WTF is happening on 4th downs?

[WeezyBengal]

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.

[Sled21]

(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.

You don't go for it on 4th down at midfield when you are facing Josh Allen or Patty Mahomes. If you don't get it, that's just giving the other team points. You have to play your competition. 

[WeezyBengal]

(11-06-2023, 11:00 AM)Sled21 Wrote: You don't go for it on 4th down at midfield when you are facing Josh Allen or Patty Mahomes. If you don't get it, that's just giving the other team points. You have to play your competition. 

Analytics said for for it. 

If you don't go for it at that point, then why do you for for it on 4th down (and more) at the 40? The inconsistency is what kills me. 

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(11-06-2023, 11:04 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Analytics said for for it. 

If you don't go for it at that point, then why do you for for it on 4th down (and more) at the 40? The inconsistency is what kills me. 

I would've kicked the FG from the 37, otherwise, I had no qualms with it.

[*bfine32*]

You just can't look at plays in a vacuum. You must also consider time remaining, score, and the opposing team's performance.

[Sled21]

(11-06-2023, 11:04 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Analytics said for for it. 

If you don't go for it at that point, then why do you for for it on 4th down (and more) at the 40? The inconsistency is what kills me. 

Well for one thing, the 40 is not the 48. From the 48, they really only have to go 10 yards to be in field goal range. It's a gamble that if you don't get the 1st down, you are almost automatically giving them points. 

[NUGDUKWE]

(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.

Well I do think Zacs biggest flaw has been situational football. Reading the in game situations and short yardage situations. I don't necessarily have a problem with the above plays. I wanted to go on the 1st 4th down but the defense got a turnover and really did a good job stopping them when they started backed up. The 4th and goal I hate not getting points when your down there and if you can make it a 2 score game with 3 I'm all for it. The 4th and 5? Maybe the thinking was the game could be ended if picked up. Compared to the 1st one so the risk vs reward wasn't there. But what I don't like is calling the timeout and then going. Very head scratching and it took away any doubt of if we would actually go or not. Then the play itself was poor. Perhaps it was well covered and the check down was Burrows decision but we need to stress to Burrow to just put it up in that situation. Put the stress on them not to get a PI. 

[Sled21]

I if was going to complain about Zac's play calling last night, I do not think he ran the ball enough. I think if we ran it more, we would have worn their defense down and Mixon would have feasted. (Especially running behind the left side) That said, a win's a win, so I'm happy.

[WeezyBengal]

(11-06-2023, 11:13 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I if was going to complain about Zac's play calling last night, I do not think he ran the ball enough. I think if we ran it more, we would have worn their defense down and Mixon would have feasted. That said, a win's a win, so I'm happy.

Agree with this 100%. And when they did run the ball later in the game, it was finness runs/tosses. Just pound the ball north and south. 

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(11-06-2023, 11:11 AM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: Well I do think Zacs biggest flaw has been situational football. Reading the in game situations and short yardage situations. I don't necessarily have a problem with the above plays. I wanted to go on the 1st 4th down but the defense got a turnover and really did a good job stopping them when they started backed up. The 4th and goal I hate not getting points when your down there and if you can make it a 2 score game with 3 I'm all for it. The 4th and 5? Maybe the thinking was the game could be ended if picked up. Compared to the 1st one so the risk vs reward wasn't there. But what I don't like is calling the timeout and then going. Very head scratching and it took away any doubt of if we would actually go or not. Then the play itself was poor. Perhaps it was well covered and the check down was Burrows decision but we need to stress to Burrow to just put it up in that situation. Put the stress on them not to get a PI. 

That's a very fair take. 

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(11-06-2023, 11:13 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I if was going to complain about Zac's play calling last night, I do not think he ran the ball enough. I think if we ran it more, we would have worn their defense down and Mixon would have feasted. (Especially running behind the left side) That said, a win's a win, so I'm happy.

Agree. We should've smashed it up the gut more.

[KillerGoose]

(11-06-2023, 11:13 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I if was going to complain about Zac's play calling last night, I do not think he ran the ball enough. I think if we ran it more, we would have worn their defense down and Mixon would have feasted. (Especially running behind the left side) That said, a win's a win, so I'm happy.

The Bengals ran several RPOs where Joe decided to pull it, so they at least called several more runs than were actually executed. That being said, Mixon was awful last night. Of all nights, I don't think last night was one where he would have "feasted" with more carries. He was averaging 2.6 yards per carry and was taken down several times in one on one situations where he could have made big plays if he just made someone miss. 

Except, of course, when it counted. That was a great play to end the game.

[SunsetBengal]

(11-06-2023, 11:16 AM)Wyche Wrote: Agree. We should've smashed it up the gut more.

Especially when the commentators were gushing over the double double-teams that led to gaping holes in the first half.

[Isaac Curtis: The Real #85]

(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.

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. 

[Rattler]

worse than the calls, was the clock management surrounding them...

[TheFan]

(11-06-2023, 11:16 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: The Bengals ran several RPOs where Joe decided to pull it, so they at least called several more runs than were actually executed. That being said, Mixon was awful last night. Of all nights, I don't think last night was one where he would have "feasted" with more carries. He was averaging 2.6 yards per carry and was taken down several times in one on one situations where he could have made big plays if he just made someone miss. 

Except, of course, when it counted. That was a great play to end the game.

Most of his negative runs were from the awful pitch play which hasn't worked for literally years now. I think they tried that 3 times and it went for negative yards each time. Our line is just not athletic enough and Mixon isn't shifty enough for a play like that. When we did traditional runs we pretty much always stayed on track. 

[*Synric*]

(11-06-2023, 12:46 PM)TheFan Wrote: Most of his negative runs were from the awful pitch play which hasn't worked for literally years now. I think they tried that 3 times and it went for negative yards each time. Our line is just not athletic enough and Mixon isn't shifty enough for a play like that. When we did traditional runs we pretty much always stayed on track. 

Twice. They ran it once last week for 7 yards.

[BengalsBong]

We have way too many throws to guys that are 4 yards behind the line of scrimmage that kill drives.

The running game needs to go north south we are tossing it wide and getting stuffed in the backfield.

Williams was getting 4 yards per and almost 5 yards per on 3 carries go with the guy with the hot hand.

Zac will never give backup running backs a lot of touches if Mixon struggles he says he does not get information like that till after the game. Well sir that is part of your problem.

By short yardage throws I mean behind the line of scrimmage.

Once we get a decent led Zac gets too conservative on play calling opting for short yardage throws as opposed to intermediate throws.

Zac almost gave that game away last night.

[BoomerFan]

Sometimes there is more to the context that statistics. Does the offense seem hot and are they executing well? That said, the results have to bear that out. Gotta convert that 4th and 5 when you go for it if you didn't go for it on 4th and 2.

[KillerGoose]

(11-06-2023, 12:46 PM)TheFan Wrote: Most of his negative runs were from the awful pitch play which hasn't worked for literally years now. I think they tried that 3 times and it went for negative yards each time. Our line is just not athletic enough and Mixon isn't shifty enough for a play like that. When we did traditional runs we pretty much always stayed on track. 

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.