PDA

View Full Version : MNF: Bengals/Colts



max venable
12-17-2006, 07:02 PM
Might as well get this thread started.

Huge game tomorrow...might as well be a playoff game for the Bengals. Although Jax losing today helps.

Here are some thoughts/questions.


The Steelers have awoken. I dread playing them in two weeks. Let's win the next two so that one's not as important.
Everybody and their brother is picking the Bengals to beat the Colts. And with the media abuse the Colts have been taking, they're going to be trying to prove something tomorrow...in their house.
Does it help, maybe, that the Cotls have already clinched a playoff spot? I don't think so...see above.
As a Bengals fan, I'm actually pleased to be 8-5 right now...especially with their brutal schedule. They've lost to some teams they clearly should have beaten and they've won some games I didn't expect to win.


Predicitons for tomorrow's MNF game?

I'll take the Bengals (because I'm a homer)...in a shootout...kinda like, you know, the last team with the ball is gonna win...

StillFunkyB
12-17-2006, 07:04 PM
I look forward to the Steeler game. Payback is a (insert your choice of words).

savafan
12-17-2006, 07:23 PM
I look forward to the Steeler game. Payback is a (insert your choice of words).

Oreo! :thumbup:

Caveat Emperor
12-17-2006, 07:26 PM
Everybody and their brother is picking the Bengals to beat the Colts. And with the media abuse the Colts have been taking, they're going to be trying to prove something tomorrow...in their house.



One of the most annoying trends in the national sports media, especially the four-letter network, is the constant "what have you done for me 10 seconds ago" coverage the NFL gets these days.

Nobody has "good games" and "bad games" -- instead, they become Super Bowl presumptive favorites after 1 big game, then go back to being chumps who will never win another game after 1 bad loss.

It's like the entire league is being covered by a bunch of people with ADHD and bipolar disorder.

savafan
12-17-2006, 07:29 PM
It's like the entire league is being covered by a bunch of people with ADHD and bipolar disorder.

Well, have you ever actually listened to Chris Berman? ;)

WMR
12-17-2006, 07:32 PM
One of the most annoying trends in the national sports media, especially the four-letter network, is the constant "what have you done for me 10 seconds ago" coverage the NFL gets these days.

Nobody has "good games" and "bad games" -- instead, they become Super Bowl presumptive favorites after 1 big game, then go back to being chumps who will never win another game after 1 bad loss.

It's like the entire league is being covered by a bunch of people with ADHD and bipolar disorder.

Or a bunch of former jocks who, alot of times, don't appear all that intelligent. But they DID play the game...

redsfanmia
12-17-2006, 07:38 PM
The Colts have not lost 3 straight games for a long time and I just dont see them losing against the Bengals on MNF where they havent lost for a long time. The Colts have been getting drilled not only nationally but also locally so I see them sucking it up and getting it done against the Bengals 38 to 27.

remdog
12-17-2006, 08:10 PM
A few weeks ago I wasn't too worried about this game. I figured the Colts would be, maybe, 12-1 or 11-2, may have already clinched homefield advantage and the Bengals would still be motivated. I think the Bengals are still motivated but the Colts have been embarassed nationally with their performance and the pounding they've taken in the media. I think they'll be pumped and the home crowd will be out for blood.

The Broncos are about to go to 8-6, the Jags dropped to 8-6 today and the Steelers, Jets and Titans are all 7-7. The Bengals really need to win this to keep some seperation between themselves and everyone else. I'm past trying to figure out tie-breakers, the only thing I'm comfortable with is the Bengals winning the last three games.

I think this will be a tough hard-fought game and it may not turn out to be the shoot-out everyone expects. Maybe something like 20-17 for the winner.

Rem

Jpup
12-17-2006, 08:54 PM
I really, really, really need the Bengals to lose. I know the Titans have very slim chance to make the playoffs, even if they go 9-7, but I would like to keep the dream alive.

I hate the Colts, but they have to win.

Virginia Beach Reds
12-17-2006, 09:10 PM
I've been looking forward to this game since the pre-season.

I see the Colts coming out guns ablazin' but not have Dallas Clark is gonna hurt.

I see the Bengals winning this one, 27-24.

WHO DEY!

HotCorner
12-17-2006, 11:16 PM
Who-dey!

Bengals 34
Colts 24

DoogMinAmo
12-17-2006, 11:26 PM
Or a bunch of former jocks who, alot of times, don't appear all that intelligent. But they DID play the game...

Tracy Jones would be a great football analyst.

EDIT: My pick is 27-17 cincy

MrCinatit
12-17-2006, 11:33 PM
I have a feeling this is a game which can once again be won or lost with stupid mistakes (then again, that can be said about every game. How is that for non-commital?).
Hopefully, the Bengals will make fewer stupid mistakes than the Colts.

Dom Heffner
12-17-2006, 11:39 PM
I really, really, really need the Bengals to lose. I know the Titans have very slim chance to make the playoffs, even if they go 9-7, but I would like to keep the dream alive.

I hate the Colts, but they have to win.


Dude- did you just really post this on a Reds board?

I agree the Colts will win, but not that they must. I'll be in Brandon, Florida cheering them on with a crap load of other Bengal fans.

traderumor
12-17-2006, 11:45 PM
The Colts may be fired up and all, but can they do anything about it? It is still a battle of good offenses against bad defenses, but Indy's offense has not been clicking either and ours has. Trends go to the Bengals, but then Indy might be able to get it done one week, on a fast track in front a loud crowd. This is nothing more than a pick 'em with turnovers probably holding the key.

Jpup
12-18-2006, 12:36 AM
Dude- did you just really post this on a Reds board?

I agree the Colts will win, but not that they must. I'll be in Brandon, Florida cheering them on with a crap load of other Bengal fans.

I'm much closer to Nashville than Cincinnati. I am a true Reds fan and a true Titans fan.

You ought to see me when I wear my Reds shirt and Titans hat, it's quite a sight.

macro
12-18-2006, 01:23 AM
One of the most annoying trends in the national sports media, especially the four-letter network, is the constant "what have you done for me 10 seconds ago" coverage the NFL gets these days.

