Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 13 minutes ago, Mexal said: Why? The question is whether they're capable of competing and they are. Whether they've won a playoff game or not is irrelevant to this upcoming season and whether they'll win one or not. I don't care if you have faith in the team or not but basing it entirely on playoff history (which includes 7 games over a 10 year period and also includes ignoring specific factors in those games that contributed to the loss) and not on the capabilities/completeness of the 2016 team is stupid. Not really. Your reputation matters, and it's hard to have faith in a team if you're known for routinely screwing up in the big moments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 That meltdown last year at the end of the Wildcard game was pretty heinous, Mexal. They had that game won against their most hated rival at home, and simply handed it back to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 14 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: That meltdown last year at the end of the Wildcard game was pretty heinous, Mexal. They had that game won against their most hated rival at home, and simply handed it back to them. I understand this better than anyone. But that doesn't mean it'd happen again. It doesn't mean that in a new year, a team that started out 10-2 until they lost their QB who was having an MVP type year at the time, wouldn't compete in the AFC again this year. 21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Not really. Your reputation matters, and it's hard to have faith in a team if you're known for routinely screwing up in the big moments. But it shouldn't. No one is asking you to have faith in the team. The question is whether the Bengals can compete and the answer is they can as proven by them getting to the playoffs the last 5 years in a row and beating playoff teams in the regular season. Whether they've won in the playoffs in the past is irrelevant to whether they can compete against the Patriots in the 2016 season. They can't lose playoff games forever. Prior to the Steelers winning last year in the playoffs against us (which was handed to them in a game without our starting QB), they hadn't won a playoff game since 2010. Winning in 2010, when the team, outside of Roethlisberger, was different, doesn't mean they'd win in 2016. Winning last year in a game the Bengals gave away, doesn't mean they can win in 2016 and the Bengals losing a game in 2015, in the most heinous fashion without our starting QB, doesn't mean we're not capable in 2016. Simply put, judge the team on the talent, not their past history. Lack of faith is legitimate, but you can't deny the talent and if you can't deny the talent, it's ridiculous to consider them incapable of competing. Anyway, not going to argue further. Just saying it's a new season and the teams should be judged on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 6 minutes ago, Maithanet said: But if they traded for Glennon, they could still hand the keys over to Lynch next year. If Glennon plays awesome they could franchise him and trade him or let him walk for a 3rd round compensatory pick. Or keep him and let Lynch sit another year. Plus of course, if Glennon plays any better than league average there is a very good chance the Broncos do indeed win the Super Bowl again. I am always really skeptical that GMs are really making decisions because they are worried their placeholder guy is going to play TOO well. That is a problem all GMs want to deal with. The only question is whether Glennon is a real upgrade over the current QBs, and whether the price is acceptable to get that improvement. The price on Glennon can't be too high, since he isn't going to start and will be a free agent next offseason. And given the track record for Sanchez, Glennon looks like an obvious improvement. I guess I don't see a huge difference between Glennon and Sanchez, but I could be wrong. How much do you think Glennon would cost via trade? I'm guessing it's a lot more than a conditional 7th round pick, and that's probably why they went with Sanchez. And don't be surprised if Lynch is starting by the end of the season, so investing anything of value in a likely bridge is risky Imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 Trevor Siemian supposedly in line for starting QB job in Denver. http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/report-talk-of-siemian-as-broncos-starter-legitimate/ar-BButD9B?li=BBnb7Kz&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 13 minutes ago, Mexal said: I understand this better than anyone. But that doesn't mean it'd happen again. It doesn't mean that in a new year, a team that started out 10-2 until they lost their QB who was having an MVP type year at the time, wouldn't compete in the AFC again this year. But it shouldn't. No one is asking you to have faith in the team. The question is whether the Bengals can compete and the answer is they can as proven by them getting to the playoffs the last 5 years in a row and beating playoff teams in the regular season. Whether they've won in the playoffs in the past is irrelevant to whether they can compete against the Patriots in the 2016 season. They can't lose playoff games forever. Prior to the Steelers winning last year in the playoffs against us (which was handed to them in a game without our starting QB), they hadn't won a playoff game since 2010. Winning in 2010, when the team, outside of Roethlisberger, was different, doesn't mean they'd win in 2016. Winning last year in a game the Bengals gave away, doesn't mean they can win in 2016 and the Bengals losing a game in 2015, in the most heinous fashion without our starting QB, doesn't mean we're not capable in 2016. Simply put, judge the team on the talent, not their past history. Lack of faith is legitimate, but you can't deny the talent and if you can't deny the talent, it's ridiculous to consider them incapable of competing. Anyway, not going to argue further. Just saying it's a new season and the teams should be judged on that. The question was who can unseat the Pats. I think the Bengals are a better, more complete team, but I don't have a ton of confidence that they can beat the Pats in the playoffs. That's what it all boils down