(11-01-2016, 12:17 AM)Bengalholic Wrote: Just curious brother, if they had made the FG...in your opinion, would the D have still have 'done it's job'?

The reason I ask is because this seems to be - at least partly - dependent on whether the kick is made or not. 

They allowed the drive that put the Skins in position to win. Does missing the FG discount the drive that put them in position? 

As I said a few posts back, IMO when they shut down that offense on the first drive of OT, they did their job. 

Now a question for you: Do you feel the Skin's D did their job in OT?

(11-01-2016, 12:24 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said a few posts back, IMO when they shut down that offense on the first drive of OT, they did their job. 

Now a question for you: Do you feel the Skin's D did their job in OT?

I know you posed this to Holic but I would say yes.  In OT the Skins gave up 58 yards on 14 plays while also forcing one turnover.  The Bengals gave up 92 yards on 16 plays while forcing zero turnovers,  including a 10 play 62 yard drive which culminated in a missed game winning 34 yard FG attempt.

(11-01-2016, 12:24 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said a few posts back, IMO when they shut down that offense on the first drive of OT, they did their job. 

Now a question for you: Do you feel the Skin's D did their job in OT?

So, even if they allowed the game winning FG, they did their job? I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that.

As for the Redskins D in OT...they forced a punt on the Bengals first drive and the Bengals fumbled on the 2nd. They didn't allow the Bengals to get into FG position on either drive. Each side helped the other (missed FG, fumble)...but, I would say the Redskins did their job because because the Bengals couldn't get any farther than the Redskins 40 (ending at the 48).

You can say that neither team allowed any points and you'd be correct. However, one allowed a game winning FG attempt, while the other didn't. That's not my opinion, that's the way it went down.

(11-01-2016, 12:45 AM)Bengalholic Wrote: So, even if they allowed the game winning FG, they did their job? I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that.

As for the Redskins D in OT...they forced a punt on the Bengals first drive and the Bengals fumbled on the 2nd. They didn't allow the Bengals to get into FG position on either drive. Each side helped the other (missed FG, fumble)...but, I would say the Redskins did their job because because the Bengals couldn't get any farther than the Redskins 40 (ending at the 48).

You can say that neither team allowed any points and you'd be correct. However, one allowed a game winning FG attempt, while the other didn't. That's not my opinion, that's the way it went down.

Disagree all you want but only one of us is dealing in ifs.

Bengals were in FG position on the opening drive of OT. The QB just made a bonehead move of taking a sack where you cannot take one. We were also driving on our second possession in OT when our QB fumbles the ball. 

As I said you and others think giving up 0 points in OT is not doing your job. Seems like a pretty tough crowd from where I sit. 

(11-01-2016, 12:35 AM)JumboTron Wrote: I know you posed this to Holic but I would say yes.  In OT the Skins gave up 58 yards on 14 plays while also forcing one turnover.  The Bengals gave up 92 yards on 16 plays while forcing zero turnovers,  including a 10 play 62 yard drive which culminated in a missed game winning 34 yard FG attempt.

Only one team was in scoring position on their opening drive in OT. 

(10-31-2016, 11:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep, they should have done their job and given up 0 points in OT. 

As I said half the team did their job in OT; yet folks are trying very hard to disagree with this. 

Allowing them to drive to the 16 yard line and attempt a 34 yard field goal is not doing their job just because they missed the kick. 

(10-31-2016, 11:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You further realize that if a team does not score in OT that the opposing D has done their job, right?

lol. No.

This isn't a vacuum. There are reasons, other than the defense stopping them, that they didn't score. 

(10-31-2016, 11:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why didn't Washington just score the TD?

Because on 2nd and 4 from the 13, they decided to have the QB position the ball in the middle of the field to attempt a field goal on 3rd down, which of course, would allow them to still be able to attempt another field goal on 4th down if there was a bad snap on 3rd. 

You've seen a few NFL games. I'm sure it's not the first time you've seen something like that.

(11-01-2016, 12:04 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Did they try the FG on 1st down knowing it would win the game? 

My logic is nothing more than the D did its job in OT by giving up 0 points. Obviously my logic should be questioned

Yeah. When they have a 2nd and 4 on the 13 and decided to kick in sudden death, only to miss, and you credit the D with doing their job, it should.

(10-31-2016, 11:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Along with half the team I also don't pick a coach when picking best/worst in a game. D had a bad game but I cannot pinpoint one person that really stood out; although in my OP I did lean toward Carlos Dunlap. When the good players underperform; it is more costly and rewarding. Nuge missing a FG is to be expected unfortunately. 