Nobody has "good games" and "bad games" -- instead, they become Super Bowl presumptive favorites after 1 big game, then go back to being chumps who will never win another game after 1 bad loss.

It's like the entire league is being covered by a bunch of people with ADHD and bipolar disorder.

:clap: My thoughts exactly! They've been blowing hard for the Bengals lately and since last Sunday' they've been talking about what a shambles the Colts are. I'll be shocked if the Bengals win this game. Not because the Colts are so much better, but because of the law of averages. Cincinnati is due a letdown game after playing on a high for several weeks in a row, and the Colts are due a bounceback after starting 10-1 and then losing three straight.

Next week's game at Denver will be tough, as well. I mentioned this last week, but the Bengals will be attempting to hand the Broncos their fourth straight home loss. And now Pittsburgh appears to have its act together, so they'll be a handful in the final game.

The Bengals have to win two of the final three to have a shot at making the playoffs, and I just don't see it happening. The schedule-makers apparently had a bone to pick with them this season. Then again, they can only blame themselves for losing to a Tampa Bay team that may very well end up the season 3-13.

Cedric
12-18-2006, 01:41 AM
:clap: My thoughts exactly! They've been blowing hard for the Bengals lately and since last Sunday' they've been talking about what a shambles the Colts are. I'll be shocked if the Bengals win this game. Not because the Colts are so much better, but because of the law of averages. Cincinnati is due a letdown game after playing on a high for several weeks in a row, and the Colts are due a bounceback after starting 10-1 and then losing three straight.

Next week's game at Denver will be tough, as well. I mentioned this last week, but the Bengals will be attempting to hand the Broncos their fourth straight home loss. And now Pittsburgh appears to have its act together, so they'll be a handful in the final game.

The Bengals have to win two of the final three to have a shot at making the playoffs, and I just don't see it happening. The schedule-makers apparently had a bone to pick with them this season. Then again, they can only blame themselves for losing to a Tampa Bay team that may very well end up the season 3-13.

Talking to Bengal fans about the law of averages is just ironic. I swear to god I used the law of averages as justification before every season as to why I'm still a Bengal fan. Every year HAD to be the year.

Razor Shines
12-18-2006, 04:56 AM
I really, really, really need the Bengals to lose. I know the Titans have very slim chance to make the playoffs, even if they go 9-7, but I would like to keep the dream alive.

I hate the Colts, but they have to win.

I'm afraid the height of the Titans' season was beating the Colts.

As for the game: I thought for sure it was not going to matter to either team, the way the year started. I cannot believe I didn't try to buy those tickets from GriffeyFan, I hate myself. If it's a shootout the Colts win pretty easy I think, but if the Bengals slow it down, run the ball and keep the Colts D on the field I think they will win by 7-10 points but dominate the game. Peyton doesn't seem to do well when he has to sit for long periods of time.

Jpup
12-18-2006, 05:46 AM
I'm afraid the height of the Titans' season was beating the Colts.

No way, the height of the season was when Vince took it to the house against Houston. 5 in a row after starting 2-7, that's pretty good.

BTW, I think the Colts will win, but only because it's in Indy. Otherwise, I would have picked the Bengals.

Razor Shines
12-18-2006, 07:28 AM
No way, the height of the season was when Vince took it to the house against Houston. 5 in a row after starting 2-7, that's pretty good.

BTW, I think the Colts will win, but only because it's in Indy. Otherwise, I would have picked the Bengals.

Yeah that's very good after starting 2-7, they should have gone with VY all season, but I just don't see 9-7 making the playoffs in the AFC. I do really like Vince, my wife is from Austin and I have kind of become UT fan, since they rarely play Notre Dame, but anyway I just hope he can stay healthy. I just don't think that QBs who don't stay in the pocket can stay healthy, atleast it's a very small percentage.

And I don't think it matters where the game is. Like I said if the Bengals run the ball and keep PM on the bench they'll win.

macro
12-18-2006, 09:08 AM
Talking to Bengal fans about the law of averages is just ironic. I swear to god I used the law of averages as justification before every season as to why I'm still a Bengal fan. Every year HAD to be the year.

:laugh:

Yep, I think I did that too, to some extent. We weren't the only ones. Mike Brown gave all indications that he believed it, as well. Before he gave up sole control of the team, he used to talk about how things in the league are cyclical and how it was the Bengals turn, etc. Bidwell in Arizona and the guys who own/run the Lions are further evidence that there's not necessarily a "turn" for every franchise. And it's funny how some franchises seem to have more than their fair share of "turns" to be great.

That being said, I still believe in cycles and the law of averages when it comes to individual seasons, provided the team is good, like the Colts. Now, a 3-13 team is a 3-13 team, and no law of anything can help them avoid losing nine straight. But teams like the Colts and the Broncos are just too good to keep on losing. By the same token, I don't have faith that the Bengals are good enough to keep on winning. This team has proven that it's streaky. I fear another streak, of the wrong kind.

Falls City Beer
12-18-2006, 09:30 AM
Winning on the road in the NFL is still very, very tough. Forget about records, forget about momentum. The Bengals are going to have to play like there's no tomorrow up there.

Roy Tucker
12-18-2006, 09:44 AM
Yeah, that dome in Indy can get *real* loud.

I don't know if the Bengals defense has been playing well lately because they are actually getting better or if they've just played against a bunch of bad offenses. I suspect we will find out tonight.

westofyou
12-18-2006, 11:21 AM
It's like the entire league is being covered by a bunch of people with ADHD and bipolar disorder.

It's the sport that I hear every August is going to kill baseball.

I'm still waiting.

dougdirt
12-18-2006, 12:00 PM
Bengals win at Indy and at Denver and they lock up the #5 seed before stepping on the field against the Steelers. No one else can win 11 games but us. We get that 10th win, including a win over Denver and we hold the tie breakers over everyone. That would be ideal, and resting our guys a little bit against Pittsburgh, becuase honestly, I dont like the idea of a rivalry game, against a team wanting to prove a point when we have nothing to play for.

wheels
12-18-2006, 12:03 PM
Did anyone see the Colts/Jags hihglights on Inside the NFL?

