Sigh...and the Beat Goes On

[HoosierCat]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...john&id=2217806

The Bengals are destined to win 11 or 12 games because of an easy schedule. If the Steelers slip up or if Roethlisberger misses more than two games, they could lose the division and a possible second seed to the Bengals.

Hey, John, maybe you ought tocheck the Steelers sked, too? Las time I checked we had 12 common opponents, plus two games vs. each other -- and our two uncommon opponents are both a combined 8-8 right now. But we're only going to win 11-12 games because of an easy sked?

Hey, if the AFCN sked is so easy why don't the Ravens and Browns have more wins?

[Stripes]

The easiest chunk of our schedule came at the beginning of the season, so we earned that tag early in the season. Such tags stick with teams for a long time. Even though we have some pretty tough games coming up, we will have the "easy schedule" label for the rest of the regular season, and for the offseason too if we can't win a playoff game. If we handle our business and knock off the Colts and/or the Steelers, then I imagine these comments will stop.

[Sox]

Actually the Steelers and Bengals have 14 common opponents,not 12.

Obviously the Steelers are over-rated.

[thefrazz]

Actually the Steelers and Bengals have 14 common opponents,not 12.

Obviously the Steelers are over-rated.

That is correct.

3 in AFCN X 2

4 in NFCN

4 in AFCS

[walzav29]

It doesn't matter. The Bengals beat the Colts and the writers will be lined up on their knees.

[duus]

Actually the Steelers and Bengals have 14 common opponents,not 12.

Obviously the Steelers are over-rated.

This is the fact that continues to drive me nuts as well. With the new NFL scheduling format, all teams within a given division will always play 14 common opponents. That leaves only 2 other games by which to truly differentiate regarding this claim of 'easy schedule', etc. For the Bengals and Steelers this amounts to Bills/Chiefs as compared to Patriots/Chargers. I think we all know that the Patriots are not as good as the last few years, and the Chargers are less than last year, while the Chiefs are arguably better than last year ... and probably better than the Chargers this year. To me, I find it hard to argue this is no more than a wash. Heck, the combined records of these opponents is 8-8 vs. 9-8. Seems pretty even to me. If the Bengals can be accused of an easy schedule, then I think the Steelers can be as well. I suppose the difference is that the Steelers have already played the Patriots and Chargers, whereas the Bengals have not played the Bills and Chiefs. The Steelers went 1-1 against them, and I don't see the Bengals doing any worse. Again, a wash. We will surely know more come December 4. These next 3 games will define the season for the Bengals. It will either give folks more reason to question their 'strength' or it will allow them to put their heads above the rest. Time will tell.

[AMC]

I see a rather challenging schedule in the last 7 games...

Since when are Games against IND, PIT, BALT, BUF and KC easy???? And CLEV always plays us tough...

The only two games I see as "easy" are CLEV and DET (and nothing is a given).

But then Clayton will say the Bengals are playing "trap" games, and better watch out because anybody can be anybody, contradicting himself again....

We'll start hearing crap about how CLEV or BALT can play the role of upsetters and can determine the division....Hear it every year...

I think the Bengals have a very challenging schedule and could easily lose a few games on that "easy" schedule....

[HoosierCat]

Actually the Steelers and Bengals have 14 common opponents,not 12.

12. We don't count as common opponents vs. each other, which is why I phrased my initial post the way I did ("12 common opponents, plus two games vs. each other").

Just to be clear, I don't object to Clayton saying we had a easy 1st half sked. That would be true...but that also isn't what he said. He said that we would win 11-12 games the whole season because of an easy sked. Other teams he sees as playoff-bound, including Indy, Jax, and Pitt, have similar easy skeds...yet I don't see himm dismissing any of their accomplishments due to the quality of the opposition.

I think this has less to do with our first 9 games and more to do with the sports punditocracy. The majority were wrong about the Bengals in their preseason predictions -- or at least it appears that'll be the case, if things keep going the way they are -- and they are looking for an excuse to paper over their error. The subtext is: the Bengals really aren't for real. The just got lucky. Flash-in-the-pan. Etc. And so the beat goes on.

[bengalboomer7]

I think it's due to the freshness of our success. The steelers are seen as an "example" orginazation with a lot of respect through the media. Hell, I respect them, cause I can't figure out how they win with that close to the vest boring style of theirs(I respect them, but they just don't impress me) The Bengals have been losing for years, so they look for any excuse to still label us as losers. What, the Bengals are 7-2, must have had an easy schedule.

[Sox]

Actually the Steelers and Bengals have 14 common opponents,not 12.

12. We don't count as common opponents vs. each other, which is why I phrased my initial post the way I did ("12 common opponents, plus two games vs. each other").

We don't?Says who?

We play them,and they play us.

That makes them a common opponent.We're on their schedule and they're on ours.

[HoosierCat]

We don't?Says who?

