Mixed Results for New OC

[Fan_in_Kettering]

(01-02-2017, 04:29 PM)psychdoctor Wrote: I like some of the things the new offensive coordinator Zampese did for the Bengals but my main concern is his lack of adjustment after the first half. Is anybody else concerned?

Not really at this point. I want to see Ken Zampese's offense with a working offensive line before passing judgment on his ability to adjust. If a coordinator has a bad offensive line it doesn't matter what adjustments he makes.

[fredtoast]

(01-03-2017, 01:53 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The 2nd and 4th quarters are obviously the more high scoring quarters. And this makes sense. Often times, a good drive in the middle or end of the first quarter results in points scored in the second quarter. Same with the 3rd and the 4th quarter.

This logic fails because the 1st and 3rd quarters almost always begin with a team starting from at least the 20 yard line.  It is possible that field position could be an issue at the start of the 2nd or 4th quarter with an offense pinned back inside its own 10 yard line.

[CJD]

(01-03-2017, 02:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This logic fails because the 1st and 3rd quarters almost always begin with a team starting from at least the 20 yard line.  It is possible that field position could be an issue at the start of the 2nd or 4th quarter with an offense pinned back inside its own 10 yard line.

And a moderate drive in the 1st or 3rd quarter could also pin the non-receiving team inside the 10 with a good punt and 10 minutes left in the quarter.

I don't understand what this statement has to do with the statistics I shared. 

Can you at least admit that the Bengals are awful in the 4th quarter? Let's start with baby steps.

[PDub80]

What we as fans don't have knowledge of is how much input Marvin has on the offensive game plans, game plan as the game is flowing between quarters 1-2 & 3-4 or half time adjustments. If it's little to none (which I doubt) then Zampese sucks bad. If it's a medium amount then they both suck. If it's a lot of input (where as with Hugh I'm guessing Marvin didn't meddle too much) then Marvin sucks.

Basically, 3 out of 3 scenarios Marvin sucks. The 3rd scenario he still sucks because he hired the guy.

Conclusion: Norv Turner with Marvin leaving him alone and the Bengals are going to the Superbowl with the way the D played the back half of the season. And Marvin still sucks. That is all.

[fredtoast]

I am not saying the offense does not need to improve. All I am saying is that you can't judge an OC by just one season when his O-line struggled.

If the Bengals had the worst offense in the league then you guys might have a point, but they were not as bad as many of you claim. In addition to the rankings in yards and points here are some other numbers that show we were far from the worst offense in the league.

Points per drive.............16th
Yards per play...............18th
3rd down efficiency........15th
Red zone efficiency (td)..18th
3-and-out percentage.....16th

None of these rankings are acceptable. They have to improve. But they are not bad enough to get an OC fired his first year on the job.

[fredtoast]

(01-03-2017, 02:35 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Can you at least admit that the Bengals are awful in the 4th quarter? Let's start with baby steps.

Yes.

Now can you admit that a game is 4 quarters long?

[Millhouse]

I had mixed opinions as in I didnt think it was a good idea last off-season, in promoting him. A year later my opinion hasnt changed.

[3wt]

(01-02-2017, 08:08 PM)psychdoctor Wrote: I agree there were issues with the offensive line.

I think Zampese was creaive with the overall game plan.  My main concern and this includes with Marvin, is the coaches inability to make adjustments after halftime. 

Yes.  His scripted plays seem to be good for the most part.  He seemed to struggle adjusting to the other teams' half time adjustments.

Having the issues with the offensive line that we did this year would play right into that, though.  Young and struggling players are going to struggle to adjust to the introduction of new tactics - especially stunts and blitzes. 

Hopefully the O Line grows next year, and has the repertoire to give Zampeze the tools to make adjustments on the fly in the 2nd half.

[PDub80]

(01-03-2017, 02:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.

Now can you admit that a game is 4 quarters long?

The Bengals were leading in the 4th quarter in a ton of games this season. Bengals.com recent article broke down a ton of game situational stats and it really is mind blowing how the team couldn't finish games despite being in the position to do so.

That's why I'm seriously not on the Fire Marvin wagon. I think the team needs a new edge pass rusher, better interior D line play, a better bellcow RB, the line to be fixed, and an impact LB.

The OC I haven't been wowed with, though. The previous 2 OC's didn't have the same issues this one did, and it's not all just going to fall to the feet of a bad Oline. Even when the O-line put together good stretches the offense stalled in the red zone a ton. Even the game announcers were jokingly calling it the "Deadzone". That's not just oline being crappy.

[fredtoast]

(01-03-2017, 03:38 PM)PDub80 Wrote: The Bengals were leading in the 4th quarter in a ton of games this season.

No they weren't.

Bengals lost 3 games that they lead in the fourth quarter.  Giants, Pittsburgh and Houston.

That is too many, but the overwhelming majority of the games (13 of 16) were decided by play outside the fourth quarter.

[bambino5130]

The Main two things a OC is responsible for are Red Zone Efficiency and Big Plays. Zampese did neither.

