Another Bengals Team like '88?

[scott91575]

Well, to all those Bengal fans that remember the glory years, I was hoping to revisit 88 when the Bengals last made the Super Bowl.

One difference of note is the running game. In 88 they led the league in rushing. I doubt they do it this year, but it might become a similar 2 headed monster (yet in this case the 2005 team it will be dominated by the power rusher). Perry, if he can stay heatlhy, may get more carries and play the JB to Rudi's Ickey. OK, that is a stretch, but still a nice combo.

Here is where I start to like the similarities. First of all, OLine. The 88 team wins due to Munoz (possibly the best Olinemen to play the game) yet both are strengths. The bookends are great. The middle of the 88 team is better, and this leads to the better running game. Yet the Oline is the strength, and the 2005 team looked great against a Bears D in pass protection.

At QB, Boomer was the master of the play action fake. Palmer is not there, but both could throw the long ball like no ones business. Good underneath, but that long ball made the team. The similarities here are rather close. The main difference is Boomer relied on the play fake, while Palmer just hits the long ball with better accuracy.

At wideout, Chad is better than dowtown Eddie. TJ is much like McGee. 2005 is better here, but still explosive like the 88 team.

In all the offense is really good, but this time the pass is more emphasized. Even though the 2005 Bengals can run the ball, the pass is what teams are scared of. In 88, the run was the setup. Overall I think the offense is similar in capacity, but a little different in style.

The D is where it is becoming like 88. Oportunistic DB's. Not much of a pass rush. Fulcher was a LB at safety and the 2005 team doesn't have this. Both are decent D's that look for turnovers, yet don't always shut a team down. I think the 2005 team will be much like the 88 team. Decent, will win some games, but not dominant. The O will carry this team. The D will look for turnovers.

As for positions, I would like a Krumrie at nose and a Fulcher at safety, but the 2005 LB's are better. The cb's look better (Billups hurts the '88 team). Dline, well, both a not great outside of Krumrie. At sefety, Fulcher was the man back in the day. The run stuffer the 05 Bengals don't have.

In the end I think these teams look similar. I hope this team can one up the results.

[Benzoo]

Did I see Plamer going no huddle against Minnesota? Gave me chills.

One thing the 88 team had that really sticks out by comparison is Rodney Holman. Brown, McGee and Collinsworth were nifty, but Holman was that passing game's glue. Boomer always had a target over the middle, and that really freed up Eddie Brown who had sick yards per catch (I think he lead the league that year).

But you know, it was a different time. I don't think any NFL can use that same RB tandem, where both guys were on the field at the same time. Fullbacks just don't get the carries that they used to.

The old Ickey counter trey was a thing of beauty, made possible by Max Montoya, and the ground game was never the same after he left for the Raiders.

Both offenses are definitely similar because they had so many different weapons.

As far as the defense...I actually like this version much more. They're bigger, faster, and they will be better against the run when it's all said and done. Odell Thurman is otherwordly, something that they did not have in 1988.

But boy, what a job that defense did against that amazing 49er offense for three and a half quarters. That was an amazing football game.

[scott91575]

Well, the TE is different. Not sure I would say the 88 team had a great TE, but you have a point. Yet you are right, the time is also different. The two back set seems dead.

As for the D's, I'm not sold yet on 2005. The run D needs help. That is the only thing that keeps me from proclaiming this team as a SB contender. I'm am really worried about the Steelers, Patroits, and Colts of the NFL. They can run AND pass. So far the team has made the opposition one dimentional or had the Bears that can't pass. The secondary in pass D I like. Yet there is no Krumrie in the middle that can blow up a run at the line. They never stacked the D on the line in any game. If they are forced to do this in order to stop the run I am worried.

Although, I have to admit that this is my only worry for this team. Nice to only have one.

[panzer]

A big difference between this year and '88 is that Joe Montana is retired

[Stripes]

A big difference between this year and '88 is that Joe Montana is retired

Big whoop, now we get Brady instead!

[Benzoo]

Well, the TE is different. Not sure I would say the 88 team had a great TE, but you have a point. Yet you are right, the time is also different. The two back set seems dead.