The NFL. See, for example, Hobson's playoff picture breakdown here.

(It’s a little early for tiebreakers, but if the Bengals and Steelers finish with the same overall record and divisional record and split their two games, the title will be decided by the record in common games, of which they have 12.

They have both beaten Tennessee, Houston, Baltimore, and Green Bay, and both have lost to Jacksonville. Pittsburgh still has to play Cleveland twice, Chicago, Minnesota and Baltimore, teams the Bengals have beaten. The Bengals have to play the Browns and Ravens again, and both have to play Indianapolis and Detroit).

We play them,and they play us.

That makes them a common opponent.We're on their schedule and they're on ours.

True...but a common opponent in the NFL is an opponent that both teams play. Unlike the Steelers, we don't play the Bengals this year. Which is a good thing because those Bengals are freakin' tough!

[Kirkendall]

Anyone notice the high amount of teams that have poor records?

There's 6 teams with only 2 wins. There's 6 teams with only 3 wins and one teams with only 1 win.

[Stripes]

one teams with only 1 win.

Not to nitpick, but I guess I am... Don't two teams only have one win? Texans and Packers I believe.

[HoosierCat]

Anyone notice the high amount of teams that have poor records?

There's 6 teams with only 2 wins. There's 6 teams with only 3 wins and one teams with only 1 win.

Yeah, I tossed out a post on that a few days ago on the nfl board (the one where u helped correct my poor math!). Right now we're on course for a record year (at least in the last 10, I didn't check back farther) regarding the number of teams with 4 or fewer wins (8).

[Kirkendall]

one teams with only 1 win.

Not to nitpick, but I guess I am... Don't two teams only have one win? Texans and Packers I believe.

Yea, you're right. I'm still having problems seeing the Packs being this bad...

So that makes 14 teams with three wins or less.

This could be a year where we see only few teams with a .500 record (plus or minus a game to either 9-7 or 7-9). You're either in the playoffs, or you totally suck.

That's why I think the "easy schedule" argument is totally overrated.. at least this season. You could make that claim for almost every team.

HOWEVER, don't we and Pittsburgh have opponents with a combined record (all teams combined) of .500 or better for the rest of the season.

[Jet23]

one teams with only 1 win.

Not to nitpick, but I guess I am... Don't two teams only have one win? Texans and Packers I believe.

Yea, you're right. I'm still having problems seeing the Packs being this bad...

So that makes 14 teams with three wins or less.

This could be a year where we see only few teams with a .500 record (plus or minus a game to either 9-7 or 7-9). You're either in the playoffs, or you totally suck.

That's why I think the "easy schedule" argument is totally overrated.. at least this season. You could make that claim for almost every team.

HOWEVER, don't we and Pittsburgh have opponents with a combined record (all teams combined) of .500 or better for the rest of the season.

The National guys that actually do their homework realize that this is the same team that would have made the playoffs last year had they not had a brutal schedule. And, the guys that ML drafted have another year of experience under their belts as well as some pretty damn good rookies. Every team pretty much has an easy schedule, because 3/4 of the teams suck. They just focus on Cincinnati, because there has to be a reason why the 'Bungles' are 7 & 2.

I say let them talk. This team will continue to improve and may just blind side one to the teams that the media is in love with.

[Kirkendall]

Yea, you're right. It's like an NFL culteral shift... people haven't accepted the fact that they're now officially better than Colrain....

[HoosierCat]

Here's another one for the "who'da thunk it" file:

Who would have thought that halfway through the season, the AFC East would not have a team with a winning record...

[Kirkendall]

Here's another one for the "who'da thunk it" file:

Who would have thought that halfway through the season, the AFC East would not have a team with a winning record...

Yea, I noticed that too. Everyone is writing off the Pats already, and they are still in first place. Bill Belichick's master plan is still in the works...

Didn't they, about this point in the season, have all but one team with a winning record? Oh how the winds change in the NFL -- only sport where forecasting is irrelevent because they are always wrong!

[HoosierCat]

Oh how the winds change in the NFL -- only sport where forecasting is irrelevent because they are always wrong!

Yup. And since we got time, why not take a look back at espn's experts and how they are faring in their prognostications?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/preview05/ne...tory?id=2152292

-- Check out that NFC North champ prediction line! 12 out of 12 picked the Vikes! And 11 of 12 picked the Eagles in the NFC East.

-- Props to Hoge and Black, the only 2 of the 12 experts to pick the Bengals as so much as a wild card winner.

-- Mort did pick the Broncos…but the Bills & Jets as wild cards? Oops. (Not to mention the Iggles as the SB champ!

-- 7 of 12 picked the Ravens to win the AFCN. and 9 of 12 picked them to get there somehow. 9 of 12 picked the Jets to get to the playoffs in some form.

-- 7 of 12 thought the Cards would somehow make the playoffs.

All in all, too funny.

