The Bengals are who we thought they were.
by Kirkendall on Dec 16, 2007 1:35 PM EST
in Game Recaps
3 comments
They were who we thought they were. No, not the San Francisco 49ers. David gave us a description of the 49ers projecting a score (34-13) implying the Bengals offense would, I don't know, score. Either he hustled us into a lull, or he's still waking up on the West Coast surprised his team played as complete a game they could. Or understanding our point that the Bengals offense isn't only over-rated, but it's the most disappointing aspect of this team. Like it matters. It's the Bengals that played like the junior varsity club starting from Carson Palmer all the way to John Busing.
The Bengals were who we thought they were. I know I'm ripping off coach Green, but it fits. The Bengals are a notoriously disappointing team with sideline expressions that most people thought, "they're done". We knew that the defense would pop their mile high balloon and slowly descend back to Mt. Helen's unstable steam bursting surface. We knew that if the Bengals gave up 100 yards rushing on the ground, they'd lose. Frank Gore rushed for 138 yards and now the Bengals are 0-7 when the feature back hits the century mark. I know, I'm a gullible sucker. We knew Dexter Jackson is dreadful in pass coverage. We knew that Landon Johnson was a tackling machine -- 5-10 yards down the field. We knew that Johnathan Joseph, while injured early, is proving me wrong. We knew that Corey Mays has no business being on the field. We knew that the Bengals defense would allow the 49ers offense to convert 60% of their third downs (9/15). We knew this. That if the Bengals defense couldn't force a turnover, the Bengals would have no chance.
We knew that the defense's inability to get off the field would limit the Bengals offense to only seven possessions -- not including the knee to end the first half. We knew that the Bengals offense would completely suck on those seven possessions. We knew that Marvin Lewis would lose a challenge before it was thrown -- though, I supported the challenge (why below)
Am I disappointed? Honestly. No. In the back of my mind, just behind the portion of the brain where I claim the Bengals have serviceable talent to win games, I knew the Bengals would fold, whine on the sidelines and completely fail to appear as a team -- much less act or play like a team. It's not just this game. It's been a long time that this thought has been seared into my mind.
I'm starting to think that the Bengals really aren't that talented. Individually? Sure. They're a bunch of paper champions where you can go through each player and find their respective talents. As a team, they're disgusting. They couldn't even tie their velcro shoes to get out on the field.
Why I supported the challenge.
The Bengals were losing, 20-13, with over two minutes left in the game. The 49ers, on non-punting drives, had the ball for over five minutes in four of six possessions. The other two non-punting possessions ended in a touchdown and the final drive to end the game. Knee, knee, knee. Even if the Bengals held that first time out that went to the lost challenge, there was no reason, NONE, to believe that the Bengals defense would force the 49ers to go three-and-out. Then you watched Frank Gore pick up 10 yards on third-and-nine. Good job.
If the play is reviewed, and reversed, then Chad Johnson's touchdown changes the game's complexion. It's not like the 49ers wouldn't drive down the field in two minutes and score the game winning field goal. What? You think they would? Yea. Me too.
Watching the replay, in my heart, I knew it was incomplete. But I've seen calls all year, in college and the NFL, go opposite of what I expected. This was a challenge attempted through divinity. A prayer. What have you got to lose? A timeout? A timeout to stop the clock to make the final ticks of the game agonizing longer? No, the Bengals defense wouldn't show up. That would go against knowing what we knew of them. This was the last chance the Bengals had. A challenge. A prayer that the referee would see something to give us one bounce, just one bounce, during this "god-please-end" season.
It wasn't to be. It hasn't been all season. Not that I expected the Bengals to get the call. Not that I expected the defense to shut down the 49ers offense. The Bengals are who we thought they were.
A quick observation -- difference between Manning and Palmer.
Want to know the difference between Peyton Manning and Carson Palmer? Not that it really matters -- but an observation I made Saturday night . Down by a touchdown, T.J. Houshmandzadeh and Chad Johnson sat under the comfort of 20-pound jackets while Carson Palmer was no where to be seen. Manning -- if losing a close game -- is typically seen looking through the pictures of the previous plays, figuring out how to get it done -- while explaining what he's seeing with his receivers. Palmer? I didn't see him on the sidelines at all while Houshmandzadeh and Johnson sat alone jawing about Nolan's fourth down decision.
This is just another example of my season-long point. No one on this team is rising above everyone else. Especially not Palmer, the guy with "Captain" on his shoulder who's unarguably, the best player on this team.
