CincySportsFan

First significant move of the year...catcher Tucker Barnhart has been traded to the Detroit Tigers, for minor league infielder Nick Quintana. Barnhart had an option for $7.5 million this year, or a buyout of $500,000.

7:05 start times for World Series games. Starting after 8pm is just stupid. MLB needs to start dictating what's good for the game, instead of just leaving it to the broadcasters.

Had a friend of mine post on Facebook Sunday evening that his wife had suffered what they believe was a heart attack. Said that, at the time, she was "sedated and stable", but that they were still trying to find a hospital that would treat her...after 20 hours. The following day he posted that she had passed. She was in her mid-50's.

MLB has got to be better in getting the best umpires in the brightest spotlight. No more of "he's got seniority" or "it's his turn" blah, blah, blah. Laz Diaz was rated in the bottom 6% in accuracy and the bottom 12% in consistency for the entire year (in calling balls and strikes)...but, instead of watching game 4 of the ALCS from his sofa, he's actually behind the plate! So, it really shouldn't surprise anyone if he missed a crucial game-changing call, right? I know that everyone is human, and even the best umpire is going to miss calls. But, when you have statistical proof that one guy regularly misses more calls than someone else...WHY HAVE HIM IN SOME OF THE BIGGEST GAMES OF THE YEAR?!? We literally tell the players/teams that the regular season means something and that they need to be at/near the top in order to make the postseason. But for the umpires...nah, let's forget about how they did during the regular season. Joe West? Sure, let's put the old guy in one more time behind home plate in a one-game, winner-advances, loser-goes home, situation. Can we get Angel Hernandez? Sure, why not. How about Laz Diaz and CB Bucknor? Absolutely. Oh, and can we get Ted Barrett as a crew chief? Consider it done. Either give me the best that you've got, or bring on the robo-umps.

Substitutions can be made by the defense pretty much at anytime. So, (to take it to extreme) you can come out in your "heavy" package all you want...but, you're likely not going to be matched up against their dime package every time. Maybe you catch them off guard the first play, in the first series, anticipating your personnel. Maybe. After that, they're going to be ready. Look, I'm not going to say there's never a time or place for that personnel. But, when you come out with it enough, that the color guy notices it, I'm going to assume it's out of your norm. And when the head coach is asked about it, and he says they did it because they expected the defense to be ready for their regular personnel...you get what Daryl (and I) have the problem with...you're saying you're actually letting their defense dictate your offensive personnel. That's not a good look. This wasn't the '85 Bears we were going up against.

Not debating whether or not we needed to move on or not on players from the past, and how much credit Taylor deserves for that. Likewise, the same could be said for the players that have come in since then. But yes, Taylor as the play caller, is the one that I'm disappointed in. What's the old adage...the coach's responsibility is to put the players in the best position to excel? Week one, we put the defense in a bad position by failing on fourth down on our end of the field, when we're up 14 and suddenly let the Vikings back into it. Last week, we run the ball three straight times forcing our kicker to attempt an extra long kick to win the game. And yesterday, we game plan to take at least one of our top 3 receivers out of the game, because we know the defense is going to be focused on that? That's like being the coach of the Lions in the 90's, and sitting Barry Sanders because you know the other team is going to be preparing for him. Aside from certain down/distance packages, I think everyone would agree the hardest combination to defend is going to be Chase, Higgins, Boyd, Uzomah and Mixon, wouldn't you? I think @nkypetemight be right, in that Taylor could be overthinking some things.

I just don't see how handicapping yourself becomes an advantage.

And did anybody else catch the comment by the sideline reporter after halftime, where she had Taylor's explanation for the Bengals frequent use of 2 tight end formations? I couldn't believe that's what he said, and thought I must have misheard/misunderstood it. But just a minute or so later, Daryl Johnston had the same questioning thought that I had. Basically, it boils down to this... Detroit Defense: We need to try to stop Cincinnati's top 3 receivers Zac Taylor: Hey, I know what you're going to do...so, I'm going to take advantage of this, by not playing my top 3 receivers all at once, and will go with extra tight ends and linemen instead. This is not the same as a QB adjusting the play, according to what the defense is showing him at that moment. This is predetermining your personnel/sets based upon what you think the defensive philosophy is going to be. This is the tail wagging the dog. It's totally backwards and is the worst warning sign I've seen with Taylor at the helm. Bengals are winning in spite of Taylor, not because of him.

