A players perspective on the Bengals game

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, GaryPinC said:

 

Excuses(explanations) are what you focus on to avoid accountability for failure.   When they are things beyond your control is when there's a real problem going unresolved.

 

I'm not the one making excuses for players who admit themselves that they ***** the bed. 

[Dopey]

9 hours ago, Einstein said:

I’m genuinely tired with arguing about Chiefs stuff on a Bills forum though. Go ahead and have the last word/dig - slander is the tool of the loser - I won’t respond.

No need to argue Bengals stuff either. Here's why:

The Bengals are better than the Bills

The Bengals are better than the Bills

The Bengals are better than the Bills

The Bengals are better than the Bills

The Bengals are better than the Bills

[Einstein]

On 3/23/2023 at 9:43 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

That may be true, but the opposite is definitely true..... they could have had the best gameplans in NFL history on both sides of the ball and if they players had come out and played as they did it would not have mattered one iota. 

 

Why is it so hard for people to admit that we are just not as good as the opponent? 

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Einstein said:

 

Why is it so hard for people to admit that we are just not as good as the opponent? 

 

I don't know if you can take that from that game because while we might not be as good as Cincy we do deserve to be on the same field as them, and in the playoffs, we looked like we didn't. The Bills laid a complete egg. I get how gutting that is on a big stage, but they just sucked on the day. 

[GaryPinC]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I'm not the one making excuses for players who admit themselves that they ***** the bed. 

I'm not saying you are, but you do seem to exclude the fact that this is a team game and the coaches have a role to play.   

 

Back in 2008, during the illustrious Jauron years, our offense struggled mightily.  People blamed the coaches, the players, blah, blah, blah.  At least one of the players stood up and said it was ultimately on them to execute the plays being called.  And he wasn't wrong.

But later in the season, SF 49ers came here to play and beat us.  Former Bill Takeo Spikes did the entire city a solid and went on record crediting 9ers D staff with figuring out what plays we were going to run based on pre-snap cues.  Called our offense "simple" in the process.  Early the next season Turk Schonert quit as OC complaining of Jauron's limited "Pop Warner offense".

 

These guys play the game.  If they don't have faith in the game plan it's a problem and both sides could be blamed.  But that won't get it fixed.

[Einstein]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

 

LOL are you actually, seriously, using the fact that a player, or more than 1 player, failed to come back from serious injury to argue that they weren't good players before they were injured? 

 

Generally speaking, great players get another opportunity from SOMEONE. If Mahomes tore both knees tomorrow, he would get the chance to come back. With great players, some team gives them a chance to be on their roster for at least a season after an acl, or achilles, or whatever, because of how good they are. This happens all the time. We’re about to play Von Miller at age 34 coming off of TWO acl injuries in his career. All 3 of the players I mentioned were great at points in their career but by the time they had those injuries they were going downhill fast. That’s why no team gave them another opportunity. One of them was on their 3rd team in 4 years for goodness sakes. Another one was playing on a one year contract. Reid sucks at o-line evals and the o-line only got good once Veach took over as GM. His lines were bottom 15 in the league for half his time in KC before Veach. I’m done talking about Chiefs stuff in a Bills thread but figured i’d at least give you some background of what I meant.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, GaryPinC said:

I'm not saying you are, but you do seem to exclude the fact that this is a team game and the coaches have a role to play.   

 

Back in 2008, during the illustrious Jauron years, our offense struggled mightily.  People blamed the coaches, the players, blah, blah, blah.  At least one of the players stood up and said it was ultimately on them to execute the plays being called.  And he wasn't wrong.

But later in the season, SF 49ers came here to play and beat us.  Former Bill Takeo Spikes did the entire city a solid and went on record crediting 9ers D staff with figuring out what plays we were going to run based on pre-snap cues.  Called our offense "simple" in the process.  Early the next season Turk Schonert quit as OC complaining of Jauron's limited "Pop Warner offense".

 

These guys play the game.  If they don't have faith in the game plan it's a problem and both sides could be blamed.  But that won't get it fixed.

 

I don't exclude that. Never have. But players play. The Bills lost that game primarily because they never showed up. They sucked. There was no energy, no desire, even Josh looked out of it. The players were a bigger problem than any gameplan. They played their worst game all season on the big stage. 

[Einstein]

9 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

I'm not saying you are, but you do seem to exclude the fact that this is a team game and the coaches have a role to play.   

