(09-22-2021, 02:00 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I'd go as far to say Taylor's a worse offensive playcaller than the guy he replaced, Bill Lazor.

Lazor found a way to be 17th in the league in scoring in 2018 with hardly any decent pass catchers for half a season. 
All they really had were Boyd and Uzomah. 
Eifert only played 4 games and AJ only 9. 
Ross was available for most of the season but was really only used as a red zone option. 
Dalton also missed 5 games that year.
And the OL was Glenn, Boling, Price, Redmond, and Hart. Not very good.

Fun fact, he just beat the Bengals last sunday with Andy Dalton and Justin Fields.

(09-22-2021, 02:14 PM)Murdock2420 Wrote: Fun fact, he just beat the Bengals last sunday with Andy Dalton and Justin Fields.

It was typical Lazor though. Their offense looked great for a drive or two, and then a whole lot of nothing.

(09-22-2021, 02:14 PM)Murdock2420 Wrote: Fun fact, he just beat the Bengals last sunday with Andy Dalton and Justin Fields.

Yep.
The Bears have worse skill position players than the Bengals.
Allen Robinson is about the only decent guy they have.
And Montgomery is an ok RB, but he's not quite as good as Mixon, IMO.
And Fields, who actually had more pass attempts than Dalton did, is not yet as good as Burrow.

(09-22-2021, 02:00 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I'd go as far to say Taylor's a worse offensive playcaller than the guy he replaced, Bill Lazor.

Lazor found a way to be 17th in the league in scoring in 2018 with hardly any decent pass catchers for half a season. 
All they really had were Boyd and Uzomah. 
Eifert only played 4 games and AJ only 9. 
Ross was available for most of the season but was really only used as a red zone option. 
Dalton also missed 5 games that year.
And the OL was Glenn, Boling, Price, Redmond, and Hart. Not very good.

I'm sure people remember this but when Lazor took over after those first couple games. Hobson had an article where he pointed out that when there's an OC change there is almost always an uptick in offensive production even if just marginally. 
Only a few times has the offense been worse after the OC change and one of those times was when they got rid of the coach for the Dolphins and Lazor being the OC he was shown the door with him. The OC to replace him that the production actually went down was none other than Zac Taylor. So yes there is scientific proof that he is indeed worse than Lazor as they both ran the same offense on the same team and the same year.

(09-22-2021, 02:18 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: It was typical Lazor though. Their offense looked great for a drive or two, and then a whole lot of nothing.

Honestly, if Dalton stays in there the score may have been a bit more lopsided as he looked good on the first drive. I know, we've seen Dalton collapse before as well but it was a 1PM game with no pressure and that is usually when good Andy shows up and hangs a huge number.

Once Fields was in full time it was like the Bears went into try not to make a mistake mode. His QBR and Rating were terrible, QBR 4.4  RTG 27.7.

(09-22-2021, 02:20 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Yep.
The Bears have worse skill position players than the Bengals.
Allen Robinson is about the only decent guy they have.
And Montgomery is an ok RB, but he's not quite as good as Mixon, IMO.
And Fields, who actually had more pass attempts than Dalton did, is not yet as good as Burrow.

No argument on any of that. Not sure I'd take Robinson over any of the Bengals top 3 at this stage in his career. 

I actually wonder if Fields goes the way of all the previous OSU QBs that were drafted and just flames out. He did not look good at all sunday.

(09-22-2021, 02:23 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: I'm sure people remember this but when Lazor took over after those first couple games. Hobson had an article where he pointed out that when there's an OC change there is almost always an uptick in offensive production even if just marginally. 
Only a few times has the offense been worse after the OC change and one of those times was when they got rid of the coach for the Dolphins and Lazor being the OC he was shown the door with him. The OC to replace him that the production actually went down was none other than Zac Taylor. So yes there is scientific proof that he is indeed worse than Lazor as they both ran the same offense on the same team and the same year.

That's just... terrifying. 

(09-22-2021, 02:14 PM)Murdock2420 Wrote: Fun fact, he just beat the Bengals last sunday with Andy Dalton and Justin Fields.