Every Offensive position group has regressed. Last in the league in 4th Quarter scoring, you know the most

important time when games are actually won and lost. Did the Offense show any signs of improvement during the

year? No. They were generally healthy for most of the season.

I have seen enough, and not keen on another year of regression

[PDub80]

(01-03-2017, 03:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No they weren't.

Bengals lost 3 games that they lead in the fourth quarter.  Giants, Pittsburgh and Houston.

That is too many, but the overwhelming majority of the games (13 of 16) were decided by play outside the fourth quarter.

Redskins: http://www.espn.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=400874555
Broncos: http://www.espn.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=400874613

^ Click scoring plays to switch it from play by play to see where the score was between quarters.


Radio guys said it was 5 in one of their broadcasts or something I had heard. That makes it 5 games leading into the 4th quarter and they didn't come away with a win. That's a lot. They played well enough to be right there in the game and if they could have held on in the 4th they would have been 11-5 and a home playoff game.

[fredtoast]

(01-03-2017, 04:07 PM)PDub80 Wrote: Redskins: http://www.espn.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=400874555
Broncos: http://www.espn.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=400874613

^ Click scoring plays to switch it from play by play to see where the score was between quarters.


Radio guys said it was 5 in one of their broadcasts or something I had heard. That makes it 5 games leading into the 4th quarter and they didn't come away with a win. That's a lot. They played well enough to be right there in the game and if they could have held on in the 4th they would have been 11-5 and a home playoff game.

Bengals were not leading going into the fourth quarter against the Broncos.  They took the lead with a FG on the second play of the fourth quarter, but the defense allowed two 80+ yard td drives and a pass went of Uzo's hands that was intercepted.  Hard to hang that loss on Zampese's scheme.

[PDub80]

(01-03-2017, 04:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Bengals were not leading going into the fourth quarter against the Broncos.  They took the lead with a FG on the second play of the fourth quarter, but the defense allowed two 80+ yard td drives and a pass went of Uzo's hands that was intercepted.  Hard to hang that loss on Zampese's scheme.

I didn't say leading going in, dude. I said leading. As in.. at any point in the 4th quarter. What's it matter if they had the lead at 15:00 to go in the 4th or 5:00 to go? They were in position to win. Either the D gave up that lead or the offense couldn't answer back in the 4th quarter. The end.

The offense also failed to score many points in the 2nd half a bunch as well, which is why them having the lead in the 4th is even more amazing. The team's players just didn't forget how to play in the 2nd half of games. The offensive game plan choked.

Special teams killed them in several games, I'm not blaming the OC on that because they got close enough to kick a FG or a PAT and that is on another unit to get done. Anything else, including the play that you mentioned.... is the Offensive unit's job to get done and the OC is the guy in charge of that. It's on him to have the guys ready to get their job done and put them in position to do so. That clearly didn't happen late in games. They disappeared sometimes for entire halves.

[CJD]

(01-03-2017, 03:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No they weren't.

Bengals lost 3 games that they lead in the fourth quarter.  Giants, Pittsburgh and Houston.

That is too many, but the overwhelming majority of the games (13 of 16) were decided by play outside the fourth quarter.

Don't forget the Bills game where they only needed 5 points to win and didn't score a single point in the entire second half (which includes the 4th quarter).

Or the Broncos game where they took the lead 17-16 in the first play (or maybe second play) of the 4th quarter then allowed 13 unanswered points to lose.

Or the Redskins game where they led going into the 4th quarter but lost the lead and then couldn't generate a single point in overtime, resulting in a tie.

That is 6 games lost because of ineptitude in the 2nd half of the game.

You are correct that there are more than 4 quarters in a game. But 6 games being decided due to the inability to make anything happen in the 4th quarter offensively is the reason why we aren't in the playoffs right now.

[Older Than You]

Zampese is way out of his depth.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(01-03-2017, 01:44 AM)bengalsturntup926 Wrote: I think he got away from Dalton's strengths, running the west coast system and quick passing. He dropped Andy back in passing too much.  And Dalton just isn't a pocket passer like that. Mccaron actually would probably do better in that role. Also we've heard he telegraphs the run, teams said they knew what was coming. And that's a great point they got away from no huddle and letting Dalton call plays out of it.

Actually.....with the way the line played....neither of them would excel in that role.  Dalton was better at that last year....and McCarron took a lot of sacks.  This line has been overrated and masked of its weaknesses for years. Dumpeze can't mask it.

[Brownshoe]

(01-03-2017, 12:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Dalton did not miss a game in '14.

My bad. I was just assuming that you were talking about '15, because I don't know why you would talk about '14 when Sanu was our #1 receiver for a lot of the year. No Eifert all year, No Jones all year, and Green was hurt about half of the year, and Gio was battling injury and didn't play very well. It really doesn't make sense to talk about a year when pretty much all of our weapons were out. The weapons we had in '16 were a lot better than what we had in '14.