 

“If only the team decided to play well” is by far the funniest argument i’ve heard people make.

 

7 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

The Bills lost that game primarily because they never showed up. They sucked. There was no energy, no desire

 

It looked that way because we were outmatched. It looked the exact same before the Damar injury in the first matchup. It was a carbon copy. Arm wrestle a child and they’ll look like they never showed up either. It’s what an opponent looks like when they’re completely outtalented and outmatched and outcoached. If desire led to winning we would have a roster full of Rudy’s.

 

I agree we had the talent to make it closer than it was, but we lose either way in my opinion. The team was defeated by the start of the second half because they realized they were outmatched.

 

.

 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Einstein

[GunnerBill]

19 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

“If only the team decided to play well” is by far the funniest argument i’ve heard people make.

 

 

It looked that way because we were outmatched. It looked the exact same before the Damar injury in the first matchup. It was a carbon copy. Arm wrestle a child and they’ll look like they never showed up either. It’s what an opponent looks like when they’re completely outtalented and outmatched and outcoached. If desire led to winning we would have a roster full of Rudy’s.

 

I agree we had the talent to make it closer than it was, but we lose either way in my opinion. The team was defeated by the start of the second half because they realized they were outmatched.

 

 

In the first matchup we went right down the field on them too. Didn't punch it in. But in the second matchup we couldn't move the ball. Maybe they are just more talented. That is definitely a possibility and on offense it is a fact. But the Bills just played their worst game. 

[Einstein]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

In the first matchup we went right down the field on them too. Didn't punch it in. 

 

Sounds like a bills versus patriots game for the better part of 17 years. Them scoring touchdowns, and us consoling ourselves by saying we were almost in the end zone.

[Billl]

31 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Generally speaking, great players get another opportunity from SOMEONE. If Mahomes tore both knees tomorrow, he would get the chance to come back. With great players, some team gives them a chance to be on their roster for at least a season after an acl, or achilles, or whatever, because of how good they are. This happens all the time. We’re about to play Von Miller at age 34 coming off of TWO acl injuries in his career. All 3 of the players I mentioned were great at points in their career but by the time they had those injuries they were going downhill fast. That’s why no team gave them another opportunity. One of them was on their 3rd team in 4 years for goodness sakes. Another one was playing on a one year contract. Reid sucks at o-line evals and the o-line only got good once Veach took over as GM. His lines were bottom 15 in the league for half his time in KC before Veach. I’m done talking about Chiefs stuff in a Bills thread but figured i’d at least give you some background of what I meant.

Mitchell Schwartz was either first or second team All Pro four straight seasons coming into 2020.  He hurt his back and retired after the season.  He was literally the best RT in football up to that point.  Eric Fisher was the Colts starting LT last season.  When he retires, he’ll be in the Chiefs Ring of Honor.  

 

What in the world are you trying to achieve by pulling post after post out of your ass?  “His lines were bottom 15 for half his time in KC before Veach.”  He coached for 5 seasons prior to Veach and took over a 2-14 team.  So we’re talking about what, 2 seasons of below average talent on a roster he inherited?  That’s somehow a function of poor talent evaluation on his part?

 

Congratulations.  You are literally the first person in history to accuse Andy Reid of being subpar at evaluating OL.  And to do it a month after he won a Super Bowl with a top 5 line that he built from scratch last season is especially remarkable.

[Nihilarian]

10 hours ago, Nihilarian said:

That Cincy game just got away from Buffalo quickly...against a decimated Buffalo defense, no Von equals not much pressure on the QB and a wrecked secondary. Then, the Buffalo offense depended on the QB to win the game who was under constant pressure...again! Along with very little run game...again! 

Like I said...

 

On any given Sunday!

 

The Bengals were fired up because of the tickets selling for the game to be in Atlanta...as If they, (the Bengals) didn't matter...feeling very disrespected by the NFL for selling those tickets. They came out on fire on both sides of the ball and took it to the Buffalo Bills that Sunday. It is a game of emotion and they were just more fired up and determined. 

 

That said, the outcome could have been different under different circumstances. Like a healthy Von Miller in getting to Joe Burrow quickly. Matt Milano sacked Burrow and stopped a drive at the end of the first quarter. Poyer playing injured. White off a torn ACL and a rookie CB on the other side. Buffalo only had 3 QB hits on Burrow all game, one lone sack by Milano. Little pressure. 

