Question of the Day: Are you concerned about the Bengals?
We brought this up last night; the Detroit Lions were 4-0 in 2008 and the New England Patriots were 0-4 in 2007 during the preseason. Aside from being two extreme examples, the dictation that the preseason is a preview of the regular season is too simplified to be taken seriously. However, the presumption is based on the record alone; not the substance within the game.
The Bengals are 1-2 this preseason. They've been outscored by 12 points; though their "dress rehearsal" led to more than seven points for the first time this preseason.
However, the Bengals are beating their opponents in yardage, rushing first downs, third down conversions (45%), rushing and passing yards, yards per completion, and time of possession. And they're doing this with the team's backup quarterback through two games and a rotation of running backs. The big play has returned -- two passing plays of 50 yards or more -- and the defense has allowed less than 300 yards to opposing offenses.
On the other hand, other mistakes a weighing incredibly heavier than the above. Bengals quarterbacks have been sacked 11 times and the defense has only recorded four sacks in return. The team has a terrible -5 turnover ratio, having zero interceptions through three games. They've only reached the Red Zone five times scoring at a 60% clip.
| Stat | Bengals | Opponents | |
| First Downs | 47 | 51 | |
| Rushing | 19 | 15 | |
| Passing | 24 | 32 | |
| Time of Possession | 31:09 | 28:51 | |
| Third Down Conv | 45% (18/40) | 39.0% (16/41) | |
| Total Net Yards | 1,0 | ||
| Rushing | 404 | 296 | |
| Passing | 633 | 599 | |
| Completion % | 65.3% | 58.3% | |
| Fumbles/Lost | 8/5 | 6/3 | |
| Sacks/Yrds Lost | 11/41 | 4/25 | |
| Penalties/Yards | 24/182 | 22/210 |
Are you nervous, or are you tossing this as another preseason? Are you aware that this is preseason, but worried about the little things? What's your general impression through three games of preseason football?
9 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
We are hopefully seeing one huge difference from what we'll see in regular season
Carson Palmer
If you don't live like you wanna, you live like you shouldn't
Interesting
Nice stats as always. I was not nervous until the game last night. Although the stats are a little more equal, the starters seemed to just be getting beat by the Rams.
RE:
Yea.
You get rid of those turnovers, we win this game. Although I also acknowledge that you can’t just simply “get rid of the turnover.” Still. It’s something that’s fixable.
Blogger at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.
by Josh Kirkendall on Aug 28, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Not concerned because of the preseason per se..
My concerns have remained largely the same. We have an o-line that has not battle tested as a unit. It often takes time for an o-line to come together. The offense could struggle, even with Palmer, if we don’t some good o-line play.
Even if things aren't better, I feel like they are.
The offense seems less anemic and less vanilla than it did last preseason (a little). The offensive line is clearly a work in progress, as are protection schemes in spread formations (QB recognition of a blitz with 4 WR would have something to do with that… might Carson Palmer be better than JTO???).
That being said, I’m withholding judgment until the regular season. I’ve never put much stock in preseason performances.
i’m not overly concerned right now, because even for a “dress rehearsal,” it still looked like they were audtioning some guys last night, considering the amount of substitutions. i don’t think they’ll make nearly as many subs as they did last night (mmm, subs), and i’m not going to give up hope on the offensive line based on one game, because in the other two they’ve looked at least serviceable (not ideal, but still miles ahead of last season).
i had a brief moment of panic at the beginning of the game when i saw number 11 heading into the huddle, then remembered that coles is wearing that number now, and felt much better.

by 






















