(10-23-2024, 07:24 PM)XsandOs Wrote: Sunset, you are aggravating deep wounds here my friend.
I still believe there was only one Team standing in our way to SB in 2005, the Colts. Carson was going to bomb the hell out of Steelers that day, and they knew it. We had just beaten them in Pittsburgh 4 weeks earlier, dropping 38 points on them.
And yes, 2015 was the year we had built up for. That Team started at 8-0 and was the most complete group of Marvin era. Then the thumb injury......
The thumb injury caused by Dalton pulling a Jon Kitna, against the Steelers no less.
(10-24-2024, 11:31 AM)PCB Bengal Fan Wrote: I think Zac is a great HC but a terrible playcaller. But he's here as long as he wants to be so what are you gonna do?
We're going to do the same thing that we always do, complain about the things that we have no control over.
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
Problem is he is too arrogant to give up playcalling because he thinks he this new age young offensive savant, when he is actually clueless. Just look at the stats at UC... bottom tier offensive mind.
(10-23-2024, 07:10 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Actually not really at all on the Ravens. The Zac Bengals are 1-8 against the Ravens when Lamar Jackson plays.
In games where both Joe and Lamar are the starters we're 1-5.
The Zac Bengals are 3-0 (all Burrow starts) against the Josh Johnson, Anthony Brown, Tyler Huntley Ravens.
We have barely lost to the Ravens with a healthy Burrow when they have a healthy Lamar. They are good games that go right down to the wire.
It is not like they have beat our asses like we did them in 2021...
(10-23-2024, 09:27 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: That run with Browning was fools gold. We didn’t beat a single playoff team once Burrow went down.
*not counting the Browns who were resting their starters
Disagree, I didn't expect us to win more than 1 game with Jake Browning at QB and our Defense playing like it was...
It was extremely impressive to me to take that team and go 4-3 and making Browning look like a legit backup.
(10-23-2024, 10:27 PM)XsandOs Wrote: I find it ironic that Orlovsky is being critical of the Bengals offensive scheme.
The only time in his career (if you can call it that) that he had success, he was running the Moore/Manning offense in Indy in 2011, which is very similar to what our offense is now. Highest Passer Rating, Com Percentage and TD-INT ratio, in 8 starts. He went 2-6, but these were his best stats.
In his career he had 3 wins total, and 2 of them came in a "simple offensive scheme."
But I guess he knows better.......
Wouldn't that make him better qualified to access the offense than most? If he has played in a similar offense, he would understand it's weaknesses. Especially as he has been able to see offensive schemes develop over the last 13 years and has seen defensive schemes adjust and change over the last 13 years.
Saying "Hey, the offense worked 13 years ago so being critical of it now is hypocritical" is a poor argument. Defenses have adjusted. Other OCs have developed schemes that are harder for defenses to play against. Times change.
Our guards are not that good which limits our running game. Again, this fanbase always goes after the coach but ignores the giant elephant in the room which is the front office.
(10-24-2024, 01:11 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: We have barely lost to the Ravens with a healthy Burrow when they have a healthy Lamar. They are good games that go right down to the wire.
It is not like they have beat our asses like we did them in 2021...
Disagree, I didn't expect us to win more than 1 game with Jake Browning at QB and our Defense playing like it was...
It was extremely impressive to me to take that team and go 4-3 and making Browning look like a legit backup.
Agreed; Zac changed his offense to fit what Browning does best.
Zac is good at adapting to his players and is willing to change his playback to fit said players. If he was a bad coach he wouldn't do that.
(10-23-2024, 11:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So, it's your assertion that more than 6 organizations would fire there young HC after going 2-14 their first season.
You consider the dude who has went to the AFC Championship game 2 of the last 3 years "middle of the pack". As I said our fanbase has become spoiled. Zac took them to someplace they had never been before, now they want "more".
Me? I good with what we currently have
I'm alright with him. Do I think he's one of the best in the business? Nope. Do I know who the obvious available upgrade is? Also nope.
Mainly I was just pointing out that Zac probably wouldn't have survived long enough to see that first AFC championship game with a lot of other organizations, and that (if history is any indicator) he'll probably last longer than he should around Cincinnati based off of making it to that Super Bowl. I like Marvin Lewis the man, and I like what he did for this organization, but he probably should've been shown the door 3 times before it actually happened.
There's a lot of good points....pro and con....but are people REALLY saying they'd rather have Marvin? Talk about short memories/revisionist history!!!!
(10-23-2024, 10:12 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Browns - no Are you sure?
Yes, I’m sure. He’s a 2x coach of the year.
Dolphins - no Are you sure?
Yes, I’m sure. McDaniel is one of the best offensive minds in the league.
Jaguars - no Are you sure?
Yes, I’m sure. Guy won a Super Bowl over Belichick and Brady with a backup QB.
Cowboys - no Are you sure?
I’m not a real big Mike McCarthy guy, but again, he’s won a Super Bowl. How is Zac an upgrade over that?
Giants - no Are you sure?
Another coach of the year held back by one of the worst QB contracts in the league. He won multiple games with Tommy DeVito. If we’re going to point to what Zac did with Browning then it’s a push.
Seahawks - no Are you sure?
He has his team in 1st place with Geno Stone as his QB, and had a historic defense in Baltimore last year.
Saints - no Are you sure?
Not really. He probably could have at least went in the maybe category.
Stefanski is dog Doo this year. Perhaps Baker and Flacco carried him? (Seems to be the argument in Cincinnati anyway)
McDaniels ain't shit without Tua.
Pederson is backsliding, like he did in Philly. He's kinda hard to figure out.
Cowboys continue to choke, and Mike without A-aron hasn't produced much.
Meh....
Geno SMITH looked pretty good last year too. Jus sayin....
