Jump to content

Can these new Bengals handle success?

BengalszoneBilly
 Share

Recommended Posts

BengalszoneBilly Newbie

BengalszoneBilly

Posted
Posted

A lot of good points raised in this ESPN article.

nfl_a_green_dalton1x_576.jpg

The Cincinnati Bengals enjoyed the most successful free agency period of any team in the division. The Bengals were applauded by many experts for being among the big winners in the NFL draft.

The question everyone in Who Dey Nation wants answered is how much ground have the Bengals made up on the Baltimore Ravens and Pittsburgh Steelers. But that's the wrong question to be asking. Whether or not the Bengals return to the playoffs isn't about their division rivals. It's about whether this franchise can finally handle success.

The Bengals haven't put together back-to-back winning seasons since 1981-82. To put that into perspective, those were the years when Ronald Reagan was beginning his first term as president, a gallon of gas was going for $1.30 and Marvin Lewis was starting his coaching career at Idaho State. This doesn't mean Cincinnati has struggled every year. The Bengals have been to the playoffs three times since 2005, the same amount as the Cowboys and one fewer than the Packers over that span. The problem has been following up that success. An AFC North title in 2005, and an 8-8 season in 2006. Another division title in 2009, and a 4-12 season in 2010.

Read the rest at the link above. Kind of strange it was written by a former Baltimore Sun sports writer, but I guess he had to broaden his horizons now that he's gone national.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ArmyBengal Grand Master

ArmyBengal

Posted
Posted

I'm going to disagree again here. I don't think that's the right question at all.

If the organization can handle success ?? I call busllsh*t.

I think there are better questions to ask:

How quickly will the rookies like Kirkpatrick, Zeitler, Sanu, etc. pick up the game and make an impact ??

How are things going to shake out with the secondary and all the new faces and Hall being a question mark ??

Will Guenther get the linebacking corps to take it up a notch and get something out of Moch and Muckelroy ??

How much will a healthy Dunlap impact the pass rush for the team this year ??

What will the running game look like in the committee format and BJGE ??

There are more, but I think it has to do with how all those players develop, contribute, and come together as a team.

I don't view last seasons success as a potential reason why they might not do as well THIS season.

In other words, if they do poorly this season, I won't be looking to blame in on the fact the team hasn't had back to back winning seasons since Reagan was in office. I just think that's to easy and lazy thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ArmyBengal Grand Master

ArmyBengal

Posted
Posted

Good points on both teams and again why I say it's bullsh*t to go there.

"The Bengals haven't had back to back winning seasons in 3 decades, so they are going to struggle this year."

That's f*cking lazy and if they struggle this year it won't be because of the last 3 decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyline Newbie

skyline

Posted
Posted

It's valid in that the 2010 team was more talented than the 2009 team, but the coaching staff and players couldn't turn that into wins. I give them a pass in 2006 since I don't believe Palmer had completely gotten over his injury (mentally if nothing else).

That said, this is a completely different team (and an altered coaching staff), so it will be interesting to see if they can shake this dogma that's following them around whether we agree with it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ArmyBengal Grand Master

ArmyBengal

Posted
Posted

The Bengals do have to "win" this year in order to get this monkey off their back

I couldn't agree with that thought more.

What I don't agree with is the thought that if they don't "win" this year, it somehow has anything to do with the fact they haven't had back to back winning seasons in 3 decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wraith Contributor

Wraith

Posted
Posted

The sad thing is we are even talking about this since, in my book they didn't have much success last year, 9-7 with a first round bowout in the playoffs is not what I would consider success. Do I think they overachieved last year absolutely but that doesn't measure up to success in my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cHaD711Johnson Newbie

cHaD711Johnson

Posted
Posted

The sad thing is we are even talking about this since, in my book they didn't have much success last year, 9-7 with a first round bowout in the playoffs is not what I would consider success. Do I think they overachieved last year absolutely but that doesn't measure up to success in my mind.

With a rookie QB, #1 WR, and a putrid running game I'd definitely consider last year a success. Then consider the lockout shortened offeseason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ArmyBengal Grand Master

ArmyBengal

Posted
Posted

The sad thing is we are even talking about this since, in my book they didn't have much success last year, 9-7 with a first round bowout in the playoffs is not what I would consider success. Do I think they overachieved last year absolutely but that doesn't measure up to success in my mind.

With a rookie QB, #1 WR, and a putrid running game I'd definitely consider last year a success. Then consider the lockout shortened offeseason.

And a rookie OC, injuries to Dunlap, Maualuga, Sims with the loss of Moch of Muckelroy as well.

Oh yeah, a new WR coach as well in Urban. The loss of Hall cannot be overlooked.

Yeah, going to the playoffs considering all of that just wasn't enough huh ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HoosierCat Grand Master

HoosierCat

Posted
Posted

I'm going to disagree again here. I don't think that's the right question at all.

Yeah, it seems a pretty lazy question to me, too. The Bengals didn't fade in 2006 because they "couldn't handle success." They faded because their QB was less than 100% due to a devastating knee injury, their star middle backer got thrown out of the league, their "joker" and their starting center suffered career-ending injuries in week 3, and just for fun their No. 2 wideout got suspended for 2 games by the league. Among other issues.

Likewise, 2010 was more about Brat's ancient, predictable offense, a QB who quit caring, a bunch of failed draft choices (Simpson, Smith, Caldwell) and the dumbest FA call ever (Bryant). Again, among other issues.

As for last season, yes, it was a success. All things considered it was a spectacular, king-hell-wake-the-dead success. I can't believe that's even a debate, and that's coming from me, the cynical bastige.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ArmyBengal Grand Master

ArmyBengal

Posted
Posted

As for last season, yes, it was a success. All things considered it was a spectacular, king-hell-wake-the-dead success. I can't believe that's even a debate, and that's coming from me, the cynical bastige.

And that's greatly appreciated there Hoosier !!!

Not trying to be picky whatsoever, but I would like to hear some arguement as to WHY last season wasn't successful from those that thought it sucked. I mean, I (among most) thought they could be the worst team in the league, but that wasn't the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...