They will be tied for first place in the division.

Jax made Baltimore's Offense look putrid.

"Insert witty quotation here"

A chance to tie for the division lead?......naaahhhhh!

too bad after they start 5-2 they will fold up faster than a pyramid scheme

------------------------------------------
In Memory of Dunn4QB

BTW I'm taking Seattle and the points

------------------------------------------
In Memory of Dunn4QB

I will go with the Bungs and the under.


"Insert witty quotation here"

It is really tough to win at Qwest Field.

I like Seattle in this one even though it will be a good game. If Seattle plays like they did vs. Cleveland, the Bungs win this one. For whatever reason though (whether its the 12th man, the long distance from everywhere else, etc.), they might have the best home field advantage in the NFL.

marvin lewis sucks after the bye (maybe he himself parties too hard)

seattle will have motivation coming off a STINKER against cleveland

linebacker core is week...rivers still hurt, rey rey still hurt, lawson now injured...

bengals are playing at qwest field as before mentioned...

too many factors are going against the bungs, can't see a 5-2 start...i'd say this might be a blowout loss...

I understand that they are on the road and playing with some injuries at key defensive spots, but lets be honest here, Seattle has no qb, a below average run game and a defense that would be compared with a lower tier college program.

They play hard, but should never beat a good team.

If Marvin is smart...that is a very big if...he allows the offense to attack from start to finish.
you don't have Ced this week, so it is a perfect time to let the young guy expand his talents.
Use Scott and Leonard on a ton of swing passes and screens.

Bengals should win...


Steelers are 3 point dogs at home this week against New England...
Just letting you know.


http://murf-seriously.blogspot.com/

Classic Murf setting us up like bowling pins.

Seattle wins, Marvin ball. Bengals win, Marvin had nothing to do with it.

See you Monday Murf.

If they play scared...they get beat.

http://murf-seriously.blogspot.com/

Yup uscthree...murf hides behind the veil of "attack" as if it's an offensive formation, even though it's basically code for "if the offense didn't work, that means it wasn't 'attacking' enough."

One area where I will agree with murf is that Marvin does tend to go for the field goal on 4th-and-1 situations way too much.

BMN

"Seattle has no qb, a below average run game and a defense that would be compared with a lower tier college program"

Seattle's D has actually been rather decent, if unheralded.

A ton of swing passes and screens would play to Seattle's strength, from what I've read they are more of a speedy defense that tends to swarm the ball rather than a punch you in the mouth defense. Even though I don't think Ced has been that good this year, we might miss him in this game.

I'll take Seattle at home by a FG.

"We do do, and we do it at a very, very high level," Lewis said.

Hide behind?
LMAO...

Do you even watch the game, or do you put on some Bengal gear and hang out with friends and pretend to know what you are talking about?

ATTACK...
See New Orleans Saints vs Indy Colts.
62 points, full throttle, no doubt, no chance of losing a close game.

MARVIN BALL..
Play scared to death to win a game and lose a bunch of close games.
leaving doubt all the way up to the last minute.

It is a simple concept.
Use your weapons to score as many points as you can in 60 minutes.
Playing for field position and worrying about the clock is an out dated and failed concept in the NFL.

NEW ENGLAND
INDY
PITTSBURGH
NEW ORLEANS
GREENBAY

Your last decade of dominate football teams that hold the rings....
All have what in common



http://murf-seriously.blogspot.com/

They are all democratic liberal cities ....

Seattle has a decent Defense.

I agree with Murf that you have to attack downfield.

The Patriots, Stoolers, Packers and Saints all attack secondaries.

"Insert witty quotation here"

"NEW ENGLAND
INDY
PITTSBURGH
NEW ORLEANS
GREENBAY

Your last decade of dominate football teams that hold the rings....
All have what in common?"~Murf.

Answer: Better football players than the Bungs.

Murf, you will always be a comedic homer. You will never be a serious analyst.

"NEW ENGLAND
INDY
PITTSBURGH
NEW ORLEANS
GREENBAY

Your last decade of dominate football teams that hold the rings.... All have what in common?"~Murf.

Answer: Good QB'S
We had cardboard

One of these days I will have to meet you T because you are one of the funnier dudes on here. Thanks for keeping it loose, just like your stool.

I thought defense wins championships. So, what do franchise pro bowl MVP QB's have to do with anything?

Everyone else has AN OPINION, but according the mentally challenged whack job...I am an ANALYST.
you crack me up.
lol

Anyway, I am very confident that I have forgotten more about football, than you will ever know.
Your act is about as old as your desired scheme.

Your comment about the talent on the rosters....100% WRONG..AS USUAL.

The teams listed all have several things common.

#1 QB'S
#2 A MODERN DAY HEAD COACH
#3 A MODERN DAY OFFENSE.



http://murf-seriously.blogspot.com/

Murf, you once again prove yourself to be a peculiar, but very comical, homer. But much like you want to portray yourself as a victim in your ignorant political rants, you likewise want to portray yourself as an analyst with your ignorant football rants.

The number one glaring deficiency that the Bungs have had on Mike Brown's watch has been their talent gap. It's the very reason this message board exists.

In your frothing rage, you still can't stop making stuff up. When did I (for that matter anyone on here) give opinions about a preferred, pass-orented scheme?

But a number of us have pointed out that, with Mike Brown's personnel, the bungs had a lot more success two years ago being run-oriented. When Marvin went comparatively pass-happy last year, the bungs got clobbered.

