This is why the Bengals will always be losers

[Tarkus]

http://foxsports.lycos.com/content/v...ntentId=913232

Yeah, they'll win big with Kitna. Unless they can get Leftwich and an additional pick or two just keep the #1.

Tarkus

[HornedFrog Purple]

The Bengals are not always losers, they just go through long periods of futility.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
The Bengals are not always losers, they just go through long periods of futility.

I should have said under Mike Brown.

Tarkus

[Swaggs]

It is kind of nice to have them in the division, though.

[Vince]

Is it just me, or is this a ridiculously optimistic opinion:

Our football team can use an upgrade in five or six places," Lewis said. "We feel we are five or six players away from competing with the leaders in our division for the opportunity to compete for the playoffs."

By the way, I don't think it's that bad a move to stick with Kitna. He's not terrible, and they aren't looking to win big right now...they want to just win something. I think it's the right move, especially with all the crap they've taken with their high picks recently. The point that the new QB would take some time to develop is correct, and the idea that Cincinatti (sp? Sorry shorty ) needs to win now I believe is also correct. Why does this indicate to you that they'll always be losers?

Sorry to derail a Bungle bashing thread, but I am truly curious...

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by Vince
Our football team can use an upgrade in five or six places," Lewis said. "We feel we are five or six players away from competing with the leaders in our division for the opportunity to compete for the playoffs."

Not if those players are Brett Favre, Terrell Owens, Marvin Harrison, Ray Lewis and Charles Woodson

[rkmsuf]

Kitna is not the major problem. It's a problem of coaching and leadership. Kitna is servicable and can win you 8 games. 8 wins for Lewis is a victory...pretty simple.

[scooper]

He's not far off about the 5-6 players. Keep in mind he means 5-6 good players. Sure there are more than 5-6 holes, but in the current NFL, there is no team that doesn't have some holes. The teams that win are the ones who can best make up for their shortcomings or really exploit their strengths.

I honestly believe six players could make a huge difference to this team:

1. Shut down corner
2. Strong DT to plug up the middle
3. A good safety-either FS or SS
4. A Guard and a Center who can get a push up the middle for Dillon
5. A speedy WR to take some heat of Johnson.

With those players the team is automatically upgraded without starting from scratch with a new franchise QB's.

Look at the some of the QB's that have won superbowls recently. Teams don't need Joe Montana to win anymore.

[damnMikeBrown]

<====== Says what I think.

[Ksyrup]

"There could be four to five quarterbacks taken in the first round this season."

Why? Given the last 5 years of NFL history, why would any team waste a 1st round pick on a QB?

1st round QBs have a tad bit better success ratio than 1st round high school pitchers. And teams fixate on them during the draft, regardless of what history shows.

I guess the lure of the "next" Elway is what does it. That and missing the next Big One and dealing with the Sam Bowie Effect.

[kid_dynamite]

i agree thats it is not a bad move. i think kitna can win some football games. there are more important needs on the team that must be addressed.

im not sure if the bengels will be able to trade their pick away though. as of right now they are stuck in a corner with their dingy in hand.

[TroyF]

It all depends on what they can get AND what they feel about the QB's in this draft. If they felt that any of those QB's were future stars, they'd be idiots to take a pass on them.

Kitna is OK, but I don't think his problem is only coaching. The guy has thrown 77TD vs 83 INT's in his career. He's never thrown for 7YPPA in his career. Has he played on bad teams? Sure. . . he's also played his role on those bad teams.

If the goal is to win 8, take Kitna and see what happens. Of course, he's only pulled that off once in his career as well.

If it's me, I'm cleaning house of all the QB's on the roster. I'm drafting Palmer or Leftwich (my extreme preference is on the latter) and bringing in a veteran to QB for a year until my guy is ready.

TroyF

[mckerney]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
Why? Given the last 5 years of NFL history, why would any team waste a 1st round pick on a QB?

There's risk regardless of what position you take in the first round, so I wouldn't say that its a waste.

Would it be a waste for a team to taking a running back in the first round? A few years ago Thomas Jones, Ron Dayne, and Shaun Alexander were the running backs taken in the first round. If you ask me, all those players were busts. Sure, Alexander has put up a few huge games, though he's had more where he's been less than average.
That's worse than the success rate of QBs in the '99 draft where from what we can tell so far included 2 stars (McNabb and Culpepper), one average QB (Couch) and 2 total busts (Smith and McNown)

O-line? Too risky. You could end up with another Tony Mandarich

D-line? Please, another Andre Wadsworth or Dan Wilkerson? I think not.

Wideout? First round recievers like Freddie Mitchell, David Terrell, Koren Robinson, and Peter Warrick, too risky.



Sure, a QB in the first round is a risk, though I don't believe it's any worse of a risk than any other position. And chances on a first round QB being great are better than one from later rounds.