Yeah, the normal highlights displayed the shabby tackling, but when the footage was more close and gritty, they looked even worse.

I just can't see the Colts being able to stop the Bengals at all.

They're also without Brandon Stokely and Dallas Clark tonight.

I think I'll go over to the King Avenue 5 and watch it there. Should be a hoot.

WMR
12-18-2006, 12:11 PM
Bengals win at Indy and at Denver and they lock up the #5 seed before stepping on the field against the Steelers. No one else can win 11 games but us. We get that 10th win, including a win over Denver and we hold the tie breakers over everyone. That would be ideal, and resting our guys a little bit against Pittsburgh, becuase honestly, I dont like the idea of a rivalry game, against a team wanting to prove a point when we have nothing to play for.

Here's a question: How much, if at ALL, do you play Carson against the Squealers IF we happened to have that #5 seed wrapped up???

I'm not even going to mention the nightmare scenario for Carson versus the Steelers in that situation...

BuckeyeRedleg
12-18-2006, 12:16 PM
What are my odds of the Bengals keeping Marvin Harrison under 100 yards with no TD's?

If he has 99 yards or less and no TD's I win $600.

I'd say I have a 25% chance. Using baseball as an analogy, I'm a Juan Castro hit/walk from winning $600.

Go Bengals! Go secondary!

dougdirt
12-18-2006, 12:22 PM
Here's a question: How much, if at ALL, do you play Carson against the Squealers IF we happened to have that #5 seed wrapped up???

I'm not even going to mention the nightmare scenario for Carson versus the Steelers in that situation...

Honestly, he wouldnt see more than 2 drives if the Bengals are 10-5 against the Steelers. Neither would Chad or Rudi or TJ. Willie maybe plays a half. Seriously, I would play the game like game 2 of the preseason.

dsmith421
12-18-2006, 02:51 PM
I'm not even going to mention the nightmare scenario for Carson versus the Steelers in that situation...

I'll say this, if a Steeler so much as breathes on Carson in that game it is not going to be safe to be a Pittsburgh fan in Cincinnati that night.

gitrdunn44
12-18-2006, 08:04 PM
If this was in Cinci, it's Bengals all the way. I see the Colts coming out strong here. Colts 34, Bengals 31.

Falls City Beer
12-18-2006, 08:11 PM
If this was in Cinci, it's Bengals all the way. I see the Colts coming out strong here. Colts 34, Bengals 31.

This isn't a bad guess. I'll say it's close, regardless.

SunDeck
12-18-2006, 08:36 PM
I think not having Dallas Clark is big. The Bengals have trouble stopping him...and just about any quality tight end in the league. But I cannot imagine Manning will have another bad game. The Colts offense is just too good.
This game will be decided by takeaways. Whichever team forces the ball to pop out more is going to win. All other possessions may result in TDs.

I think it's dead even with a slight advantage to the Colts for playing at home.

Playadlc
12-18-2006, 08:48 PM
I just don't have a good feeling about this game. The Colts are still a damn good football team.

I say Colts 34, Bengals 21.

WMR
12-18-2006, 10:02 PM
Gotta consider holding them to a FG attempt as a victory for the defense.

redsfanmia
12-18-2006, 10:03 PM
Is it me or does ESPN coverage leave alot to be desired? I would like just to watch the game not all of their extra stuff. Damn I hate ESPN with a passion.

remdog
12-18-2006, 10:15 PM
Yep. A case of 'less is more'.

Rem

max venable
12-18-2006, 10:41 PM
I don't know that I've watched a game yet this year--college or pro where Matthew McConaughey hasn't been in the booth. Enough already! :bang:

WMR
12-18-2006, 10:55 PM
@#$%

Reds Fanatic
12-18-2006, 11:02 PM
Could be some major injury problems for the Bengals. Willie Anderson is out with an ankle injury and they said Carson's shoulder looked hurt at the end of the half.

remdog
12-18-2006, 11:07 PM
I don't know that I've watched a game yet this year--college or pro where Matthew McConaughey hasn't been in the booth. Enough already! :bang:

Agreed. ESPN needs to stop pimping celebrities and pay attention to doing a quality broadcast of the game. That's why the fans are there---to watch the game.

Rem

Dom Heffner
12-18-2006, 11:37 PM
K-Fed is was in the wrestling ring tonight...

redsfan4445
12-18-2006, 11:48 PM
Tory James needs to retire.. he cant cover anyone anymore!!.. really sucks our CB's are not doing their jobs tonight

traderumor
12-18-2006, 11:52 PM
I am very disappointed in the game plan on both sides of the ball for this game. A straight zone with deep drops by the linebackers and overdoing it on the run on the offensive side. Sure, let Peyton Manning pick you apart with wide open receivers over the middle. Bresnihan has been teetering for me, tonight sends me over the edge. No personnel excuses, tonight was a disaster plan from the first snap.

Yachtzee
12-18-2006, 11:52 PM
Is it me, or does it seem like the Bengals have problems sticking with what works? Rudy was tearing it up on the first drive. If they hadn't called that stupid time-out to give Indy a chance to review that catch, they probably would have scored. They could have gone old-school Ohio State and just run-run-run and might be in better shape than they are right now. I had a feeling, with Peyton Manning on the other side, that Carson would get pass-happy. He always seems to play poorly (well, poorly for him) when he's trying to force passes instead of taking what the D gives them. The D was giving run, and they keep going pass. Last week he threw 3 picks and each one seemed like he was forcing a pass just because Oakland was playing man-to-man. Maybe someday, he will be able to impose his will on the defense, but not yet.

traderumor
12-18-2006, 11:54 PM
Is it me, or does it seem like the Bengals have problems sticking with what works? Rudy was tearing it up on the first drive. If they hadn't called that stupid time-out to give Indy a chance to review that catch, they probably would have scored. They could have gone old-school Ohio State and just run-run-run and might be in better shape than they are right now. I had a feeling, with Peyton Manning on the other side, that Carson would get pass-happy. He always seems to play poorly (well, poorly for him) when he's trying to force passes instead of taking what the D gives them. The D was giving run, and they keep going pass. Last week he threw 3 picks and each one seemed like he was forcing a pass just because Oakland was playing man-to-man. Maybe someday, he will be able to impose his will on the defense, but not yet.Eh? They are entering the 4th Q and I think Palmer has thrown a dozen times. Forget this one, now we have to go beat Denver and Pittsburgh. Ugh.

