Stupid decision

[Catmandude123]

Marvelous Marvin pulled another bone head decision that cost his team a chance to win. Going for two point conversion in the freaking second quarter instead of taking one point made the team have to go for two again instead of kicking a game tying extra point. How he comes up with these stupid decisions amaze me.

[sandwedge]

(12-10-2018, 12:08 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: Marvelous Marvin pulled another bone head decision that cost his team a chance to win. Going for two point conversion in the freaking second quarter instead of taking one point made the team have to go for two again instead of kicking a game tying extra point. How he comes up with these stupid decisions amaze me.

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. 

[bambino5130]

I was fine and agreed with the decision. The play call and execution were dog$hit.

[higgy100]

(12-10-2018, 12:08 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: Marvelous Marvin pulled another bone head decision that cost his team a chance to win. Going for two point conversion in the freaking second quarter instead of taking one point made the team have to go for two again instead of kicking a game tying extra point. How he comes up with these stupid decisions amaze me.

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....

[sandwedge]

(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....

Not sure what Pollack was thinking there. On short yardage the line just needs to pick a man and bury his ass in the dirt.

[Au165]

(12-10-2018, 12:24 PM)sandwedge Wrote: Not sure what Pollack was thinking there. On short yardage the line just needs to pick a man and bury his ass in the dirt.

He doesn't change the blocking scheme based on the down and distance. The play dictates the blocking, that one is on the play call. 

[Bengalitis]

(12-10-2018, 12:19 PM)bambino5130 Wrote: I was fine and agreed with the decision. The play call and execution were dog$hit.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this.

[sandwedge]

(12-10-2018, 12:26 PM)Au165 Wrote: He doesn't change the blocking scheme based on the down and distance. The play dictates the blocking, that one is on the play call. 

I get what your saying. Maybe he and Lazor need to re-evaluate that.

[Catmandude123]

(12-10-2018, 12:29 PM)Bengalitis Wrote: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this.

I can only reply that the play and execution was dog crap but lets ask ourselves WWBBD. I guess Marvin figured that by tying the game would be a semi win. His team hasn't won a single half of football in weeks. There was thirty minutes left . That one point changed the whole complexity of the game.

[fredtoast]

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?

[Bilbo Saggins]

I like going for two if there is any situation that justifies going for it.  Assuming that you have around a 50% chance to convert at any point in the game, it's better to roll the dice EARLY and not convert early than to keep yourself guessing until the last possible second and then lose by one score.  At least if you miss it early, you know how you have to play the rest of the game in order to keep up in points. I also like the idea of going for two on the first TD of the game if you like your 2 point odds over the other teams's, but no one really does this.  I've had this argument before, and there probably isn't really any wrong answer. In this case I'd say that going for two was the right call, it just wasn't executed.

[fredtoast]

(12-10-2018, 01:05 PM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: I like going for two if there is any situation that justifies going for it.  Assuming that you have around a 50% chance to convert at any point in the game, it's better to roll the dice EARLY and not convert early than to keep yourself guessing until the last possible second and then lose by one score.  At least if you miss it early, you know how you have to play the rest of the game in order to keep up in points.  I also like the idea of going for two on the first TD of the game if you like your 2 point odds over the other teams's, but no one really does this.  I've had this argument before, and there probably isn't really any wrong answer. In this case I'd say that going for two was the right call, it just wasn't executed.

I agree with you to some degree about going for 2 earlier in games, but I think a big reason coaches don't want to go for 2 more often is that they want to keep their "2 point playbook" a secret.  If they only attempt it on rare occasions then the defense does not know what to expect.

I don't know for sure, but I believe that if every team started going for 2 more often then the percentages would drop because the defenses would be able to scout the tendencies. 

[Millhouse]

In this case I tend to agree it wasn't smart to go for 2 early on.

Last year and in 2016 the Bengals had 0 attempts at 2 pt conversions.

This year they attempted 1, and didn't convert. So they were 0-1 on 2 pt conv. going back to 2016 season (that's 44 games).

Other 2 pt stats: 10 teams this year have not converted a 2 pt play. 9 teams have converted only 1. The overall league total is 54 of 108 attempts were converted.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2018/index.htm

[Joelist]

Both 2 pt conversion play calls were dumb. Just drive straight ahead and no slower developing plays that require the OL to hold blocks.

[sandwedge]

(12-10-2018, 01:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I agree with you to some degree about going for 2 earlier in games, but I think a big reason coaches don't want to go for 2 more often is that they want to keep their "2 point playbook" a secret.  If they only attempt it on rare occasions then the defense does not know what to expect.

I don't know for sure, but I believe that if every team started going for 2 more often then the percentages would drop because the defenses would be able to scout the tendencies. 

You're probably right about defenses being able to scout tendencies, but the last time we actually scored a 2 pt conversion was back in 2015. I just didn't like the plays we called on both of our tries. Driskel is suppose to be an athletic QB, I would have liked to seen more of an option with him rolling out, forcing the D to come up.

[Whatever]

(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?

The Bengals haven't made a 2 point conversion since 2015 and were missing their starting QB, TE, LT, and #1 WR.  It was a dumb call to chase points that early.

[Sled21]

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

[fredtoast]

It is not fair to debate this after the game is over.

I rarely visit the game day thread, but it would have been interesting to see what people were saying BEFORE they knew it would not work. I'll bet majority were calling for Marvin to go or 2.

Everybody is a genius after the play is over.

[Bengalitis]

(12-10-2018, 01:32 PM)Joelist Wrote: Both 2 pt conversion play calls were dumb. Just drive straight ahead and no slower developing plays that require the OL to hold blocks.

They were very dumb indeed. The 2nd one you have Driskel there in the pocket unable to scramble and eventually sakced. For 2 pt conversions you need execute a play where the QB can have the option to run along with a receiver to give him the option to either throw it to him or run it in for the TD himself.

The first one attempt came out of Bratkowski play book, 15 yrds. behind the goal line. 2 pt conversion points, the faster they are executed, the more probability of succeeding. Our plays took forever, I suspect they hadn't practice  2pt conversions much with Driskel and it showed.

[Catmandude123]

(12-10-2018, 01:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is not fair to debate this after the game is over.

I rarely visit the game day thread, but it would have been interesting to see what people were saying BEFORE they knew it would not work.  I'll bet  majority were calling for Marvin to go or 2.

Everybody is a genius after the play is over.

Ok Mr. genius we all aware that hindsight is 20/20. But all you do when you fail at any point in the game it directly effects the whole team. That takes the wind out of your sails. The ensuing play after the failed two pointer is a perfect example. You turn a high into a low. At the endof the game you have to take chances that effect the team but before half time isn't one of them.