(11-24-2019, 07:40 PM)bengalguy71 Wrote: You and I said it before FIK.

IF and ONLY IF you want to win andl give the offense the best chance these last 5 games, now that the defense seems to have a handle ...  put Dalton in!!

Finley is NOT their future and they are going to have wait until next year to find a future QB!

NOW, if behind the scenes they are not TRYING to win, then status quo!

The fact that Dalton didn't come trotting in off the sidelines on that last possession where Mr Pocket Awareness was strip sacked says it all. IDK... Maybe Taylor called Dalton's number, and Andy said "F**k you 'coach'.".

(11-24-2019, 07:36 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: They lost to a 4th string QB on a team where almost all their other starters are hurt or suspended.

For the Bengals that would be...
1st Dalton
2nd Finley
3rd Dololololgalala
4th Somebody Worse Than All Of Them

The stats should look good.

Haha...that's what people don't get.

Other teams overcome injuries. We lose AJ Green...and it's an excuse to go 0-11. Well I think that people are starting to realize now.

(11-24-2019, 08:11 PM)jason Wrote: The fact that Dalton didn't come trotting in off the sidelines on that last possession where Mr Pocket Awareness was strip sacked says it all. IDK... Maybe Taylor called Dalton's number, and Andy said "F**k you 'coach'.".

Didn't Ryan get us down to the 10 yard line to take the lead before Boyd fumbled the drive before? Why would any sane coach bring in a replaced starter the was 29th in the NFL and had a passer rating of 50 against this exact same D earlier in the year?

(11-24-2019, 08:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Didn't Ryan get us down to the 10 yard line to take the lead before Boyd fumbled the drive before? Why would any sane coach bring in a replaced starter the was 29th in the NFL and had a passer rating of 50 against this exact same D earlier in the year?

I dunno; because Andy's a better player?

(11-24-2019, 06:42 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The Steelers scored 7 points against the Browns last week. The Raiders scored 3 points against the Jets this week.

The Steelers rushed for 160 yards today and the Bengals D allowed another huge play TD in the passing game.

Yep, and last week against the Raiders, they allowed Carr to complete 86% of his passes for almost 300 yards, their TE's had 7 catches for 86 yards and Jacobs rushed for 112 yards.

(11-24-2019, 08:11 PM)jason Wrote: The fact that Dalton didn't come trotting in off the sidelines on that last possession where Mr Pocket Awareness was strip sacked says it all. IDK... Maybe Taylor called Dalton's number, and Andy said "F**k you 'coach'.".

I don’t think Andy Dalton has the f-bomb in his vocabulary but at this point I’m certain Zac Taylor, right or wrong, is more concerned with evaluating his players than winning. This isn’t the same situation the Steelers are in; they’re in a playoff race so pulling Mason Rudolph for Devlin Hodges made sense. Here’s why: I heard Dan Hoard interview Carlos Dunlap after the game and it was obvious Carlos was pissed off. He freely admitted the Bengals hadn’t even considered to have a contingency game plan against Hodges. While the Cincinnati defense eventually adjusted, Hodges did some serious damage first.

(11-24-2019, 08:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Didn't Ryan get us down to the 10 yard line to take the lead before Boyd fumbled the drive before? Why would any sane coach bring in a replaced starter the was 29th in the NFL and had a passer rating of 50 against this exact same D earlier in the year?

Because Finley was 5/16 (31.3% completion) for 84 yards (5.25 YPA) in the 2nd half and threw multiple passes that hit both of a defender's hands and multiple more that were wobbling straight into the ground three yards short of the WR?

"Why would any sane coach bench a QB who earlier this year went 24/28 (85.7%), 229 yards (8.2 AVG), 2 TD/0 INT, 124.6 QB Rating against this Bengals defense?"

Because he was sucking and benching him gave them the best chance to win, which they did.

(11-24-2019, 08:40 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Because Finley was 5/16 (31.3% completion) for 84 yards (5.25 YPA) in the 2nd half and threw multiple passes that hit both of a defender's hands and multiple more that were wobbling straight into the ground three yards short of the WR?

"Why would any sane coach bench a QB who earlier this year went 24/28 (85.7%), 229 yards (8.2 AVG), 2 TD/0 INT, 124.6 QB Rating against this Bengals defense?"

Because he was sucking and benching him gave them the best chance to win, which they did.

The Steelers most likely benched Mason because he still seemed rattled from last week's debacle and they had another young QB on the gameday who had shown promise earlier in the year in a start against the Chargers. 

That in no way explains why a team should go back to a benched veteran who absolutely sucked against this same D earlier in the season when their rookie QB has them right on the brink of victory.

When exactly should they have benched him?

I worry about you guys some times. 

