Jamie_B Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 Grizzly seems more likely. Who should we fire if that happens? Well clearly PBS security for letting grizzly's in to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 Fair enough I hadn't realized he was their OC first. Well no excuses then right? ;) Or what? What are you going to do about it if they don't meet your expectations then? Complain more on a fan message board? As far as I can tell that only affects the other fans trying to enjoy said message board... You don't live in the area so I know you aren't a season ticket holder or even a frequent single ticket buyer. What is it that you offer to this franchise that they should give a shit about whether you think they have any "excuses" or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 Well clearly PBS security for letting grizzly's in to begin with. *obligatory Da Barez reference* point being that there are legit reasons why they could fall short of expectations.. mostly due to injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 Or what? What are you going to do about it if they don't meet your expectations then? Complain more on a fan message board? As far as I can tell that only affects the other fans trying to enjoy said message board... You don't live in the area so I know you aren't a season ticket holder or even a frequent single ticket buyer. What is it that you offer to this franchise that they should give a shit about whether you think they have any "excuses" or not? In a word, yes. If that effects your ability to enjoy said message board that's on you not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 *obligatory Da Barez reference* point being that there are legit reasons why they could fall short of expectations.. mostly due to injury. And there are reasons that are not legit as well. Injury wasnt an issue last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 And there are reasons that are not legit as well. Injury wasnt an issue last season. Really? You don't think losing BOTH guards and the two best players on the defense might have had some impact? That doesn't erase every bad play or anything, but it certainly didn't help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 Really? You don't think losing BOTH guards and the two best players on the defense might have had some impact? That doesn't erase every bad play or anything, but it certainly didn't help. Even after losing the two best defenders we were still the number 3 rated D, so no. We also only lost Zeitler for a few games and when we lost Boling and Whit kicked inside I would argue that the Oline got better, so again no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 Even after losing the two best defenders we were still the number 3 rated D, so no. We also only lost Zeitler for a few games and when we lost Boling and Whit kicked inside I would argue that the Oline got better, so again no. You really don't think having Atkins and Hall (not to mention Newman) against SD would have made a difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mullichicken25 Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 You really don't think having Atkins and Hall (not to mention Newman) against SD would have made a difference? Health made absolutely zero difference against SD. Even if everyone was healthy, we would have lost to a subpar high school football team in that game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBandJoeyV Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 You really don't think having Atkins and Hall (not to mention Newman) against SD would have made a difference? I guess his point is that we should have won the game even without Atkins and Hall, which I agree with. But doesnt change the FACT that not having Atkins and Hall, and several guys really banged up on the oline, had an impact on the game. I think with Geno alone we have a great shot to win that game. Its not an excuse as we still should have won. But having one of the best defensive players in the game on the field could have been enough to shift momentum in a few of those game defining moments. I mean how many times in the last 3 years has geno contributed to a big sack or big turnover to help us in a game? Maybe not himself doing it, but just by being on the field, getting a good rush and getting pressure on the qb, getting double teamed freeing up others, etc. I understand jamies point that we still should have won, but injuries definitely had an impact on that game and our post season chances in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|kennethmw| Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 I guess his point is that we should have won the game even without Atkins and Hall, which I agree with. But doesnt change the FACT that not having Atkins and Hall, and several guys really banged up on the oline, had an impact on the game. I think with Geno alone we have a great shot to win that game. Its not an excuse as we still should have won. But having one of the best defensive players in the game on the field could have been enough to shift momentum in a few of those game defining moments. I mean how many times in the last 3 years has geno contributed to a big sack or big turnover to help us in a game? Maybe not himself doing it, but just by being on the field, getting a good rush and getting pressure on the qb, getting double teamed freeing up others, etc. I understand jamies point that we still should have won, but injuries definitely had an impact on that game and our post season chances in general. Nope. 100% Andy Driven! In fact, Andy is why we got so much snow this year, Why they can't find the plane, and from what I've heard was at the center of the Russian takeover of Crimea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnbengal Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Nope. 100% Andy Driven! In fact, Andy is why we got so much snow this year, Why they can't find the plane, and from what I've heard was at the center of the Russian takeover of Crimea. Ah you say that in jest but several of the posters on this board believe pretty much that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Even after losing the two best defenders we were still the number 3 rated D, so no. We also only lost Zeitler for a few games and when we lost Boling and Whit kicked inside I would argue that the Oline got better, so again no. Number 3 rated D got ass-raped in the biggest game(s) as usual. But anyone who thinks we had a shot missed the Miami game, when that shot blew out it's ACL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Every team has injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBandJoeyV Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Every team has injuries. Yes, but how many lost their best player (and arguably 2 of the top 3 or 4)? Just sayin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigris Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 You guys are opening old wounds. I've recently just recovered from the SD loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Yes, but how many lost their best player (and arguably 2 of the top 3 or 4)? Just sayin... And still remained the #3 defense? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 And still remained the #3 defense? ;) Who says they would not have been #1 with Hall and Geno? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBandJoeyV Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 And still remained the #3 defense? ;) I don't see your point. Just cause they played well without them against other teams doesn't mean they wouldn't have played better with them vs SD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldcat Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 I don't see your point. Just cause they played well without them against other teams doesn't mean they wouldn't have played better with them vs SD. Since SD ran the ball right up the gut to get their long drives and TDs to win, the fact that Geno wasn't playing could reasonably be a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBandJoeyV Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Since SD ran the ball right up the gut to get their long drives and TDs to win, the fact that Geno wasn't playing could reasonably be a factor. And we got no pressure on sandy rivers. When geno is on the field our pressure percentage is way higher I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mongo Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Anyone have a link to those stats concerning Gruden's performance against 3-4 defenses versus his performances against 4-3 defenses? They got posted in a thread a few months ago, and I totally meant to copy them into Evernote for future reference... I just can't find the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted March 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Anyone have a link to those stats concerning Gruden's performance against 3-4 defenses versus his performances against 4-3 defenses? They got posted in a thread a few months ago, and I totally meant to copy them into Evernote for future reference... I just can't find the thread. let me find it, I posted it. It was insane. The Bengals were something like 17-2 against 4-3 defenses, with both losses coming to Miami and Kevin Coyle. Obviously more goes into a loss than that, but it was a really lopsided stat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted March 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 here it is: (this is by no means an absolute statement) Gruden said he never felt comfortable calling plays against 3-4 defenses. Against the division, all of whom run 3-4 defenses: the Bengals were 8-10 Against other 3-4 defenses: the Bengals were 5-5 In the playoffs, all 3 games against 3-4 defenses: 0-3 13-18 overall. Against 4-3 defenses: the Bengals were 17-3. (2 of those losses were to Kevin Coyle). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Who says they would not have been #1 with Hall and Geno? Who's to say they would have? I don't see your point. Just cause they played well without them against other teams doesn't mean they wouldn't have played better with them vs SD. Nor does it mean they would have played better with them vs SD. But I dont put that loss on the sholders of the D, so.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.