TippCityRick Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 Not much to talk about with this one guys. Marvin's legion should prevail by 2 tds minumum. If they don't, THEN we have something to talk about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Orange Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 SHUTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUTSHOTOUTSHUTOUT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 I'd love that Big O... The Texans have some explosive guys on offense, but with new coordinator, and this being played in Cincy.... it could happen....Who Dey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekshank Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 A trap game? Doubtful. It's possible, but Houston is a mess. They've had problems with the hurricane, they've fired their O-Coordinator, and benched 2 defensive starters, after week 2. Dom Capers is already in panic mode, because he's well on his way to losing his job. They've just got too much going against them right now.Sure they had a bye week, but with a new coordinator, and the storm, they couldn't have put it together enough to play at the level we've been playing at.Here's a couple stats to prove my point.The Bengals are scoring 29.3 points/game. The Texans are scoring 7.The Bengals are allowing 9.3 points/game. The Texans are allowing 24.5.(obviously not good football logic, but according to the stats...) My prediction is that the Bengals win 27-8. I said it last week, but everyone wanted to worry about the Chicago game. With the way we are playing, it's going to take a very good team to beat us right now. Texas is not that team.Carr and Andre johnson are always a huge threat, they've been working together for 2 weeks straight i garuntee it...to fix their long ball and get some over the top offense going.Their D maybe have been playing crappy, but be ready to be suprised this team could stun us on Sunday.Are you kidding me? You should seek psychiatric counseling for BUNGLIETY, the irrational fear that this team will return to the ways of previous Bengals team. Take two Prozac and wash them down with a beer and call me Monday moring when the Bengals will have put up at least 30 points. Their defense is giving over 400 yds per game, well balanced between rushing and passing.I expect 150 yds from Rudi,and 350 yds passing from Carson. Palmer will not have 350 yards. Generally your QB only has a ton of passing yards if there is a continued need for scoring. The Minnesota game was an anomaly, because he ran his numbers up early in the game, and they wanted to keep playing the hot hand until the Vikings could no longer come back.I expect numbers a bit closer to the Bears game for Palmer. He will not be forced to throw the ball often, because we will lead early. My guess is a big game from Rudi, and between 150 to 250 yards for Palmer with 2 TD's. We'll ride the running game and clock control in this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingwilly Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 No way the Texans "stun" the Bengals and here is why. Teams that are full of themselves get "stunned", teams that look ahead get "stunned", teams that have poor coaching focus get "stunned", in other words, the "Old Bengals" would be at risk for being "stunned" but not this team.I agree with Derek about the stat lines:Carson will still complete close to or above 70% but will need less than 30 attempts and probably below 300 yrds. (19-26 289yds 4td and 0int)Rudi could well approach 200 but i think we will see Perry get alot of snaps to spread the workload around. Both may end up over 100yrds.D will continue the fleecing of other teams. 3 INT's and at least one FF.I'd like to see some retruns go for some big yards. Field position again will be how we use tactical strikes to put this game out of reach my the middle of the 2nd qtr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalszoneBilly Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 The Texans game could be a tough one? Sure it could. And the chick in my sig could be an "A" cup, but she ain't and it won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalByTheBay Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 [Resisting temptation to quote entire BigO post] BO - what are you trying to say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsfan2 Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 I seriously doubt that the Texans are going to be a tough test for the Bengals on offense or defense, and that isn't really the point that I was trying to make. If we have them down 28 to zip at the end of the first half, they are still going to come out playing hard in the second half. That's all I was saying. the outcome won't be any different, but you have to admire the fact that they just won't give up. Rev ............ You are truly a fascinating person ........ and a shutout is possible in this game unless we put our 2nd team on the field for the entire 4th qtr. Which may not be a bad idea if the game is totally out of hand at that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 http://www.nfl.com/teams/stats/HOUAll the reasons you need to realize we are going to beat the hell out of the Texans this Sunday. Do you know how to spot a Texans fan ?? These guys are bad and Carson is going to have a field day with their secondary... You think you felt bad for Orton ??? Just wait... Bengals 31 Texans 6WHODEY !