Bengals sign Owens

[BigBucs]

Well, that's his point. That's how it gives his post credence. He wasn't debating that the Ravens have stupendous corners, he was stating that they're difficult to pass on. That was all he said.

But he specifically picked out my post as if I was saying otherwise. cslap:

 

[FirstTimer]

oh, really, who cares? you are quite the obsessive loser.

Sorry my 3rd grade math skillz rock.

here's the deal buckwheat, I dont give a flying fuck about the ultimate true winning percentage they've had, whether I'm 30 or 50 % off or what ever.

You're acting awfully butt hurt.

2 Super Bowls means you know how to nurture a winning philosophy at some point.

Yes, two Super Bowls 7 years apart with a whopping two winning seasons in between is beyond a shadow of a doubt a "nurtured winning philosophy"

 

[ram29jackson]

1-

Sorry my 3rd grade math skillz rock.
2-You're acting awfully butt hurt.

3-Yes, two Super Bowls 7 years apart with a whopping two winning seasons in between is beyond a shadow of a doubt a "nurtured winning philosophy"

1-along with your 3rd grade intellect and 3rd grade Psyche

2-No buckwheat, just telling it like it is to an obsessive loser.

3-ultimately, yes, it is. Sports is a short term accomplishment and 2 SB's /4 out 7 winning seasons are hard to come by.
you are over analyzing unimportant details that dont disprove anything I have said. You, like fox will now be ignored

 

[Fox1994]

But he specifically picked out my post as if I was saying otherwise. cslap:

bama: I guess.

 

[Juggernaut]

can anyone tl;dr for me?

I want to be caught up.

 

[citizenerased]

1-




1-along with your 3rd grade intellect and 3rd grade Psyche

2-No buckwheat, just telling it like it is to an obsessive loser.

3-ultimately, yes, it is. Sports is a short term accomplishment and 2 SB's /4 out 7 winning seasons are hard to come by.
you are over analyzing unimportant details that dont disprove anything I have said. You, like fox will now be ignored

Yeah, what relevance does a winning % have when deciding if an organisation can be classed as a winner or not?

So you saying sports is a short term accomplishment, but your trying to argue that 2 superbowl appearances back when the Berlin Wall was still a major geographical feature means that the Bengals have a winning mentality today?

Why are you so bitter? Is it the 8 years you spent in high school or that your getting punked by 15 year olds on the internet

 

[Fox1994]

can anyone tl;dr for me?

I want to be caught up.

1 - T.O. gets signed by Cincinnati Bengals

2 - Guys on here decide that that makes them a terrific offense, at least on paper.

3 - Other guys on here say that all of their receivers are past their primes and are no longer relevant and won't necessarily produce a good offense.

...

4 - The strength of AFC North defenses are mentioned...

5 - Some Baltimore fan says his cornerbacks are bad.

6 - TBU mentions how great Baltimore is against the pass.

7 - Debate about whether or not Bmore's front seven is why they're so great against the pass starts.

8 - People continue to argue aimlessly.

---

Did that make sense?

 

[Chadman]

After watching a few vids of T.O running, unsurprisingly, he has lost some of his explosiveness that he had last year.

 

[Fox1994]

After watching a few vids of T.O running, unsurprisingly, he has lost some of his explosiveness that he had last year.

The dude's getting old. He hit his ceiling a minute ago. It's not debatable that he's on the decline. The debate is whether or not he has anything in the tank for a dark horse run at the Super Bowl. That's why he's still playing, and that's why Cinci picked him up.

 

[FirstTimer]

1-




1-along with your 3rd grade intellect and 3rd grade Psyche

2-No buckwheat, just telling it like it is to an obsessive loser.

3-ultimately, yes, it is. Sports is a short term accomplishment and 2 SB's /4 out 7 winning seasons are hard to come by.
you are over analyzing unimportant details that dont disprove anything I have said. You, like fox will now be ignored

Yeah because clearly I've come across as the immature one in this thread..........

Obsessive loser? So I'm an obsessive loser because you can't do basic arithmetic?

Math fail. 81-88 is 8 seasons. They had 4 winning seasons in that time period. Their winning % was .549 over that time span. Strike up the band!

I also like how you rep the "Wyche Era" in Cincy when he had a losing record during his time there. If that's the in your words the "the best" era of Bengals football then it's not saying much.

Yeah, what relevance does a winning % have when deciding if an organisation can be classed as a winner or not?

So you saying sports is a short term accomplishment, but your trying to argue that 2 superbowl appearances back when the Berlin Wall was still a major geographical feature means that the Bengals have a winning mentality today?

Why are you so bitter? Is it the 8 years you spent in high school or that your getting punked by 15 year olds on the internet

I love the irony of jackson trying to come off as a sports aficianado of some kind, spouts off at the mouth as if he knows what he's talking about then when facts and statistics smack him down we are the "obsessive losers". I'm not sure who the bigger loser is, the guy who likes to act like he knows about the 80's Bengals or the guy who actually does.

