D E F E N S E ! !

[Tasher]

Hey, far be it from me to point out the obvious, particularly when that was about the uglist thing of BEAUTY I have seen from the Bengals in over FIFTEEN YEARS!

BUT, the defense gave up :

Browns

Total Net Yards: 208

Total Plays: 52

Average Gain: 4.0

Net Yards Rushing: 84

Rushes: 26

Avg. Per Rush: 3.2

Net Yards Passing: 124

I don't mean to REALLY trump up the numbers, especially after they gave up 20 points, but they only gave up 84 TOTAL yards rushing to a team with a 1000 yd back! I think that that is pretty special. This is now two or three weeks in a row, especially considering that Pit went OFF rushing on Chicago, the #1 rush defense in football!

Need I say more?

I think this bodes pretty well down the road (Get it? ROAD?) As in I71?

!!!

[NYBengalfan]

True, the 20 points interfered with our Defense's good performance. We would have only given up 13 if Carson didnt throw the INT deep in our own territory

[Stripes]

The defense played a good game against an offense that averaged 15.3 points per game going into week 14. I do think the defense is improving steadily, but I can't really take anything from a game like that where nothing seemed to happen as it was supposed to.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

Yeah I agree, just trying to forget about it at this point, Browns always give them problems - makes me wonder just how many games Palmer has actually played in, in his life, under 40 degrees. Everything was underthrown. The kicking game was awful outside of the FG's (short fields for the Browns often thus the bad totals for their offense) and the weather just messed with everybody.

[membengal]

Just a thought here, since we all seem to be minimizing it, but 20-25 mph sustained winds are no joke. I got the distinct impression that was f**king with both passing and kicking games all day and presumed it had to be a whose running back is best type because of it.

Part of my confusion over the effect it had on the game comes from the CBS booth guys completely ignoring it, but Lapham said on WLW Monday night that it was a huge factor on that game.

Given that, and that the Browns always play the Bengals hard, I am perfectly content in the win. I have long maintained this offense is a marvel because it is built to survive in any conditions. Well, we just saw proof of that. On a day that passing was difficult for a variety of reasons, they hunkered down and ran the ball like they were the Steelers. For as much love and admiration as people give the Steelers for winning like that, I am puzzled why the Bengals winning like that has met with such wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I thought the objective was to find a way to win each week and move on, no?

[GROIIIDayton]

I was at the game and the flags on the goal post were not blowing much. The flags above the stadium however were moving in every direction. I also saw Shane come out before the game winning kick and throw some grass in the air that came right back in his face.

[Jonboat]

Hey, far be it from me to point out the obvious, particularly when that was about the uglist thing of BEAUTY I have seen from the Bengals in over FIFTEEN YEARS!

BUT, the defense gave up :

Browns

Total Net Yards: 208

Total Plays: 52

Average Gain: 4.0

Net Yards Rushing: 84

Rushes: 26

Avg. Per Rush: 3.2

Net Yards Passing: 124

I don't mean to REALLY trump up the numbers, especially after they gave up 20 points, but they only gave up 84 TOTAL yards rushing to a team with a 1000 yd back! I think that that is pretty special. This is now two or three weeks in a row, especially considering that Pit went OFF rushing on Chicago, the #1 rush defense in football!

Need I say more?

I think this bodes pretty well down the road (Get it? ROAD?) As in I71?

!!!

You're right they have played the run better the past 4 wks or so but up until last week they've been giving up alot of passing yards & points. I think the more they pass plays into our strength , an opportunistic secondary, giving them more chances @ a turnover.

I wonder if it's a coincidence that they have improved vs. the run since Shaun Smith is playing or are they doing something different scheme wise. It seems they're blitzing a little more . Shaun Smith IMO has been pretty impressive.

I didn't realize it was so windy either. The announcers didn't say much about it. The only time I realized it was a factor was a couple kickoffs the ball would blow over & they had to have someone hold it.

[derekshank]

You're right they have played the run better the past 4 wks or so but up until last week they've been giving up alot of passing yards & points. I think the more they pass plays into our strength , an opportunistic secondary, giving them more chances @ a turnover.

I watched the Colts game over again recently... and it seemed to me that our defense was at its best... not when we blitzed... but when we rushed 3, and dropped 8. There were a few times we did this, and our guys managed to get just enough pressure on Manning to make him throw it, but our dropped 8 covered the WR's well enough to not give him many options.

Over-playing the pass is definetly the way to go. Will we give up yards on the ground? Yes. But teams will not be able to run the ball exclusively on us... and running the ball gives you a lot more 3rd down's to convert than passing the ball. Over-playing the run just gives the other offense more yards in fewer plays... and if you've noticed... a lot fewer interceptions.

