Can anybody tell me why?

[Essex Johnson]

(10-07-2024, 12:52 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Why did we decide lets just kick a 50+ yard FG to try and win it?

We ran three offensive plays after we recovered the fumble at the Ravens 37 and got all the way down to the 35  

We ran all 3 plays from heavy sets. And not a single pass despite JB having an outstanding day!! On the 1st play the Ravens have 9 defenders in the box. Everyone of them crashes to the LOS at the snap. J. Chase has a very soft coverage.

A half second after the snap there's a wiidddddeeeeee open middle of the field. If Chase runs a quick slant and it was a play action fake to Brown it's probably a TD. At a minimum a good gain. Of course JB would have to throw quickly.

I just can't understand why you have Joe Burrow for crying out friggin loud! And the coaches say screw that, put the Lamborghini away, lets get out the Honda civic and just get a couple yards a try a long FG.

And this isn't the first time ZT and Co. have been guilty of this. ML 2.0

Well guess blame ZT for 2 runs and Burrow for other, not sure what down Burrow checked out of pass for a run

[RunKijanaRun]

(10-08-2024, 12:57 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Did you ever stop to think they weren't settling for position, they were trying to get closer while running it?
Did you ever stop to think if they did get closer and get to say the 30, ity wouldn't have mattered in the least because of the holder the kick would have still missed?

Did you ever think running straight into a 9 man front is really stupid, if your ostensible motive was to try to gain meaningful yardage?

Did you ever stop to think that what happened on the missed FG is irrelevant? The strategy was wrong. Maybe the snap wasn’t botched and he just misses. Maybe the snap is fumbled. Look at the percentages of successful FG from 50+ vs 40-49. 30-39. Are those numbers random chance? We’re failing to reject the null hypothesis?

Did you ever think that the snap and the hold would have been different if they were set up for a 42 yarder?

It’s so odd to me that some excuse the decision BECAUSE the field goal was missed. It’s…comedy, really. He missed from 53, so he would have missed from 40?

The decision was ludicrous on its face and needed no further examination.

If it makes so much sense, take some time and find a similar situation. Circumstances don’t have to be identical, of course. But similar. Doubt you can. This isn’t the agenda of a small cabal of anti Zac Taylor militants.

But that cabal grew after that game.

[Essex Johnson]

(10-08-2024, 10:02 PM)RunKijanaRun Wrote: Did you ever think running straight into a 9 man front is really stupid, if your ostensible motive was to try to gain meaningful yardage?

Did you ever stop to think that what happened on the missed FG is irrelevant? The strategy was wrong. Maybe the snap wasn’t botched and he just misses. Maybe the snap is fumbled. Look at the percentages of successful FG from 50+ vs 40-49. 30-39. Are those numbers random chance? We’re failing to reject the null hypothesis?

Did you ever think that the snap and the hold would have been different if they were set up for a 42 yarder?

It’s so odd to me that some excuse the decision BECAUSE the field goal was missed. It’s…comedy, really. He missed from 53, so he would have missed from 40?

The decision was ludicrous on its face and needed no further examination.

If it makes so much sense, take some time and find a similar situation. Circumstances don’t have to be identical, of course. But similar. Doubt you can. This isn’t the agenda of a small cabal of anti Zac Taylor militants.

But that cabal grew after that game.

Well he called a pass play, Joe checked out of it, if that was 2nd down, then I also run on 3rd as a Coach 

[reuben.ahmed]

From what I heard, Joe checked to a run on the 1st down.

[SunsetBengal]

(10-08-2024, 06:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well both JB and Zac said he audibled out of it. 

That's our story and we're sss sticking to it..

[Sled21]

(10-08-2024, 10:08 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Well he called a pass play, Joe checked out of it, if that was 2nd down, then I also run on 3rd as a Coach 

As would anyone with half a football IQ

[TheCincinnatiKid]

(10-08-2024, 10:08 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Well he called a pass play, Joe checked out of it, if that was 2nd down, then I also run on 3rd as a Coach 

Yep, the problem was we backed ourselves into a corner for the 3rd down play, due to how the first two went. We had no real choice but to run on 3rd down, the problem was running it on both 1st and 2nd. One of those was initially a pass play. I think it's just one where the defensive look on that play took ownership of the drive unfortunately.

[Essex Johnson]

(10-09-2024, 08:05 AM)TheCincinnatiKid Wrote: Yep, the problem was we backed ourselves into a corner for the 3rd down play, due to how the first two went. We had no real choice but to run on 3rd down, the problem was running it on both 1st and 2nd. One of those was initially a pass play. I think it's just one where the defensive look on that play took ownership of the drive unfortunately.

Well the point i think is we don;t always know what is called and what it might be changed to.  but for those that said ZT called 3 run plays, that is inaccurate... the big issue is to me if we checked out of pass play we only got 0 to 2 yards on the run... maybe we should have stayed with pass play

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(10-08-2024, 09:48 PM)Nepa Wrote: RFaulk34 describes it in the Paul Dehner thread on this site:

"2nd down. Starts in shotgun. Walks up to the line and calls something out. Goes back in shotgun and hands off. 


They must have started the film after he was back in shotgun in the condensed version because it's clear as day in the full version."


