So since the Niner game there have been no turnovers at all. So three games in a row for the whole team but actually four in a row for the offense as both Niner turnovers were special teams.

And for Burrow in 7 games since the bye only three turnovers, at least one of which (the weird Chass long pass bobble) was a total fluke.

If this near elimination of turnovers persists the Bengals will not be an easy out in the playoffs.

(01-06-2022, 03:11 AM)Joelist Wrote: So since the Niner game there have been no turnovers at all. So three games in a row for the whole team but actually four in a row for the offense as both Niner turnovers were special teams.

And for Burrow in 7 games since the bye only three turnovers, at least one of which (the weird Chass long pass bobble) was a total fluke.

If this near elimination of turnovers persists the Bengals will not be an easy out in the playoffs.

And leading the league in fewest penalties is so indicative of great coaching yet still several if given a truth serum don’t want Zac Taylor as their coach [emoji1751]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-06-2022, 08:04 AM)Soonerpeace Wrote: And leading the league in fewest penalties is so indicative of great coaching yet still several if given a truth serum don’t want Zac Taylor as their coach [emoji1751]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that number is dwindling down everyday.

(01-06-2022, 08:04 AM)Soonerpeace Wrote: And leading the league in fewest penalties is so indicative of great coaching yet still several if given a truth serum don’t want Zac Taylor as their coach [emoji1751]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no real correlation between penalties and winning.  Many times the teams with the most penalties  alos have the most wins.

(01-06-2022, 03:11 AM)Joelist Wrote: So since the Niner game there have been no turnovers at all. So three games in a row for the whole team but actually four in a row for the offense as both Niner turnovers were special teams.

And for Burrow in 7 games since the bye only three turnovers, at least one of which (the weird Chass long pass bobble) was a total fluke.

If this near elimination of turnovers persists the Bengals will not be an easy out in the playoffs.

Joe had a couple of bad interceptions against the Niners and Ravens wiped out by penalties, but still is doing much better than earlies in the year avoiding picks.

The lack of picks has been very obvious lately to me.

Let’s hope it continues through the playoffs

(01-06-2022, 08:57 AM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no real correlation between penalties and winning.  Many times the teams with the most penalties  alos have the most wins.

He didn't say anything about winning due to the penalties. He said the lack of penalties was due to the coaching staff. Do you disagree with that assertion?

(01-06-2022, 08:57 AM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no real correlation between penalties and winning.  Many times the teams with the most penalties  alos have the most wins.

This is just wrong. 

You are basically saying penalties don't hurt your team and lessen the chance of winning. This is just 100% false. You're seriously trying to tell me that a team has the same or better percentage of picking up a 1st and 20 after a holding call than a 1st and 10? Cmon man.

Maybe it's possible other things happen to the most penalized teams that cause them to win? Causation <> Correlation. 

You're notorious for throwing out surface level stats without digging any deeper. That's like me saying "most car accidents happen within 15 miles of a person's house, that's more dangerous than driving long distances." Well yeah, because that's where people do the most driving.

(01-06-2022, 10:15 AM)PhilHos Wrote: He didn't say anything about winning due to the penalties. He said the lack of penalties was due to the coaching staff. Do you disagree with that assertion?

I agree that it potentially reflects Zac and his coaches properly teach the fundamentals, discipline, and value the yardage advantage that not having penalties affords. I think it is, and allow me to use an idiom, football 101 knowledge that a coaching staff values a lack of penalties and works to minimize them. I don't see how any average football fan or expert could argue differently without losing credibility for their football-related ideas.

(01-06-2022, 10:15 AM)PhilHos Wrote: He didn't say anything about winning due to the penalties. He said the lack of penalties was due to the coaching staff. Do you disagree with that assertion?

I don't think it's on the coaching staff as much as it is on the players themselves they brought in. You could argue it was the coaches who brought these players in, though. 

ZT want's high character, disciplined, leadership guys in his locker room. You are seeing how that translates to the field.  

(01-06-2022, 03:11 AM)Joelist Wrote: So since the Niner game there have been no turnovers at all. 

I know. Is something wrong with this team? We are usually good in producing INTs.

(01-06-2022, 11:10 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: I don't think it's on the coaching staff as much as it is on the players themselves they brought in. You could argue it was the coaches who brought these players in, though. 

