(11-03-2015, 12:55 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Yes, calling 3 passes was fine when you have one of the best passing offenses in the NFL.

The execution just wasn't there. You can't cry about the OC's calls when it was just flat out poor execution by the players.

Like I said, 1 run/2 pass or 2 run/1 pass would have been a fine choice there too. There are a lot of options when you're that close to the goal line. Not many plays outside of telling the QB to close his eyes, turn around, and kick the ball into the stands is really "bad play calling" in that situation when you have the most efficient passing offense in the NFL and a solid run game.

One of those passes is executed better and we don't have this conversation. If Hill runs up the gut 3 times for 0 yards and a fumble, then we'd have a different conversation about how they were too conservative. OCs are always damned if they do, damned if they don't.

If Hill had done that, I certainly wouldn't be blaming the OC because It would have seemed to have been the right thing to do.  It isn't like we were having a lot of success throwing the football against them.  

(11-03-2015, 01:01 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: If Hill had done that, I certainly wouldn't be blaming the OC because It would have seemed to have been the right thing to do.  It isn't like we were having a lot of success throwing the football against them.  

compared to our super successful day running the ball?

(11-03-2015, 01:01 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: If Hill had done that, I certainly wouldn't be blaming the OC because It would have seemed to have been the right thing to do.  It isn't like we were having a lot of success throwing the football against them.  

The "right" call isn't just to run any time you're that close to the goal line. If it was called that way 100% of the time, it would be stopped more often than not due to the defense being ready for it and not even caring about the pass game.

You can't just be super predictable and run the ball every time you're in that situation, it's certainly not the "right thing to do" as you claim. You're far too harsh on the OC, and I'm not even a big fan of Jackson.

(11-03-2015, 01:01 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: If Hill had done that, I certainly wouldn't be blaming the OC because It would have seemed to have been the right thing to do.  It isn't like we were having a lot of success throwing the football against them.  

Andy was 6/7 for 66 yards on that drive (before the 1st and 5) with the only incompletion being the bogus picked up flag when A.J. got mugged.

Let's ignore that.

(11-03-2015, 01:04 PM)djs7685 Wrote: The "right" call isn't just to run any time you're that close to the goal line. If it was called that way 100% of the time, it would be stopped more often than not due to the defense being ready for it and not even caring about the pass game.

You can't just be super predictable and run the ball every time you're in that situation, it's certainly not the "right thing to do" as you claim. You're far too harsh on the OC, and I'm not even a big fan of Jackson.

Never said it was the right call all the time.  Fact is, we weren't having a great day throwing the football anyway.  Give the ball to your RB who was having a decent day.  At least once for crissakes.  

(11-03-2015, 01:10 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Never said it was the right call all the time.  Fact is, we weren't having a great day throwing the football anyway.  Give the ball to your RB who was having a decent day.  At least once for crissakes.  

Except that....

Andy was 6/7 for 66 yards on that drive (before the 1st and 5) with the only incompletion being the bogus picked up flag when A.J. got mugged.

(11-03-2015, 01:07 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Andy was 6/7 for 66 yards on that drive (before the 1st and 5) with the only incompletion being the bogus picked up flag when A.J. got mugged.

Let's ignore that.

Let's also ignore that Dalton had his worst game of the year by a long shot, whereas Hill was enjoying his second best rushing average day of the season.  

(11-03-2015, 01:13 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Let's also ignore that Dalton had his worst game of the year by a long shot, whereas Hill was enjoying his second best rushing average day of the season.  

When you're running the ball like Hill has in 2015, there's really nowhere to go but up.

"Second best average" isn't very impressive when you're playing like he has been.

(11-03-2015, 01:03 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: compared to our super successful day running the ball?

Our RBs accounted for a combined 16 carries for 72 yards, which equates to 4.5 ypc.  

We were at the 5 yard line so...

(11-03-2015, 01:14 PM)djs7685 Wrote: When you're running the ball like Hill has in 2015, there's really nowhere to go but up.

"Second best average" isn't very impressive when you're playing like he has been.

We've watched enough of Hill to know the guy needs carries to get in a rhythm.  Besides, he has 5 TDs on the season already, so he seems to be doing just fine when the field gets small.  

If I'm not mistaken, Hill tweaked something or was banged up a little earlier in that drive.

(11-03-2015, 01:41 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: If I'm not mistaken, Hill tweaked something or was banged up a little earlier in that drive.

if its the drive im thinking i think your right hill limped off the field then gio came in and ran it down to the 5 or something....

So i guess the correct question this thread should be asking is why didnt we give Gio the ball... maybe cause he works a little better with more space.

Or we could have powered up Hewitt behind peko

Because it was a bad offensively called game. No runs in the 2nd quarter, Gio didn't have a touch until that 12 yard run to the 5. Hill was actually looking like he did last year but it seemed we abandoned the run.

I know 'statistically' the Steelers were worse against the pass, but the Bengals were doing very well with the run.

Before that final drive where they ran Hill 3 times, Hill ran 12 times for 60 yards, a 5 YPC average, and Gio ran once for 12 yards.

