gregstephens Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Per PFT, Fredo is now contributing his two cents worth to Bratkowski's game planning./>http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/12/01/ochocinco-wants-a-change-of-game-plan/Here's the scary part. I actually have to agree with Fredo here. I understand Palmer saw a good deal of pressure against the Browns and rarely had the time to set and find his receivers for deep routes, but I would like to see a good mix of the pass/run to pump up some confidence for a playoff run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ickey44 Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Per PFT, Fredo is now contributing his two cents worth to Bratkowski's game planning./>http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/12/01/ochocinco-wants-a-change-of-game-plan/Here's the scary part. I actually have to agree with Fredo here. I understand Palmer saw a good deal of pressure against the Browns and rarely had the time to set and find his receivers for deep routes, but I would like to see a good mix of the pass/run to pump up some confidence for a playoff run.Hey, if running the ball 45 times is winning us games then don't mess with it. All I'd like to say is less penalties, better pass protection, and on target throws from Palmer when they do pass. Our running game is great, but I'm just afraid at some point we're going to have to throw the ball and if the passing offense looks like it has the last couple of weeks we're going to fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwillycuse Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I agree.I like the running but the running should open up the pass. Im just worried that when we need it, the timing wont be there.What I cant stand is first and goal from the nine. 2 straight runs up the gut for a total of 1 yard then a guaranteed pass into packed endzone. Seems like this has happend like 5 times the past 2 weeks.If our running game is so good, why arent we open with play action? Steelers crush with playaction. We act like we dont know how to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekshank Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 They are running because they can. Teams aren't stacking the box against them because they know that when they do, they'll do what Drew Brees did to the Pats. We just never see that anymore, because a team would rather give up a 6 yard run than a 60 yard pass.As for the playaction on 1st and goal... They've used it in the past. They'll use it in the future. I'm just not so sure they felt the need to use it against Cleveland. I doubt they'll feel the need to use it against Detroit. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts though that you will see it in Minnesota and San Diego. But that's just my take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupaBran Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Chad can say whatever he wants but we are winning with our running game and our defense. Chad hasn't been bad but Carson and the rest of the passing game has been awful. Carson isn't and prob. will never be his ole cannon armed self, but he just looked uncomfortable all day vs. the Browns. I will say that we lost to the Raiders b/c we went conservative and started running rather than throw on them like we did the first 2 drives that put up 14 points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekshank Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Chad can say whatever he wants but we are winning with our running game and our defense. Chad hasn't been bad but Carson and the rest of the passing game has been awful. Carson isn't and prob. will never be his ole cannon armed self, but he just looked uncomfortable all day vs. the Browns. I will say that we lost to the Raiders b/c we went conservative and started running rather than throw on them like we did the first 2 drives that put up 14 points.So, we're winning with defense and running game. Palmer will never be the same. But the Bengals lost to Oakland because they ran the ball instead of throwing it.You somehow managed to completely contradict your first three sentences with your last. I'm not even mad. That's amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ickey44 Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I will say that we lost to the Raiders b/c we went conservative and started running rather than throw on them like we did the first 2 drives that put up 14 points.That statement is inaccurate on a couple of points. The second scoring drive in that game was ALL runs. 9 run plays, IIRC. Also, we lost because we turned the ball over 4 (FOUR!) times AND missed a field goal. It had nothing to do with play calling, although it could have been better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 "There's nothing to see here, sir. Please move along." --- Thread Police Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pidge Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Chad hasn't been bad? He's putting in a bit more effort so far, I'll grant you. Holding onto the effing ball would be nice though. Chad isn't the problem with passing game, nor is Carson and largely speaking, the last couple of weeks I don't think the O-line is either (looking forward to seeing Moobs sliding into the starting RT spot though). The run has been working so why change. It's much harder to defend the run (according to various talking heads and conventional wisdom - so ya gotta think it's easier to gain yds by running the ball). Why change if it's working? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I will say that we lost to the Raiders b/c we went conservative and started running rather than throw on them like we did the first 2 drives that put up 14 points.That statement is inaccurate on a couple of points. The second scoring drive in that game was ALL runs. 9 run plays, IIRC. Also, we lost because we turned the ball over 4 (FOUR!) times AND missed a field goal. It had nothing to do with play calling, although it could have been better.Now come on, Mr Mexico - you didn't really expect something as unimportant as truth or facts would stop one of the members of the Braintrust Triad from spewing out an opinion, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ickey44 Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I will say that we lost to the Raiders b/c we went conservative and started running rather than throw on them like we did the first 2 drives that put up 14 points.That statement is inaccurate on a couple of points. The second scoring drive in that game was ALL runs. 9 run plays, IIRC. Also, we lost because we turned the ball over 4 (FOUR!) times AND missed a field goal. It had nothing to do with play calling, although it could have been better.Now come on, Mr Mexico - you didn't really expect something as unimportant as truth or facts would stop one of the members of the Braintrust Triad from spewing out an opinion, right?I guess not.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupaBran Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Chad can say whatever he wants but we are winning with our running game and our defense. Chad hasn't been bad but Carson and the rest of the passing game has been awful. Carson isn't and prob. will never be his ole cannon armed self, but he just looked uncomfortable all day vs. the Browns. I will say that we lost to the Raiders b/c we went conservative and started running rather than throw on them like we did the first 2 drives that put up 14 points.So, we're winning with defense and running game. Palmer will never be the same. But the Bengals lost to Oakland because they ran the ball instead of throwing it.You somehow managed to completely contradict your first three sentences with your last. I'm not even mad. That's amazing. Its funny cause its true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupaBran Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I just read that Chad meant it all as a joke...which it sounded like from the beginning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregstephens Posted December 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Yeah, one of the reasons I started this thread in the first place was just an excuse to use 'CoachoCinco'. I thought it sounded cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupaBran Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 I will say that we lost to the Raiders b/c we went conservative and started running rather than throw on them like we did the first 2 drives that put up 14 points.That statement is inaccurate on a couple of points. The second scoring drive in that game was ALL runs. 9 run plays, IIRC. Also, we lost because we turned the ball over 4 (FOUR!) times AND missed a field goal. It had nothing to do with play calling, although it could have been better.Now come on, Mr Mexico - you didn't really expect something as unimportant as truth or facts would stop one of the members of the Braintrust Triad from spewing out an opinion, right?I guess not....Hey, Mr. Mexico I don't have a problem with you and you're correct in that my statements were inaccurate but I meant more in the fact that we stop being as aggressive after the first 2 drives and to be fair, Carson ran it twice on two pass plays I believe...I'm not positive b/c I tried to block that game outta my memory bank! But, TJ you douche rocket, you seem to have a personal problem with me and that's fine but for the sake of the message boards and their respective topics, keep your s**t talk to personal messages and the Smack Board. Your constant off topic bitching does nothing but stall what the thread is originally for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 what the thread is originally for....and that would be......what.....a place for you to post falsehoods as if they were God's own truth?sorry....carry on..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Yeah, one of the reasons I started this thread in the first place was just an excuse to use 'CoachoCinco'. I thought it sounded cool. Well, you are the instigator, after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregstephens Posted December 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Yeah, one of the reasons I started this thread in the first place was just an excuse to use 'CoachoCinco'. I thought it sounded cool. Well, you are the instigator, after all. Aw, shucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShulaSteakhouse Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Figured it was just a matter of time until the initial frustrations of not getting the ball and attention came out this week from him.Right now he's being nice about it. I'm sure they will appease him this Sunday, considering the opponent, before he starts openly pouting and campaigning and affecting others again, to whatever extent. Surely the OAK loss combined with last week's 38 yard result, has a lot to do with it.All that said I welcome Brat getting his head out of Jim Tressel's posterior. This isn't college ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJBestInAFC Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 I will say that we lost to the Raiders b/c we went conservative and started running rather than throw on them like we did the first 2 drives that put up 14 points.That statement is inaccurate on a couple of points. The second scoring drive in that game was ALL runs. 9 run plays, IIRC. Also, we lost because we turned the ball over 4 (FOUR!) times AND missed a field goal. It had nothing to do with play calling, although it could have been better.Well when you allow teams like the Raiders to hang around because you aren't moving the ball successfully because you are stubborn and keep running the ball, fumbles like Caldwell's, become magnified and you end up costing your team the game. See Caldwell's fumble wouldn't have mattered if we would have moved the ball through the air in the second half of the Raiders game. I am all for running the ball, but when your rushing offense gets stopped it is time to open up the air attack. We played the Raiders and the Browns both have terrible offenses. Can we play this game with the Colts, NE, NO, Vikings, or SD? Doubtful. We are done with the division and we played those teams great. Now we need to get used to throwing the ball so when teams force us to pass we can do it. Why can't we play offense when we played the Bears. We passed and ran on them with ease. Once we master that we will then be