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.
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.
Originally Posted by BuckeyeRed27
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.
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
Chad's nads needed the timeout.
All models are wrong. Some of them are useful.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is the time. The real Reds organization is back.
A bit melodramatic, don't ya think?
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
Last edited by flyer85; 12-19-2006 at 04:00 PM.
My answers are....you know
"I know a lot about the law and various other lawyerings."
Hitters who avoid outs are the funnest.
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.
When I see the 2016 Reds, I see a 100 loss team and no direction.
Drew Brees is looking awfully tough down in the Big Easy.
"My mission is to be the ray of hope, the guy who stands out there on that beautiful field and owns up to his mistakes and lets people know it's never completely hopeless, no matter how bad it seems at the time. I have a platform and a message, and now I go to bed at night, sober and happy, praying I can be a good messenger." -Josh Hamilton
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.
"I know a lot about the law and various other lawyerings."
Hitters who avoid outs are the funnest.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote