Anyone Else Frustrated We Don't 'Patriots' Teams?

[The Caped Crusader]

I've been watching for so damn long, and every Sunday, especially one where New England beats the mudhole out of some team...My Dad and I always bring up the thought..."Why don't we do that?'

Granted, you're not going to beat every team, you're not going to blow out every team. That being said, it can be detrimental to let you foot off the gas (insert GB and half a dozen games last year). If nothing else, it makes your stats look pretty and is a show of force. I'm not sure how many times I've seen New England put up 50 points, when they didn't have to. Cleveland was a bit of an example of this. Sure, the game was over, and no need to risk anything. Dalton could have an interception, someone could fumble. Whatever...but those mistakes can happen on run plays (ones that go frustratingly for no yards).

I know everyone gets frustrated like I do when we go conservative, so how do you guys feel about the bigger picture and blowing teams out?

[HarleyDog]

I don't believe in going conservative. Yeah, if you have a huge lead you might pull a couple players but you still try to continue to score.

[*bengalfan74*]

Very frustrating when Marvin is trying to sit on a 10-0 lead at the end of the 1st quarter.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Every time the Bengals have a big lead heading into halftime, I tell myself that I should stop watching, yet for some reason I rarely ever do despite knowing it's going to be like 90 minutes of the most boring/frustrating football around.

[HarleyDog]

(10-08-2017, 07:34 AM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Very frustrating when Marvin is trying to sit on a 10-0 lead at the end of the 1st quarter.

I'll never understand his thought process. Play 60!

[WiregrassBenGal]

It seems like forever since the last Bengals blowout. On my birthday in 2014 they beat up on the Titans pretty well and a couple of years before that I was in California and the Bengals-Giants game was on out there. The Giants might have been freaked out because Hurricane Sandy had just happened and by the third quarter it was something like 40-10, Bengals. The network changed the game to something more competitive! AARGH.

Now it would be extremely fun to see the Bengals beat up on both the Bills and then the Steelers in two weeks. Not likely, I know but it would be fun. I would settle for two wins but in the end I'm going to watch no matter what.

[THE PISTONS]

Your point is relevant on the Bengals. They generally find a way to lose and when they are winning go very conservative.

On the Patriots, while they do blow some good teams out occasionally...they also are the masters of eeking out a win when they don't have their A game. They'll play just good enough to win on the scoreboard. Over a 16 game season, you aren't going to be amped up enough to destroy every team so this is important.

If the Bengals have their B game...they usually lose.

[SunsetBengal]

As long as they're spreading it around, giving everyone a chance to score; Why not keep the foot on the gas?

Keeping the hammer down, and getting everyone in on the act is good for team morale, and it further develops skill and confidence in the younger players who will someday be relied on to carry the load.

[PDub80]

Marvin Lewis is the Jim Tressel of the NFL.

A few years ago I was at a private Bengals practice where Marvin addressed the 50 or so of us there and quoted former Ohio State coach Woody Hayes - "Three things can happen when you throw the ball, and two of them are bad."

Marvin either does not understand or does not like the current way NFL football is being played (I believe it's a combination of the two). The rules have changed since Marvin cut his teeth and he just hasn't adapted like other guys have. He is a very conservative, risk averse person and he manages his football teams this way. It's totally against his personality to risk throwing the ball when he has a 2 or 3 score lead.

It's just, unfortunately, who he is as a person. I think he would be very uncomfortable running up a score for several reasons:

1. You have to throw the ball to do that. He doesn't like to throw the football because the other team can take the ball. When you're up 2 or 3 scores that "let's them back in the game", so to speak.

Counter Point: So does a punt. And with today's NFL rules to encourage passing and high scoring it's easy to score 3 times in a quarter, let a lone a half or 3 quarters.

2. I believe he respects other coaches a lot. He's been around a long time and I think he hates embarrassing another coach.

Counter Point: Before anyone brings up the drubbing Hue Jackson and the Browns were handed, the Browns couldn't stop the Bengals at all in any phase of the game. The long 60+ yard TD run by Gio with 47 seconds left was certainly not typical and I suspect that was more to grind the clock down and end the half.

The last TD was a passing play to Kroft makes sense as they need to keep working him in with Eifert out, plus they need redzone work/confidence. I am NOT for extending Eifert with Kroft, Uzomah, and Shreck (who supposedly had a quietly strong camp) on the roster.

^ PLUS, I looked at the play by play on the drive and the Bengals were NOT trying to score. The drive started on the Cincinnati 17 and then 2 straight runs followed by a pass to a RB (penalty is how they got the 1st). Then two back to back runs again and ANOTHER short 3rd down pass to a RB that happened to scamper for a 1st. They then passed to a TE followed by run run run... before a TD pass.

^ Given the above sequence of repeated runs on 1st & 2nd with short passes to RBs on 3rd. They weren't looking to drive down and score again. That was 7 runs against 4 passes on that drive and it was still just the 3rd quarter. Marvin was clearly sitting on a lead.

Looking back through the rest of the Bengals offensive possessions through the 3rd & 4th quarters they were all short passes or runs. Nothing over 10 yards trying to make it down and score again and a 3 and out that was just runs. I totally get running it out with a big lead and only 6 mins left, however.

[grampahol]

It's kind of the opposite of (for example) Ohio State vs Toledo State or some smaller team where it's usually something like 44-0 by half time.. It is probably the league dictating how badly teams are allowed to blow others out unless they're big market teams..After all, they want "parity and competitiveness" for the TV audience. If we're blowing out other teams most people tune out and the name of the game is eyeballs watching commercials, not blowouts. If you're buying ads during football games you really don't want one team or the other winning by 50 points. You don't sell soap with that.
Even with all these things in mind when your team is the Washington Generals of the league does anyone realistically expect blowouts very often? I certainly don't.

[*Awful Llama*]

I'm just glad we don't "Packers" any team. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[jfkbengals]

All I care is that we outscore the opposition to get a W. I could care less if we win by 1 or 100, as long as we get the win. With that said, I do like to have some games where backups can get some snaps that are more significant than taking a knee, so you'll never hear me complain that we have scored too much!