(11-02-2022, 09:09 PM)jason Wrote: It'll be Wilkes vs Taylor, a number one on any other team & Boyd vs DJ Moore, Burrow vs the XFL... On paper that game is ours to win. Chase is a big loss, but we have a top 5 QB, 2 legit WRs still, Hurst, and a stable of RBs, and we're at home... There is zero excuse to lose this game.

There wasn't much of an excuse to get thumped 25-0 before scoring the other night though either.

Yep. We play a team that traded their 2 best offensive players and fired their coach and is trying to tank.

(11-03-2022, 10:27 AM)Au165 Wrote: Yea, my comment was simply around the idea the schedule was "pathetically easy" when in reality it has been one of the harder schedules. 20 teams currently in the NFL are .500 or worse which creates a perception issue. We simply assume there are more "good" teams than there are but the reality is the NFL is 3-4 good teams and then a massive middle that changes week to week.

Trubisky, Rush, Flacco, Dalton, Brissett, Jackson, Marietta, and Bridgewater. That's 7 backups/busts.



The Steelers would have 1 win without beating us. The Browns 2.


The Dolphins record is ok, but we played them without Tua. Same with the Jets. We played them with Flacco.



Dallas was much better than expected.


This schedule was easy. Catching teams without good QB's or their starter is a huge boost.

(11-03-2022, 10:36 AM)WychesWarrior Wrote: How good is Carolina in the trenches? I haven't watched them. If they're below average, we will win. If they're good, it's a toss up.

Cleveland's lines dominated ours, and they did it last year too. 

Burns is gonna be a problem on the D line. I know that much.

(11-03-2022, 12:42 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Trubisky, Rush, Flacco, Dalton, Brissett, Jackson, Marietta, and Bridgewater. That's 7 backups/busts.



The Steelers would have 1 win without beating us. The Browns 2.


The Dolphins record is ok, but we played them without Tua. Same with the Jets. We played them with Flacco.



Dallas was much better than expected.


This schedule was easy. Catching teams without good QB's or their starter is a huge boost.

I didn't see you answer it before, so let me ask again: why are you talking about opposing team's QBs? We've lost the games we've lost due to our offense not showing up or showing up too late. That has nothing to do with the quality of QB on the other side of the field.

Also, Bridgewater outplayed Tua in the game against us and Flacco was a better QB for the Jets than Wilson has been (this year). So don't know why you're complaining that we didn't have the easier QB to play against in those games.

(11-03-2022, 01:57 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I didn't see you answer it before, so let me ask again: why are you talking about opposing team's QBs? We've lost the games we've lost due to our offense not showing up or showing up too late. That has nothing to do with the quality of QB on the other side of the field.

Also, Bridgewater outplayed Tua in the game against us and Flacco was a better QB for the Jets than Wilson has been (this year). So don't know why you're complaining that we didn't have the easier QB to play against in those games.

I think that's his point though... The defense played well enough to win those games we lost. Our offense is high power on paper, but has been a dud at times this year. As far as that Jets game. That was a better win than it first appeared. That team got rolling before Breece Hall went down. We were the last team to really contain him.

(11-03-2022, 02:17 PM)jason Wrote: I think that's his point though... The defense played well enough to win those games we lost. Our offense is high power on paper, but has been a dud at times this year. As far as that Jets game. That was a better win than it first appeared. That team got rolling before Breece Hall went down. We were the last team to really contain him.

.....and Flacco was actually playing rather well at the time. The Jets have drafted well lately. If Zach pans out, they could be a force over the next few years. Gardner is legit.

(11-03-2022, 01:57 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I didn't see you answer it before, so let me ask again: why are you talking about opposing team's QBs? We've lost the games we've lost due to our offense not showing up or showing up too late. That has nothing to do with the quality of QB on the other side of the field.

Also, Bridgewater outplayed Tua in the game against us and Flacco was a better QB for the Jets than Wilson has been (this year). So don't know why you're complaining that we didn't have the easier QB to play against in those games.

If you don't see how playing against mediocre QB's is an advantage over playing against quality NFL starters...I'm not going to explain it to you. 

(11-03-2022, 02:17 PM)jason Wrote: I think that's his point though... The defense played well enough to win those games we lost. Our offense is high power on paper, but has been a dud at times this year. As far as that Jets game. That was a better win than it first appeared. That team got rolling before Breece Hall went down. We were the last team to really contain him.

Yep. And with better QB's...those teams probably put up more points, making the offense need to produce more to win.

Dolphins are undefeated when Tua starts and plays the entire game.

I'm sure the Browns will be better with Watson than Brissett.

The Jets? They definately got better as the year went. And Wilson is definately better than Flacco.

Just like Prescott is better than Cooper Rush.

(11-03-2022, 01:57 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I didn't see you answer it before, so let me ask again: why are you talking about opposing team's QBs? We've lost the games we've lost due to our offense not showing up or showing up too late. That has nothing to do with the quality of QB on the other side of the field.

Also, Bridgewater outplayed Tua in the game against us and Flacco was a better QB for the Jets than Wilson has been (this year). So don't know why you're complaining that we didn't have the easier QB to play against in those games.

And WHO is responsible for our offense? (Hint: Look at thread title).

This offense should be putting up 30 a game. But, we can blame the line. And Mixon. And injuries. And Burrow. And the refs. And all kinds of stuff.

The reality is we run a very rudimentary playbook. The shotgun plays and the under center plays look like 2 separate team playbooks. It's disjointed. The playcalls are predictable and basic. Also, this team doesn't use screens/slants like many other teams do.

But, apparently 'great coaches' aren't responsible for the OC's/playcallers.

