New Hypo: Bengals win Superbowl 23, and ??

[sbones]

Lets say Lewis Billups never drops that Joe Montana INT, Jim Breech becomes the second kicker to win SB MVP, and the Bengals do in fact win Superbowl 23.

Now without upsetting the time space continuum, lets say that they go on this skid of the past 22 years, one playoff win and multiple mistakes, and lets say we still end up with the current team, possible potential to win another SB in the near future.

Does that forgive those 22 years of Mikey? Would you want to live through those 22 years of pathetic Bengals teams again?

Does that one championship make it more enduring?

Or trade that for a SB win in say one or two years? Does that make those 22 years worth it? Or does it make it sweeter? Just curious as to how other feel about this?

[BigPapaKain]

I don't think Mikey boy is going to get a whole lot of forgiveness from many people. That being said, when the Bengals win a Super Bowl (notice: WHEN), it's going to be so sweet.

And no; a Super Bowl win 22 years ago wouldn't soften anyone's heart for Mike Brown now either.

[Ron Mexico]

I would gladly take winning that Super Bowl in exchange for the long years of losing. BUT....the Bengals have had those long years of losing anyway, so basically you're just offering me a free Super Bowl victory. Who would pass that up?

[THE PISTONS]

I think winning in the present makes fans forget a lot of bad in the past.

Heck...there are a lot of people on here giddy from a 9-7 season where we made the playoffs and lost in the Wild Card Game!

In your hypothetical...wasn't Paul Brown still in charge of the Bengals in 1988?

[wolfkaosaun]

Mike Brown wasn't the owner during that Super Bowl. He became owner in 91, and when that happened he fired Sam Wyche. He then drafted Klingler while Esiason was still on the team and traded him.

Mike Brown has tried to fine a player because he bad-mouthed the team.

Since Brown became owner, the team has had only 3 winning seasons out of 21 and has a winning percentage of .361 (115-204-1) in the regular season and .000 (0-3) in the playoffs. In 2008, the Bengals set a record for the most games needed under one specific owner to attain 100 wins (288). In 2010, the team set a record for the least games needed to lose 200 (both considering and not considering playoffs) under one specific owner (314).

The Bengals hold a number of distinctions for the time frame of Brown's ownership: It is the only team with three nine-game-or-more losing streaks. It also holds six of the twenty-five 0-6 starts (24%) and four of the thirteen 0-8 starts (31%) in that time. The Bengals have gone winless in October eight different times in twenty years under five different head coaches (Sam Wyche was originally hired by Paul Brown).

So all in all: No. It doesn't make up for it. There's a good team now, and I'm happy about it. But I still remember all the losing seasons.

[sbones]

Originally Posted by THE PISTONS

I think winning in the present makes fans forget a lot of bad in the past.

Heck...there are a lot of people on here giddy from a 9-7 season where we made the playoffs and lost in the Wild Card Game!

In your hypothetical...wasn't Paul Brown still in charge of the Bengals in 1988?

I was aware Mike Brown didn't become owner/gm/president until 91. I was just suggesting that if the Bengals won the 88 SB, would it have made the last 22 years less difficult.

For me, when i see NFL Network's Top Ten Worse teams of the 90s, or Top Ten Draft Busts, it seems all we have to look back to is 81 "Should have been" or the "88 Could have been." Since the 88' SB was so close and we were essentially one ot two plays from winning that game, I thought to myself. if we had won that game, would going through the last 22 be less painful? The question is obviously yes.

[sbones]

Originally Posted by wolfkaosaun

Mike Brown wasn't the owner during that Super Bowl. He became owner in 91, and when that happened he fired Sam Wyche. He then drafted Klingler while Esiason was still on the team and traded him.

Mike Brown has tried to fine a player because he bad-mouthed the team.

Since Brown became owner, the team has had only 3 winning seasons out of 21 and has a winning percentage of .361 (115-204-1) in the regular season and .000 (0-3) in the playoffs. In 2008, the Bengals set a record for the most games needed under one specific owner to attain 100 wins (288). In 2010, the team set a record for the least games needed to lose 200 (both considering and not considering playoffs) under one specific owner (314).

The Bengals hold a number of distinctions for the time frame of Brown's ownership: It is the only team with three nine-game-or-more losing streaks. It also holds six of the twenty-five 0-6 starts (24%) and four of the thirteen 0-8 starts (31%) in that time. The Bengals have gone winless in October eight different times in twenty years under five different head coaches (Sam Wyche was originally hired by Paul Brown).

So all in all: No. It doesn't make up for it. There's a good team now, and I'm happy about it. But I still remember all the losing seasons.

Yes, as I said to PISTONS, I know MB was made owner after 91. (See post)

To your other points, I read the Mike Brown wiki right before posting this and and it seems to me history will be far less kind to MB than any angry Bengals fan will ever be. A SB win is his only redemption, is it too little too late?

[Nately120]

Would I go easier on Mike Brown if he ran a recent World Champion franchise into the ground rather than a recent AFC Champion franchise? No, frankly; I'd like him even less because it just means we fell that much farther once he took over and deemed himself the next Paul Brown.

Originally Posted by sbones

To your other points, I read the Mike Brown wiki right before posting this and and it seems to me history will be far less kind to MB than any angry Bengals fan will ever be. A SB win is his only redemption, is it too little too late?

I'd wager yes. If the Bengals win a Super Bowl under Mike's watch then he will go down as the "Trent Dilfer" of Super Bowl-winning owners.

[THE PISTONS]

Originally Posted by sbones

I was aware Mike Brown didn't become owner/gm/president until 91. I was just suggesting that if the Bengals won the 88 SB, would it have made the last 22 years less difficult.

For me, when i see NFL Network's Top Ten Worse teams of the 90s, or Top Ten Draft Busts, it seems all we have to look back to is 81 "Should have been" or the "88 Could have been." Since the 88' SB was so close and we were essentially one ot two plays from winning that game, I thought to myself. if we had won that game, would going through the last 22 be less painful? The question is obviously yes.

Sports are very "What have you done for me lately". When you haven't done something in 22 years (won a playoff game)...fans won't be happy regardless.

The happiness now is based on expectations that we will win a playoff game or two this season.

[wolfkaosaun]

Originally Posted by sbones

Yes, as I said to PISTONS, I know MB was made owner after 91. (See post)

To your other points, I read the Mike Brown wiki right before posting this and and it seems to me history will be far less kind to MB than any angry Bengals fan will ever be. A SB win is his only redemption, is it too little too late?

Yes, I believe it is too little too late. He is a horrendous owner and a Super Bowl would be more credit to Lewis, Zimmer, and Gruden.

As stated before, Mike Brown would go down as the Trent Dilfer of owners if he won the Super Bowl.

[Hammerstripes]

Originally Posted by sbones

I was aware Mike Brown didn't become owner/gm/president until 91. I was just suggesting that if the Bengals won the 88 SB, would it have made the last 22 years less difficult.

For me, when i see NFL Network's Top Ten Worse teams of the 90s, or Top Ten Draft Busts, it seems all we have to look back to is 81 "Should have been" or the "88 Could have been." Since the 88' SB was so close and we were essentially one ot two plays from winning that game, I thought to myself. if we had won that game, would going through the last 22 be less painful? The question is obviously yes.

Would it have made the last 22 years less difficult? Nope, not with the way the team was run. I still would have been frustrated with the front office. If anything, it may have made the past 22 years WORSE!!

After all, we would all be saying - "Geez, the previous owner managed to get us to the Super Bowl (twice) and win it once, why did this guy have to screw things up?"