(12-13-2021, 06:20 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: when did this start?

Last week.

(12-13-2021, 06:18 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Fair enough. But I really do hope pass tongue becomes a thing now. 

That's Tee's new nickname. 

(12-13-2021, 06:27 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: That's Tee's new nickname. 

Speaking of Tee, how many times did the announcers call him Tiggins yesterday? 

(12-13-2021, 05:59 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Joe looked slow yesterday. Something was up. He didn't have that same energy he usually has. 

I will also say, Joe's running style is different from someone like Dalvin Cook. Cook hits the hole with speed and doesn't look back. Its a quick decision. Joe is more like Laveon Bell. He almost comes to a complete stop at the line, hides behind it, then picks his hole and accelerates through it. I'm not sure how ideal that running style is behind this particular offensive line. 

I watched the Vikings game last week against the Steelers and was absolutely shocked at how electric Cook looked. I love Joe but he just doesn't have that gear. Not many do.

Mixon looked effective when we actually used the wide zone the line has practiced all season instead of the mysterious shift to inside zone that occurred the last two weeks. It does the line no help when they can't stick to a consistent scheme and build an identity. 

(12-13-2021, 06:28 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Speaking of Tee, how many times did the announcers call him Tiggins yesterday? 

That's my nickname for him. 

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Higgins-or-Chase?pid=1111945#pid1111945

(12-13-2021, 05:31 PM)Tony Wrote: Unfortunately,  he never learns from them though... What's accountability,  if you never learn from it?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but what are some things he should have learned from some of these losses?

(12-13-2021, 06:54 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I'm not disagreeing with you, but what are some things he should have learned from some of these losses?

Being able to see and read how the game flow is going. Against Green Bay with what 4 or 5 combined missed field goals he opts to attempt a 50 yarder instead of going for it on 4th and 1. Then this week we had them right where we wanted them with the passing game and we opted to run. Also might as well put that he hasn't learned when to be aggressive.

(12-13-2021, 07:31 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: Being able to see and read how the game flow is going. Against Green Bay with what 4 or 5 combined missed field goals he opts to attempt a 50 yarder instead of going for it on 4th and 1. Then this week we had them right where we wanted them with the passing game and we opted to run. Also might as well put that he hasn't learned when to be aggressive.

If you have confidence in your kicker, you take the points, as you would've won.

If you get stopped on 4th and 1, you get shit on because you didn't kick with your kicker whom you trust.

The amount of hindsight calls you people are blinded by are ridiculous.

(12-13-2021, 06:41 PM)Joelist Wrote: Mixon looked effective when we actually used the wide zone the line has practiced all season instead of the mysterious shift to inside zone that occurred the last two weeks. It does the line no help when they can't stick to a consistent scheme and build an identity. 

This is a brilliant analysis. I was in the south end zone for the Steelers game and the wide zone was working amazingly well. Joe Mixon had 175 yards that day I believe. The A- and B-gaps are rarely open for Joe Mixon and this has been the case since he was a rookie. Either Frank Pollack needs to go to directional blocking to open those holes or go back to the wide zone.

In the wide zone the linemen use synchronicity* where feet, arms, and core all move as one unit. Every angle into every defender is the same. It’s a simpler way to block.

Trap blocking and other forms of directional blocking are much more difficult because linemen move in opposing directions. This also depends on which technique the defensive linemen are in when the ball is snapped. If the defensive tackle, for example, is lined up in one technique vice three technique then the guard has to directionally block the opposite way.

*Note to Dan Orlovsky: It’s “synchronicity.” “Synchronocity” isn’t a word.

(12-13-2021, 05:38 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Listening to this now and these answers seem reasonable. None of this makes me think that Zac is an idiot. Not saying that he is the guy or anything, but this is a pretty standard, reasonable presser.

Zac Taylor must have interviewed well and he runs a good press conference. He knows the game well but he is a lousy coach. He lacks the killer instinct to be a winner.

His future is as a commentator on ESPN.

(12-13-2021, 07:50 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: If you have confidence in your kicker, you take the points, as you would've won.

If you get stopped on 4th and 1, you get shit on because you didn't kick with your kicker whom you trust.

The amount of hindsight calls you people are blinded by are ridiculous.

I get what your saying and there is truth that we may still lose if we go for it on 4th and 1 against GreenBay or if Burrow gets the chance to win the game with his arm. But I think the logic makes more sense especially when you factor whats happened in the game. 

Shorter than 50 yd kicks had been missed in the GreenBay game and your playing Aaron Rodgers your not supposed to win that game. I like our chances to pick up 1 yard rather than make that kick. Now if no kicks had been missed than give it a try.

Now lets just say that after Burrow gets us down to the 26 yard line and we see what he can do with his arm the rest of the way and he fails to score. Is anybody screaming why we didn't run the ball? I don't think so but again that probably changes if we are running all over them and struggling passing.

(12-13-2021, 05:29 PM)PlayadLc Wrote: Agree with this. He doesn’t make excuse.

