They were obviously going for first downs or eve a TD to totally ice it. I was OK with their playcall, try and move the ball to eat the clock as much as possible. You just don't expect a fumble, or maybe you do with Hill running.

(01-10-2016, 12:54 PM)The Real Deal Wrote: Nope because if nugent misses and or steelers score then everyone is bashing Marvin for being too conservative and playing not to lose.

You do exactly what the were planning on doing. Run it 3 times and try to get a first down. If you do,game over. If you don't you kick a fg and and take your chances with steelers having less time and no timeouts,more than likely needing to score a td.

Yep. A miss there and Pitt is sitting pretty good with only about 30 yards to get themselves in position for a game winning FG. 

It wouldn't have been smart, in fact that woulda been pretty dumb. 

(01-10-2016, 09:42 AM)Adamantium Wrote: Well, if we would have been smart and kicked the extra point instead of going for 2, and THEN did what the TS proposed, we would have made them burn through at least 2 time outs AND been up by 4, forcing them to get a TD. I believe our defense could have held them under that circumstance.

If we would have been smart and just plowed it into the end zone on a run play instead of a lateral on the 2 point play the final FG would have sent it to OT.

(01-10-2016, 06:06 AM)SB50Champs Wrote: Take a knee...
Take a knee...
Kick a field goal...
Bengals win...

If only this was a perfect a universe where Lewis was not a complete moron...

The one time where Mr. Conservative needed to go ultra conservative...

In a situation like that, you have to ask yourself what could go wrong and do everything possible to prevent it.  What could go wrong?  The guy who fumbles could fumble.  Can't let that possibly happen.

When they handed him the ball I said, "Oh, God, please don't let him fumble."  And I'm sure I was not alone.

(01-10-2016, 08:01 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: I have to disagree with you.  Kneeling would not have done much except for make them burn their time outs and because of how little time on the play is gone, they would have had the ball with a lot of time left.

So instead we run the ball and fumble, giving them the ball, only 6 seconds fewer on the clocck and all three TOs to work with?

Taking the knee was the correct answer.

They weren't in FG range. Weather and Nugent's accuracy played a big factor.

(01-10-2016, 06:14 PM)Beaker Wrote: So instead we run the ball and fumble, giving them the ball, only 6 seconds fewer on the clocck and all three TOs to work with?

Taking the knee was the correct answer.

Just to remind you, McCarron had already fumbled a snap in the game, so that could have happened just as easily taking a knee.

What about Sanu and the Wildcat in that situation? The thought occurred to me last night. When the defense knows you're running, maybe you give them something else to think about.

(01-10-2016, 06:16 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: Just to remind you, McCarron had already fumbled a snap in the game, so that could have happened just as easily taking a knee.

With the handoff you have two exchanges to possibly fumble. With taking a knee you only have one.

(01-10-2016, 06:14 PM)Beaker Wrote: So instead we run the ball and fumble, giving them the ball, only 6 seconds fewer on the clocck and all three TOs to work with?

Taking the knee was the correct answer.

Did you really think Hill would fumble?

Football 101 says to run with 2 hands on the ball in this situation.  He got 5 - 6 yards.  He keeps 2 hands on the ball, and goes to the ground as soon as the swarm comes on him.  That isn't coaching, that is player stupidity and even selfishness.  He didn't need to lunge forward with only one hand on the ball.

(01-10-2016, 06:15 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: They weren't in FG range. Weather and Nugent's accuracy played a big factor.

So you don't think being in the red zone is in FG range?

(01-10-2016, 06:15 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: They weren't in FG range. Weather and Nugent's accuracy played a big factor.

Yes they were. They were at the stellers 20. Two kneel downs losing a yard each and your snapping the ball at the 23 yard line. That's a 40 yard FG attempt. Plus, even if you missed the FG and gave them the ball at the 30, they are still out of TOs.

You play to win.if the bengals hold onto the ball and get one first down its on the New England.

(01-10-2016, 06:20 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: So you don't think being in the red zone is in FG range?

They weren't in the redzone. 

(01-10-2016, 06:20 PM)Beaker Wrote: Yes they were. They were at the stellers 20. Two kneel downs losing a yard each and your snapping the ball at the 23 yard line. That's a 40 yard FG attempt. Plus, even if you missed the FG and gave them the ball at the 30, they are still out of TOs.

