Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Players Ready To Welcome Gay Teammate

Carson Palmer Nominated For AFC Offensive Player Of The Week

ATLANTA - OCTOBER 24:  Quarterback Carson Palmer #9 of the Cincinnati Bengals looks to pass upfield against the Atlanta Falcons at Georgia Dome on October 24 2010 in Atlanta Georgia.  (Photo by Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images)

No matter what Carson Palmer does, or doesn't do, there will be a group that's clearly given up on the team's franchise quarterback. Yet, sometimes it's hard not to agree with the taboo thought that the Bengals might be better off moving on. The argument is the simplest of arguments. Quarterbacks are judged by wins. That's it. Carson Palmer has lost 22 of his previous 42 starts, dating back to the 2007 season opener. Two playoff games, no wins. The argument, while it totally makes sense as to why someone would make it, can be somewhat shortsighted.

Quarterbacks need blockers. Disregarding that quick and simple fact is like purposely not recruiting Woody Harrelson when the Zombie Apocalypse happens. Which, according to league sources, isn't soon. Quarterbacks do not play defense. Quarterbacks do not choke on field goal attempts, nor do they angle a punt symmetrically perfect in the middle of the endzone. Why did the Bengals lose against the Falcons? Palmer's fault, because he couldn't record a fourth passing touchdown to raise his passer rating over 130.0 to tie the game, some would say. Roddy White's 201 yards receiving, a trivial thought much like Conan O'Brien returning to television next week, had nothing to do with the Bengals loss. Not at all. How many touchdowns did he have, one? No, two. Oh, then that's less valuable because he has a second one he could simply trade for a sandwich, used batteries and disgruntled Russian neighbors who still harbor frustrated feelings because Ross and Rachel went on a break. None of us have the heart to tell them that they got back together. Angry Russian neighbors rule.

If you really want to take bite out of my optimistic candy bar (that didn't come out nearly as well as I thought it would), there's even reasons to be somewhat hopeful of a Palmer outbreak as the season progresses. Consider that Terrell Owens and Palmer are finally synching up. Chad Ochocinco is taking all of this personal, and wants to do something about it. Andre Smith is finally getting that consistent work we had hoped for. In two of his past three games -- totally taking out his performance against the Buccaneers because that would somewhat hinder our argument and because we can -- Palmer has completed 61 of 86 passes (71%) for 783 yards passing and five touchdowns for a passer rating of 118.5.

Palmer's performance against Atlanta -- three touchdowns, completing 72% of his passes for 412 yards passing and a 116.4 passer rating -- earned him a nomination for this week's AFC Player of the Week. Raiders running back Darren McFadden would go on to win the award, rushing for 165 yards (on 16 carries), three rushing touchdowns and a receiving touchdown in a 59-14 win over the Denver Broncos.

In the end, our case remains the same. While it's not fair to put the majority of the blame on Palmer's shoulders for this season, or the team's lack of a passing offense in 2009, the fact is, the franchise quarterback is the franchise quarterback for a reason. He's the man that everyone looks to to win games. So, maybe they're right. Maybe quarterbacks should be judged by wins. But then so should everyone else.

Comment 28 comments  |  2 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I will bet good money this is a top 5 offense in the NFL, at least for weeks 7-17.

I don’t see Marvin going down w/o a fight, and I think it’s time to recognize this team’s best chance is to win games in shoot outs. The talent is there offensively. I think they run the no huddle to start against Miami, use it the entire game, and if they win, they keep at it, no looking back.

The defense still has some play-makers, a la the 05 defense, hopefully they can create enough turnovers to make this an effective strategy.

How will Chris Carpenter explain this to his children?

by Grizzlyfox on Oct 27, 2010 3:26 PM EDT reply actions  

It's not Marvin going down without a fight...

It’s Marvin doing a 10-week job interview for other teams. He’ll fight to the end to prove to his next boss that he cares.

It's time to sink or Zim.

by Pardon_My_French on Oct 27, 2010 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yep

I’ll stick with my old argument: his numbers this year don’t impress me, because he’s not winning games. We’re 2-4, and he was terrible in the two wins. His two best halves of football were in the second halves of (at the time) blowouts to New England and Atlanta, i.e. against weak pass defenses that had mentally checked out. Find me the point in this season during which he played well against a good defense or one that cared.

It's time to sink or Zim.

by Pardon_My_French on Oct 27, 2010 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

This mentally checked out nonsense is BS.

Truly BS. You don’t see teams put up a ton of 2nd half points when they are down. You just don’t see it. If teams “mentally checked out” as you say, we’d expect to see less blowouts and more bad teams doing good in the second half. Prove it.

Just making conclusory statements about some kind of nonsense BS argument is silly. You really think NFL players don’t give a $#$% when they have a big lead?

How will Chris Carpenter explain this to his children?

by Grizzlyfox on Oct 27, 2010 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think it’s fairly well documented that defenses play softer when they have a sizeable lead. You see more than enough comebacks in this league and more than enough losing QBs throw for 300-400 yards.

