PDA

View Full Version : Ready for some Bengals football!! Bengals v. Bucs -- October 15, 2006



WMR
10-15-2006, 01:28 AM
We needed a bye week ... BADLY.

However: Can't wait till the game!

I really think the Bengals will come out and take care of business versus the Buccaneers.

max venable
10-15-2006, 10:06 AM
You guys notice how Chris Berman NEVER picks the Bengals to win. Not that it matters, I just have been noticing that in his two-minute drill, he always picks against the Bengals. And staying true to form, he picked the Bucs in this game.

I feel good about it, though. I think the boys'll be ready.

Dom Heffner
10-15-2006, 10:41 AM
I'll be there rooting the boys on for you guys.

I'm even going to wear my Palmer jersey so I can get beaten up by some of Tampa's finest. :)

I haven't seen them live since they lost to the Broncos and Elway at home back in the mid-90s.

Getting pretty excited....

WMR
10-15-2006, 02:23 PM
Can anyone even remember the last time the Bengals tried to throw the ball down the field????

When did our offense become the most conservative offense in the NFL??

Bratkowski needs to wake up.

WMR
10-15-2006, 02:29 PM
Nice to see all those tackling drills are paying dividends.

MrCinatit
10-15-2006, 02:37 PM
Darn. Good call on the non-interception. Shoot. Guess they have to get the calls right every once in a while.

And, yeah, this Bengals offense has been ugly the last couple of games.

WMR
10-15-2006, 02:43 PM
Rich Gannon has yet to say anything insightful.

"The king of the cliche."

MrCinatit
10-15-2006, 02:46 PM
Has every offensive outing resulted in a three and out today?
This is actually getting painful.

WMR
10-15-2006, 02:52 PM
Has every offensive outing resulted in a three and out today?
This is actually getting painful.

I think we've had one first down.

OldRightHander
10-15-2006, 02:54 PM
Great game...if you like punting.

MrCinatit
10-15-2006, 02:54 PM
I think we've had one first down.


I stand corrected, thank you.
Let us hope for a lot more by the end of the game.

OldRightHander
10-15-2006, 02:56 PM
The defense has shown up today. If the offense was clicking, this game would be a cakewalk.

WMR
10-15-2006, 02:56 PM
Is Carson not confident throwing the deep ball?

It was such a huge part of our offense last season... I truly can't understand why they're so intent on sticking with the 'nickel and dime' type stuff. :confused:

WMR
10-15-2006, 02:57 PM
We have taken so many dumb penalties this year.

OldRightHander
10-15-2006, 02:58 PM
Is Carson not confident throwing the deep ball?

It was such a huge part of our offense last season... I truly can't understand why they're so intent on sticking with the 'nickel and dime' type stuff. :confused:

The line's not giving him enough time for those plays to develop lately.

WMR
10-15-2006, 03:00 PM
The line's not giving him enough time for those plays to develop lately.

I agree with that to a certain extent but you've still got to take some deep shots and that can't be laid totally at the feet of the offensive line. They're not calling the plays.

WMR
10-15-2006, 03:01 PM
Ooh, that missed tackle that allowed Chad to get the first down is going to PISS Gruden off. LOL.

MrCinatit
10-15-2006, 03:01 PM
THAT is the Carson Palmer we have grown to love!

EDIT: uh-oh. Challenge by TB

EDIT II: If they change that call, the refs need to be dumped.

WMR
10-15-2006, 03:01 PM
YES!! FINALLY! A deep ball!!! TD HOUS-YO-DADDY!! :) :)

WMR
10-15-2006, 03:03 PM
Is it 2 challenges per half or two per game?

WMR
10-15-2006, 03:04 PM
They're not going to overturn that catch.

What a SUPREME effort by TJ!!

WOW, so amazing how he forced his feet in-bounds. INCREDIBLE EFFORT.

MrCinatit
10-15-2006, 03:06 PM
I think it is two challenges per half, but I could be way off there.

OldRightHander
10-15-2006, 03:07 PM
I agree with that to a certain extent but you've still got to take some deep shots and that can't be laid totally at the feet of the offensive line. They're not calling the plays.

Was that more of what you were looking for?

Tom Servo
10-15-2006, 03:08 PM
It's two challanges per game

WMR
10-15-2006, 03:13 PM
Was that more of what you were looking for?

:evil:

Why keep hacking at that tree with your swiss army knife when you've got a Stihl chainsaw gassed and greased?

WMR
10-15-2006, 03:14 PM
It's two challanges per game

Thanks. Surprised Gruden blew his load on that 2nd challenge. Someone in his booth should have told him to keep it in his pocket.

cincy jacket
10-15-2006, 03:26 PM
Thanks. Surprised Gruden blew his load on that 2nd challenge. Someone in his booth should have told him to keep it in his pocket.

It's two challenges per game but if you get both right and overturned then you get a third challenge.

WMR
10-15-2006, 03:30 PM
Levi Jones out with knee injury.

Whitworth in.

Bengals O-line scrambling.

cincy jacket
10-15-2006, 03:36 PM
Is it just me or does Carson seem much more comfortable out of the shotgun. It seems the passing games flows much better with him in the shotgun.

max venable
10-15-2006, 03:37 PM
Levi Jones out with knee injury.

Whitworth in.

Bengals O-line scrambling.

We're snakebit with injuries this year.

WMR
10-15-2006, 03:51 PM
We're snakebit with injuries this year.

Between the injuries and our 'special-needs' players...

Amazing how our linebacking corps has gone from a position of strength to maybe our biggest weakness.

WMR
10-15-2006, 04:00 PM
Jeez Kaesviharn took a godawful route to the ball on that long Cadillac run.

Joseph
10-15-2006, 05:05 PM
Whats with that conservative play calling with so much time left on the clock?

WMR
10-15-2006, 05:06 PM
OH MY GOD What a complete BS call. ARE YOU NOT ALLOWED TO TACKLE THE QUARTERBACK?????? JESUS

Reds Fanatic
10-15-2006, 05:08 PM
That roughing the passer call may be the worst call I have ever seen in my life.

redsfanfalcon
10-15-2006, 05:08 PM
You are right...what a potential game changing bologna call that was.

OldRightHander
10-15-2006, 05:16 PM
What about this review here? He might get the td, but I hope we get the call.

OldRightHander
10-15-2006, 05:17 PM
@#%$!!!!

OldRightHander
10-15-2006, 05:18 PM
Chances of a Graham game winner?

MrCinatit
10-15-2006, 05:20 PM
Unfortunately, the refs made the right call there. It was a touchdown.
We gave the game away, pure and simple. Once again, we played a team which wanted to win more than the Bengals did. And once again, we deserve this loss.

OldRightHander
10-15-2006, 05:23 PM
Unfortunately, the refs made the right call there. It was a touchdown.
We gave the game away, pure and simple. Once again, we played a team which wanted to win more than the Bengals did. And once again, we deserve this loss.

Only call they got right that drive.

WMR
10-15-2006, 05:26 PM
Hmmm crap.

Dumb penalties and bad refereeing will get you every time.

Playadlc
10-15-2006, 05:26 PM
8-8.

kbrake
10-15-2006, 05:29 PM
Terrible O-line and a team that doesnt tackle. I know injuries have plagued this team but they really need to get it together.

Joseph
10-15-2006, 05:30 PM
No running game, no run defense.

It wasn't a team wanting it more or less, it was flat out not performing.

Falls City Beer
10-15-2006, 05:33 PM
8-8.

No doubt. Tough schedule, yes. But these guys ain't ready for prime time, like I thought.

traderumor
10-15-2006, 05:36 PM
The Bengals have played two stinkers in a row. Just not a good game, but goodness gracious, at least let us lose the game in our own right. We should have got out of Dodge with an ugly win, which on the road when you're banged up you take and move on. Mr. Fancy Pants apparently does not understand what "roughing" the QB is, because the dude hit his head on the ground because he was trying to duck out of the tackle. He was resisting the whole time down and Smith was wrestling him down. Just an unbelievable and terribly incorrect call that cost us a ballgame. Mr. Fancy Pants also made a chincy call that led to TB other TD, when he whistled Geathers. That was not "roughing" the QB, either. Terrible interpretation of the rules and he needs corrected. And the really sad part is that they did correct a call when they tried to call Caleb Miller for roughing when he touched down a guy who had not been touched yet. I just really don't like it when a team, regardless of all the other factors one could point to, has a game decided by a horrible, horrible call. When you play bad and lose, that is justice. When you play bad but are in a position to win anyhow and the refs make a game deciding call, that is injustice.

macro
10-15-2006, 05:39 PM
They can't run, they can't stop the run, they commit stupid personal foul penalties, and they can't score. Palmer looks very tenative, and it's hard to tell who is losing confidence in him quicker: himself, his receivers, or me.