That didn't bother me as much as the XP.  It was 51 yards....a kick you'd like to have, but understandable.  The XP, just bush league.

(11-01-2016, 12:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Disagree all you want but only one of us is dealing in ifs.

Bengals were in FG position on the opening drive of OT. The QB just made a bonehead move of taking a sack where you cannot take one. We were also driving on our second possession in OT when our QB fumbles the ball. 

As I said you and others think giving up 0 points in OT is not doing your job. Seems like a pretty tough crowd from where I sit. 

Yeah, when the o-line that's been terrible all year gave up that sack in OT, we were set up for a 57 yard FG. That's not Nugent's range. You may as well say our own 30 is in "FG range".

(11-01-2016, 12:05 AM)Bengalholic Wrote: Did the D allow the Skins to get in position for a chip shot FG in OT?

Fortunately the Skins kicker missed, but you you can't overlook the drive the preceded the FG attempt and pretend it didn't happen. Well, you can, but it wouldn't be very honest. 

I have no problem giving them credit for the first stop. Likewise, I have no problem saying they gave the Skins an opportunity to win the game on their second attempt to stop them. Why is that so hard to admit?

Not to mention dude hit the one prior to the timeout.....we got lucky.  It's really that simple.

(11-01-2016, 01:13 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Allowing them to drive to the 16 yard line and attempt a 34 yard field goal is not doing their job just because they missed the kick. 

I'm enjoying the creativity and solidarity. What is the difference between that and forcing them to punt?

(11-01-2016, 02:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm enjoying the creativity and solidarity. What is the difference between that and forcing them to punt?

Because a 34 yard FG attempt is a scoring opportunity and a punt isn't. LOL, you're attempting to equate letting a team drive deep into your territory to set up a game winning FG that was missed to forcing a team to punt as some sort of way to prove defensive effectiveness. Good God you can't be serious.

 Are you at all familiar with the sport of football?  Honest question.

(11-01-2016, 04:56 PM)JumboTron Wrote: Because a 34 yard FG attempt is a scoring opportunity and a punt isn't.  LOL, you're attempting to equate letting a team drive deep into your territory to set up a game winning FG that was missed to forcing a team to punt as some sort of way to prove defensive effectiveness.  Good God you can't be serious.

 Are you at all familiar with the sport of football?  Honest question.

I am familiar with the sport and understand every play is a scoring opportunity; are you not aware of this?

If (as folks want to play the if game) the Bengals had forced them into a punting situation (like they did on the opening drive) and Wash fakes it and picks up a first, then they go one to score, has the Defense done its job? 

Good God I am serious, when a Defense holds a team to zero points in a sudden death situation; they have done their job. I have already admitted I am in the minority in this thread making that assertion. I suppose some consider giving up zero points not good enough. 

If we're going off of ifs.....if we make a freaking XP, the whole OT discussion is moot.

(11-01-2016, 05:54 PM)Wyche Wrote: If we're going off of ifs.....if we make a freaking XP, the whole OT discussion is moot.

I agree that ifs have no point in the discussion. But given the theme around here if the XP is made we lose the game because Wash does not settle for the FG, they score  a TD to win in regulation. 

(11-01-2016, 06:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I agree that ifs have no point in the discussion. But given the theme around here if the XP is made we lose the game because Wash does not settle for the FG, they score  a TD to win in regulation. 

That's possible too....

(11-01-2016, 02:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm enjoying the creativity and solidarity. What is the difference between that and forcing them to punt?

There really isn't any creativity in any of it. It's all common sense. 

Forcing them to punt means they didn't have an immediate opportunity to score, unlike when they were on the 13 and then 16 and decided they wanted to end the game on a field goal instead of trying to continue on to a touchdown. 

(11-01-2016, 05:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I am familiar with the sport and understand every play is a scoring opportunity; are you not aware of this?

If (as folks want to play the if game) the Bengals had forced them into a punting situation (like they did on the opening drive) and Wash fakes it and picks up a first, then they go one to score, has the Defense done its job? 

Good God I am serious, when a Defense holds a team to zero points in a sudden death situation; they have done their job. I have already admitted I am in the minority in this thread making that assertion. I suppose some consider giving up zero points not good enough. 

How is a kicker missing a relatively easy field goal the defense doing its job?

Seriously. The defense had nothing to do with the missed field goal. Most if not all were standing on the sidelines. That, after they allowed them to get into position to win the game. 

So again, how do they get credit for doing their job when they allow a scoring opportunity and then have nothing at all to do with causing the missed field goal?