But he has reasoning for the poor play. Palmer said after the game, "It is the same thing every week. We aren't executing on offense and you don't have 11 guys doing each of their jobs. If you have miscues and breakdowns on offense you are not going to be successful."
Manning corrects those mistakes during the game. We have no one on this team, player or coach, that make in-game adjustments. To take what's happened and adjust. I don't blame just Marvin Lewis. I blame everyone involved. There's no one on this team that helps this team win. But everyone is great at excusing why they're not winning. Bungles? Sure sounds like it to me.
You're shocked?
"Yeah, I was shocked - I really thought we were going to win the game and I was going to talk trash to the players I know on (the 49ers)," T.J. Houshmandzadeh said. "I was shocked. They had a chance to go up 10, make it a two-possession game. I actually was shocked.
T.J. Houshmandzadeh says after each loss, "This was a game we definitely should have won." Yet, once again, you and your teammates assure that winning a game you should have won doesn't, in reality, happen. You're 14 games into the season. At what point do you just realize that would've, could've, should've doesn't really matter. Nor does it even apply. Perhaps, we're just not that good. It's about that time to admit some truths. But hey, at least you have a chance to go to the Pro Bowl. Just don't be shocked if you don't go. Wait, he already said he would be. Nevermind.
Monster Park = Buried
Chick Ludwig had the best opening line.
Paul Daugherty said:
A tangent item that I can't stand. Anyone that promotes on the World Wide Web as a follower or commentator of the Cincinatti Bengals. If you can't spell the city's name right, then get out of here. And I find no benefit with blogs that just report what happened like continuous AP reports with zero commentary or opinion like some rival sites. Hey, look, I'm fit to be tied today. You understand.
Do I really need to say anything?
About Bryant Gumbel. Seriously. Do I need to say anything? Do I need to mention that the San Francisco 49ers running back, Al Gore, had a good night? Do I need to mention that the entire booth would spend 15 minutes in complete shock why a team choose a play while the game was already moving on?
The only thing more embarrassing Saturday Night than the Bengals, was Bryant Gumbel. It was to the point that I had hoped he wouldn't speak anymore because I felt bad. I felt bad like some young kid singing the national anthem in front of a national audience and noticeably screwing it up. Thank god, I don't have the NFL Network.
Not much else to say.
I'm not going through the loss. I'm not going to watch the game again like I used to do earlier in the season. I think we all know that this team is horrible. I think we all know why they're horrible -- talent, attitude and preparation. Going through a game promoting the great play of some (Domata Peko) while demoting the play of others (everyone else), doesn't do anything for anyone. And I would rather leave the game in purgatory rather than analyze it. Why? Would you even read it? Would you ask me to watch that again?
Would you really find the benefits of examination when the team doesn't? They just tell you that everyone isn't doing their jobs, or that we "have to get better" or "shocked" when losing to an inferior team? Hell, the 49ers weren't just inferior. They kicked royal Bengals ass. So why in the world should we care to examine our short-comings when the Bengals thrive on them. They excuse them. They play the same card each week. What's the point?
I'm fit to be tied. Why? Because it's the same thing. They take you, rise you up a little when they play well, then play like they did Saturday night -- the truth behind the twist. I'm sucker enough to think that trends are being established that will carry over. I guess inconsistency is a trend. Right? I guess suckage is a trend. I guess over-rating yourselves is a trend. I guess playing the role of paper champions is a trend. I guess being individual without any regard for the team's success is a trend. What do I know? I'm the idiot that cheers them on and then writes about it all season when I could be doing something else. Like reading a romance novel. At least something good happens to the characters involved.
Hell, come to think of it, we are a team of trends.
0 recs |
3 comments
Email
Print
Comments
The 3 words...
That team is a three decker saurkraut and toadstool sandwich with arsenic sauce!
by Tom Blogical on Dec 16, 2007 4:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
LOL
by davidincincinnati on Dec 16, 2007 6:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kirkendall's Game Recap.
As for this broadcast, I felt on the whole that the cameras were too deep and too far away from the play and players. I thought that I was watching a college game at times. The camera angles weren't very good either. As for the announcing...well all I can say is that Bryant Gumbel made the comment of here we are back in Cincinnati when picking up on a return from a commercial. I know that it's difficult and you could forgive mistakes on players names during the game, and note there were quite a few of those as well, but at a minimum though I think the announcers should at least know what city they're in.
As for the game, they are who we thought they are is a great assessment and wasn't it the same assessment that Madden came up with of the Bengals during the Pittsburgh game. They are who we thought they were.
