Reader e-mail after an unbelievable game at PBS

It's 10:52 on Sunday night. I'm sitting here, in the Paul Brown Stadium press box, the
day's events catalogued for the "Enquirer," and I'm not believing what I saw.

The Bengals, in defeating the Browns 58-48, were part of the second highest scoring game
in the history of the NFL. Only the 113 points scored by Washington and the Giants in 1966 are
more than the 106 the Bengals and Browns put up today.

Time for reader e-mail.

Question, from Bruce in Winnipeg, Canada: Mark, you still at PBS? Guess Chad Johnson was right after today's up-and-down fireworks. The fans probably needed the Pepto they brought.

Answer: Bruce, I'm still here. Like I said, I can't believe what I've seen. Both sets of defensive backfield probably need the stomach-ache medicine after getting burned for a total of nine touchdown passes today.

Question, from Pat in Austin, Texas: As a life-long Bengals-lover (native of Xenia and
Jamestown, Ohio) I still feel the passion of the rivalry as it exists between the two teams'
fans.

When I walk into a sports bar here in Austin, believe it or not, wearing my Cincy gear to
watch the game every Sunday, I invariably take much heat from local AFC North and old Central transplants and natives. There are plenty of Browns, Steelers, Ravens and old Oilers fans here who love to dish it out to me whenever I show up with my "Who Dey" orange T-shirt on.

When the Browns were taken from the league by Art Modell for money in Baltimore, we
Bengals fans were outraged and saddened, almost as much as the people in Cleveland. And when the new edition of the Browns took the field in 1999 we were equally happy to see them back.

We're the followers of the rivalry, even if the players aren't. It still matters to us
who wins and loses and who's going to the playoffs out of our division. We still understand and
usually hate each other.

Answer: Sounds like "hate" might be too strong of a word -- sounds like you enjoy giving
each other a hard time in good fun.

The loyalty of Bengals and Browns fans is to be admired, given the lousy product (until late) the Bengals have put on the field since 1990 and how Modell and the NFL shafted Cleveland.

It was a wildly entertaining game today. But the rivalry still brings together two of the
team's worst teams since 1999.

Question, from Ray: Please relate to the players who celebrate after a single play that
it takes a series of great plays throughout the game to produce a winner. To me these individual
players celebrations makes them look silly.

They should wait until after the game has been won to display their celebrations. Chad Johnson, in particular, is only a winner if the team succeeds.

Answer: Kelley Washington, Johnson's fellow receiver, is the worst offender in the
excessive celebration department. At least Johnson is a consistent producer, and his under-stated after his touchdown was far more tasteful than Washinton's dance or first down gesture.

Palmer to start against Browns; Perry inactive again

By Mark Curnutte
Enquirer staff writer

(11:50 a.m.) -- Carson Palmer, despite suffering back spasms and missing practice Friday, will start this afternoon at quarterback for the Bengals.

Rookie running back Chris Perry will miss his sixth consecutive game because of an
abdominal strain.

Other Bengals inactives are cornerbacks Rashad Bauman and Terrell Roberts, guard Alex Sulfsted, defensive linemen Carl Powell and Matthias Askew and offensive tackle Stacy
Andrews.

Running back Lee Suggs and wide receiver Andre Davis, both of whom had long touchdown
receptions in the first Bengals-Browns games, a 34-17 Cleveland victory, were de-activated this morning because of injuries.

Kelly Holcomb will start at quarterback for the Browns. Jeff Garcia, who has an injured throwing shoulder, was designated as emergency third quarterback.

E-mail mcurnutte@enquirer.com

More heat on Palmer, Bratkowski from readers

Question, from Michael in Louisville: Carson Palmer has not been a playmaker. Why are the Bengals refusing to pull him and try Jin Kitna? Heck, if it works, then there is competition, and Palmer steps up his game or takes a cut in pay.

Bonus: If Kitna performs well, and we win some games, we could trade him.

Answer: Going back to Kitna makes no sense now. The Bengals are not going to make the
playoffs. Palmer is the future, and Kitna might still have some trade value. Not that the Bengals
are going to trade him.

Question, from Bob: Do you think the 15-yard personal foul call on Landon Johnson was
warranted? It seemed to me that Jerome Bettis was not down at the time, and I don't recall any
whistles blowing the play dead.

Answer: Johnson said he didn't hear a whistle. But Bettis was down by contact. Cornerback
Tory James made the tackle. Pittsburgh didn't score on the drive, but the 15-yard loss for the
Bengals didn't help. After the Steelers punt, the Bengals started their last drive on the 9-yard
line.

