Tyler Boyd: Cincy Bengals are Whiny Deluded Bitches & I'm one of them

[Megatron96]

Meh. CIN also didn't have either starting OT, right? Iirc, CIN was down 3/5 of their starting OL.

I mean, we saw what happened when KC didn't have a serviceable OL in 2020. The Chiefs couldn't even score a TD, and we had most of the starting WR/TEs/RBs available to us.

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

Meh. CIN also didn't have either starting OT, right? Iirc, CIN was down 3/5 of their starting OL.

I mean, we saw what happened when KC didn't have a serviceable OL in 2020. The Chiefs couldn't even score a TD, and we had most of the starting WR/TEs/RBs available to us.

Mahomes also battled turf toe, the TB DLine was much better than KC's last year, and KC had maybe 1/5 of their starting line in that game (I believe Reiter at center). Wylie who was a guard got kicked out to RT and Remmers a backup RT was shifted to LT. To compare the SB to that game is silly as they aren't the same.

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by tredadda

Mahomes also battled turf toe, the TB DLine was much better than KC's last year, and KC had maybe 1/5 of their starting line in that game (I believe Reiter at center). Wylie who was a guard got kicked out to RT and Remmers a backup RT was shifted to LT. To compare the SB to that game is silly as they aren't the same.

TB?


regardless, whether they're 'exactly the same' isn't really the point. The point is that losing more than half your starting OL will make a difference in how well your offense executes, n'est-ce pas?

CIN went into the AFFCG last year without the OL they had when they played us in the regular season, fact. it probably made a real difference in how they executed.

Just as losing 4/5 of our OL in 2020 changed how our offense operated. Fine, maybe not in exactly the same way, but in both cases the loss of several starters on the OL hurt each team's ability to execute as well as they did when they had those starters.

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

TB?


regardless, whether they're 'exactly the same' isn't really the point. The point is that losing more than half your starting OL will make a difference in how well your offense executes, n'est-ce pas?

CIN went into the AFFCG last year without the OL they had when they played us in the regular season, fact. it probably made a real difference in how they executed.

Just as losing 4/5 of our OL in 2020 changed how our offense operated. Fine, maybe not in exactly the same way, but in both cases the loss of several starters on the OL hurt each team's ability to execute as well as they did when they had those starters.

Tampa Bay. Also when KC lost to the Bucs, they were playing a team at full strength with three top WRs of which one is a HOFer and the other would have gone down as a Top 5 WR ever if he wasn't insane (Evans, Brown, Godwin). They also had one of the greatest TEs ever (Gronkowski), a top 5 pick RB who's career had been resurrected (Fournette), and an elite OLine.

Cincinnati lost to a QB who was hobbled by a high ankle sprain, a TE dealing with back issues, and by the end of the game, MVS, Moore, and just brought up from the practice squad Kemp with two turnstiles at T. Oh and a 7th round RB dealing with two injuries. Cincy still had a healthy QB that most consider to be the second best in the NFL, two #1 WRs, Mixon, Perine, and Henry and still lost.

KC played a much stronger overall team in that SB than Cincy did in the AFCCG. The Chiefs offense had to fire on all cylinders to keep up with that Bucs team. Cincy could not outscore a KC offense decimated by injuries and yet them being down three linemen was the equivalent to KCs SB loss?

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by tredadda

Tampa Bay. Also when KC lost to the Bucs, they were playing a team at full strength with three top WRs of which one is a HOFer and the other would have gone down as a Top 5 WR ever if he wasn't insane (Evans, Brown, Godwin). They also had one of the greatest TEs ever (Gronkowski), a top 5 pick RB who's career had been resurrected (Fournette), and an elite OLine.

Cincinnati lost to a QB who was hobbled by a high ankle sprain, a TE dealing with back issues, and by the end of the game, MVS, Moore, and just brought up from the practice squad Kemp with two turnstiles at T. Oh and a 7th round RB dealing with two injuries. Cincy still had a healthy QB that most consider to be the second best in the NFL, two #1 WRs, Mixon, Perine, and Henry and still lost.