Question is: Where the hell is this guy in the first half? He’s helped dig this team into a hole nearly every game and has to pass nearly every play in the 2nd to make things respectable. Not sure what game/sport you’ve been watching.

by bodacio zk on Oct 27, 2010 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

Where is this fairly well documented.

This is what I mean by a conclusory statement. You can’t back it up, so you say it’s true and then you question what sport I’ve been watching.

How will Chris Carpenter explain this to his children?

by Grizzlyfox on Oct 27, 2010 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

You haven’t produced a bit of evidence that teams DON’t play softer with a big lead! Seriously. This is football 101. The whole point is to let nothing behind you so the lead doesn’t evaporate quickly. Play conservatively. Allow the clock to run down. You’re not bringing the house and playing bump and run with a 20 point lead. It’s absolute nonsense to think the score doesn’t dictate defensive strategy. Is ’You’re an idiot" conclusory enough for you?

by bodacio zk on Oct 27, 2010 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hah! So still no evidence so you call me an idiot.

I can barely see you so far down in that hole you’ve dug for yourself!

BTW, I don’t need the evidence, b/c I’m not trying to prove anything. I’m just saying put the offense out in the no huddle at the beginning of this week’s game and see what happens.

You’re saying that won’t work, and they’ll still suck, and they will only play good offensively if they fall well behind. That’s why you need the evidence, and I don’t. I’m not making any blanket statements, I’m saying give the no huddle a legitimate shot.

You’re just saying the suck. You get it now?

How will Chris Carpenter explain this to his children?

by Grizzlyfox on Oct 27, 2010 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Actually, you’ve called the idea of a defense playing soft with a big league “BS”, so you’re very clearly trying to “disprove” something while making not even the most microscopic semblance of a point. It’s kind of like arguing that the sky is blue. Look up. Watch a football game. What I’m saying isn’t even remotely outlandish or controversial. Again, Football 101.

No huddle? Look at my comments and please reiterate who you’re arguing with. All I’ve said is that a majority of the offensive output is coming when we’re behind. We get aggressive and the defense get’s conservative(soft). Eventually they clamp down when it counts and we’re 2-4. We’re awesome. There you go.

by bodacio zk on Oct 27, 2010 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yayyyyyyyyyy!!!

Bengals are 2-4 and Awesome!!!

by Diesel2405 on Oct 27, 2010 8:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

Jeezus.

The point is let’s try the no huddle, not mess w/ it and see if it works.

You argue that the offense sucks and can only move the ball when they are well behind. All I’m arguing is for a chance to run the no huddle, start to finish. Seriously. Not that hard.

For some reason, you find a need to say this is wrong, and the offense still will suck, but then at the same time argue they should go to the no huddle. C’mon man.

I’m not trying to say they’re awesome, and you know that.

How will Chris Carpenter explain this to his children?

by Grizzlyfox on Oct 27, 2010 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

There's no evidence for either side

because it’s about watching teams play. I could find out from a couple of sources, but it would take way too long and it’s not worth it. I’m just telling you that it’s pretty much accepted that defenses let up when they have huge leads.

It's time to sink or Zim.

by Pardon_My_French on Oct 28, 2010 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions  

I saw the games?

The prevent defenses employed by Atlanta and New England were obvious. They weren’t playing as tight because they were trying to stop the big play (especially for Atlanta after they watched Shipley cut into their lead).

We DO see it a lot. Teams score in garbage time. Yes, I really do believe that NFL players, human beings, let up on the gas pedal when they aren’t in a critical situation.

It's time to sink or Zim.

by Pardon_My_French on Oct 28, 2010 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions  

If the defense was "checked out" they wouldn't have sent an all out blitz on 3rd and long

In which Palmer correctly picked up the hot read to Shipley for the 64 yard TD. Palmer is the least of the problems with this team. Get over it

by Throw the ball on Oct 27, 2010 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think another way to look at it is what QB's did in college.

One guy immediately comes to mind, where his supporting cast made him a billion times more of a winner in the NFL.

Roethlisberger. Did he dominate all those bad teams he played while at Miami? No. He’s been more of a “winner” in the NFL than in college.
Alex Smith, couldn’t lose at Utah, gets pummeled on a daily basis w/ the 49ers.
Drew Brees: A loser in SD, a winner in NO.
Any Florida Gator QB, since they’ve all gone on to suck in the NFL after being “winners” in college.

Or my favorite example: Carson Palmer in 2009 v. in 2010. Last year he was a gritty winner, this year he’s a loser that can accumulate stats.

Actually, I think I’ve heard that before….a loser that can accumulate stats. Adam Dunn, anyone? Remember, it’s not that the Reds supporting cast sucked while Dunn was here that the Reds lost, it’s b/c Dunn sucked.