 

[ram29jackson]

Yeah, what relevance does a winning % have when deciding if an organisation can be classed as a winner or not?

So you saying sports is a short term accomplishment, but your trying to argue that 2 superbowl appearances back when the Berlin Wall was still a major geographical feature means that the Bengals have a winning mentality today?

Why are you so bitter? Is it the 8 years you spent in high school or that your getting punked by 15 year olds on the internet

You are quite the simpleton. What I've said is very understandable and goes right over your tiny head.

 

[Senser81]

obviously the Wyche years were the best. But you don't get to a Superbowl twice without being better than decent for a longer than short term, time period.

Wrong on several different levels as usual.

First off, the Bengals made the Super Bowl in 1981 under Forrest Gregg, not Wyche. You make it seem as if Wyche made the Super Bowl twice with the same group of players. He didn't. In fact, I would guess that only Munoz, Collinsworth, and Jim Breech played on both the 1981 and 1988 Bengal Super Bowl teams.

Second, if you take a closer look, you can see why the Bengals were one-year wonders during their Super Bowl seasons.

The Bengals had basically sucked from 1977-1980. But they were a young team in 1980, and they added Cris Collinsworth in 1981 along with a couple other guys and became really good. 1981 was also a season when the "old guard" like the Steelers, Oilers, Rams, and Vikings went downhill. The Bengals filled the void. There defense was never really that good, but it was good enough in 1981. The Bengals were still pretty good in 1982, but RB Pete Johnson started getting into cocaine, and their defense never got better. By 1983 the Bengals were back to their losing ways. Pete Johnson was gone, a few key players were signed by the USFL, Ken Anderson had lost his mobility, etc.

Sam Wyche took over in 1984, and while they were sometimes exciting, they never made the playoffs. Wyche should have been fired in 1987 (4-11), but the Bengals gave him one more year, probably due to their cheapness. Can you imagine an NFL coach being with a team for 4 seasons, never making the playoffs, going 4-11, and keeping his job for a 5th season??

The Bengals probably underachieved during Wyche's tenure; they had some really good players. In 1988, Icky Woods was added to the team at RB and he really helped control the ball. Young defensive players like Tim Krumrie and David Fulcher were now in their prime, and the Bengals offense, which was always pretty good even in losing years, exploded with the addition of Woods. But in 1989 the Bengals fell back to mediocrity, and in 1991 (Wyche's last year) the Bengals had become the worst team in the NFL. Why? After 1988 Icky Woods got fat on success and was never the same. Collinsworth retired. Tim Krumrie broke his leg and was a shell of himself. James Brooks got old and was never replaced. Too many key players had drops in performance and the Bengals had no depth.

 

[FirstTimer]

Wrong on several different levels as usual.

First off, the Bengals made the Super Bowl in 1981 under Forrest Gregg, not Wyche. You make it seem as if Wyche made the Super Bowl twice with the same group of players. He didn't. In fact, I would guess that only Munoz, Collinsworth, and Jim Breech played on both the 1981 and 1988 Bengal Super Bowl teams.

Second, if you take a closer look, you can see why the Bengals were one-year wonders during their Super Bowl seasons.

The Bengals had basically sucked from 1977-1980. But they were a young team in 1980, and they added Cris Collinsworth in 1981 along with a couple other guys and became really good. 1981 was also a season when the "old guard" like the Steelers, Oilers, Rams, and Vikings went downhill. The Bengals filled the void. There defense was never really that good, but it was good enough in 1981. The Bengals were still pretty good in 1982, but RB Pete Johnson started getting into cocaine, and their defense never got better. By 1983 the Bengals were back to their losing ways. Pete Johnson was gone, a few key players were signed by the USFL, Ken Anderson had lost his mobility, etc.

Sam Wyche took over in 1984, and while they were sometimes exciting, they never made the playoffs. Wyche should have been fired in 1987 (4-11), but the Bengals gave him one more year, probably due to their cheapness. Can you imagine an NFL coach being with a team for 4 seasons, never making the playoffs, going 4-11, and keeping his job for a 5th season??

The Bengals probably underachieved during Wyche's tenure; they had some really good players. In 1988, Icky Woods was added to the team at RB and he really helped control the ball. Young defensive players like Tim Krumrie and David Fulcher were now in their prime, and the Bengals offense, which was always pretty good even in losing years, exploded with the addition of Woods. But in 1989 the Bengals fell back to mediocrity, and in 1991 (Wyche's last year) the Bengals had become the worst team in the NFL. Why? After 1988 Icky Woods got fat on success and was never the same. Collinsworth retired. Tim Krumrie broke his leg and was a shell of himself. James Brooks got old and was never replaced. Too many key players had drops in performance and the Bengals had no depth.

