Stupid decision

[bengalhoel]

(12-10-2018, 12:22 PM)higgy100 Wrote: That's only mildly stupid compared to the 4th and inches and running a deep handoff to your RB with a terrible run-blocking OL as it is, let alone blocking zone-scheme, when you have a big-strong, quick QB that can easily get it....

Even worse than that was the decision not to challenge the spot of that run. He easily got that first down. Even the commentators noticed it was a horrible spot. You can say what you want about Arians' broadcast skills but he calls a spade a spade and will say if the refs screwed up. He is the Anti-tasker.

[Whatever]

(12-10-2018, 01:37 PM)Sled21 Wrote: There was absolutely no stupidity in going to the 2 pt. conversion to tie the game before the half. If you want to ask what Belichek would do, he would have gone for the 2. Just like the boy who cried wolf, when you complain about things just to be complaining about things, then none of your complaints can be taken seriously. Everyone knows, had they kicked the xtra point on that play, anad missed, everyone would be whining about not being aggressive enough. Hindsight is 20/20

That's terrible logic.

That's like saying the Bengals should try more 55 yard FG's. John Harbaugh tries them all the time.  Of course, the reason he does that is because he has Tucker and the reason we don't is we have Bullock.

Similarly, Bill has Tom Brady and Josh McDaniels. We have Jeff Driskell and Bill Lazor.

Another big reason you don't try it that early is that there's a high probability you will have to go for it again if you miss and you've already used your best play.

[higgy100]

(12-10-2018, 02:21 PM)bengalhoel Wrote: Even worse than that was the decision not to challenge the spot of that run. He easily got that first down. Even the commentators noticed it was a horrible spot. You can say what you want about Arians' broadcast skills but he calls a spade a spade and will say if the refs screwed up. He is the Anti-tasker.

I'm not going to get into that because it was not clear he got that and since the ruling on the field was he was short they have to have enough "clear" evidence he got that 1st down. There was nothing that clearly showed that..

[bengalhoel]

(12-10-2018, 02:34 PM)higgy100 Wrote: I'm not going to get into that because it was not clear he got that and since the ruling on the field was he was short they have to have enough "clear" evidence he got that 1st down. There was nothing that clearly showed that..

I was watching the game and I saw the first down marker. I saw the runner go past the first down marker, clearly. Marvin has challenged worse calls then that. 

[*ochocincos*]

(12-10-2018, 12:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So Marvin needs to be more aggressive and "play to win" instead of "play not to lose". .  .  .  


Unless that approach does not work then it is stupid and he needs to play it safe and conservative, right?

He should know 100% when to be aggressive and when to be conservative and it needs to work 100% of the time! 

[higgy100]

(12-10-2018, 02:44 PM)bengalhoel Wrote: I was watching the game and I saw the first down marker. I saw the runner go past the first down marker, clearly. Marvin has challenged worse calls then that. 

Let's see, the refs were there and didn't see it, the players were NOT even animated enough by pointing as if it was an obvious 1st down and the coaching staff not only didn't throw the red flag but didn't even pull it out to show any glimpse of it but you saw it on your TV. I saw it on my TV, too, and it was not a sure thing at all..I'll not debate Marvin trying to challenge that but, again, those very rarely ever get reversed from what the call on the field was because it's very very hard to see where the ball actually is...

[Sled21]

(12-10-2018, 02:34 PM)Whatever Wrote: That's terrible logic.

That's like saying the Bengals should try more 55 yard FG's. John Harbaugh tries them all the time.  Of course, the reason he does that is because he has Tucker and the reason we don't is we have Bullock.

Similarly, Bill has Tom Brady and Josh McDaniels. We have Jeff Driskell and Bill Lazor.

Another big reason you don't try it that early is that there's a high probability you will have to go for it again if you miss and you've already used your best play.

That's terrible logic.... don't use your best play because you may need it later? Going for the tie, switching momentum, then coming out at the half with the ball would have been huge. Mind you, I'm not defending the play that was called, I don't even know what it was, but going for it was not a bad thing. Harbaugh has Tucker, we have Mixon. He should have run it in.....

[Whatever]

(12-10-2018, 03:45 PM)Sled21 Wrote: That's terrible logic.... don't use your best play because you may need it later? Going for the tie, switching momentum, then coming out at the half with the ball would have been huge. Mind you, I'm not defending the play that was called, I don't even know what it was, but going for it was not a bad thing. Harbaugh has Tucker, we have Mixon. He should have run it in.....

We already had momentum.  If anything, failing the conversion does more to stop your momentum than suvceeding builds it.

As I said before, we haven't made a 2 point conversion since '15.  Part of your job as a HC is playing to your strengths and masking your weaknesses. Going for 2 when we didn't need to was blatantly playing to our weaknesses.  If we were better at it, the call would have made more sense, but we suck at it and were down 4 starters.

You have to run your best play on the first attempt.  When you get stoned that early in the game, it becomes likely you'll have to go for it again, and they already stuffed your best play.  You put yourself in a bad situation.

[3wt]

(12-10-2018, 04:30 PM)Whatever Wrote: We already had momentum.  If anything, failing the conversion does more to stop your momentum than suvceeding builds it.