As for the D's, I'm not sold yet on 2005. The run D needs help. That is the only thing that keeps me from proclaiming this team as a SB contender. I'm am really worried about the Steelers, Patroits, and Colts of the NFL. They can run AND pass. So far the team has made the opposition one dimentional or had the Bears that can't pass. The secondary in pass D I like. Yet there is no Krumrie in the middle that can blow up a run at the line. They never stacked the D on the line in any game. If they are forced to do this in order to stop the run I am worried.

Although, I have to admit that this is my only worry for this team. Nice to only have one.

Rodney's sixth all time (for the Bengals) with 319 catches, and had 43 TD's in his career. Not "great" but this year's Bengals don't have anyone manning the TE position that can compare.

He was definitely a big factor in 1988 with 39 catches. The only Bengal TE that had nearly as many catches was Tony McGee, with 38 way back in 1996.

Holman's a rare breed at the tight end position for the Bengals over history.

Wonder how many TE's are in his team's top ten in receptions in the entire NFL? Maybe five or six?

This is a pretty fun topic.

[UKstripes]

Holman and Fulcher were the two reasons I took to the Bengals the first time I saw football on tv here in england. It's hard to tell over here because Sky Sports have not seen fit to show any Bengals game footage whatsoever, but it sounds like one hell of an improvement on last season.

Krumrie and Fulcher apart I don't recall the 88 D being laden with studs, although I'm sure the "swat team" label was based on SOMETHING! The O was awesome because the O-Line was awesome - something TJ alluded to with regard to the 2005 Bengals last week when he said "You wouldn't be talking to us if it wasn't for them (the O-Line)" in the post game locker room interview.

I think the big difference this year is that we don't appear to be making mistakes on offense, meaning we are scoring earlier and controlling the clock better. Thus when the opponent gets the ball, they are trailing AND short on time, limiting the plays available to them and forcing them to take risks, which has the knock-on effect that our D doesn't have to take risks - this leads inevitably to turnovers. Some corners of the press have pointed at our low sack numbers as evidence of a still-poor pass rush, but I'll tke five picks over five sacks any sunday of the year, and people don't throw picks unless they're under some sort of pressure, whether it be Jumpy jr and Justin breathing down your neck or the game situation demanding a high-risk pass.

Sorry for deviating slightly off-topic but I'm drooling at the thought that Cincinnati are actually on british tv this sunday. And someone mentioned Rodney Holman.

[Scottishbengal]

It's hard to tell over here because Sky Sports have not seen fit to show any Bengals game footage whatsoever

Just wait ... Sunday approaches and those Texans will be longhorned! (but not in the biblical sense of course)

[AMC]

I always remembered how Marv Levy always tried to take credit for the no-huddle....it was all Bengals man...

AND Max Montoya is the most UNDERRATED player in NFL history!!!!! Should be in the HOF next to Anthony Munoz...

[San Antonio Bengal]

AND Max Montoya

Sorry for the off-topicness, but whenever I hear the name Max Montoya name I think "Hello, my name is Max Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die." I could just imagine him saying that to some of the opposing linemen.

[ArmyBengal]

I always remembered how Marv Levy always tried to take credit for the no-huddle....it was all Bengals man...

AND Max Montoya is the most UNDERRATED player in NFL history!!!!! Should be in the HOF next to Anthony Munoz...

Oh no you didn't get me started on Marv Levy did you ??

What an ass-clown !!! I recall his bitching about us using the no -huddle against him, then after throwing it into his own offense scheme, wanting to take credit it for it, like he was some kind of genious. Between his bitching and whining, I was thinking we were seeing the first woman coach in the NFL. What a B**CH !!!

I know, I know, I'll save you guys the time...

To bring it back in, if there are similarities to the 88 team, great seeing as we went to the SuperBowl that year, but think this team is going to be special for YEARS to come and has a flare we have not seen in any Bengals team to date !!! This is so much fun !!!

WHODEY !!!

[rob_justdmb]

As someone has watched every 88 Bengals game within the last 6 months, I'll say that you are pretty much right on with 1 exception where I don't think you're right. The outside front defenders were much better in 88. Carl Zander might be the most underrated defender ever to play here and had a better year than Simmons and Landon Johnson combined. Reggie Williams on the other side was money. They could rush, they could cover, and they could hit. People might have thought Jason Buck was a bust, and in the grand scheme of things, he might have been, but he played a hell of a 3rd down end, and Jim Skow was incredible for being a vastly undersized end.