Sounds like nurtured success to me!

Whenever I think of David Fulcher I always remember him being on one of the volumes of "Hungriest Men of the 90's" in the same video with Bubby Brister, Bernie Kosar, Neal Anderson, Derrick Thomas, Leslie O'Neal, Eric Metcalf, and I think Bobby Humphry was in that one was well.

From Amazon:

The Hungriest Men of the '90s - Volume 1 features the inspirng story of San Diego linebaker/defensive end Leslie O'Neal, who missed nearly two years with a severe knee injury, only to show the incredible hunger to fight back. You also see highlights of ball carriers like Neal Anderson and rushers Barry Sanders, Bobby Humphrey, Christian Okoye, John L. Williams and Thurman Thomas as they execute breathtaking runs. You also get a look at the "hit men of the "90s" such as Tim Harris, Kevin Greene, Bennie Blades, Louis Oliver and other body crunchers. It's all here, from the prize rookies in the Class of 1990 to the trends and teams that would shape the decade to come.

I think Charles Mann was the pitch guy and Mark Rypien was featured as well.

 

[Fox1994]

Yeah because clearly I've come across as the immature one in this thread..........

Obsessive loser? So I'm an obsessive loser because you can't do basic arithmetic?

Math fail. 81-88 is 8 seasons. They had 4 winning seasons in that time period. Their winning % was .549 over that time span. Strike up the band!

I also like how you rep the "Wyche Era" in Cincy when he had a losing record during his time there. If that's the in your words the "the best" era of Bengals football then it's not saying much.



I love the irony of jackson trying to come off as a sports aficianado of some kind, spouts off at the mouth as if he knows what he's talking about then when facts and statistics smack him down we are the "obsessive losers". I'm not sure who the bigger loser is, the guy who likes to act like he knows about the 80's Bengals or the guy who actually does.

Don't you know it's futile to argue with this cat?

 

[FirstTimer]

Don't you know it's futile to argue with this cat?

:yep:

 

[Senser81]

Sounds like nurtured success to me!

When Forrest Gregg went on to coach the Packers, and Wyche the Bucs, neither had any success. I think they were poor coaches. They had pretty good players, but usually underachieved. Like in 1980, Gregg played the horrible Jack Thompson (Throwin' Samoan) instead of Ken Anderson, and in 1981 Gregg started the year with the horrible Turk Schonert at QB instead of Anderson. Once he finally settled on Anderson, the Bengals won. But they really should have been much better in 1980, but they weren't, so it makes them seem like a Cinderella team in 1981.

Same thing with Wyche. The Bengals probably should have made the playoffs every year from 1984-1988, with 1988 being the peak. Instead, Wyche constantly botched the team with crazy play calls, and the Bengals underachieved for 4 years. By the time they made their Super Bowl in 1988, they had kind of shot their wad.

 

[ram29jackson]

none of your long winded obsessive ramblings disprove anything I said or make it wrong in any way. Cinderella or not, they had success other teams didnt at a given time. All you 20 and 30 somethings think the 80's were a long time ago. 45 Super Bowls are a drop in the bucket of time and getting to 2 in that time against 28 to 32 teams is quite the achievement.

 

[FirstTimer]

When Forrest Gregg went on to coach the Packers, and Wyche the Bucs, neither had any success. I think they were poor coaches. They had pretty good players, but usually underachieved. Like in 1980, Gregg played the horrible Jack Thompson (Throwin' Samoan) instead of Ken Anderson, and in 1981 Gregg started the year with the horrible Turk Schonert at QB instead of Anderson. Once he finally settled on Anderson, the Bengals won. But they really should have been much better in 1980, but they weren't, so it makes them seem like a Cinderella team in 1981.

Same thing with Wyche. The Bengals probably should have made the playoffs every year from 1984-1988, with 1988 being the peak. Instead, Wyche constantly botched the team with crazy play calls, and the Bengals underachieved for 4 years. By the time they made their Super Bowl in 1988, they had kind of shot their wad.

I'm still amazed at how quckly Fulcher fell off. In 89 he was an All pro and after 93 he was pretty much out of football. The game just pass him by or was it injuries?

 

[Aso]

none of your long winded obsessive ramblings disprove anything I said or make it wrong in any way. Cinderella or not, they had success other teams didnt at a given time. All you 20 and 30 somethings think the 80's were a long time ago. 45 Super Bowls are a drop in the bucket of time and getting to 2 in that time against 28 to 32 teams is quite the achievement.

To this point pretty much everything you've said has been disproven. At one point or another every team was better than most and were considered to be one of the best.

 

[ram29jackson]

To this point pretty much everything you've said has been disproven. At one point or another every team was better than most and were considered to be one of the best.

first you say I'm disproven and than you agree with what I just said. You are quite the fence hopper.

in 45 years the Lions have never been considered anything....