Bucs 2015 Game And What It Means

[wolfkaosaun]

Only two times have the Bengals lost a preseason game by double digits since 2013. Last game, and 2015 against the Bucs.

I know a ton of people are upset about how our team played, and rightfully so. But these preseason games must be taken with a grain of salt.

In 2015, the Bengals played the Bucs and the 1st team defense and 2nd team defense got shredded. They gave up 17 points in the 1st half.

The offense was dreadful. Dalton went on to throw 2 INTs, one of which was returned for a TD.

After that game, EVERYONE was on how the Bengals would do terrible and get nowhere. That Dalton was done for.

Then, in 2015, we had arguably the most talented team we ever had. A team that matched up with anyone. Andy Dalton was having a MVP type season.

Always take preseason scores with a grain of salt. This is mainly for the players who are young/new/battling for positions. 2017 isn't down the drain right now.

[bonesaw]

I went to that game in Tampa. They were razzing us hard with our Bengal gear on. The Tampa fans were literally talking Super Bowl during the butt whopping. Shit was hysterical. Famous Jameis was a rook and they were talking Super Bowl

[THE PISTONS]

I do think our defense will be ok.

I don't think the offensive line will be.

Whatever that means for our record...I don't know. We might be able to gameplan around it. Maybe not.

[CINwillWIN]

Last season we only beat the Lions in week 2... Not raising too much of a concern yet...

[Shake n Blake]

I'm worried because of what we saw last year, the losses we had on the line in the off-season, and I'm not sure we upgraded from Nugent no matter who wins the job. I also have no confidence in Marvin or Paul Alexander.

Preseason performance isn't going to sway me much - if at all - either way.

[wolfkaosaun]

(08-21-2017, 09:38 PM)bonesaw Wrote: I went to that game in Tampa.  They were razzing us hard with our Bengal gear on.  The Tampa fans were literally talking Super Bowl during the butt whopping.  Shit was hysterical.  Famous Jameis was a rook and they were talking Super Bowl

It's how serious some fans take preseason. I mean, for crying out loud, I remember the Bills put up like 40 against the Steelers last year and we saw how that went.

Bengals went on to be 12-4
Bucs went on to be 6-10

(08-21-2017, 11:03 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I do think our defense will be ok.

I don't think the offensive line will be.

Whatever that means for our record...I don't know. We might be able to gameplan around it. Maybe not.

Defense I have higher hopes for due to our younger players. I'm just hoping they actually start them/give them playing time.

(08-22-2017, 01:24 AM)CINwillWIN Wrote: Last season we only beat the Lions in week 2... Not raising too much of a concern yet...

Yep. Now if we were getting sacked every play and couldn't move the ball in 2 games, that would be alarming to me.

(08-22-2017, 02:54 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I'm worried because of what we saw last year, the losses we had on the line in the off-season, and I'm not sure we upgraded from Nugent no matter who wins the job. I also have no confidence in Marvin or Paul Alexander.

Preseason performance isn't going to sway me much - if at all - either way.

I think we made an upgrade over Nugent and I like Minter over Maualuga. The offensive line will be our achilles this entire year. Fisher has looked better in technique. Hopkins has looked good. I just wish they would give Westerman snaps at center and we could have a much more competent line.

It wouldn't surprise me if our line looks like Fisher-Boling-Bodine-Hopkins-Smith by the end of the year though.

I mainly use preseason for techniques and seeing potential rather than results, if that makes any sense.

[packerbacker]

You guys will be fine. It's only preseason.

[Au165]

Remember what really made this game worse, Marvin said we approached it like an actual game with game planning and such....then we fell flat on our faces.

[Beaker]

(08-21-2017, 08:49 PM)wolfkaosaun Wrote: Only two times have the Bengals lost a preseason game by double digits since 2013. Last game, and 2015 against the Bucs.

I know a ton of people are upset about how our team played, and rightfully so. But these preseason games must be taken with a grain of salt.

In 2015, the Bengals played the Bucs and the 1st team defense and 2nd team defense got shredded. They gave up 17 points in the 1st half.

The offense was dreadful. Dalton went on to throw 2 INTs, one of which was returned for a TD.

After that game, EVERYONE was on how the Bengals would do terrible and get nowhere. That Dalton was done for.