Reds Fanatic
12-18-2006, 11:59 PM
The play calling is a joke tonight. They continue to run the ball when they are down 18 in the 4th quarter.

BuckeyeRed27
12-19-2006, 12:00 AM
Awful performance. Bad play calling. Bad execution.

Yachtzee
12-19-2006, 12:00 AM
Eh? They are entering the 4th Q and I think Palmer has thrown a dozen times. Forget this one, now we have to go beat Denver and Pittsburgh. Ugh.

Does that count the plays where they got to him before he could throw? The Bengals also only really had one sustained drive in the first half. The other scoring drive they had a short field. Indy has been dominating time of possession since the get-go.

Yachtzee
12-19-2006, 12:08 AM
For the record, I had to stop watching halfway into the 3rd quarter. The in-laws are visiting and the pull-out couch is in the same room with our only TV. I had to leave when they went to bed. Is it as bad as it looks online?

traderumor
12-19-2006, 12:12 AM
Yep, this one is on the coaches. They chose a really bad strategy. And on top of that, why they called a timeout in that first drive instead of a quick snap was a bad omen. Won't be the first or last time they choose a bad game plan, but it sure does sting during the Peyton Manning love in with ESPN.

snowstorm
12-19-2006, 12:21 AM
The Bengals defense reminds me of the Reds pitching. Neither can stop the opponent.

traderumor
12-19-2006, 12:25 AM
Oh, now that's nice. The Bengals are getting stomped on the field, so Kornheiser decides to throw a few punches from the booth as well on the off-the-field stuff. OK, now back to how Peyton Manning loves puppies and throw tight spirals, and man isn't he funny and handsome. Oh wait, now back to the criminal element in Cincy. ESPN is cheesier than Kraft macaroni & cheese any day.

Yachtzee
12-19-2006, 12:31 AM
Well, I guess I'm glad I'm not watching it then. Probably won't need to save this one on Tivo.

Playadlc
12-19-2006, 12:31 AM
All I know is that playing and coaching scared in big games is usually a recipe for disaster.

This was a disgusting game to watch if you are a Bengals fan.

MWM
12-19-2006, 12:33 AM
The Bengals were out-coached tonight, especially on offense. I like Bratkowski and all, but he laid a big egg tonight. It was like the Colts defense knew exactly what was coming almost every play. And if Willie doesn't play the next two games, it's going to be another 8-8 season. Stacy Andrews ought to be cut tomorrow...make that tonight. He couldn't block ME.

I was afraid the offense was going to fall into the trap of watching the Colts defense give up all the rushing yards the last few games and think they were going to be able to show up and run all over them. Like I said last week, whenever a team like the Colts has a bad stretch like they had, and they're coming home for a nationally televised game, it's almost automatic they're going to turn the tide. You could see this one coming a mile away.

johngalt
12-19-2006, 12:34 AM
Bratkowski is calling this game as if the Bengals are the Bills or the Titans for some ungodly reason.

Do the Colts suck at stopping the run? Yes, but that doesn't mean you suddenly change your entire identity. You've got Chad and TJ going against a secondary missing three key players - a secondary that's average at best even when healthy in fact - and you're trying to pound the ball? Give me a break.

The reason the Bengals offense got going and went on this four-game winning streak is because they finally put their foot on the gas and started playing like they did in 2005. Why stop now just because Jacksonville runs all over Indy? I don't get it.

forfreelin04
12-19-2006, 12:39 AM
I've never seen a worse gameplan for a football game. Its evident they fell in love with the running game even when they were down. It's really quite frustraiting because running the football consistently only works to your advantage if your defense can stop the other team from scoring.

Oh well, I think this actually works in the Bengals favor. They absolutely do not play well under any positive media hype. So I guess that translates into a win against Denver?

Yachtzee
12-19-2006, 12:43 AM
As I said, I pretty much only saw the first half. At least in that half, it looked like the run was working and that the pass was going nowhere. I think Carson was 2-8 passing to start. Maybe part of it was protection issues, but it looked like part of it was forcing the pass. From what I saw on defense in the first half, it looked like the Bengals were playing their standard rush 4 guys and drop everyone back D, which usually comes out when they have a lead in the 4th quarter.

From what it sounds like in the second half, they must have gone with the run when they should have passed and passed when they should have run.

Did they have anymore news on Big Willie?

BUTLER REDSFAN
12-19-2006, 12:45 AM
god please dont let pittsburgh catch up to us

traderumor
12-19-2006, 12:47 AM
Well, its pretty clear what happened--bad game plan. Many have said it better than I, but it was clear that the plan was flawed. Oh well, coaches outsmarting themselves, go figure. Go win the next 2 and forget about this one.

max venable
12-19-2006, 12:48 AM
Game summary by the ESPN crew:


Peyton Manning is the best QB in the history of the world (all three want to have his babies)
Bengals are all crack-heads and thugs that can't stay out of trouble
Dwight Freeney is fast (well...he is...but hey, I could have gotten to CP against that O-line)
Matthew McConaughey is sooooo cool and sexy.
Theisman learned a new word: Judiciously (and used it about 17 times to show it off)


That pretty much sums it up.

max venable
12-19-2006, 12:49 AM
Oh...wait...one more thing...


Carson Palmer tends to get greedy

Yachtzee
12-19-2006, 12:51 AM
The worst part, having to watch it with my Father-in-law, who always roots for whichever team I'm rooting against.

BUTLER REDSFAN
12-19-2006, 12:52 AM
just some observations..marvin lewis looks like he is near tears near the end of our losses(who can blame him though)..chris henry had a hand amputated on the way up i-74..the indy receivers run out 10 yards unmolested/catch the ball wide open/then run 5 yards before any1 touches them and we hear what a great play it is?????..we are down 3 scores with 10 minutes left and one hand off to rudi after the other...we choke practically every prime time chance we get...are we ever gonna go to the next level???

max venable
12-19-2006, 12:54 AM
I said it last week (or the week before)...Have you ever seen a team that is worse at surrendering first downs on third-and-long situations than the Bengals?