The still picture doesn't do justice to the way the defender got thrown away. Ja'Marr tossed him away like yesterday's trash.

Why are we fair catching punts well inside the 10?

Very true. But, I'd say that more people smoked 40 years ago than they do today.

My point (I won't speak for BWF) is...based upon your original question of if it had happened 40 years ago...is that, while the trust in the media/etc. may have been higher at that time (and thus, made it more likely that people would get the vaccine), you would also have to negate any advancement in science and medicine made over the past 4 decades as well. So, yes...your second statement with regards to the change in attitude killing 200,000 may very well true. But who knows, with the early 1980's status...we may have never been able to develop a vaccine, or even just a rapid test, by the time when we got them in the past 20 months. And that may have led to even more people dying. There are lots of potential contributing factors as to whether or not it would have been better/worse 40 years ago. We (as a society) were less "mobile" back then, so maybe it wouldn't have spread as fast. On the other hand, people would've been less likely to be able to work/school from home back then, so they'd be forced into being around other people...so maybe it spreads even faster. Maybe there were more hospitals back then, so there'd be more places for people to get treatment earlier. But, then again, the PPE wasn't at the same level, so maybe more of our frontline workers get infected and taken out, leading to drastic understaffing. Going back in time is a double-edged sword. Can't take the good, without the bad. That's my point.

Must've been one heck of a difference.

You may be right on the number who would have been vaccinated. But, along the same point BWF pointed out with regards to medical care improving over that time, the same could be said for the scientific community as well. Would we have even had a vaccine by now? A lot has happened over 40 years. Some good, some bad.

Thank you!

TP, so I don't have to go back through all 197 pages of the thread...can you tell me what those numbers represent?

Just saw that the Lions starting center is out for the season. Hopefully the Bengals can create some confusion up front for his replacement.

Bengals wearing black today? Count on at least 3 pass interference calls against them.

I'd agree.

Since you've obviously got access to the play by play, I'll take your word for it. It was just my impression, even if they did only run it 5 times. (Curious, how many yards did they net?) It seemed like they were attempts straight up the gut for very little gain (2 yards or less). The ones in the second half that hit bigger, seemed (at least to me) to be on the outside. Maybe I'm wrong on that, too. Look, I'm a big proponent of making the opposition defend the entire field. And that's not just vertically, with the passing game, but also sideline to sideline with the running attack. We'll see how the Bengals, let alone the Packers, feel about having Perine as the featured back. Or, like VOR stated, maybe we'll see Evans a little more.

I guess we'll see. The way I look at it, is I don't know if the Bengals will call the same (quantity and/or type of) run plays with Perrine in there, as compared to Mixon. And while yes, you and I may think that opening the passing game more is a good thing...it also means the Packers will be playing the passing game more. The thing that was frustrating last week, was that we tried to force the run, when the run wasn't there in the first half. I don't want Burrow to force the pass, when it's not there. Need to make the defense respect both the pass and the run, in my opinion. I'll be shocked if Perrine gets 18-20 rushes, but maybe we'll see more screen and swing passes to compensate. But I'd really like to see us make the Packers pay for going to a dime defense.

When you tell me that #12 and #17 aren't playing, I'll feel better. Go ahead and throw #33 in there as well. 😁

Going to need all hands on deck to take down the Packers. I think Higgins is supposed to be back, but not sure on Mixon. Bates is an absolute necessity on defense, and getting Awuzie back will help as well. If all weapons are available, I think the Bengals can score on the Packers. The question may be can the defense slow down Aaron Rodgers any. It's much improved over previous years, but this will be their most difficult challenge so far this year.

Dang. Sorry about your loss BEC.

Ehhh...it's only been 4 games, so not ready to proclaim him the best of anything just yet. The kid's got a canon for a leg, though, so the potential for him to be the "best" is certainly there. Graham is probably at the top, isn't he? Bullock and Nugent probably a notch down from him. Pelfry and Breech below them. Breech probably with the weakest leg of them all, but made the kicks in the biggest games. I'm sure I'm missing someone.