Weather. Nugent has been iffy. 

Running was the right call. Just can't cough it up.

(01-10-2016, 06:32 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Running was the right call. Just can't cough it up.

Should have just kicked it like Minnesota. They won right? 

(01-10-2016, 08:01 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: I have to disagree with you.  Kneeling would not have done much except for make them burn their time outs and because of how little time on the play is gone, they would have had the ball with a lot of time left.

Kicking the FG would have been great, but they would have had over a minute and if you factor in the return we could have lost that game in other ways.

So running was the best play call.  However, I am disgusted that Hill felt the need to get extra yardage.  He got like 6-7 yards and if he goes down right there we burn 6 seconds, they burn a TO.  We run again, if Hill doesn't convert, then another 6 seconds and a TO.  Now we have 3rd and short, we pick up the 1st and game over, we don't they burn their final TO after about 6 seconds gone again.  Kick the FG, and hope we get it.  Now they need a TD with at least 18 ran off the clock and 0 TOs.  If we miss the FG, then they still have 0 TO and we don't lose anything.

Hill's fumble is completely inexcusable, there was 0 need to fight for the extra yardage.  Seems like out of all the players, he is the one that lost his composure the most after the hit on Gio.  He seemed to feel that he had to prove something by getting a 1st down there.  A 1st down run would have only made them burn a TO and we would have been able to run just a little bit more off the clock, would have been great, but not at all needed.  I am sick, because I am just a fan.  I am not a coach, nor a player, however I keep seeing players like Hill, not understand situational football and for them to make the money they do playing this game, they should know what to do in certain situations.  For this one, Hill needed to be more concerned with securing the football and not worried about getting a big run.

A FG would have forced Shitsburg to score a TD. Would have made a difference.

(01-10-2016, 06:33 PM)BengalChris Wrote: A FG would have forced Shitsburg to score a TD. Would have made a difference.

and.... They would have still had plenty of time to get a TD.

It wasn't like we were under 1 min to play.  There was more than 1 and a 1/2 minutes to play.  A return for a TD, a good return.  PI call, anything, would have led to a Steelers victory.

Running was the right call.  Hill holds onto the ball, he gains 5-6 yrds, and they take a TO.  Hill runs again, possibly for another 3 yards and keeps the ball, they call another TO.  Now the moment of truth.  We convert, on a 3rd and short and we win, FG or not, game over, if not, then they take their final TO.  Then we attempt the FG.  We may or may not have succeeded.  So the score could have stay the same.  With less than 1:30 to go. 

Blair Walsh just missed a FG that was much closer than ours would have been, so it isn't impossible to think that Nugent could miss his.

3 runs and a 1st down wins the game.  3 runs and a closer FG attempt was a better option than kneeling for loss of yards just to have them burn TOs. Cause if we miss the FG, they still need a FG to win and they would have been much closer then where they started.

It all comes back to Hill though.  He just needed to remember that the game didn't rely on him getting a 1st down.  It relied on him holding onto the football. 

(01-10-2016, 06:47 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: and.... They would have still had plenty of time to get a TD.

It wasn't like we were under 1 min to play.  There was more than 1 and a 1/2 minutes to play.  A return for a TD, a good return.  PI call, anything, would have led to a Steelers victory.

Running was the right call.  Hill holds onto the ball, he gains 5-6 yrds, and they take a TO.  Hill runs again, possibly for another 3 yards and keeps the ball, they call another TO.  Now the moment of truth.  We convert, on a 3rd and short and we win, FG or not, game over, if not, then they take their final TO.  Then we attempt the FG.  We may or may not have succeeded.  So the score could have stay the same.  With less than 1:30 to go. 

Blair Walsh just missed a FG that was much closer than ours would have been, so it isn't impossible to think that Nugent could miss his.

3 runs and a 1st down wins the game.  3 runs and a closer FG attempt was a better option than kneeling for loss of yards just to have them burn TOs. Cause if we miss the FG, they still need a FG to win and they would have been much closer then where they started.

It all comes back to Hill though.  He just needed to remember that the game didn't rely on him getting a 1st down.  It relied on him holding onto the football. 

They would have had no time outs and a little less than 1:30 left. They wouldn't let them return it either. It's easy to kick the ball out of the end zone.