[MacD BengalFan]

I watched the Colts game over again recently... and it seemed to me that our defense was at its best... not when we blitzed... but when we rushed 3, and dropped 8. There were a few times we did this, and our guys managed to get just enough pressure on Manning to make him throw it, but our dropped 8 covered the WR's well enough to not give him many options.

And this is how you beat the Colts. When the Bengals picked off Peyton, I noticed they only rushed 3 and put 8 in the pattern and that causes Manning to hold onto the ball longer then he wants allowing the defensive line to get some pressure on him. This how New England has manhandled him for the past 3 years. Yes, I know the Colts finally beat the Pats this season but that was because New Englands secondary were high school recruits. You cannot blitz the Colts nearly every play or you will get burned. Everytime the Bengals blitzed, which was often, Peyton and the receiver knew what was going on and made the adjustment accordingly and the result was a big play. Rush 3, drop 8 and blitz occasionally to frustrate Peyton and force him to make a bad decision. That should give the Bengals a chance to beat the Colts.

[jamesbrooks21]

I don't know how many games Palmer has played in temps like Sunday but he sure looked OK in that cold game against New England last year.

Back on topic. The D could have really only given up ten if you think about it. Along with Carson's pick, Deltha dropped his 10th that would have ended the game. They couldn't seem to get off the field a couple times though against a rookie QB making his second start. I'm encouraged with their play Sunday against Droughns.

[Jonboat]

I was just agreeing with Tasher we've been doing very good against the run lately.

1- Clev. 26-84

2- Pitts. 28-95

3- Balt 33-133 Lewis 23-113 We had a good lead Lewis got some yrds. late in the game

4- Colts 30-92 Not sure why this game was brought up. Manning was 24-40 365 3 tds. 1 int. I could be wrong we did get an int. when we rushed just 3 but didn't they quickly adjust, is that what we was doing that on the drive Edge carried every play & drove right down the field for a score. I recall hearing Manning postgame comments mention when we dropped more players in coverage they just handed to Edge.

I think you could try that from time to time but I think the way to beat them is to flat out kick their butts physically. Get physical with the receivers, dominate the line & hit Manning early & often.I know it easier said than done but Manning is so smart & has seen every Def you can imagine I just don't think your going to surprise him very often.

4- Balt 24-124

5 Packers 22- 76

We have been doing better vs. the run if you consider that Lewis got some yrds late in the game when we had a good lead we've only given up 1 100 yrd game in the last 6 games. How long have we all bitched about not being able to stop the run !!

I heard ML say they've RUN blitzed (sorry I should've been more clear in my first post) a little more but I don't think they're over playing the run I just think the young Lbs are making less mistakes each week. It looks like they're hitting the right gaps, over pursuing less, tackling much better. Do you think it's a coincidence we've been better vs. the run since Shaun Smith has been playing ? I've been very impressed with him. He gets great penetration, stays on his feet, gets off blocks. I hope when Robinson comes back he still will get more PT.

[derekshank]

I'm actually a lot more concerned about the defense now than I was after the first Pittsburgh game.

Against Pittsburgh, we got ran on... but that was just as much the fault of our bad 3rd quarter of offense as it was our defense. At that point we were still 3rd in the league in points allowed.

After the last 4 games though we've given up more than 31 points/game, and we've dropped to 18th in the league in scoring defense. You really don't see the problem?

I don't care if we give up 400 yards/game on the ground, as long as we're getting turnovers, and keeping them out of the endzone. We are not doing either nearly as effectively since the Colts game.

We're still winning... yes, but whatever we changed for this drastic difference needs to be changed back. Points allowed is the most important defensive stat... and right now, we suck!

[HoosierCat]

After the last 4 games though we've given up more than 31 points/game, and we've dropped to 18th in the league in scoring defense. You really don't see the problem?

Not really. Yeah, we gave up 45 to Indy, but they have the best offense in the league and are averaging -- averaging! -- more than 30 point a game.

We were up 34-0 vs. Baltimore, then the D went into a soft prevent-style D and started daydreaming about the upcoming Pitt game. Result was a bunch of garbage points that look bad but were in reality inconsequential.

We gave up 31 to Pitt...but that's just 4 more points than we allowed them in our first meeting.

We game up 20 against Cleveland...but that's just 7 more than we allowed them in the season opener and that 7 can be chalked up to Carson's pick, which gave the Browns the ball on the Cincy 19.

[HairOnFire]

I'm actually a lot more concerned about the defense now than I was after the first Pittsburgh game.

Against Pittsburgh, we got ran on... but that was just as much the fault of our bad 3rd quarter of offense as it was our defense. At that point we were still 3rd in the league in points allowed.

After the last 4 games though we've given up more than 31 points/game, and we've dropped to 18th in the league in scoring defense. You really don't see the problem?