too. And your Steelers comparison doesn't hold any water, because they're led by a two time Super Bowl champion at QB. That really does change everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centrist Simon Steele Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 The Broncos are still on top if you ask me. They didn't lose much of anything to change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 31 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: I guess I don't see a huge difference between Glennon and Sanchez, but I could be wrong. How much do you think Glennon would cost via trade? I'm guessing it's a lot more than a conditional 7th round pick, and that's probably why they went with Sanchez. And don't be surprised if Lynch is starting by the end of the season, so investing anything of value in a likely bridge is risky Imo. I'm sure it would be more than a 7th rounder. My suspicion would be a 3rd rounder, which isn't nothing, but is hardly prohibitive when you are talking about a talented team potentially improving at quarterback. 26 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Trevor Siemian supposedly in line for starting QB job in Denver. http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/report-talk-of-siemian-as-broncos-starter-legitimate/ar-BButD9B?li=BBnb7Kz&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link More or less impossible to say if this is just typical "our rookies look awesome" bluster that every team puts out, or if Siemian is actually playing at a reasonably high level. No way to know if Siemian outplaying Sanchez is an endorsement of the rookie or just an insult to Sanchez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: The question was who can unseat the Pats. I think the Bengals are a better, more complete team, but I don't have a ton of confidence that they can beat the Pats in the playoffs. That's what it all boils down too. And your Steelers comparison doesn't hold any water, because they're led by a two time Super Bowl champion at QB. That really does change everything. You're right, they are. But they haven't won a SB since 2008 and before last year's Bengal's implosion (without their starting QB), they hadn't won a playoff game since 2010. So while I'm totally impressed with the confidence in the Steelers, they've been rather mediocre the last 5 years, which is today's team and which is lead by that same two time SB winner. If anything, this proves that you need to take a year to year look at teams and not base your entire opinion on the past performance in the playoffs since every year, the Steelers are considered a top contender and as we've seen, it hasn't matched up with recent reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 6 minutes ago, Maithanet said: More or less impossible to say if this is just typical "our rookies look awesome" bluster that every team puts out, or if Siemian is actually playing at a reasonably high level. No way to know if Siemian outplaying Sanchez is an endorsement of the rookie or just an insult to Sanchez. This Semien kid sounds like he has some spunk. You want a mobile QB who's hard in the pocket but explosive out in the open, who can squirt through the hole and pickup the first down. He just might be the thrust of this Broncos offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted July 19, 2016 Author Share Posted July 19, 2016 On 7/19/2016 at 0:44 AM, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: I'm hoping for a Dark Horse out of left field in the AFC. The Jags? The Raiders? I don't know. Could be the Pliny the Elder talking. You'll be hoping for a long time on the Jaguars. Those are the true knights of summer. The Raiders though, I expect them to push for a wildcard. Too much competence in the west for them to win the division. On 7/19/2016 at 2:08 AM, Nictarion said: Don't sleep on the Bengals. Despite the loss of a couple WR, they're still one of the most complete teams in the NFL. The only question mark for me going into the season is how the new OC will do. On 7/19/2016 at 3:55 AM, Drunken_Sailor24 said: I expect the Ravens and the Colts to have bounce back years. Not sure where all this Ravens faith keeps coming from. They have the same roster only a year and several severe injuries older and still no secondary to speak of. I expect 8-8 from them, perhaps. The Colts meanwhile are as they ever have been. A bounce back means that Luck and his recievers will again drag an open wound of a running game and pathetic excuse for a defense to 11-5 and a good competition against favorable matchups in the playoffs. But they will not overcome the Patriots or Steelers there. On 7/19/2016 at 11:58 AM, Mexal said: The Bengals. They would have challenged them last year if Dalton didn't fracture his thumb. That team was really good and he clearly took a step forward during that season. Metal and Nictarion, I do not mean to slight the Bengals but history does matter in some cases. We expect the Patriots in the AFC championship game because that's where they always are. We expect another Browns folly because there's always one around the corner. And whether by poor management, a seasonal plague, or insane fortune the Bengals of the last 5 years are broken in week 18. I fully expect them to make the playoffs and will be disappointed if they don't take the division. But the opening of this conversation was why the Pat's are favored to win the Superb owl and I could not honestly say the Bengals were favored for such until they made it to week 19. