I need your help here. I've made it clear that Willie Anderson is my favorite player. I've also made it clear that I believe cutting him hurt the depth of the offensive line. There's people that disagree with my assessment, and I'm perfectly fine with that. Sometimes opinions just clash, like sometimes, innocently enough, with other sites. I'm like the Alan Cutler of this business. I'm just like you guys, a fan that drinks more beer than water, and would rather die at 50 years old eating a life-time of succulent red meat, whenever I want. I just got lucky over the years to actually find my niche in all this.
But in a sense, I'm not level headed enough -- or in truth, clear-headed about it -- to examine this on my own. It's not an issue of one particular thing. It's one of those issues in which both answers are, you know, reasonable. See, James Walker, the fine ESPN AFC North blogger that writes like the Bengals are that kind of annoying team that you have to write about to fulfill contract requirements. Nothing against the guy, it's just the way it is. Though I'm not convinced that if Chad
Johnson Ocho Cinco wasn't with the team that Walker wouldn't be saying "oh crap" on his ride home from work, remembering like he left the iron steaming hot, forgetting to write the Bengals -- god I love run-on sentences).
The wonder is this: Would Willie Anderson give the Ravens the "ins and outs, check downs, audibles and personnel of the Bengals' high-powered offense?" I'd like to think no; on the other hand, I'd understand yes.