Question, from Jan: Don't laugh. I am a 45-year-old mom who has loved the Bengals since
Boomer Esiason. That is why I started watching. My husband and son watch only because I do. I can follow the game pretty well, or I can figure it out from the announcers. What is a safety? Is it simply that because Palmer was sacked in the endzone we made points for the other team? Thanks for any light you can shed. I really want the Bengals to win this season, and I
hope that they are in the playoffs this year or next year.

Answer: A safety occurs when the offense is tackled in its end zone. The defensive team
gets two points. Palmer was not tackled. But he was called for intentional grounding of an
incomplete pass while throwing from his end zone. By rule, that play is a safety.

Next year probably will be the year your loyalty is rewarded with a playoff berth. This
season might be lost.

Question, from Bill in Anderson Township: 1. It should not take a professional football
head coach over three hours to decide if his team is mediocre.

2. The bench is available for those who are.

3. Maybe those who cause an infraction on the field should sit out a series of downs;
maybe that would have a player thinking twice.

4. Lambasting coaches and players in front of a national audience does not bode well.
You have the whole week of practice to do that.

5. If my boss purchased a multi-million dollar piece of equipment to help run the
business and help the bottom line and I, as a manager, pulled its plug and had it depreciate, I
would be fired. Talk about mediocrity. That is why fingers have joints.

Answer: Coaches often use the media to emphasize a point to their team. Lewis said
nothing to reporters that he hadn't already told his team. Many Bengals fans think Lewis' anger
was long overdue for a Bengals coach.

Question, from Dave in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: What do you think about the play
calling in the third quarter? It appeared to be the same as last week where the offense went away from what was working. I know the penalties played a part, but it did not look like (offensive coordinator Bob) Bratkowski had any answers for the pressure.

Answer: The penalities were a big problem, and the calls on Chad Johnson were borderline
at best. They nullified a couple of good Rudi Johnson runs. The penalties and field position
limited the play options.

Question, from Brian in Sandston, Va.: I was at the Redskins game last week. Carson
Palmer looked very much like the talented "rookie" that he is. He made some brilliant passes and choices. Some of them left me scratching my head. He will eventually be fine. My question is, what will it take, and when will it happen that my Bengals are on equal par with the really legit teams in the league, such as the Patriots, Eagles and Steelers?

Answer: Marvin Lewis has a plan. He is putting it in place. Palmer is learning. He is
improving. The defense is becoming younger and faster, and the organization should be
congratulated for a fine draft class. I'm not sure when the Bengals will reach the level of
sustained excellence that some of those teams exhibit. But I wouldn't bet against Lewis.

Bengals inactives; three rookies start on defense

By Mark Curnutte
Enquirer staff writer

Bengals starting cornerback Deltha O'Neal and Steelers starting running back Duce Staley
are among the two inactive players for this afternoon's game at Paul Brown Stadium.

Rookie cornerback Keiwan Ratliff will start in place of O'Neal, and Bengal-slayer Jerome
Bettis will make his third consecutive start in place of Staley. Ratliff will be one of three rookie defensive starters, joining safety Madieu Williams and middle linebacker Landon Johnson.

Other Bengals inactives are rookie running back Chris Perry, cornerback Rashad Bauman,
linebacker Caleb Miller, offensive lineman Alex Sulfsted, offensive lineman Stacy Andrews and
defensive tackleTerrance Martin.

An early observation: There are still hundreds of black-and-gold clad Steelers fans in
the stadium, but the percentage of Steelers fans appears to be a little less than in recent
years.

Thursday morning reader e-mail

It's Steelers week. The game Sunday a Paul Brown Stadium should be a good one.

Time for some reader e-mail:

Question from Andrew: Why don't you tell Chad Johnson to still tell the fans to bring the
money and give it to the Freestore/FoodBank? Something like $1/$5 match for every touchdown or something to challenge the fans to give more to this worthwhile cause. I just thought that this could be spun off positively with the upcoming holidays and so many in need.

Answer: You just suggested it. Good idea.

Question, from Bob in West Chester: Can we get an update on Dennis Weathersby? Will he be able to play next year? How is his rehab coming?

Answer: Saw Dennis the other day. He is back in Cincinnati and working out regularly at
the stadium. He hopes to play next season but is unsure if he will be able to, following the auto
crash in April in which he suffered the serious head injury. He said he is working on some other physical ailments, mainly a shoulder.