As for your commnet on the rushing by SF I must say that it was definately a problem and I was surprised that they were able to rush so easily. Even so, I don't know that I could blame the rushing problem on substitute LB Mays. I see it differently. First, where was Schlagel and why wouldn't he start in front of Mays. Two, I think SF was able to get yardage late because of the success of their passing. Another twist was that I think Cincy was surprised by some of the plays that SF ran and acted like they were caught in the wrong coverage. In many instances Cincy's DL was ineffective against the SF game plan and I really didn't see any worthwhile adjustments being made.
Aside from the rushing problem the other big problem that I saw was that the DBs were again giving up too much cushion to receivers. This allowed the SF to throw quick passes for short yardage and control the clock in the first half. The play of the DBs was a return of previous play which led to easy losses.
The soft play was so evident that the announcers, Dieon Sanders being one, even commented on it during the game. This follows suit with Madden commenting on it during the Pittsburgh game. Noted was the comment that the DBs were playing soft in the red zone. 20 yards of playing field and you have to be able to play man down there.
The other glaring problem that I saw was the play of Palmer. I don't like ragging on the guy but his play has really nosedived in the last so many games. His comments about the team not playing well and not playing together kind of sounds like someone who is disenchanted with something. Perhaps the coaching, other teammates, or just the the fact of losing. The many overthrown passes over the last 3-4 games are really glaring and I wonder if it's mechanics or if his head is already into the offseason.
As to your thoughts on the difference between Palmer and Manning the answer is obvious. Manning has been in the league a long time and is the leader when he is on the field. Palmer is not. I think that we should forgive Palmer on some of this though because he's only been playing about 4 years and he still appears to be learning the game and is not the stature of a veteran that Manning is. Will he ever get there remains to be seen. Based on his skills in passing of late I think he really needs to work on his game more and all of the time spent in the offseason working with TJ may have been better spent in Cincy working with all of the receivers. Another thought in this area might be how many snaps were lost of having Henry with the team and playing during the preason. Did any of this affect the his timing with the regular receivers.
One thing for certain is that you are correct that Manning will take charge and fix the problems rather than keeping quiet and letting them fester.
As far as thoughts on the challenge by Marvin I guess it really didn't matter one way or the other. The thing was a hope at best because all of them, Chad, Marvin, and the rest of the team know the rules. To side with Chad's comments though, it is tough to get both feet down and have the ball secured and then lose it when you hit the ground. If Chad could have stayed on his feet it would have been a catch but as anyone who watches Chad play they know that Chad likes to go all out and hit the ground on practically every play.
Challenging the play was just as the announcers stated......a waste of a timeout. A bigger question in my mind is why did they go for it all instead of simply getting a first down. It was a 4th and 3 play and I suppose that they think that SF wouldn't be looking for that one. When you're playing from behind and the time of possession is in favor of the other team I don't understand the play.
The answer to this and winning the challenge is that it would have merely tied the game and Cincy would have given the ball back to SF who in turn were already playing a tired Cincy defense. The trouble with this game is that Cincy traded FGs for TDs and they have been doing that all year long. To and end they can't run the ball and they have had trouble all year with rushing. They can't stop the run either and that has been that way for eons now. All of these things affect time of possession and give the other team more opportunities.
As for the media and Chick Ludwig of the sporting news, it brings up something that I read recently.
Someone in the sporting news said that Cincy has far too much talent to be sitting at 5-8 and now 5-9. Isn't that a revelation. The team plays like a broken team like they've lost the incentive of winning which is surprising.
Also, the announcers made a comment during the game that Marvin had said that Chad Johnson was tipping off what play was going to be run by pulling on his glove while standing at the line of scrimmage. This leads to another commnet by the announcers where they said that you could tell what plays Cincy was going to run based on the personnel that's in the game.
I know this sounds far fetched but you know that there have been games over the last couple of years that I could swear that the other team knew exactly what plays Cincy was going to run. I think that if you look at the SF game you can see how the SF defense reacted on certain plays like they already knew what they play was going to be. I know that some of this could be attributed to the down and distance but I also think that there's some truth to this. If Cincy has the same coordinator and have been running the same plays for years I guess the word would be out on the Bengals and I think many teams already know what offense they are going run.
As far as the question of do you need to say anything else......I think that you could start a list where all the bloggers can list their reasons of why Marvin and co. have to go.
One reason is not having the team set and ready to play football coming out of the preseason.
Another is questionable coaching decisions.
One thing that I think has to happen is that many of the team problems have to be addressed and that will take time. They may have to clean house completely to get this straightened out.
by davidincincinnati on Dec 16, 2007 8:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