They had two weeks to get some things straight, and they straightened out exactly nothing. No playoffs this year. And to think that they were regarded as a top five team just over two weeks ago. They are, in fact, middle of the pack, so 8-8 won't be far off.

I think I will get outside with the kids next Sunday after lunch.

cincy jacket
10-15-2006, 05:39 PM
No Chris Perry + no Chris Henry + No Levi Jones + No Dexter Jackson + No Richie Braham + no starting lb's= today's game. This team was deep to start the year but has been killed by injuries and stupid decisions (Thurman, Henry). Better get things turned around soon on offense because now the schedule starts to get tough. Carolina, San Diego, Atlanta, and Baltimore is pretty tough stretch.

WMR
10-15-2006, 05:41 PM
The Bengals have played two stinkers in a row. Just not a good game, but goodness gracious, at least let us lose the game in our own right. We should have got out of Dodge with an ugly win, which on the road when you're banged up you take and move on. Mr. Fancy Pants apparently does not understand what "roughing" the QB is, because the dude hit his head on the ground because he was trying to duck out of the tackle. He was resisting the whole time down and Smith was wrestling him down. Just an unbelievable and terribly incorrect call that cost us a ballgame. Mr. Fancy Pants also made a chincy call that led to TB other TD, when he whistled Geathers. That was not "roughing" the QB, either. Terrible interpretation of the rules and he needs corrected. And the really sad part is that they did correct a call when they tried to call Caleb Miller for roughing when he touched down a guy who had not been touched yet. I just really don't like it when a team, regardless of all the other factors one could point to, has a game decided by a horrible, horrible call. When you play bad and lose, that is justice. When you play bad but are in a position to win anyhow and the refs make a game deciding call, that is injustice.

Perfect summation of how I feel as well, TR.

traderumor
10-15-2006, 05:44 PM
No doubt. Tough schedule, yes. But these guys ain't ready for prime time, like I thought.Injuries and guys who break the rules have depleted the team. Not excuses, just the facts. You can't lose the type of talent they have and not struggle. Then, Palmer is not playing very well right now to compound the troubles.

For those making record predictions, some of their current struggles are correctable, such as Brian Simmons moving back to the outside and leaving Brooks in the middle. He was a bright spot today. Dexter Jackson coming back will help also. The O-line, not sure, but they did not play bad today. I don't know. What looked like a good season has been eaten up by injuries and off the field junk. Hopefully some breaks will start going our way.

Buckeye33
10-15-2006, 05:45 PM
The Bengals have played two stinkers in a row. Just not a good game, but goodness gracious, at least let us lose the game in our own right. We should have got out of Dodge with an ugly win, which on the road when you're banged up you take and move on. Mr. Fancy Pants apparently does not understand what "roughing" the QB is, because the dude hit his head on the ground because he was trying to duck out of the tackle. He was resisting the whole time down and Smith was wrestling him down. Just an unbelievable and terribly incorrect call that cost us a ballgame. Mr. Fancy Pants also made a chincy call that led to TB other TD, when he whistled Geathers. That was not "roughing" the QB, either. Terrible interpretation of the rules and he needs corrected. And the really sad part is that they did correct a call when they tried to call Caleb Miller for roughing when he touched down a guy who had not been touched yet. I just really don't like it when a team, regardless of all the other factors one could point to, has a game decided by a horrible, horrible call. When you play bad and lose, that is justice. When you play bad but are in a position to win anyhow and the refs make a game deciding call, that is injustice.

I agree with this as well. The Bengals did not play well today at all. However, they still lost the game because of the dumbest call I have possibly ever seen in a football game. That roughing call on Smith was worse than the roughing call on David Patterson in the OSU-Texas game.

The Bengals played bad, but man....worst call ever.

traderumor
10-15-2006, 05:46 PM
They can't run, they can't stop the run, they commit stupid personal foul penalties, and they can't score. Palmer looks very tenative, and it's hard to tell who is losing confidence in him quicker: himself, his receivers, or me.

They had two weeks to get some things straight, and they straightened out exactly nothing. No playoffs this year. And to think that they were regarded as a top five team just over two weeks ago. They are, in fact, middle of the pack, so 8-8 won't be far off.

I think I will get outside with the kids next Sunday after lunch.Whoa, Nellie, back off that ledge.

wolfboy
10-15-2006, 05:47 PM
The team is missing a hundred tackles a minute, overthrowing passes, not paying attention to or catching potential interceptions, not blocking, not paying attention to down and distance, not protecting the ball, calling a horrible offensive game, missing gaps, making stupid penalties, and just not acting like they want it more than the other team. When all of these things are wrong, two or two hundred bad calls won't pass as a valid excuse for losing a game. Bottom line is these guys need to get it together. They are a better team than this. Hopefully, starting next week, they start to show it.

WMR
10-15-2006, 05:53 PM
The team is missing a hundred tackles a minute, overthrowing passes, not paying attention to or catching potential interceptions, not blocking, not paying attention to down and distance, not protecting the ball, calling a horrible offensive game, missing gaps, making stupid penalties, and just not acting like they want it more than the other team. When all of these things are wrong, two or two hundred bad calls won't pass as a valid excuse for losing a game. Bottom line is these guys need to get it together. They are a better team than this. Hopefully, starting next week, they start to show it.

All your criticisms are undeniably problems with this team. HOWEVER: I agree with others who have said that those two calls were among the worst they have ever witnessed.

If those two calls, especially the 15 yard penalty that should have been a sack, don't go against the Bengals, we win the game. I still would have made and agreed with all the criticisms you listed, but we should have been leaving TB with a W. Instead we got jobbed today and robbed of an invaluable W.

traderumor
10-15-2006, 05:54 PM
Football has overcompensated at all levels, as is usually the case when you start making rules to try to control some of the violence in a violent game. The roughing the QB rules have went way too far the other direction and have made the game unfair. If they do not want them hurt, put a red shirt on them and do not let them do anything but pass. QBs are going to get injured. So are receivers that go over the middle and get popped. Ask Darryl Stingley. It is certainly admirable to want to protect QBs with the rules, but that is the O-line's job. Roughing the QB should only be called in the same manner that personal foul calls are made on any other player in the game. They are giving too much leeway for officials like the one today to overinterpret the rule and make an unfair call on a simple tackle.

WMR
10-15-2006, 05:55 PM
Football has overcompensated at all levels, as is usually the case when you start making rules to try to control some of the violence in a violent game. The roughing the QB rules have went way too far the other direction and have made the game unfair. If they do not want them hurt, put a red shirt on them and do not let them do anything but pass. QBs are going to get injured. So are receivers that go over the middle and get popped. Ask Darryl Stingley. It is certainly admirable to want to protect QBs with the rules, but that is the O-line's job. Roughing the QB should only be called in the same manner that personal foul calls are made on any other player in the game. They are giving too much leeway for officials like the one today to overinterpret the rule and make an unfair call on a simple tackle.

NFL =
No
Football
League???

traderumor
10-15-2006, 05:59 PM
I will add to the above that I questioned and was very vocal about the hit on Palmer that gave rise to the so-called "Carson Palmer rule." What they came up with is not the answer, and the couple of times I have seen it called, it was not fair to the defender to get penalized.

traderumor
10-15-2006, 06:08 PM
NFL =
No
Football
League???

Give the QB's a flag. Troy Smith would really be a hot commodity if they had to try and get a flag from around that dude's waist.:laugh:

It is at all levels. Reactionary rules do not usually make good ones. Different rule, but while we are on the subject of overcompensating rules, but our local high school team lost a game by a missed extra point to Lancaster in a rivalry game, who is rated #5 in the state. They missed the extra point because it ended up being a 35 yard attempt. Our running back, on his way to over 250 yards rushing and setting a new school record, scored a TD to bring us to within one, but was flagged for excessive celebration. I was not there, so I'm not sure what the "celebrating" was. Regardless, can you imagine making that call in that situation? And based on the coach's reaction described in the local paper, it was not readily apparent that "excessive celebrating" went on.

WMR
10-15-2006, 06:15 PM
Give the QB's a flag. Troy Smith would really be a hot commodity if they had to try and get a flag from around that dude's waist.:laugh:

It is at all levels. Reactionary rules do not usually make good ones. Different rule, but while we are on the subject of overcompensating rules, but our local high school team lost a game by a missed extra point to Lancaster in a rivalry game, who is rated #5 in the state. They missed the extra point because it ended up being a 35 yard attempt. Our running back, on his way to over 250 yards rushing and setting a new school record, scored a TD to bring us to within one, but was flagged for excessive celebration. I was not there, so I'm not sure what the "celebrating" was. Regardless, can you imagine making that call in that situation? And based on the coach's reaction described in the local paper, it was not readily apparent that "excessive celebrating" went on.

I truly don't understand why Tagliabue had such a desire to make the NFL as bland a product as possible...

Maybe/Hopefully Goodell realizes that while certain things are 'over the line,' the fans--supposedly who they are supposed to cater their product towards--generally enjoy flavor and celebrations and FUN.

