Rumble In the Jungle Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 Damn...can't we all just get along? We're fucking 9-4! Be happy mother fuckers lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 Devon Still on Bengals Line right now on failure to get sacks/pressure: "Very frustrating. Something we're going to have to work on." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 Not if we keep losing members of our 2ndary, manning would pick us apart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coup000 Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 I asked one of the PFF guys how we compared to other games against Luck, his answer... Pressure wasn't frequent. Only a handful of hurries/hits - well below the Colts "allowed" average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldcat Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 I asked one of the PFF guys how we compared to other games against Luck, his answer... Pressure wasn't frequent. Only a handful of hurries/hits - well below the Colts "allowed" average. The problem with that kind of analysis is that it assumes the Colts did nothing to try and fix that situation for our game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 Damn...can't we all just get along? We're fucking 9-4! Be happy mother fuckers lol Man I luv this team. Having so much fun watching this. Strong D + running the ball. Great old school football ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coup000 Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 The problem with that kind of analysis is that it assumes the Colts did nothing to try and fix that situation for our game. So they were just letting Luck get rocked for the entire season and decided to finally mke a change against us?Obviously, teams make changes every week. We still got much less pressure than the average team did against them. Maybe they threw quicker shorter passes than normal, if so that would obviously be one explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted December 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 So they were just letting Luck get rocked for the entire season and decided to finally mke a change against us?Obviously, teams make changes every week. We still got much less pressure than the average team did against them. Maybe they threw quicker shorter passes than normal, if so that would obviously be one explanation. we saw that early in the season. I imagine any team facing the Bengals Dline, or any other good pass rush, speeds up the timing on some of their throws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coup000 Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 we saw that early in the season. I imagine any team facing the Bengals Dline, or any other good pass rush, speeds up the timing on some of their throws. From the same guy... Slightly faster than average. -Lots- of short throws. So they threw short, but sounds like they do that pretty often since his time to throw wasn't much different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumble In the Jungle Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 Devon Still on Bengals Line right now on failure to get sacks/pressure: "Very frustrating. Something we're going to have to work on." As I was the first to mention on page one that last game luck got sacked 5 times and none to us. But I think this could be fixed with a little adjusting from Zimmer. Harrison even asked Zimmer if he could play in Genos spot. I wish if Zimmer would let him cause I think he could do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBandJoeyV Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 As I was the first to mention on page one that last game luck got sacked 5 times and none to us. But I think this could be fixed with a little adjusting from Zimmer. Harrison even asked Zimmer if he could play in Genos spot. I wish if Zimmer would let him cause I think he could do it. Not sure about harrison at DT, but Hunt at DT isnt working. He didnt play a ton of snaps, but I saw him just get straight dominated at DT. I know thats not his natural position, but if he sees the field here down the stretch it needs to be at end not tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumble In the Jungle Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 Not sure about harrison at DT, but Hunt at DT isnt working. He didnt play a ton of snaps, but I saw him just get straight dominated at DT. I know thats not his natural position, but if he sees the field here down the stretch it needs to be at end not tackle. Outta curiosity why do you not see Harrison at DT? Truthfully he has the size for it. Very very strong dude and can prolly dominate his guy and get the rush and possible sack. I think it can be done. Harrison in one of his interviews said it. I'd play in Genos spot if need be. I can do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBandJoeyV Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 Outta curiosity why do you not see Harrison at DT? Truthfully he has the size for it. Very very strong dude and can prolly dominate his guy and get the rush and possible sack. I think it can be done. Harrison in one of his interviews said it. I'd play in Genos spot if need be. I can do it. I didnt necessarily mean I dont see it, I just meant I dont know. I wouldnt be against seeing him try, in fact I think he might have gotten a couple snaps at DT. Hunt got owned this week though. One play he got knocked so far back he fell like 5 yards onto his ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 So they were just letting Luck get rocked for the entire season and decided to finally mke a change against us?Obviously, teams make changes every week. We still got much less pressure than the average team did against them. Maybe they threw quicker shorter passes than normal, if so that would obviously be one explanation. I think a lot has to do with the point difference. I'm guessing he targeted RBs and TE on short routes at least 15 times in second half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted December 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 As I was the first to mention on page one that last game luck got sacked 5 times and none to us. But I think this could be fixed with a little adjusting from Zimmer. Harrison even asked Zimmer if he could play in Genos spot. I wish if Zimmer would let him cause I think he could do it. he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted December 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 