Caesar also noted: "Yep, just rewatched the full version.  The condensed didn't show the TO prior either. Definitely an audible. "

See .....this is what I'm talking about. Some fool on Twitter spews a half truth and nobody checks their ass on it. Then everyone runs with it as the gospel. We should know better. Mfer on there talking about a lie ..... you're the liar bro. 

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(10-08-2024, 10:09 PM)reuben.ahmed Wrote: From what I heard, Joe checked to a run on the 1st down.

It was 2nd down ....as noted by rfaulk and Caesar in the Paul Dehner thread. Amazing what calming down and examining the actual facts vs running with what some blowhard on Twitter says can do. 

[TheCincinnatiKid]

(10-09-2024, 12:22 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Well the point i think is we don;t always know what is called and what it might be changed to.  but for those that said ZT called 3 run plays, that is inaccurate... the big issue is to me if we checked out of pass play we only got 0 to 2 yards on the run... maybe we should have stayed with pass play

You'd like to think we don't, because of we do then you can sure as hell the opposition know! And that's not good.

Yeah, he didn't call 3 pass plays, but each play had a limited personnel. We invited the Ravens to stack the box, so it's no shock we didn't get much on the ground really. 

All I'll say about a 0 yard run, is it could've been a -10 yard sack had we not audibled. My own opinion is that we should've had one play where we lined up wide... and even if you decide then that the coverage won't allow a decent chance at the pass we like, we could audible that back into a run if we really wanted. And in that scenario, there are fewer Ravens clogging up the middle of the defence.

[Nicomo Cosca]

(10-09-2024, 12:34 PM)WychesWarrior Wrote: See .....this is what I'm talking about. Some fool on Twitter spews a half truth and nobody checks their ass on it. Then everyone runs with it as the gospel. We should know better. Mfer on there talking about a lie ..... you're the liar bro. 

(10-09-2024, 12:36 PM)WychesWarrior Wrote: It was 2nd down ....as noted by rfaulk and Caesar in the Paul Dehner thread. Amazing what calming down and examining the actual facts vs running with what some blowhard on Twitter says can do. 

Even rfaulk had to go back and rewatch the full All 22 a 2nd time to find the audible. It was apparently not shown on the condensed version, which is what that guy, and many others, were going off.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(10-09-2024, 03:17 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Even rfaulk had to go back and rewatch the full All 22 a 2nd time to find the audible. It was apparently not shown on the condensed version, which is what that guy, and many others, were going off.

I get that .....but dude should verify what he's saying before calling someone a liar. Especially when the coach AND player have verified it was the case. I noticed he didn't call Joe a liar .....why is that?

[Nicomo Cosca]

(10-09-2024, 03:28 PM)WychesWarrior Wrote: I get that .....but dude should verify what he's saying before calling someone a liar. Especially when the coach AND player have verified it was the case. I noticed he didn't call Joe a liar .....why is that?

I agree, dude shouldn’t have called him a liar. That said, Zac is a big boy, and I’m sure he’s not losing any sleep over anything other than his 1-4 record right now.

[casear2727]

(10-09-2024, 12:36 PM)Wyche Wrote: It was 2nd down ....as noted by rfaulk and Caesar in the Paul Dehner thread. Amazing what calming down and examining the actual facts vs running with what some blowhard on Twitter says can do. 

Full disclosure:  I correctly assumed it was 2nd Down prior to confirmation.  As the self proclaimed Determinator of Takes, I am bound to not make any bad ones, thus I continue to fulfill my responsibilities to this board.  

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(10-09-2024, 03:47 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: I agree, dude shouldn’t have called him a liar. That said, Zac is a big boy, and I’m sure he’s not losing any sleep over anything other than his 1-4 record right now.

He better be losing sleep over that record!

[TecmoBengals]

(10-09-2024, 03:57 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Full disclosure:  I correctly assumed it was 2nd Down prior to confirmation.  As the self proclaimed Determinator of Takes, I am bound to not make any bad ones, thus I continue to fulfill my responsibilities to this board.  

[Essex Johnson]

(10-09-2024, 01:48 PM)TheCincinnatiKid Wrote: You'd like to think we don't, because of we do then you can sure as hell the opposition know! And that's not good.

Yeah, he didn't call 3 pass plays, but each play had a limited personnel. We invited the Ravens to stack the box, so it's no shock we didn't get much on the ground really. 

All I'll say about a 0 yard run, is it could've been a -10 yard sack had we not audibled. My own opinion is that we should've had one play where we lined up wide... and even if you decide then that the coverage won't allow a decent chance at the pass we like, we could audible that back into a run if we really wanted. And in that scenario, there are fewer Ravens clogging up the middle of the defence.

Well audible should increase your play ,obviously that did not happen, stacking the box should have increased the pass play, we will never know

[*bfine32*]

(10-09-2024, 03:17 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Even rfaulk had to go back and rewatch the full All 22 a 2nd time to find the audible. It was apparently not shown on the condensed version, which is what that guy, and many others, were going off.

Well if even rfaulk had to go back, then it must have been tough to see. 

[Essex Johnson]

(10-08-2024, 10:09 PM)reuben.ahmed Wrote: From what I heard, Joe checked to a run on the 1st down.

After watching OT, it sure looks like 2nd down he checked out of pass.