(11-23-2020, 11:18 AM)PhilHos Wrote: In other words, you DON'T know. You only THINK you do. 


I, I , I. Are you a member of the Bengals ownership? Then, frankly, no one gives a damn what you think, nor do they give a damn what I think. You can view things however you want, doesn't make them factual or that we all must be beholden to your views, including Zac Taylor.



Trying to win games is a bad thing now? That's what you're saying. Zac needed to win to save his career and so did whatever he could to try to win and you're claiming that's ab ad thing.

No, it didn't. 

Because it's true.

I thought we were having a discussion, but I see that we are not.

(11-23-2020, 11:54 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Then why are any of us here on this message board?

Seems kinda odd to remind someone on a message board that, big picture, none of our opinions really matter.  We're all here to have discussions about a team we follow and support.  He was sharing his thoughts just like everyone else does here.  We're here to share opinions.

If everyone believed in your sentiment then this board wouldn't even exist.  If you believe in it, then why are you here?

I was talking about when it comes to the Bengals ownership, how they run the team, etc. What you or I want matters not a single iota to what the Bengals are going to do. Doesn't mean we can't talk about it, but I can't get mad at the Bengals for not listening to me or my thoughts.

(11-23-2020, 12:10 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I thought we were having a discussion, but I see that we are not.

Just because you don't like what I have to say doesn't mean we weren't having a discussion. 

(11-23-2020, 11:47 AM)wildcatnku24 Wrote: This bothers me in many aspects of life, as people commonly misunderstand how statistics and probability works.  You do realize that, using your .0001% figure, for every one of those 400 plays, the percentage chance would still be that .0001% right?  If you were to coach with that mentality, you're playing to not lose, which I believe is one of those lies we like to say Zac's doing.  But of course, it must fit our agenda right?

I think you're are misinterpreting what I'm saying to be a gambler's fallacy. I'm not saying that each pass attempt is more likely to cause an injury because the previous passing attempts did not. I'm simply saying probability chances are additive. So if you have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 1 on a 6 sided die, rolling it a second time doesn't have a higher than 1/6 chance just because the first roll was not 1. But if you keep rolling the dice, the odds that you'll roll a 1 go up as the number of rolls increase.

(11-23-2020, 12:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Just because you don't like what I have to say doesn't mean we weren't having a discussion. 

I am not surprised that you see it that way. The truth is I was  being respectful to you, but you could not return the favor. That's why I ended the discussion.

(11-23-2020, 12:19 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think you're are misinterpreting what I'm saying to be a gambler's fallacy. I'm not saying that each pass attempt is more likely to cause an injury because the previous passing attempts did not. I'm simply saying probability chances are additive. So if you have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 1 on a 6 sided die, rolling it a second time doesn't have a higher than 1/6 chance just because the first roll was not 1. But if you keep rolling the dice, the odds that you'll roll a 1 go up as the number of rolls increase.

Fair enough, and glad you understand it as well!  I've read a few posts that associated that gamblers fallacy, as you call it.  

But even with that said, that logic is rather contradictory to playing football.  Everyone that steps on that field gambles injury.  You could argue some more than others, perhaps a QB with a better Oline is better off, yet with a freak play like we saw yesterday, I'd say that could happen to anyone.  

(11-23-2020, 12:21 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I am not surprised that you see it that way. The truth is I was  being respectful to you, but you could not return the favor. That's why I ended the discussion.

How was I disrespectful? Not to mention intentionally and openly ignoring a point I made is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO respectful.

(11-23-2020, 12:24 PM)wildcatnku24 Wrote: Fair enough, and glad you understand it as well!  I've read a few posts that associated that gamblers fallacy, as you call it.  

But even with that said, that logic is rather contradictory to playing football.  Everyone that steps on that field gambles injury.  You could argue some more than others, perhaps a QB with a better Oline is better off, yet with a freak play like we saw yesterday, I'd say that could happen to anyone.  

That's a fair assessment. But I think there's a difference between a calculated risk and a flagrant risk. Taking calculated risks is a part of life. Every time you go outside, you risk getting in a car accident or slipping and falling. These are, generally, unavoidable risks. But there are risks that you can choose to not take to mitigate unnecessary risk. For example, not speeding, not driving aggressively etc. 