I think a lot has to do with the point difference. I'm guessing he targeted RBs and TE on short routes at least 15 times in second half. in part this. The pass rush tapered off in the 2nd half, but they also likely weren't blitzing (and they've been blitzing more since Geno went down) as much in the 2nd half. Except for a couple of minutes, the game was never closer than 14 in the 2nd half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 Ok, most of us realize that we did not generate much pressure on Luck. My point is that I don't think that was the primary focus of the game plan. I will have to watch the game a second time, but upon initial viewing, it looked to me like the main focus of the line was to contain Luck and try to squeeze the pocket in on him. Marvin made several statements to the fact that Luck was dangerous with his legs leading up to the game. Now, considering the fact we shut them out for the first half of the game, and minus some backfield missed communication and one example of some of the worst tackling I have ever seen, I think we handled them well.. In fact I would go so far as to say we spanked their asses. Now as others have pointed out, we sacked and pressured Luck less than their average. But one must also recognize the results of the defensive scheme. Perhaps (if my initial take is correct) Marvin and Zimmer had it right.. Maybe other teams should take note of how we handled Luck.. As even though we had less "pressure" we had better than average success keeping them off the scoreboard., Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|High School Harry| Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 Not if we keep losing members of our 2ndary, manning would pick us apart Fuck woManning. It will be hard to throw the ball when he is laying on is arrogant ass with Dunlap or Domata or Gilberry on top of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 Ok, most of us realize that we did not generate much pressure on Luck. My point is that I don't think that was the primary focus of the game plan. I will have to watch the game a second time, but upon initial viewing, it looked to me like the main focus of the line was to contain Luck and try to squeeze the pocket in on him. Marvin made several statements to the fact that Luck was dangerous with his legs leading up to the game. Now, considering the fact we shut them out for the first half of the game, and minus some backfield missed communication and one example of some of the worst tackling I have ever seen, I think we handled them well.. In fact I would go so far as to say we spanked their asses. Now as others have pointed out, we sacked and pressured Luck less than their average. But one must also recognize the results of the defensive scheme. Perhaps (if my initial take is correct) Marvin and Zimmer had it right.. Maybe other teams should take note of how we handled Luck.. As even though we had less "pressure" we had better than average success keeping them off the scoreboard., I am not claiming this was the Bengals game plan but . . . During the Sunday night game the announcers were talking about how the Saints defense seemed to focus on squeezing the pocket instead of letting Cam climb the pocket and possibly force a LB to tackle him 1 on 1 in the open field. The result was fewer sacks, initially, but also didn't let Cam escape the pocket and beat them with his running ability. The sacks came later when lead was large enough that the Saints DE's could pin their ears back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengaled Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 Yes, your edit made me jump up and giggle like a schoolgirl. Thank you. :lmao: well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengaled Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 The only thing that concerned me was that Luck got sacked 5 times the week before then they come here and we got ZERO sacks. I am very happy we won just saying I hope we could get better moving forward to getting lots of sacks. Cause if we wanna beat Manning we gotta sack his ass and cause him to make mistakes. The dude is unphased. let's not act like the loss of geno hasn't had an impact. we're doing a good job holding things together with duct tape, but this isn't the same front four, and it's unrealistic to expect it to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khatmandude Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 let's not act like the loss of geno hasn't had an impact. we're doing a good job holding things together with duct tape, but this isn't the same front four, and it's unrealistic to expect it to be. That's some strong ass duct tape we're using.....I think it's going to hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 Duct tape? All offseason they spoke of the 2nd year guys. Some had a pissing match over Sims leaving on this board. All we are seeing is the depth they told us fans we had. Come on students of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 Students. Let's us learn a lesson from the Greatest sports program on earth. Kentucky Basketball and the master that is Coach Calapari. In 2012 when the critics offered up critism of his eventual National Championship team's bench and depth. The response was something along the line of versatility. It was true he didn't play many players in the sense of the tradional way of viewing depth. However, he had guys that could be effective at different positions providing a different types of depth. Students, I submit to you today in class. You are seeing the football verision here in Cincinnati with Zimmer and Co. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|SF2| Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 I asked one of the PFF guys how we compared to other games against Luck, his answer... Pressure wasn't frequent. Only a handful of hurries/hits - well below the Colts "allowed" average. The Colts lost and got there ass kicked in the process. Zimmer probably felt without Wayne, our dbs could cover their guys and there would be no need to throw multiple blitzes at the guy. Luck was getting hit a lot early in the season but they were still 6-2. Losing Wayne took away Andrew's security blanket and Hilton and Bey don't scare anyone right now. Our pass rush was designed to take running lanes away from Luck and force him to throw the ball to covered receivers. It worked fine although the missed tackles were annoying but have not been an ongoing issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.