December 20, 200619 yr Chad asked for it. I think he got in the "man" region as he went down... Found this on Bengals.com http://www.bengals.com/news/news.asp?story_id=5792 Lewis is under the gun because the Bengals called a timeout following Chad Johnson’s 21-yard catch on the first series of the game that put the Bengals on the red zone doorstep. The belief is that the Colts would have never challenged the catch if play continued. It appeared the Bengals took the timeout because right tackle Willie Anderson limped off the field on his injured foot.....
December 20, 200619 yr I still don't understand how the play was overturned. In the replay his hand appeared to be between the ball and the turf. If they had called it incomplete they couldn't have overturned it and I thought it would maintain a catch because his hand was between the ball and the turf. Did anyone else see it that way?
December 20, 200619 yr James, Thurman and Smith will all be gone. That opens up a nice bit of cap space. Look for help in FA with a younger guy at 2 of the 3 spots... Get rid of Henry too!!! Too many CRUCIAL dropped passes and NO EFFORT! Henry stinks IMO!
December 20, 200619 yr Get rid of Henry too!!! Too many CRUCIAL dropped passes and NO EFFORT! Henry stinks IMO! He does drop a lot of passes...but if they were going to get rid of him, they should have done it by now. Might as well stick with him... Would he classify as a TANTALIZER? He sure fits the bill in my book...he frustrates me, yet I'd hate to see him realize his potential (which is enormous) anywhere but Cincinnati.
December 20, 200619 yr If the Bengals would have got lucky and some how got past Pittsburgh last year in the playoffs, what happened on Monday night would have been the same result back in January.
December 20, 200619 yr I meant exactly what I said. The Bengals aren't going to beat the Colts in a shootout. So, cutback runners notwithstanding, let me tell you what I realize. 1) Yes, the Bengals have a great offense. It can be explosive, but it can also be punishing and clock-controlling. Rudi Johnson and the running game are a big part of that success. Cutback runner or not, he was having success last night until Willie Anderson went down and we fell behind. 2) Our defense isn't very good, and that's an understatement. It relies heavily on turnovers. The odds of getting TO's from Peyton at home are marginal at best. Couple that with the fact that the Colts offense is at least equal to Cincy's, and it's not hard to figure out that we're going to have trouble keeping them from scoring. The best way to do that is keep them off the field. How do you keep them off the field? Typically, if you can't stop them, you keep the ball away from them, which is done most effectively by running the ball. 3) The strength of Indy's defense is it's pass rush. While it's horrific against the run, it can wreak havoc when it gets you into a passing game. Add to that the fact that you have Dwight Freeney (probably the best pass rusher in the game) matched against a rookie offensive tackle, on the road, on a fast playing surface, in a very loud and hostile environent. Problems are likely...see Carson's first fumble. The Bengals best chance to win that game was exactly what they tried to do. Pound the ball with Rudi (a Bengal strength vs. a Colt weakness), control the clock which keeps Indy's offense off the field (a Colt strength vs. a Bengal weakness) and can take the crowd out of the game. The offensive plan was going pretty well until we lost our stud RT. Had we chose to try and go toe-to-toe with the Indy offense, we would have played right into their strengths. Yeah it was going pretty well even though the only TD we was able to get was after a fumble on a punt return by them.... I think we played right into their hands by doing that, because by doing that we are not as good of an offense as we usually are. And they that no matter what we do that they are going to score on us, and they was able to keep the ball away from us. So it really worked well with them keeping our offense off the field, and us doing something that we usually dont do as much and it allowed us to only get field goals...By yeah you are dead on...
December 21, 200619 yr Author Yeah it was going pretty well even though the only TD we was able to get was after a fumble on a punt return by them.... I think we played right into their hands by doing that, because by doing that we are not as good of an offense as we usually are. And they that no matter what we do that they are going to score on us, and they was able to keep the ball away from us. So it really worked well with them keeping our offense off the field, and us doing something that we usually dont do as much and it allowed us to only get field goals...By yeah you are dead on... We played right into it by getting 3 instead of 7 in 3 trips to the red zone. Period...
December 21, 200619 yr I really like the Bengals...but they are not designed to beat the Colts...they don't have the dedication to run the ball down another team's throat. With that, they don't posess the pass defense to be able to let their offense set the tone of the game. The Bengals are very good, and can beat the likes of the Patriots, Jags, Ravens, and even the Chargers...the Colts pose a huge matcup problem for them, no more, no less.
December 21, 200619 yr I really like the Bengals...but they are not designed to beat the Colts...they don't have the dedication to run the ball down another team's throat. With that, they don't posess the pass defense to be able to let their offense set the tone of the game. The Bengals are very good, and can beat the likes of the Patriots, Jags, Ravens, and even the Chargers...the Colts pose a huge matcup problem for them, no more, no less. Good post. Some teams just do that. However, the Bengals aren't set up to beat a team with a good QB, let alone an all-world QB. If Aaron Brooks had any accuracy at all, the Bengals would have been lucky to beat the Raiders due to the fact that he was missing wide open receivers on 3rd and longs....which goes back to the whole problem this year. This defense can not get off of the field without forcing turnovers. It started with Brady and continued with Manning. For whatever reason, the Bengals can keep teams in the 3rd and 6+ range consistently. It all comes down to the lack of a consistent pass rusher. They do not have anyone who, game in and game out, dominates their man. Smith and Geathers are hot cold. Their sacks come in bunches.
December 21, 200619 yr I really like the Bengals...but they are not designed to beat the Colts...they don't have the dedication to run the ball down another team's throat. With that, they don't posess the pass defense to be able to let their offense set the tone of the game. The Bengals are very good, and can beat the likes of the Patriots, Jags, Ravens, and even the Chargers...the Colts pose a huge matcup problem for them, no more, no less. The Bengals are still Colts-lite, plain and simple. They're almost a mirror image of Indy, only the Indy players are better. Not a good recipe for victory...
December 21, 200619 yr Yeah it was going pretty well even though the only TD we was able to get was after a fumble on a punt return by them.... I think we played right into their hands by doing that, because by doing that we are not as good of an offense as we usually are. And they that no matter what we do that they are going to score on us, and they was able to keep the ball away from us. So it really worked well with them keeping our offense off the field, and us doing something that we usually dont do as much and it allowed us to only get field goals...By yeah you are dead on... I know...glad you see that, too. :thumb:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.