Readers upset about Bengals start, Lewis, Palmer

Bengals fans are frustrated with the apparent backward slide of the Bengals in their
evolution as a team.

Question, from Andrew in Denver: I realize it's not the best time to bring this up, but
the Bengals have drafted a lot of skill players since Marvin Lewis has been with the Bengals. Not counting (Eric) Steinbach, the other lineman taken are projects or late-round selections. It's
obvious success is determined in the NFL from the lines. Why have we neglected this area for so long? It's great to have wonderful wide receivers, but if the quarterback doesn't have time to
throw, they're not getting the ball. A good defensive line can make sub-par corners look great.
It never works the other way around. The Bengals' philosophy puzzles me. Can you explain this to me?

Answer: The Bengals draft the best player available. That means they don't go too far
down a list at a specific position. In 2003, holding the No. 1 overall pick, they were almost
forced financially to take a quarterback. Then they took Steinbach at the top of the second
round. Great pick.

In 2001, they took defensive end Justin Smith with the fourth overall pick. In 2002, they took left tackle Levi Jones with the 10th overall pick. Smith has been solid, not spectacular. Jones has exceeded expectations.

So the Bengals have taken linemen, albeit the two first-rounders before Lewis arrived. The Bengals weren't convinced there were any first-round quality defensive linemen left
when they picked in 2004, so they traded down twice. Chris Perry seems like a luxury pick now, but he might end up being the featured back as early as next season if the Bengals can't reach a
long-term deal with Rudi Johnson.

Lewis signed three veteran free agent defensive linemen in his first year: John Thornton,
Duane Clemons and Carl Powell. Then Lewis tried to sign Warren Sapp. Then the Bengals had a deal with Daryl Gardener, which never happened because Gardener's back went bad. He has tried to rebuild the defenisve line with veterans.

Question, from Simon in Lebanon: Carson Palmer's biggest problem seems to be he only
throws to the primary option for each play. We could go to maximum protection and just have two or three receivers in passing plays. At least this would keep him protected, and he'd have fewer reads to make. ... I still prefer that Carson continues to learn and grow than go back to Kitna.

Answer: Palmer is the future. Kitna had a great season in 2003, and it produced 8-8. He
faded down the stretch. Other people disagree -- as we'll read later on -- but the defense is by far the biggest problem with the Bengals. Not Palmer.

Question, from Brian in Norfolk, Va. (originally from Forest Park): Why do they continue to draft the likes of Palmer, (Akili) Smith and (David) Klingler? Why does the defense make other rookie quarterbacks look like seasoned pros? It's sickening to watch. Well, there's always next year.

Answer: Palmer is a future star. The team around him, while superior to what Smith and
Klingler had as first-time starters, is still not playoff-caliber. There is no comparing Palmer
to Smith and Klingler. Palmer is a superior talent.

Question, from Brian in Dayton, Ohio: How long can we stay with Palmer? Kitna was
excellent in 2003. Palmer might be the future, but we fans have been saying `next year' since
1990. The Bengals should field the best players they have and let the learning happen in training camp and during the week. If we have to watch yet another player grow/mature, ticket price should be reflective a semi-pro team.

Answer: Marvin Lewis said Monday that he will stay with Palmer until he thinks Palmer is
responsible for losing games. Palmer is not losing games. There are other problems greater than
Palmer's learning curve -- again, the defense.

Question, from Brent in Brea, Calif.: Your response to Alex on Monday, Sept. 27, you
called the Bengals a "rebuilding" team. I am wondering exactly when the Bengals started
"rebuilding." Didn't they start this process in 1991? Also, I don't want any players or coaches to "humbly" accept responsibility for a poor showing, or to say that they are going to keep working.

Unfortunately, the Bengals are still the Bungles, and Marvin Lewis' relationship with other coaches, players and the media has given him undue amnesty for the terrible showing thus far. Look what Bill Cowher has done with Big Ben. The Steelers have been the antithesis to the Bengals for as long as I can remember.

Answer: Ben Roethlisberger is surrounded by a better team and working in an organization
that has been solid for three and a half decades. Lewis is trying to solidify an organization
that had been ineffective for 13 years.

Question, from Hubert in Kalamazoo: If Marvin Lewis continues to fail in turning this franchise around, maybe he should be fired. Another alternative would have some corporations in Cincinnati buy the Bengals out and give (Mike) Brown a new hobby, like needlepoint. He sure does not know how to run a team in the NFL. I've watched this franchise since 1968 and have never seen such incompetence.

Answer: Wow, fans are mad. Such comments about Lewis are extemeley premature. He is the right mix of personality and talent to work well with Brown and his family. The season is just four games old. A lot can happen in 12 games. Look at last season, for example. Perhaps some of Lewis' personnel decisions on defensive players can be questioned at this time, but not the overall job he has done.

Anybody who didn't see the potential for a step backward this season, particularly early, wasn't realistic in their expectations. Lewis is building a solid foundation and is still fielding a more competitive team more consistently than any Bengals coach since Sam Wyche.