The offense had no chance

[Essex Johnson]

(09-12-2024, 06:07 PM)Bengalbug Wrote: 6 targets to Ja’Marr, 6 catches 62 yards.

23 targets to everyone else, 15 catches 102 yards and a fumble.  

Guys need to get open and separate as well . It wasn’t good from burrow, but the fact of the matter is our WR3-WR6 is shaky.

So 62 yards for Chase is ok?

[007BengalsFan]

(09-12-2024, 04:48 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If scoring 27 points against last year's #1 scoring defense is not looking good, I wish we would not look good every single week.  

We couldnt get more than 10 points against the Patriots.  How would we have done against the Ravens defense?

[BengalsBong]

(09-12-2024, 06:07 PM)Bengalbug Wrote: 6 targets to Ja’Marr, 6 catches 62 yards.

23 targets to everyone else, 15 catches 102 yards and a fumble.  

Guys need to get open and separate as well . It wasn’t good from burrow, but the fact of the matter is our WR3-WR6 is shaky.

Check out Joe Goodberry Burrow breakdown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV4MEKfvBTA&t=2s

Burrow's ball placement was crap the first game.

[BengalsBong]

(09-12-2024, 06:10 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: So 62 yards come Chase is ok?

Thats is basically his average per game pretty sad for a guy that was offered 35 mil a year and 90 mil guaranteed and 30 mil signing bonus and turned it down because he thinks he deserves 110 mil guaranteed.

This dude was not in top 5 in any WR stat for this past season. Not YAC, not yards, not catches, nothing at all. How far do we have to look into the past to justify Chase getting a contract that is equal to Jeffersons contract. 

[Joelist]

(09-12-2024, 06:53 PM)BengalsBong Wrote: Check out Joe Goodberry Burrow breakdown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV4MEKfvBTA&t=2s

Burrow's ball placement was crap the first game.

Yup. It was a bad outing. 

[Ell Prez]

(09-11-2024, 02:06 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I hope you are correct.  

While a good theory, why didn’t they scrap that plan at half time and come out firing on all cylinders? I do think they came out not ready and looking ahead to the Chiefs. That falls on Zach.

[Housh]

(09-12-2024, 07:07 PM)BengalsBong Wrote: Thats is basically his average per game pretty sad for a guy that was offered 35 mil a year and 90 mil guaranteed and 30 mil signing bonus and turned it down because he thinks he deserves 110 mil guaranteed.

This dude was not in top 5 in any WR stat for this past season. Not YAC, not yards, not catches, nothing at all. How far do we have to look into the past to justify Chase getting a contract that is equal to Jeffersons contract. 

This is insane


Chase statistically not matching another guy doesn’t mean shit because that team ain’t our team

On OUR team Jamarr Chase is the 1st or 2nd most important player on the whole team so if we wanted to make Chase expendable we should’ve drafted better WRs or signed some WRs after Boyd left.

In OUR team Chase is likely TRULY worth 200M but since there’s a salary cap we are gonna get away with having him for less than that and we should take it


Make no bones about it, without Jamarr Chase, we suck.

[BengalsBong]

(09-12-2024, 09:03 PM)Housh Wrote: This is insane


Chase statistically not matching another guy doesn’t mean shit because that team ain’t our team

On OUR team Jamarr Chase is the 1st or 2nd most important player on the whole team so if we wanted to make Chase expendable we should’ve drafted better WRs or signed some WRs after Boyd left.

In OUR team Chase is likely TRULY worth 200M but since there’s a salary cap we are gonna get away with having him for less than that and we should take it


Make no bones about it, without Jamarr Chase, we suck.

LOL I am glad you are not related to the owners.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(09-12-2024, 01:25 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Of course it is mental with Joe. He just needs to get some of his gritty way back. We all saw that throw to Tee on the first drive on 
the Preseason game. Dude has it, just need to get his confidence back. He can make wow throws like that, he is the most precise QB
in the NFL when on his game. Mahomes is great and expect him to play great against our Defense, but Burrow if he gets the mental 
confidence back we can beat the Chiefs I have no doubt.

I predicted we lose by 3 but we could very well win if the team responds after a terrible first game.

The Chiefs didn't look good either in their win against the Ravens.

With the collective bargaining agreement....most games are sloppy the week or two. Is what it is.

[*ochocincos*]

(09-11-2024, 10:37 PM)samhain Wrote: I get taking what the defense gives you, but I kind of hate to hear that statement regarding this particular game.  

Great offenses can dictate to inferior defenses.  I think many considered the Bengals to be a great offense personnel wise.  A team like NE should not be dictating what an alleged top 5 qb in the league can or can't do to a point where he avoids throwing downfield.  