As to your situation, wow, that is awful. I hope that ref took a good long look at himself in the mirror after making a call like that.

traderumor
10-15-2006, 06:44 PM
I truly don't understand why Tagliabue had such a desire to make the NFL as bland a product as possible...

Maybe/Hopefully Goodell realizes that while certain things are 'over the line,' the fans--supposedly who they are supposed to cater their product towards--generally enjoy flavor and celebrations and FUN.

As to your situation, wow, that is awful. I hope that ref took a good long look at himself in the mirror after making a call like that.I could do without the "celebrations," but that is personal preference and really should be allowed as long as it is not unsportsmanlike conduct, like taunting the opponent or clearly showing up the opponent.

The other call, or no call that I almost forgot about, was on Cadillac's 50 yard run that was sprung when the OT pulled down Landon Johnson (I think, a defender for sure) by his shoulder pads to create the gap. I think that is holding.

WMR
10-15-2006, 06:54 PM
I could do without the "celebrations," but that is personal preference and really should be allowed as long as it is not unsportsmanlike conduct, like taunting the opponent or clearly showing up the opponent.

The other call, or no call that I almost forgot about, was on Cadillac's 50 yard run that was sprung when the OT pulled down Landon Johnson (I think, a defender for sure) by his shoulder pads to create the gap. I think that is holding.


That's what I mean as far as what should be allowed.

I dunno what to take away from that game... as you said, the o-line really wasn't all that bad, esp. considering how it was patched together.

Bratkowski finally started to open things up a little bit... I think that that MUST continue.

Carson looks hesitant and his timing is WAY off. His knee appears healthy... he has no problem on QB sneaks etc. etc... It has to be a mental thing? Maybe all the sacks have made him gun-shy? His normally pristine mechanics routinely desert him.

BuckWoody
10-15-2006, 07:01 PM
Just a terrible game today all around. I have no real problem with Geather's roughing the passer penalty, he push him down after the ball was thrown; stupid play. The call against Smith was just unfathomably bad. What was he supposed to do there, lay him on the ground and give him a kiss on the forehead? :dunno:

Still, the Bengals played like crap today…they deserved to lose.

max venable
10-15-2006, 10:15 PM
Bottom line today for the Bengals: No pass rush, no pass protetion (or run-blocking either).

RedFanAlways1966
10-15-2006, 10:30 PM
The Bengals did not play good. The Bucs did not play good either. However, the Bengals win the game if not for one horrendous flag. No doubt the Bengals win if the referee is not obviously wrong on one play. Regardless of the bad pass rush, bad run defense and bad o-line. Just terrible. The NFL is usually pretty good about fessin' up to bad calls and I hope they do on that one. But it does not change anything. That call cost the Bengals a win and it hurts.

max venable
10-15-2006, 10:39 PM
The Bengals did not play good. The Bucs did not play good either. However, the Bengals win the game if not for one horrendous flag. No doubt the Bengals win if the referee is not obviously wrong on one play. Regardless of the bad pass rush, bad run defense and bad o-line. Just terrible. The NFL is usually pretty good about fessin' up to bad calls and I hope they do on that one. But it does not change anything. That call cost the Bengals a win and it hurts.

Hey, I totally agree. Justin Smith not only sacked the QB legitimately and cleanly, he forced a fumble. Game over. Did you hear Marvin? He said, "I guess you're supposed to cuddle the quarterback to the ground."

It truly was one of the more ridiculous roughing calls I've ever seen.

traderumor
10-15-2006, 10:51 PM
One thing that made the offense seem to be having a bad game when really they were at least average was crappy field position the whole game. The D could not force 3 and outs and nearly all of our drives started from the 20 or worst. That is hard work for any O to sustain 80+ yard drives.

Reds Freak
10-15-2006, 10:54 PM
I agree with everyone on the Bengals level of play right now and the horrendous call on the Justin Smith sack. However, that wouldn't have ended the game. I don't think it was a fumble, it would have been 2nd and 18. The Bengals still let a rookie quarterback drive all the way down the field in the final minutes allowing him to stand back there all day and pick out his receivers, which most of the time he missed. How about stopping them on the 3rd and 13 with 50 seconds left? No excuses. Still, the game can't be blamed on the defense. The offense was downright inept today, minus the two big plays.

wolfboy
10-15-2006, 11:25 PM
All your criticisms are undeniably problems with this team. HOWEVER: I agree with others who have said that those two calls were among the worst they have ever witnessed.

If those two calls, especially the 15 yard penalty that should have been a sack, don't go against the Bengals, we win the game. I still would have made and agreed with all the criticisms you listed, but we should have been leaving TB with a W. Instead we got jobbed today and robbed of an invaluable W.

I wasn't arguing that those two calls weren't terrible game changers. I was trying to point out that this team shouldn't be in a situation where two bad calls decide whether or not they win the game. Against a team like the Colts that might be the case, but not against an 0-4 Tampa team. The Bengals have more than enough talent to blow a team like Tampa out of the water, injuries or not. Unfortunately, when their preparation and execution resemble the Bengals of 2002 more than the Bengals of 2005, penalties can decide the game. My point is, they earned it. If they would have played the game they are capable of playing, the penalties wouldn't have been as significant as they were. Having said that, they got totally jobbed on those calls.

:beerme: Here's to hoping they turn it around next week against Carolina.

MrCinatit
10-16-2006, 12:35 AM
I wasn't arguing that those two calls weren't terrible game changers. I was trying to point out that this team shouldn't be in a situation where two bad calls decide whether or not they win the game. Against a team like the Colts that might be the case, but not against an 0-4 Tampa team. The Bengals have more than enough talent to blow a team like Tampa out of the water, injuries or not. Unfortunately, when their preparation and execution resemble the Bengals of 2002 more than the Bengals of 2005, penalties can decide the game. My point is, they earned it. If they would have played the game they are capable of playing, the penalties wouldn't have been as significant as they were. Having said that, they got totally jobbed on those calls.

:beerme: Here's to hoping they turn it around next week against Carolina.

Could not have said it better myself. There is no way the game should have been that close, not against a team which has been struggling so much.
The consistent 3 and outs in the first half really hurt. Talent will only take you so far...you have to want it, as well. The Buccs seemed to want the game a lot more than the Bengals.

BuckWoody
10-16-2006, 01:20 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfS9KQsExgs
Clicky for a quick look at the roughing penalty. Unbelievable.

OldRightHander
10-16-2006, 07:36 AM
I agree with this as well. The Bengals did not play well today at all. However, they still lost the game because of the dumbest call I have possibly ever seen in a football game. That roughing call on Smith was worse than the roughing call on David Patterson in the OSU-Texas game.

The Bengals played bad, but man....worst call ever.

The Carson Palmer injury...the gift that keeps on giving.

GAC
10-16-2006, 07:58 AM
Between the injuries and our 'special-needs' players...

Amazing how our linebacking corps has gone from a position of strength to maybe our biggest weakness.

And losing Thurman, Pollack, and then Simmons is a huge part of that IMO.

IMHO, the Bengals, who were a far superior team, should have never allowed TB to even be in the game. I don't know if it was preparation, the injuries/suspensions to key players, or what.... but you can't lay this loss totally on the refereeing corp. Yes, the Smith call was bogus. But what about Geathers? Someone needs to have a talk with this guy.

The Bengals missed numerous chances and self-imploded on numerous drives. And their inability to run the ball (3 yds in the first half) against a defense ranked 30th vs the rush is simply amazing.

The sack of Palmer by defensive lineman Ellis Wyms that put them out of FG range basically told the story of the whole game IMO.

It's gonna be a struggle in this division.

Take solace in the fact you're not a Brown's fan. ;)

Dom Heffner
10-16-2006, 11:41 AM
From someone who saw it in person, let me just tell you that was an awful, awful game.

I did stay afterwards and saw a few players down by the bus.

Kelley Washington was as nice an athlete as I've seen. Just terrific.

Saw Chad- he signed some autographs and walked around with his little girl. He was surprisingly shy.

Housh was there, Marvin, Eric Steinbach (who posed for pictures)...Dexter Jackson also signed a bunch....my friend told him he missed him in Tampa and he told us to tell it to the front office....

I took some pictures with my phone- I'll try and get them posted on here, but I'm not too technologically savvy, so don't hold your breath. :)

registerthis
10-16-2006, 12:00 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfS9KQsExgs
Clicky for a quick look at the roughing penalty. Unbelievable.

They called a flag on that??

traderumor
10-16-2006, 12:50 PM
They called a flag on that??
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061016/SPT02/610160329/1066
"I didn't slam him. He just doubled over, went down and fumbled the ball. It's a shock to everybody, except maybe the guy that called it," said Smith. Gradkowski did fumble, but likely after he was down. The Bengals' Robert Geathers recovered.

