11-02-2021, 06:05 PM
(11-02-2021, 05:34 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Sheesh people are soooo sensitive to any perceived sleight.
I don't know if there's anything to what Kevin is saying or not, but thus far, the only evidence presented (Bengals being 29th in time to snap) seems to help Kevin's case.
1 second on *average* is a bigger deal than yall think. It's not going to be 1 second every time. Sometimes its going to be one second faster than average. Other times, 2-3 seconds slower...and when we're talking about NFL defenders, an extra few seconds may help them diagnose some plays.
Let me just ask this: What was the point of the sugar huddle? Ok...now if we're the opposite of that, wouldn't it stand to reason that more plays could be diagnosed?
Can we have one discussion without getting offended? I think its an intriguing question, and maybe instead of arguing about it, we can have an intelligent discussion and get to the bottom of this? One can dream.
Hey, I'll take a step back and admit that I can definitely come off as a dick. I don't mean to, I'm not trying to brow-beat kevin, but I can understand that I probably am. So, I'm sorry kevin. I'm not trying to be an asshole here (and sorry for being a jerk in general Shake, I know I've gotten red with you). Re-reading that post, I came across pretty aggressive but I wasn't trying to be aggressive.
I did post data that details the Bengals performance based on seconds left on the play clock. If anything, Cincinnati seems to perform better when the play clock gets low. There isn't anything there to suggest otherwise.
