Jump to content

WEEK 1: BENGALS @ SEAHAWKS


Recommended Posts

"I'm not going to categorize losses," (he) said softly. "They're all hard to stomach."

Any major shake-ups planned?

"You have the players you have, you can't bring in 11 new ones. There's a lot to look at scheme-wise, execution-wise to try to improve."

Are you confident what you're doing is right?

Now came a sudden flash of fury in the eyes, an almost defiant look and a long stare at the man who asked.

"Yes," (he) said through clenched teeth, the answer followed by a long, awkward pause, and one last spark of fiery emotion. "Want me to expound on it?"

Another pause, then the calm after the sudden squall. "You can't bring in a whole new team, you can't scrap the offense," he said. He was at ease again, smiling ever so slightly and back in control, the consummate coach.

 

---October 27, 1992

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Duluoz said:

Hey, if you get entertainment out of watching what you consider a "silly/corporate corrupt game"  why not go all out and just watch the WWF ? Why go half way?

 

image.png.c3bc0b56d52cd00f13cb459012188b55.png

Goofing on this and what LeTig (I think) said sarcastically (maybe) about having to get the game over in time for 48 Minutes.

 

As you probably know, in professional wrestling, at least in the old days, it was the referee who controlled the match.

He's the one who passed off the sliver of razor blade for the blood, he's the one who told Dick the Bruiser and Cowboy Bob Ellis

"Let's bring it home" when it was time to end the match in time for the crowd of drunken hillbillies to clear and the wrestlers

to be out of the locker rooms by midnight since the Cincinnati Gardens was only rented for the day.

Yeah, an exaggeration to say they didn't want to make 60 Minutes any shorter and lose commercial revenue but...

 

Conspiracy Theory Harry the Homer honestly thinks...

It was an incomplete pass, not a fumble.

One guy obviously had Andy by the top of the shoulder pads, an obvious horse collar.

Andy got hit in the face with a helmet.

One bad call, two or at least one of two non calls.

 

Incomplete pass, major penalties would have been +15 yards, first down and still some time

on the clock for another play or more or at least closer to Randy's field goal range.

 

The Shield did not want the Seagulps to lose breaking their much ballyhooed opening day

streak to the lowly Bengals, especially after The Cleveland Golden Browns shit the bed

so miserably.

 

Probably not, but food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, High School Harry said:

Goofing on this and what LeTig (I think) said sarcastically (maybe) about having to get the game over in time for 48 Minutes.

 

As you probably know, in professional wrestling, at least in the old days, it was the referee who controlled the match.

He's the one who passed off the sliver of razor blade for the blood, he's the one who told Dick the Bruiser and Cowboy Bob Ellis

"Let's bring it home" when it was time to end the match in time for the crowd of drunken hillbillies to clear and the wrestlers

to be out of the locker rooms by midnight since the Cincinnati Gardens was only rented for the day.

Yeah, an exaggeration to say they didn't want to make 60 Minutes any shorter and lose commercial revenue but...

 

Conspiracy Theory Harry the Homer honestly thinks...

It was an incomplete pass, not a fumble.

One guy obviously had Andy by the top of the shoulder pads, an obvious horse collar.

Andy got hit in the face with a helmet.

One bad call, two or at least one of two non calls.

 

Incomplete pass, major penalties would have been +15 yards, first down and still some time

on the clock for another play or more or at least closer to Randy's field goal range.

 

The Shield did not want the Seagulps to lose breaking their much ballyhooed opening day

streak to the lowly Bengals, especially after The Cleveland Golden Browns shit the bed

so miserably.

 

Most Definitely Probably not, but food for thought.

Fixed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Athletic had a good article on how DC Lou used the strength of his personnel - DL and safeties and avoided forcing the use of inferior LB's (as was done in the past). It is a paid site but a few snippets:

 

We learned quite a bit on Sunday against Seattle and there was plenty to like.