When Smith asked referee Mike Carey for an explanation, Carey told him, "(You) drove his head into the ground." Smith protested: "The dude ducked."

Later, Carey elaborated: "The defender stopped forward progress, drove (Gradkowski) backwards and then at the end gave him the extra effort and stuffed his head into the ground."

Smith had it right, the guy was ducking, trying to escape. No whistle blew, which blows the official's explanation out of the water, he did not stuff his head into the ground, he tackled him. He brought a guy down who was trying to get away. Obviously the ref interpreted it the way he did, but I think the supervisor of the officials would tell him that his was an extreme view of the play and that it should not be considered "roughing" in the future. Which does nothing to make the Bengals 4-1 instead of 3-2.

traderumor
10-16-2006, 12:56 PM
Errrrr, should not have watched the replay, makes the ref's explanation even more ridiculous. Forward progress stopped? I know he has to think of some reason to defend that call, but geesh, just say he drove his head into the ground. Don't make things up as you go.

Dom Heffner
10-16-2006, 01:17 PM
"I didn't slam him.

See, I think the replay shows he did somewhat. There's a point where he grabs him and it looks like he is slamming him. He doesn't slam him hard, but the fact that he sped up the tackle from the point of contact makes it seem like he threw him down much harder than he did.

I'm not saying there should be a penalty, but I think the way that the QB fell allows for the interpretation that he was roughed.

For me, the point is that Smith can't predict where that head will land from an upright position. He could have just as easily laned on his shoulder or his back.

As well, there has to be some kind of common sense here.

A personal foul is where you grab someone and deliberately tackle them harder than what is necessary.

For me, it looked like Smith grabbed him and then tackled him harder than his initial grasp. It made it look worse than it was.

This is getting ridiculous, because now guys are going to be afraid to tackle the QB and on a mobile guy like Gradkowski that is going to burn you because the guy can take off if you aren't aggressive.

They might as well put flags on the QB and just play that way.

traderumor
10-16-2006, 01:40 PM
See, I think the replay shows he did somewhat. There's a point where he grabs him and it looks like he is slamming him. He doesn't slam him hard, but the fact that he sped up the tackle from the point of contact makes it seem like he threw him down much harder than he did.

I'm not saying there should be a penalty, but I think the way that the QB fell allows for the interpretation that he was roughed.

For me, the point is that Smith can't predict where that head will land from an upright position. He could have just as easily laned on his shoulder or his back.

As well, there has to be some kind of common sense here.

A personal foul is where you grab someone and deliberately tackle them harder than what is necessary.

For me, it looked like Smith grabbed him and then tackled him harder than his initial grasp. It made it look worse than it was.

This is getting ridiculous, because now guys are going to be afraid to tackle the QB and on a mobile guy like Gradkowski that is going to burn you because the guy can take off if you aren't aggressive.

They might as well put flags on the QB and just play that way.

The key word is common sense. It seems some officials really struggle with this concept and do not take anything other than the letter of a rule into consideration.

WMR
10-16-2006, 01:42 PM
That official is an idiot. He should just shut up because his explanations make his actions appear even more ludicrious.

I really hope the NFL issues a statement that this wasn't a penalty that should have been called. Not holding my breath though.

Dom Heffner
10-16-2006, 03:48 PM
My problem wasn't so much that call, but with Marvin's clock management.

When the opponent is at your 15 yard line with over a minute to play, they aren't going to be denied scoring because the clock runs out.

The Bengals should have called a timeout to allow more time for when they got the ball back.

You can run up and down the field with no timeouts, but you can't run up and down the field with no time left.

They also finished with one timeout left, IIRC.

traderumor
10-16-2006, 03:51 PM
My problem wasn't so much that call, but with Marvin's clock management.

When the opponent is at your 15 yard line with over a minute to play, they aren't going to be denied scoring because the clock runs out.

The Bengals should have called a timeout to allow more time for when they got the ball back.

You can run up and down the field with no timeouts, but you can't run up and down the field with no time left.

They also finished with one timeout left, IIRC.
No, they took their last time out to try the 60 yard field goal. The first time out was taken after TJs catch on the sideline, the second one after the sack, then the last one after the catch that got the ball to the 43. Where's Tom Dempsey when you need him. I thought they maybe had enough time to try a 10 yard sideline pattern to make a FG more realistic.

WMR
10-16-2006, 04:01 PM
They had 6 seconds remaining. That's enough for a quick slant out of bounds.

flyer85
10-16-2006, 04:01 PM
I thought they maybe had enough time to try a 10 yard sideline pattern to make a FG more realistic.I was shocked by the FG attempt. Should have tried a quick out to get and extra 6-8 yards. with 6 seconds left there was enough time.

WMR
10-16-2006, 04:03 PM
Marvin has had quite a few time management gaffes over the past couple seasons.

flyer85
10-16-2006, 04:13 PM
Marvin has had quite a few time management gaffes over the past couple seasons.most coaches suffer from the problem.

Matt700wlw
10-16-2006, 04:27 PM
We have a problem.

I'm not in panic mode yet.....but I'm inching closer...

Reds Fanatic
10-16-2006, 04:36 PM
More bad Bengals news. Levi Jones is having his knee scoped. He is definetly out next week not sure how long he will be out after that.

Kelly Washington is also out next week with the injury he suffered yesterday.

So next week the Bengals will have Chad and TJ at WR. With Washington injured and Henry still out for being a moron the 3rd WR I guess will be Chatman and maybe McNeal will be 4th.

WMR
10-16-2006, 04:38 PM
Paging Peter Warrick... Mr. Warrick, please pick up the courtesy phone.

WVRed
10-16-2006, 04:57 PM
More bad Bengals news. Levi Jones is having his knee scoped. He is definetly out next week not sure how long he will be out after that.

Kelly Washington is also out next week with the injury he suffered yesterday.

So next week the Bengals will have Chad and TJ at WR. With Washington injured and Henry still out for being a moron the 3rd WR I guess will be Chatman and maybe McNeal will be 4th.

And its against the Panthers no less.

Injuries are definitely taking a toll. I'm not ready to press the panic button yet, but the schedule and injuries are not helping.

flyer85
10-16-2006, 05:02 PM
with the return of Steve Smith the Panthers are looking like one of the best teams in the league. Smith is one of those difference makers that change everything.

traderumor
10-16-2006, 06:22 PM
More bad Bengals news. Levi Jones is having his knee scoped. He is definetly out next week not sure how long he will be out after that.

Kelly Washington is also out next week with the injury he suffered yesterday.

So next week the Bengals will have Chad and TJ at WR. With Washington injured and Henry still out for being a moron the 3rd WR I guess will be Chatman and maybe McNeal will be 4th.To think at the beginning of the season you are looking at not having a spot for Kelly Washington, who had always performed in his limited opportunities. Now, they are looking to a project as a fourth receiver. Next week could not be pretty, here's hoping the D can stir up some turnovers, or its off to Obie-One Kanobe for our only hope.

max venable
10-16-2006, 08:30 PM
What's interesting is that if the TB incompletion had not been reversed and declared a touchdown, we probably wouldn't be so down on this team right now. Instead, we'd probably be giving them props for finding a way to win on an "off" day. They'd be 4-1 and we'd be feeling pretty good about the boys. Funny how that works.

Matt700wlw
10-16-2006, 08:52 PM
What's interesting is that if the TB incompletion had not been reversed and declared a touchdown, we probably wouldn't be so down on this team right now. Instead, we'd probably be giving them props for finding a way to win on an "off" day. They'd be 4-1 and we'd be feeling pretty good about the boys. Funny how that works.

Unfortunately it was reversed...and it was the right call.

Good coaching/call by Gruden.

Now, the Justin Smith "roughing the passer" was a load of crap...but there's other reasons why the Bengals didn't win.

max venable
10-16-2006, 09:07 PM
Unfortunately it was reversed...and it was the right call.

I'm not arguing that it wasn't the right call. Never said it wasn't. It was the right call...it just didn't go our way (by literally inches)...if it had gone our way, my point is, that we probably wouldn't be complaining about this team right now.

Matt700wlw
10-16-2006, 09:10 PM
I'm not arguing that it wasn't the right call. Never said it wasn't. It was the right call...it just didn't go our way (by literally inches)...if it had gone our way, my point is, that we probably wouldn't be complaining about this team right now.

I would say so.

Winning does wonders, no matter how ugly it may be :)

BuckWoody
10-16-2006, 10:13 PM
FWIW, every show I watched tonight (namely PTI and Monday Night Countdown) talked about that roughing call and every single person thought it was terrible. Wilbon was especially angry with it on PTI, going so far as to call the NFL a "sham" if they say you cannot touch the QB like that.

macro
10-17-2006, 02:22 AM
I pressed the panic button Sunday as the desperation field goal attempt was unsuccessful. I've been a Bengals fan since 1975, and I've never felt worse about a 3-2 team. They're not going to make the playoffs this year, folks.