SB contenders. Until then I think one and done in the playoffs if we play our current style of running 40 times a game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregstephens Posted December 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 I will say that we lost to the Raiders b/c we went conservative and started running rather than throw on them like we did the first 2 drives that put up 14 points.That statement is inaccurate on a couple of points. The second scoring drive in that game was ALL runs. 9 run plays, IIRC. Also, we lost because we turned the ball over 4 (FOUR!) times AND missed a field goal. It had nothing to do with play calling, although it could have been better.Well when you allow teams like the Raiders to hang around because you aren't moving the ball successfully because you are stubborn and keep running the ball, fumbles like Caldwell's, become magnified and you end up costing your team the game. See Caldwell's fumble wouldn't have mattered if we would have moved the ball through the air in the second half of the Raiders game. I am all for running the ball, but when your rushing offense gets stopped it is time to open up the air attack. We played the Raiders and the Browns both have terrible offenses. Can we play this game with the Colts, NE, NO, Vikings, or SD? Doubtful. We are done with the division and we played those teams great. Now we need to get used to throwing the ball so when teams force us to pass we can do it. Why can't we play offense when we played the Bears. We passed and ran on them with ease. Once we master that we will then be SB contenders. Until then I think one and done in the playoffs if we play our current style of running 40 times a game.And Hoosier calls me the instigator.Seriously dude, turn that frown upside down. Enjoy the ride.And change that signature name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJBestInAFC Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 I will say that we lost to the Raiders b/c we went conservative and started running rather than throw on them like we did the first 2 drives that put up 14 points.That statement is inaccurate on a couple of points. The second scoring drive in that game was ALL runs. 9 run plays, IIRC. Also, we lost because we turned the ball over 4 (FOUR!) times AND missed a field goal. It had nothing to do with play calling, although it could have been better.Well when you allow teams like the Raiders to hang around because you aren't moving the ball successfully because you are stubborn and keep running the ball, fumbles like Caldwell's, become magnified and you end up costing your team the game. See Caldwell's fumble wouldn't have mattered if we would have moved the ball through the air in the second half of the Raiders game. I am all for running the ball, but when your rushing offense gets stopped it is time to open up the air attack. We played the Raiders and the Browns both have terrible offenses. Can we play this game with the Colts, NE, NO, Vikings, or SD? Doubtful. We are done with the division and we played those teams great. Now we need to get used to throwing the ball so when teams force us to pass we can do it. Why can't we play offense when we played the Bears. We passed and ran on them with ease. Once we master that we will then be SB contenders. Until then I think one and done in the playoffs if we play our current style of running 40 times a game.And Hoosier calls me the instigator.Seriously dude, turn that frown upside down. Enjoy the ride.And change that signature name.I just did. I haven't been on this board in a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregstephens Posted December 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 I will say that we lost to the Raiders b/c we went conservative and started running rather than throw on them like we did the first 2 drives that put up 14 points.That statement is inaccurate on a couple of points. The second scoring drive in that game was ALL runs. 9 run plays, IIRC. Also, we lost because we turned the ball over 4 (FOUR!) times AND missed a field goal. It had nothing to do with play calling, although it could have been better.Well when you allow teams like the Raiders to hang around because you aren't moving the ball successfully because you are stubborn and keep running the ball, fumbles like Caldwell's, become magnified and you end up costing your team the game. See Caldwell's fumble wouldn't have mattered if we would have moved the ball through the air in the second half of the Raiders game. I am all for running the ball, but when your rushing offense gets stopped it is time to open up the air attack. We played the Raiders and the Browns both have terrible offenses. Can we play this game with the Colts, NE, NO, Vikings, or SD? Doubtful. We are done with the division and we played those teams great. Now we need to get used to throwing the ball so when teams force us to pass we can do it. Why can't we play offense when we played the Bears. We passed and ran on them with ease. Once we master that we will then be SB contenders. Until then I think one and done in the playoffs if we play our current style of running 40 times a game.And Hoosier calls me the instigator.Seriously dude, turn that frown upside down. Enjoy the ride.And change that signature name.I just did. I haven't been on this board in a while.Actually, I was just razzing you, but... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ickey44 Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 See Caldwell's fumble wouldn't have mattered if we hadn't turned the ball over three times already. Fixed that for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agreen_112 Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Just Chad being Chad... But I do agree with Bwilly or BCruise whatever he calls himself... If they don't start working on the passing game Palmer and the WR's timing will continue to get worse. I'm cool with the run too.LMAO @ Ron for bashing Supra.. Ron says: It had nothing to do with the playcalling (oakland), although it could've been better. Talk about a contradiction.If the Bengals can't score more than 17 pts offensively then that has everything to do with the playcalling bro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.