Not surprised I show you how it was the coaches call, and not on the field like you thought. Yet you choose to ignore that part. Remember I agreed with you all on the fact that last week was a bad decision. Just like I don't believe you for one second if you would have said you agreed with the call this week if they didn't get it. The argument would have been Marvin is so stupid they are down 7 to 3 to a team they should be beat and on the road, and they go for a fake that gives the other team great field advantage. My whole point from last week was the only time people will agree with a fake is if it works, and then when it doesn't you always have people say it was a bad call. There is never an ideal situation to for a fake, if there was such an ideal situation to go for a fake then the defense would know that too. Which makes it not a great time to go for anymore. Pretty simple.

 

Also how do you get the whole thing on 3rd down after that? 4th down your deciding if you want to give the ball to the other team, or kick a field goal. 3rd down your only decision is trying to get a first down. Nice try. Stick to baseball.

 

 

I didn't ignore anything, and once again you're wrong. Your whole argument is wrong. I would have had no problem if the Bengals hadn't succeeded on the fake punt this week. Like I said two totally different circumstance. As for your 2nd paragraph I have no idea what you're talking about. I was simply pointing out your logic that it's always a good decision when it works, and it's a bad decision when it doesn't is stupid. Nice try. Stick to. Well I don't know what to tell you to stick to.

The D line wasn't really much of a concern IMO so stopping MJD wasn't that big of an accomplishment. The secondary sucks and they are going to play a lot of teams coming up that can throw the ball. They might finish .500.

 

The secondary is a problem, as are the linebackers. Going to be hard to overcome the fact the back 7 suck.

Hahahahaha so your going on with they were a bad team last year too. They were a good team last year, they just was not as good as the other playoff teams. Doesn't mean they were a bad team. We seen what bad teams are, I mean we are Bengal fans. They were not a bad team last year, can't even say they were a the best bad team. A bad team is just that a bad team. Even the best bad teams won't consistently beat the other teams they should beat in the NFL because they eventually have a let down against those teams since they are bad. The NFL has shown that, and you see surprises like that. Yet the Bengals consistenly still win those games. They were a good team last year, they just were not as good as they other good teams.

 

They got lambasted in their only true game against a good team so far this year. They have lost their last 7 games against teams that are considered good and only one of those games was less than a 7 point game. That game was a rookie 3rd stringer making his first NFL start and the Gals were home. I think they can beat some of those types of teams this year, but they have to prove it on the field and not in your head.

This team will struggle to finish .500. They have a very solid offense, but that defense couldn't stop most college teams.

 

There is really no reason for them to not be 5-1 with a night home game against the Steelers. They should be able to sneak out 3 wins in their last 10 games if they are 5-1. I wouldn't count on them getting any higher than 9 though.

I didn't ignore anything, and once again you're wrong. Your whole argument is wrong. I would have had no problem if the Bengals hadn't succeeded on the fake punt this week. Like I said two totally different circumstance. As for your 2nd paragraph I have no idea what you're talking about. I was simply pointing out your logic that it's always a good decision when it works, and it's a bad decision when it doesn't is stupid. Nice try. Stick to. Well I don't know what to tell you to stick to.

 

Based on many past post by you and other Bengal fans on when the Bengals do something that does not work. It is hard to believe you would have been fine with it. Hindsight is 20/20 so very easy for you to say that since it did work. There were also many reasons why they shouldn't have faked it, and honestly they had more to lose this week than they did last week by doing it. So definitely was not an easier decision to make.

 

As for the third down stuff, you are talking about play calling which is run or pass. I guess I should have worded it different and said most people will always consider it a bad decision if a coach decides to go for a fake if it doesn't work. With a fake there is a lot to lose if it doesn't work from either field position, or points when it comes to field goals. So I agree I worded it wrong and should have said people will only agree on fakes on special teams if it works. When it doesn't work you hardly ever see anyone agree with it, that is why I find it hard to believe that you would have in this case, since there was a lot to lose if they didnt get it.

They got lambasted in their only true game against a good team so far this year. They have lost their last 7 games against teams that are considered good and only one of those games was less than a 7 point game. That game was a rookie 3rd stringer making his first NFL start and the Gals were home. I think they can beat some of those types of teams this year, but they have to prove it on the field and not in your head.