GAC
10-17-2006, 05:24 AM
I pressed the panic button Sunday as the desperation field goal attempt was unsuccessful. I've been a Bengals fan since 1975, and I've never felt worse about a 3-2 team. They're not going to make the playoffs this year, folks.

I don't know macro. They have a very talented team in Cincy IMO. If they don't make the playoffs (which I think they will), it will because of the number of key injuries and not due to a lack of talent.

WVRed
10-17-2006, 09:14 AM
I pressed the panic button Sunday as the desperation field goal attempt was unsuccessful. I've been a Bengals fan since 1975, and I've never felt worse about a 3-2 team. They're not going to make the playoffs this year, folks.

I'd have taken a hail mary over a 62 yard field goal.

For those who have access to Tivo or DVR, id suggest watching the replay again. IMO, the TD looked like it squirted out of his hands inches short of the end zone. Even if he did have possession, and I think he did, the ball still should have been placed at the one yard line.

I agree with Jack Lambert when he said that QB's should wear skirts on the field.

Caveat Emperor
10-17-2006, 10:09 AM
I really hope the NFL issues a statement that this wasn't a penalty that should have been called. Not holding my breath though.

OK -- then how about a statement that Simeon Rice started the game with a size XL jersey, and finished the game with a size XXXL jersey without a yellow flag being seen once?

Teams get hosed by calls (and no calls) all the time. It was a crap call -- I'm a die-hard Bucs fan (who was at the game!! :thumbup: ) and I'll admit that. We've been the victim of some horrid calls too, and we lost games becuse of them this year. Fact is, though, you've got to man up and make play.

The officials don't control the outcome of the game, the teams do. Make a stop on 4th down or hold better on 3rd and long and this isn't even an issue today..

Dom Heffner
10-17-2006, 10:23 AM
The officials don't control the outcome of the game, the teams do.

So if the officials blew the call that gave Tampa the go ahead touchdown, the Buccaneers should have "manned up and made play"?

This is crazy.

The Bengals did "make play" when they sacked Gradkowski, and then the refs decided to negate it.

You're essentially asking a team to make plays and when those same plays are overturned by an official on a bad call, you are saying they should have made plays. It makes no sense.

They did make a play. It was overturned.

If teams were expected to ovecome bad officiating then why even have an instant replay rule?

We could just tell everybody to make plays and ignore awful calls.

Get screwed out of a touchdown? Hey, that's your fault, You should have made that 3rd and 1 back in the first quarter....

MWM
10-17-2006, 10:28 AM
Oklahoma-Orgeon. The officials were directly responsible for the outome of that game this year. They had indisputable evidence and still made a horrible call. Had they got it right, the game was over. the idea that teams should have to overcome that stuff doesn't hold for me, regardless of whether th Bengals were involved or not. Were the Braves supposed to overcome Eric Gregg in the 1997 NLCS (the worst umping I've ever seen in my life, may he RIP)? There was no way they could hit balls 12 inches off the plate and below the knees (and that's not an exaggeration). Officiating plays a part in all major sports. And sometimes they do cost teams games. It's just a reality of sports.

dabvu2498
10-17-2006, 10:32 AM
Two quotes from the same post...


We've been the victim of some horrid calls too, and we lost games becuse of them this year.

The officials don't control the outcome of the game, the teams do.

:dunno: You can't have it both ways.

traderumor
10-17-2006, 11:55 AM
Oklahoma-Orgeon. The officials were directly responsible for the outome of that game this year. They had indisputable evidence and still made a horrible call. Had they got it right, the game was over. the idea that teams should have to overcome that stuff doesn't hold for me, regardless of whether th Bengals were involved or not. Were the Braves supposed to overcome Eric Gregg in the 1997 NLCS (the worst umping I've ever seen in my life, may he RIP)? There was no way they could hit balls 12 inches off the plate and below the knees (and that's not an exaggeration). Officiating plays a part in all major sports. And sometimes they do cost teams games. It's just a reality of sports.
Good post. And when it occurs, how the team played in the game and whether or not they "deserved" to win is a moot point. Especially considering that it implies that the other team deserved to win, as if a bad call that greatly assisted their winning a game they would have otherwise lost makes a team "deserving" of a win. Tampa Bay would have been shutout (or perhaps got a field goal attempt) were it not for two roughing the passer calls that were questionable, one moreso than the other. But I tend to think that a lineman trying to chase a QB who extends his arms one second after the ball was released which sends the QB who is already falling backward and left his feet throwing the pass tumbling a normal occurrence in football. Only a momma trying to protect her sissy son would see either of those plays as "roughing."

Caveat Emperor
10-17-2006, 07:35 PM
Two quotes from the same post...

Should've been more specific -- We lost the games and yeah, the calls played a part in that, but they could've just as easily been wins if the team stepped up and overcame.

It's not like the officials walked the ball in for the Bucs -- Bengals had a shot to stop on 3rd down and 4th down, as well as immediately after the penalty.

It was a bad call -- they happen.


Only a momma trying to protect her sissy son would see either of those plays as "roughing."

I find the outrage among Bengals fans amusing, considering that the new "don't sneeze on the QB the wrong way or it'll cost you 15" is due, in at least some small part, to the fact that league wants to stop things from happening like what happened to Carson Palmer in the playoffs last year.

WVRed
10-17-2006, 08:26 PM
I find the outrage among Bengals fans amusing, considering that the new "don't sneeze on the QB the wrong way or it'll cost you 15" is due, in at least some small part, to the fact that league wants to stop things from happening like what happened to Carson Palmer in the playoffs last year.

The problem is that its not being enforced on the Bengals. Palmer was sacked shortly after Smith sacked Gradkowski. Similar play, but where was the flag on the Bucs?

The Bengals deserved to lose this game, but you cannot deny that there wasnt some home cooking at Raymond James Stadium on Sunday.

This is somewhat unrelated, but after I saw that helmet pulling incident on Troy Polamalu, im convinced that either 1.Hair should be made safe for tackling, or 2.Hair should be cut off. I'm more in favor of no 2, but some of the new rules are kinda silly.

WMR
10-17-2006, 08:33 PM
You're allowed to tackle by the hair.

The infraction was holding onto the hair and continuing to pull on it after Polamalu was brought down.

WVRed
10-17-2006, 08:42 PM
You're allowed to tackle by the hair.

The infraction was holding onto the hair and continuing to pull on it after Polamalu was brought down.

Still, using Chris Henry from the Bengals as an example. All it takes is a cornerback pulling a player down by the hair, doing some damage to the neck, and they are done for the season, maybe even possibly their career. I'm not a doctor, but I am imagining this would be possible.

Its one of those things that should be enforced for the players safety.

traderumor
10-17-2006, 09:03 PM
Should've been more specific -- We lost the games and yeah, the calls played a part in that, but they could've just as easily been wins if the team stepped up and overcame.

It's not like the officials walked the ball in for the Bucs -- Bengals had a shot to stop on 3rd down and 4th down, as well as immediately after the penalty.

It was a bad call -- they happen.



I find the outrage among Bengals fans amusing, considering that the new "don't sneeze on the QB the wrong way or it'll cost you 15" is due, in at least some small part, to the fact that league wants to stop things from happening like what happened to Carson Palmer in the playoffs last year.

Nope, that is an entirely different NEW rule that is about hitting below a certain part of the leg. Special rules designed to protect the QB, like allowing them to slide, and a lower force tolerance for hits on the QB have been around since the 80s and was primarily in response to seasons where expensive (and ratings producing QBs) were spending more time in street clothes than on the field creating excitement. Some extra protection is good given the compromising positions QBs often find themselves in with 300 lb gorillas who run 40 yd dashes in under 5 seconds coming at them. But to say that call had anything to do with Carson Palmer's injury is misunderstanding the history of rules to protect the QB.

Yachtzee
10-17-2006, 09:33 PM
OK -- then how about a statement that Simeon Rice started the game with a size XL jersey, and finished the game with a size XXXL jersey without a yellow flag being seen once?

Teams get hosed by calls (and no calls) all the time. It was a crap call -- I'm a die-hard Bucs fan (who was at the game!! :thumbup: ) and I'll admit that. We've been the victim of some horrid calls too, and we lost games becuse of them this year. Fact is, though, you've got to man up and make play.

The officials don't control the outcome of the game, the teams do. Make a stop on 4th down or hold better on 3rd and long and this isn't even an issue today..

I think that in some cases, bad calls do affect the outcome of the game. If you make a perfectly clean sack on a QB and the ref flags you for 15 yards, I think it causes confusion as far as what you are or are not allowed to do. I think it has a big effect at that late stage in the game. It makes the defense a bit more tentative because they don't want to give up another big first down doing what they believe to be their jobs.

What Smith did was what he was supposed to do. It's not like he was Charles Martin taking down Jim McMahon.

