I know a lot of people are criticizing it, but we have wanted an aggressive team for a while, so I don't mind the aggressive play calls at times. I did hate all of the run plays when we have offensive weapons galore, but regardless a win is a win.

(09-12-2021, 09:45 PM)Trademark Wrote: I know a lot of people are criticizing it, but we have wanted an aggressive team for a while, so I don't mind the aggressive play calls at times. I did hate all of the run plays when we have offensive weapons galore, but regardless a win is a win.

We were 14 points up.  We still had all the momentum.  We are at home.  Why give the other team a chance to make a play, get the mo and cut the lead with a short field?  I don't mind being aggressive, but smart aggressive.   Not dumb aggressive.

I'd have even understood going for the 4th and 3 at just beyond mid field to ice the game.

If the Bengals had lost the game I guarantee you would have hated that call. Probably even got mad and thought about not being a Bengals fan.

I absolutely hated it simply due to our field position. I mean, fail and that’s at least 3 (or an attempt). Add in we had all the momentum, a defense playing well, and we’re at home where it was actually LOUD for a change, yeah it was boneheaded and I hope Taylor learns from it!

I think the conservative offensive gameplan after the call made it seem worse. if they found themselves in a place where they had to score again to win (they did), the scheme didn't exactly lend itself to scoring fast or at all.

I get it if they want to protect Burrow. I hate run-and-hide game strategy as much as anyone. However, if this was the plan with a 2 touchdown lead, then why give it back to them with better field position than any offense would expect to have barring an int or fumble?

According to the analytics, going for it there versus punting was basically a toss up, with a very slight lean toward going for it. I know that you can't just follow that off a cliff, but it wasn't a crazy decision IMO. And it probably would have been converted if Mixon didn't stumble in the backfield.

I want a coach that trusts his team and plays to win instead of not to lose. Sometimes it'll end badly, but I think it will be a benefit over the course of the season.

(09-12-2021, 09:45 PM)Trademark Wrote: I know a lot of people are criticizing it, but we have wanted an aggressive team for a while, so I don't mind the aggressive play calls at times. I did hate all of the run plays when we have offensive weapons galore, but regardless a win is a win.

Sorry, but that was a terrible call, imo.  Up 14 and at your own 30, there's a much bigger chance of letting the opponent back in the game and killing your momentum, which is exactly what happened.  Even if you pick it up, you're still a long way from getting points.  

I thought it was great.

For years we knocked Marvin in retrospect for being weak. ZT says "**** it" and people flip their ****.

(09-12-2021, 10:14 PM)Benton Wrote: I thought it was great.

For years we knocked Marvin in retrospect for being weak. ZT says "**** it" and people flip their ****.

I like going for the high percentage 4th and shorts…just not THAT deep in my own territory with momentum and a defense playing well. 4th and short on the fifty? Sure! Go for it! 4th and short and you need a spark because very little is going your way? Sure! Go for it!

(09-12-2021, 09:59 PM)George Cantstandya Wrote: If the Bengals had lost the game I guarantee you would have hated that call. Probably even got mad and thought about not being a Bengals fan.

There's being aggressive and then there's being careless.

Going for it on fourth down that deep into your own territory is closer to the latter.

(09-12-2021, 10:14 PM)Benton Wrote: I thought it was great.

For years we knocked Marvin in retrospect for being weak. ZT says "**** it" and people flip their ****.

I thought the same thing was I was watching the game at my local bar.

But i'm sure many people only got mad when Marvin didn't put his foot on the gas when the offense was on their side of the field, not when the ball was on our 30.

Again, there's a difference between having your foot on the gas and running a red light.

I literally have never disagreed with a person more in my life.

I dont mind going for it on 4th down, and we have done it a good bit under Zac with some good success, but the circumstances around going for it when he did made it a very bad call imo. You risk losing momentum if it doesnt go right, which we did. We were backed up too far and thats what made it a bad call. We have a great punter and our defense had been playing pretty solid. We had momentum, so why mess with it. Momentum shifted as soon as they stopped us. Going for it on 4th is an emotional play for players, it will fire a team up. It fired the Vikes up and spawned a comeback.

It was very disrespectful to the defense that was playing very good up to that point held the other team to 7 point thru 3 quarters of play. I do not see how you twist this to be a good call under the circumstances.

(09-12-2021, 10:06 PM)PlayadLc Wrote: According to the analytics, going for it there versus punting was basically a toss up, with a very slight lean toward going for it. I know that you can't just follow that off a cliff, but it wasn't a crazy decision IMO. And it probably would have been converted if Mixon didn't stumble in the backfield.

I want a coach that trusts his team and plays to win instead of not to lose. Sometimes it'll end badly, but I think it will be a benefit over the course of the season.

Going for it where we did with the lead we had was stupid no other way around it.

(09-12-2021, 10:20 PM)The D.O.Z. Wrote: I like going for the high percentage 4th and shorts…just not THAT deep in my own territory with momentum and a defense playing well. 4th and short on the fifty? Sure! Go for it! 4th and short and you need a spark because very little is going your way? Sure! Go for it!

I agree with this completely. There is a time and place to be aggressive like that. 

(09-12-2021, 10:39 PM)BengalsBong Wrote: It was very disrespectful to the defense that was playing very good up to that point held the other team to 7 point thru 3 quarters of play. I do not see how you twist this to be a good call under the circumstances.

I agree with this. They kind of backed the D into a corner there. Now dont get me wrong, if we had a OL full of pro bowlers and a terrible punter I guess maybe I can see it, but why put that kind of pressure on the D when we dont have to? It definitely swung the momentum. And the sad part is that Mixon slipped or he would've got it, but thats why you dont try it backed up that far. A good solid Kevin Huber punt there is a way safer bet. 

I don't have an issue with going for it on 4th down, but it that situation, it was not needed. We were not fighting to catch up. We didn't have great field position, and had been playing good defense. Huber is great, could have boomed them deep. After that, even with a couple of cheap 1st downs, they wouldn't be in FG range before the D would make them punt back.

Even if the Vikings drove down the field and scored, it would take longer than getting the ball at he 30 or wherever. We needed the time to go away as we were winning. Problem isn't making an attempt, but when and where. That was horrible.

I'll take the aggressive play calling over Marvins ultra conservative play calling. We wanted more aggressive play calling for years. Its not going to work every single time and we came away with the win so all is well in Bengaland.

How bout that 4th and 1 in overtime pass to CJ? How much would people be screaming if the play was incomplete? But it was aggressive and we won as a result. Love it!