Posts: 7,114
Threads: 55
Reputation:
98104
Joined: May 2015
Location: Barrie, Ontario, Canada
(11-18-2018, 09:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I guess I'm in the minority with Sled and thinking the D looked better today. We lost by 3 points to a division rival on the road. The D was directly responsible for 14 of our points and that guy on the other teams that kicks the ball in the air is called a punter. We haven't seen one of those in quite some time.
Was it a great D? No
Were we short handed? Yes
Was it better? Yes
D looked much better indeed; held to under 400 yards, that's not bad with our LB play, not to mention 3rd down was better.
The amount of rushing yards is alarming, but if Jackson was in the league for 5 years and did this, it'd be a bigger deal.
Having tape on a guy is so important.
Posts: 15,116
Threads: 221
Reputation:
147378
Joined: May 2015
(11-18-2018, 09:25 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: D looked much better indeed; held to under 400 yards, that's not bad with our LB play, not to mention 3rd down was better.
The amount of rushing yards is alarming, but if Jackson was in the league for 5 years and did this, it'd be a bigger deal.
Having tape on a guy is so important.
Not to be a stickler, but we gave up 403 yards and a 50% 3rd down conversion rate. Both are bad numbers, but sure it's better than the record-setting pace we were on. I'd say 265 rush yards is still a pretty huge deal. It's not like it wasn't painfully obvious that the Ravens would be running Lamar (and their RB) a LOT. Word was that he's really green as a passer, so we had to know going in.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
Posts: 230
Threads: 2
Reputation:
1072
Joined: Jan 2018
It speaks volumes that we are so beaten down as a fan base that a rookie qb running back combo running for the most yards against us in 18 years so seen is an ok performance
1
Posts: 121
Threads: 0
Reputation:
259
Joined: Sep 2016
(11-18-2018, 07:47 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Rushing yards don't win games, points scored does. We lost by 3, that's better....
the defense looked better because we were playing a 4 and 5 team with a backup rookie QB, and we still got shredded for 265 on the ground and 150 in the air. For a total of 415 yards. We still looked lost and clueless as a entire football team. Marvin cannot motivate the players anymore they know hes trash. 3 points or 50 a Loss is a LOSS!
Posts: 38,939
Threads: 922
Reputation:
132519
Joined: May 2015
(11-18-2018, 09:25 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: D looked much better indeed; held to under 400 yards, that's not bad with our LB play, not to mention 3rd down was better.
The amount of rushing yards is alarming, but if Jackson was in the league for 5 years and did this, it'd be a bigger deal.
Having tape on a guy is so important.
As I said. It's been 1 week that Marv has taken charge of the D and we played better. Folks want to point to all the negatives, because they're mad.
We put pressure on the QB, we got a INT that put us is scoring range, we got a TO on downs that put us in scoring position. Folks can say it's more of the same, but they're just mad. Let's see what week 2 looks like before we throw the baby out with the bath water.
Posts: 2,681
Threads: 232
Reputation:
7732
Joined: Jul 2015
The D kept us in the game those 2 plays the 4th down stop and the pick they deserve as much credit as the offense for those 14 of the 21 points. The other 7 you could attribute to defense and special teams as well. blaming D for this loss specifically would be absurd.
Posts: 16,873
Threads: 70
Reputation:
59743
Joined: May 2015
Location: Richmond, VA
The defense certainly wasn't perfect, but it was significantly improved over the last several outings.
Posts: 5,615
Threads: 197
Reputation:
14886
Joined: May 2015
(11-18-2018, 07:48 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Yay!!!! We didn't lose 51-14!
We lost by 3 to a bad team!
Apparently the goal is to just lose by less than the last week.
We still get a participation trophy don't we?
Posts: 5,615
Threads: 197
Reputation:
14886
Joined: May 2015
(11-18-2018, 09:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said. It's been 1 week that Marv has taken charge of the D and we played better. Folks want to point to all the negatives, because they're mad.
We put pressure on the QB, we got a INT that put us is scoring range, we got a TO on downs that put us in scoring position. Folks can say it's more of the same, but they're just mad. Let's see what week 2 looks like before we throw the baby out with the bath water.
Bet if we played NO again this week the defense would have played just as bad as last week. We lost to a bad team period.
Posts: 2,681
Threads: 232
Reputation:
7732
Joined: Jul 2015
(11-18-2018, 10:04 PM)TKUHL Wrote: Bet if we played NO again this week the defense would have played just as bad as last week. We lost to a bad team period.
With Marvin as D coordinator calling plays I only see the saints putting up 31 on us. Austin was awful we lit up the Lions defense last season why we hired him to begin with should be the question.
Posts: 38,939
Threads: 922
Reputation:
132519
Joined: May 2015
(11-18-2018, 10:04 PM)TKUHL Wrote: Bet if we played NO again this week the defense would have played just as bad as last week. We lost to a bad team period.
Do you think the O would do better?
We lost to a division rival on the road. The Ravens are not a bad team. They have one bad loss (Cleveland). Hell they've probably played NO better than any team in the last 8 weeks.
Posts: 16,948
Threads: 419
Reputation:
97015
Joined: May 2015
(11-18-2018, 08:13 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: You say rushing doesn't win games, so maybe you could show us a list of teams who have won when they're outgained by 217 rush yards.
I have a feeling that list is nearly 0 teams long.
Gee, when I look up who won games, it's usually denoted by the number of points they score, not the yardage. I'm not saying rushing yards are not important, but a team can rush all day and not get it into the endzone, and will never win a game. The Ravens had all those yards..... they won by 3....
Posts: 6,201
Threads: 13
Reputation:
45971
Joined: May 2015
Location: Good Times
(11-18-2018, 10:25 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Gee, when I look up who won games, it's usually denoted by the number of points they score, not the yardage. I'm not saying rushing yards are not important, but a team can rush all day and not get it into the endzone, and will never win a game. The Ravens had all those yards..... they won by 3....
And Fat Randy could've changed that. Not too many people have mentioned it.
Posts: 19,769
Threads: 635
Reputation:
86220
Joined: Oct 2016
(11-18-2018, 10:25 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Gee, when I look up who won games, it's usually denoted by the number of points they score, not the yardage. I'm not saying rushing yards are not important, but a team can rush all day and not get it into the endzone, and will never win a game. The Ravens had all those yards..... they won by 3....
When you rush for 265 yards...you get in the end zone.
Total Yards 403 to 255. TOP 38:09 to 21:51.
Nothing about those stats say the Bengals should win.
|
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: Truck_1_0_1_.png]](https://card.psnprofiles.com/2/Truck_1_0_1_.png)
![[Image: 51209558878_91a895e0bb_m.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51209558878_91a895e0bb_m.jpg)