[Stripes]

Yea, I noticed that too. Everyone is writing off the Pats already, and they are still in first place. Bill Belichick's master plan is still in the works...

We're all being set up for another Patriot filled postseason. They will win that division at 9-7 or worse, and that's when Tom Brady will play his same old "undefeated in the playoffs" game, and Bill will hoist the trophy again...

[AMC]

Oh how the winds change in the NFL -- only sport where forecasting is irrelevent because they are always wrong!

Yup. And since we got time, why not take a look back at espn's experts and how they are faring in their prognostications?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/preview05/ne...tory?id=2152292

-- Check out that NFC North champ prediction line! 12 out of 12 picked the Vikes! And 11 of 12 picked the Eagles in the NFC East.

-- Props to Hoge and Black, the only 2 of the 12 experts to pick the Bengals as so much as a wild card winner.

-- Mort did pick the Broncos…but the Bills & Jets as wild cards? Oops. (Not to mention the Iggles as the SB champ!

-- 7 of 12 picked the Ravens to win the AFCN. and 9 of 12 picked them to get there somehow. 9 of 12 picked the Jets to get to the playoffs in some form.

-- 7 of 12 thought the Cards would somehow make the playoffs.

All in all, too funny.

Good research Joisey...I needed a good laugh!! Ha!

Yea, I noticed that too. Everyone is writing off the Pats already, and they are still in first place. Bill Belichick's master plan is still in the works...

We're all being set up for another Patriot filled postseason. They will win that division at 9-7 or worse, and that's when Tom Brady will play his same old "undefeated in the playoffs" game, and Bill will hoist the trophy again...

I get that saaaaaame feeling! Don't know about hoisting the trophy, but to win the SB you gotta go through the Pats until further notice...

[NYBengalfan]

Oh how the winds change in the NFL -- only sport where forecasting is irrelevent because they are always wrong!

Yup. And since we got time, why not take a look back at espn's experts and how they are faring in their prognostications?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/preview05/ne...tory?id=2152292

-- Check out that NFC North champ prediction line! 12 out of 12 picked the Vikes! And 11 of 12 picked the Eagles in the NFC East.

-- Props to Hoge and Black, the only 2 of the 12 experts to pick the Bengals as so much as a wild card winner.

-- Mort did pick the Broncos…but the Bills & Jets as wild cards? Oops. (Not to mention the Iggles as the SB champ!

-- 7 of 12 picked the Ravens to win the AFCN. and 9 of 12 picked them to get there somehow. 9 of 12 picked the Jets to get to the playoffs in some form.

-- 7 of 12 thought the Cards would somehow make the playoffs.

All in all, too funny.

Good s**t, Its amazing how things change. They use that easy schedule tag as a coverup of for their goofs.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

This is all about playing the NFC North - nothing else really.

Had the Bengals gotten the AFC West, or the NFC east, along with the Chiefs, Bills and Colts, it might be a different story folks.

Think about playing the Seahawks, Raiders, Chargers and Broncos versus the Packers, Bears, Lions and Vikings this year. Completely different story I'm guessing in the W-L column.

Or the Giants, Eagles, Redskins and Cowboys. Same deal.

Or the Bucs, Panthers, Falcons and Saints - same deal.

So yes, the Bengals' record is absolutely a result of timing and playing the weakest division in football.

To deny this would be ultra homerish and blind-sighted.

Make no mistake the Bengals are a good team right in the pack with the Panthers, Broncos, Falcons, Giants, Chiefs and Seahawks. But they really are not far from being a .500 team again like a # of other teams.

Their record is skewed because of an easy schedule and there's no doubt about it ultimately. Sure they don't have to apologize, but facts are facts no matter how you spin it, or how other good teams have fared against similar competition etc...,

I'm not saying they couldn't have finished above .500 this year regardless, but I'm not convinced they are a true 12-4 type of team this season yet...this is really all opinions and speculation until later in the year when the stronger part of the schedule is behind them.

If they beat the Colts that suddenly changes quite a bit I'm guessing. And that is what I am hoping for, but won't be too suprised like anyone else, if the Bengals lose, and lose again in Pitt.

[HoosierCat]

If they beat the Colts that suddenly changes quite a bit I'm guessing.

Why? The Colts have beaten just one team with a winning record, Jax. Isn't their record just as bloated by an easy sked as ours? Of course it is -- but you never see that pointed out.

If the Bengals' sked is so easy that 11 or 12 wins can be dismissed as "because of the schedule," isn't the same true for the Steelers, who play almost all the same teams? Of course it is -- but you never see that pointed out.

Frankly, should the Bengals beat the Colts, I fully expect the pundit-spin the next day will be to diminish the victory by pointing out how weak the Colts sked has been. Hell, if the Bengals were to win the Super Bowl this season, it wouldn't stun me to see NFL Films title the annual film about the game "Weak-Schedule Warriors: The Story of Super Bowl XL."