Reds Fanatic
12-19-2006, 12:55 AM
We can only hope Willie comes back next week because without Anderson and Jones on the line the next 2 weeks against defenses much better than Indy could be ugly.

Yachtzee
12-19-2006, 12:56 AM
god please dont let pittsburgh catch up to us

After all those years of bad football followed by last year's playoff loss, I don't think He likes Bengals fans. With all the "sinners" on this team, maybe it would be best to seek help from a lesser deity.

http://detectovision.com/pics/jobu2.jpg

Somebody get me the rum and cigars.

guttle11
12-19-2006, 12:58 AM
That game was lost in the gameplan phase. They completely went away from what's been working, on both sides of the ball. That's something I don't understand. It's like they let the media determine their gameplan for them. I don't care how bad a team is at stopping the run, you don't go away from what works because you think that's what they're expecting.

Whitworth got schooled tonight. I feared for Carson's health.

Cyclone792
12-19-2006, 01:05 AM
Despite the lousy offensive gameplan, I still didn't think the Bengals had much chance tonight.

The phrases "Bengals defensive line" and "pressure on the opposing quarterback" are polar opposites. Manning had all day to throw the ball. It was routine; Manning back to pass, scan the field, find the open man, pick up about 10 yards. Repeat.

If an NFL team is unable to apply pressure to the opposing quarterback, much less a guy such as Peyton Manning, they're not giving themselves much of a chance to stop the offense altogether.

Razor Shines
12-19-2006, 01:10 AM
Game summary by the ESPN crew:


Peyton Manning is the best QB in the history of the world (all three want to have his babies) Bengals are all crack-heads and thugs that can't stay out of trouble
Dwight Freeney is fast (well...he is...but hey, I could have gotten to CP against that O-line)
Matthew McConaughey is sooooo cool and sexy.
Theisman learned a new word: Judiciously (and used it about 17 times to show it off)


That pretty much sums it up.
Peyton had a pretty damn good game. They're going to talk about any player who has a great game in a big game.

macro
12-19-2006, 01:12 AM
god please dont let pittsburgh catch up to us

I was just thinking the same exact thing. In fact, I started a thread on that subject before I saw your post. They're not just going to catch the Bengals, they're probably going to pass them. Pittsburgh 9-7, Cincinnati 8-8, and all that after a 2-6 start. :(

BUTLER REDSFAN
12-19-2006, 01:13 AM
Peyton had a pretty damn good game. They're going to talk about any player who has a great game in a big game.
???????????????????????????????\

i would have a good game too if the defense was playing 20 yards deep on every freaking play and the receiver was wide open

Razor Shines
12-19-2006, 01:19 AM
Peyton had a pretty damn good game. They're going to talk about any player who has a great game in a big game.
???????????????????????????????\

i would have a good game too if the defense was playing 20 yards deep on every freaking play and the receiver was wide open
You're right it had nothing to do with Peyton Manning. Peyton is not good, the highlights are just edited to make him look good because ESPN created him in their lab beneath their studios.

LoganBuck
12-19-2006, 01:19 AM
Totally agree cyclone.

My $.02
- Chris Henry has yet to make an aggressive play on a ball all year. He should have caught one and maybe both of those deep balls.
- Levi Jones is supposedly healthy if you believe Alan Cutler's pregame, and that the Bengals didn't want to disrupt the "line chemistry". I knew Freeney would give Whitworth problems, I just didn't think they would be that bad.
- The playcalling was bad no adjustments were made at halftime.
- Why did they call timeout on the first drive? That was never explained. The first drive is supposed to be scripted.
- The dline was good again, but this teams lack of quality linebacker play was exposed again. Odell Thurman ate that intermediate stuff for breakfast last year, this years group cannot read the play and anticipate short range passing plays. The linebackers cannot get to the quarterback on a blitz, they are physically incapable of doing so.
- I thought that the secondary was actually pretty good, given the complete lack of pass rush. Did they get a sack tonight, I admit to channel surfing and found a fascinating episode of Dr. 90210 talking about the Gspot.
- Any updates on Carson and Big Willie?
- I hate Tony Kornheiser with a passion, I will not watch or listen to any ESPN programming with him on it. I thought maybe they had canned him, and then I watch my first Monday night game and there he is.

guttle11
12-19-2006, 01:29 AM
Despite the lousy offensive gameplan, I still didn't think the Bengals had much chance tonight.

The phrases "Bengals defensive line" and "pressure on the opposing quarterback" are polar opposites. Manning had all day to throw the ball. It was routine; Manning back to pass, scan the field, find the open man, pick up about 10 yards. Repeat.

If an NFL team is unable to apply pressure to the opposing quarterback, much less a guy such as Peyton Manning, they're not giving themselves much of a chance to stop the offense altogether.

I agree, but the Colts have a good offensive line. It takes more than 4 to get to the QB.

The Bengals blitzed once in the first half. I didn't even care that Manning ran for a first down when it happened, I loved the blitz. It baffles me that they were so conservative. Everytime Manning went back to pass, the LB's and DB's all backed up at least 7 yards. Sorgi could have torched that gameplan.

Razor Shines
12-19-2006, 01:36 AM
I agree, but the Colts have a good offensive line. It takes more than 4 to get to the QB.

The Bengals blitzed once in the first half. I didn't even care that Manning ran for a first down when it happened, I loved the blitz. It baffles me that they were so conservative. Everytime Manning went back to pass, the LB's and DB's all backed up at least 7 yards. Sorgi could have torched that gameplan.

I've been sayin' it for the last two seasons, I just wish the coaching staff would get him in the game.

Cedric
12-19-2006, 02:11 AM
You just can't expect a great player like Peyton Manning to beat himself. That was a bad gameplan all the way around.

BuckeyeRed27
12-19-2006, 02:47 AM
You have to blitz Manning constantly. Is he going to beat you deep a couple times? Yes. But I think that is better than getting beat ON EVERY SINGLE FREAKING PLAY.