Question, from Lynchburg, Va.: I think Redskins quarterbacks let the Bengals get away
with one.

The good news is that the Bengals won when things went against them: Two questionable roughing-the-passer calls, a no-call pass interference on Chad Johnson, three missed deep passes to open receivers, five dropped interceptions by the defense and three turnovers. Usually these things are described in Bengals losses. Could these Bengals be turning a corner or are they just playing bad offensive teams?

Answer: Good observations. Yes, the Bengals have played two bad offensive teams the past
couple of weeks in Dallas and Washington, but they held them to a combined 13 points. Earlier in the season, or in previous seasons, the Cowboys and Redskins would have "gotten healthy" against the Bengals.

The Bengals are improving, for sure. But the level of completition was decidedly lower against those two NFC East teams. The Steelers will be a good barometer of where the Bengals truly are.

Question, from Jake in Mason: Do you think the addition of Langston Moore on the line has opened it up for the defensive ends? Second question: With Moore in the linebackers are not being hit by offensive linemen, do you concur?

Answer: Good things are happening in the front seven, so Moore is a part of it. He is a
hungry, aggressive player. He wants to learn and is getting better. Probably the biggest improvement is the overall knowledge the young players have gained.

Credit the coaches -- coordinator Leslie Frazier, defensive line coach Jay Hayes, linebackers
coach Ricky Hunley and Marvin Lewis -- for getting the most out of their linemen and linebackers.

Moore has played well. So has rookie end Robert Geaters. Duane Clemons is invaluable with
his ability to play well at tackle, creating the team's best pass-rush front four with Geathers
at left end. Rookie linebacker Landon Johnson has stayed healthy and improved each week at middle linebacker, not his natural position.

Cornerbacks Tory James and Deltha O'Neal are doing a better job, too, which allows coaches to leave them isolated on the outside and do more creative things with the other nine defenders.

But, again, hold the Steelers to 10 or 13 points, and don't let them run all over the
you, and then the Bengals will have really proven something.

Sunday night e-mail, reflections, and looking ahead

It's 11:30, Sunday night, at FedEx Field in Landover, Md.

The e-mail is always slower after a Bengals victory than a loss.

Before I jump into football, give me a minute to tell you about a Saturday afternoon walk I took in Washington. It was just two days after Veteran's Day.

We stayed at a hotel about three blocks from the White House. A couple of writer colleagues and I walked past the White House and visited the new World War II Memorial.

It's a stunning , long-overdue tribute to the greatest generation. The memorial is perfect. The setting and placement of the memorial on the National Mall are perfect. My father, John, who died last year shortly before his 80th birthday, was a U.S. Marine who fought in the Pacific. He didn't live to see the memorial.

Dad was a native of Huntington, W. Va., so I made sure to visit the West Virginia posts and press my hands against the limestone. I got those goosebumps and watery eyes. Thanks for everything you did then and gave after you came home, Dad. Needless to say. ...

We walked on to visit the Korean, Vietnam and Lincoln memorials farther down the mall. I stood for a few minutes in the temple that honors Lincoln (I'm from Illinois, so we claim him) and re-read the "Gettysburg Address" that's engraved on a wall. Just amazing. It humbles just about everyone who picks up a pen or pecks at a keyboard.

Thanks for humoring me.

As for the Bengals: Funny what a difference a month makes. Heading into the Monday night game, the Bengals were 1-4. They've now run off three of four. Not bad.

The real key now is to elevate their play against division teams. They are 0-3 against
the AFC North and 4-2 against non-division teams. The next three in a row are against division rivals: Pittsburgh and Cleveland before going to Baltimore.

The rookie defenders are impressive. They are fast and smart and can play. Congratulations to the Bengals for a 2004 draft that's looking better every week.

Some reader e-mail:

Question, from Jim in Norwood: Why can't the Bengals put a team away? We were up 17-0 against Washington. We dominated the first half time of possession by 11 minutes. In the second half, we got conservative. When the bengals had chances to put the game away with a touchdown or field goal, they got conservative and just ran the ball up the middle. Four times in the second half we went three and out, giving the ball and confidence to a dismal offense. They can't put a team away. They always let the other team stay in the game by playing conservative. Why?

Answer: Good point. But I do recall them putting Dallas away. They led 16-3 after the
third quarter and added 10 points in the fourth.

Washington came in ranked No. 1 in defense. Coaches adjusted. The Bengals
counter-adjusted. And so forth.

