condon84

Honestly man, the Bengals have a really good secondary. They lost their main rusher (Odom) and Fanene's sacks came from coverage sacks. Numerous times their DBs had their had on Rothelisburger's passes. They played man, played tight and stayed tight. I was pretty impressed.

Johnson played limited time, but the times he was in there, he made his presence felt.

I think we have a good secondary too, but sometimes we play soft and give up easy 1st downs. From watching the Bengals this year, they're always playing tight and aggressive even when they lost Odom.

Patriot_in_NY

Hold on killer.............., I beleive we've all seen the bungels out of the gate 7-2 before only to end up 8-8. Lot of season left before we crown them "better then the Pats". We've been down this road. At the end of the season, we'll worry about Cinci................ IF THEY ARE STILL AROUND.

mayoclinic

I've been saying all year that the key to us winning is to keep playing aggressively all the time and stop getting soft. The Denver game drove me absolutely bonkers. I didn't mind us losing, but I hated us losing by playing soft and killing ourselves on offense.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." Albert Einstein

MassPats38

Agreed. The Bengals have never been short on talent. It is a team that typically finds ways to under-perform, or gets hit with a bad break or 12 that ends its playoff prospects. Unlike the Colts, it is not used to playing with a lead in terms or its record. It is also not a team that has been blowing other teams out (other than the Bears). Close wins can become close losses. I would still not rule out the Steelers for that division with 7 games to go, even with the division record.

But to date I am surprised by the Bengals' performance, and specifically the defensive play. Marv's team typically appears about a second away from implosion, but the team appears to be focused right now (if the worst story is a Chad Johnson fine for a poorly received on-the-field joke, that trumps 10-12 ongoing criminal cases any day). I will not, however, pencil it in for the playoffs, definitely not a first round bye, with 7 games to go.

Mista Kool

As an outside observer, I'd say the Bengals are clearly better than the Patriots at this point in time.

Cincinnati has beaten Pittsburgh twice in two attempts. I'm not sure New England could do it once. All the Pats can do is beat up on lousy teams, while once again playing in the worst division in football.

As a Colts fan, come January I'd much rather face the soft, decrepit Patriots team than a young, hungry team like the Bengals.

KontradictioN

Don't look at common opponents. You'll never determine anything from that. The Giants blew out the Raiders, who the Eagles then lost to, then the Eagles turned around and blew out the Giants.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Hey Kerry, you suck!

letekro

Thanks for your opinion. We'll be looking forward to your annual loss to SD in the playoffs. Lights Out!

patsinthesnow

3 more hours, 3 more hours.

__________________
.

robertweathers

For every intelligent, respective Colts fan/guest poster like mystrymaster on patsfans.com, you have an indignent, uninformed dope like this guy.....

Pats are far from decrepid.

SoS-wise, Colts are worse.

Go away.

__________________
“I'm not really concerned about the other 31 teams,” - Bill Belichick

"If a player has talent and doesn't succeed, that means that they either don't want to be successful or I have failed as a coach." - Bill Belichick

MassPats38

The Broncos beat the Bengals and the Pats lost in OT on the road to the Broncos. The Colts get to play the Broncos down the road, so talk old and decrepit (you may want to update your football knowledge given that statement - most of the "old" players are gone) when the Colts win that game. The game against the Pats tonight is probably the first time since the first game the Colts have not played against a team with a losing record.

With your logic, are you putting the Colts in that category as well given those opponents? A 27-23 win over another representative of that "weak" division does not exactly give your team a huge vote of confidence, despite its record. Not many winning records in opponents to date, and the only difference between divisional standings is the middle records won one game the other middle teams lost. The AFC South isn't exactly the most feared division in football and is at best marginally better than the AFC East, likely not at all. I will give props to the AFC North, but you are kidding yourself if you believe the AFC South is a tough division.