You have to hit quarterbacks. Why did Carson have a bad game? Because he was RUNNING FOR HIS FREAKING LIFE ON EVERY PASS.

I just can't believe that game plan. Somebody said earlier that it was like the media picked the game plan and I couldn't say it better. That is exactly what it was. We are not a huddle, line up, 3 yards and a cloud of dust team.

Sorry that was just so frustrating. It's been like 3 hours and I'm still pissed.

Roy Tucker
12-19-2006, 08:16 AM
I think Marvin Lewis outthought himself last night. On offense, he said "Colts run defnse is weak, let's run". So Carson Palmer never gets going. On defense, he said "let's take away the deep stuff". So Peyton Manning hit the short stuff all night. Kinda of like playing a baseball team that hits about 20 consecutive singles. Not to mention they seem to have to count to 3-steamboats before rushing.

Not to mention in the 1st quarter after a questionable reception by Chad, the *Bengals* call timeout. I guess to give the Colts a better look at it. Colts protest, the call gets overturned, Palmer gets sacked and fumbles on the next play, and its off to the races for the Colts. Jeez.

And then the Monday Night guys spend all 4th quarter talking about the Bengals and their arrest record.

Marvin didn't come across as a genius last night.

max venable
12-19-2006, 08:18 AM
Calling the time-out on the first drive was huge. Maybe the most important play of the game. So instead of 1st and 10 on the 20, the Bengals were forced to punt. Could have been up 7-0...would have changed a lot of things.

Yes, I've been very disappointed with the coaches (including Marvin) this year.

MrCinatit
12-19-2006, 08:33 AM
This is not quite a playoff-worthy team. A lot of work to do in the off-season.

GAC
12-19-2006, 09:26 AM
So Peyton Manning hit the short stuff all night. Kinda of like playing a baseball team that hits about 20 consecutive singles.

Which, IMO, testifies to just how good of a QB Manning is. He took what the opposition gave him.

I really thought the Bengals had a good shot of winning this game. You go in emphasizing the run with Rudi due to the Colts run defense, which, IMO, would really help your passing game. And with the talented receiving corp the Bengals had I thought they'd win.

You're probably right Roy. They waited to long to go to/establish their passing game, and Palmer/the receivers....looking at some of the passes being off and also dropped... couldn't get in sync.

Bengals have to win next week in Denver.

I'm gonna say they will; but I said that about last night's game, so I'll keep quiet.

Falls City Beer
12-19-2006, 09:39 AM
The Bengals' running game is not particularly good.

And their defense is still one of the worst I've ever seen.

Reds Fanatic
12-19-2006, 10:01 AM
The playoff scenarios for next week are out and the Bengals could still clinch a spot next week.

Cincinnati can clinch a playoff berth with:

A win and a Buffalo loss or tie and a N.Y. Jets loss OR
A win and a Buffalo loss or tie and a Jacksonville loss

They have to play a lot better than last night to have a chance against Denver but it would great to clinch before the Pittsburgh game.

traderumor
12-19-2006, 10:44 AM
One thing I thought about in the post-mortem was that the game turned when the D held them on 4th down on the Colts first drive, we go right down the field, get just outside the 10, and run the ball three times, once successfully, twice unsuccessfully. We kicked a FG, the Colts march back down the field, game over. The 3rd and 1 running play over Stacy Andrews at the 11 was Bratkowski at his worst and was indicative of the play calling in the slump.

Before the game, I said to myself that they will try to run, run, run, but that it wouldn't work, they need to stay balanced. Apparently no one on the Bengals staff could convince Brat and Marvin of the same. Too bad, keeping a bad D off balance would likely mean lots of points.

Razor Shines
12-19-2006, 11:41 AM
One thing I thought about in the post-mortem was that the game turned when the D held them on 4th down on the Colts first drive, we go right down the field, get just outside the 10, and run the ball three times, once successfully, twice unsuccessfully. We kicked a FG, the Colts march back down the field, game over. The 3rd and 1 running play over Stacy Andrews at the 11 was Bratkowski at his worst and was indicative of the play calling in the slump.

Before the game, I said to myself that they will try to run, run, run, but that it wouldn't work, they need to stay balanced. Apparently no one on the Bengals staff could convince Brat and Marvin of the same. Too bad, keeping a bad D off balance would likely mean lots of points.

I don't know. Have you seen how other teams have beat the Colts? It wasn't by keeping them off balance, it was by running the ball down their throats, I mean Jacksonville's third stringer tore us up. From someone who obviously is not a Bengal fan, I'd say the biggest problem was not committing to a game plan. I think if they would have just committed to the run in the first half they would have won. It seemed like they ran at all the wrong times. I think they should have run every first down and maybe every second down in the first half.

In the first drive the only ran twice and Rudi fumbled one of those, but they recovered threw the incomplete pass to CJ and then it was 3 and 5 and the Colts new a pass was coming and that's the only good part of the Colts D is when they know you have to pass. So the ran twice for 10 yds in the first drive and on 2nd and 5 they decided to pass. I just think they allowed Peyton to control the game, by not keeping him on the bench for long periods of time with the run. But that's just my opinion.

westofyou
12-19-2006, 11:43 AM
And their defense is still one of the worst I've ever seen.

The Bengals Defense is the Reds Pitching's Football Golem.

Johnny Footstool
12-19-2006, 11:49 AM
The O-lines were the keys to this game. The Bengals couldn't protect Palmer, and the Colts kept Manning's uniform clean.

Hoosier Red
12-19-2006, 11:53 AM
I think you're right Johnny, Whitworth and Andrews have value. And they are both going to be valuable as guards. But Freeney and Mathis are probably the two worst matchups you can think of for guys who as a tackle makes a pretty good guard.

WMR
12-19-2006, 01:15 PM
That time-out on the first drive was just simply retarded. Why do you give them a chance to challenge the play? WHY? I don't get it.

REALLY bad coaching last night.

Chris Henry needs to get socked in the face. Or SOMETHING. SOMETHING to wake this guy up. Has he EVER fought for a ball? Damn that pissed me off.