The gameplan got more run-oriented in the second half in an attempt to eat clock. Carson Palmer also seemed to throw a lot, but a check of the stat sheet shows 27 pass attempts in the first half and 12 in the second half. The game should not have been nearly as close in the second half. The defense dropped five potential interceptions.

Hard to argue with a victory, though.

Bengals inactives against Redskins

By Mark Curnutte
Enquirer staff writer

LANDOVER, Md. -- There were no surprises today with the Bengals inactive players for the
game against Washington.

Inactive are cornerback Rashad Bauman, running back Chris Perry, cornerback Terrell
Roberts, linebacker Caleb Miller, offensive lineman Alex Sulfsted, defensive lineman Carl Powell
and offensive lineman Stacy Andrews.

Bauman, Sulfsted and Powell all are ex-Redskins players. The Bengals are 3-5 entering the game against 3-5 Washington.

The Bengals are trying to win consecutive games for the first time this season.

Linebacker Lemar Marshall, a St. Xavier High graduate, is starting for the Redskins.

Bengals win -- Sunday night e-mail from the stadium

It's 10:45 p.m. Sunday. There's never as much e-mail after a victory as there is after a
loss. But the handful of electronic notes coming in tonight concern the offense, particularly the
play calling and game plan of offensive coordinator Bob Bratkowski.

Question, from Don in Anderson Township: What was up with Chad Johnson during the Dallas game? What got him so worked up? Will he be disciplined?

Answer: The lack of passes coming his way frustrated Johnson, culminating with a short
completion to Kevin Walter that failed to convert a third down.

Coach Marvin Lewis talked, seemingly at length, with Johnson on the sideline. Johnson then went out and had the 18-yard reception, which he punctuated with the spike.

One possible explanation for his agitated state could have been the presence of cousin
Keyshawn Johnson in the Dallas lineup. Chad might have wanted to outdo his older cousin so badly that he lost track of the team element. Chad did win it, though, with eight catches for 74 yards -- compared for four for 58 for Keyshawn. Just a theory. Chad was cool about his behavior in the locker room afterward.

I'd have to guess that it's a dead issue with Lewis.

Question, from Daryl in College Hill: Just finished watching the Bengals win over the
Cowboys and am now looking at the Rams.

Chad Johnson's immaturity notwithstanding, why is the Bengal's offensive philosophy so plain and vanilla? I counted only two passes down the field -- one the TD to (Matt) Schobel and the other to CJ. I think that Palmer is for real, but the gameplans aren't giving him a chance to play, and by extension, the Bengals a chance to win.

Answer: I kind of understand where you're coming from, but not really. It was a win. They
scored 26 points. The middle of the field was open most of the game, and Palmer did a good job
throwing the ball down the middle.

Another way to look at it is this: Palmer is the real deal, I agree. But coming off the
Tennessee game, in which he had the two costly turnovers, the gameplan today seemed to want to take pressure off Palmer. It did. He avoided an interception for the first time. He did miss a
couple of open receivers, but he played well.

Question, from Chad in Delhi Township: Was at the game today vs. the Cowboys. I just
can't stand it anymore. Bob Bratkowski's play calling is HORRIBLE. A screen pass for 1 yard
(incomplete pass) on 3rd and 14. These little 2 yard out routes 5 yards short of the markers. Is
it possible he was ousted from the booth in the 2nd half?

A 76 yard TD pass to the tight end over the middle (couldn't have been). The naked bootleg by Carson to score a TD to ice the game (that couldn't have been Bob). RELEASE ME TO THE PRESS: BOB MUST GO!

Answer: The same coach who called the plays in the first half called them in the second
half. It was a good plan. They won. They scored 26 points. Yes, the defense was big with the five takeaways. The offensive plan should be taken in its entirety. What happened or didn't happen in the first half is connected to what goes in the second half.

Offensive coordinator might be the most -- to use your word -- naked job on an NFL
coaching staff.

The Bengals have adjusted this season, playing without Peter Warrick, who excels on third down. Maybe some of those short routes wouldn't come up short if Bratkowski had receivers who could convert them.

Bob should stay, I think. He and quarterbacks coach Ken Zampese are developing a future start in Palmer. Rudi Johnson is on track for 1,300 rushing yards. The line played much better,
and Paul Alexander did a good job of helping Eric Steinbach correct the problems from the
Tennessee game.

Willie Anderson to start for Bengals

By Mark Curnutte
Enquirer staff writer

(11:55 a.m.) -- Bengals right tackle Willie Anderson will start his 72nd consecutive game today against the Cowboys.

