WTF is happening on 4th downs?

[Memphis_Bengal]

I lost my mind on the 2nd and inches QB sneak. Just a monumentally stupid call which lead to a series of penalties and ultimately cost us at least 3 points. Spread it out and let Mixon run. Easy first and maybe more.

[TheFan]

(11-06-2023, 01:33 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Excluding the two negative tosses, Mixon rushed 12 times for 44 yards, or 3.6 yards per carry. Out of those twelve runs, only three went longer than four yards. I don't want to take the thread too off topic, but I don't personally see that as staying on track. That's still pretty poor. Even aside from that, though, there were big plays to be had but Mixon failed to make the guy miss in one-on-one situations.  

Oh I don't disagree, I think our run game is definitely the weakest part of our offense and Mixon is certainly a part of that. 

[WeezyBengal]

(11-06-2023, 01:35 PM)Memphis_Bengal Wrote: I lost my mind on the 2nd and inches QB sneak. Just a monumentally stupid call which lead to a series of penalties and ultimately cost us at least 3 points. Spread it out and let Mixon run. Easy first and maybe more.

Yeah, 2nd and 1 in the opponants terrority is the ideal time to call a big chunk play as well. No idea why we are sneaking on 2nd and 1. 

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(11-06-2023, 11:06 AM)Wyche Wrote: I would've kicked the FG from the 37, otherwise, I had no qualms with it.

Same here, this was my only critique on 4th downs last night. We are finding ourselves still, pretty crazy while beating 2 of the best 
teams in the NFL 2 weeks in a row that we aren't even close to perfect.

Edit: Didn't like the QB sneak on 2nd and 1 though...

[*michaelsean*]

The behind the line ones are the killers. Both to Chase and Mixon. Just don't do it anymore. They are sitting ducks. A bad run usually gets you two or three yards which is a far cry from -3.

[Nepa]

(11-06-2023, 02:55 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Yeah, 2nd and 1 in the opponants terrority is the ideal time to call a big chunk play as well. No idea why we are sneaking on 2nd and 1. 

If the Bengals could run the ball on 3rd and short and 4th and short like the Eagles, with their nearly 100% successful push play, then the Bengals could go for the big chunk play on 2nd and short and 3rd and short. Alas, the Bengals just can't get that same kind of push. 

[Goalpost]

I'm trying to piece together....Did Joe bloody his finger on one of those sneaks?

[ezekiel23]

(11-06-2023, 10:57 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Anyone else find the inconsistency on 4th downs maddening lol?

4th and 2 on the Buf 48 when the offense can't be stopped (and Joe is out there begging to go for it) - PUNT
4th and 5 on the Buf 37 - TURNOVER ON DOWNS
4th and goal on the 2 up 17-10 - FIELD GOAL (I dont know how this even really helps you)

I just don't see any logic or consistency behind these decisions? I feel like it's been this way most of the year.

ZT has been UBER conservative this year on 4th downs, but how do you punt in the first quater on 4th and 2 when your offense is humming, and then go for it on 4th and 5 when your offense is struggling? Also, you go for it on 4th and 5 on the 37 but kick the FG on 4th and goal from the 2?

Just seems like we are shaking the magic 8 ball sometimes - just follow the analytics sheet, man.

I have to agree.I didn’t think Zac’s play calling,and decision making was all that great.Especially in the second half.

Should have kicked the 55 yard FG on 4-5,and go for it on 4-2.Offense was very predictable in that second half.But hey,a win is a win.WHO-DEY!

[sandwedge]

(11-06-2023, 11:59 AM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: First off: you have the third one wrong. We did not kick a FG up 17-10. If we did, that fact that you cannot see how going up 10 instead of 7 helps a team speaks volumes. Anyway, the final score was 24-18, unless you think we got two safeties, we didn't kick a FG up 17-10. Which WOULD have helped and certainly would have been the right call to go up two scores. What we DID do was kick a FG up 21-10. Which puts you up 14, which means they need 2 TDs to catch you instead of 1 FG + 1 TD + 1 2PT. It helps. Plus, we went and failed the time before. 

On the first one, I would have gone, but we got an INT after punt..That we melted down afterwards is another discussion, costing us at least 3. But the punt, pin, pick sequence was Taylor made. Exactly what a coach wants from a punt. And hard to argue against in retrospect. 

On the second one, I would have went. A TD on that drive would have put us up 3 scores. It was a long FG. We just did not convert. 

Lastly, you left out the one to Chase from the Buff 36 where we went on to score a TD. 

Look, I think Taylor's biggest weaknesses are strategic in-game stuff (not defering the KO) and some weird play-calling at times (too pass happy, too finese) AND yes, his go/no-gos on 4th. 

But this game he was pretty good from my perspective. Even the ones I disagreed with worked out (taking the ball first, not giving it to Mixon earlier on 1st/2nd & goal from the 3, and the 1st 4th down punt got us a pick).  He managed the clock pretty well around the 2 minute warning in the first half. The call to Boyd on the last drive was huge. 

Yes, abondoning the north/south running game and not being under center more IS frustrating. As are the toss plays and behind the line passes. But, we just won 4 in a row, the last 3 vs Seattle (5-3), SF 5-3), and Buffalo (5-4). All PO teams last year and likely this as well. The TEs went off for 10 catches, 101 yds, and 2 TDs. Nick Scott made a play on D. It just seems you are searching for something to b!tch about. 

I agree with everything you said! Cappa killed that drive after the interception. Pretty much his worst game as a Bengals overall.