 

Also. like Buffalo not having a decent run game that they were willing to work at. QB Josh Allen was the leading rusher, again!  Singletary 6 carries, Cook 5 carries. 11 carries for Buffalo RBs in a game is simply ridiculous. The Bengals had 34 carries with Joe Mixon getting 20 alone.  

 

Buffalo had/has a competitive team that is on par with Cincinnati...just not on that particular Sunday. Which sucks because it was a home playoff game for Buffalo. 

 

What really hurts is Cincy was fielding 3 of 4 backup players on their offensive line with 3 starters out. Buffalo was supposed to get more pressure on Burrow.  Needless to say, without Von Miller that Bills D...

 

 

 

[Eastport bills]

2 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

We need more Diggs.  Miller is a great leader, he's the positive approach leader.  Like a mentor or bigger brother.

 

You also need a guy that isn't afraid to get in your face and call you out.  Miller is great...we need more Diggs.

Hopefully one or two players  on the defensive side can be that guy if Miller misses time. I guess Hyde and Poyer would be the logical candidates. Sean and the new DC have to put their imprint on a nastier edge. We have to play with a serious chip on our shoulder. Cinn., KC already think they have our number and the Jets and Dolphins will be playing at a fever pitch against us.

[Royale with Cheese]

1 hour ago, Billl said:

Mitchell Schwartz was either first or second team All Pro four straight seasons coming into 2020.  He hurt his back and retired after the season.  He was literally the best RT in football up to that point.  Eric Fisher was the Colts starting LT last season.  When he retires, he’ll be in the Chiefs Ring of Honor.  

 

What in the world are you trying to achieve by pulling post after post out of your ass?  “His lines were bottom 15 for half his time in KC before Veach.”  He coached for 5 seasons prior to Veach and took over a 2-14 team.  So we’re talking about what, 2 seasons of below average talent on a roster he inherited?  That’s somehow a function of poor talent evaluation on his part?

 

Congratulations.  You are literally the first person in history to accuse Andy Reid of being subpar at evaluating OL.  And to do it a month after he won a Super Bowl with a top 5 line that he built from scratch last season is especially remarkable.

 

I should him an article where over a 20 year period, the Eagles had the most offensive lineman in the Pro Bowl.  Reid was there for 12 of those years as HC and GM.  Einstein said the article was "vague".  

 

I think what he's trying to achieve is he thinks he's the smartest person in the room.  He's the classic guy that doesn't know what he's talking about but thinks he does and everyone else is wrong that doesn't agree.  

[Beck Water]

2 hours ago, Billl said:

Mitchell Schwartz was either first or second team All Pro four straight seasons coming into 2020.  He hurt his back and retired after the season.  He was literally the best RT in football up to that point.  Eric Fisher was the Colts starting LT last season.  When he retires, he’ll be in the Chiefs Ring of Honor.  

 

What in the world are you trying to achieve by pulling post after post out of your ass?  “His lines were bottom 15 for half his time in KC before Veach.”  He coached for 5 seasons prior to Veach and took over a 2-14 team.  So we’re talking about what, 2 seasons of below average talent on a roster he inherited?  That’s somehow a function of poor talent evaluation on his part?

 

Congratulations.  You are literally the first person in history to accuse Andy Reid of being subpar at evaluating OL.  And to do it a month after he won a Super Bowl with a top 5 line that he built from scratch last season is especially remarkable.

 

Incredible, isn't it?  "Oh yeah, these guys were great players for years but they stopped playing or didn't play as well after major injuries therefore they must suck"

 

At the risk of sounding like an Andy Reid apologist, let's take it further.  The Chiefs won the Superbowl in 2019 a year after their 1st-year starter won league MVP.  You can't do that without a good OL, you simply can't.  Then they lost the Superbowl, tore down their OL completely, went right back to the conference championship the following year with a rebuilt OL that sustained a bit better run game, and won last season with that OL.  (Still very much an OL built to support the passing game tho)

 

So they won 2 Superbowls in 4 years with two completely different OLs, and this guy wants to tag Reid as being a poor OL talent evaluator and having bad OLs.

 

Now let's go back a decade or more to 2009 when Reid rebuilt the Eagles offense around a running miracle on cleats named LeSean McCoy and had a top-10 offense for 3 years with QB named McNabb and Vick.  Completely different style of offense designed around McCoy's skillset in the run game, but amazingly enough, one of the players he brought in (a C named Jason Kelce) is still playing in the league and has won 2 Superbowls himself since then.  No doubt, because Reid is a poor evaluator of OL talent.

 

It boggles the mind.  I con only pray that the Bills FO might become subpar at evaluating OL talent to that degree.

 

All I can think of is that the chosen screen name "Einstein" must be intended as ironic.

Edited March 24, 2023 by Beck Water

[Shaw66]

14 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

Agreed on that. But just as impossible to prove that external factors derailed the season. Best you’ll get is a player making an excuse because no player or coach is going to admit the other team was flat out better. Ego.

 

There's no point in arguing with you, but I have to call you out for things that you make up that are just flat out untrue.  

 

Players admit all the time that the other team was better.  They say things like "they were the better team today," and "we couldn't match them on the field today," and "there was nothing we could do to stop that."   We hear that every week from players around the league after losses.  Those are all admissions that the other team was better, at least for that day.  They are all admissions that they were outplayed.

 

What players are notorious for is NOT talking about their emotions.   They never say, "I had a bad day because I had a fight with my wife this morning," or "I couldn't focus because I had the greatest sex of my life last night," or "I just couldn't do it because my favorite uncle passed away."   They don't talk about their emotions.  Even so, several Bills admitted after the Bengals game that team was flat or didn't have it in them, but no one was going to come out say "you know what, the weight of the world was just too much for us."  They won't because, true or not, they don't want to sound like they're making excuses, and because players rarely talk about their emotions.    

 

None of the Bills said the Bengals were a better team because the Bills don't believe that they are.    Under ordinary circumstances, the Bills are certainly competitive in some absolute sense.  Yes the Bengals might be the better team, in the sense that if they played 10 games the Bengals might win 6 or 7, but they aren't winning 10.   The Bills are one of the top five teams in the league, and no one is beating a top five 10 out of 10.    The Bills by all means can compete with the Bengals.   They just didn't on that day.  The Chiefs won the Super Bowl and were, in my estimation, the best team in the league.  And yet, the Bills beat them.   If they can beat the best team in the league, they can beat the Bengals, who weren't the best in the league.  

[Beck Water]

3 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

There's no point in arguing with you, but I have to call you out for things that you make up that are just flat out untrue.  

 

Players admit all the time that the other team was better.  They say things like "they were the better team today," and "we couldn't match them on the field today," and "there was nothing we could do to stop that."   We hear that every week from players around the league after losses.  Those are all admissions that the other team was better, at least for that day.  They are all admissions that they were outplayed.

 

What players are notorious for is NOT talking about their emotions.   They never say, "I had a bad day because I had a fight with my wife this morning," or "I couldn't focus because I had the greatest sex of my life last night," or "I just couldn't do it because my favorite uncle passed away."   They don't talk about their emotions.  Even so, several Bills admitted after the Bengals game that team was flat or didn't have it in them, but no one was going to come out say "you know what, the weight of the world was just too much for us."  They won't because, true or not, they don't want to sound like they're making excuses, and because players rarely talk about their emotions.    

 

None of the Bills said the Bengals were a better team because the Bills don't believe that they are.    Under ordinary circumstances, the Bills are certainly competitive in some absolute sense.  Yes the Bengals might be the better team, in the sense that if they played 10 games the Bengals might win 6 or 7, but they aren't winning 10.   The Bills are one of the top five teams in the league, and no one is beating a top five 10 out of 10.    The Bills by all means can compete with the Bengals.   They just didn't on that day.  The Chiefs won the Super Bowl and were, in my estimation, the best team in the league.  And yet, the Bills beat them.   If they can beat the best team in the league, they can beat the Bengals, who weren't the best in the league.  

 

All I can say to this is:  Thank You.

 

It's so well put that there's really nothing else to say.

[Einstein]

33 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

 but I have to call you out for things that you make up that are just flat out untrue.  

 

No problem. I'll return the favor.

 

33 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

 

Players admit all the time that the other team was better.  They say things like "they were the better team today,"

 

 

No that's just another way for them to say "we didn't try hard enough". They're not admitting the other team is better, they're admitting the other team was better "today" because they didnt do enough "that day".

 

Ego.

 

It's like a child saying "you didnt beat me, you just got lucky!"

 

Your other quotes i've never seen a player ever make. I have never ever seen a player say; "their team is just plain better - no other way around it". I'm sure its happened at some point, but its certainly not common.

