(10-22-2024, 06:04 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Because running your mouth isn't demoralizing opponents, it doesn't win games, and it doesn't completely put a comeback out of reach. Scoring points does all of that. Meanwhile talking smack prior to a game is just pointless barking.

Right

Especially when you're 1-3 or 2-5 or whatever. 

(10-22-2024, 11:30 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Idk the Lions, Bills, Texans, etc winning one before us would just make it hurt even more honestly.

That Rams game was our chance. I still feel like we could have did more on offense to counter their defensive moves.

I would rather see Burrow call the plays... have we tried a hurry up offense?

(10-23-2024, 10:36 AM)Soonerpeace Wrote: I knew they won more games

Really?  How do you figure that?  He went 2-3 while averaging 17 points per game.

(10-23-2024, 10:26 AM)jj22 Wrote: Questions about trusting Burrow in clutch situations.

Questions about a struggling Kicker and why they are struggling....

Right. "it's not just you". It sounds familiar. But I can't quite put my finger on who brought these things up weeks/months ago under heavy insults / personal attacks. Someone wise with exceptional vision and astute observations I believe. 

Yes, these tweets are saying it is stupid to NOT trust Burrow.  You are hilarious sometimes JJ.

(10-23-2024, 12:19 PM)QueenCity Wrote: I would rather see Burrow call the plays... have we tried a hurry up offense?

Can you imagine Burrow, Chase, Higgins and Sam Wyche?

(10-23-2024, 11:28 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: That Rams game was our chance. I still feel like we could have did more on offense to counter their defensive moves.

The 7 drive offensive lul in the game was just a back breaker. We had a chance to break the game WIDE open and just couldn't do anything on offense. It was a classic ZT in game offensive draught we have seen a 100 times. 

(10-23-2024, 03:44 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: The 7 drive offensive lul in the game was just a back breaker. We had a chance to break the game WIDE open and just couldn't do anything on offense. It was a classic ZT in game offensive draught we have seen a 100 times. 

Our best play in the 2nd half was Tee Higgins pulling a Steven Seagal on a CB's neck while the refs were tying their shoes or sneezing or something. Lol

I would have celebrated the hell out of the Bengals winning the SB regardless, but can you imagine how loud the media coverage have been if we beat LA in LA and that no-call for a TD was the deciding play that's going to run on all of the sports programs?

(10-23-2024, 03:23 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Yes, these tweets are saying it is stupid to NOT trust Burrow.  You are hilarious sometimes JJ.

Well to answer the question of this thread, maybe there is a reason coaches don't seem like they trust Burrow, and maybe it's the reasons I've highlighted, and maybe it's not. But one thing I agree with you on is they don't coach like they do. 

Do you think they'd trust Brady or Mahomes? Not that Burrow has to be Brady or Mahomes, but is this philosophy (they would still play "prevent offense" with those QB's), or is it trust?

If it's trust, then it's safe to discuss why or how they've come to this.

If it's philosophy then this isn't about Burrow it's about coaching philosophy. 

So I guess if anyone could clarify their points (if they believe it's trust of philosophy) it'd add to this discussion. 

(10-23-2024, 03:23 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Yes, these tweets are saying it is stupid to NOT trust Burrow.  You are hilarious sometimes JJ.

Hilarious is a kind way of putting it.

Chase and Higgins were getting open vs the Browns
Secondary. Same story as Bmore . Joe gets Into
A rhythm and is having his way with the defense
And ZT takes the ball out of his hands in favor
Of very predictable runs in the 4th
ZT Needs to have that mindset of putting teams
Away and not letting them hang around
He has a 14 to 2 TD to INT ratio and some of
You agree with ZT prevent offense
You can go to a 2 TE set offense and still throw high % passes

For some reason I get these reels on Facebook that are teams running well designed plays. Haven't run into a Cincy one yet.

(10-23-2024, 05:09 PM)jj22 Wrote: Well to answer the question of this thread, maybe there is a reason coaches don't seem like they trust Burrow, and maybe it's the reasons I've highlighted, and maybe it's not. But one thing I agree with you on is they don't coach like they do. 

Do you think they'd trust Brady or Mahomes? Not that Burrow has to be Brady or Mahomes, but is this philosophy (they would still play "prevent offense" with those QB's), or is it trust?

If it's trust, then it's safe to discuss why or how they've come to this.

If it's philosophy then this isn't about Burrow it's about coaching philosophy. 