Caveat Emperor
10-17-2006, 10:15 PM
But to say that call had anything to do with Carson Palmer's injury is misunderstanding the history of rules to protect the QB.

While I appreciate the history lesson, I think you're being too easily dismissive of recent injuries to players like Palmer, McNabb, Pennington, etc.

They've gotten WAY more ticky-tack with the flags in the last couple years and its because of injuries to guys like Palmer and because of mortal fear the NFL has of somebody injuring one of the true "Golden Boys" like Manning, Brady or Vick on a hard hit. That it wasn't the specific "going low" on the QB rule that got cited here doesn't make Palmer any less relevant to this conversation.

It's annoying -- you can't hit the QB high, can't hit the QB low, can't drive the QB into the ground, etc. etc. Gruden summarized it perfectly: you know the league is telling officials to watch for this kinda stuff, just be smart with what you do and try not to put yourself in a position where the ref has to make a split-second judgement call. You're going to get hosed every so often, but that's no different than any other aspect of the game where judgement calls are prevalent, such as with a PI call/no-call or a holding call/no-call.

As for flags affecting the outcome -- the flag is a non-issue if the Bengals score more points earlier in the game and put the Bucs out. Instead, they kick field goals and never run away with the game. A team's loss always comes back to the plays it made or didn't make. Lack of plays on both sides of the ball (Bucs and Bengals) put the game in a position where a call could influence the outcome. As far as I'm concerned, neither side has a real right to cry about the call (however it would've gone) when they don't make enough plays to render the issue moot.

goreds2
10-18-2006, 01:12 PM
Here are some WLW Podcasts concerning the Bengals game against Tampa.

Go towards the bottom on the right hand side of this LINK:

http://www.700wlw.com/cc-common/podcast.html

traderumor
10-18-2006, 02:10 PM
While I appreciate the history lesson, I think you're being too easily dismissive of recent injuries to players like Palmer, McNabb, Pennington, etc.

They've gotten WAY more ticky-tack with the flags in the last couple years and its because of injuries to guys like Palmer and because of mortal fear the NFL has of somebody injuring one of the true "Golden Boys" like Manning, Brady or Vick on a hard hit. That it wasn't the specific "going low" on the QB rule that got cited here doesn't make Palmer any less relevant to this conversation.

It's annoying -- you can't hit the QB high, can't hit the QB low, can't drive the QB into the ground, etc. etc. Gruden summarized it perfectly: you know the league is telling officials to watch for this kinda stuff, just be smart with what you do and try not to put yourself in a position where the ref has to make a split-second judgement call. You're going to get hosed every so often, but that's no different than any other aspect of the game where judgement calls are prevalent, such as with a PI call/no-call or a holding call/no-call.

As for flags affecting the outcome -- the flag is a non-issue if the Bengals score more points earlier in the game and put the Bucs out. Instead, they kick field goals and never run away with the game. A team's loss always comes back to the plays it made or didn't make. Lack of plays on both sides of the ball (Bucs and Bengals) put the game in a position where a call could influence the outcome. As far as I'm concerned, neither side has a real right to cry about the call (however it would've gone) when they don't make enough plays to render the issue moot.

Only the names have changed in who "the golden boys" are, but roughing the QB has been ticky tack from the previously mentioned time period in the NFL for the same reason. Now, they have added a rule, but that did not come into play here. That is my point, we'll just have to disagree on that one. Blaming CP getting his knee blown up as a chain reaction to an overzealous ref is an intense oversimplification.

As for your final point, an infinite regress on "the call wouldn't have mattered if..." again, has no relevance. The game situation was what it was and bad calls that greatly affect the outcome of a game are not "moot" because you project that the game should not have been close enough for it to matter. That will always be faulty reasoning in such a situation.

Hoosier Red
10-18-2006, 02:21 PM
Caveat's point is correct.
The BENGALS DIDN'T LOSE BECAUSE OF A TERRIBLE CALL.
While it is true the situation would have been much more dire for the Bucs with a 2nd and 18, that would not have guaranteed a Bengals victory.
If I recall Tampa made a first down after 2 and 13 later in the drive.

After the call there were many chances to stop Tampa Bay, they still did not. All it did was make the trip 15 yards shorter.

To look at how a team can respond to a ticky tack personal foul call, look to Indiana-Iowa.
On the Hawkeyes last drive, Will Myers was charged with a weak late hit call.
Two plays later he made an incredible interception to end the game.

Okay, I was just trying to spread the IU-Iowa game into another thread.

max venable
10-18-2006, 02:35 PM
To look at how a team can respond to a ticky tack personal foul call, look to Indiana-Iowa.
On the Hawkeyes last drive, Will Myers was charged with a weak late hit call.
Two plays later he made an incredible interception to end the game.


Riiiight...to find out how a team should really play the great game of football...look no further than the Hoosiers...of Indiana. :thumbup:

Hoosier Red
10-18-2006, 02:46 PM
Well, aside from last week I wouldn't recommend it.

traderumor
10-18-2006, 02:57 PM
Caveat's point is correct.
The BENGALS DIDN'T LOSE BECAUSE OF A TERRIBLE CALL.
While it is true the situation would have been much more dire for the Bucs with a 2nd and 18, that would not have guaranteed a Bengals victory.
If I recall Tampa made a first down after 2 and 13 later in the drive.

After the call there were many chances to stop Tampa Bay, they still did not. All it did was make the trip 15 yards shorter.

To look at how a team can respond to a ticky tack personal foul call, look to Indiana-Iowa.
On the Hawkeyes last drive, Will Myers was charged with a weak late hit call.
Two plays later he made an incredible interception to end the game.

Okay, I was just trying to spread the IU-Iowa game into another thread.

Those other plays never would have happened. Regardless of what happened after the call, it was wrong and affected the outcome of the game. The only thing that should have happened was a review to see if the fumble counted or not. That argument is always there to attempt to minimize the impact that officials have on games, but as someone has already pointed out, if the NFL didn't believe that individual calls impacted the outcome of games, then why do they go through minutes of replay watching to make sure that key calls are given a thorough review and look for indisputable replay evidence to overturn an official's call? Still, the point remains that all the things the Bengals had to do afterwards resulted from an obviously horrendous call. Of course, I pointed all of that out in my first post on the topic.

DoogMinAmo
10-18-2006, 06:57 PM
Caveat's point is correct.
The BENGALS DIDN'T LOSE BECAUSE OF A TERRIBLE CALL.
While it is true the situation would have been much more dire for the Bucs with a 2nd and 18, that would not have guaranteed a Bengals victory.
If I recall Tampa made a first down after 2 and 13 later in the drive.

After the call there were many chances to stop Tampa Bay, they still did not. All it did was make the trip 15 yards shorter.

To look at how a team can respond to a ticky tack personal foul call, look to Indiana-Iowa.
On the Hawkeyes last drive, Will Myers was charged with a weak late hit call.
Two plays later he made an incredible interception to end the game.

Okay, I was just trying to spread the IU-Iowa game into another thread.


Except for one problem, Geather recovered the fumble. Bengals ball if there is no flag. Even so, 2nd and 18 and a 15yard longer field might have been enough with time running out and no time outs, but we will never know.

Dom Heffner
10-18-2006, 09:09 PM
[
Two plays later he made an incredible interception to end the game.


Yeah, that interception had nothing to do with a bad throw by the QB. It was that magical clutch instinct that we all have deep down inside of us if only we have the will to overcome bad calls by referees.

We can also add this statement to the thread, "Things That Drive You Crazy":

I hate sports cliches.

Hoosier Red
10-19-2006, 12:18 PM
[

Yeah, that interception had nothing to do with a bad throw by the QB. It was that magical clutch instinct that we all have deep down inside of us if only we have the will to overcome bad calls by referees.

We can also add this statement to the thread, "Things That Drive You Crazy":

I hate sports cliches.
???

I'm pretty sure I didn't use clutch but if you want to read that into it, fine.

It's ignorant beyond belief to say the bad call had nothing to do with Tampa Bay winning the game.
It's equally ignorant to say the Bengals lost because of 1(now we're expanding 2) bad calls.
OF COURSE IT HAD AN IMPACT.
Every play has an impact. Every call and no-call has an impact. Some have more than others. But how many plays were there after the terrible(and it was a terrible call.)
Good teams react well to bad calls and make a play that makes the call moot.
Bad teams use the call as an excuse.
It doesn't happen every time but over the course of the season the better teams will win.

Just curious is this the only time a weak late hit call affects the game?
Hypothetical, Bengals Panthers this week. Say its 14-10 Panthers.
Say its 3 minutes left in the 3rd quarter, the Bengals have the ball on their own 10. Same weak call, the Bengals go on to march the remaining 75 yds score a touchdown, and win 31 to 28.

Can the Panthers blame the call for losing the game. After all it led to the Bengals scoring the go ahead touchdown, and one touchdown would have made a difference in the game obviously.