This offensive group was drafted to score quick with chunk plays.  You take that away and any team in the league is going to be in the driver's seat.  It's basically the only thing the are really proficient at in this era.

Bengals had multiple changes to their offense this offseason though.
New RT
New WR3
New RB


But the biggest of all might be the new OC.
Pitcher has never been a playcaller before in his career.
He was a WRs coach at Cortland and then offensive assistant and QB coach with the Bengals.


While Taylor has some influence in calling plays, maybe Callahan had more involvement than we realized and Pitcher needs time to build that skill set.

[jj22]

I've rewatched the game and it wasn't as devastating a loss as initially thought. Still an embarrassing and humiliating loss, and there was some unsettling signs (the number of checkdowns and lack of urgency or confidence on Offense).

After further review, things did look correctable. However I do still think this is Burrows offense, and the calls for the things we would like to see in it the last 3 years just isn't going to happen consistently. While calling Burrow "limited" was too harsh, don't let my dramatics take away from the point. The Offense doesn't have much flexibility or ability to adapt much from what the base is, and while I stan Burrow like the rest of us, some of this is due to the QB (willingness or inability).

Eventually if the Offense remains stagnant in it's development and / or remains relatively predictable and unimaginative after 4 years of Burrow we have to consider it being on the QB.

Peyton was "limited", and thus ran the offense he built and was comfortable with. He took it with him to Denver and it never changed under any new OC's there or at Indy. So you can have success but Manning was comfortable with more things than Burrow seems to be (leaning on a run game, play action).

One of the key successes of the playoff runs were the flip of the offense to a run heavy attack. They lean on the run more than ever in the playoff's and only lean on Burrow when he's needed.

I still think Zac's preferred system is a run heavy / play action attack. The system we see in SF, LAR, GB, Detroit. Those are Zac's system. What we see here I maintain is Burrows'.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(09-12-2024, 02:58 PM)higgy100 Wrote: Don't you think the Ravens had something to do with that? These games aren't simulated. Nice not to look good and beat the Ravens because plenty of teams DO look good and don't beat them. You can bet your arse KC won't look/play bad this weekend.

Bad penalties on both sides and it was an ugly game. The point is even the Champs didn't look flawless.

(09-12-2024, 03:10 PM)Lucius Cincinnatus Wrote: What exactly didn't look good? Of course they aren't going to dominate/blow out another really good team. 

False start penalties all over the place, terrible interception by Mahomes etc.

You guys are seriously acting like the Chiefs looked great against the Ravens?

The Ravens had tons of penalties as well, it was an ugly game.

(09-12-2024, 04:28 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Chiefs played a very good Ravens team, we lost to a terrible Pats team, so we need the Burrow like last Oct. Beat SF away.

Teams change every year. We don't know how good that Pats team is we barely lost to.

Stevenson is a very good RB, at least every time I have watched the Patriots he has impressed me.

(09-12-2024, 04:48 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If scoring 27 points against last year's #1 scoring defense is not looking good, I wish we would not look good every single week.  

Well yeah, just saying they sure didn't look perfect in the first game, that is for sure. We have a chance to beat them.

Anybody saying different hasn't been watching.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(09-13-2024, 12:35 AM)Wyche Wrote: With the collective bargaining agreement....most games are sloppy the week or two. Is what it is.

True, the only teams I saw that looked great were the Lions, Rams, Saints, 49ers and Bills. Everybody else looked pretty sloppy.

[Lucius Cincinnatus]

(09-13-2024, 04:37 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: False start penalties all over the place, terrible interception by Mahomes etc.

You guys are seriously acting like the Chiefs looked great against the Ravens?

The Ravens had tons of penalties as well, it was an ugly game.

Lol, you're completely changing the conversation. You said "the Chiefs didn't look good either". I never said the Chiefs looked great, but they certainly did look good. 


The Chiefs had 2 false starts and 6 penalties overall. They averaged 5.3 penalties a game last year. You can watch the replay and see the Ravens player is hitting him as he throws...

Me thinks you're talking out of your as* because nothing you're saying makes sense. When do two good teams play each other and there is mistake free football? Beating a good team is looking good. That's such a stupid argument you're trying to make lol. 

Uhhhhh ya think that their offense didn't look as good as it does against 90% of the league? I wonder if maybe that's because they are playing one of the best defenses in the league and vice versa.

 Yet they still scored 27 against one of the best defense and only gave up 20 against one of the best offenses. 

[*ochocincos*]

(09-10-2024, 11:00 AM)casear2727 Wrote: Bengals had one competent starting WR and ran 95% of their plays out of shotgun.  How truly difficult is this to defend?

This is on Zac, and if Pitcher was onboard with it he wont have to worry about taking the next step to HC any time soon.  

This has to be fixed.