Ugh, what a shame of a game.

remdog
12-19-2006, 02:16 PM
If the Bengals don't call a time-out on the first drive they either have first & 10 at the 21 or they make the Colts challenge and get the time out from them. Who called the time-out and why? Was it to give Chad a 'blow'? If that's the case, use another reciever for one play. At that point in the game, with the Bengals 'game plan' it's likely that the next play was a run anyway. Geez!

Rem

paintmered
12-19-2006, 02:17 PM
That time-out on the first drive was just simply retarded. Why do you give them a chance to challenge the play? WHY? I don't get it.


Chad's nads needed the timeout. :laugh:

CTA513
12-19-2006, 02:24 PM
If the Bengals don't call a time-out on the first drive they either have first & 10 at the 21 or they make the Colts challenge and get the time out from them. Who called the time-out and why? Was it to give Chad a 'blow'? If that's the case, use another reciever for one play. At that point in the game, with the Bengals 'game plan' it's likely that the next play was a run anyway. Geez!

Rem

The ball hit Chad in the crotch, but he was getting up and it looked like they had enough time to get him off the field and replaced by another reciever without having to call a time out.

traderumor
12-19-2006, 03:26 PM
I don't know. Have you seen how other teams have beat the Colts? It wasn't by keeping them off balance, it was by running the ball down their throats, I mean Jacksonville's third stringer tore us up. From someone who obviously is not a Bengal fan, I'd say the biggest problem was not committing to a game plan. I think if they would have just committed to the run in the first half they would have won. It seemed like they ran at all the wrong times. I think they should have run every first down and maybe every second down in the first half.

In the first drive the only ran twice and Rudi fumbled one of those, but they recovered threw the incomplete pass to CJ and then it was 3 and 5 and the Colts new a pass was coming and that's the only good part of the Colts D is when they know you have to pass. So the ran twice for 10 yds in the first drive and on 2nd and 5 they decided to pass. I just think they allowed Peyton to control the game, by not keeping him on the bench for long periods of time with the run. But that's just my opinion.

How other teams beat the Colts should only be a small part of how any other team game plans against another. The Bengals can run the ball, but they hamstrung one of the most dynamic receiving duos in the league when the other team was playing scrubs in the secondary. Why only focus on one weakness? Why leave your team's greatest offensive strength when the other team probably will not be able to do anything about it? Hopefully these are questions the Bengals staff all visited in their skull sessions and they just chose a poor course of action. It happens, coaches are not immune from making wrong choices.

As for Peyton controlling the game, that is on the D. By choosing to play prevent D the entire game, they allowed him to control the clock with dinks and dunks. Running plays were a diversion because he was licking his chops knowing that the zone was not picking up guys in the middle of the field. What kind of D lets a running back sit down 8 yards out with no defenders within 5 yards? Who where the LBers covering?

And then the zone lets Marvin Harrison...Marvin Harrison (stunning isn't it) go across the middle without anyone picking him up. Soft zone on Marvin Harrison? I remember distinctly on one play that he went across the middle, Jonathon Joseph let him go on a left cut, Marvin is running to the left, and after Joseph lets hims go, the DB (never got the number) took two steps to the right. By then, Marvin is wide open in the middle of the field for about a 20 yarder. So, we're either talking really dumb players who or really bad coaching that they do not have a game plan in place to handle Marvin Harrison. I know, he's all-world and he catches ball on everyone, but it was way too easy last night. I doubt if he even broke a sweat, other than stubbing his finger, which had nothing to do with the D.

CrackerJack
12-19-2006, 04:40 PM
Marvin's coaching is as inconsistent as his players week-to-week and last night was a big disappointment.

To get blown out like that was pitiful and the Bengals' simply let the city and the fans down big time.

I had some faith in this team after the 4 game winning streak, but now, we see what they tend to play like and how poorly they're prepared for big, tough games like this. They'll never survive on the road in the playoffs - just aren't good enough.

It's too bad the 0-line is full of injury prone players who are unreliable and that the back-ups aren't very good either. Without Palmer having time to throw often enough, they are really not that good of a team.

Cedric
12-19-2006, 04:47 PM
Marvin has never been good with clock management or in game adjustments. He always has that confused as hell look on his face.

I'm impressed with the culture change and the personnel changes he has provided here. I'm not so impressed with his coaching.

It's definately been worth it so far though.

traderumor
12-19-2006, 04:55 PM
To get blown out like that was pitiful and the Bengals' simply let the city and the fans down big time.


A bit melodramatic, don't ya think?

flyer85
12-19-2006, 04:57 PM
The Bengals are the most effective team in football when passing on first down. They kinda forgot about that last night.

The Colts defense is still effective when they can get the opponent in obvious passing downs. The keys were a) the Colts getting a lead and b) the Bengals ending up in too many obvious passing situations

Razor Shines
12-19-2006, 11:36 PM
How other teams beat the Colts should only be a small part of how any other team game plans against another. The Bengals can run the ball, but they hamstrung one of the most dynamic receiving duos in the league when the other team was playing scrubs in the secondary. Why only focus on one weakness? Why leave your team's greatest offensive strength when the other team probably will not be able to do anything about it? Hopefully these are questions the Bengals staff all visited in their skull sessions and they just chose a poor course of action. It happens, coaches are not immune from making wrong choices.

The Colts may have scrubs in the secondary but they don't have scrubs on the D line and Bengals have one on the O line. So if passing was so effective why didn't they score more? They threw the ball 28 times.

As for Peyton controlling the game, that is on the D. By choosing to play prevent D the entire game, they allowed him to control the clock with dinks and dunks. Running plays were a diversion because he was licking his chops knowing that the zone was not picking up guys in the middle of the field. What kind of D lets a running back sit down 8 yards out with no defenders within 5 yards? Who where the LBers covering?

I know, I know Sorgi could have done it. I get it, everybody is sick of hearing how good Peyton is when he's not that good.



My answers are....you know

traderumor
12-20-2006, 12:58 AM
Many of those 28 throws were desparation at the end. I noted that there were only 12 or 13 throws through 3 quarters.