(11-24-2019, 09:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The Steelers most likely benched Mason because he still seemed rattled from last week's debacle and they had another young QB on the gameday who had shown promise earlier in the year in a start against the Chargers. 

That in no way explains why a team should go back to a benched veteran who absolutely sucked against this same D earlier in the season when their rookie QB has them right on the brink of victory.

When exactly should they have benched him?

I worry about you guys some times. 

There have been a lot of NFL players in the league over the years. Maybe thousands. And all of those guys...except Rudolph managed to not get their helmet taken off of them and beat over the head with it.

That's a rattling thing.

(11-24-2019, 08:34 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Yep, and last week against the Raiders, they allowed Carr to complete 86% of his passes for almost 300 yards, their TE's had 7 catches for 86 yards and Jacobs rushed for 112 yards.

And how many points did they score? 17 that should be good enough to win a game.

(11-24-2019, 09:11 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Wait, so it IS ok to use segmented stats?  

These guys are just mad. I'm not sure if it's because the team is 0-11, Andy has been benched, or both. But any rational person knows it made 0 sense to bench Ryan and go back to Andy in this game. 

Now if the Bengals want to see what they have in Talladega or bring in someone like Kap, sure. 

(11-24-2019, 09:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: These guys are just mad. I'm not sure if it's because the team is 0-11, Andy has been benched, or both. But any rational person knows it made 0 sense to bench Ryan and go back to Andy in this game. 

Now if the Bengals want to see what they have in Talladega or bring in someone like Kap, sure. 

Well, that may have been just a bit of short patience on my part, as well.  Earlier today, in another thread, someone mentioned that the Bengals' defense is in the top 5 in Red Zone defense, and vastly improved in run defense statistics, over the past three games.  Then our guy pops in with a post about using abbreviated stats, and how that means nothing for the worst defense, etc, etc.

So, in reality, I likely owe Leaonard Leap an apology for bringing up something from another thread, into this one.  It's tough times right now, we're all a bit testy, and even staff are still suffering fans.

(11-24-2019, 06:47 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: you meant 53 didn't you

I think he meant at that half. 

(11-24-2019, 08:36 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: I don’t think Andy Dalton has the f-bomb in his vocabulary but at this point I’m certain Zac Taylor, right or wrong, is more concerned with evaluating his players than winning.  This isn’t the same situation the Steelers are in; they’re in a playoff race so pulling Mason Rudolph for Devlin Hodges made sense.  Here’s why:  I heard Dan Hoard interview Carlos Dunlap after the game and it was obvious Carlos was pissed off.  He freely admitted the Bengals hadn’t even considered to have a contingency game plan against Hodges.  While the Cincinnati defense eventually adjusted, Hodges did some serious damage first.

He threw one good pass. That's it. The receiver did the rest of the work. 

The run defense is what concerns me. They brought someone off the street yesterday and he ran all over us. 

(11-24-2019, 09:54 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote:  It's tough times right now, we're all a bit testy, and even staff are still suffering fans.

I've been called worse than a little testy; I've been called a huge d!ck. 

Once again, the defense played well enough to win the game, if the offense could have converted some red zone trips into TDs.

On a positive note, I did catch a glimpse of Germaine Pratt executing some good coverage in the end zone. He might be a positive, going forward.

(12-08-2019, 08:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Once again, the defense played well enough to win the game, if the offense could have converted some red zone trips into TDs.

On a positive note, I did catch a glimpse of Germaine Pratt executing some good coverage in the end zone.  He might be a positive, going forward.

The defense was terrible on 3rd down. How many 3rd and long conversions did they allow?

There was a 3rd and 19 that the Browns converted. There were several other long ones.

Once again, this isn't a Top 5 offense that is gashing them. You can't give up 3rd and long consistently and win.

So while the offense was a bigger problem than the defense...the defense is still an issue.

3rd down conversions - Browns were 7 of 12. Unacceptable.

One was a 3rd and 19.

I saw receivers and TE's WIDE OPEN over the middle with a defender not 5 yards near them many times. This defense is still terrible. Is it the players or scheme?

We have up 5.4 yards per rush also for 146 yards.

(12-08-2019, 08:18 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: 3rd down conversions - Browns were 7 of 12. Unacceptable.

One was a 3rd and 19.

I saw receivers and TE's WIDE OPEN over the middle with a defender not 5 yards near them many times. This defense is still terrible. Is it the players or scheme?

We have up 5.4 yards per rush also for 146 yards.

They gave up a long run, and that counts, but for the most part they contained the run fairly well

(12-08-2019, 08:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: They gave up a long run, and that counts, but for the most part they contained the run fairly well

They seemed to be more aggressive today. Small improvements, but heading in right direction.