[Sled21]

(11-06-2023, 05:03 PM)ezekiel23 Wrote: I have to agree.I didn’t think Zac’s play calling,and decision making was all that great.Especially in the second half.

Should have kicked the 55 yard FG on 4-5,and go for it on 4-2.Offense was very predictable in that second half.But hey,a win is a win.WHO-DEY!

Really? Do you know which way the wind was blowing, or did you think about that? 

[CJD]

(11-06-2023, 10:57 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Anyone else find the inconsistency on 4th downs maddening lol?

4th and 2 on the Buf 48 when the offense can't be stopped (and Joe is out there begging to go for it) - PUNT
4th and 5 on the Buf 37 - TURNOVER ON DOWNS
4th and goal on the 2 up 17-10 - FIELD GOAL (I dont know how this even really helps you)

I just don't see any logic or consistency behind these decisions? I feel like it's been this way most of the year.

ZT has been UBER conservative this year on 4th downs, but how do you punt in the first quater on 4th and 2 when your offense is humming, and then go for it on 4th and 5 when your offense is struggling? Also, you go for it on 4th and 5 on the 37 but kick the FG on 4th and goal from the 2?

Just seems like we are shaking the magic 8 ball sometimes - just follow the analytics sheet, man.

I don't agree with this line of thinking all the time, but I think I have a pretty good idea of what was going through Zac's mind with each decision.

Quote:4th and 2 on the Buf 48 when the offense can't be stopped (and Joe is out there begging to go for it) - PUNT

Zac's Brain: "We have a touchdown lead, our defense held them to just 4 plays last drive, it's still early in the 2nd quarter. Let's play field position and trust our defense. A turnover or 3 and out gives us good field position right back and we can start our next drive at an advantage. Going for it here and missing gets them right back into the game."

Quote:4th and 5 on the Buf 37 - TURNOVER ON DOWNS

Zac's Brain: "We are up 11 points and the 3rd quarter is waning. A touchdown on this drive is the dagger that ends the game. This is worth more than playing the field position game because Buffalo will need to score more points in the 4th quarter than they have all game just to tie us at this point. A missed field goal gives them a free first down relative to their position if we go for it, and that's significant in a 1 and a half score game."

Quote:4th and goal on the 2 up 17-10 - FIELD GOAL (I dont know how this even really helps you)

Well, they weren't up 17 to 10. They were up 21 to 10. A field goal makes it a full 2 score game. 

Zac's Brain: "There's only 8 minutes left in the game. Getting to 14 points allows our defense to play prevent/time waster style and allow a touchdown without risking a loss to a second touchdown drive via fluke or big play. Every play they call that isn't out of bounds is 20 to 30 seconds off the clock, and we can leverage that by giving them the 8 or 9 yard pass plays, knowing they will spend another down for the 3rd down conversion [which they did twice in that final drive with Latavius Murray]. If we hold them to a 10 play drive that takes 5 minutes off the clock, we'll get it back and will only have to get 1 first down to win the game."

What I guess I'm getting at is Zac doesn't seem to decide on 4th downs based on the likelihood of getting it or the relative field position when the situation comes up. He's looking at the game script, what punting/kicking the field goal vs going for it allows his defense to do and how they've been performing thus far, and makes a gut call. Or at least that's what he seems to do.

I personally like that our coach doesn't just follow analytics to a T. He takes the analytics and blends it with his own judgment and contextual belief in his defense and what they want to do in the following drive.

Blindly following the "win % by decision" analytics is how you get a Brandon Staley.

And no one wants a Brandon Staley.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(11-07-2023, 10:07 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I don't agree with this line of thinking all the time, but I think I have a pretty good idea of what was going through Zac's mind with each decision.


Zac's Brain: "We have a touchdown lead, our defense held them to just 4 plays last drive, it's still early in the 2nd quarter. Let's play field position and trust our defense. A turnover or 3 and out gives us good field position right back and we can start our next drive at an advantage. Going for it here and missing gets them right back into the game."



Zac's Brain: "We are up 11 points and the 3rd quarter is waning. A touchdown on this drive is the dagger that ends the game. This is worth more than playing the field position game because Buffalo will need to score more points in the 4th quarter than they have all game just to tie us at this point. A missed field goal gives them a free first down relative to their position if we go for it, and that's significant in a 1 and a half score game."


Well, they weren't up 17 to 10. They were up 21 to 10. A field goal makes it a full 2 score game. 

Zac's Brain: "There's only 8 minutes left in the game. Getting to 14 points allows our defense to play prevent/time waster style and allow a touchdown without risking a loss to a second touchdown drive via fluke or big play. Every play they call that isn't out of bounds is 20 to 30 seconds off the clock, and we can leverage that by giving them the 8 or 9 yard pass plays, knowing they will spend another down for the 3rd down conversion [which they did twice in that final drive with Latavius Murray]. If we hold them to a 10 play drive that takes 5 minutes off the clock, we'll get it back and will only have to get 1 first down to win the game."

What I guess I'm getting at is Zac doesn't seem to decide on 4th downs based on the likelihood of getting it or the relative field position when the situation comes up. He's looking at the game script, what punting/kicking the field goal vs going for it allows his defense to do and how they've been performing thus far, and makes a gut call. Or at least that's what he seems to do.

I personally like that our coach doesn't just follow analytics to a T. He takes the analytics and blends it with his own judgment and contextual belief in his defense and what they want to do in the following drive.

Blindly following the "win % by decision" analytics is how you get a Brandon Staley.

And no one wants a Brandon Staley.

Great post dawg