KC played a much stronger overall team in that SB than Cincy did in the AFCCG. The Chiefs offense had to fire on all cylinders to keep up with that Bucs team. Cincy could not outscore a KC offense decimated by injuries and yet them being down three linemen was the equivalent to KCs SB loss?

Ah, now I get it.


No, I didn't say it was equivalent. I said losing several starters along your OL would change how well the team executed its offense, and I used the KC SBLV team as an obvious example of how that's true. There's several other examples, but i know everyone remembers that team/game, so that's the one i used.


You're getting into the actual results of a particular game. I'm simply referring to a well-known game, but my point is just that losing several starters from an OL will necessarily reduce that team's efficiency on offense.


And we almost didn't win that game. In the end, it took a slow start by CIN, a pair of uncharacteristic INTs by Burrow, a career performance from MVS, and it literally took a great return from a much-maligned rookie WR and a terrible roughing penalty for KC to win that game. Terrible as in, what was Ossai thinking???

Look, I'm not making excuses for CIN, I just noticed that no one seemed to remember that they weren't at their best either. We beat them yes, but that wasn't the same team we faced earlier in the season. They were a little banged up in the AFCCG.

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

Ah, now I get it.


No, I didn't say it was equivalent. I said losing several starters along your OL would change how well the team executed its offense, and I used the KC SBLV team as an obvious example of how that's true. There's several other examples, but i know everyone remembers that team/game, so that's the one i used.


You're getting into the actual results of a particular game. I'm simply referring to a well-known game, but my point is just that losing several starters from an OL will necessarily reduce that team's efficiency on offense.


And we almost didn't win that game. In the end, it took a slow start by CIN, a pair of uncharacteristic INTs by Burrow, a career performance from MVS, and it literally took a great return from a much-maligned rookie WR and a terrible roughing penalty for KC to win that game. Terrible as in, what was Ossai thinking???

Look, I'm not making excuses for CIN, I just noticed that no one seemed to remember that they weren't at their best either. We beat them yes, but that wasn't the same team we faced earlier in the season. They were a little banged up in the AFCCG.

I will agree with you that losing some starting Olinemen will affect the offense some, but that team had more than enough firepower left to offset it. Losing your top WRs and having your mobile QB hobbled with a high ankle sprain reduces a team's efficiency on offense. Did certain things go right for KC? Sure. But let's not forget the uncharacteristic fumble by Mahomes with KC driving that cost them at minimum 3 points if not possibly 7.

It took a lot for Cincy to even be in that game. If memory serves me wasn't one INT called back and another dropped? Cincinnati got lucky that went their way. Pacheco had a TD called back on a very weak, questionable hold as well. If anything Cincinnati was fortunate it wasn't a blowout. KC had to make adjustments that the Bengals could not.

They may not have been at their best, but they were still far healthier than KC, especially at the one position that mattered most.

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by tredadda

I will agree with you that losing some starting Olinemen will affect the offense some, but that team had more than enough firepower left to offset it. Losing your top WRs and having your mobile QB hobbled with a high ankle sprain reduces a team's efficiency on offense. Did certain things go right for KC? Sure. But let's not forget the uncharacteristic fumble by Mahomes with KC driving that cost them at minimum 3 points if not possibly 7.

It took a lot for Cincy to even be in that game. If memory serves me wasn't one INT called back and another dropped? Cincinnati got lucky that went their way. Pacheco had a TD called back on a very weak, questionable hold as well. If anything Cincinnati was fortunate it wasn't a blowout. KC had to make adjustments that the Bengals could not.

They may not have been at their best, but they were still far healthier than KC, especially at the one position that mattered most.

Well, yeah. I was never disagreeing with your argument about how things shook out. i agree with almost all of it.