So if that doesn't count in "legitimate excuses as to why we lost," is their a grid, like the one coaches use for fourth quarter 2 point conversions?

Like a sliding scale of time left in game, vs points discrepancy in final score.

How can we tell?

traderumor
10-19-2006, 12:58 PM
???

I'm pretty sure I didn't use clutch but if you want to read that into it, fine.

It's ignorant beyond belief to say the bad call had nothing to do with Tampa Bay winning the game.
It's equally ignorant to say the Bengals lost because of 1(now we're expanding 2) bad calls.
OF COURSE IT HAD AN IMPACT.
Every play has an impact. Every call and no-call has an impact. Some have more than others. But how many plays were there after the terrible(and it was a terrible call.)
Good teams react well to bad calls and make a play that makes the call moot.
Bad teams use the call as an excuse.
It doesn't happen every time but over the course of the season the better teams will win.

Just curious is this the only time a weak late hit call affects the game?
Hypothetical, Bengals Panthers this week. Say its 14-10 Panthers.
Say its 3 minutes left in the 3rd quarter, the Bengals have the ball on their own 10. Same weak call, the Bengals go on to march the remaining 75 yds score a touchdown, and win 31 to 28.

Can the Panthers blame the call for losing the game. After all it led to the Bengals scoring the go ahead touchdown, and one touchdown would have made a difference in the game obviously.

So if that doesn't count in "legitimate excuses as to why we lost," is their a grid, like the one coaches use for fourth quarter 2 point conversions?

Like a sliding scale of time left in game, vs points discrepancy in final score.

How can we tell?

You're losing ground fast. Those attributing that call to the loss did so because of all the other factors (time left in the game, position on the field, down and distance). It really isn't that hard to project because of how late it was in the game, just as it would have been very easy to say that if the winning TD had not been reversed, that would have been the difference in the game. I like to complicate matters sometimes, but usually it is when the facts are not in my favor (true confessions). That seems to be the case here for those wanting to say "stuff happened after the call, the Bengals still could have stopped them."

macro
10-19-2006, 01:02 PM
Every play has an impact. Every call and no-call has an impact.

The butterfly effect, if you will.

Roy Tucker
10-19-2006, 01:18 PM
The butterfly effect, if you will.

TYME SEFARI INC.
SEFARIS TU ANY YEER EN THE PAST.
YU NAIM THE ANIMALL.
WEE TAEK YU THAIR.
YU SHOOT ITT.

Hoosier Red
10-19-2006, 01:40 PM
You're losing ground fast. Those attributing that call to the loss did so because of all the other factors (time left in the game, position on the field, down and distance). It really isn't that hard to project because of how late it was in the game, just as it would have been very easy to say that if the winning TD had not been reversed, that would have been the difference in the game. I like to complicate matters sometimes, but usually it is when the facts are not in my favor (true confessions). That seems to be the case here for those wanting to say "stuff happened after the call, the Bengals still could have stopped them."

Sorry to complicate it.
So when is it acceptable?
If the play had been at the Tampa Bay 20 yard line?
7 minutes left in the game. I've seen people even bring in Geathers ticky tack late hit to support their argument, is that one fair game?

Tell me where you can point to a play and say the official's bad call did or did not cost us this game.

Hoosier Red
10-19-2006, 01:45 PM
And just curious, how did the officials call have more of an impact than Marvin's terrible time management at the end of the game. If he uses his timeouts wisely, the touchdown is at the 1:30 mark, maybe even 2 minutes.

Keep timeouts for offense my left foot, that is always a losing strategy.

But your right, it was the fact that Mike Carey called a weak late hit on Justin Smith that lost the team the game. They had no chance after that call.
They didn't give up the last 25 yds on their own. They didn't allow a completion on 4th and goal. IT was all Mike Carey

traderumor
10-19-2006, 02:23 PM
Sorry to complicate it.
So when is it acceptable?
If the play had been at the Tampa Bay 20 yard line?
7 minutes left in the game. I've seen people even bring in Geathers ticky tack late hit to support their argument, is that one fair game?

Tell me where you can point to a play and say the official's bad call did or did not cost us this game.
Dude, give it a rest. We disagree, your reasoning is that it is never ok to blame an official's call for the loss of a game, I would imagine unless it was the last play of the game and all other things were equal during the game and the only thing hanging in the balance is the official's call on the last play of the game. Others have made very reasonable assumptions regarding the outcome if the play had been called properly in the first place. I get your point, I just happen to disagree for reasons I have clearly enumerated in the thread.

registerthis
10-19-2006, 03:47 PM
As for flags affecting the outcome -- the flag is a non-issue if the Bengals score more points earlier in the game and put the Bucs out. Instead, they kick field goals and never run away with the game. A team's loss always comes back to the plays it made or didn't make. Lack of plays on both sides of the ball (Bucs and Bengals) put the game in a position where a call could influence the outcome. As far as I'm concerned, neither side has a real right to cry about the call (however it would've gone) when they don't make enough plays to render the issue moot.

I don't know if I necessarily agree with this. You could make the same argument for practically any loss a team incurs, whether or not a bad call was involved. Suppose a team loses by two touchdowns--you could also use the above explanation to say "They didn't lose because the other team scored two more touchdowns than they did, they lost because they had drives where they didn't score thus putting themselves in position to lose the game." It's the "they didn't beat us, we beat ourselves" line of reasoning, and it's rarely true.

In the Bengals case, the blown call had every bit as much to do with the loss as any plays the Bucs made. I can't discern a reason for why a bad call should be ignored or rendered moot any more than, say, a good play made by the Bucs.

Dom Heffner
10-19-2006, 04:19 PM
If theplay happens in the first quarter, you at least get a chance to "overcome it."

When it happens with a little over a minute ot play, the chances to overcome it become small.

There isn't a way to make more time in a football game.

Hoosier Red
10-19-2006, 04:49 PM
I understand that Dom. The problem with the line of thinking is there was 3 minutes left when it happened. Certainly not an eternity. But it wasn't like a bogus pass interference call put the ball at the one with :30 left or anything.

Which do you think had more of an impact, Marvin Lewis allowing the clock to run down to :35 seconds or the penalty?

Dom Heffner
10-19-2006, 05:18 PM
Which do you think had more of an impact, Marvin Lewis allowing the clock to run down to :35 seconds or the penalty?


The penalty.

Without it, we don't need to worry about the clock.

Javy Pornstache
10-19-2006, 05:35 PM
Just weighing in if I may, I am a huge Bengals fan, but you don't blame that loss on the officials. Of course there were some terrible calls, particularly the roughing the passer on the last drive, but you can't blame it all at their feet. There was terrible clock management, there was horrifically bad play-calling from the sidelines/coaches' box, and the fact that the Bengals offense scored only 13 points for the second straight game had a lot to do with it. If you go on the road in the NFL, regardless of who you play, and you hold the opposition to 14 points, seven of which came in the final minute, you have got to win that game. That's not easy to do, to hold a team like that down on the road.

One very troubling thing I've noticed (and it may have been covered elsewhere in this thread, I apologize if so), but the Bengals set themselves up CONSISTENTLY in 2nd and long and 3rd and long situations. It seems a lock that on more drives than not, every game, they start with an incomplete pass on first down, then Rudi Johnson bounces up the middle where there's no hole for anywhere from 3 to -5 yards, and bam, you've got a third and long and the defense has you where they want you. Sure, a draw play may work every now and again but they're sitting back on Palmer and stopping him more than in the past. The offense looks lethargic compared to everyone's expections. And Palmer SWEARS it's not because he's still injured, for what that's worth. He sure isn't moving well, I know that.

Dom Heffner
10-19-2006, 05:50 PM
Bengals offense scored only 13 points for the second straight game had a lot to do with it.

And they only allowed 7 up until the penalty. That's what you have to do in the NFL- you have to score more than the other team. There are no point limits or minimums. You just have to score more than the other team.

You're saying that scoring 13 points isn't enough to win, but scoring 14 -like the Bucs did- that's enough?

Look- the refs made a bad call and it directly contributed to the outcome of the game.

We can spin and twist and talk about what if's all day, but that call was atrocious.

What's funny to me is that if the Buccanneers would have gained those yards on their own it would have been the turning point of the drive.

The officials do it for them on a bogus call and everybody says we're making excuses.

Javy Pornstache
10-19-2006, 06:29 PM
And they only allowed 7 up until the penalty. That's what you have to do in the NFL- you have to score more than the other team. There are no point limits or minimums. You just have to score more than the other team.

You're saying that scoring 13 points isn't enough to win, but scoring 14 -like the Bucs did- that's enough?

Look- the refs made a bad call and it directly contributed to the outcome of the game.

We can spin and twist and talk about what if's all day, but that call was atrocious.

What's funny to me is that if the Buccanneers would have gained those yards on their own it would have been the turning point of the drive.