 

I agree that they have to beat them on the field, I never said otherwise. However in the NFL people always talk about how even good teams lose to bad teams. Just like an undefeated Packers team lost to the Chiefs last year. It is not easy to always go out and beat the teams your suppose to beat. So you must be a good team if you can consistently do it like the Bengals did last year and so far this year. However I agree you can't count them as a team who can make a deep run until they start beating the top teams. So until then they are a good team, just not as good as some of the others. Bad teams don't consistently beat the teams they are suppose to.

There is really no reason for them to not be 5-1 with a night home game against the Steelers. They should be able to sneak out 3 wins in their last 10 games if they are 5-1. I wouldn't count on them getting any higher than 9 though.

 

I agree they should be 5 and 1 and honestly need to be with the schedule they have after this stretch.

Based on many past post by you and other Bengal fans on when the Bengals do something that does not work. It is hard to believe you would have been fine with it. Hindsight is 20/20 so very easy for you to say that since it did work. There were also many reasons why they shouldn't have faked it, and honestly they had more to lose this week than they did last week by doing it. So definitely was not an easier decision to make.

 

As for the third down stuff, you are talking about play calling which is run or pass. I guess I should have worded it different and said most people will always consider it a bad decision if a coach decides to go for a fake if it doesn't work. With a fake there is a lot to lose if it doesn't work from either field position, or points when it comes to field goals. So I agree I worded it wrong and should have said people will only agree on fakes on special teams if it works. When it doesn't work you hardly ever see anyone agree with it, that is why I find it hard to believe that you would have in this case, since there was a lot to lose if they didnt get it.

 

Show me my past post your are talking about. I very seldom post in Bengals threads. Nowhere close to the amount I do for Reds threads.

 

If a play is called, and it doesn't work I have no problem with it if I feel it wasn't a bad call. I liken last week's fake FG call to that of calling a squeeze play with Votto at the plate. If it works I would still say it was a dumb call. Now if Valdez was the batter, and it didn't work I wouldn't have had a problem with it. It all depends on the circumstances, and I thought the fake FG was a stupid call given the circumstances last week. It had nothing to do with whether if it worked or not.

The D line wasn't really much of a concern IMO so stopping MJD wasn't that big of an accomplishment. The secondary sucks and they are going to play a lot of teams coming up that can throw the ball. They might finish .500.

 

The D line was a concern the first two games of the year. Everything goes hand and hand on defense. The first two weeks the D line got not consistent pressure and made even Weeden look good. If you cant rush the passer you can't stop the pass. Then also when you don't have a great secondary the pass rush means even more then. Which they were not getting the first two games of the year. Since Dunlap has been back it has been much better and they even stopped the passing game in Washington until they went to that dang prevent defense in the last 4 minutes and let them catch quick 10 yard passes at a time.

 

The D-line getting pressure is what is key for when the Bengals play the better offenses.

Show me my past post your are talking about. I really very seldom post in Bengals threads. Nowhere close to the amount I do for Reds threads.

 

If a play is called, and it doesn't work I have no problem with it if I feel it wasn't a bad call. I liken last week's fake FG call to that of calling a squeeze play with Votto at the plate. If it works I would still say it was a dumb call. Now if Valdez was the batter, and it didn't work I wouldn't have had a problem with it. It all depends on the circumstances, and I thought the fake FG was a stupid call given the circumstances last week. It had nothing to do with whether if it worked or not.

 

Remember I agree that it was a bad call. However I just don't believe that you would agree with this call if it didn't work. Especially since you didn't agree with the one last week. Last week at the time at least they were in control of the game. They had more to lose this week though if they didn't get it. On the road and down 7 to 3 against a bad team, and if you dont get it then that bad team has great field position and maybe scores again. At least last week they had the Redskins pinned deep if they didn't get it, and which is what helped the Bengals in getting them to punt and then the Bengals getting good field position and still getting the field goal after that. There wasn't as big of a risk last week at all as it was this week. So yeah that is why I don't believe you will be saying it was a good decision this week if it had not worked. There was more to lose this week by doing it. Much easier to say something after the fact.

Remember I agree that it was a bad call. However I just don't believe that you would agree with this call if it didn't work. Especially since you didn't agree with the one last week. Last week at the time at least they were in control of the game. They had more to lose this week though if they didn't get it. On the road and down 7 to 3 against a bad team, and if you dont get it then that bad team has great field position and maybe scores again. At least last week they had the Redskins pinned deep if they didn't get it, and which is what helped the Bengals in getting them to punt and then the Bengals getting good field position and still getting the field goal after that. There wasn't as big of a risk last week at all as it was this week. So yeah that is why I don't believe you will be saying it was a good decision this week if it had not worked. There was more to lose this week by doing it. Much easier to say something after the fact.