[redsfan2]

One difference of note is the running game. In 88 they led the league in rushing. I doubt they do it this year,

At QB, Boomer was the master of the play action fake. Palmer is not there, but both could throw the long ball like no ones business. Good underneath, but that long ball made the team. The similarities here are rather close. The main difference is Boomer relied on the play fake, while Palmer just hits the long ball with better a

Boomer most definitely was a sleight of hand master. The 2 things that really sold the fake tho were #1 he had running backs that you would swear to god really did have the football ..... and #2 he was left handed ... so he could ( I saw him do this to Mann ) stand there looking like he just had his hand on his hip when he was actually concealing the ball behind his back. Mann actually started jumping up and down in front of Boomer to celebrate them stopping the run only to have him pull the ball out and toss it donwfield for the 1st down. Anderson had actually been pretty good at it too, but Boomer took it to a new level.

Fast forward ......... Palmer bears no resemblence to Boomer as far as style or technique go. I don't know that his play would lend itself to the fake .... and like you said we don't have the backs that could sell it for him either. All of that is OK with me ... it's a new era, so its appropriate that these guys forge their own identity and style.

On defense .... Fulcher used to be billed as the worlds largest safety. He was So dam big that you thought his height and weight were misprints. It was unusual for that time period to have a db that big. Again fast forwarding to today, Lewis is incorporating multi purpose db's .......... Doesn't even like to talk about " free " or " strong " safeties. " They are what they are, and that's a good thing" . Does anyone else think of Martha Stewart when coach Lewis says " that's a good thing" ???????? Cracks me up. Anyway .... again new era ... new innovation. I like it .... '88 was good, but I'd like '05 to be better. I'd llike all similarities to previous teams to end with us winning the AFC. After that I'd like these guys to do something that hasn't been done before.

[Columbusbengal]

One thing the 88 team had that really sticks out by comparison is Rodney Holman. Boomer always had a target over the middle.

I think Dan Ross played a similar role for Kenny Anderson in the first Super Bowl year.

[DesperateDerelict]

I'll say that you are pretty much right on with 1 exception where I don't think you're right.

[Columbusbengal]

I always remembered how Marv Levy always tried to take credit for the no-huddle....it was all Bengals man...

Actually, didn't Marv Levy try to get the no-huddle offense banned by the NFL because he couldn't stop the Bengals offense??

[Jet23]

Well, to all those Bengal fans that remember the glory years, I was hoping to revisit 88 when the Bengals last made the Super Bowl.

One difference of note is the running game. In 88 they led the league in rushing. I doubt they do it this year, but it might become a similar 2 headed monster (yet in this case the 2005 team it will be dominated by the power rusher). Perry, if he can stay heatlhy, may get more carries and play the JB to Rudi's Ickey. OK, that is a stretch, but still a nice combo.

Here is where I start to like the similarities. First of all, OLine. The 88 team wins due to Munoz (possibly the best Olinemen to play the game) yet both are strengths. The bookends are great. The middle of the 88 team is better, and this leads to the better running game. Yet the Oline is the strength, and the 2005 team looked great against a Bears D in pass protection.

At QB, Boomer was the master of the play action fake. Palmer is not there, but both could throw the long ball like no ones business. Good underneath, but that long ball made the team. The similarities here are rather close. The main difference is Boomer relied on the play fake, while Palmer just hits the long ball with better accuracy.

At wideout, Chad is better than dowtown Eddie. TJ is much like McGee. 2005 is better here, but still explosive like the 88 team.

In all the offense is really good, but this time the pass is more emphasized. Even though the 2005 Bengals can run the ball, the pass is what teams are scared of. In 88, the run was the setup. Overall I think the offense is similar in capacity, but a little different in style.

The D is where it is becoming like 88. Oportunistic DB's. Not much of a pass rush. Fulcher was a LB at safety and the 2005 team doesn't have this. Both are decent D's that look for turnovers, yet don't always shut a team down. I think the 2005 team will be much like the 88 team. Decent, will win some games, but not dominant. The O will carry this team. The D will look for turnovers.