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 11 minutes ago, Maithanet said: I'm sure it would be more than a 7th rounder. My suspicion would be a 3rd rounder, which isn't nothing, but is hardly prohibitive when you are talking about a talented team potentially improving at quarterback. A 3rd rounder just got my team a DE who looks like he'll be a starter for the next decade. I think they're pretty valuable, and I don't think most teams would like to invest a first and a third in one draft on a pair of QBs, especially if one of them is just for a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: A 3rd rounder just got my team a DE who looks like he'll be a starter for the next decade. I think they're pretty valuable, and I don't think most teams would like to invest a first and a third in one draft on a pair of QBs, especially if one of them is just for a year. Most teams wouldn't like to invest a first and third round pick on quarterbacks, but the blame for that goes to drafting a guy in the first round who isn't ready. And the compensatory pick system helps the Broncos with Glennon - if he plays well, he'll sign for good money this offseason, and then they'll have either a 3rd or a 4th round pick coming back to them. Not to mention the fact that the championship window for that Denver defense isn't going to stay open forever, they are already shedding talent as guys want to get paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 18 minutes ago, Mexal said: You're right, they are. But they haven't won a SB since 2008 and before last year's Bengal's implosion (without their starting QB), they hadn't won a playoff game since 2010. So while I'm totally impressed with the confidence in the Steelers, they've been rather mediocre the last 5 years, which is today's team and which is lead by that same two time SB winner. If anything, this proves that you need to take a year to year look at teams and not base your entire opinion on the past performance in the playoffs since every year, the Steelers are considered a top contender and as we've seen, it hasn't matched up with recent reality. Winning a championship buys you cachet that doesn't usually go away and losing basically all the big games you play in earns you a degree of derision that's hard to shake. I think the Bengals are possibility the best team in the AFC, and I think there are a lot of analysts who would echo that belief, but I doubt you'll find many people outside of the Bengal's fan base that would have much confidence in them in a big game, and it's all because of their history, both recent and long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 35 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said: Whether by poor management, a seasonal plague, or insane fortune the Bengals of the last 5 years are broken in week 18. I fully expect them to make the playoffs and will be disappointed if they don't take the division. But the opening of this conversation was why the Pat's are favored to win the Superb owl and I could not honestly say the Bengals were favored for such until they made it to week 19. Somewhat fair if the question is "who is favored to win the SB" but if the question, which is what I saw, was "who can compete with the Pats", hard not to include the current Bengals team regardless of the history. The talent is there to compete, simple as that. 4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Winning a championship buys you cachet that doesn't usually go away and losing basically all the big games you play in earns you a degree of derision that's hard to shake. I think the Bengals are possibility the best team in the AFC, and I think there are a lot of analysts who would echo that belief, but I doubt you'll find many people outside of the Bengal's fan base that would have much confidence in them in a big game, and it's all because of their history, both recent and long term. Think Bengals fans have less faith in the Bengals in big games than most neutrals. I go into these games with no expectations since I'm always disappointed. I just think they're capable of winning these games because of the talent they have even if I don't actually expect them to win when the time comes because of past history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Winning a championship buys you cachet that doesn't usually go away and losing basically all the big games you play in earns you a degree of derision that's hard to shake. I think the Bengals are possibility the best team in the AFC, and I think there are a lot of analysts who would echo that belief, but I doubt you'll find many people outside of the Bengal's fan base that would have much confidence in them in a big game, and it's all because of their history, both recent and long term. Pretty much agree with that. I'd add that at this point I think the Bengals have more or less earned the reputation that they will beat themselves as often as not. They can't seem to get out of their own way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted July 19, 2016 Author Share Posted July 19, 2016 On 7/19/2016 at 2:06 PM, Mexal said: Somewhat fair if the question is "who is favored to win the SB" but if the question, which is what I saw, was "who can compete with the Pats", hard not to include the current Bengals team regardless of the history. The talent is there to compete, simple as that. The talent is there I agree. But there's something else at work as well. I'm hesitant to blame Marvin Lewis because I adore the man, but NE has proven over the better part of 20 years that the most talented team is not always the one best positioned for success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wedge Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Charles Tillman retires after 13 years in the NFL. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/17102480/charles-tillman-announces-retirement-nfl-peanut-punch-video My favorite Bear, from the time they drafted him through his reunion with Ron Rivera in Carolina. He knew how to neutralize the biggest of the big dogs about as well as any CB this century. I was hoping the Panthers would win the Super Bowl so Peanut could get a ring to go along with his Walter Payton Man of the Year award. Too bad he missed the ring, both times to a Peyton Manning team. The retirement video is worth it for the reactions of his kids throughout. "Really, Dad?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 2 minutes ago, The Wedge said: The retirement video is worth it for the reactions of his kids throughout. "Really, Dad?" That was cute. Drug on a little too long, but worth a watch for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wedge Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: That was cute. Drug on a little too long, but worth a watch for sure. Agreed, but I enjoyed it. And like Anthony Adams would order one slider at White Castle. Shoot, I don't know anyone who only orders one burger at White Castle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.