The Bengals had 3 pistol plays (runs) and 4 under center plays (3 PA, 1 sneak) against the Patriots in Week 1

19 plays with motion or a shift, 25 plays without

— Jake Liscow (@JakeLiscow) September 9, 2024

Ya know, this game kinda felt like that playoff game years ago against the Colts where Sanu was the only real receiver they had.
Bengals couldn't get anything goin on offense that game.

Similar to that game too, the Bengals RBs only ran 17 times in that Colts playoff game.
Bengals RBs only ran 12 times this past Sunday.

Being pass heavy with poor receivers and the defense playing Cover 2 is always gonna be a recipe for disaster.

[SunsetBengal]

(09-13-2024, 06:17 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Ya know, this game kinda felt like that playoff game years ago against the Colts where Sanu was the only real receiver they had.
Bengals couldn't get anything goin on offense that game.

Similar to that game too, the Bengals RBs only ran 17 times in that Colts playoff game.
Bengals RBs only ran 12 times this past Sunday.

Being pass heavy with poor receivers and the defense playing Cover 2 is always gonna be a recipe for disaster.

Which is why our play caller (our beloved HC) should be hammered for abandoning the run, particularly when it was working. Secondly, pass heavy is one thing, but failing to take any deep shots to stretch the defense is just an abomination.

[*bengalfan74*]

(09-13-2024, 06:23 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Which is why our play caller (our beloved HC) should be hammered for abandoning the run, particularly when it was working. Secondly, pass heavy is one thing, but failing to take any deep shots to stretch the defense is just an abomination.

I was just reading where the Bills are at like 60-40 run to pass plays. Josh Allen has like 23 and 19 pass attempts in the first two games in his career low attempts. And they've scored 30+ points in both games.

Just saying........

[Fan_in_Kettering]

(09-12-2024, 06:10 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: So 62 yards for Chase is ok?

Yes. For one reception.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(09-13-2024, 02:11 PM)jj22 Wrote: I've rewatched the game and it wasn't as devastating a loss as initially thought. Still an embarrassing and humiliating loss, and there was some unsettling signs (the number of checkdowns and lack of urgency or confidence on Offense).

After further review, things did look correctable. However I do still think this is Burrows offense, and the calls for the things we would like to see in it the last 3 years just isn't going to happen consistently. While calling Burrow "limited" was too harsh, don't let my dramatics take away from the point. The Offense doesn't have much flexibility or ability to adapt much from what the base is, and while I stan Burrow like the rest of us, some of this is due to the QB (willingness or inability).

Eventually if the Offense remains stagnant in it's development and / or remains relatively predictable and unimaginative after 4 years of Burrow we have to consider it being on the QB.

Peyton was "limited", and thus ran the offense he built and was comfortable with. He took it with him to Denver and it never changed under any new OC's there or at Indy. So you can have success but Manning was comfortable with more things than Burrow seems to be (leaning on a run game, play action).

One of the key successes of the playoff runs were the flip of the offense to a run heavy attack. They lean on the run more than ever in the playoff's and only lean on Burrow when he's needed.

I still think Zac's preferred system is a run heavy / play action attack. The system we see in SF, LAR, GB, Detroit. Those are Zac's system. What we see here I maintain is Burrows'.

I think there's quite a bit of truth here.....

[XsandOs]

(09-13-2024, 05:25 PM)Lucius Cincinnatus Wrote: Lol, you're completely changing the conversation. You said "the Chiefs didn't look good either". I never said the Chiefs looked great, but they certainly did look good. 


The Chiefs had 2 false starts and 6 penalties overall. They averaged 5.3 penalties a game last year. You can watch the replay and see the Ravens player is hitting him as he throws...

Me thinks you're talking out of your as* because nothing you're saying makes sense. When do two good teams play each other and there is mistake free football? Beating a good team is looking good. That's such a stupid argument you're trying to make lol. 

Uhhhhh ya think that their offense didn't look as good as it does against 90% of the league? I wonder if maybe that's because they are playing one of the best defenses in the league and vice versa.

 Yet they still scored 27 against one of the best defense and only gave up 20 against one of the best offenses. 

In all fairness the Chiefs won a game in which their defense had minimal answers for Jackson - who had almost 400 yards against them. He had over 270 yards passing and over 120 yards rushing. 1 TD and no INTs.

Ravens also dominated time of possession with almost 34 minutes.

On offense, with Mahome's INT and Pacheco's 3 YPC average, if it weren't for Worthy designed plays and a toenail out of bounds, the game could have have resulted in what the stats suggest it should.

But of course one can say that good Teams find a way to win - which KC is definitely a good Team. Also, a win is a win, irrespective of how good a Team looks. 

However; to say that KC looked good against the Ravens, may be a stretch.