walzav29 Posted November 21, 2005 Report Posted November 21, 2005 Why is it that the only time the Bengals are referred to as good, is when another team is beating them? If the Bengals aren't any good than no one should be patting them on their backs for beating the lowly Bengals. Quote
jjakq27 Posted November 21, 2005 Report Posted November 21, 2005 Why is it that the only time the Bengals are referred to as good, is when another team is beating them? If the Bengals aren't any good than no one should be patting them on their backs for beating the lowly Bengals. I agree. Curnutte pissed me off yesterday morning. He is now qualifying wins by saying the Bengals haven't beaten a team with a winning record when they played that team. In other words it makes no differece that Chicago is now playing well and Minnesota has won three of four and will get to .500 if they win tonight. Last time I checked, Indy is in the same division with Tennessee and Houston two of the bottom five teams in the league. Quote
bengalindian Posted November 21, 2005 Report Posted November 21, 2005 The Bengals suck. If that's what the media wants to think, then let them. Because I know the teams don't think the Bengals suck, because Peyton had to play one of the best games of his life yesterday and they still barely won. So let the fat, loser journalists talk. Because they're not on the field, so they don't count. Quote
Jet23 Posted November 21, 2005 Report Posted November 21, 2005 The Bengals suck. If that's what the media wants to think, then let them. Because I know the teams don't think the Bengals suck, because Peyton had to play one of the best games of his life yesterday and they still barely won. So let the fat, loser journalists talk. Because they're not on the field, so they don't count.Roger that! I'm so sick of these loser justifying their record by their 'easy schedule'. The Bengals are the ONLY team to win in Soldier Field. Even Carolina, everyone's latest sexy pick for the Super Bowl, went to Chicago and got waxed. If these morons don't recognize the fact that they are good by now, screw them. They will find out soon enough! Quote
AMC Posted November 21, 2005 Report Posted November 21, 2005 The Bengals suck. If that's what the media wants to think, then let them. Because I know the teams don't think the Bengals suck, because Peyton had to play one of the best games of his life yesterday and they still barely won. So let the fat, loser journalists talk. Because they're not on the field, so they don't count.Roger that! I'm so sick of these loser justifying their record by their 'easy schedule'. The Bengals are the ONLY team to win in Soldier Field. Even Carolina, everyone's latest sexy pick for the Super Bowl, went to Chicago and got waxed. If these morons don't recognize the fact that they are good by now, screw them. They will find out soon enough!Going into Soldier Field looks like a great win! And so does beating MINN all of a sudden, especially since we plastered them...and maybe the wins in CLE and BALT...man, those are tough places to play, regardless of the quality of the team... Why is it that the only time the Bengals are referred to as good, is when another team is beating them? If the Bengals aren't any good than no one should be patting them on their backs for beating the lowly Bengals. I agree. Curnutte pissed me off yesterday morning. He is now qualifying wins by saying the Bengals haven't beaten a team with a winning record when they played that team. In other words it makes no differece that Chicago is now playing well and Minnesota has won three of four and will get to .500 if they win tonight. Last time I checked, Indy is in the same division with Tennessee and Houston two of the bottom five teams in the league. BTW jjakq27, AWESOME sig pic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!was that from Massillon? Quote
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.