Can't say we haven't beaten an over .500 team any more.

[Wraith]

I apologize if this has been said elsewhere, but Chicago is now 4-3 and has taken a firm lead in the NFC North. This means we beat an over .500 team badly on their home field.

Now that this is put to rest how about the rest of the Bengals myths, first I have heard 5 times since Sunday that the Bengals don't have a downfield passing attack...Our QB is on pace to throw for 4000+ yards and is leading the NFL in passing yards and passing TDs i.e. this statement is BS. Second, we do not have an effective rushing attack, well Rudi is on pace for 1362 yards and is actually ahead of where he was last year when he broke the Bengals single season rushing record and went to the Pro Bowl and he is second in the NFL in yards after contact. Our game plan this week was clearly to keep the ball out of Favre's hands as much as possible, we didn't throw down the field this game because it wasn't in our game plan.

This team is 6-2, we have Baltimore (twice), Cleveland, Buffalo, and Detriot left on this schedule, if we continue to play well, beat the teams we should beat and lose to the teams that are equal to or better than us we will end the season 11-5. I'll take 11-5, it would be the third best record in Bengals history. We are on pace to score the most points, have the most yards, most yards passing, and most TDs passing of any Bengals team. Again I'll take that with this team.

Yes, our rushing defense still sucks but we are on a pace to set the NFL record for turnovers, INTs, and turnover margin. I don't think this is a Super Bowl team this year, we are still too young and have some growing left to do, but we will certainly make the playoffs and we will be a legitimate contender for the Super Bowl next year. Do you think the marquee Free Agents will snub us next year after we go 11-5? This is all about a return to respectability and this year is just the next step. a memo to all Bengals fans ENJOY THE RIDE!

[jjakq27]

I agree. For all of the belly-aching about the Bengals schedule, I present the following:

Common opponents for all AFC North teams in 2005

6 games vs. other AFC North teams (Baltimore, Cleveland, Pittsburgh-for the Bengals)

4 games vs. NFC North (Chicago (4-3), Minnesota (2-5), Detroit (3-4), Green Bay (1-6))

4 games vs. AFC South (Houston (1-6), Indy (7-0), Jacksonville (4-3), Tennessee (2-6))

2 games vs. AFC East and AFC West based on order of finish in 2004

Pittsburgh (1st place in 2004) plays New England (4-3) and San Diego (4-4) (8-7 combined)

Baltimore (2nd place in 2004) plays NY Jets (2-5) and Denver (6-2) (8-7 combined)

Cincinnati (3rd place in 2004) plays Buffalo (3-5) and Kansas City (4-3) (7-8 combined)

Cleveland (4th place in 2004) plays Miami (3-4) and Oakland (3-4) (6-8 combined)

It looks pretty even to me. I am not sure why people must find a way to diminish the results so far. What else do you want?

[Stripes]

The big difference is the home and away schedules. I really think we got a big break in that area.

[Jet23]

Personally, I could care less who they beat as long as they make the playoffs. If they are lucky enough to make the playoffs, I hope the word is that they have a soft schedule and can't beat the good teams. Because, in the playoffs, anything can happen. AND, if they finish the year playing as well as they did at the end of next year, I like our chances.

AND, if they finish the year playing as well as they did at the end of next year, I like our chances.

Er, uuuh, that should read, 'at the end of LAST year'. Still stuck on stupid this morning...

[rob_justdmb]

I agree. For all of the belly-aching about the Bengals schedule, I present the following:

2 games vs. AFC East and AFC West based on order of finish in 2004

Pittsburgh (1st place in 2004) plays New England (4-3) and San Diego (4-4) (8-7 combined)

Cincinnati (3rd place in 2004) plays Buffalo (3-5) and Kansas City (4-3) (7-8 combined)

It looks pretty even to me. I am not sure why people must find a way to diminish the results so far. What else do you want?

While I agree I don't care who we play as long as we win and get to the playoffs, no matter what their records are, San Diego and New England are better than Buffalo and Kansas City. NE and SD's strength of schedule is significantly harder than Buffalo and KC's and is a good reason why the combined records are similar.

[jjakq27]

I agree. For all of the belly-aching about the Bengals schedule, I present the following:

2 games vs. AFC East and AFC West based on order of finish in 2004

Pittsburgh (1st place in 2004) plays New England (4-3) and San Diego (4-4) (8-7 combined)

Cincinnati (3rd place in 2004) plays Buffalo (3-5) and Kansas City (4-3) (7-8 combined)

It looks pretty even to me. I am not sure why people must find a way to diminish the results so far. What else do you want?

While I agree I don't care who we play as long as we win and get to the playoffs, no matter what their records are, San Diego and New England are better than Buffalo and Kansas City. NE and SD's strength of schedule is significantly harder than Buffalo and KC's and is a good reason why the combined records are similar.

The AFC West is playing the AFC East and NFC East this year. The only difference between the Chargers and Chiefs is that SD plays Indy and Pittsburgh while KC plays Cincy and Houston.

The AFC East is playing the AFC West and NFC South this year. The only difference between the Patriots and the Bills is that NE plays Pittsburgh and Indy while Buffalo plays Houston and Cincinnati.

There is a difference but not much within a division. Also who would have thought Houston would be so bad after going 7-9 last year.

I think this is one reason the NFL created the rotating schedule in 2002, once Houston gave them an even 32 teams. It keeps 14 of the 16 games the same for all four teams in a division which minimizes the bitching. It also gives the lower teams a chance by matching them up with the team in the same place (1st, 2nd, 3rd...) in the of divisions within the conference for the other two games.