The Bengals' Lack of "Quality" Wins Myth

[membengal]

The Bengals are 2-3 this year against teams with winning records.

The two wins are over the Bears and Vikings. Taking each of those wins in turn:

1. Chicago: The Bears are now 8-3. Mike and Mike on espn radio cannot stop gushing about the Bears' defense, which has given up, apparently, only 10 touchdowns in 11 games. I now hasten to note that THREE of those touchdowns came from the Bengals, in the slop, on the road at Soldier Field. That win over the Bears in those conditions was a HUGE quality win. No matter how you slice it.

2. Minnesota: Ah, the win everyone discounts. In the Vikings' 2-5 start, do you all know who their losses were to? I looked it up this morning and found:

Tampa, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Chicago and Carolina.

Um....those are a collection of wicked good teams. In fact, since getting past the horrifically hard part of their schedule, the Vikings have found their defensive footing and are now 6-5 including a win over the Giants. With the Lions on tap for next week, and the Packers after that, they are likely to get to 8-5. That was a huge quality win for the Bengals, early in the year, against a very good Vikings defense that got embarrassed that day by a better Bengals' offense. And a Bengals' defense doing anything it wanted against Culpepper. But MN is not a BAD team, they got beat by a bunch of good teams, and are now finding the level that many expected from them.

My point is, as much as we would have liked them to get one of the games against Jax, Pittsburgh or Indy, it is a fallacy, often repeated but NOT correct, that the Bengals have not beaten anyone good.

On top of that, their 6-0 record against teams with records under .500? Steller. And one of the ways you go about making the playoffs.

I look forward to the Steelers game this week, just because it is a fun game to look forward to, and it is for all of the marbles. But the Bengals don't have to prove anything to me, or really, for that matter, anyone else. That is a quality football team the Bengals have, and if they get to 11-5 this year, I believe that will be their third best record in franchise history behind the 1981 and 1988 teams.

Just a little perspective to start off Steeler week.

[AMC]

That win in CHI is looking mighty good!

And we SPANKED the VIKES.

I looked at the Sagarin SOS ranking and we are 22. Funny thing is all teams below us with 'easier' scheds have winning records too! Indy, NYG, PITT, you name it.

[Columbusbengal]

and if they get to 11-5 this year, I believe that will be their third best record in franchise history behind the 1981 and 1988 teams.

Just a little perspective to start off Steeler week.

Great analysis. I do think the Bengals had a couple of years under Paul Brown before the wild card that they got beat out for the playoffs by Pittsburgh with only two or three losses. However, I also think that was before the 16-game season, so I think 11-5 would be the third best record with 16 games on the schedule.

Does anyone know for sure?

[membengal]

Good point. 11-5 would the the runner-up best record for a 16 game schedule.

In 1975 the Bengals went 11-3. They also put up 10-4 records in 1973 and 1976 according to their history page.

An 11-5 campaign would fit in with those 10-4 records, and behind the 11-3 record.

[The_Next_Big_Thing]

Go figure, teams that have winning records win games against teams with losing records. Isn't that a default state? I mean if you win, the team you play loses. A few other teams win, that team gets a few more losses.

[HoosierCat]

The guys who do the cold hard football facts website put a lot of stock in wins vs. teams with winning records -- so much so that they track it for every team in their "quality standings." Here are the standings after yesterday:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Quality_Standings.php

Stacked up vs. everyone else, the Bengals don't look particularly bad. 17 clubs have 0-1 win versus teams with a winning record. 14 teams, including the Bengals, have 2-3 "quality wins," while just one team, Denver, has more than 3 (5).

In fact, of teams that have played at least 5 games versus "quality" opponents, only DC, Denver and SD have more wins than Cincy.

[jjakq27]

Here are some interesting statistics about the 1972 Miami Dolphins who are the only team to go undeated for the entire year.

During the regular season they only played three teams with a .500 record or better.

Jets (twice) (7-7)

KC Chiefs (8-6)

NY Giants (8-6)

AFC East combined record 19-36-1

However during the playoffs they beat three teams with 10 or more wins. So they were able to quiet the sceptics even though they were undefeated during the regular season.

Playoffs

Cleveland (10-4) W20-14

Pittsburgh (11-3) W21-17

Washington (11-3) Super Bowl W14-7

All three wins were decided by seven or less points.

On the flipside here are a few teams that looked unbeatable but did not win the Super Bowl and some didn't even get there.

2004 Pittsburgh 15-1 (lost in AFC Championship game)

1999 Jacksonville 14-2 (lost in AFC Championship game)

1998 Minnesota 15-1 (lost in NFC Championship game)

1992 San Francisco 14-2 (lost in NFC Championship game)

1990 San Francisco 14-2 (lost in NFC Championship game)

1986 Chicago 14-2 (lost in first round of playoffs)

1983 Washington 14-2 (lost in Super Bowl)

1975 Minnesota 12-2 (lost in first round of playoffs)

[Stripes]

I don't think that win over the Vikings counts in this discussion. Culpepper was obviously not himself, and their defense had not been given the time to gel. Now Brad Johnson has come in and carried them to a winning record, behind a much improved defense.