 

33 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

What players are notorious for is NOT talking about their emotions.   They never say, "I had a bad day because I had a fight with my wife this morning," or "I couldn't focus because I had the greatest sex of my life last night,"

 

Well, obviously. Those examples have nothing to do with a medical issue we all saw on national TV.

 

From that moment on it was a built-in excuse because everyone saw it happen.  Its an EASY excuse to say "that Damar thing that happened 3 weeks and 2 wins ago is why I sucked today".

 

Workers around the world are expected to get back to work 3 days after a loved one passes away. And its not expected for their work quality to just plummet.

 

Others have talked about seeing a co-worker keel over and die in their office job, factory job, farming job, whaetever. They were expected to go right back to work. And no, companies don't expect your work quality to be terrible, THREE WEEKS after, just because you saw a coworker leave in an ambulance.

 

The entire argument is absolutely ridiculous and ignores how the rest of the world works, just because it's a football team. Its a completely odd thing to watch grown humans make every excuse in the world for athletes.

 

Quote

Yes the Bengals might be the better team, in the sense that if they played 10 games the Bengals might win 6 or 7, but they aren't winning 10.  

 

If you're under the impression that I think the Bengals would beat  us 10 out of 10 times, well, that's just absurd. 

 

The Bengals wouldn't beat the worst team in the league 10 out of 10 times. Thats not how the NFL works. The better team wins maybe 7 out of 10 times, as you said.

 

Sounds like you agree the Bengals are just the better team.

 

.

 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Einstein

[Einstein]

22 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

The Chiefs won the Superbowl in 2019 a year after their 1st-year starter won league MVP.  You can't do that without a good OL, you simply can't. 

 

The Rams literally just won the SB last year while having the 8th worst "stuffed" rate, 4th worst power run rank, 4th worst power success rank, bottom 10 in open field, and bottom half of the league in yards per rush. They were top 10 in sacks given up, though so were the Eagles who went 9-8 and the Vikings who went 8-9 and the Chargers who went 9-8. None of them made the playoffs.

[Shaw66]

5 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

 

Sounds like you agree the Bengals are just the better team.

 

.

 

Now that the Bills are this good, I no longer ask myself which teams are better than the Bills.   I don't give a hoot, for example, about the power rankings.   When the Bills used to be ranked in the 20s, I'd look at the power rankings and ask myself whether the Bills were better than the teams immediately above them.   I don't do that any more. 

 

Instead, what I think about is which teams on the schedule will be challenges.   Before the season started, those teams were the Rams, the Chiefs, the Bengals, and maybe one or two others.  After a while it was clear that the Rams actually weren't a challenge, and some other teams looked better.   But the Bengals game was always on my radar as a big, big game.  

 

And going into the playoff game against I had an uneasy feeling, not because I felt the Bengals were a better team, but because in the recent weeks they had been playing closer to their potential than the Bills were.   I thought the Bengals were playing better.   So, in that sense, I agree with you. 

 

But then the question, the only question that matters, is WHY were they playing better?   You seem to think, I guess, that the Bengals had a better roster and lineup, and therefore they were better.  I don't think that's true.   I have said for years around here that differences between rosters among well-matched teams are irrelevant - there just isn't that much difference in talent to determine the outcome of games.   Games are won or lost or by how well the team plays, and that has to do with things like their mental attitude, their preparation, the quality of the coaching and game planning, etc.

 

It's in that context that the emotional state of the individuals and the team is directly relevant to the discussion.   As Gunner said, the players admit they **** the bed in that game.   The question is why would a team as good as the Bills be so uncompetitive?  If, as I believe, the overall talent differential, if there even was one, was minimal.   If the Bengals talent is so otherworldly, why did they lose to the Chiefs the next week?   Don't tell me it's because the Chiefs were better, because that would mean that the Bills should have been obliterated by the Chiefs, which of course they weren't.   

 

I live in Connecticut.  I'm a UConn fan.  I don't know if you've watched them in the NCAA tournament, but they have been spectacular.  I asked myself if they are better than all the other teams in the tournament, and I realize (1) I don't know, and (2) it's the wrong question.  "Better" only helps predict the outcome if one team is clearly superior to the other.   Once it's clear that no one has clear superiority, then "better" isn't very relevant.   What's relevant is what they need to do to win.   UConn plays Gonzaga tomorrow.   Is UConn better?   No idea.   The relevant question is not who's better, but who will PLAY better.   In January, the Bengals played better.