Anderson, who did not practice last week because of a season-long knee ailment, is not on
the Bengals' inactive player list, released just minutes ago, and team spokesman .

The Bengals have three lineup changes: Landon Johnson will start at middle linebacker in
place of Caleb Miller; Rogers Beckett returns from a concussion to start at strong safety ahead
of Kevin Kaesviharn; and rookie Madieu Williams will start at strong safety in place of Kim
Herring.

Herring is inactive because of a knee injury. Other Bengals inactives of note are defensive lineman Carl Powell and rookie running back Chris Perry. The primary Dallas change is Randal Williams starting at wide receiver ahead of Quincy Morgan, inactive today.

E-mail mcurnutte@enquirer.com

Election's over, but readers 'vote' on Palmer

Several e-mails arrived from readers on Tuesday, Election Day, in the hours after my analysis was published in the Enquirer that said benching quarterback Carson Palmer now would be a big mistake. The topic of debate became the decision of who plays quarterback for the Bengals, Palmer or Jon Kitna.

Question, from Jim in Lockland: After reading today's article (Nov. 2), I have come to the conclusion you must be a democrate (do you mean Democrat?) It's called dumbing down the Bengal fans. I think all Bengals fans should take it as a smack in the face: your comment you don't know if Kitna could be doing better than Palmer.

Some of Kitna's stats from 2003: second most completions in Bengal history, fifth in team history for passing yards, 26 touchdown passes, completion percentage highest since 1984.
The Bengals need to keep their defense off the field, and Kitna's ability to sustain drives and provide his leadership is sorely needed. Having said this, Kitna should not be used NOW. Their chance for the playoffs is gone this year, so let Palmer finish this season. If he doesn't do any better than he has, next training camp the job should be won by the best guy, not given to him. If you would like to print this letter, fine.

Answer: Consider it done.

I guess Jim and I found some common ground on the folly of benching Palmer now. We'll just have to agree to disagree otherwise about the initial decision.

As for the election and political parties, since you bring them up, it's now about 10:15 a.m. Thursday. I'm still in awe of the voter turnout. My hope is that we all stay as engaged in the life of our country, and debate its place as a world citizen, as we have the last several months.

To quote the hugely talented singer-songwriter Steve Earle, "No matter what anybody tells you, it is never, ever unpatriotic or un-American to question anything in a democracy."

And now, to paraphrase broadcaster Bob Costas, let's get back to the Toy Department of Human Affairs: What follows are a few more e-mails from readers who disagreed with my position that Palmer needs to keep playing. I'll let them roll before getting to the readers who, gasp, actually agreed with me.

Question, from Bryan: You miss the point. The Bengals had a chance to be successful this year. They have chosen to throw the season away to build for what might be a great career for Palmer. Could it be possible that the Bengals running game has not been good this year because of no threat at quarterback? I think so.

Come on, Peter Warrick is an average wide receiver. They have replaced him easily. The problem is Palmer, plain and simple. No matter what kind of career Kitna has had or if he is the player of the future or not, he was the guy who could of made a difference for the Bengals. Right now Kitna is better than Palmer and it's a disservice to Bengals fans and players that management and coaches played this season for what might happen down the road. I, for one, can't predict the future. And in the NFL business, the time is now. Nice article but not a very convincing one. Thanks for your time.

Answer: Good letter. But I could not disagree with you more about Warrick. He is almost irreplaceable. He opens the running game and blocks well down field. He creates another big headache for defenses and helps Chad Johnson get single coverage. I've written many times that Warrick is the offensive MVP.

But the theme today is the importance of respecting all opinions.

Question, from Joe in Endwell, Ky.: Is it my imagination or is Carson Palmer the most emotionless QB in the league? For a guy who was supposed to be a great leader, he seems to exude very little emotion and doesn't seem to fire up the team like other great NFL QBs.

He always seems to have a look of bewilderment on his face. Am I reading him correctly?

Answer: You are misreading him. A highly respected and valued trait in a quarterback is an even temperament. Teammates say Palmer has plenty of fire in the huddle. People on the outside might not see it.

Question, from Anonymous: OK, Mark, we realize that you are a big Carson Palmer fan, but take it easy on Kitna because where he is right now he can't defend himself.

Answer: I normally don't run anonymous e-mails, but I couldn't pass this one up.

Kitna is a fine quarterback and one of the finest people I have known in any line of work. Kitna would say he doesn't need me to defend him. He has his Christian faith, which he lives even better than he talks it.

