(03-03-2018, 10:47 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Off the top of my head?  The steelers game last year at home where they were up 17-0 and scored three points the entire rest of the game.  

I'll wait, and read a breakdown of the pass/run ratio implying that they were still being "aggressive" according to Fred, while I was AT THE GAME (you said recently you don't even watch all the games?  You can't learn much from a box score) and they did their typical dumbass, conservative approach and scored a whopping 3 points the remaining two and a half quarters. 

Have fun wasting key strokes.  

(03-02-2018, 07:45 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: And, they did not.  It was so glaringly obvious to us fans, along with much of the sports media community, yet it's like they deliberately wanted to prove some kind of point.  What that point was, I haven't a clue.

All that I can say is that Paul Alexander must have done one hell of a sales job on Mike Brown.  I'm so glad that Lazor showed some balls, and put Alexander in his place, when he seized control of the running game/blocking scheme.  Although it may have looked like a typical "dead cat bounce", the line showed renewed enthusiasm from that point forward.

I'm just hoping that the new regime of position coaches can convince Marvin to lobby Mike to the idea that winning teams are built from the inside out.

(03-03-2018, 02:01 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Tbh, that broke my fandom as much as any playoff loss. It's beyond disheartening to see the (huge) problem as a fan, then watch the team react like this:



I was so-so on Lazor until the news came out that he put his foot down on the blocking scheme and basically got PA fired. I'm a fan for life now. Change for this franchise is so rare and hard to come by that Lazor should be considered a hero for his efforts.

(03-03-2018, 02:08 PM)CornerBlitz Wrote: Do you have any link to where Lazor put his foot down on PA? I must have missed that. Thanks man. 

Quote:Paul Alexander, who had a left guard last Sunday born the year he took over the Bengals offensive line in 1995, won’t return to the club as Bill Lazor settled into the offensive coordinator’s job in his own right Wednesday.

Alexander was in charge of the run game so it’s a major move that indicates a significant change in how the Bengals approach line play and the ground attack.  They had their worst rushing season ever in the history of the club when it came to net yards, but they are attempting to build on Lazor’s approach that helped them average 4.6 yards per carry and 114 yards per game in the last six games.

(03-03-2018, 03:10 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: http://www.bengals.com/news/article-1/Alexanders-departure-signals-change-in-run-game/8bf651dc-520e-43e8-bf96-56a2d8d32bdb


If you read between the lines just a bit, "Lazor's approach in the last 6 games" implies that Lazor changed something up.

Then after the season, PA gets fired. PA was in charge of the run game that Lazor changed up midseason. 

Put 2+2 together, and it looks like Lazor and PA clashed, and Lazor won. He switched up the scheme midseason, it proved successful, and the Bengals opted to make that switch permanent and let Lazor pick his own OL guy to keep it rolling.

(03-03-2018, 12:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The fact that you were at the game does not change reality.

How did you not notice that the 6 of the first nine plays of the second half were passes including a 60 yard bomb to Green?

You can't just make stuff up and claim it was true.

(03-03-2018, 07:16 PM)Joelist Wrote: If anyone feels like digging there were other sources including comments by Lazor indicating a dispute happened among coaches over the scheme of blocking and that Lazor was finally allowed to overrule Piano Man.

(03-03-2018, 10:47 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Off the top of my head?  The steelers game last year at home where they were up 17-0 and scored three points the entire rest of the game.  

I'll wait, and read a breakdown of the pass/run ratio implying that they were still being "aggressive" according to Fred, while I was AT THE GAME (you said recently you don't even watch all the games?  You can't learn much from a box score) and they did their typical dumbass, conservative approach and scored a whopping 3 points the remaining two and a half quarters. 

Have fun wasting key strokes.  

(03-04-2018, 07:39 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Haha, a 60 yard bomb that yielded 3 points?  Way to make my point for me.  You can't just make stuff up and claim it to be true, like Marv's conservative nature never costing them a second half lead.  

(03-04-2018, 06:40 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Yeah, sometimes i wonder if Fred even watches the games.

To say Marvin Lewis has never lost a game in his career by being too conservative in the 2nd half is just a downright crazy thing to say.

Just look at our scoring average in the 2nd half the last few years. It is the worst in the NFL by far.

(03-05-2018, 06:31 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I have said it many times.

Playing poorly in the second half is not the same as being too conservative.

So I just kep repeating the question that no one can seem to answer.

Can you give me an example of a game the bengals lost because Marvin was too conservative with a lead?

(03-05-2018, 06:28 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You claim you were there.  Are you saying "conservative" Marvin didn't call a deep pass early in the second half?

Yes or no?

(03-05-2018, 09:36 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Yes or no, did they score three points after getting out to a 17-0 lead?  

Three points in two-and-one-harlf quarters of football.  

(03-04-2018, 10:54 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: I believe there was some juvenile pouting going on as well.

(03-04-2018, 11:32 PM)bengalhoel Wrote: Holy Crap!  I was not really excited or exactly believing the Josh Allen hype but after watching him throw it would be nice to see some of those deep balls go to Ross or A.J. Green.  That dude can heave it.  Of course I remember the same thing watching Kyle Boller.

(03-05-2018, 06:31 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I have said it many times.

Playing poorly in the second half is not the same as being too conservative.

So I just kep repeating the question that no one can seem to answer.

Can you give me an example of a game the bengals lost because Marvin was too conservative with a lead?

(03-05-2018, 07:10 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Yes, but since your on the wagon you won’t buy it. My perception of conservative will not match yours because you refuse to accept and will excuse it away. Ask yourself how many times late in the first half Marvin ran safe plays on 3rd and long to trust the defense to close out the half? Many times this can be a momentum changer going into the locker room. Specially if the other team scores.

He has done the same often in the second half as well. Hoping again that the defense shuts them down or creates turnover. I know I created perfect argument for you to meh away, but many of us notice this. He is not aggressive and leans too much on his defense to save him. Problem is they are usually gassed from saving him the entire game.

(03-05-2018, 12:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not surprised that you refuse to answer my question, but I am not afraid to answer yous.


Yes.  We only scored 3 points after having a 17 point lead.  But what is your point?  It had nothing to do with being too conservative.  That is what I keep telling people and for some reason they act like they can not read.

Playing poorly is NOT THE SAME as being too conservative.  The second half of that Steelers game we came out of halftime and threw on 6 of the first 9 plays including a 60 yard bomb to Green.  We only ran the ball 6 times the entire second half.  How can you claim that was being too conservative?  What would they have to do to satisfy you?  Go into a hurry-up no-huddle offense with zero running plays?

(03-06-2018, 08:40 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: To satisfy me, they have to run a more creative, aggressive scheme to keep putting points in the board.  The fact that they only scored three points is pathetic and points to an unimaginative, conservative scheme.  And the run/pass ratio has nothing to do with conservative.  Those passing options were conservative because they were mostly check-downs, and went for little to no yardage.