Brady, Rodgers, and Ben would have run the clock down before snapping the ball on the Mixon TD.

Lots of other issues in the game that were far more significant than this one. Too many dropped passes, not running Mixon more, not going for it on 4th and 1 on their 40, and no pass rush.

No pass rush is the main reason we lost the game.

(10-15-2018, 10:26 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I see a lot of the same, but again Dre gets blame for one big play against a great group, 1 play of 80??????

Why can't our defensive backs quit trying to be the hero? How many contested balls do they lose before they learn? Why can't they learn to bat the ball to the other defensive player when we have 2 and they have one? We should have 10 picks if they would learn this simple tip drill.

Very true. I don't put the blame on Dre for losing the game. It just really bothered me to see him half-assing behind a receiver. You can't take plays off especially against Pittsburgh.

(10-15-2018, 10:03 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: This is just so wrong. 

This has nothing to do with milking the clock an extra 15 seconds. The Bengals had 2 timeouts and time was on THEIR side. Over a minute left in the game and they are in the red zone. Milk the clock as much as you can to give your opponent the least amount of time left possible to score. This is football 101. 

Time was NEVER an issue with the Bengals on their final offensive drive. Not even close. 

It is? To run the clock down when your losing? I don't get it. You run plays to score a TD, not milk the clock being down by 6 with hopes to score. Seahawks wish they would of scored when they had a chance to instead of getting to cute.

(10-15-2018, 11:17 AM)Hoofhearted Wrote: It is? To run the clock down when your losing? I don't get it. You run plays to score a TD, not milk the clock being down by 6 with hopes to score. Seahawks wish they would of scored when they had a chance to instead of getting to cute.

You're wrong. That's fine with no TO's but they had 2 TO's left. Do you understand that? Not to mention they were inside the 15 yard line. You milk the clock as much as you can by NOT running OOB and you take the play clock down to 5 before snapping. The clock is/ was/ never will be the issue in that exact situation. Your set of downs is what you're competing against and they had all day long to run 4-5 plays. You're trying to score a TD but you're also trying to give the ball back with a little time as possible especially to a team that only needs a FG to win..

(10-15-2018, 09:13 AM)Hoofhearted Wrote:

I mean do you think the defense would of not knew the snap count if the clock was running down to 0? What about them timing that up and filling the gaps? Maybe even lose yards, penalty, or turnover? 

You don't have to milk the clock to zero.    Just take it down to within 15 seconds a snap.   Pittsburgh would still not know the snap count, but you've taken some important insurance seconds off the clock.  You have to multitask in this game.  All the good teams do it.

(10-15-2018, 10:25 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: You really, truly believe that? Here is a nugget: 


Three times on the go-ahead drive they snapped the ball with the game clock running — each time with at least 16 seconds remaining on the play clock.

Here is a look at each:

• On third and 4 from their own 31, they snapped it with 22 seconds left on the play clock and got a first down on a 5-yard pass from Dalton to Uzomah.
• On first and 10 from their own 36, they snapped it with 16 seconds on the play clock and got a pass interference penalty on Pittsburgh.
• On first and 10 from the Pittsburgh 11, they snapped it with 17 seconds on the play clock and got a 7-yard completion from Dalton to Green.
  

Had they taken the play clock under 10 seconds in each instance, Pittsburgh would have had 44 seconds to work with rather than 1:12.

Two of those were from their own 31 and 36.  At that point you have to be inb a bit of a hurry because you have no idea how long it will take you to score.

Even when we had first and 10 at the Pitt 11 we might have needed all 8 plays to get in the end zone.

I guarantee if they ahd started milking the clock when on their own 30 yard line there would have been boos from the crowd.

(10-15-2018, 11:23 AM)higgy100 Wrote:  Your set of downs is what you're competing against and they had all day long to run 4-5 plays.

Actually you are looking at possibly 8 plays.  Even with 2 timeouts you have to be careful with the clock.

(10-15-2018, 11:23 AM)higgy100 Wrote: You're wrong. That's fine with no TO's but they had 2 TO's left. Do you understand that? Not to mention they were inside the 15 yard line. You milk the clock as much as you can by NOT running OOB and you take the play clock down to 5 before snapping. The clock is/ was/ never will be the issue in that exact situation. Your set of downs is what you're competing against and they had all day long to run 4-5 plays. You're trying to score a TD but you're also trying to give the ball back with a little time as possible especially to a team that only needs a FG to win..

I am not wrong. We were LOSING the game in that particular situation. You are all speaking in hypothetical that we were guaranteed to score if we ran the clock down some more. Nothing at all states that if bengals milk 30 more seconds, they're for sure , 100% going to score a TD. That's wrong. 

(10-15-2018, 10:33 AM)bengals67 Wrote: Brady, Rodgers, and Ben would have run the clock down before snapping the ball on the Mixon TD.

That would have been pretty stupid considering the game clock was stopped until we snapped the ball.

(10-15-2018, 11:26 AM)3wt Wrote: You don't have to milk the clock to zero.    Just take it down to within 15 seconds a snap.   Pittsburgh would still not know the snap count, but you've taken some important insurance seconds off the clock.  You have to multitask in this game.  All the good teams do it.