So I guess if anyone could clarify their points (if they believe it's trust of philosophy) it'd add to this discussion. 

I don't feel like it's a matter of trust, at all. Zac was recently quoted after the Giants game on being disappointed that Brown took that last TD run the distance. Zac wanted to hold the ball and run out the clock. He wants to leave nothing whatsoever to chance. In other words, he's playing not to lose.

In my opinion, that is the wrong attitude to have given the team that he has assembled. The are a scoring team, not a ball control team. If he wants to be ball control, he needs to bring in the correct personnel for the job, and improve the defense along the way.

(10-21-2024, 11:46 AM)casear2727 Wrote: I think moving the goal posts changes the entire argument though.  My beef is doing this with over 6 minutes left in the game, not under 4... totally different circumstances.  

Yeah. The further away from the end, the less the argument holds up. 

If Gesicki hadn't fallen on the football, I don't want to think what could have happened.

(10-23-2024, 05:09 PM)jj22 Wrote: Well to answer the question of this thread, maybe there is a reason coaches don't seem like they trust Burrow, and maybe it's the reasons I've highlighted, and maybe it's not. But one thing I agree with you on is they don't coach like they do. 

Do you think they'd trust Brady or Mahomes? Not that Burrow has to be Brady or Mahomes, but is this philosophy (they would still play "prevent offense" with those QB's), or is it trust?

If it's trust, then it's safe to discuss why or how they've come to this.

If it's philosophy then this isn't about Burrow it's about coaching philosophy. 

So I guess if anyone could clarify their points (if they believe it's trust of philosophy) it'd add to this discussion. 

I have zero qualms about saying it has nothing to do with their trust in Burrow. It's more the philosophy to do things that are more than likely to win games without putting the possession in danger and knowing you have a QB that can come back if it happens. 

It's much easier to be more conservative when you have an elite QB and a kicker who can hit from 58+. It just sucks as a fan who wants to see more aggressiveness and even moreso when your kicker hasn't been as consistent as you'd like. 

After i get back to highlighting the "clutchness" debate, i'll probably look at how many close games were won by just holding the lead. The losses just stand out more and are more easily remembered. 

(10-23-2024, 10:31 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I have zero qualms about saying it has nothing to do with their trust in Burrow. It's more the philosophy to do things that are more than likely to win games without putting the possession in danger and knowing you have a QB that can come back if it happens. 

It's much easier to be more conservative when you have an elite QB and a kicker who can hit from 58+. It just sucks as a fan who wants to see more aggressiveness and even moreso when your kicker hasn't been as consistent as you'd like. 

After i get back to highlighting the "clutchness" debate, i'll probably look at how many close games were won by just holding the lead. The losses just stand out more and are more easily remembered. 

It sure would be remembered if we were really aggressive and it went for an interception, and it lost us the game...

That is all I know.

I just wish we would ride the hot hand late in games more and trust it. But I understand the conservative play for the win when we are up ways.

(10-24-2024, 01:21 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: It sure would be remembered if we were really aggressive and it went for an interception, and it lost us the game...

That is all I know.

I just wish we would ride the hot hand late in games more and trust it. But I understand the conservative play for the win when we are up ways.

Up by one score, I would have let Burrow fling it. Up by two scores, I am perfectly fine letting them protect the ball on the ground.

(10-24-2024, 01:40 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Up by one score, I would have let Burrow fling it. Up by two scores, I am perfectly fine letting them protect the ball on the ground.

Same, in the end I am fine with it. We won, that is all that matters. Hope it happens again this Sunday against the Smeagols as long as we win.

(10-23-2024, 05:09 PM)jj22 Wrote: Well to answer the question of this thread, maybe there is a reason coaches don't seem like they trust Burrow, and maybe it's the reasons I've highlighted, and maybe it's not. But one thing I agree with you on is they don't coach like they do. 

Do you think they'd trust Brady or Mahomes? Not that Burrow has to be Brady or Mahomes, but is this philosophy (they would still play "prevent offense" with those QB's), or is it trust?

If it's trust, then it's safe to discuss why or how they've come to this.

If it's philosophy then this isn't about Burrow it's about coaching philosophy. 

So I guess if anyone could clarify their points (if they believe it's trust of philosophy) it'd add to this discussion. 

One thing that would significantly improve their offense and especially late in games is to move JB out of the pocket more. Shorten the throws, create better angles, less chances balls get batted down, use the sideline more as your friend. He's a good enough athlete with enough mobility for this. Standing deep in a pocket ain't always the best thing.