I respect Jon Kitna more than any athlete I've covered in five years on the Bengals beat or in the year-plus I covered the White Sox and Cubs in Chicago. The only other players who approached the Kitna level in my mind were former Bengals safety Marquand Manuel and former White Sox outfielder Ron Kittle.

Kittle was/is a solid, mature person whose father, a former Gary, Ind., steel mill worker, died from lung cancer during the 1990 season. Ron never forgot where he was from, who he was or how fortunate he was to be a professional athlete and didn't have to follow his dad into the mills.

Jon Kitna has that similarly admirable perspective on life.

So many high-profile athletes, as we know, are not worthy of their status as role models for youth. Jon Kitna is. His eloquent behavior since the Bengals drafted Palmer first overall in 2003 is a lesson for all of us. Instead of pouting, he went out and had a career season. He knew what was coming. He has done nothing but support Palmer and has not let his personal disappointment affect the team negatively. He is the ultimate team player.

Question, from David in Mount Adams: Your defense of Marvin Lewis' decision to not start the best player was straight out Bengal Management 101. The logic was sound: If you don't start the best player, there's a better chance of losing, which is the one thing the Bengals are great at.

The way the NFL does salary caps and the draft, it is almost impossible to be as consistently bad as Mike Brown's teams have been unless you employ Bengal logic. You have not only sipped the Kool-Aid, you've chugged the whole pitcher: Shame on you.

For the record, (David) Carr and (Joey) Harrington stepped into either no offense or broken offenses. Palmer, as a second year player, stepped into an explosive offense. If he can't handle it, call him out. And call Marvin Lewis out too. Some people are made to be good assistants; some don't get it done as head coaches. This is his second year, and he has had free agents and draft picks to shape his team. He has failed. In his defense, it was Katie and Troy (Blackburn) that wanted Lewis, not Brown. He wanted Tom Coughlin. And in case you haven't noticed, (the Giants) are doing fine, thanks.

Answer: I would point out the Bengals were ranked 13th in offense in 2003, hardly what one would call "explosive." In losing three of their final four games, and blowing a shot at the playoffs, the Bengals offensive scored 13, 10 and 14 points. (The Bengals had earlier scored 10, 10 and 14 points in three other losses.)

Boom.

And in the victory against Kansas City, the difference was Warrick's 68-yard punt return.
Lewis is 10-13 as a coach, having taken over a 2-14 team from 2002. Twelve players have been lost for the season because of injuries. Some of his personnel decisions are open to questioning, but he is clearly qualified to lead the team. It's almost ridiculous to state a fact that obvious.

There's no denying Coughlin's success at Jacksonville and early work in New York, but at what price? He might peak a team quickly but leaves it in disarray.

Brown, by the way, dismissed Coughlin as a candidate when Coughlin demanded a massive investment of people in the scouting department. And while the details are sketchy, Brown was enamored by then-Steelers offensive coordinator Mike Mularkey. How is Mularkey doing as head coach in Buffalo these days?

Question, from Ben in Colerain: Just wanted to say I enjoyed your article on not benching Palmer. I've been arguing with a few friends since Week 2 regarding the same issues you discussed. Let's just hope they all read your article.

Answer: Even better, let's hope they all buy the newspaper. But thanks.

Question, from Robin in the UK: It's so reassuring to read your column and think, finally, some sense. I've been following the Bengals since the mid '80s from the UK. The more I see Palmer the more I am reassured. His performance against Denver was spot on. Given a solid offensive line, Carson could be as good as eitherManning or Culpepper.

(Look for my Union Jack on the top tier on the Bengal side of the stadium Sunday.)

Answer: Those are lofty comparisons, but Palmer clearly has the look and potential to be the best Bengals quarterback since Boomer Esiason in the 1980s.

Question, from Roger in Goshen: You finally say something that is positive. I know you follow this team closely and have watched in horror at how this organization fails. You are right when you say Carson Palmer is not the problem.

He will not be the answer, either. He is a very good quarterback. He needs time to develop into a premium pro passer and become more of a leader.

Answer: Positive is not my concern. Accuracy and fairness are. I see Palmer as the best choice to play quarterback right now for the Bengals and long into the future.

Question, from Adrian in Hoffman Estates, Ill.: After being initially frustrated by the Bengals most likely not finishing 8-8, I have to agree the future is next year and beyond with Palmer playing. Though getting a one new run-stuffing DT for next would be nice, too.

Answer: The defense is the team's biggest problem.