As I said before, we haven't made a 2 point conversion since '15.  Part of your job as a HC is playing to your strengths and masking your weaknesses. Going for 2 when we didn't need to was blatantly playing to our weaknesses.  If we were better at it, the call would have made more sense, but we suck at it and were down 4 starters.

You have to run your best play on the first attempt.  When you get stoned that early in the game, it becomes likely you'll have to go for it again, and they already stuffed your best play.  You put yourself in a bad situation.

This.

I know it's easy to say after the fact, and I admit there is a desire to go ahead and cap the TD with the 2 point conversion and tie the game.   But it was early in the game.  Just kick the extra point and consolidate the change in momentum.

I see the logic in getting everything you can get while the iron is hot, but the odds were not in our favor: poor history of converting on 2 point conversions, backup QB, LT, #1 receiver and weak offensive line.

To me you take the points and see how things shake out.  You may not have to go for a two point conversion at all the rest of the game.  

[McC]

(12-10-2018, 12:17 PM)sandwedge Wrote: I didn't like that either, but if we had executed it........ The dumber decision was the play called for the second 2 pt conversion. 

I wonder if the Bengals spend any time on situational football.  Both two point tries were horrible and the onside kick was one of the ugliest I've ever seen.

[McC]

(12-10-2018, 12:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So Marvin needs to be more aggressive and "play to win" instead of "play not to lose". .  .  .  


Unless that approach does not work then it is stupid and he needs to play it safe and conservative, right?

That attempt at aggressive was actually stupid.  Going for two in the second quarter goes against the book and very few coaches would have gone for it there.  Especially one with no decent play to run.  So, once again, fail for Marvin.  Marvin suxx at situational football.

[BengalChris]

(12-10-2018, 12:22 PM)higgy100 Wrote: That's only mildly stupid compared to the 4th and inches and running a deep handoff to your RB with a terrible run-blocking OL as it is, let alone blocking zone-scheme, when you have a big-strong, quick QB that can easily get it....

I didn't understand the call to go for it. It smelled of desperation.

[SunsetBengal]

I didn't mind the call for a 2pt conversion, it would have given the team some much needed confidence. However, the play call was puzzling. A 2pt play should be a quick hitter, that your personnel on the field can execute blindfolded, 10/10 times, as it in it should be so automatic that it takes a tremendous defensive effort to thwart it.

What would I have went with? Goal line formation, play fake up the middle, soft touch to TE right in the back of the end zone, right under the goal post. Why? The rushing game was working so well at that moment, and I'm convinced the SD defense would have packed the box to stop the run.

[BengalChris]

(12-10-2018, 12:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So Marvin needs to be more aggressive and "play to win" instead of "play not to lose". .  .  .  


Unless that approach does not work then it is stupid and he needs to play it safe and conservative, right?

I think there's a confusion between what it takes to "play to win" and "being stupid" and "playing not to lose".

If we had kicked the extra point in the 2nd quarter there's no one who would have a problem that. It's not like it was at the end of the 4th quarter where we needed the 2 points to get into overtime. Maybe Merv was confused and thought it was the second half?

Going for it on 4th down on our own side of the field early in the 3rd quarter is an act of desperation, not smart aggressive football when you call a weak ass play like that. I can see the difference as can most people.

[fredtoast]

(12-10-2018, 07:30 PM)BengalChris Wrote: I think there's a confusion between what it takes to "play to win" and "being stupid" and "playing not to lose".

Thank you.  That is exactly what I have been trying to tell a lot of people around here for a long time.  But they insist that all that matters is being "more aggressive" and "never taking the foot off the throttle".

Often times the SMART thing to do in order to "play to win" is to be more conservative.

Not enough people get that.

[HarleyDog]

(12-10-2018, 07:08 PM)McC Wrote: Marvin suxx at situational football.

Marvin stinks at ALL football. Heck, he brought Hue here. It’s like letting Hannibal Run a day care center type of stupid.

[Atomic Orange]

Yeah Marvin is about a .500 coach. He's mediocre. That is why he is called "Mediocre Marvin".

[SunsetBengal]

(12-10-2018, 08:16 PM)Atomic Orange Wrote: Yeah Marvin is about a .500 coach. He's mediocre. That is why he is called "Mediocre Marvin".

What if...  Marvin Lewis is actually a good coach, and he just happens to be employed by a crappy organization with an overly heavy handed Management style?

Nah, that can't possibly be, Marv just sux!

Honestly, the truth is probably somewhere in between the two.

[lone bengal]

Deferring the opening kickoff every week is insanity. Didn't mind going for it on 4th and inches its was the idiotic play call i didn't like. Either run a qb sneak or a quick dive so the D-line can't get penetration.

[Catmandude123]

(12-10-2018, 09:14 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What if...  Marvin Lewis is actually a good coach, and he just happens to be employed by a crappy organization with an overly heavy handed Management style?

Nah, that can't possibly be, Marv just sux!

Honestly, the truth is probably somewhere in between the two.

He makes(or is supposed to make)  all the in game decisions. Mikey controls the purse strings and while that can hog tie even the best coach but it has nothing to do with poor game decisions. Marvin is and always was over his head when it comes to the cerebral part of coaching.