yardage. And 5th in points(need a blowout of the jets to move up to number 1). Pn offense we are 20th in yardage and 18th in points. 2005 team was 6th in offensive yardage and 4th in points. So that offense=this defense. However they were 28th in defensive yardage and 22nd in points. I really thing the difference would be that this years team would pound the ball. In 2005 we couldnt stop anyone running. 2009 team would eat up the clock keeping the 2005 offense off the field, get the young team frustrated, and wear fown the defense. I'd say 2009 Bengals, 21-17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 I believe in the old addage a good defense beats a good offense. Hall and Joseph would be able to handle 85 and T.J. Henry would be the x-factor Rudi running doesn't scare me v. this defense. We would run the ball control the clock and keep Carson on the bench. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoePong Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 The 2005 team would only have to score 17 points to beat the 2009 team. They could do that no problem. That team would score 17 points just by accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
combatbengal Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 The 2005 team would have gone to the SB if Palmer didn't break his leg. The 2009 team can't score! Our Def can only take us so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregstephens Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Framing the issue as the 2005 team vs. the 2009 team, yes the defense of the 09 team would have held tough for the first half. However, since the 09 offense has some difficulties staying on the field consistently, it is more likely the 09 defense would have fatigued, allowing the 05 offense to blow it up from the middle of the third quarter on--much like the Viking game a couple of weeks ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 The '05 team got their butts whooped twice against an '05 Steelers team quite similar to this '09 Bengals team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregstephens Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 The '05 team got their butts whooped twice against an '05 Steelers team quite similar to this '09 Bengals team.Oh, you think the 05 Steelers are quite similar to this 09 team? While I can buy your argument from the defensive side of the ball, there is no way you can compare the two teams in terms of offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 I think you are misremembering that 2005 Steelers offense. That edition of the Steelers was heavy into the power running game and protected Roethlisberger as much as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoePong Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 and you guys are really overrating this 2009 bengals defense. They have played well, but are by no means a dominant unit like some of those steelers and ravens teams. Sure, they can hold down REALLY bad offenses. But against good teams, they're not going to shut anyone down. (See the Vikings and Chargers games). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregstephens Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 and you guys are really overrating this 2009 bengals defense. They have played well, but are by no means a dominant unit like some of those steelers and ravens teams. Sure, they can hold down REALLY bad offenses. But against good teams, they're not going to shut anyone down. (See the Vikings and Chargers games).Ok...see Vikings and Chargers games. Look at the individual stats on the Vikings games. Favre threw for under 200 yards and Peterson ran for under a hundred--no small feat against either player. The Vikings kept getting great field position due to our offense and special teams, but the Vikings offense didn't run over us.The Chargers game. Held the team to 27 points while holding them to 70 yards on the ground. Picked off Rivers twice. Jackson was the only receiver that torched us. Against the Chargers, still not a bad showing and kept the team in the game if the offense could have done its job.So...your point again was? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekshank Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Cedric Benson would have run for 200 yards on the '05 defense. I watched some old DVDs of the '05 team recently and couldn't believe how badthat defense was. The only defensive stops they could get were called turnovers. They lost when they played a team that was careful with the football.The '05 offense would have scored points, but would have gotten frustrated sitting on the sideline for most of the game. It could go either way... but I'd rather have a team that plays defense a can run the ball. That model has stood the test of time in the playoffs. It doesn't matter how many points you score if you let the other team score at will as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregstephens Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Cedric Benson would have run for 200 yards on the '05 defense. I watched some old DVDs of the '05 team recently and couldn't believe how badthat defense was. The only defensive stops they could get were called turnovers. They lost when they played a team that was careful with the football.The '05 offense would have scored points, but would have gotten frustrated sitting on the sideline for most of the game. It could go either way... but I'd rather have a team that plays defense a can run the ball. That model has stood the test of time in the playoffs. It doesn't matter how many points you score if you let the other team score at will as well.You MUST be referencing the 2005 Bengals/Colts shootout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Really good teams like the Packers, Ravens, Steelers, you mean? We have played teams with a top 15 offense 8 times this season, the Bengals are 5-3 against those teams (Green Bay #4, Houston #5, Minnesota #8, Pittsburgh #9, San Diego #11, Baltimore #14) and even though we have played half of our games against teams that are top ranked offenses our defense is still #5 in points per game against (6.4 total points from #2 BTW). In those games against top offensive teams only against Houston and Minnesota have those offenses exceeded their Pts per game against our defense, and we can all agree that the Houston game was a complete aberration. Our Pass Defense is 7th in the league Passer rating against and 9th in the league in completion rating against even though we have played 8 games agains the top 14 teams in those categories, and that is supposedly the weakness of this defense? Our rush defense is third in the league. So in summation, I call bulls**t on your indictment of our defense Joe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekshank Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Cedric Benson would have run for 200 yards on the '05 defense. I watched some old DVDs of the '05 team recently and couldn't believe how badthat defense was. The only defensive stops they could get were called turnovers. They lost when they played a team that was careful with the football.The '05 offense would have scored points, but would have gotten frustrated sitting on the sideline for most of the game. It could go either way... but I'd rather have a team that plays defense a can run the ball. That model has stood the test of time in the playoffs. It doesn't matter how many points you score if you let the other team score at will as well.You MUST be referencing the 2005 Bengals/Colts shootout.That game is always on my mind when people complain about the low scoring offense. As well as the '06 game against SD they lost 49-41.But in that '05 season, they gave up a ton of points. They gave up 37 to Buffalo for s**t sake. They gave up more than 30 points/game in the 7 games after the bye. It wasn't just the Colts game. The defense was bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregstephens Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Cedric Benson would have run for 200 yards on the '05 defense. I watched some old DVDs of the '05 team recently and couldn't believe how badthat defense was. The only defensive stops they could get were called turnovers. They lost when they played a team that was careful with the football.The '05 offense would have scored points, but would have gotten frustrated sitting on the sideline for most of the game. It could go either way... but I'd rather have a team that plays defense a can run the ball. That model has stood the test of time in the playoffs. It doesn't matter how many points you score if you let the other team score at will as well.You MUST be referencing the 2005 Bengals/Colts shootout.That game is always on my mind when people complain about the low scoring offense. As well as the '06 game against SD they lost 49-41.But in that '05 season, they gave up a ton of points. They gave up 37 to Buffalo for s**t sake. They gave up more than 30 points/game in the 7 games after the bye. It wasn't just the Colts game. The defense was bad.Oh, I agree. That Colt game always stands out to me, though. I was trying to choke through a steak at Texas Roadhouse while watching that. Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoePong Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 and you guys are really overrating this 2009 bengals defense. They have played well, but are by no means a dominant unit like some of those steelers and ravens teams. Sure, they can hold down REALLY bad offenses. But against good teams, they're not going to shut anyone down. (See the Vikings and Chargers games).Ok...see Vikings and Chargers games. Look at the individual stats on the Vikings games. Favre threw for under 200 yards and Peterson ran for under a hundred--no small feat against either player. The Vikings kept getting great field position due to our offense and special teams, but the Vikings offense didn't run over us.The Chargers game. Held the team to 27 points while holding them to 70 yards on the ground. Picked off Rivers twice. Jackson was the only receiver that torched us. Against the Chargers, still not a bad showing and kept the team in the game if the offense could have done its job.So...your point again was?Umm...the point was that we gave up about 30 points per game against those teams.What was your rambling excuse again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregstephens Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 and you guys are really overrating this 2009 bengals defense. They have played well, but are by no means a dominant unit like some of those steelers and ravens teams. Sure, they can hold down REALLY bad offenses. But against good teams, they're not going to shut anyone down. (See the Vikings and Chargers games).Ok...see Vikings and Chargers games. Look at the individual stats on the Vikings games. Favre threw for under 200 yards and Peterson ran for under a hundred--no small feat against either player. The Vikings kept getting great field position due to our offense and special teams, but the Vikings offense didn't run over us.The Chargers game. Held the team to 27 points while holding them to 70 yards on the ground. Picked off Rivers twice. Jackson was the only receiver that torched us. Against the Chargers, still not a bad showing and kept the team in the game if the offense could have done its job.So...your point again was?Umm...the point was that we gave up about 30 points per game against those teams.What was your rambling excuse again?I truly appreciate your ability to ignore facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekshank Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 and you guys are really overrating this 2009 bengals defense. They have played well, but are by no means a dominant unit like some of those steelers and ravens teams. Sure, they can hold down REALLY bad offenses. But against good teams, they're not going to shut anyone down. (See the Vikings and Chargers games).Ok...see Vikings and Chargers games. Look at the individual stats on the Vikings games. Favre threw for under 200 yards and Peterson ran for under a hundred--no small feat against either player. The Vikings kept getting great field position due to our offense and special teams, but the Vikings offense didn't run over us.The Chargers game. Held the team to 27 points while holding them to 70 yards on the ground. Picked off Rivers twice. Jackson was the only receiver that torched us. Against the Chargers, still not a bad showing and kept the team in the game if the offense could have done its job.So...your point again was?Umm...the point was that we gave up about 30 points per game against those teams.What was your rambling excuse again?If you get to use the SD game as an example that the defense is bad, I get to use it as an example that Palmer and the offense is good. That makes sense... right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregstephens Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 and you guys are really overrating this 2009 bengals defense. They have played well, but are by no means a dominant unit like some of those steelers and ravens teams. Sure, they can hold down REALLY bad offenses. But against good teams, they're not going to shut anyone down. (See the Vikings and Chargers games).Ok...see Vikings and Chargers games. Look at the individual stats on the Vikings games. Favre threw for under 200 yards and Peterson ran for under a hundred--no small feat against either player. The Vikings kept getting great field position due to our offense and special teams, but the Vikings offense didn't run over us.The Chargers game. Held the team to 27 points while holding them to 70 yards on the ground. Picked off Rivers twice. Jackson was the only receiver that torched us. Against the Chargers, still not a bad showing and kept the team in the game if the offense could have done its job.So...your point again was?Umm...the point was that we gave up about 30 points per game against those teams.What was your rambling excuse again?If you get to use the SD game as an example that the defense is bad, I get to use it as an example that Palmer and the offense is good. That makes sense... right?Not to Joe...stats and facts are non-existent in his world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekshank Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 and you guys are really overrating this 2009 bengals defense. They have played well, but are by no means a dominant unit like some of those steelers and ravens teams. Sure, they can hold down REALLY bad offenses. But against good teams, they're not going to shut anyone down. (See the Vikings and Chargers games).Ok...see Vikings and Chargers games. Look at the individual stats on the Vikings games. Favre threw for under 200 yards and Peterson ran for under a hundred--no small feat against either player. The Vikings kept getting great field position due to our offense and special teams, but the Vikings offense didn't run over us.The Chargers game. Held the team to 27 points while holding them to 70 yards on the ground. Picked off Rivers twice. Jackson was the only receiver that torched us. Against the Chargers, still not a bad showing and kept the team in the game if the offense could have done its job.So...your point again was?Umm...the point was that we gave up about 30 points per game against those teams.What was your rambling excuse again?If you get to use the SD game as an example that the defense is bad, I get to use it as an example that Palmer and the offense is good. That makes sense... right?Not to Joe...stats and facts are non-existent in his world.He loves stats and facts. But only the ones that make Palmer seem like Klingler. Any stats that show the Bengals to be a playoff team don't count. 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.