How will Chris Carpenter explain this to his children?

by Grizzlyfox on Oct 27, 2010 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

wronga bout Ben

i was at Miami during his years there, and he destroyed almost every team he played….in fact, thats the basis of one of my stupid "opinion"arguments i always have about drafting good QB talent. i’d take a guy who overperformed at a mediocre school w/shit talent around him than a guy w/USC pedigree with 5 star talent around him palying against inferior athletes in college b/c once they get to the pro’s 2 things happen 1) the Good guy from a shit program w/shit talent all the sudden has NFL caliber lines, and receivers and 2) the guy from top tier program w/5 star talent suddenly is playing against teams that are equally matched talent wise….

anyways just my 2 cents…but Ben was an absolute BEAST in college (and btw, no one gave a f*ck about him back then on campus, it was actually rather comical how sweet he thinks he is)

by TruWhoDey on Oct 27, 2010 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not very many QBs were losers in College and made a name for themselves as a winner in the NFL. By loser, I mean guys who were on poor teams during their collegiate days, not guys who went 10-2.

Roethlisberger dominated his college competition. Flat out dominated it. He was as much of a winner at that level.

Brees won big at Purdue, leading a perennially woebegone program to the Rose Bowl in his time there.

Cutler and Claussen come to mind as two recently drafted kids who’s teams underperformed in college. It shows with Cutler.

Pretty much every QB drafted highly in the NFL was a ‘winner’ in college, even Ryan Leaf and Jamarcus Russel.

As for Palmer and USC, they were mediocre when he was there except his last year when they went 11-2 and beat Iowa in the Orange Bowl. They didnt have the seasoned 5 star guys until after Palmer left.

by Cedric Benson Boat Party on Oct 27, 2010 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

The point was

that Brees didn’t win in SD, did in NO, I may not have stated that as clearly as I needed to.

And the real point was, QB’s don’t do it themselves. This was all in response to a guy who said it’s all about winning games, that’s the only way to judge a QB’s talent.

Thus, a guy as good as Ben, to go 15-1 in the NFL! You’d think if QB’s won and lost all their team’s games then in the MAC Ben would have gone undefeated. He won one MAC championship in 3 years. But then he went 15-1 in the NFL. Once again, narrow point, just trying to state it’s not right to place team wins and losses on the QB.

Again, the only point I’m trying to make is the narrow one that it’s more about the surrounding players than the QB when talking about winning. Just ask Trent Dilfer.

How will Chris Carpenter explain this to his children?

by Grizzlyfox on Oct 27, 2010 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

I agree that it is who is around the QB that makes the team.

Roethlisberger in ’05 was not a great NFL QB but he won a superbowl. Same with Eli Manning when he won. Heck, Grossman even made it to a Superbowl as a starting QB. For any team or QB to make it to and win a Superbowl they have to have a compete cast around them. Palmer is good enough to do that if the right pieces are there.

by Cedric Benson Boat Party on Oct 27, 2010 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

The players checked out,

not the coaches. Plus, they do want to mix it up a bit. For the most part, the play calling was conservative.

It's time to sink or Zim.

by Pardon_My_French on Oct 28, 2010 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions  

Agree with Grizzlyfox

Almost no QB wins games alone, this is a team sport. Palmer hasn’t played well at points this season, but neither has the defense, how come you aren’t getting on them about losing games?

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Oct 27, 2010 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

Palmer is NOT the problem with this offense.

He’s not a problem at all.

He was one of the four or five guys who had fire when they were deep in the hole (the others were TO, Pacman, Shipley and Ced.) He also made some outstanding throws.

Every QB makes bad throws sometimes. Even Peyton Manning does. Trust me, Carson is a good player. He’s one of the only things that ISN’T a problem with this team.

I hope that in these next 10 games Marvin decides to let Brat get the hell out of the way and runs the no-huddle a little more. If Carson gets a lot of throws, he can be lethal. That’s what you saw in the second half Sunday.

Win a ring without the king! Cavs=2011 champs?

by sexsalad on Oct 27, 2010 5:58 PM EDT reply actions  

As much as I disagree about Palmer

Brat is an idiot, so casting him aside couldn’t hurt. Palmer and the line would perform better picking plays out of a hat.

It's time to sink or Zim.

by Pardon_My_French on Oct 28, 2010 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions  

brat

blows

Hey, Bratkowski... wtf do you do all week?
It takes you 15 seconds to pick your next play, giving no time for reading defense and changing audibles.
No wonder the no-huddle works.

by supergrover on Oct 28, 2010 9:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the Cincinnati Bengals.

Editor-In Chief

Cj_small Josh Kirkendall

Editor/Managing Editor

Rudiblanket_small Anthony Cosenza

5255_133614603784_666578784_2414703_1976100_n_small Jason Garrison

Authors

Photo_3_small BeerRun

010511170110_small Joe Goodberry

40297_422933299865_509514865_4658259_6466915_n_small Ryan Harper

Small Brennen Warner

Sb_nation_small Jack Cassidy

580551_10150822857707018_613867017_11694254_1239726425_n_small Nick_Crago

Img_0783_small Mike Fightmaster

Moderators

Nfl palewook

680764146_0eac16fabd_small 80%OFTHETIMEIMRIGHTEVERYTIME

Tawky_tawny_small UpStateMike

Joeb698_86e260_small joeb69

Bengals_stamp_by_jamaal10_small Doc Scratch