ZT want's high character, disciplined, leadership guys in his locker room. You are seeing how that translates to the field.  

The coaches reinforce the fundamentals and emphasize to not get senseless penalties, and then as you correctly state, the players have to have the discipline on the field to avoid them.

(01-06-2022, 11:04 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: This is just wrong. 

You are basically saying penalties don't hurt your team and lessen the chance of winning. This is just 100% false. You're seriously trying to tell me that a team has the same or better percentage of picking up a 1st and 20 after a holding call than a 1st and 10? Cmon man.

Maybe it's possible other things happen to the most penalized teams that cause them to win? Causation <> Correlation. 

You're notorious for throwing out surface level stats without digging any deeper. That's like me saying "most car accidents happen within 15 miles of a person's house, that's more dangerous than driving long distances." Well yeah, because that's where people do the most driving.

He's right. What kills you is situational penalties. I've lined up several years of penalty data along with win % and tried to find correlations and everything is either very weak or nonexistent. If you are looking at penalties alone and want to predict the winningest teams, you're better off just throwing a dart at a wall of logos. The other things happening is that good teams can generally overcome penalty issues, generally. Not always, and situational penalties are killers (take the Chiefs penalties against Cincinnati this weekend as an example) but having more or less penalties as a whole doesn't seem to affect your win % much. 

(01-06-2022, 10:15 AM)PhilHos Wrote: He didn't say anything about winning due to the penalties. He said the lack of penalties was due to the coaching staff. Do you disagree with that assertion?

He said it was a sign of a "great coaching staff". I disagree because I measure coaching success by wins instead of penalties. And like I said before there is no real correlation between penalties an wins.

Would you call Taylor a "great coach" if we just had 4 wins but had fewest penalties.

(01-06-2022, 08:04 AM)Soonerpeace Wrote: And leading the league in fewest penalties is so indicative of great coaching yet still several if given a truth serum don’t want Zac Taylor as their coach [emoji1751]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've been swayed.
I was fine keeping Taylor as long as he got the team to a winning record, and I'm fine with a multi-year extension since he got the team to the playoffs and division title.
Hopefully this year isn't a fluke.

Yep, the chiefs had the same problem at the beginning of the season and went on an 8 game winning spree once they took care of Mahommes INT buffet.

I think INTs/Fumbles are the biggest demoralizers for a team, specially those that turn into 7 points, more so if you go 60 yrds down the field then lose the ball.

We had the horrible luck this season, i think, that most INTs/fumbles on our end were returned for pts.

(01-06-2022, 11:31 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: He's right. What kills you is situational penalties. I've lined up several years of penalty data along with win % and tried to find correlations and everything is either very weak or nonexistent. If you are looking at penalties alone and want to predict the winningest teams, you're better off just throwing a dart at a wall of logos. The other things happening is that good teams can generally overcome penalty issues, generally. Not always, and situational penalties are killers (take the Chiefs penalties against Cincinnati this weekend as an example) but having more or less penalties as a whole doesn't seem to affect your win % much. 

Yes, situational penalties are the killer.....and we've been bad with those the last few years, sans 2021.

(01-06-2022, 12:27 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I've been swayed.
I was fine keeping Taylor as long as he got the team to a winning record, and I'm fine with a multi-year extension since he got the team to the playoffs and division title.
Hopefully this year isn't a fluke.

I personally feel a two year extension is warranted, but I wouldn't go any further at the moment. Why? Because of what you noted about making sure it isn't a fluke.

(01-06-2022, 12:32 PM)Bengalitis Wrote: Yep, the chiefs had the same problem at the beginning of the season and went on an 8 game winning spree once they took care of Mahommes INT buffet.

I think INTs/Fumbles are the biggest demoralizers for a team, specially those that turn into  7 points, more so if you go 60 yrds down the field then lose the ball.

We had the horrible luck this season, i think, that most INTs/fumbles on our end were returned for pts.

.....and red zone turnovers that erase sure points for us. We've had a few of those too.

(01-06-2022, 12:35 PM)Wyche Wrote: I personally feel a two year extension is warranted, but I wouldn't go any further at the moment. Why? Because of what you noted about making sure it isn't a fluke.

2 yrs sounds about right. If he wins the super bowl, give him 4-5 yrs.