(11-01-2016, 12:17 AM)Bengalholic Wrote: Just curious brother, if they had made the FG...in your opinion, would the D have still have 'done it's job'?

The reason I ask is because this seems to be - at least partly - dependent on whether the kick is made or not. 

They allowed the drive that put the Skins in position to win. Does missing the FG discount the drive that put them in position? 

(11-01-2016, 12:24 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said a few posts back, IMO when they shut down that offense on the first drive of OT, they did their job. 

Now a question for you: Do you feel the Skin's D did their job in OT?

(11-01-2016, 12:24 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said a few posts back, IMO when they shut down that offense on the first drive of OT, they did their job. 

Now a question for you: Do you feel the Skin's D did their job in OT?

(11-01-2016, 12:45 AM)Bengalholic Wrote: So, even if they allowed the game winning FG, they did their job? I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that.

As for the Redskins D in OT...they forced a punt on the Bengals first drive and the Bengals fumbled on the 2nd. They didn't allow the Bengals to get into FG position on either drive. Each side helped the other (missed FG, fumble)...but, I would say the Redskins did their job because because the Bengals couldn't get any farther than the Redskins 40 (ending at the 48).

You can say that neither team allowed any points and you'd be correct. However, one allowed a game winning FG attempt, while the other didn't. That's not my opinion, that's the way it went down.

(11-01-2016, 12:35 AM)JumboTron Wrote: I know you posed this to Holic but I would say yes.  In OT the Skins gave up 58 yards on 14 plays while also forcing one turnover.  The Bengals gave up 92 yards on 16 plays while forcing zero turnovers,  including a 10 play 62 yard drive which culminated in a missed game winning 34 yard FG attempt.

(10-31-2016, 11:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep, they should have done their job and given up 0 points in OT. 

As I said half the team did their job in OT; yet folks are trying very hard to disagree with this. 

(10-31-2016, 11:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You further realize that if a team does not score in OT that the opposing D has done their job, right?

(10-31-2016, 11:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why didn't Washington just score the TD?

(11-01-2016, 12:04 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Did they try the FG on 1st down knowing it would win the game? 

My logic is nothing more than the D did its job in OT by giving up 0 points. Obviously my logic should be questioned

(10-31-2016, 11:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Along with half the team I also don't pick a coach when picking best/worst in a game. D had a bad game but I cannot pinpoint one person that really stood out; although in my OP I did lean toward Carlos Dunlap. When the good players underperform; it is more costly and rewarding. Nuge missing a FG is to be expected unfortunately. 

(11-01-2016, 12:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Disagree all you want but only one of us is dealing in ifs.

Bengals were in FG position on the opening drive of OT. The QB just made a bonehead move of taking a sack where you cannot take one. We were also driving on our second possession in OT when our QB fumbles the ball. 

As I said you and others think giving up 0 points in OT is not doing your job. Seems like a pretty tough crowd from where I sit. 

(11-01-2016, 12:05 AM)Bengalholic Wrote: Did the D allow the Skins to get in position for a chip shot FG in OT?

Fortunately the Skins kicker missed, but you you can't overlook the drive the preceded the FG attempt and pretend it didn't happen. Well, you can, but it wouldn't be very honest. 

I have no problem giving them credit for the first stop. Likewise, I have no problem saying they gave the Skins an opportunity to win the game on their second attempt to stop them. Why is that so hard to admit?

(11-01-2016, 01:13 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Allowing them to drive to the 16 yard line and attempt a 34 yard field goal is not doing their job just because they missed the kick. 

(11-01-2016, 02:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm enjoying the creativity and solidarity. What is the difference between that and forcing them to punt?

(11-01-2016, 04:56 PM)JumboTron Wrote: Because a 34 yard FG attempt is a scoring opportunity and a punt isn't.  LOL, you're attempting to equate letting a team drive deep into your territory to set up a game winning FG that was missed to forcing a team to punt as some sort of way to prove defensive effectiveness.  Good God you can't be serious.

 Are you at all familiar with the sport of football?  Honest question.

(11-01-2016, 05:54 PM)Wyche Wrote: If we're going off of ifs.....if we make a freaking XP, the whole OT discussion is moot.

(11-01-2016, 06:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I agree that ifs have no point in the discussion. But given the theme around here if the XP is made we lose the game because Wash does not settle for the FG, they score  a TD to win in regulation. 

(11-01-2016, 02:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm enjoying the creativity and solidarity. What is the difference between that and forcing them to punt?

(11-01-2016, 05:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I am familiar with the sport and understand every play is a scoring opportunity; are you not aware of this?

If (as folks want to play the if game) the Bengals had forced them into a punting situation (like they did on the opening drive) and Wash fakes it and picks up a first, then they go one to score, has the Defense done its job? 

Good God I am serious, when a Defense holds a team to zero points in a sudden death situation; they have done their job. I have already admitted I am in the minority in this thread making that assertion. I suppose some consider giving up zero points not good enough.