They did that except the score play, where they snapped it at 22. They took away the two minute warning, so that ate up one TO. I thought that drive was pretty, sure there's some small things they probably could of done, but I thought it was gutsy and maybe even heroic. 

The D shit the bed, but we're $hitting on the one side of the ball (Offense) that kept us a chance to win the game. It's madness.

(10-15-2018, 09:28 AM)psychdoctor Wrote: At some point you have to trust your defense to get pressure.  The defense line was held, blatant holding on several plays.  They did not get pressure.

Why are you going to trust a ham strung unit that has not got pressure on the Steelers all day to suddenly perform?

Letting the clock tick down a little each snap is an easy thing to do, and totally more realistic than depending on our D at that point.  Even if you let the clock wind down an extra 10 seconds a snap could have meant the difference in the game.

This article is a little extreme and has the Bengals getting it down to 16 seconds.   I'm pretty sure we could have safely got it down to 30 seconds.

A lot better than 1:12

https://www.cincyjungle.com/2018/10/15/17976870/the-impact-of-clock-management-on-the-bengals-final-drive

(10-15-2018, 11:31 AM)fredtoast Wrote: That would have been pretty stupid considering the game clock was stopped until we snapped the ball.

Yep, wasn't the prior play when AJ got out of bounds?

Do people not understand by letting the clock run down you allow the defense to adjust to what your formation is? You also allow them to time the snap. Pittsburgh is notorious for shifting their D late. By going sooner, you catch them out of position.
IMO, the play that hurt us, was early in the 4th. We were driving and Redmond gave up a sack and pretty much killed the drive.

Meh, what's the point of worrying about who is responsible when you are an organisation that won't do anything about it?

(10-15-2018, 11:44 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Meh, what's the point of worrying about who is responsible when you are an organisation that won't do anything about it?

Not entirely true. We fired Zampese mid-season last year, doubt Austin gets the same treatment, but the Bengals are doing things a little differently the last year or two.

And as bad as Austin is, who would we even replace him with? Haslett? Let Marvin call the defense?

(10-15-2018, 11:48 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Not entirely true. We fired Zampese mid-season last year, doubt Austin gets the same treatment, but the Bengals are doing things a little differently the last year or two.

And as bad as Austin is, who would we even replace him with? Haslett? Let Marvin call the defense?

I thought of Zampese as I typed that, but I also refuse to be very impressed that we gave a guy a job he clearly wasn't qualified for and then came to our senses a mere 18 games later.  It's just shows how low the bar is around here.  It would be like me naming my cat the VP of my business and then getting a real VP a  year or so later.

I mean...it was pretty stupid for Nate to make his cat the VP of the company.  But you have to hand it to him, he DID get a real VP 16 months later, so that's a plus.

(10-15-2018, 11:17 AM)Hoofhearted Wrote: It is? To run the clock down when your losing? I don't get it. You run plays to score a TD, not milk the clock being down by 6 with hopes to score. Seahawks wish they would of scored when they had a chance to instead of getting to cute.

It situational football. Just because you are losing doesnt mean you cant milk the clock. The Bengals were inside the red zone with a minute left and two time outs. Time wasn't an issue for the Bengals. It could have been made an issue for the Steelers. 

(10-15-2018, 11:53 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I thought of Zampese as I typed that, but I also refuse to be very impressed that we gave a guy a job he clearly wasn't qualified for and then came to our senses a mere 18 games later.  It's just shows how low the bar is around here.  It would be like me naming my cat the VP of my business and then getting a real VP a  year or so later.

I mean...it was pretty stupid for Nate to make his cat the VP of the company.  But you have to hand it to him, he DID get a real VP 16 months later, so that's a plus.

Giving him the job wasn’t the issue, no one could have predicted how truly horrendous he would be, but they certainly waited too long to give him the axe.

(10-15-2018, 11:34 AM)3wt Wrote: Why are you going to trust a ham strung unit that has not got pressure on the Steelers all day to suddenly perform?

Letting the clock tick down a little each snap is an easy thing to do, and totally more realistic than depending on our D at that point.  Even if you let the clock wind down an extra 10 seconds a snap could have meant the difference in the game.

This article is a little extreme and has the Bengals getting it down to 16 seconds.   I'm pretty sure we could have safely got it down to 30 seconds.

A lot better than 1:12

https://www.cincyjungle.com/2018/10/15/17976870/the-impact-of-clock-management-on-the-bengals-final-drive

This is the dumbest article I have seen in my life.  It tells exactly how to run the clock when you know exactly what is going to happen on every plan.  Anyone can look like a coaching genius when they know exactly what is going to happen.

The fact is that if the Bengals had started milking the clock on the second play of the drive way back in their own territory the crowd would have started booing.  

Even when we had first and ten at the Pitt 11 it could have taken us 8 plays to get into the end zone.  Even with 2 timeouts we had to be careful with the clock.

(10-15-2018, 11:58 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote:  The Bengals were inside the red zone with a minute left and two time outs. Time wasn't an issue for the Bengals. 

Yes time was an issue.  Even with first and ten at the 11 it could have taken us 8 plays to score.