The officials do it for them on a bogus call and everybody says we're making excuses.

Actually, that's not what I'm saying. Don't take the numbers literally. I didn't specifically mean 13 wasn't enough and that 14 was. I mean that this offense is built to score more than 13 a game, I think everyone knows that. The defense played magnificently, and well enough to win, sure. But how often do you expect them to do that? That's why I meant they had to win that game, as well as the defense played. I pointed out in that last post that they held them to seven up to that point, so I'm well aware of that.

Of course the penalty in question was terrible and odds are far greater we win without the call, but I don't think that is the be-all, end-all reason we lost. They should have put the game away far before that. The offense is a scary big problem, and it's one most thought we wouldn't have. It isn't just a bad week or two, from the looks of it.... maybe it is, I certainly hope so! But I am worried about what I've seen down-to-down from this team. Even in the wins, the offense isn't what we thought it would be, it looked more like they would string together an impressive couple drives in a row to score - think about how they scored against Kansas City, Cleveland and Pittsburgh. All in quick spurts while they sputtered for the rest of the game. It doesn't look anything like what we thought it would be, and what it was last year. How much of it has to do with injuries? I dunno, maybe we'll find out a little more when Chris Perry comes back.

OldRightHander
10-19-2006, 07:58 PM
Ok, so they didn't play well. Heck, you could argue that they didn't play well enough to deserve to win, but that's not the point. They played well enough to win the game if it had been called correctly. They might have had a shutout if it had been called correctly, and if that had happened what would we be saying about a 13-0 win?

traderumor
10-19-2006, 08:05 PM
Exactly. I don't see a correlation between playing well and having a referee's call overtly influence the outcome of a game. Which is what I qualified way back in my first post on the topic.

By that logic, if the Bengals led by 6 points and had played well, even though they only led by 6 points, then they could complain about the call at that point in the game, which is simply ludicrous.

Caveat Emperor
10-19-2006, 09:48 PM
Ok, so they didn't play well. Heck, you could argue that they didn't play well enough to deserve to win, but that's not the point. They played well enough to win the game if it had been called correctly. They might have had a shutout if it had been called correctly, and if that had happened what would we be saying about a 13-0 win?

"Called correctly" swings both ways. I'll give you the roughing-the-passer call back, but you have to give me about 4 or 5 holding penalties on Simeon Rice throughout the game that didn't draw a flag. See where the final score ends up if some Bengals scoring drives get flagged out of existence or if Palmer is looking at 3rd and 15 a few extra times during the game. You assume a correctly called game ends up 13-0 Bengals, but you simply assume a correctly called game merely negates the two penalties that you disagree with.

And I think "Played well enough to win" is a generous assessment of the Bengals performance -- in my mind, neither team really played particularly well. A better team beats the Bengals by two scores in a game like that.

I simply go back to my original point (which Bengals fans I've talked to seem to have inexplicably difficult time dealing with): It was a crap call, but crap calls/no-calls happen every week in the NFL -- "elite" teams find a way to win. I guarantee you that at least 1 time before this season ends the Bengals will be on the benefitting end of a similar situation.

Yachtzee
10-19-2006, 11:07 PM
"Called correctly" swings both ways. I'll give you the roughing-the-passer call back, but you have to give me about 4 or 5 holding penalties on Simeon Rice throughout the game that didn't draw a flag. See where the final score ends up if some Bengals scoring drives get flagged out of existence or if Palmer is looking at 3rd and 15 a few extra times during the game. You assume a correctly called game ends up 13-0 Bengals, but you simply assume a correctly called game merely negates the two penalties that you disagree with.

And I think "Played well enough to win" is a generous assessment of the Bengals performance -- in my mind, neither team really played particularly well. A better team beats the Bengals by two scores in a game like that.

I simply go back to my original point (which Bengals fans I've talked to seem to have inexplicably difficult time dealing with): It was a crap call, but crap calls/no-calls happen every week in the NFL -- "elite" teams find a way to win. I guarantee you that at least 1 time before this season ends the Bengals will be on the benefitting end of a similar situation.

Holding calls are missed all the time. There is holding on just about every play in a football game. I'm sure Simeon Rice could commisserate with Robert Geathers and Justin Smith on that note. Missing a holding call isn't going to have much impact on the game because it occurs much more often and players deal with it all the time. I would concede that the bogus roughing-the-passer call, had it happened earlier in the game, should have little impact on the outcome. The earlier such a call happens, the more time the defense has to adjust and deal accordingly. The problem is that, when such a bad call happens on the last drive, it makes it very difficult for the defense to adjust because they have no idea whether they'll get flagged the next time they touch the quarterback. So then they play a little more tentative on D and it makes it easier for the offense to drive against them.

I think it would be interesting to see a study of bad officiating calls in close games to see if there is any correlation between the point in the game when the bad call happens, which team benefited from the call, and whether that call had any effect on the outcome of the game. My theory would be that it takes at least till the next drive for most teams to recover from a blantant bad call.

GoReds
10-20-2006, 08:44 AM
It's five days later and this topic is ongoing.

http://www.panthershuddle.com/forum/images/smilies/beatadeadhorse.gif

BTW - the Panthers are in town this week.

traderumor
10-20-2006, 11:39 AM
"Called correctly" swings both ways. I'll give you the roughing-the-passer call back, but you have to give me about 4 or 5 holding penalties on Simeon Rice throughout the game that didn't draw a flag. See where the final score ends up if some Bengals scoring drives get flagged out of existence or if Palmer is looking at 3rd and 15 a few extra times during the game. You assume a correctly called game ends up 13-0 Bengals, but you simply assume a correctly called game merely negates the two penalties that you disagree with.

And I think "Played well enough to win" is a generous assessment of the Bengals performance -- in my mind, neither team really played particularly well. A better team beats the Bengals by two scores in a game like that.

I simply go back to my original point (which Bengals fans I've talked to seem to have inexplicably difficult time dealing with): It was a crap call, but crap calls/no-calls happen every week in the NFL -- "elite" teams find a way to win. I guarantee you that at least 1 time before this season ends the Bengals will be on the benefitting end of a similar situation.

The Indy Colts were an "elite" team, benefitted from a BS call and a fumble on the 1 yard line and still lost the AFC Championship Game. So, other than repeating the point to seek validity, I'm not sure what "'elite' teams find a way means, exactly.

traderumor
10-20-2006, 11:41 AM
It's five days later and this topic is ongoing.

http://www.panthershuddle.com/forum/images/smilies/beatadeadhorse.gif

BTW - the Panthers are in town this week.That's what you get in a sport that only plays once a week, which has good and bad aspects.

Caveat Emperor
10-20-2006, 07:48 PM
The Indy Colts were an "elite" team, benefitted from a BS call and a fumble on the 1 yard line and still lost the AFC Championship Game. So, other than repeating the point to seek validity, I'm not sure what "'elite' teams find a way means, exactly.

Good teams find a way to win, bad teams find a way to lose. It's a sports cliche, but one that seems to prove itself out more often than not. You need look no further than the Chicago Bears and the Arizona Cardinals this past Monday.

traderumor
10-20-2006, 09:52 PM
Good teams find a way to win, bad teams find a way to lose. It's a sports cliche, but one that seems to prove itself out more often than not. You need look no further than the Chicago Bears and the Arizona Cardinals this past Monday.Think through that for a minute. Of course it works its way out. Good teams are considered so because they win, so adding "finding a way" is redundant. The opposite is true for bad teams. Which, in the context of this discussion, has no bearing on the events that transpired because a bad team (Buccaneers) "found a way" to win while a good team (Bengals) "found a way" to lose. That is just so much nonsense.

Caveat Emperor
10-20-2006, 10:10 PM
Which, in the context of this discussion, has no bearing on the events that transpired because a bad team (Buccaneers) "found a way" to win while a good team (Bengals) "found a way" to lose. That is just so much nonsense.

That conclusion presumes that the Bengals are, in fact, a good football team... From what I've seen of them, I'd place them in the upper-middle of the league, but certainly not with the best squads in the NFL (Indy, New England, Chicago, Philly, New Orleans, Carolina and San Diego)

traderumor
10-20-2006, 10:50 PM
That conclusion presumes that the Bengals are, in fact, a good football team... From what I've seen of them, I'd place them in the upper-middle of the league, but certainly not with the best squads in the NFL (Indy, New England, Chicago, Philly, New Orleans, Carolina and San Diego)
That the Bucs are bad is indisputable, though ;) Amazing what a few officials' calls in their favor can do to get a bad team a W, eh?

goreds2
10-25-2006, 06:11 PM
Tonight (10/25/06) on WLW:

6PM-7PM SPORTSTALK WITH SEG
Is Chad Johnson REALLY the coolest sports hero of all time?

7PM-8PM BENGALS SPORTSTALK

http://www.700wlw.com/pages/programming.html

LISTEN Here:

http://www.700wlw.com/pages/streaming.html