Then, in 2015, we had arguably the most talented team we ever had. A team that matched up with anyone. Andy Dalton was having a MVP type season.

Always take preseason scores with a grain of salt. This is mainly for the players who are young/new/battling for positions. 2017 isn't down the drain right now.

The preseason means absolutely nothing other than roster battles and getting mistakes on tape to work on. To piggy back onto your theme...the year the Lions went 0-16 they were undefeated in the preseason.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(08-21-2017, 08:49 PM)wolfkaosaun Wrote: Only two times have the Bengals lost a preseason game by double digits since 2013. Last game, and 2015 against the Bucs.

I know a ton of people are upset about how our team played, and rightfully so. But these preseason games must be taken with a grain of salt.

In 2015, the Bengals played the Bucs and the 1st team defense and 2nd team defense got shredded. They gave up 17 points in the 1st half.

The offense was dreadful. Dalton went on to throw 2 INTs, one of which was returned for a TD.

After that game, EVERYONE was on how the Bengals would do terrible and get nowhere. That Dalton was done for.

Then, in 2015, we had arguably the most talented team we ever had. A team that matched up with anyone. Andy Dalton was having a MVP type season.

Always take preseason scores with a grain of salt. This is mainly for the players who are young/new/battling for positions. 2017 isn't down the drain right now.

The exact game i thought about in this last game.

These games happen in the Preseason to lots of good teams.

Couldn't take much from that game except Chris Smith sure looks good.

[*ochocincos*]

(08-23-2017, 02:01 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: The exact game i thought about in this last game.

These games happen in the Preseason to lots of good teams.

Couldn't take much from that game except Chris Smith sure looks good.

If Chris Smith is cut in favor of Will Clarke or MJ, I'll be livid.

[*PhilHos*]

How many threads on the 2015 Bucs preseason game are we going to have? AND the same points are brought up in each thread. It's getting laughable.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(08-23-2017, 03:21 PM)ochocincos Wrote: If Chris Smith is cut in favor of Will Clarke or MJ, I'll be livid.

Clarke made good strides last year, why is everyone still bagging him?

On numerous sites, people are killing him; if he started in place of MJ, I think you'd see imporvement on the right side AND he's cheap AND he's youngish still.

[*ochocincos*]

(08-23-2017, 04:17 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: Clarke made good strides last year, why is everyone still bagging him?

On numerous sites, people are killing him; if he started in place of MJ, I think you'd see imporvement on the right side AND he's cheap AND he's youngish still.

I agree he made strides last year, but I haven't seen him make really any impact so far this offseason. I think Chris Smith has shown a lot more.
Plus I think if it came down to Clarke vs MJ, I'd be willing to bet they go with the mediocre vet vs saving a few million with Clarke who himself is entering the last year of his contract.
I'd take Clarke over MJ though. But I'd take Smith over both.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(08-23-2017, 04:38 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I agree he made strides last year, but I haven't seen him make really any impact so far this offseason. I think Chris Smith has shown a lot more.
Plus I think if it came down to Clarke vs MJ, I'd be willing to bet they go with the mediocre vet vs saving a few million with Clarke who himself is entering the last year of his contract.
I'd take Clarke over MJ though. But I'd take Smith over both.

Much agreed on the bold.

I just think that the fact he surpassed Hunt after just 1 year, then was given more rotation snaps last year, shouldn't be overlooked; again, he didn't embarass himself out there in '16.

But yes, Smith should be on the team.

Edit: Yes, I know surpassing Hunt isn't a difficult thing :p. But he was a Zimmer guy! Still his fault!

[*ochocincos*]

(08-23-2017, 04:42 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: Much agreed on the bold.

I just think that the fact he surpassed Hunt after just 1 year, then was given more rotation snaps last year, shouldn't be overlooked; again, he didn't embarass himself out there in '16.

But yes, Smith should be on the team.

Edit: Yes, I know surpassing Hunt isn't a difficult thing :p. But he was a Zimmer guy! Still his fault!

Would you take Clarke over Gilberry if it came down to it if Chris Smith replaced MJ?