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Orange Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 I am so hurt that none of you read through my post...if you had you would have noticed that half of my "shutout"'s are shotout's...That being said I think any score guessing for this game that doesn't include the Bengals with 30+ and the Texans with 0 is either pessimistic or blind.Even though we have dominated our first 3 games...actually the Browns was our toughest fight...this game will give a new meaning to blow out. I think a guess of scoring 60 is a bit homerish and more like a college score, but 50 isn't out of the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walshfan Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 Allways goals to shoot for in a game like this...Defense could try to shut them out..Offense could try and get over 400 yards..allways something to get the players fired up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalindian Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 As much as 50 is very possible, 50 is usually only scored in a shootout, and I don't see this being anything close. I'm thinking 38-7, with the Texans getting the 4th quarter TD, while we're all rooting for a shutout.Hopefully, it's David Carr because he's on my fantasy team, and I can't sit him because my 3rd QB is on a bye. Oh well, I'll suck it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turningpoint Posted September 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 Carr and Andre johnson are always a huge threat, they've been working together for 2 weeks straight i garuntee it...to fix their long ball and get some over the top offense going.Their D maybe have been playing crappy, but be ready to be suprised this team could stun us on Sunday.Are you kidding me? You should seek psychiatric counseling for BUNGLIETY, the irrational fear that this team will return to the ways of previous Bengals team. Take two Prozac and wash them down with a beer and call me Monday moring when the Bengals will have put up at least 30 points. Their defense is giving over 400 yds per game, well balanced between rushing and passing.I expect 150 yds from Rudi,and 350 yds passing from Carson. LOL no just don't think we should be getting too cocky and over looking crap teams like this.As much as 50 is very possible, 50 is usually only scored in a shootout, and I don't see this being anything close. I'm thinking 38-7, with the Texans getting the 4th quarter TD, while we're all rooting for a shutout.Hopefully, it's David Carr because he's on my fantasy team, and I can't sit him because my 3rd QB is on a bye. Oh well, I'll suck it up.can;t even get another qb?? hell i;d take brooks bollinger over him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semiotter Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 This is a blow-out on paper and a blow-out on the field. This will be the Bengals BIGGEST win of this new season..............OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOh YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAH!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Orange Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 Every time I read the title of this thread it makes me laugh...I think the poster is being sarcastic. The only way this is a tough game is if they aren't playing the Bengals, but Bengalszone. I call D-tackle. I'm usually more of an O-line kinda guy, but even I think I could penetrate their O-line.If I get to Carr I'm gonna try to pull off a couple moves I learned from "The Longest Yard". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyline Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 So...do you think we'll see Pollack's first sack as a pro? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 So...do you think we'll see Pollack's first sack as a pro? This just might be the game Pollack explodes, gets his confidence up, and goes on to dominate the rest of the season. Then again, maybe not... We still win by at least 21...WHODEY !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 Good question Skyline, and agreed Army. Pollack has a great shot at pressuring Carr all game long, and I do predict will see him get a sack or two.Don't let me down Davey boy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spain Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 We have beem lacking on the pressure because of water boys holdout! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 We have beem lacking on the pressure because of water boys holdout! I think Mr. Pollack had some nice plays against the Bears, I remember a few times him chasing Kyle Orton out of the pocket. If Geathers can get it going, and open things up for Justin, the Pollack's success should increase accordingly.In any event, he's at a new postion, holdout or not. Give the man time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 I think the lack of sacks is due to the Bengals defensive gameplan...which has been just about perfect. IMHO they stacked the line against Cleveland, stunted rarely...maintaining gap control, and dared Dilfer to beat them with his arm. All he could manage to do was put up some puffed up stats and a half dozen balls up for grabs. The D-line rarely pressured Dilfer, but considering the lack of points he came away with I'd argue that he hardly exploited them. Against Minnesota they got solid pressure with a basic four man rush and a little help from the Joker, David Pollack. But despite the turnover-fest there was very little blitzing...certainly nothing that looked like a jailbreak. Oddly enough, I thought their attack against Orton was even more basic. Instead of teeing off on the rookie they mostly stayed with a four man pass rush, mixing in Pollack, while dropping everyone else into coverage. Am I the only one that sees a trend here? Very basic D-line play, minimal stunting, an emphasis on gap control, and most importantly...good but not great pass rush pressure from a basic four man front. From this chair you'll hear no excuses offered for the lack of sacks because Justin Smith has been a force on the edge and Robinson is surprising good on the interior. Against the Texans I'm expecting more of the same simply because they're a team that is poorly suited to exploit what the Bengals are doing. The Texans don't run the ball well enough to dictate changes up front and their pass blockers aren't good enough to negate the pass rush....thereby forcing the Bengals to blitz more. That said, I actually do expect more blitzing from the Bengals...after they're up by a couple of scores....but only because the Texans seem poorly suited to keep them in check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 Am I the only one that sees a trend here? Very basic D-line play, minimal stunting, an emphasis on gap control, and most importantly...good but not great pass rush pressure from a basic four man front.Pretty much what was expected, isn't it? Marvin wanted more from the front 4, while Frazier was a bigger fan of stunts and blitzes. And focusing the secondary and 'backers on the pass is paying off in picks. Looks like chuck was a good call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobcat Bengal Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 Am I the only one that sees a trend here? Very basic D-line play, minimal stunting, an emphasis on gap control, and most importantly...good but not great pass rush pressure from a basic four man front. From this chair you'll hear no excuses offered for the lack of sacks because Justin Smith has been a force on the edge and Robinson is surprising good on the interior. No, you're not. But you do bring up a good point. Upon the hiring of CB, I think a greater emphasis was placed on simplicity coupled with speed. A far constrast to what Frazier was doing, cerebral approaches with lots of exotic blitzes and stuff. Looks like CB is applying his K.I.S.S Navy mantra as our defensive team philosophy, and its working! Pretty much what was expected, isn't it? Marvin wanted more from the front 4, while Frazier was a bigger fan of stunts and blitzes. And focusing the secondary and 'backers on the pass is paying off in picks. Looks like chuck was a good call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 Pretty much what was expected, isn't it? Marvin wanted more from the front 4, while Frazier was a bigger fan of stunts and blitzes. And focusing the secondary and 'backers on the pass is paying off in picks. Looks like chuck was a good call. It's pretty funny how often Marvin described how simple his system is, only to be greeted with laughter and rolling eyes. But it IS simple, isn't it? Frazier never seemed to get the whole picture....probably because he's a Buddy Ryan/Jim Johnson disciple who believes in blitzing from the moment you wake up. But Bresnahan does seem like a better fit if for no other reason than the changes he's made on the D-line. Marvinisms: Speed over size. Aggression over read-and-react. Simple schemes over complex gameplans. Do your job, and only your job, and trust that other players will do the same. Keep the game infront of you and reduce big plays surrendered. Eyes forward...ears back...legs always moving...get to the freakin' ball. Take it. Blitz and stunt only when the situation dictates you take bigger chances, not as a matter of choice. Want some? Get some. For a fan of defensive football this is fun stuff because THIS is what we've been waiting for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesperateDerelict Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 Marvinisms: Speed over size. Aggression over read-and-react. Simple schemes over complex gameplans. Do your job, and only your job, and trust that other players will do the same. Keep the game infront of you and reduce big plays surrendered. Eyes forward...ears back...legs always moving...get to the freakin' ball. Take it. Blitz and stunt only when the situation dictates you take bigger chances, not as a matter of choice. Want some? Get some. For a fan of defensive football this is fun stuff because THIS is what we've been waiting for.All good points, HOF . . . and by the way, what in the HELL is that => 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.