(11-03-2022, 03:40 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: And WHO is responsible for our offense? (Hint: Look at thread title).

This offense should be putting up 30 a game. But, we can blame the line. And Mixon. And injuries. And Burrow. And the refs. And all kinds of stuff.

The reality is we run a very rudimentary playbook. The shotgun plays and the under center plays look like 2 separate team playbooks. It's disjointed. The playcalls are predictable and basic. Also, this team doesn't use screens/slants like many other teams do.

But, apparently 'great coaches' aren't responsible for the OC's/playcallers.

Okay, but what has all that got to do with playing mediocre QBs? It wasn't the mediocre QBs that caused us to lose the games we lost. It was our own offense. Blame whomever you want for our poor offensive showings, but why bring up the other teams' QBs if the reason for our losses was because our offense played like the brown stuff that comes out of your butt? Especially in a thread about the OC/playcaller of the Bengals?

It'd be like if there was a thread discussing the injuries to our defense and I brought up that TJ Watt will most likely be back against us in our rematch with the Steelers. Like, wtf?

(11-03-2022, 04:16 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Okay, but what has all that got to do with playing mediocre QBs? It wasn't the mediocre QBs that caused us to lose the games we lost. It was our own offense. Blame whomever you want for our poor offensive showings, but why bring up the other teams' QBs if the reason for our losses was because our offense played like the brown stuff that comes out of your butt? Especially in a thread about the OC/playcaller of the Bengals?

It'd be like if there was a thread discussing the injuries to our defense and I brought up that TJ Watt will most likely be back against us in our rematch with the Steelers. Like, wtf?

I'd say a team with a mediocre QB is easier than a team to beat than a Good QB. It's not like they played teams that put up mid-30 points.

We should totally be 6-2 or 7-1 right now. Instead 4-4.

The front half of our schedule was easier than the back half. We needed to bank wins early.

(11-03-2022, 04:24 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I'd say a team with a mediocre QB is easier than a team to beat than a Good QB. It's not like they played teams that put up mid-30 points.

We should totally be 6-2 or 7-1 right now. Instead 4-4.

The front half of our schedule was easier than the back half. We needed to bank wins early.

I don't disagree with any of this. That said, when our issues this season have stemmed almost exclusively from the offensive side of the ball, why the continued posting of the mediocre QBs we've played?

(11-03-2022, 03:32 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: If you don't see how playing against mediocre QB's is an advantage over playing against quality NFL starters...I'm not going to explain it to you. 

How many times have you seen the Bengals falter against a mediocre QB or team? How many times have you seen the Bengals win or fall just short against really good QBs or teams? All within the same year.

I get your point, in theory, but in reality the Bengals have a very real "problem" of playing to their opponent and the perception of if/how easily they should win or how badly they should lose. 

(11-03-2022, 04:48 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: How many times have you seen the Bengals falter against a mediocre QB or team? How many times have you seen the Bengals win or fall just short against really good QBs or teams? All within the same year.

I get your point, in theory, but in reality the Bengals have a very real "problem" of playing to their opponent and the perception of if/how easily they should win or how badly they should lose. 

Playing down to an opponent sounds like a Head Coaching problem. 

And obviously there is no way to do this, but baseball has WAR (wins above replacement).

If you swapped Zac out with other coaches last year, would the results have been better, worse, or the same?

(11-03-2022, 04:24 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I'd say a team with a mediocre QB is easier than a team to beat than a Good QB. It's not like they played teams that put up mid-30 points.

We should totally be 6-2 or 7-1 right now. Instead 4-4.

The front half of our schedule was easier than the back half. We needed to bank wins early.

Who's easier to beat this year:

Seahawks or Packers

Minnesota or Tampa Bay

Titans or Cardinals

A Good team is harder to beat than a team with a good QB

(11-03-2022, 04:54 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: And obviously there is no way to do this, but baseball has WAR (wins above replacement).

If you swapped Zac out with other coaches last year, would the results have been better, worse, or the same?

22. ZAC TAYLOR, CINCINNATI BENGALS (8.4 – 8.6 RECORD WITH AVERAGE ROSTER)

• Offensive Rank: 21/26 (+7 points scored a season)
• Defensive Rank: 24/26 (+13 points allowed a season)
  

By the data, it is difficult to call Taylor’s regime in Cincinnati a success despite his postseason resume. The estimate suggests that Taylor is riding off the high of the tremendous amount of talent the Bengals have amassed in recent years.
https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-head-coach-rankings-2022-bill-belichick-andy-reid-john-harbaugh



Kingsbury and Reich are too high. 

(11-03-2022, 05:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who's easier to beat this year:

Seahawks or Packers

Minnesota or Tampa Bay

Titans or Cardinals

A Good team is harder to beat than a team with a good QB

Smith is the better QB than Rodgers. Same as Brady. QBs get washed at some age.

The Packers have only sucky WRs.

(11-03-2022, 05:19 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: 22. ZAC TAYLOR, CINCINNATI BENGALS (8.4 – 8.6 RECORD WITH AVERAGE ROSTER)

• Offensive Rank: 21/26 (+7 points scored a season)
• Defensive Rank: 24/26 (+13 points allowed a season)
  

By the data, it is difficult to call Taylor’s regime in Cincinnati a success despite his postseason resume. The estimate suggests that Taylor is riding off the high of the tremendous amount of talent the Bengals have amassed in recent years.
https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-head-coach-rankings-2022-bill-belichick-andy-reid-john-harbaugh



Kingsbury and Reich are too high. 

That's a great find! I'd say it's fairly accurate.

(11-03-2022, 07:58 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Smith is the better QB than Rodgers. Same as Brady. QBs get washed at some age.

The Packers have only sucky WRs.

Thanks for that