That's 13 runs for 72 yards, that's 5.5 YPC.

Even throw in those last 3 runs and Hill still had a 4 YPC average.

(11-03-2015, 01:51 PM)wolfkaosaun Wrote: Because it was a bad offensively called game. No runs in the 2nd quarter, Gio didn't have a touch until that 12 yard run to the 5. Hill was actually looking like he did last year but it seemed we abandoned the run.

I know 'statistically' the Steelers were worse against the pass, but the Bengals were doing very well with the run.

Before that final drive where they ran Hill 3 times, Hill ran 12 times for 60 yards, a 5 YPC average, and Gio ran once for 12 yards.

That's 13 runs for 72 yards, that's 5.5 YPC.

Even throw in those last 3 runs and Hill still had a 4 YPC average.

This team has a habit of abandoning the running game.  It just didn't bite us in the ass this time.  

(11-03-2015, 11:44 AM)djs7685 Wrote: If Hill ran into a wall of defenders 3 times in a row, you and others would be complaining that we played too conservatively and that Hue and Marvin are idiots for not being more aggressive near the goal line.

It's a lose-lose situation when it comes to the playcalling for just about every NFL fanbase. There will be a section of the fans that always think the call was "wrong" no matter what. The facts are out there that Hill has had his obvious struggles and that Andy and the passing game has been one of the very best in the league this year. I have no issue with calling passing plays out of the gun in that situation.

First off, I never said three times in a row, but leave it to you to exaggerate and mis-quote me to try and make me sound like you're so much smarter than me.  

Second, it's five yards.  Put Hill behind a fullback, have him run off tackle, and he's a good enough runner not to just run straight into a wall of defenders in that situation.

Third, it's probabilities.  You bet on Hill being able to get five yards because it's probable.  If the first two had gotten him to the one, then maybe a third run would have been ok.

(11-03-2015, 11:54 AM)djs7685 Wrote: I'm just saying, I'd bet an awfully large amount of money that Brad would have made a thread called "Why did we get so conservative at the 5?!?!?!" had we been stifled 3 straight times trying to pound it in with Hill fumbling on the 3rd try.

Meh. Maybe not though since it was Hill and Brad thinks we need to give Hill the ball at any cost, whether our offense is really clicking without him or not. (here's where he flips out claiming that I'm "making up bullshit" because he never said the exact words that I'm joking about him saying in the exact order that I have them written)

I've been claiming that we need to establish a run game and let it open up our offense.

We need to give Hill the ball more and let teams try and stop that, while also figuring out a way to stop our high potent offense.  Running is a lot simpler than passing, especially when you have a back like Hill, and we'll need him as it gets colder and for when we play good offenses because incomplete passes stop the clock and give the other team more time to score, and also when we play good defenses.

(11-03-2015, 12:38 PM)djs7685 Wrote: I don't think it would have been wrong to try the run there either, I just really don't think throwing the ball 3 times is such terrible playcalling as some do.

Hindsight is 20/20 with a lot of people. If the third pass was a TD instead of an INT, this thread doesn't exist and not 1 person complains about what was called. I just don't see the point in a thread like this when it's just yet another "Hill needs the ball regardless of anything else working" rant from Brad.

So throwing three times worked?

Even if you disagree with me that we should run Hill more, it's called situational football.

(11-03-2015, 12:55 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Yes, calling 3 passes was fine when you have one of the best passing offenses in the NFL.

The execution just wasn't there. You can't cry about the OC's calls when it was just flat out poor execution by the players.

Like I said, 1 run/2 pass or 2 run/1 pass would have been a fine choice there too. There are a lot of options when you're that close to the goal line. Not many plays outside of telling the QB to close his eyes, turn around, and kick the ball into the stands is really "bad play calling" in that situation when you have the most efficient passing offense in the NFL and a solid run game.

One of those passes is executed better and we don't have this conversation. If Hill runs up the gut 3 times for 0 yards and a fumble, then we'd have a different conversation about how they were too conservative. OCs are always damned if they do, damned if they don't.

When you're that close to the endzone, passing is a lot more difficult because there's a lot less room, making throwing the ball a lot less effective.

(11-03-2015, 02:12 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: When you're that close to the endzone, passing is a lot more difficult because there's a lot less room, making throwing the ball a lot less effective.

same thing for running

Took the Pete Carroll approach

I would've expected at least one run, but it seems that Hue was determined to take advantage of Pittsburgh's pass defense.

(11-03-2015, 02:42 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: I would've expected at least one run, but it seems that Hue was determined to take advantage of Pittsburgh's pass defense.

And Pittsburgh knew we would and had pride of their own to worry about. 

(11-03-2015, 11:37 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Fourth, why didn't we give Hill the ball three times from the 5?

(11-03-2015, 02:12 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: First off, I never said three times in a row, but leave it to you to exaggerate and mis-quote me to try and make me sound like you're so much smarter than me.  

ORLY? 

Looks like you "mis-quoted" yourself.