Perennial Losers -- Are we stuck in that mode due to scheduling?

[EatonFan]

This is a hypothetical, food for thought, type of thread. One that should be discussed as a catalyst for change... Here goes.

Does the NFL policy of pairing bad teams against each other in the scheduling process actually HARM those teams? On the flip side of that does pairing great teams together such as NE and Indy and Pitts actually help them?

Here's my supposition in a nutshell: If the powder-puff teams always get a softer schedule, in essence our opponents are lesser and we never really attain the level we could by playing against tougher teams. When New England plays against tough opponent week after week, how easy of a game it must be when they play a Bengals team? IMO very easy. We get pasted -- Like shooting ducks in a barrel.

(This thread could easily move to around the NFL, but I put it in the JN to really discuss the Bengal aspect of it)

Discuss....

[kevin]

Actually, since we play the NFC West who didn't have a team over .500.....This years schedule is set up for the Bengals to go 8-8 and possibly 10-6 or 6-10, depending on how the team improves and lady luck in the games. This is not playing the NFC East or NFC South...This schedule is not that bad....Now those games out west are hard to win as we saw in Seattle in play-offs last year, but I think we take them in Cincy to at least go 2-2 against the NFC this year. I'm hoping we go 3-3 or even 4-2 in the AFC North. ...and win most of our home games.

[wolfkaosaun]

Honestly, I don't buy into the whole 'strength of schedule' talk. Realize the Bengals had an easy schedule for numerous years from the 90's until now, and have only come out with 2 winning seasons.

It doesn't matter who you play, it matters how you play against them. And so far, I'm worried about how the Bengals will play.

Yes, it's one preseason game, but there are so many question marks going around this team.

[FletcherSmith]

Originally Posted by EatonFan

This is a hypothetical, food for thought, type of thread. One that should be discussed as a catalyst for change... Here goes.

Does the NFL policy of pairing bad teams against each other in the scheduling process actually HARM those teams? On the flip side of that does pairing great teams together such as NE and Indy and Pitts actually help them?

Here's my supposition in a nutshell: If the powder-puff teams always get a softer schedule, in essence our opponents are lesser and we never really attain the level we could by playing against tougher teams. When New England plays against tough opponent week after week, how easy of a game it must be when they play a Bengals team? IMO very easy. We get pasted -- Like shooting ducks in a barrel.

(This thread could easily move to around the NFL, but I put it in the JN to really discuss the Bengal aspect of it)

Discuss....

What harms the Bengals is having an owner that is either an idiot, a cynical manipulator who doesn't give a damn about winning, or a barking lunatic. The Bengals have had tough schedules and they've had easy schedules, and the actual strength of schedule seldom matches the projected strength of schedule. There is one reality to face with the Bengals - the reality that there are two constants with this team: ownership and where they play. Now, I will say that, contrary to what a lot of narcissistic Cincinnatians might like to believe, Mike Brown isn't really out of place in this town.

[Abspara]

Scheduling has nothing to do with it. It's MIKE BROWN.

Stop trying to make excuses for a owner stuck in the 70's. I swear he's got you all Jim Jones Brainwashed.

[EatonFan]

Originally Posted by Abspara

Scheduling has nothing to do with it. It's MIKE BROWN.

Stop trying to make excuses for a owner stuck in the 70's. I swear he's got you all Jim Jones Brainwashed.

Not making an excuse. We should be better than we are. I blame ownership and coaching for that. For the most part we get talented guys, yet we never seen to produce winners.

But does the NFL scheduling actually ADD to the problem (or support it)?

[kevin]

If you look at the schedule, it isn't that bad.....I like that we don't play Pittsburg or Baltimore until the second half of season. It gives us extra time to get the QB position ready and such. ...As far as schedules go, 2011 is not as hard as 2008 or 2010.

As for the losing, I always go into the season hoping the team can win. I hope they can win this year. I'm hoping we start with a win at Cleveland and go from there.

[tlotharw]

Originally Posted by EatonFan

This is a hypothetical, food for thought, type of thread. One that should be discussed as a catalyst for change... Here goes.