I am saying Zac Taylor's insistence to run out an all passing all the time offense with an offensive line as bad as this one was less of a calculated risk and more of a flagrant risk. 

We all want to see Burrow progress and we all want our team to be successful, but that isn't a reason to be careless with your franchise QB. And that is what ZT appears to be when he is calling games the way he is.

(11-23-2020, 12:26 PM)PhilHos Wrote: How was I disrespectful? Not to mention intentionally and openly ignoring a point I made is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO respectful.

Which point did I ignore? The one where you said "Joe Burrow knows more about football than you so shut up!"

The reason I didn't address that was because the only response would have been "you're being a piece of shit right now" and I didn't want to say that to you.

(11-23-2020, 09:55 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: ...

Zac Taylor knows the game of football.

Obviously he does not.

(11-23-2020, 12:31 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Which point did I ignore? The one where you said "Joe Burrow knows more about football than you so shut up!"

That's not what I said. So respectful to misrepresent what was said.

(11-23-2020, 12:31 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The reason I didn't address that was because the only response would have been "you're being a piece of shit right now" and I didn't want to say that to you.

I can think of plenty of responses if someone said that to me that would not have been anywhere near the realm of name calling. For starters, one could argue that just because Joe Burrow plays football doesn't mean he automatically knows everything there is to know about football. But, I guess if you're only response you considered was to call me a piece of shit, that says more about how much you truly care about 'respecting' others.

(11-23-2020, 12:29 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: That's a fair assessment. But I think there's a difference between a calculated risk and a flagrant risk. Taking calculated risks is a part of life. Every time you go outside, you risk getting in a car accident or slipping and falling. These are, generally, unavoidable risks. But there are risks that you can choose to not take to mitigate unnecessary risk. For example, not speeding, not driving aggressively etc. 

I am saying Zac Taylor's insistence to run out an all passing all the time offense with an offensive line as bad as this one was less of a calculated risk and more of a flagrant risk. 

We all want to see Burrow progress and we all want our team to be successful, but that isn't a reason to be careless with your franchise QB. And that is what ZT appears to be when he is calling games the way he is.

Hard to disagree with your first paragraph, so I won't.  

But as to the rest, I have to say there's two sides to even that coin as well.  We don't know how much of Burrow's success was due to Zac unleashing him, per se.  The one thing you don't wanna do is limit progress, just like you said as far as wanting to see Burrow progress.  For all we know, Burrow told Zac that he wants to grow up quick, learn quick, make mistakes quick and bounce back from them.  If we only passed 20 times a game, something tells me that takes much longer.  

Also,I would be willing to bet that Burrow has been responsible for his number of passes more than even Zac, given that Burrow changes plays at the line based on looks.  And for all we know, perhaps Zac wasn't crazy about Burrow always passing all the time, but the fact of the matter is when you're playing from behind, you pass more.  And when you have a true passer in Burrow, you likely pass more as well.  

(11-23-2020, 09:55 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Let's not pretend for one second that Zac Taylor did not have an inkling that this may happen when you throw a rookie QB into the fray with an awful offensive line, ask him to throw it 40+ times a game and be the savior to your coaching career, which to this point had been one of the most putrid in NFL history.

Just fire him. We don't need ZT to be awful. We can do that on our own. At least get a head coach that respects his players and attempts to protect them.

Yep

JB throwing it 30 times a game is way more than enough. These 40 and 50 pass play games are just stupid ! But ZT was determined to go 11-5 this season and prove he was the right pick, no matter the cost.

The Pittsburgh game, if nothing else should have opened his eyes. The fact that we had a grand total of 2 wins coming into this game should have opened his eyes, are we really gonna win out and make the playoffs ? NO Lets take it easy on Joe and do everything we can to protect him.

Does a competent HC really ask a rookie QB with a not so great Oline to throw the ball 3 times in the shadow of his own goal line with no room to maneuver ?