Doesn't make excuse, still not good enough, turrible record. Next.

(12-13-2021, 08:33 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: Zac Taylor must have interviewed well and he runs a good press conference.  He knows the game well but he is a lousy coach.  He lacks the killer instinct to be a winner.

His future is as a commentator on ESPN.

He actually does the head coaching stuff pretty darned well, he just needs to trust his OC to call the game.

"also believe we'll get 6 yds or more with that run there"

Mixon ended the night with 3.2 yds / attempt.  Miss me with that bullshit answer. 

dude agreed to come coach for katie and mike.  foresight is not his strong point. 

 

(12-13-2021, 07:31 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: Being able to see and read how the game flow is going. Against Green Bay with what 4 or 5 combined missed field goals he opts to attempt a 50 yarder instead of going for it on 4th and 1. Then this week we had them right where we wanted them with the passing game and we opted to run. Also might as well put that he hasn't learned when to be aggressive.

You could also use the logic though of, "They expect me to do X because of Y, so I'm going to do Z instead to try to throw them off."

It's possible that Taylor felt that the 49ers were going to expect a pass given their CBs were banged up and that's what was driving down the field. He tried to throw a curveball by running, hoping to catch them off guard. It clearly didn't work.

(12-13-2021, 10:17 PM)Sled21 Wrote: He actually does the head coaching stuff pretty darned well, he just needs to trust his OC to call the game.

13-31-1 is not “pretty darned well.” It’s terrible.

You’re absolutely right about the play calling though.

(12-13-2021, 08:14 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: This is a brilliant analysis.  I was in the south end zone for the Steelers game and the wide zone was working amazingly well.  Joe Mixon had 175 yards that day I believe.  The A- and B-gaps are rarely open for Joe Mixon and this has been the case since he was a rookie.  Either Frank Pollack needs to go to directional blocking to open those holes or go back to the wide zone.  

In the wide zone the linemen use synchronicity* where feet, arms, and core all move as one unit.  Every angle into every defender is the same.  It’s a simpler way to block.

Trap blocking and other forms of directional blocking are much more difficult because linemen move in opposing directions.  This also depends on which technique the defensive linemen are in when the ball is snapped.  If the defensive tackle, for example, is lined up in one technique vice three technique then the guard has to directionally block the opposite way.

*Note to Dan Orlovsky: It’s “synchronicity.” “Synchronocity” isn’t a word.

The funny thing is that the Bengals ran wide zone against San Fran - it's a staple play in their run game. They've used it all season. The infamous run play on second down in OT was a wide-zone run. Uzomah was manned up on the 9 tech and Jonah combo blocked to move to the second level but Hopkins and Spain were beat on their combo block and Hopkins didn't make it to the second level. Here is a look at it...



The Bengals ran this exact play against the Steelers and had success with it. Teams obviously aren't going to utilize only one blocking scheme so the amount of calls will ebb and flow, but wide zone is a staple in the run game of Cincinnati and they haven't stopped using it all season, including this Sunday. 

https://imgur.com/a/9QUHKKT - here is a link to a GIF of the play, from an endzone view. 

(12-14-2021, 11:00 AM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: 13-31-1 is not “pretty darned well.”  It’s terrible.

You’re absolutely right about the play calling though.

This is the proverbial bottom line for me. He's 13-31-1. His record cannot be refuted, Zac is statistically a terrible coach. I can support any poster suggesting he's on the rise since he thus far has a winning record this season, but to generalize Zac is okay or even good baffles me. I suppose, "players play" guy is always going to support the coach and isolate team struggles to only on field player problems?

 

(12-14-2021, 10:39 AM)ochocincos Wrote: You could also use the logic though of, "They expect me to do X because of Y, so I'm going to do Z instead to try to throw them off."

It's possible that Taylor felt that the 49ers were going to expect a pass given their CBs were banged up and that's what was driving down the field. He tried to throw a curveball by running, hoping to catch them off guard. It clearly didn't work.

He might have been trying to catch them off guard. I know he said afterwards that they were in a very run friendly look but it was like that all game he said. I just wanted to be aggressive and I think we win if Burrow has the ball in his hands. But I would've been fine if we ran on 3rd down and then again on 4th if we came up short. 

(12-14-2021, 04:12 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: He might have been trying to catch them off guard. I know he said afterwards that they were in a very run friendly look but it was like that all game he said. I just wanted to be aggressive and I think we win if Burrow has the ball in his hands. But I would've been fine if we ran on 3rd down and then again on 4th if we came up short. 

To me, that is what a run on second signaled. A run on third down wouldn't have been the worst idea, Cincinnati probably had the numbers to run a draw there. Here is the look immediately after snap...




They would have had to contend with those two backers on a draw, relying on Hopkins and Spain to get their guys but they may have had some room. I wonder if there was any conversation regarding this. I also wonder if Burrow was sent to the line with a run but didn't like the look pre-snap. They crowded the line.