Does the NFL policy of pairing bad teams against each other in the scheduling process actually HARM those teams? On the flip side of that does pairing great teams together such as NE and Indy and Pitts actually help them?

Here's my supposition in a nutshell: If the powder-puff teams always get a softer schedule, in essence our opponents are lesser and we never really attain the level we could by playing against tougher teams. When New England plays against tough opponent week after week, how easy of a game it must be when they play a Bengals team? IMO very easy. We get pasted -- Like shooting ducks in a barrel.

(This thread could easily move to around the NFL, but I put it in the JN to really discuss the Bengal aspect of it)

Discuss....

Considering that teams in the same division play pretty much the same schedule - 6 home and aways against division teams, and 8 against interdivisional opponent - which leaves only 2 games that can be arbitrarily scheduled by the NFL, it doesn't make a difference from my point of view.

Take routine playoff teams in our division, Pittsburgh and Baltimore, they get a "softer" schedule year-after-year because they play us twice!

[IllWill]

Originally Posted by EatonFan

This is a hypothetical, food for thought, type of thread. One that should be discussed as a catalyst for change... Here goes.

Does the NFL policy of pairing bad teams against each other in the scheduling process actually HARM those teams? On the flip side of that does pairing great teams together such as NE and Indy and Pitts actually help them?

Here's my supposition in a nutshell: If the powder-puff teams always get a softer schedule, in essence our opponents are lesser and we never really attain the level we could by playing against tougher teams. When New England plays against tough opponent week after week, how easy of a game it must be when they play a Bengals team? IMO very easy. We get pasted -- Like shooting ducks in a barrel.

(This thread could easily move to around the NFL, but I put it in the JN to really discuss the Bengal aspect of it)

Discuss....

I think that the policy is fine. Pitting powder puffs against one another provides fairer competition for teams that need to return to form, or simply want to farm the system without labeling those teams one way or the other. Teams that want to get better can, and those who don't can stay at the bottom for as long as they like. It isn't the level of competition that makes a team better, it's the level of commitment.

[rfaulk34]

Originally Posted by EatonFan

But does the NFL scheduling actually ADD to the problem (or support it)?

Scheduling plays very little into it. The NFL is set up for teams to be able to make a quick turn around from one year to the next via the draft and free agency. There is a much smaller gap in the level of talent than what you see in college as well. So it doesn't really matter how bad a team was last year when you're scheduled to play them this year.

[WCStripes]

Originally Posted by IllWill

I think that the policy is fine. Pitting powder puffs against one another provides fairer competition for teams that need to return to form, or simply want to farm the system without labeling those teams one way or the other. Teams that want to get better can, and those who don't can stay at the bottom for as long as they like. It isn't the level of competition that makes a team better, it's the level of commitment.

+this

[Bengal Droppings]

Originally Posted by EatonFan

This is a hypothetical, food for thought, type of thread. One that should be discussed as a catalyst for change... Here goes.

Does the NFL policy of pairing bad teams against each other in the scheduling process actually HARM those teams? On the flip side of that does pairing great teams together such as NE and Indy and Pitts actually help them?

Here's my supposition in a nutshell: If the powder-puff teams always get a softer schedule, in essence our opponents are lesser and we never really attain the level we could by playing against tougher teams. When New England plays against tough opponent week after week, how easy of a game it must be when they play a Bengals team? IMO very easy. We get pasted -- Like shooting ducks in a barrel.

(This thread could easily move to around the NFL, but I put it in the JN to really discuss the Bengal aspect of it)

Discuss....

You're talking about a two game difference. Are those two games really that big of a deal?

No, they aren't.

[bengalfan74]

Originally Posted by wolfkaosaun

Honestly, I don't buy into the whole 'strength of schedule' talk. Realize the Bengals had an easy schedule for numerous years from the 90's until now, and have only come out with 2 winning seasons.

It doesn't matter who you play, it matters how you play against them. And so far, I'm worried about how the Bengals will play.

Yes, it's one preseason game, but there are so many question marks going around this team.