Sure JB could have been in injured in the first game of the season. Or the second, or whatever. But ZT wasn't at all concerned with down the road. He was in win now mode all the way. Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead.

(11-23-2020, 12:36 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Yep

JB throwing it 30 times a game is way more than enough. These 40 and 50 pass play games are just stupid ! But ZT was determined to go 11-5 this season and prove he was the right pick, no matter the cost.

The Pittsburgh game, if nothing else should have opened his eyes. The fact that we had a grand total of 2 wins coming into this game should have opened his eyes, are we really gonna win out and make the playoffs ? NO Lets take it easy on Joe and do everything we can to protect him.

Does a competent HC really ask a rookie QB with a not so great Oline to throw the ball 3 times in the shadow of his own goal line with no room to maneuver ?

Sure JB could have been in injured in the first game of the season. Or the second, or whatever. But ZT wasn't at all concerned with down the road. He was in win now mode all the way. Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead.

While I understand the argument that passing so much may not have been the best way to win games, why are people so upset with Zac with doing whatever it takes to win? 

(11-23-2020, 12:35 PM)PhilHos Wrote: That's not what I said. So respectful to misrepresent what was said.


I can think of plenty of responses if someone said that to me that would not have been anywhere near the realm of name calling. For starters, one could argue that just because Joe Burrow plays football doesn't mean he automatically knows everything there is to know about football. But, I guess if you're only response you considered was to call me a piece of shit, that says more about how much you truly care about 'respecting' others.

k

(11-23-2020, 12:35 PM)wildcatnku24 Wrote: Hard to disagree with your first paragraph, so I won't.  

But as to the rest, I have to say there's two sides to even that coin as well.  We don't know how much of Burrow's success was due to Zac unleashing him, per se.  The one thing you don't wanna do is limit progress, just like you said as far as wanting to see Burrow progress.  For all we know, Burrow told Zac that he wants to grow up quick, learn quick, make mistakes quick and bounce back from them.  If we only passed 20 times a game, something tells me that takes much longer.  

Also,I would be willing to bet that Burrow has been responsible for his number of passes more than even Zac, given that Burrow changes plays at the line based on looks.  And for all we know, perhaps Zac wasn't crazy about Burrow always passing all the time, but the fact of the matter is when you're playing from behind, you pass more.  And when you have a true passer in Burrow, you likely pass more as well.  

There's no magic number for how many attempts will make a player safe vs unsafe. There is also no magic number that progresses development vs hindering it. The key, at least to me, is at what point is the risk outweighing the progress. I think Zac played jump rope with that line all season and, as we saw, it ended up biting him in the ass.

You make a good point about Joe wanting to pass more. I think he's a winner and he's got a winner's mentality. I think continuing to lose, often due to the defense (which he would never say, but it's true) really drove him crazy, so I wouldn't discount the possibility that he was demanding the ball 40 to 50 times a game because he felt like he was the team's only chance to win.

But I think people like that, especially young men like that, do need to be reigned in a little bit. It's a fine line between being relentless and being reckless. I think it's the coaches' job to walk that fine line. And if Burrow was dictating this more so than Zac, then I would say that's another strike on Zac for not really controlling (that's a negative connotation word, but let's say "directing") his players appropriately. There were articles written every week about how it was only a matter of time before Burrow, throwing 40 to 50 times a game, was going to get in some trouble behind this oline. But every interview, Joe said it was his idea. I respect that, I truly do. But part of being a coach is protecting your players, even if they don't want you to. 

Besides, if Burrow was directing the play calling to that extent, what do we even need ZT for?

(11-23-2020, 12:38 PM)PhilHos Wrote: While I understand the argument that passing so much may not have been the best way to win games, why are people so upset with Zac with doing whatever it takes to win? 

If a MLB pitcher only has a fastball he can throw for strikes what happens ? He gets lit up

When the defense knows you're like 10x more likely to be running a pass play at any given time what happens ? The defense pins it's ears back !

Why not go for a way more balanced attack and not rely so heavily on a rookie QB with a crap pass protecting Oline to overcome all ? All the things against it, AJ being a shadow of his former self.