I know you're a PFF guy (or at least used to be).
Last year in limited snaps, Gilberry was 72.2 rating and Clarke was 45.5.
Plus Gilberry has the ability to swing inside on passing downs.
Both Gilberry and Clarke have contracts expiring after this season and Gilberry only costs an extra $500k against the cap compared to Clarke.

EDIT - Gilberry had 2.5 sacks, 5 combine tackles, and 1 TFL in 140 defensive snaps for the Bengals, whereas Will Clarke had 4.0 sacks, 15 combined tackles, 1 PD, and 1 TFL in 372 defensive snaps.
Projecting Gilberry's stats over the same number of snaps as Clarke would be 6.5 sacks, 13 combined tackles, and 2 TFL.

[yellowxdiscipline]

(08-23-2017, 04:17 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: Clarke made good strides last year, why is everyone still bagging him?

On numerous sites, people are killing him; if he started in place of MJ, I think you'd see imporvement on the right side AND he's cheap AND he's youngish still.

Pretty sure we signed MJ because Clarke wasnt coming along fast enough. Everyone had hoped that Clarke would make us forget about MJ, then he didnt, and we resigned MJ. Now here we are and Clarke still isnt generating enough buzz. I don't notice when Clarke is on the field, thats not necessarily a bad thing, but its also not a good thing.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(08-23-2017, 04:48 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Would you take Clarke over Gilberry if it came down to it if Chris Smith replaced MJ?

I know you're a PFF guy (or at least used to be).
Last year in limited snaps, Gilberry was 72.2 rating and Clarke was 45.5.
Plus Gilberry has the ability to swing inside on passing downs.
Both Gilberry and Clarke have contracts expiring after this season and Gilberry only costs an extra $500k against the cap compared to Clarke.

EDIT - Gilberry had 2.5 sacks, 5 combine tackles, and 1 TFL in 140 defensive snaps for the Bengals, whereas Will Clarke had 4.0 sacks, 15 combined tackles, 1 PD, and 1 TFL in 372 defensive snaps.
Projecting Gilberry's stats over the same number of snaps as Clarke would be 6.5 sacks, 13 combined tackles, and 2 TFL.

Used to be; them diluting the stats and putting in that stupid, clearly subjective rating system (at least the old ratings had a tested and true scale that worked and was easier to read, whether one like it or not, notwithstanding () that averages out instead of being cumulative... yeah, plus their ridiculous prices ($20.00 USD a year was more than fine. Now? Ridiculous) just has me saying no.

Yes, I see the stats would project differently... hmm, I just saw him much more involved last year, probably due to the fact that he just got more snaps lol. Still, Dingleberry's not as strong against the run as he used to be, so for this year, I'm not sure how both would stack up against each other.

But I'm still going on Clarke, for now

(08-24-2017, 08:30 AM)yellowxdiscipline Wrote: Pretty sure we signed MJ because Clarke wasnt coming along fast enough. Everyone had hoped that Clarke would make us forget about MJ, then he didnt, and we resigned MJ. Now here we are and Clarke still isnt generating enough buzz. I don't notice when Clarke is on the field, thats not necessarily a bad thing, but its also not a good thing.

I don't agree with that; Clarke only needed 1 year to get bigger, stronger, learn the system AND be the starter?

If he was a 1st/2nd round pick and was a stud in college, I could see that, but he was drafted to be devloped, so to thrust him in the role after one year of very limited snaps, I don't buy that he was supposed to be the starter; even MJ took until his 4th year to start, Dunlap the same.

I DO agree with you, if it had been 2016 and we resigned MJ, because an extra year would've probably been enough.

Just how the team operates, I'm not sure the Clarke/MJ thing is correct.

Now, switch Clarke with Hunt, then I'd think you'd have a great talking point :)

[bengals67]

pre-season is meaningless but we are going no where with Marvin as coach and current staff.

I predict a 2-4 record within our division this year. Two Ls to Steelers of course and we will split with Ravens and Browns.

Not winning division and we wont win enough to make wild card.

[sandwedge]

(08-24-2017, 01:24 PM)bengals67 Wrote: pre-season is meaningless but we are going no where with Marvin as coach and current staff.

I predict a 2-4 record within our division this year. Two Ls to Steelers of course and we will split with Ravens and Browns.

Not winning division and we wont win enough to make wild card.

Ok :whiteflag: