(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.

Was it the right call in hindsight? No, it did not work. But, was it a great call to send a message to the offense and offensive line and rest of team, I trust you to execute and I want to win games, then yes.

The interesting part is in OT he is faced with a similar call, they don't make it, likely we lose the game. ZAC was gutsy, made the call and we kick a FG to win the  game. It is hard to criticize the first call to put the game away earlier and then applaud the game winning call in my opinion.

Honestly, if it were me, I would punted both times. Glad it was not me making those calls.

(09-12-2021, 10:01 PM)The D.O.Z. Wrote: 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!

If he had learned, he punts in OT and we tie or lose the game more than likely.

(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.

This doesn't take a lot of things into account, though. 

It doesn't take the fact that the Viking were pretty much unable to move the ball all day into account, it doesn't take momentum into account, etc. 

If it was a shootout and we couldn't stop the Vikings offense, then by all means I can see going for it...but momentum was on our side and the defense was playing lights out. No reason to go for it there. It was stupid.

Again piss poor play design was the problem, not the decision.

You don't mind because the Bengals won. All things considered ( running game working, stingy D, field position) Against better opposition, that type of decision will lead to further momentum swings and losses.

Going for it wasn’t the big issue - the ridiculous play design that was again Taylor being “too cute” was. Either Burrow should have thrown or they should have had 2 TE in with Perine and played big boy football.

I didn't mind it till it didn't work.

Even with plenty of time on the clock it felt like if they pulled it off it was the nail in the coffin for that game.

It didn't work and the Vikings scored off it and the Bengals damn near lost.

So yeah it was stupid and there's no way to argue it wasn't.

How on earth didn't you like running the ball? It was working and you have a QB that's not 100% coming off a nasty injury.

The line didn't look horrible but burrow was getting hit and even limped off the field at one point. Running was the correct decision.

That's the kind of decision that can -- no, SHOULD -- get a coach fired.

On November 30, 2015, he was promoted to the team's interim offensive coordinator, after the firing of the previous offensive coordinator, Bill Lazor. During the five games Taylor served as OC, the Dolphins went 2-3 and averaged 17 points per game

Taylor was the Bearcats’ offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach in Tommy Tuberville’s final season, a 4-8 campaign in which UC ranked 123rd of 128 teams in scoring offense with just 19.3 points per game.

Taylor is 3-13-1 in one score games since being named head coach of the Bengals prior to the 2019 season.


As stated above the play design was the issue.

(09-12-2021, 10:06 PM)PlayadLc Wrote: I want a coach that trusts his team and plays to win instead of not to lose.

Nothing personal, but I have always found that to be a silly argument.  If a coach is not "playing not to lose" then he is "playing to lose".

You know what WINNNING coaches do?  They don't gamble when they don't need to. 

(09-13-2021, 10:44 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The interesting part is in OT he is faced with a similar call, 

The situation in overtime was NOTHING like the situation in the third quarter.

We punt in overtime we 100% give up on winning.

We punt in the third quarter we are up by 14.

I didn't mind the decision to go for it, but the play call itself was crap. If you're going for it at such a critical juncture of the game, you don't just call a run off tackle. You can't play into the defense's expectations like that.

Which, luckily, it seems like Zac learned that lesson by giving Joe that PA pass for the 4th and inches in OT. That's the kind of play you need to call when you're going for a 4th down so aggressively.

(09-13-2021, 10:46 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: If he had learned, he punts in OT and we tie or lose the game more than likely.

not the same scenario.....    If he had learned he might have said in retro speck i probly punt in 3rd Qtr.. But he doubled down on it in the press conference.

Hate the call.

From what I saw yesterday, our run game can gain 10+ yards when it’s first and 10

But 3rd and short? The o-line doesn’t get enough push

(09-13-2021, 10:46 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: If he had learned, he punts in OT and we tie or lose the game more than likely.

I think it's two different scenarios.  One, you're up, defense is playing well, need to burn time, momentum is working in your favor and you give up some really bad field position if you don't convert.  The other, you're in OT, against the clock, need to spark it and put your foot on the gas to keep it going.  It's fully possible to like one call and not the other, and to realize they were different points in the game.  Additionally, if Burrow changed the last one at the line, who knows what Zac had put in as the play initially which could have ended just as poorly as the first attempt.  

Everybody's assumption is that if we punted, it was gonna make things better, for all we know it could have been returned all the way for a TD on the punt (nothing more demoralizing than an easy TD).

The moral victory here is that Zac had confidence on Burrow and company and went for it. They didn't get it but in OT again 4th and inches, they went for it and got that "trick" play according to an article out there, saying Zac gave Burrow two plays to pick from, the one they successfully got or likely a run stuff. Burrow made the right choice and got us close for the FG and victory. Had Zac played it safe again, it would have been a tie at best or a Viking TD.

Everyone complaining wanted the traditional, safer, play of choice. Zac is my least favorite "player" on the team, but he got it right here.

Folks are missing the bigger picture here. He sent a message to the team that he's going to put it in their hands at critical moments. There's a reason players like playing for the coach we love to hate.

It didn't workout this time because Joe tripped over the lineman's feet, but the D came within a 4th and 4 (equally risky by Zims) of making it not cost us. The next time Zac called on the team on 4th down it paid off. Both units now no Zac will put it in their hands.

(09-13-2021, 01:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks are missing the bigger picture here. He sent a message to the team that he's going to put it in their hands at critical moments. There's a reason players like playing for the coach we love to hate.

It didn't workout this time because Joe tripped over the lineman's feet, but the D came within a 4th and 4 (equally risky by Zims) of making it not cost us. The next time Zac called on the team on 4th down it paid off. Both units now no Zac will put it in their hands.

This argument makes no sense.  Basically Zac was telling the defense he did not trust them with a 14 point lad in the fourth quarter.  And based on the way they fell apart after that 4th down call it looks like he might have been correct.

A smart coach would have told the defense that he trusted them and "put it in their hands" to hold a 14 point lead.

(09-13-2021, 01:48 PM)Bengalitis Wrote: The moral victory here is that Zac had confidence on Burrow and company and went for it. 

You could just as easily argue that he had no faith in our defense.

If he trusted our D then why gamble when he did not have to?

(09-13-2021, 01:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This argument makes no sense.  Basically Zac was telling the defense he did not trust them with a 14 point lad in the fourth quarter.  And based on the way they fell apart after that 4th down call it looks like he might have been correct.

A smart coach would have told the defense that he trusted them and "put it in their hands" to hold a 14 point lead.

Nah, he told the D; if the O doesn't convert this; I trust you to hold. The D answered with a hold, but Zims (didn't trust his D) and went for it on 4th down. 


Here's a "not smart" coach doing the exact same thing:


https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/patriots/ten-years-ago-today-fourth-and-2-bill-belichick-made-one-his-most-controversial-decisions