Week 11 Recap: Grendel Awakes
by Mojokong on Nov 24, 2009 3:48 PM EST
Email
PrintSomewhere hidden within the game of football lurks a sleeping beast: the mistake. The most ancient of football sages once accurately observed that football is a game of mistakes and the team that overcomes the most will win the game. It sounds simple and rudimentary, but like Aesop's fables, the moral never changes.
The Bengals fell victim to an earthquake of mistakes near the San Andreas fault line on Sunday, and panic didn't set in until it was too late.
For most of the game, everything went as planned.
Cincinnati ran out to a two touchdown lead and then went conservative in their play-calling. Running the ball, using clock and avoiding risky shots down-field make sense with the lead against an opponent like the Raiders. The Bengals were satisfied with sporadic rushing yards from Bernard Scott and Brian Leonard; Carson Palmer was on his way to throwing under 20 passing attempts---exactly how the Bengals wanted the day to unfold. Events that don't normally happen, however, sprang out at the most inopportune time and Cincinnati was unable to overcome “the mistake.”
If it's blame for which you thirst, then allow me to move the microscope over to our very own franchise-player, kicker Shayne Graham. While Graham's statistics have been hampered by some bizarre special-teams play from his teammates this season, he continues to struggle at living up to his contract. His miss from 37 yards in the third quarter is less acceptable than the fumbles later in the game. Fumbles, by nature, are freak occurrences, but missed field goals, barring a poor snap or hold, are just bad plays.
The Bengals are now a grind-house team that runs the ball, controls the clock, plays good defense and wins with field goals. I'm willing to cut Shuga Shayne some slack on the attempts from 50-yards or more, but anything inside the 40 is a must for a man getting paid the average of the top-5 wealthiest kickers.
Graham had a solid game in Pittsburgh, and he was a major reason that Cincinnati came out of there with a win, but he needs to be the consistent component to an otherwise unpredictable place-kicking unit if the Bengals are to win more of these close games. I know it's a lot of pressure and that it damn sure ain't easy, but it has to happen; it simply must.
Graham however is safe for now, because Cincinnati has its own default scape-goat for times like these. It's been scientifically proven that after any loss, Bengal fans whip themselves into a frenzy and rally a witch-hunt to wherever Bob Bratkowski is hiding; he is always to blame in the Queen City. Often times, especially this season, the scorn has been unfair, and the Oakland game is no different.
Bratkowski has been instructed to play-call under a new philosophy and he has done just that. No longer does this team wait for the few opportunities to go deep on offense. Carson's role has shifted from play-maker to game-manager, and oddly enough, makes more plays as a result. The offensive line looks comfortable devouring defensive front-sevens in the running game and Cincinnati is collecting running-backs like bobble-head dolls. We play power football now and everyone might as well get used to it.
In Oakland, the play-calling followed the new rubric of the offense. Even a first-down hand off to Jeremi Johnson inside the red-zone during the fourth quarter, with the lead, is the right thing to do these days. Sure, the day had its moments of curious strategy---none more so than the fade to Leonard on third & four on the Raider 48-yard line with 2:25 to go---but the theory was sound and would have worked were it not for the Whammy of mistakes late in the game.
Three times this season, the Bengals have followed a tough divisional win with an underwhelming performance against inferior competition (at Cleveland, Houston, and at Oakland). It appears that adrenaline dump is the biggest weakness for this team so far.
The NFL is designed for its teams to fail. It wants to cast away contenders as soon as possible. The further a team gets within such a gruesome maze, the more prevalent their mistakes become. There are difficult opponents along the way, but the most dangerous enemy for the Bengals is likely themselves. Marvin Lewis and his staff have already solved a lot of problems this season; learning the lesson of the Oakland game could put them over the top when it matters the most -- in February.
Mojokong---”Big money, big money. No whammies, no whammies.”
13 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I wouldn’t say the offensive line has been “devouring defensive front sevens” but they have been very respectable and no longer an issue at this point (although the Raiders handled them at times). The fact of the matter is we run the ball A LOT. A lot of positive plays but also a lot of negative plays. Take away Bernard’s 61 yarder and he runs 20 times for 58 yards in addition to Leonard’s 10 for 30. That’s not very effective., but if that’s the way they want to play it and utilize Palmer then so be it. If that’s what wins games, I want to win.
As for Graham. For a franchised kicker this year Graham has been a mockery and he deserves nowhere near top 5 money next year. Sure there were troubles with snaps and holds earlier this year, but if you take a look at some of those mishaps, Graham was equally to blame, especially in the Cleveland game with all those blocks. Graham has to get some lift on the ball to avoid those blocks regardless of the snap. If we get him at a reduced price next year, I say keep him, but if he wants top money for a kicker, then kick him to the curb. That money can be used for the defense or resignings.
by bengal fan from new york on Nov 24, 2009 4:07 PM EST reply actions
???? was that a joke?
San Andreas= California
New Madrid= here in Tennessee and MO
CB85......Collaros for Heisman
as someone who supported the move to franchise shayne graham, boy do i regret that stance. i mean, he’s not neil rackers bad or anything, but if you’re the franchise, you’ve got to be at least 90%.
and as i said elsewhere, i’ve been the chief bratkowski hater for about seven years, but this loss wasn’t his fault. he didn’t fumble five times. he didn’t miss easy field goals. he could’ve called a better game, but that’s always the case. if the players have been winning games in spite of him all season long, then this is on them.
i'm going to go america all over your ass!
Neil Rackers bad?
Rackers is 91% this season, and he can actually attempt a field goal over 50 yards and make it.
I believe he means Neil Rackers bad
when he was wearing the Orange and Black.
I once defended the managerial styles of Jerry Narron after a Reds loss in a bar after a long night of drinking. I wish I could say that I don't remember doing that.
never, ever, ever speak to me of neil rackers after he left here. that’s just salt in an open wound.
i'm going to go america all over your ass!
by Raging Clue on Nov 25, 2009 10:45 AM EST up reply actions
You know, it’s one thing to say we play power football now. And you’re right, we do, and it’s a good idea. But it’s a totally different thing to try to pretend that deliberately trying to play power football makes it OK to play stupid football. And stupid football is predictable football. If the opponent knows what you are going to do there are only two ways you will succeed: 1) they suck, or 2) you get very lucky.
I don’t have a problem with playing power football. I love running the ball down somebody else’s throat. And you have to keep trying because it usually doesn’t work at first. OK, yeah, I get all that, I agree with all that. But you cannot be predictable. Period. Or you will win enough games to make it to the postseason (most of the time at least) and then you will lose to a real team in the playoffs every time.
last posters comments...
i could not have phrased it any better bob. i hate the philosophy of ‘line ’em up and beat your man’. football at the nfl level doesnt work that way. people are too talented. you have to keep the other side guessing and off balance. like mixing in a 240lb RB with a 200 lb quick RB, like play actions, screens, and the rest. if the raiders were in the bengals backfield all day, then you don’t just go to the run, you do screens and draws.
predictability is the bengals problem, not running too much or too little.
Mojokong— you do understand that the bengals offense has sucked for MOST of the year. 2 games don’t absolve the ‘man(of)Genius’ for his [talented but] inept offense of the last 4 years.
by Baba Ghannoush on Nov 25, 2009 11:23 AM EST reply actions
a couple of things.
First, how do we qualify that the offense has sucked for most of the year? If it’s stats and big passing yardage, then I guess you’re right, but if it’s executing the game plan you set out to do, then how are they failing?
If Jeremi Johnson and Andre Caldwell don’t fumble, the Bengals win with predictability. Even with the loss, they’re 7-3 by being predictable. Yes, I know the defense has LOTS to do with that, but the two go hand-in-hand: when you have a good defense, you can play-call conservatively on offense and still win.
Marvin doesn’t want to play risky and it drives me crazy too. More screens and draws, delays and quick slants, more wildcat stuff with B.Scott; these things make sense, and I’m not arguing against more variety at all. But what the Bengals are doing is working and that is hard to argue against.
Secondly, I will never say, nor write, that Bratkowksi was an effective play-caller the previous three seasons. If you’ were to read my posts from those seasons you will find that I was pretty mean to the guy too. This year though, he has been revoked of the playcalling freedom in the form of the new smashmouth philiosophy of the Bengal offense, and at this point, he is doing what he’s told.
Now, to say that smashmouth football doesn’t win in the post-season I don’t think is entirely accurate. I can see the point, Patriots, Colts, and the modern Steelers team, are not necessarily power teams. And Baltimore and Tennessee last year fell short. Ok. But we’ve also witnessed “finesse” teams beaten by power in the playoffs or Super Bowl in recent years. Once you get to that stage, you just never know what can happen.
Even if the style doesn’t succeed in the playoffs, I’d be content for a couple of seasons just reaching them on a regular basis. I understand that the point is to win the whole thing every time, but ultimately, we follow this nonsense because it’s fun, and any playoff caliber season equals more fun for fans during that year.
B. Clifton Burke
Now, to say that smashmouth football doesn’t win in the post-season I don’t think is entirely accurate.
You are absolutely correct. But that also is NOT what I said. I said predictable football will lose every time against a real opponent. Predictable does not remotely equal smashmouth in any way shape or form.
If the Bengals line up in a formation and I have even a half-hazy clue what is coming, there is about a 90% chance any playoff-caliber opponent knows EXACTLY what is coming. And unfortunately, far too often this year — including many of our wins — our opponents knew exactly what was coming. And quite a bit of the time, they stopped it. Not enough, fortunately, for us to lose most of the games in question, but far too close for my enjoyment. Of course I do have fairly high standards here. But if you want to consistently win in the playoffs, that is an area in which you need to have high standards.
And yeah, I agree it would be nice to just get to the playoffs consistently. But again you need to have higher standards. You should aim for winning it all, or at least winning one of the playoff games. And the way we have been playing all year — even in many of our wins — we will be lucky to win even one playoff game. Especially if we have to face some red-hot wild-card team that has come storming down the stretch to grab a postseason berth with a late-season firestorm.
You're right, Friar Bob
I misconstrued your message, and I apologize for that. You did write predictable and not smashmouth. But doesn’t a smashmouth style of play come with an inherent predictibility by its nature? Doesn’t it seem to say “we’re going to run the ball down your throats because you aren’t strong enough to stop it”? I know that’s simplifying the whole discussion but i think there’s some truth to it.
Also, at the risk of sounding overly philosophical, do I really need to have higher standards? Football is, after all, just a game, and the more I need my team to win, the less fun it all becomes. Call me a blind optimist, but i’m satisfied by a winning record and a playoff birth, because like I said, you never know what can happen once you get into the Playoffs. It’s a new season for all the teams invited. And most of all, watching football and rooting for my team is all for entertainment and fun, and I won’t lose sight of that
I appreciate your standpoint on the topic.
B. Clifton Burke
Well, if your goal is just to watch and enjoy some good football, then no you don’t need higher standards. Then again, I kinda figure anybody who’s on here discussing the Bengals in the first place wants more than just to have some fun on Sundays. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be here at all, would we?
And yes, smashmouth does have some predictability. Perhaps I should have said “overly predictable” but then you debate “where is overly”. What I meant is “very” predictable. If the opponent has about a 75% chance of knowing — even only in general — what you are doing by formation, that is simply too much. But you can do a few things to reduce it.
The most important thing is to simply not do the exact same time every time from a given formation. They do at least mostly do that with reasonable degree of consistency. Ideally they should have about 20-30 plays out of a single formation, and I think we only have about 3 or 4, but that’s still better than only one.
The next thing is to avoid repeating very similar things over and over again. And unfortunately they don’t seem to be doing very good at that. Earlier on in the season they used too much misdirection such that opponents might have been fooled at the start of the play but could see the misdirection developing and knew how to react to shut it down.
And then the third most important thing is being willing to adjust your game plan to fit what is working. If the run is working, keep doing it. But if its not, you need to be willing to try to pass. Especially when you’ve established a tendency of running on first down, after five or six times a play action pass can be devastatingly effective if you have the guts to call it. And then you can come right back to the run again, and play some more smashmouth. But you have to have some variety or you become overly predictable and get shut down. And Brat does not seem to be doing good at all at this.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Cincy Jungle
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Giants to be honored with commemorative NY license plate; some would rather see a 9/11 plate
- The hidden play of Super Bowl XLVI: Justin Tuck’s third-quarter sack
- Report: Chad Ochocinco will become Chad Johnson once again
- Video: Bill Belichick implores his defense to make the Giants throw to Mario Manningham
- Training Day: Learning the 40 with an Olympian
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