The primary takeaway was his willingness to essentially move to a 3-4 (or 5-2 depending on your view of the edges) in the run game. The Bengals were never — not for one snap — in their old 4-3 base.

 

 

This partially came as a product of finding a way to put the best players on the field and take advantage of the Bengals’ defensive line depth, but also partly about Seattle’s desire to shove the run down Cincinnati’s throat.

“Every game plan is going to be different based on who we are playing, but by that token, the strength of our team is up front,” Anarumo said. “Those guys showed that way yesterday. Based on what the offense is doing we’ll be using the personnel we have to fit what they are doing to try to attack us so it could be different each week. Yesterday’s plan was to get some big guys out there because if you didn’t notice, Seattle has some big guys up front. Our plan was to stop the run. That will be our plan every week is to stop the run and the rest will take care of itself.”

 

The plan won’t be to force questionable linebackers on the field. Jordan Evans didn’t play a single snap. Germaine Pratt had a one-series run that didn’t go particularly well through the eyes of Anarumo

 

We’d heard talk about doing this in past years, but the previous defensive coordinators rarely pulled the trigger. This fits the Bengals’ personnel and further explains the desire to keep 11 defensive linemen and not worry about only employing four linebackers. Not that the number couldn’t still change, but if you are almost never going to play three linebackers in order to mask that weakness, then that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, I_C_Deadpeople said:

The Athletic had a good article on how DC Lou used the strength of his personnel - DL and safeties and avoided forcing the use of inferior LB's (as was done in the past). It is a paid site but a few snippets:

 

We learned quite a bit on Sunday against Seattle and there was plenty to like.

The primary takeaway was his willingness to essentially move to a 3-4 (or 5-2 depending on your view of the edges) in the run game. The Bengals were never — not for one snap — in their old 4-3 base.

 

 

This partially came as a product of finding a way to put the best players on the field and take advantage of the Bengals’ defensive line depth, but also partly about Seattle’s desire to shove the run down Cincinnati’s throat.

“Every game plan is going to be different based on who we are playing, but by that token, the strength of our team is up front,” Anarumo said. “Those guys showed that way yesterday. Based on what the offense is doing we’ll be using the personnel we have to fit what they are doing to try to attack us so it could be different each week. Yesterday’s plan was to get some big guys out there because if you didn’t notice, Seattle has some big guys up front. Our plan was to stop the run. That will be our plan every week is to stop the run and the rest will take care of itself.”

 

The plan won’t be to force questionable linebackers on the field. Jordan Evans didn’t play a single snap. Germaine Pratt had a one-series run that didn’t go particularly well through the eyes of Anarumo

 

We’d heard talk about doing this in past years, but the previous defensive coordinators rarely pulled the trigger. This fits the Bengals’ personnel and further explains the desire to keep 11 defensive linemen and not worry about only employing four linebackers. Not that the number couldn’t still change, but if you are almost never going to play three linebackers in order to mask that weakness, then that makes sense.

If the Seattle game was not some sort or mirage and we can count on the effort, energy and execution we saw Sunday each and every game then this new coaching staff is a beautiful thing. It remains to be seen just what we've got, but I'm about 200% more optimistic about 2019 than I was Saturday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I_C_Deadpeople said:

the desire to keep 11 defensive linemen and 

 

Two of the D linemen were actually on the inactive squad (Brown and Willis)

 

And in late breaking news, we are down to 10 defensive linemen since Willis

was just cut and a linebacker added.

 

The Bengals today signed free agent LB LaRoy Reynolds and waived DE Jordan Willis.

Reynolds (6-1, 228), a seventh-year player out of the University of Virginia, was originally a college free agent signee of the Jacksonville Jaguars in 2013. He has spent time with the Jaguars (2013-15), Chicago Bears (’15), Atlanta Falcons (’16-17) and Philadelphia Eagles (’18). He was with the San Francisco 49ers this preseason, but was released on final cuts. Reynolds has played in 84 career games (seven starts), and has 81 tackles and two fumble recoveries.