Ha I didn't realize he was the Bears OC. I was wondering where he was when they just brought him up. More proof as who is better that who as if this year doesn't go well and we move on from Zac I seriously doubt Zac gets an opportunity to be an OC again.

https://twitter.com/wolfkaosaun/status/1440448377548775432

Ugly stats.

I realize Zac is trying to establish an offensive identity that involves developing a strong running game. That usually means you're going to have to stick with the running game to establish it.

But you have to be flexible enough to adjust a game plan to fit the specific defense and the game situation.

I feel like he was unwilling to do that, and by the time he adjusted it was too late.

There are times to stick with your game plan and times to make an adjustment. You have to know what time it is.

I've been a Zac apologist. But I'm really unhappy with the play calling against the Bears. I felt like we easily had the personnel to win that game, and felt like we totally ignored what beat them the week before.

Yes the Rams have a better offensive line, but not that much better. As other posters have pointed out, not every long route he tried to connect with ended up with him being abused.

(09-22-2021, 02:48 PM)3wt Wrote: I realize Zac is trying to establish an offensive identity that involves developing a strong running game.  That usually means you're going to have to stick with the running game to establish it.

But you have to be flexible enough to adjust a game plan to fit the specific defense and the game situation.

I feel like he was unwilling to do that, and by the time he adjusted it was too late.

There are times to stick with your game plan and times to make an adjustment.  You have to know what time it is.

I've been a Zac apologist.   But I'm really unhappy with the play calling against the Bears.   I felt like we easily had the personnel to win that game, and felt like we totally ignored what beat them the week before.

Yes the Rams have a better offensive line, but not that much better.  As other posters have pointed out, not every long route he tried to connect with ended up with him being abused.

1st half of week 1 was great everything after..... uck

(09-22-2021, 02:00 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I'd go as far to say Taylor's a worse offensive playcaller than the guy he replaced, Bill Lazor.

Lazor found a way to be 17th in the league in scoring in 2018 with hardly any decent pass catchers for half a season. 
All they really had were Boyd and Uzomah. 
Eifert only played 4 games and AJ only 9. 
Ross was available for most of the season but was really only used as a red zone option. 
Dalton also missed 5 games that year.
And the OL was Glenn, Boling, Price, Redmond, and Hart. Not very good.

Completely agree, it’s almost impossible to have 3 points in the 4th quarter when you have Burrow, Higgins, Chase, Boyd ,Mixion and two decent tackles. Especially in today’s offensive friendly game it’s almost impossible.

(09-22-2021, 02:48 PM)3wt Wrote: I realize Zac is trying to establish an offensive identity that involves developing a strong running game.  That usually means you're going to have to stick with the running game to establish it.

But you have to be flexible enough to adjust a game plan to fit the specific defense and the game situation.

I feel like he was unwilling to do that, and by the time he adjusted it was too late.

There are times to stick with your game plan and times to make an adjustment.  You have to know what time it is.

I've been a Zac apologist.   But I'm really unhappy with the play calling against the Bears.   I felt like we easily had the personnel to win that game, and felt like we totally ignored what beat them the week before.

Yes the Rams have a better offensive line, but not that much better.  As other posters have pointed out, not every long route he tried to connect with ended up with him being abused.

Why do we want to be a run first team? I don't get it. The weapons we have on offense allow us to do WHATEVER WE WANT. Run the ball, throw deep, throw intermediate, screens, misdirection, etc. 

To limit yourself and say "your a run team" is just stupid, especially with the skill players we have out there. You're offense should be about creating space for your play makers, getting them the ball, and allowing them to work. 

(09-22-2021, 02:48 PM)3wt Wrote: I realize Zac is trying to establish an offensive identity that involves developing a strong running game.  That usually means you're going to have to stick with the running game to establish it.

But you have to be flexible enough to adjust a game plan to fit the specific defense and the game situation.

I feel like he was unwilling to do that, and by the time he adjusted it was too late.

There are times to stick with your game plan and times to make an adjustment.  You have to know what time it is.

I've been a Zac apologist.   But I'm really unhappy with the play calling against the Bears.   I felt like we easily had the personnel to win that game, and felt like we totally ignored what beat them the week before.