Your other answer is simply an argument I never made, nor anyone else on this thread. Manning did a heckuva job hitting wide open receivers. He is a great QB. The D's job is still to stop the other team, no matter who the QB is. The D played a very, very soft zone against someone who had the ability to pick them apart. Every QB needs pressure, and the Bengals had been effectively using the blitz and stunts to do so of late. Last night, they were passive and it was obvious that was their intent. Don't fall over yourself trying to give someone props that you do not look at both sides of the coin. The D made it way too easy for someone who didn't need any help.

Oh, duh, I see your location now. Now I see why your comments are lopsided.

redsfanmia
12-20-2006, 07:42 AM
Many of those 28 throws were desparation at the end. I noted that there were only 12 or 13 throws through 3 quarters.

Your other answer is simply an argument I never made, nor anyone else on this thread. Manning did a heckuva job hitting wide open receivers. He is a great QB. The D's job is still to stop the other team, no matter who the QB is. The D played a very, very soft zone against someone who had the ability to pick them apart. Every QB needs pressure, and the Bengals had been effectively using the blitz and stunts to do so of late. Last night, they were passive and it was obvious that was their intent. Don't fall over yourself trying to give someone props that you do not look at both sides of the coin. The D made it way too easy for someone who didn't need any help.

Oh, duh, I see your location now. Now I see why your comments are lopsided.

The Bengals just picked thier poison, had they tried to go one on one Peyton would have gone deep. I understand everyone is tired of seeing Peyton everywhere but to try to say he is not great is just wrong. The guy is the best QB in the game with the only arguement coming from New England. Plus there have been no chinks in his armor off the field yet. Face it the Bengals just got beat by a better team, next year maybe but not now.

Jpup
12-20-2006, 08:01 AM
Drew Brees is looking awfully tough down in the Big Easy.

Razor Shines
12-20-2006, 12:00 PM
Many of those 28 throws were desparation at the end. I noted that there were only 12 or 13 throws through 3 quarters.

Your other answer is simply an argument I never made, nor anyone else on this thread. Manning did a heckuva job hitting wide open receivers. He is a great QB. The D's job is still to stop the other team, no matter who the QB is. The D played a very, very soft zone against someone who had the ability to pick them apart. Every QB needs pressure, and the Bengals had been effectively using the blitz and stunts to do so of late. Last night, they were passive and it was obvious that was their intent. Don't fall over yourself trying to give someone props that you do not look at both sides of the coin. The D made it way too easy for someone who didn't need any help.

Oh, duh, I see your location now. Now I see why your comments are lopsided.
Actually the exact argument that Sorgi could have beat the Bengals was used in this thread.

I don't what you're talking about with the "lopsided" stuff. Teams beat the Colts when they run the ball. The Bengals averaged 4.4 yds a carry. I think in the first half them keeping the ball and Manning off the field was the most important thing for them. Whether Peyton controlled the game or the Bengals allowed him to control the game, keeping the offense off the field and controlling the ball was thier best chance of winning.

And one half of your dynamic recieving duo was not catching the ball, maybe he was thinking about his shoes, I don't know. While our best reciever, who I have only once seen celebrate a TD and was penalized for it, went out and caught 3 TDs. There's some "lopsided" talk for you.

guttle11
12-20-2006, 12:08 PM
Actually the exact argument that Sorgi could have beat the Bengals was used in this thread.

I made it, and I stand by it 100%.

Any QB currently on an NFL team could have beaten the Bengals with that defensive gameplan. On 95% of the snaps, the secondary and LB's backed up 5-7 yards which left a 10-15 yard hole in the middle of the field. That play was wide open ALL night.

The only play that Manning made that couldn't have been done by anyone else was the TD pass to Wayne.

Does that take anything away from Manning? Absolutely not, he's a great player. But don't act like Manning torched the Bengals. He took what they gave him. Anyone could have done the same.

Razor Shines
12-20-2006, 10:55 PM
I made it, and I stand by it 100%.

Any QB currently on an NFL team could have beaten the Bengals with that defensive gameplan. On 95% of the snaps, the secondary and LB's backed up 5-7 yards which left a 10-15 yard hole in the middle of the field. That play was wide open ALL night.

The only play that Manning made that couldn't have been done by anyone else was the TD pass to Wayne.

Does that take anything away from Manning? Absolutely not, he's a great player. But don't act like Manning torched the Bengals. He took what they gave him. Anyone could have done the same.

That's fine, I disagree but that's not the point. I was responding to the fact that I was told no one was making this argument.

Cedric
12-20-2006, 11:04 PM
Actually the exact argument that Sorgi could have beat the Bengals was used in this thread.

I don't what you're talking about with the "lopsided" stuff. Teams beat the Colts when they run the ball. The Bengals averaged 4.4 yds a carry. I think in the first half them keeping the ball and Manning off the field was the most important thing for them. Whether Peyton controlled the game or the Bengals allowed him to control the game, keeping the offense off the field and controlling the ball was thier best chance of winning.

And one half of your dynamic recieving duo was not catching the ball, maybe he was thinking about his shoes, I don't know. While our best reciever, who I have only once seen celebrate a TD and was penalized for it, went out and caught 3 TDs. There's some "lopsided" talk for you.

Who cares about celebrating? Chad Johnson has a somewhat decent track record in this league. He dropped one pass that wasn't tipped, big freaking deal.

Are Cincinnati fans supposed to be down on Chad? The one guy that loves playing for this city and actually stands up and says it?

Cedric
12-20-2006, 11:07 PM
The Bengals just picked thier poison, had they tried to go one on one Peyton would have gone deep. I understand everyone is tired of seeing Peyton everywhere but to try to say he is not great is just wrong. The guy is the best QB in the game with the only arguement coming from New England. Plus there have been no chinks in his armor off the field yet. Face it the Bengals just got beat by a better team, next year maybe but not now.

Peyton/Brady/Palmer are the same in my opinion. They are all pretty immobile and rely on their Oline. Not anything new or weird in the NFL.

Last Sunday Peyton Manning looked like a rookie against a good Jaguar pass rush. It's not rocket science that if you don't get pressure on those three they will all destroy you.

traderumor
12-21-2006, 08:44 AM
That's fine, I disagree but that's not the point. I was responding to the fact that I was told no one was making this argument.And I did not see that post, obviously. How about I say no one should be making that argument. :evil: