John Ross

[fredtoast]

(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. 

This is starting to get ridiculous.  Now throwing the ball every down is not even "aggressive" enough.  Apparently ever single pass has to be a bomb.

In the second drive of the second half against the Steelers Dalton hit two deep passes.  One to green for 60 yards and one to LaFell for 27 yards. (BTW I believe that is the same LaFell who you claimed never got open the entire year)

The point I keep making is that there is a difference between "aggressive" and "playing well".  It seems to me that whenever the Bengals play poorly many people around here just automatically label that as "too conservative".

I also agree that over all Marvin is generally conservative with his gameplan, but so are LOTS OF GREAT NFL COACHES.

The Eagles finished last year ranked 6th in rush attempts and only 13th pass attempts (and 13th in yards per pass attempt), yet they were 3rd in points scored.

The Jags were ranked 1st is rush attempts and only 21st in pass attempts (and 12th in yards per pass attempt) yet they were 5th in points scored.

This idea that you have to constatly be throwing the ball deep to score points is a myth.  Scoring points is about playing BETTER not about running a hurry up offense with lots of deep passes.

[*SHRacerX*]

(03-06-2018, 08:47 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Exactly! When you do stuff like that, perceptions are that they aren't even trying.

And although it will surely bring a chorus of "they are professionals" or "they get paid millions of dollars", but I don't care.  A chickenshit coach never brought the most energy out of his players.  If a participant senses a coach is just playing not to lose (or worse, not to lose badly...see Baltimore game, Jacksonville game), then the participants will be as flat as Kansas.

It is human nature.  

[*SHRacerX*]

(03-06-2018, 10:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: This is starting to get ridiculous.  Now throwing the ball every down is not even "aggressive" enough.  Apparently ever single pass has to be a bomb.

In the second drive of the second half against the Steelers Dalton hit two deep passes.  One to green for 60 yards and one to LaFell for 27 yards. (BTW I believe that is the same LaFell who you claimed never got open the entire year)

The point I keep making is that there is a difference between "aggressive" and "playing well".  It seems to me that whenever the Bengals play poorly many people around here just automatically label that as "too conservative".

I also agree that over all Marvin is generally conservative with his gameplan, but so are LOTS OF GREAT NFL COACHES.

The Eagles finished last year ranked 6th in rush attempts and only 13th pass attempts (and 13th in yards per pass attempt), yet they were 3rd in points scored.

The Jags were ranked 1st is rush attempts and only 21st in pass attempts (and 12th in yards per pass attempt) yet they were 5th in points scored.

This idea that you have to constatly be throwing the ball deep to score points is a myth.  Scoring points is about playing BETTER not about running a hurry up offense with lots of deep passes.

I bolded all that mattered....the rest was just blah, blah, blah...And he has not changed in 15 years despite zero postseason success.  Think he will change in year 16?  Help me, Mr. Lazor, your my only hope (Get it? Lazor, Star Wars?  See what I did there?)

via GIPHY

[fredtoast]

(03-07-2018, 09:06 AM)SHRacerX Wrote:  A chickenshit coach never brought the most energy out of his players.  If a participant senses a coach is just playing not to lose (or worse, not to lose badly...see Baltimore game, Jacksonville game), then the participants will be as flat as Kansas.

It is human nature.  

I beg to differ.  

(03-06-2018, 10:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The Eagles finished last year ranked 6th in rush attempts and only 13th pass attempts (and 13th in yards per pass attempt), yet they were 3rd in points scored.

The Jags were ranked 1st is rush attempts and only 21st in pass attempts (and 12th in yards per pass attempt) yet they were 5th in points scored.

Neither the Eagles nor the Jags ran offenses that threw the ball deep all the time.  They ran the ball more than the Bengals and their average yard per pass was less than the Bengals.

People who think running the ball a lot and  depending on a short passing game  are "chickenshit" have no clue how the NFL works.

[fredtoast]

(03-07-2018, 09:13 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: .And he has not changed in 15 years despite zero postseason success.  

Actually Marvin was roasted around here for throwing the ball TOO MUCH in the second half of the '14 playoff game against the Chargers.

That is the problem with all the message board experts around here.  They can say whatever they want and never have to deal with reality.

The them hard facts are just "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH".  Anything that proves them wrong is ignored.

[*SHRacerX*]

(03-07-2018, 10:36 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I beg to differ.  



Neither the Eagles nor the Jags ran offenses that threw the ball deep all the time.  They ran the ball more than the Bengals and their average yard per pass was less than the Bengals.

People who think running the ball a lot and  depending on a short passing game  are "chickenshit" have no clue how the NFL works.

Show me where I said that running the ball or depending on a short passing game was chickenshit.  It was the plays that were selected that were chickenshit.  And it is getting a 5 yard completion on 3rd and 10 that is chickenshit.  It is never blitzing and letting a QB have all day to throw and playing your defensive backs deep as to avoid anything over the top but give up the underneath that is chickenshit.  

[*SHRacerX*]

(03-07-2018, 10:39 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually Marvin was roasted around here for throwing the ball TOO MUCH in the second half of the '14 playoff game against the Chargers.

That is the problem with all the message board experts around here.  They can say whatever they want and never have to deal with reality.

The them hard facts are just "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH".  Anything that proves them wrong is ignored.

They lost that game because of two costly fumbles, and the fact that a defense couldn't stop the run.  The problem with people that think they are a "message board expert" is that their was is always right and they never listed to other people's opinions.  Reality, as you refer to it, is YOUR reality...that doesn't make it fact.  

You are really struggling here, Fred, pulling out a passing number and trying to cast it as an overall picture of aggression.  

[fredtoast]

(03-08-2018, 09:59 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: You are really struggling here, Fred, pulling out a passing number and trying to cast it as an overall picture of aggression.  

Not struggling at all.  generally when fans or announcers talk about a team being too conservative they are talking about running the ball.  Footballoutsiders actually tracks a teams percentage of runs called with a lead in the second half just to show which teams are most conservative.

When you tried to include short passes as proof of being too conservative I pointed out that a couple of teams that both ran the ball more than us and depended more on short passes (lower yds per attempt) had top 5 scoring offenses.

When you claimed that you were at the Pittsburgh game and saw them throw nothing but check downs I pointed out that the Bengals went deep twice early in the second half.

At this point you responded that all of my facts were just BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

Looks like you are the one struggling.  And notice that I am posting FACTS not opinions.

[sandwedge]

(03-08-2018, 09:55 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Show me where I said that running the ball or depending on a short passing game was chickenshit.  It was the plays that were selected that were chickenshit.  And it is getting a 5 yard completion on 3rd and 10 that is chickenshit.  It is never blitzing and letting a QB have all day to throw and playing your defensive backs deep as to avoid anything over the top but give up the underneath that is chickenshit.  

Completely agree! 3rd & 10 and our LBs drop back 12-15 yards......

[*SHRacerX*]

(03-08-2018, 11:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Not struggling at all.  generally when fans or announcers talk about a team being too conservative they are talking about running the ball.  Footballoutsiders actually tracks a teams percentage of runs called with a lead in the second half just to show which teams are most conservative.

When you tried to include short passes as proof of being too conservative I pointed out that a couple of teams that both ran the ball more than us and depended more on short passes (lower yds per attempt) had top 5 scoring offenses.

When you claimed that you were at the Pittsburgh game and saw them throw nothing but check downs I pointed out that the Bengals went deep twice early in the second half.

At this point you responded that all of my facts were just BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

Looks like you are the one struggling.  And notice that I am posting FACTS not opinions.

You haven't posted anything but opinions.  A fact like a run/pass ratio is a fact, but then you have an opinion that in some way translates to a lack of conservatism.  It doesn't.  If you don't see it watching the games, good for you.  I see a boring, conservative approach on both sides of the ball and it not only impacts the results of the games, but I will add that I believe you don't get the most out of your players by playing not to lose.  

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-08-2018, 09:55 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Show me where I said that running the ball or depending on a short passing game was chickenshit.  It was the plays that were selected that were chickenshit.  And it is getting a 5 yard completion on 3rd and 10 that is chickenshit.  It is never blitzing and letting a QB have all day to throw and playing your defensive backs deep as to avoid anything over the top but give up the underneath that is chickenshit.  

You know it man, all of this is playing conservative and playing not to lose.

Don't have to throw bombs all day as Fred alluded to. Just try to get the first downs instead of throwing Screens to the backs
or underneath routes that the Defense sees coming. Dalton needs time but when he has just a bit he is the best Slot route
passer in the league. These are 15 to 20 yard routes that we could just feast on teams with.

You have to gamble a bit on Defense as well and blitz sometimes, so true.

(03-08-2018, 12:56 PM)sandwedge Wrote: Completely agree! 3rd & 10 and our LBs drop back 12-15 yards......

Thank God Paulie G is gone, this drove me nutz.

Need to stop the soft coverage with the DB's as well and use less zone and more man to man.

Pretty much all of our CB's are man to man Corners, use them as such atleast most of the time.

[*SHRacerX*]

(03-08-2018, 04:36 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: You know it man, all of this is playing conservative and playing not to lose.

Don't have to throw bombs all day as Fred alluded to. Just try to get the first downs instead of throwing Screens to the backs
or underneath routes that the Defense sees coming. Dalton needs time but when he has just a bit he is the best Slot route
passer in the league. These are 15 to 20 yard routes that we could just feast on teams with.

You have to gamble a bit on Defense as well and blitz sometimes, so true.


Thank God Paulie G is gone, this drove me nutz.

Need to stop the soft coverage with the DB's as well and use less zone and more man to man.

Pretty much all of our CB's are man to man Corners, use them as such atleast most of the time.

I don't understand what happened to Paulie G...was it Marv?  At first, under Zimmer, Paulie was responsible for drawing up some of the new blitz schemes.  They rarely used them, but I was liking what I was seeing.   Then, after he got his shot, he evolved more in to the Chuck Breshnahan "Don't give up the big play" stupidity.  

I will never understand dying a slow death, 5-10 yards at a time, with no on pressuring the QB or short routes.  They just gave QBs the check down all day long.  The steelers would capitalize on this better than anyone.  Send four receivers out in a pattern more than ten yards downfield, check it down to Bell, scamper 8 yards for a first down before a defender was even in the picture.  Over and over and over again.  That is one of the reason our defense is so sorely lacking on turnovers because they give the easy, uncontested passes.  

[BenZoo2]

(03-06-2018, 10:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: This is starting to get ridiculous.  Now throwing the ball every down is not even "aggressive" enough.  Apparently ever single pass has to be a bomb.

In the second drive of the second half against the Steelers Dalton hit two deep passes.  One to green for 60 yards and one to LaFell for 27 yards. (BTW I believe that is the same LaFell who you claimed never got open the entire year)

The point I keep making is that there is a difference between "aggressive" and "playing well".  It seems to me that whenever the Bengals play poorly many people around here just automatically label that as "too conservative".

I also agree that over all Marvin is generally conservative with his gameplan, but so are LOTS OF GREAT NFL COACHES.

The Eagles finished last year ranked 6th in rush attempts and only 13th pass attempts (and 13th in yards per pass attempt), yet they were 3rd in points scored.

The Jags were ranked 1st is rush attempts and only 21st in pass attempts (and 12th in yards per pass attempt) yet they were 5th in points scored.

This idea that you have to constatly be throwing the ball deep to score points is a myth.  Scoring points is about playing BETTER not about running a hurry up offense with lots of deep passes.

Did you just use Marvin and other great coaches in the same sentence?

I wonder if the Eagles stats shifted when Wentz got hurt and after they aquired ajayi.

The jags were built to run the ball and play great defense.  As a design to limit bortles attempts.  And play to their strength, which was a defense the spent a lot of free agency coin on.

Were those points scored rankings offensive points only?  I assume so.

[fredtoast]

(03-08-2018, 04:36 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: You have to gamble a bit on Defense as well and blitz sometimes, so true.


Thank God Paulie G is gone, this drove me nutz.

Need to stop the soft coverage with the DB's as well and use less zone and more man to man.

Pretty much all of our CB's are man to man Corners, use them as such atleast most of the time.

(03-09-2018, 09:43 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: I don't understand what happened to Paulie G...was it Marv?  At first, under Zimmer, Paulie was responsible for drawing up some of the new blitz schemes.  They rarely used them, but I was liking what I was seeing.   Then, after he got his shot, he evolved more in to the Chuck Breshnahan "Don't give up the big play" stupidity.  

I will never understand dying a slow death, 5-10 yards at a time, with no on pressuring the QB or short routes.  They just gave QBs the check down all day long.  The steelers would capitalize on this better than anyone.  Send four receivers out in a pattern more than ten yards downfield, check it down to Bell, scamper 8 yards for a first down before a defender was even in the picture.  Over and over and over again.  That is one of the reason our defense is so sorely lacking on turnovers because they give the easy, uncontested passes.  

I think you guys might be exaggerating just a bit.

In the four years that Guenther was our DC we ranked FIRST in the league in interceptions.

We were ranked in the top half of the league in pass defense (efficiency) every year and finished in the TOP 5 three of the four years.

Against the Steelers we held them to a 82.6 passer rating while they compiled a 96.3 rating against the rest of the league.

We did struggle some with 3rd down conversions but I think that was more a product of poor coverage skills by our LBs than anything else.

[fredtoast]

(03-09-2018, 10:04 AM)BenZoo2 Wrote: Did you just use Marvin and other great coaches in the same sentence?

Yes I did, and that sentence is 100% accurate.

Do you disagree?

[BenZoo2]

(03-09-2018, 12:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes I did, and that sentence is 100% accurate.

Do you disagree?

Depends on how you define it.  Linebacker coach?  Possibly.  Defensive coordinator?  Probably.  Head coach?  No.  Barely above 500 and 0 playoff wins is not great.

Since any head coach under ebenezer's watch has been hamstrung by ineptitude at the top they may all deserve an incomplete 

[fredtoast]

(03-09-2018, 12:33 PM)BenZoo2 Wrote: Depends on how you define it.  Linebacker coach?  Possibly.  Defensive coordinator?  Probably.  Head coach?  No.  Barely above 500 and 0 playoff wins is not great.

Since any head coach under ebenezer's watch has been hamstrung by ineptitude at the top they may all deserve an incomplete 

Grammar lesson...Using the term "great coach" in the same sentence with "Marvin Lewis" does not mean "Marvin Lewis is a great coach".  All I am saying is a lot of great coaches were conservative much like Marvin is.  So you can't say "Marvin sucks because he is conservative".

[sandwedge]

(03-09-2018, 09:43 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: I don't understand what happened to Paulie G...was it Marv?  At first, under Zimmer, Paulie was responsible for drawing up some of the new blitz schemes.  They rarely used them, but I was liking what I was seeing.   Then, after he got his shot, he evolved more in to the Chuck Breshnahan "Don't give up the big play" stupidity.  

I will never understand dying a slow death, 5-10 yards at a time, with no on pressuring the QB or short routes.  They just gave QBs the check down all day long.  The steelers would capitalize on this better than anyone.  Send four receivers out in a pattern more than ten yards downfield, check it down to Bell, scamper 8 yards for a first down before a defender was even in the picture.  Over and over and over again.  That is one of the reason our defense is so sorely lacking on turnovers because they give the easy, uncontested passes.  

I have said a few times before, I believe Zim told Merv to let him coach the D they way he wants to. Paulie didn't have that luxury and Merv went back to playing scared of the big play. Just my theory, no real evidence for the lawyering types around here.

[BenZoo2]

(03-09-2018, 12:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Grammar lesson...Using the term "great coach" in the same sentence with "Marvin Lewis" does not mean "Marvin Lewis is a great coach".  All I am saying is a lot of great coaches were conservative much like Marvin is.  So you can't say "Marvin sucks because he is conservative".

Grammar lesson.  You said Marvin has a conservative game plan plan like lots of other great coaches.  I assumed you were speaking metaphorically.  

Then you said Marvin being a great coach is 100% accurate.  That falls into several categories, i.e. opinion, subjective, perhaps even misguided conjecture?  It isn't 100% accurate.  But go ahead and post some snippet of a fact that attempts to prove your assertion.

And where did I say Marvin sucks because he is conservative?

[3wt]

(03-09-2018, 12:46 PM)sandwedge Wrote: I have said a few times before, I believe Zim told Merv to let him coach the D they way he wants to. Paulie didn't have that luxury and Merv went back to playing scared of the big play. Just my theory, no real evidence for the lawyering types around here.

I think you are right about Zim being one of the few coaches that Marvin didn't meddle with.   I have always had the opinion that is one of Marvin's shortcomings (though I don't really know).

But I have also thought that one of the tenets of Zim's defenses was being willing to give some yardage to prevent the big play.

And it is clear that Paulie did not have that luxury and I think it played into his wanting to make a lateral move.

Does make you wonder why.   But my theory has always been that Zim doesn't roll over when he's questioned or messed with.   I think of his measured response to the press about the loss of Jonathan Joseph.

You could feel the intense heat behind those measured words!

Hopefully our new guys can hold their own with Marvin.   You want to feel like a coach can be that guy that doesn't let himself get rolled on.  The team is better when they have that backbone.