I know BA always suggested that you find, or start, some sort of Mike Brown homoerotic Message Board and stay there. But I hope you never do. It's always too much fun to read your babbling, ignorant and desperate attempts to be taken seriously.

You're a doltish homer. That's ok. The world has a place for doltish homers.

Every time you try to get into a football debate, you prove to me and everyone else, just how far out of touch you are.

lol
I never said anything about running or passing.
Understand the game beyond the grade school level, then get back to me.
Watch a few thousand football games in color with modern day football players and it might click for ya.

I know you still have visions of your youth, black and white tv with Jim Brown running over 5 8' line backers and Lombardi preaching the Packer sweep, but the game has changed.
You can even watch a game with crystal clear images on your tv screen if you purchase a modern day tv that has HD capabilities.


Just a few quick facts to think about before you embarrass yourself again.

Teams that try to win by being a dominate run first, play hard defense..

Ravens
Bengals
Jets
Jax

VS

Teams that understand that you set up the run by passing and you keep attacking for 60 minutes
Patriots
Steelers
Colts
Packers
Saints

I will take the Super bowl rings...you can keep the clock management and the ground and pound.
LOL

http://murf-seriously.blogspot.com/

I would agree that the QB on your list should be ranked number 1.

Whenever you think of great NFL teams you associate for the most part their greatness with their respective QB.

Examples:

Joe Montana -- 49ers
Bret Farve --- Packers
John Elway -- Broncos
Dan Marino -- Dolphins
Troy Aikman -- Cowboys
Tom Brady -- Patriots
Drew Brees -- Saints
Aaron Rogers -- Packers
Terry Bradshaw -- Steelers
Steve Young -- 49ers
Payton Manning -- Colts

The list goes on and on. So how important is the QB to a team.
Look at the colts this year withought Payton Manning. Regardless of coaching if Manning was in there this year we would be looking at a totaley diferrent team.

The cliche "defense wins championships".

DOES IT?

How many championships were won with a great defense?
One comes to mind, the Marvin Lewis Ravins defense of 2000.

How many championships were won with great offense?
The list is long.

So the "proof seems to be in the pudding".
GREAT OFFENSE IS BETTER THAN GREAT DEFENSE!!!
And "offense wins championships".

The last great defense to win a Super Bowl game was the Giants.

The offense wasn't horrible but it was the defense holding Brady, Moss, Welker and co. to, what was it, 17 points?!!?, that won that game. Anyone who watched the Pats basically destroy every opponent and many offensive records that season knows that the job the Giants D did in that game was nothing short of spectacular.

I think you need to be at least average at both. If it was as easy as "offense wins championships" Maning and Brady would both have more rings.

Big Ben is clutch and makes big plays, but the Stealers defense had as much to do with their recent Superbowl victories as their offense. A junior college offense could have beat the Seahawks the year Pukesburgh embarrassed them, and the play James Harrison made at the end of the first half against the Cards was basically the difference in that game. He should have been MVP of the game imo.

Either cliche is too broad for my taste. I can think of examples of teams winning it being stronger on offense and on defense, but its much harder to think of examples where a team was flat out bad on either side of the ball. Even the Colts had a decent defense the year they won it all, and the early 2000-era Pats weren't too bad either. They haven't been able to recapture the mojo on that side of the ball, and even with Brady playing at as high a level as ever they haven't won a Lombardi in awhile.

I have been preaching this for many years.

The most important player on any team from the highschool level up is the QB.
You can have a great defense and a strong run game and win a few games vs other teams with average QB play, but when you start talking about championships, if you don't have an attacking style type of offense with a real qb, you will have nothing but heartbreak the majority of the time.

The Steelers are the perfect example.
Became the greatest team of the 70's b/c they had a great qb..
Had some down years when Bradshaw retired and they tried to rebuild under Cowher with a great defense, strong run game but had sh!t qb's like Brister/Maddox/Stewart, the few years that they had O'Donell they went to the Superbowl and should have won but a rookie wide out runs the wrong route.
Kept rebuilding that defense and riding Bettis for years, but with a sh!t qb, never could win.
Then they draft Big Ben...
3 Superbowls later, they are still a threat and a legit contender to be playing in the Superbowl again.


Greenbay was a bad franchise for many years after Lombardi.
they hire a coach that understands offense, trade for some kid in Atlanta name Favre...and all of sudden, they become a great franchise again, then draft Rogers and continue to be a contender.

Bottom line:
You need a legit qb that can run the offense and throw the ball with a high level of accuracy.
Yes, you need a run game and you need a defense to win Championships, but if you don't have an offense that can score and score quickly, that run game and that defense will be nothing but media chatter to fill time on air.



http://murf-seriously.blogspot.com/

My argument is that there are "franchise quarterbacks" and it is much easier to win with them.

You mention Neil O'Donnell but he was hardly a franchise QB. Granted, you can win with those (Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer), but for better or worse, you NEED a franchise QB, and the Steelers did prove them. 6 Superbowls with Bradshaw and Ben, zero with everyone else, Neil included. 49ers 5 Superbowls with Montana and Young, zero with everyone else. Cowboys 5 Superbowls with Staubach, Aikman. Dolphins have Superbowl wins with Griese and a lot more success with Marino than with anyone else recently. The Bengals have had their most success with Ken Anderson, Boomer Esiason, and Carson Palmer. The list could go on with most franchises (even the Ravens finally have their "franchise QB."

They need Andy Dalton to be their franchise QB.