Would everyone please stop the someone needs to be cut threads.

[walshfan]

I agree....pick your poison but pick one that at least lets us serve some too!

[HairOnFire]

Shrug. They would have scored with James as well. It just would have taken longer and given the bengals fewer opportunities to return fire. Given the way they've been leaving points on the field all season, I would have been in no hurry to adopt a strategy that reduces the number of shots we could take. And like I said before, it almost worked; the game turned on a couple of (questionable) penalties, a bad punt, and a 4th down non-conversion.

I return shrug. (Shrug)

One thing that we don't know is that the Colts would have scored on every first half drive if they were forced to rely on the running game. But we do know that they would score on every opportunity if allowed to pass at will. It's a defensive strategy that failed utterly and completely, yet it's being defended by a time of possession argument. Please. If the strategy of focusing on the Colt passing attack resulted in fewer possessions for the Bengals it's just as true that it would have resulted in the same thing for the Colts. What isn't known is if the Colts could have matched their perfect performance if forced to run the ball. At the very least it seems likely that they would have scored fewer points, the 2nd half adjustments proved that, and nothing about a change in defensive strategy would have dictated the Bengals pull their punches on offense.

As for the idea that the Bengals actual strategy almost worked? Well, I'm not one of the TV types now calling the strategy ridiculous or implying that Marvin is a fool for trying it. I simply didn't care for the strategy very much when it was suggested prior to the game, and after watching the Colts score on every 1st half drive I think it's fair to say that I witnessed NOTHING that makes me question my previous doubts.

[derekshank]

I agree with both sides of this argument. In the first 9 games we proved to have a damn good secondary, but a leaky run defense. This year Peyton Manning's numbers hadn't been as good, because teams were playing deep... so James had become a great weapon.

Our original thought was... "Hey our secondary is probably good enough to keep Manning from going hog-wild. Let's focus on our weakness, and bottle up James. If our secondary can limit Manning, we will beat them."

A good thought... but it only took 2 drives to realize that it was not working. You do not continue using that logic for 3 more drives, resulting in 3 more TD's!

I agree that Edge would have gotten his yards against us if we changed (the way we did in the 2nd half)... but at the very least, they weren't scoring on 1 play anymore. It changes the whole tempo of the game, and keeps them from simply outscoring us.

I doubt the outcome would have been any different... but they wouldn't have scored 45 on us... and the more 3rd downs you get, the more likely you are to have to punt eventually. With their pass game was resulting in quick and easy first downs.

Pick you poison? Sure... we just picked the wrong one.

[HairOnFire]

I doubt the outcome would have been any different... but they wouldn't have scored 45 on us... and the more 3rd downs you get, the more likely you are to have to punt eventually. With their pass game was resulting in quick and easy first downs.

Pick you poison? Sure... we just picked the wrong one.

There it is. If changing your defensive strategy forces the Colts to punt just once you've not only kept them from scoring, but you've also turned the ball over to the Bengals offense. In a game like we just watched a single stop for one team followed by an additional score from the other is huge stuff....especially when we're talking about a Bengal team that played from behind the whole game. In addition, forcing a team like the Colts to march the field in 12 or 15 play drives means more chances for drive killing penalties, turnovers, etcetera. It's not hard to imagine them running the ball very well but coming away with no points...or field goals instead of TD's...on more than one drive. That could have been the difference.

I'm simply not buying the argument that the Bengals lost that game because of a penalty, a horrible punt, and a stuffed rushing attempt on 4th down. They lost because they didn't score as many points as the Colts, and that argument begins and ends with giving up 35 points in the 1st half.