Maybe just maybe we could have won 6 or 7 games this season with a balanced attack ?

Not anymore

(11-23-2020, 12:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I was talking about when it comes to the Bengals ownership, how they run the team, etc. What you or I want matters not a single iota to what the Bengals are going to do. Doesn't mean we can't talk about it, but I can't get mad at the Bengals for not listening to me or my thoughts.

You can't get "mad" when a product fails to live up to your expectations?

Let's compare the Bengals to an internet provider, who has a monopoly in a small town. (The Bengals have a monoply on our fandom)

Internet Company X has a service that delivers like 2 MBPS, and is constantly going in and out of service.  You try to watch a movie and it constantly buffers or disconnects.  Web pages take forever to load.  Downloading 2 Girls One Cup takes hours.

Your service is so much worse than what the people get a town over.  Your service has been terrible for years, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, short of moving (changing teams).

Are you allowed to be mad when something especially inconvient happens for the umpteeth time?  Say you order that Tyson- Roy Jones Jr. fight coming up, and have a bunch of friends over.  You're so excited (we're so excited for Burrow).  Now say your internet ruins the enitre experience.

If you turn to your friend and say "God dammnit, this shitty internet is out again!  They never fix this." do you think a reasonable reply from your friend in that situation is "Really don't know why you're getting mad about it.  You know they don't care what you think?"

The Bengals, at the end of the day, are a product.  A 2+ billion dollar company.  A 2+ billion dollar company subsidized by public tax dollars.  A company that relies on our attention and support.

I think we're all entitled to get as mad as we want at them as any other company.  I mean, the CEO of Best Buy might not care to personally take my phone call, but you better sure I'm going to be pissed if they sell me a broken TV.

Maybe the team should care more about what people like Crazydawg think.  Maybe that would keep them from having 20k people in a 65k seat stadium, and their tickets resaling for $5 a pop on Stubhub late in the year.

(11-23-2020, 12:47 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: You can't get "mad" when a product fails to live up to your expectations?

Let's compare the Bengals to an internet provider, who has a monopoly in a small town. (The Bengals have a monoply on our fandom)

Internet Company X has a service that delivers like 2 MBPS, and is constantly going in and out of service.  You try to watch a movie and it constantly buffers or disconnects.  Web pages take forever to load.  Downloading 2 Girls One Cup takes hours.

Your service is so much worse than what the people get a town over.  Your service has been terrible for years, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, short of moving (changing teams).

Are you allowed to be mad when something especially inconvient happens for the umpteeth time?  Say you order that Tyson- Roy Jones Jr. fight coming up, and have a bunch of friends over.  You're so excited (we're so excited for Burrow).  Now say your internet ruins the enitre experience.

If you turn to your friend and say "God dammnit, this shitty internet is out again!  They never fix this." do you think a reasonable reply from your friend in that situation is "Really don't know why you're getting mad about it.  You know they don't care what you think?"

The Bengals, at the end of the day, are a product.  A 2+ billion dollar company.  A 2+ billion dollar company subsidized by public tax dollars.  A company that relies on our attention and support.

I think we're all entitled to get as mad as we want at them as any other company.  I mean, the CEO of Best Buy might not care to personally take my phone call, but you better sure I'm going to be pissed if they sell me a broken TV.

Maybe the team should care more about what people like Crazydawg think.  Maybe that would keep them from having 20k people in a 65k seat stadium, and their tickets resaling for $5 a pop on Stubhub late in the year.

Exactly 

(11-23-2020, 12:46 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: If a MLB pitcher only has a fastball he can throw for strikes what happens ? He gets lit up

When the defense knows you're like 10x more likely to be running a pass play at any given time what happens ? The defense pins it's ears back !

Why not go for a way more balanced attack and not rely so heavily on a rookie QB with a crap pass protecting Oline to overcome all ? All the things against it, AJ being a shadow of his former self.

Maybe just maybe we could have won 6 or 7 games this season with a balanced attack ?

Not anymore

Like I said, I understand the argument that it might not be the best strategy, but people are literally saying they're upset at Zac doing whatever it takes to win.