Yes the Rams have a better offensive line, but not that much better.  As other posters have pointed out, not every long route he tried to connect with ended up with him being abused.

The best OCs know that if a team has a good pass defense, try attacking in the run game and get short passes to march down the field.
If a team has a stout run defense, focus on the passing game.
If the team has a bad secondary, try going deep.
If the team has bad LBs, try attacking the middle of the field.
OCs that can't adjust their playcalling based on what the opponent is doing are not going to be among the best.

(09-22-2021, 06:14 PM)ochocincos Wrote: The best OCs know that if a team has a good pass defense, try attacking in the run game and get short passes to march down the field.
If a team has a stout run defense, focus on the passing game.
If the team has a bad secondary, try going deep.
If the team has bad LBs, try attacking the middle of the field.
OCs that can't adjust their playcalling based on what the opponent is doing are not going to be among the best.

I don’t even think it’s the ‘best OC’s’, I’d say it’s even just competent ones will understand even that basic principle. 
Nah not us though. Disheartening to have a pretty good spread of talent on offence and be mired in this rubbish. Again. 

(09-21-2021, 07:03 PM)treee Wrote: You can attack the seams fast, it's just riskier because you have less time to watch the defensive coverage develop. 

Which is a weakness of cover 3 which Chicago pretty much ran entire game without disguising it. There's ways of going up top without putting too much risk on your qb. Bootlegs, screens to slow rush down, go max protect with a deep route and maybe someone else leaking out. Stop going empty and bringing Mixon in to pass block he isn't good at it. I recall 1 screen to Chase late in the 4th no bootlegs or max protects. Don't recall any tight ends attacking the seams over the backers and under the safeties either.

The predictability of his playcalling Sunday was at Bob Bratkowski levels. The Bears knew if they were running or throwing most of the time just from the packages he was putting out there alone. 

There's ways to help your o-line and protect your qb through packages/formations and playcalling but Zacs gameplanning and playcalling isn't doing the O-line or Burrow any favors.

(09-22-2021, 02:18 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: It was typical Lazor though. Their offense looked great for a drive or two, and then a whole lot of nothing.

Dalton scored a TD on drive 1 but then didn't get to finish his 2nd drive, but left with 2nd and 6 from the Bengals 37.

Bengals caught a huge break that Fields came in. Before Fields, the Bears had 131 yards on not quite 2 drives. After Fields, they got 81 yards on 8 drives.

Zac "college playcalling is ahead of the pros" Taylor? That hot take was one of the most absurd things that I've ever heard come out of an NFL head coach's mouth. That should be enshrined in infamy along with such gems as "they are who we thought they were" and "PLAYOFFS?!?" With comments like that, it's not hard to see why he struggles to adjust to anything. He just goes in with a rigid formula and once the other team cracks the code he's toast - which could explain why some of the games where his offenses have looked the most competent came early in the season. 

(09-22-2021, 07:11 PM)StripesEarned Wrote: The predictability of his playcalling Sunday was at Bob Bratkowski levels. The Bears knew if they were running or throwing most of the time just from the packages he was putting out there alone. 

Come 4th quarter, I was predicting like 70% of the Bengals plays, and I am not a defensive coordinator. I will also say that sometimes everyone can know what's coming and you can still succeed if the players can execute. 

(09-22-2021, 01:04 PM)Dr.Z Wrote: Harris is a nice prospect, but we just faced two very good backs. 

Kept Cook under his average from last year (barely broke 100 total yards) and broke Montgomery's streak of 100+ all purpose yards games (seven). 

(09-22-2021, 05:36 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Why do we want to be a run first team? I don't get it. The weapons we have on offense allow us to do WHATEVER WE WANT. Run the ball, throw deep, throw intermediate, screens, misdirection, etc. 

To limit yourself and say "your a run team" is just stupid, especially with the skill players we have out there. You're offense should be about creating space for your play makers, getting them the ball, and allowing them to work. 

It really is dumb. Objectively, it’s dumb. The best and most dangerous offense in football is a strong passing offense. We have a talented young QB, talented young WRs and RBs that can catch. If the team tries to establish themselves as a running team, they are really missing out on the value that this roster can provide.