 

 

 

First, like you stated at least twice, the Jaguars are a bad team. Their offense sucks. The reward was much greater than the risk. Secondly, I really don't care if you believe me, or not, but if you want to continue to call me a liar then there's no reason to ever debate with you again. Congrats. You just made the ignore list.

Remember I agree that it was a bad call. However I just don't believe that you would agree with this call if it didn't work. Especially since you didn't agree with the one last week. Last week at the time at least they were in control of the game. They had more to lose this week though if they didn't get it. On the road and down 7 to 3 against a bad team, and if you dont get it then that bad team has great field position and maybe scores again. At least last week they had the Redskins pinned deep if they didn't get it, and which is what helped the Bengals in getting them to punt and then the Bengals getting good field position and still getting the field goal after that. There wasn't as big of a risk last week at all as it was this week. So yeah that is why I don't believe you will be saying it was a good decision this week if it had not worked. There was more to lose this week by doing it. Much easier to say something after the fact.

 

 

Why have you spent about 10,000 total words and about 10 posts to tell LRCW and the rest of us what we would have thought about the fake punt call if it would not have worked? You don't have a clue what he, I, or anyone else thought about the call other than what has been posted on here. If you don't believe that fine, but not 10,000, not 50,000 words will ever convince someone that they actually had a different opinion than what they expressed.

First, like you stated at least twice, the Jaguars are a bad team. Their offense sucks. The reward was much greater than the risk. Secondly, I really don't care if you believe me, or not, but if you want to continue to call me a liar then there's no reason to ever debate with you again. Congrats. You just made the ignore list.

 

Why have you spent about 10,000 total words and about 10 posts to tell LRCW and the rest of us what we would have thought about the fake punt call if it would not have worked? You don't have a clue what he, I, or anyone else thought about the call other than what has been posted on here. If you don't believe that fine, but not 10,000, not 50,000 words will ever convince someone that they actually had a different opinion than what they expressed.

 

Just going by how opinions on thing change on how things turn out. And quite frankly I don't care what you have to say about how many words I wrote. Thats usually the best argument someone has back is to talk about how many words I wrote.

 

As for LRCW the reward was much greater than the risk in the Washington game than it was in the Jags game. The Washington game they were winning and had them pinned down even if they didn't get it. The Jags game they were losing and would have given the Jags great field position if they didn't get it. So yes I would think people's opinion would have been different if they agreed with it or not if it didnt work. Especially when they say the reward was greater than the risk in this case. The risk in this case was higher than it was in the Washington game.

First, like you stated at least twice, the Jaguars are a bad team. Their offense sucks. The reward was much greater than the risk. Secondly, I really don't care if you believe me, or not, but if you want to continue to call me a liar then there's no reason to ever debate with you again. Congrats. You just made the ignore list.

 

I know I justed replied to this in another post. However LRCW I am sorry if you thought I was calling you a liar. I definitely see why you would have thought that based on what I said, by saying I didn't believe that. People's feelings on things do change based on how plays work. If they had got stopped and then the Jags go score and make it 14 to 3. Based on how everyone on here puts the Bengals down for anything that goes wrong, even if things go right they do. So I just really doubted I would have seen anyone on here defend that call and say they liked the call even after it didn't work and possibly cost the Bengals the game. However you were right when you said earlier when you don't post much about the Bengals so you might have agreed with the call even after words. So I really don't know if you would have defended it or if you would have even posted on it if it didn't work. You don't post much on them so I don't know how you would go about it. So I am sorry about that. I believe you now that you would have defended it even if it didn't work. Even though I still don't agree that the reward was greater than the risk in this game. The risk was greater in this game.

Just going by how opinions on thing change on how things turn out. And quite frankly I don't care what you have to say about how many words I wrote. Thats usually the best argument someone has back is to talk about how many words I wrote.

 

As for LRCW the reward was much greater than the risk in the Washington game than it was in the Jags game. The Washington game they were winning and had them pinned down even if they didn't get it. The Jags game they were losing and would have given the Jags great field position if they didn't get it. So yes I would think people's opinion would have been different if they agreed with it or not if it didnt work. Especially when they say the reward was greater than the risk in this case. The risk in this case was higher than it was in the Washington game.

 

You are very mistaken. I don't even read your posts any more when they are books. People can't disagree with you and follow along b/c you say the same exact thing over and over sentence after sentence so we quit reading after the 1st sentence hoping you didn't make a good point somewhere in the middle.