(10-23-2024, 06:57 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Sure, it's fun to point back at the Marvin days and say "but he never won a playoff game in 7 opportunities", however his starting QB was injured for the 2 best opportunities that he had. I know that it's dangerous to play the "what if" game, but if Palmer hadn't gotten injured, where would the Bengals have ended up that year? If Andy doesn't go down with the thumb injury leading up to the 2015 playoffs, I felt confident that that team was destined for the big game. That 2015 defense was freaking awesome!
Four different QBs, one result. Teams were always too tight and choked when it mattered, no matter who was under center. Palmer was not hurt in 09, and Dalton wasn't hurt in '13. There were no excuses.
(10-24-2024, 04:31 PM)Wyche Wrote: McDaniel ain't shit without Tua.
Most coaches are worse when their good QB is out.
Zac is 8-22 without Burrow. 8-24 if you count the two games Burrow got season ending injuries during as being without Burrow.
- - - - - - -
I'm actually curious if Tua isn't as good as we think and McDaniel would be even better with a legitimately good (and healthier) QB. Sort of like a Jimmy G/Shanahan or A Smith/Reid situation.
Remember Tua played for 2 year without McDaniel and was averaging per 17 games... 3,302 yards (194.2 ypg), 20 TD/11 INT, 6.6 YPA, 88.8 QB Rating. With McDaniel he's averaging per 17 games... 4,598 yards (270.5 ypg), 30 TD/13 INT, 8.5 YPA, 101.5 QB Rating.
(10-24-2024, 01:37 PM)Lucius Cincinnatus Wrote: Wouldn't that make him better qualified to access the offense than most? If he has played in a similar offense, he would understand it's weaknesses. Especially as he has been able to see offensive schemes develop over the last 13 years and has seen defensive schemes adjust and change over the last 13 years.
Saying "Hey, the offense worked 13 years ago so being critical of it now is hypocritical" is a poor argument. Defenses have adjusted. Other OCs have developed schemes that are harder for defenses to play against. Times change.
Lucius, I understand your thought process. I ask that you consider the following:
1) The fundamentals of football has not changed. It is the same game of 11 on 11, same field dimensions, same down and distance, same route tree, etc.
2) There are innovations over time, i.e. no huddle, RPO, Tampa 2, Bear 46, etc. But they are far and few in between.
3) Where that leaves us is the one true staple of football, execution - which is based on talent and cohesiveness.
4) This offense took us to two straight Conference Championships and SuperBowl.
One of the reasons for the slow starts is the loss of talent and injuries starting in 2023, and the lack of initial cohesiveness of the new players. The revolving door at TE and now RB position, add to this.
Lastly; the 15 or so pass plays that we run have route options in most of them, where WRs can curl an out route or inside receivers can dig or run a corner, TE can run a flat or a shallow cross or a seam (seam depends on alignment), etc. That is the issue early on. Knowing when to cut the stem and be in sync with Burrow (BTW, this is where Yoshi still needs experience).
I'm sure you have either played or coached at some level in football, so I hope you take my opinion within that context.
(10-24-2024, 12:29 PM)740Bengal Wrote: Problem is he is too arrogant to give up playcalling because he thinks he this new age young offensive savant, when he is actually clueless. Just look at the stats at UC... bottom tier offensive mind.
there are a number of people involved in calling every play..including Joe Burrow..Fact
(10-24-2024, 07:46 PM)ERIC1 Wrote: there are a number of people involved in calling every play..including Joe Burrow..Fact
Yeah, not really. Zac calls the plays, Burrow can audible. Pitcher can always make suggestions. Then you have 3rd down and redzone packages which is where other input is received. They have a few seconds to get a play to Joe, it's not like they can have a conference on every play.
(10-24-2024, 08:11 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Yeah, not really. Zac calls the plays, Burrow can audible. Pitcher can always make suggestions. Then you have 3rd down and redzone packages which is where other input is received. They have a few seconds to get a play to Joe, it's not like they can have a conference on every play.
This is accurate
Romo “ so impressed with Zac ...1 of the best in the NFL… they are just fundamentally sound. Taylor the best winning % in the Playoffs of current coaches. Joe Burrow” Zac is the best head coach in the NFL & that gives me a lot of confidence." Taylor led the Bengals to their first playoff win since 1990, ending the longest active drought in the four major North American sports, en and appeared in Super Bowl LVI, the first since 1988.
(10-24-2024, 12:29 PM)740Bengal Wrote: Problem is he is too arrogant to give up playcalling because he thinks he this new age young offensive savant, when he is actually clueless. Just look at the stats at UC... bottom tier offensive mind.
Totally agreed. I've said for years that's it's somewhat insulting that a 30 nothing year old thinks that he can run an NFL sideline and call a game at the same time, something is going to suffer.
The last few sentences at the end of this video has a somewhat disturbing stat mentioned.
"I know that you were baffled by that stat that Stephen A shared with us, Kyle Shanahan's San Francisco 49ers 0-40 when trailing by at least 8 . . . The Bengals? 0-48 in that situation" . . . I'm guessing she forgot to add "under Zac Taylor".
(10-25-2024, 04:08 AM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Totally agreed. I've said for years that's it's somewhat insulting that a 30 nothing year old thinks that he can run an NFL sideline and call a game at the same time, something is going to suffer.
The last few sentences at the end of this video has a somewhat disturbing stat mentioned.
"I know that you were baffled by that stat that Stephen A shared with us, Kyle Shanahan's San Francisco 49ers 0-40 when trailing by at least 8 . . . The Bengals? 0-48 in that situation" . . . I'm guessing she forgot to add "under Zac Taylor".
Where did she get that stat? Because I know for a fact that's not true.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: 9c9oza.jpg]](https://i.imgflip.com/9c9oza.jpg)