Willis, a third-year player, saw action in 32 games with the Bengals since joining the team as a third-round draft pick in 2017

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SouthPaw said:

Fixed it.

 

How are you so certain? I agree it's unlikely but you act like this sort of thing is impossible.  Do you think the NFL is too pure to do things like that? Are you actually Goodell & have inside knowledge? People do underhanded shit to suit their own interests & lie about it all the damned time but you act like it's some X Files episode to even consider the NFL (of all things) might sometimes do the same.

 

Fact is you're just as in the dark as the rest of us, only far more trusting of the product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Le Tigre said:

"I'm not going to categorize losses," (he) said softly. "They're all hard to stomach."

Any major shake-ups planned?

"You have the players you have, you can't bring in 11 new ones. There's a lot to look at scheme-wise, execution-wise to try to improve."

Are you confident what you're doing is right?

Now came a sudden flash of fury in the eyes, an almost defiant look and a long stare at the man who asked.

"Yes," (he) said through clenched teeth, the answer followed by a long, awkward pause, and one last spark of fiery emotion. "Want me to expound on it?"

Another pause, then the calm after the sudden squall. "You can't bring in a whole new team, you can't scrap the offense," he said. He was at ease again, smiling ever so slightly and back in control, the consummate coach.

 

---October 27, 1992

 

 

 

 

 

What's the purpose of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

18) I can't tell if the Bengals had the most painful or most encouraging loss of the week. TheSeahawks were unprepared for most of what Cincinnati coach Zac Taylor's staff threw at them on both sides of the ball. Anyone watching these two teams for the first time would think the Seahawks were a plucky band of overachievers who scrapped out a win despite being dramatically out-played by a more talented Bengals team that finished with 429 total yards to Seattle's 233. You have my attention, Mr. Taylor and Lou Anarumo!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, T-Dub said:

 

How are you so certain? I agree it's unlikely but you act like this sort of thing is impossible.  Do you think the NFL is too pure to do things like that? Are you actually Goodell & have inside knowledge? People do underhanded shit to suit their own interests & lie about it all the damned time but you act like it's some X Files episode to even consider the NFL (of all things) might sometimes do the same.

 

Fact is you're just as in the dark as the rest of us, only far more trusting of the product.

I think the NFL is far to incompetent to do things like that and not have it all over the internet.  Someone would squeal, take a picture, record Belichick, or something like that.  This damn league can't get much of anything right except TV contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, T-Dub said:

 

How are you so certain? I agree it's unlikely but you act like this sort of thing is impossible.  Do you think the NFL is too pure to do things like that?

It's not a matter of "purity" it's more a matter of practicality. Fixing games in the NFL would involve way, way, way too many people to make it even a remote possibility. I could buy the notion that a rogue ref here or there was on the payroll of a major gambler trying to influence the outcome of a game, but even that's farfetched....the NFL as a whole predetermining which teams win and lose? Laughably absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Duluoz said:

It's not a matter of "purity" it's more a matter of practicality. Fixing games in the NFL would involve way, way, way too many people to make it even a remote possibility. I could buy the notion that a rogue ref here or there was on the payroll of a major gambler trying to influence the outcome of a game, but even that's farfetched....the NFL as a whole predetermining which teams win and lose? Laughably absurd.

you would only need to move all reviews to one location to effectively nudge calls/games toward one side therefore giving a small committee the ability to see or not see overwhelming evidence to change the call or to shade the game towards one team.   i point only towards Daltons fumble due to the fact they somehow found in the review to confirm it. when all views we seen showed enough clear evidence to reverse it. i think the pass interference reviews could give the ability to give some and extra shot after a failed hailmary (1st and goal one the 1 and a free play with time expired). remove some touchdowns with a offensive pass interference block like we seen in preseason.  

 

whether its used or not the ability is now there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...