Exactly, the strength of schedule stuff is waaayyyyyy overrated. There's no real powder puffs in the NFL. Any team can beat any other team ummmm how does the saying go ? Any Given Sunday ?

[Toy Cannon]

Originally Posted by bengalfan74

Exactly, the strength of schedule stuff is waaayyyyyy overrated. There's no real powder puffs in the NFL. Any team can beat any other team ummmm how does the saying go ? Any Given Sunday ?

So true. As an example, in 2008 the Bengals finished in 3rd place, so in 2009 the two extra games were against 3rd place teams, the Texans and Jets. The Bengals had a good year but lost badly to both of those teams.

[JoePong]

Originally Posted by Abspara

Scheduling has nothing to do with it. It's MIKE BROWN.

And we have Paul Brown to thank for teaching his son to be that way.

Thanks Paul.

[Who_dey_hooligan]

Originally Posted by EatonFan

This is a hypothetical, food for thought, type of thread. One that should be discussed as a catalyst for change... Here goes.

Does the NFL policy of pairing bad teams against each other in the scheduling process actually HARM those teams? On the flip side of that does pairing great teams together such as NE and Indy and Pitts actually help them?

Here's my supposition in a nutshell: If the powder-puff teams always get a softer schedule, in essence our opponents are lesser and we never really attain the level we could by playing against tougher teams. When New England plays against tough opponent week after week, how easy of a game it must be when they play a Bengals team? IMO very easy. We get pasted -- Like shooting ducks in a barrel.

(This thread could easily move to around the NFL, but I put it in the JN to really discuss the Bengal aspect of it)

Discuss....

I've always believed in this. I think that bad teams playing other "bad teams" only makes a mediocre team look good. But then when they go to the playoffs they are exposed for what they are (case in point bengals in 09'). The good thing about good teams playing "good teams" is that if you have a tough schedule and succeed, your fan base has alot of hope for the playoffs. You can believe in a playoff team w/ a tough schedule because they are battle tested. Basically, everything your saying is correct.

[OU Bengals Fan]

Originally Posted by Toy Cannon

So true. As an example, in 2008 the Bengals finished in 3rd place, so in 2009 the two extra games were against 3rd place teams, the Texans and Jets. The Bengals had a good year but lost badly to both of those teams.

And this past year, we had to play the first place Colts and Chargers. And we ended up beating the Chargers.

[Shake n Blake]

I don't think schedules affect the strength of teams. I'm sure teams like the Steelers, Ravens and Pats have played "easier" schedules before, yet they are still ready to play the big boys when it counts. Strength of schedule usually means little anyway. Teams that were 6-10 last year might go 12-4 this year. The Chiefs were terrible in 2009, yet made the playoffs last year.

Parity is not a myth in the NFL. Usually only 6 out of 12 playoff teams return the following year. You will always see teams like the Colts, Pats, Steelers and GB, but the rest of the NFL is usually a toss up. Parity works everywhere but here in Cincinnati. Without getting too negative, there is a reason for that.

[FletcherSmith]

Originally Posted by EatonFan

Not making an excuse. We should be better than we are. I blame ownership and coaching for that. For the most part we get talented guys, yet we never seen to produce winners.

But does the NFL scheduling actually ADD to the problem (or support it)?

When you look at what Mike Brown does and doesn't do to field a competitive team - not to mention his constant grasping for corporate welfare - what else can even mentioning something like a schedule designed to give his sorry outfit a better chance to win as a potential cause of it losing be but excuse-making?

[ajustyle]

Going with the title "are we stuck in that mode due to scheduling" basically asks us to argue the theory that scheduling is one of our problems, and if so the extent of the effects that scheduling has had on our win-loss.

This theory is flawed in more ways than one.

Firstly: If every other year our schedule is easy then that implys that every other year we do well. 2010: 4-12 (bad), 2009: 10-6 (good), 2008: 4-11-1 (bad), 2007: 7-9 (good?), 2006: 8-8 (bad). The notion that every other year is good is a stretch. Our best season in 5 years is 10 wins = 62.5% = F. Obviously 10 wins in the NFL can get you farther than 63% in school but I'm just saying, simply, let's raise the bar a little. Let's raise our standards.

Secondly: Using schedules as an excuse is a poor excuse. Are we seriously going to accept victory when it comes against the worst teams? Where's the honor? Where's the pride. I want to destroy the Patriots, except instead of destroying them they destroyed us week 1 last year. I want to destroy the Jets, except instead of destroying them they beat us twice in a row injuring key players in both games and sending my cold-*** home sad from a bitter home loss playoff game in January. Dominating the Chjargers last year sans TOcho and ruining their playoff berth was one of the best victories we've had in the last 5 years...and it needs many more such 'in your face' instances to accompany it. To imply that an every other year easy schedule is causing our every other year swings is an observation not only scheduling but on our front office for failing to prepare for the inevitable. Let's start kicking some large-market ***. Let's ruing someones day for once, instead of always ruining our own.

Thirdly: Winners win. Winning is a habit. It self-perpetuates. This notion is the zen behind the word "Dynasty". Some of you guys think we should lose our games and get Andrew Luck. HAHA. WTF is Andrew Luck going to do on a team of losers except become one himself? We need to win. When was the last time NE needed a 1st round overall QB to dig them out of a hole? Pittsburgh? The answers to our questions are so obvious but nobody wants to talk about the elephant in the room. Winning is not an every other year type of thing. That's not winning.

[Baby Hawk]

Every team, every year, plays 4 games against 1st place teams, 4 games against 2nd place teams, 4 games against 3rd place teams, and 4 games against last place teams.

4 games against a division in their conference, 4 games against a division in the other conference, 6 games within their division, and 2 games in their conference against the two teams who placed in the same place they did in the previous year.

This year we play 4 games against the AFC south, 4 games against the NFC west, 2 games against the Steelers (1st AFC north), 2 games against the Ravens (2nd AFC north), 2 games against the Browns (3rd AFC north), 1 game against the Bills (last AFC east), and 1 game against the Broncos (last AFC west).

The Steelers and the Ravens will also get a supposedly easy schedule since they too play half of their games against the AFC south and NFC west, which combined only had 1 team with a winning record last year. Plus they get to play us twice. Will this make them too soft?

[EatonFan]

Originally Posted by FletcherSmith

When you look at what Mike Brown does and doesn't do to field a competitive team - not to mention his constant grasping for corporate welfare - what else can even mentioning something like a schedule designed to give his sorry outfit a better chance to win as a potential cause of it losing be but excuse-making?

Again. It's not excuse making. I'm simply forwarding a premise that pitting losers against losers does not do the loser(s) any favor at all because perennially you are going against lesser competition. It perpetuates the losing mentality. Just as winning perpetuates winning mentalities. I'm saying we've got into a losing mentality (similar to the 1990's and early 2000's), and the schedule supports it. How is that an excuse? In reality I find it more sickening that we still can't win even against lesser competition!

[BoomerFan]

I think most people are missing what Eaton is asking. Forget the Bengals, he's asking, "If you always play a soft schedule, does that make *your* team soft?"

[Ian Demagii]

30 other teams in the NFL handle it just fine! The only other team that is a perennial loser also has poor front office management (the Lions-and they are getting better).

Also the NFL has gone away from matching loser to losers, anymore you play who you play with only slight variance. Also there are the rivalry games ours (outside the division sadly is Indy).

Frankly the Bengals make a parody or parity. The league tries to help them-the management continues to screw it up. Read my sig,sadly, it tells the entire story...

Ian

[Shake n Blake]

Originally Posted by Ian Demagii

30 other teams in the NFL handle it just fine! The only other team that is a perennial loser also has poor front office management (the Lions-and they are getting better).

Also the NFL has gone away from matching loser to losers, anymore you play who you play with only slight variance. Also there are the rivalry games ours (outside the division sadly is Indy).

Frankly the Bengals make a parody or parity. The league tries to help them-the management continues to screw it up. Read my sig,sadly, it tells the entire story...

Ian

The Lions are getting better because they finally got wise and fired Matt Millen. Mike Brown is our Matt Millen, and he can't be fired.