As for positions, I would like a Krumrie at nose and a Fulcher at safety, but the 2005 LB's are better. The cb's look better (Billups hurts the '88 team). Dline, well, both a not great outside of Krumrie. At sefety, Fulcher was the man back in the day. The run stuffer the 05 Bengals don't have.

In the end I think these teams look similar. I hope this team can one up the results.

If you remember, Boomer started that year throwing lights out on fire (kind of like Carson). The running game took over after Boomer hurt (or allegedly) hurt his shoulder. That's when a young rb started to shine, which nicely complimented an awesome veteran backfield. Hmmm...we have one of them there young rbs and a veteran rb...

Did anyone hear what Michael Irvin said about the Bengals prior to the Monday night game? Not that I put too much stock in his opinion, but he did say that the Bengals reminded him of the '91 Cowboys. I have to admit, I had wood thinking of the possibilities of 3 rings. Oh, dare to dream...

[redsfan2]

I always remembered how Marv Levy always tried to take credit for the no-huddle....it was all Bengals man...

Actually, didn't Marv Levy try to get the no-huddle offense banned by the NFL because he couldn't stop the Bengals offense??

Good Ol Marv notified the NFL that he would have his players fake injuries ala Joe " Trick Knee " Nash to stop the Bengals from using the no huddle offense in the AFC Championship unless they prohibited its use. NFL caved, and the week before the game told Wyche that he would not be allowed to use the offense that he had been using ( without protest ) for the entire season. Didn't do 'em any good.

The NEXT SEASON Marv unveiled the no huddle offense that he and Ted Marchibroda " invented " during the off season. When asked about the similarity to Cincinnatis' no huddle, he replied something to the affect that there was no similarity. Cincinnatis was a gimmick used to keep opponents from making substitutions or catching them with too many men on the field if they tried. His and Teds' on the other hand was a true offensive scheme. He didn't elaborate further.

My take ??? His scheming was offensive allright.

[derekshank]

I'm hoping this team doesn't bear too much resemblance to the '88 Bengals. They had a magical year that year... probably more success than they should have had. They lost the superbowl, and never made it back. Only a few years later, their success was all but forgotten in favor of 15 years of failure.

We have the kind of QB and Coach that should keep us good for a long time... and hopefully enough young talent on the defense to do the same. I'm wishfully hoping for much more success than the '88 year, which I still see as kind of a fluke, looking back at it.

It's still an interesting comparison though.

[Columbusbengal]

I think another difference between the 1988 team and this one is the attitude of the national media. This year's team is clearly on a path to be the "media darlings" of this season. The 1988 team was virtually ignored until the playoffs. I am astounded at the attention the Bengals are already getting. If they continue to look good, I can't imagine a single sports show that won't be talking about them. This is just one more thing Marvin has brought to Cincinnati.

[rob_justdmb]

we didn't get this much pub in 88, but we got a lot. I recently got lucky enough to land every week of ESPN Primetime from 88, and it's untrue to say we were ignored. We were the lead story at least 8 of the 16 weeks.

[scott91575]

I think another difference between the 1988 team and this one is the attitude of the national media. This year's team is clearly on a path to be the "media darlings" of this season. The 1988 team was virtually ignored until the playoffs. I am astounded at the attention the Bengals are already getting. If they continue to look good, I can't imagine a single sports show that won't be talking about them. This is just one more thing Marvin has brought to Cincinnati.

Sorta true, but anyone remember that read haired female announcer on NBC (her name escapes me right now) actually predicted the Bengals for the SB in '88. They played that up the whole season.

Don't forget that the Bengals, despite a bad year in '87 during the strike, were indeed becoming media darlings with the 10 win '86 team that just missed the playoffs. The strike year really lowered expectations...really at no fault to the Bengals. The strike really hurt that team, and many were ardent player union guys.

If I recall correct the Bengals needed a Miami loss on Monday night in '86 in order to make the playoffs. Yet the Dolphins won (I still remember ABC cutting away to the shots of the Bengal players at one of the guys homes watching the game).