The Bears win has to count, because their defense was still great when we played them, and we put up 24 in their house. They were also coming off of a blowout the week before over the Lions.

The simple fact is that we HAVE struggled against most of the good teams we have faced. The pundits wouldn't be saying that if it weren't fact. The question is whether or not that matters for crap.

JJAKQ's post would suggest it might not, and I would agree with that. We won't know until we face the Steelers, Chiefs, and playoff teams.

[membengal]

Wrong. You don't get to pick and choose. The Vikings are a good team. The Bengals ripped them limb from limb. The Bengals did to them what they had to. Why are they "much improved on D" now? Is it because they don't have to face the Bengals, for instance? Please. Do you all understand just how devastating the Bengals offense is at this point?

The Vikings D is getting praise now, same D that the Bengals absolutely shredded. You would somehow ascribe more meaning to beating them now? Doesn't work that way, you win when you have the chance. Quality win.

Great update on quality wins, btw, joisey, and much appreciated.

[Stripes]

Wrong. You don't get to pick and choose. The Vikings are a good team. The Bengals ripped them limb from limb. The Bengals did to them what they had to. Why are they "much improved on D" now? Is it because they don't have to face the Bengals, for instance? Please. Do you all understand just how devastating the Bengals offense is at this point?

The Vikings D is getting praise now, same D that the Bengals absolutely shredded. You would somehow ascribe more meaning to beating them now? Doesn't work that way, you win when you have the chance. Quality win.

Great update on quality wins, btw, joisey, and much appreciated.

Ugh... I get so sick of the "I am right beyond any possible doubt" attitude I see around here sometimes.

Perhaps you are correct, everything being discussed here is speculation. My point about the Vikings was simply that their offense was certainly not the same as it is now when we faced them. Mewelde Moore was not a 100 yard per game caliber runner, and Daunte Culpepper looked like Kyle Boller compared to how well Brad Johnson has been managing games of late.

Their defense did indeed have the same players, you are correct. Still, a good half of it was built on recently aquired free agents, and those guys will take some time to come together to play up to their potential. We faced them on the 2nd week on the season. Yes, our offense is very good, but I think there should be no doubt that the Viking defense would have posed a bigger challenge had we played them later in the season.

Sorry for not being a homer.

[membengal]

For godssake, I am not being a homer. I am simply trying to get a fanbase so used to being kicked repeatedly in the nuts to actually acknowledge the good that has been done so far this season. When that game approached, all anyone could talk about was how Culpepepr was going to be a true test. Now, NOW!!!! you say they are better off with Brad Johnson????

Here is a thought...if they played the Vikings now, they pick off Johnson five times.

Still, the Vikings was a quality win. We don't always have to look for the worst in life. Just a friendly suggestion.

[HairOnFire]

8-3 is all I know.

[derekshank]

Quality wins, smality wins... we've been bad for a long LONG time, and we won't reap the benefits for a season this good until next year.

Case in point... the San Diego Chargers. Two years ago they were 4-12, and everyone was making fun of them as the worst team in the NFL.

Last year they went 12-4 and played 6 games against teams with winning records... their record against these teams? 2-4. Hardly that impressive... but they won their division.

Now everyone is enamoured with how good they are, despite being 4-4 at one point this season, because their schedule is much more difficult.

Our time in the sun should come next year.... Patience my dears.

[HoosierCat]

Sorry for not being a homer.

I don't think it has anything to do with being a homer. It's just that, if you are going to do any kind of stats-based analysis, then the numbers are the numbers and have to be applied equally.

Personally, I think the whole record-vs.-winning-teams thing is overblown. As jj pointed out earlier the '72 Fins didn't suffer in the playoffs for a lack of high-caliber competition in the regular season.

[Stripes]

Personally, I think the whole record-vs.-winning-teams thing is overblown. As jj pointed out earlier the '72 Fins didn't suffer in the playoffs for a lack of high-caliber competition in the regular season.

Oh I agree with that, don't get me wrong. I was just defending the pundits' claims that we have struggled against good teams, because that's true. I don't expect that to matter in the end, however.

[BengalNation1281]

I only saw it mentioned once in this thread, but does anyone else notice that we are 8-3???

Who cares who we beat and how...WE ARE 8-3!!!!!

Screw what the naysayers say about this team.

[jjakq27]

Some good stuff from Hobson:

"But look at what Palmer and crew have done to five defenses that were in the NFL's Top Ten heading into the Monday night game:

They pumped the No. 1 Bears on three touchdown passes of at least 18 yards.

They ripped the No. 2 Ravens for 766 yards in two games, dropping them to sixth this week.

Palmer threw two touchdowns and no interceptions against the No. 3 Jaguars' unit that is second in the AFC with 16 interceptions.

The Bengals allowed just one sack and raced to 492 yards against the No. 8 Colts.

Palmer threw three touchdown passes to three different position groups and threw 237 yards to eight players against the No. 9 Packers. "

[AMC]

I only saw it mentioned once in this thread, but does anyone else notice that we are 8-3???

Who cares who we beat and how...WE ARE 8-3!!!!!

Screw what the naysayers say about this team.

There are alot of teams that wish they were 8-3...