At least one thing is becoming remarkably clear. That being, Shank and I are in virtual lockstep. We see the same things, argue the same points, and seem to be alone in our worry about the change in defensive strategy.*

*To read more on this subject please do a search using the keywords: Playing with Fire/Peeing the Bed

[Jonboat]

I never said the Def was great but we have been stopping the run which is what everyone ( myself included) have been saying has been the biggest problem & the point of Tashers post.

I have noticed that we've been giving up more points & passing yards read my first post.I agree with you points allowed is the most important stat but we haven't lost since the Colts game either & we still have been getting turnovers.

Why would you rather let a team run for 400 yrds as long as they're getting turnovers, or hoping for turnovers. In the playoffs can you really count on getting turnovers? Haven't most of the turnovers been INTS? What happens when you dont get a turnover & you have a team running for 200 yrds. & our high powered Off is sitting on the sidelines.

I hope we continue to stop the run & get teams into 3rd & longs thus giving our secondary chances to make a play & hopefully create a turnover.

[schweinhart]

When the Bengals and the Dolts play again, I do hope the 3 man front is used almost the whole game. I'd rather see the Bengals get gashed by James than picked apart by Manning again. I would say them and the Steelers because Big Ben can carry a game with his arm as he showed last time around and keeping him contained in a pocket is better than letting him throw off the run (see AFC championship game last year).

I would say the point parade in recent weeks against the Bengals D has more to do with who they played. Early in the season, the Vikes were worthless on O, the Bears still have no point-producing offense, the Texans are just horrible, the Jags are no powerhouse on that side of the ball with or withut Leftwich, and the Packers have been in offensive puratory for most of the year. The Clowns were not very good either to start the season nor very good last week. The Ratbirds with Wright were as bad on offense as they are with Boller and if not for an abberation of offensive explosion late in the 2nd Ratbirds game, the Bengals D would've thrown a decent point total up.

[derekshank]

We were up 34-0 vs. Baltimore, then the D went into a soft prevent-style D and started daydreaming about the upcoming Pitt game. Result was a bunch of garbage points that look bad but were in reality inconsequential.

We gave up 31 to Pitt...but that's just 4 more points than we allowed them in our first meeting.

We gave up 20 against Cleveland...but that's just 7 more than we allowed them in the season opener and that 7 can be chalked up to Carson's pick, which gave the Browns the ball on the Cincy 19.

Spin it any way you want... we were not giving up these points earlier in the season. Yes, the Baltimore points were mostly in garbage time... but they came back and made it a game again. Something that could not be said about our defense in the early part of the season against Cleveland, Minnesota, and Chicago when we had very large leads against them.

We gave up too many points to Cleveland, just proof that our defense won't hold a good offense if Palmer has an off day again.

Against Pittsburgh... a team that is known for only running the ball, threw for almost 400 yards on us, and went score for score with our #1 offense most of the game. Yes... they scored nearly as many points in the first game... but our offense was plain awful... It wouldn't have happened if our offense could get a 1st down. In the 2nd game they were scoring an average of 3:08... as opposed to 4:22 per drive in the first game. Are we really saying that we'd rather them score TD's quickly, as opposed to running the ball and settling for FG's?

Why would you rather let a team run for 400 yards as long as they're getting turnovers, or hoping for turnovers. In the playoffs can you really count on getting turnovers? Haven't most of the turnovers been INTS? What happens when you dont get a turnover & you have a team running for 200 yrds. & our high powered Off is sitting on the sidelines.

My comment was that I wouldn't mind seeing a team run for 400 yards... assuming we got turnovers AND they didn't get into the endzone.... exactly what we were doing the first 7 games. So yes... I don't care if our high-powered offense is on the sidelines, as long as the other team isn't scoring points. I would like that much better than seeing 45 points run up on us again... call me crazy.

In response to your comment about relying on turnovers in the playoffs... what is this idea that teams don't turn the ball over anymore once January hits? Last year, the 15-1 Steelers had a -6 turnover differential. The Colts with their record setting offense had a -3. We're talking about very poor turnover differentials... in 2 games! So... teams still manage to turn the ball over... even in the playoffs. And we have one of the best ball-hawking defenses in recent memory... so why not do what we well... who cares if it's the playoffs?.

Remember when we had the 3rd best scoring defense in the league? It's hard to remember, because we've been so god-awful the last 4 weeks... and this is due to a change in philosophy once the Colts came to town.

[HoosierCat]

Spin it any way you want...

I'm not spinning anything, it's you and Hair trying to prop up some Grand Unified Theory of Bad Defense. I'm just laying out the facts.

we were not giving up these points earlier in the season.

Yes we were! That was my point. We gave up 27 to the Steelers pre-Indy and 31 post-Indy, hardly a "points explosion." We gave up 27 against the Browns the first time (fortunately 14 were called back) and 20 the second time. And the 29 we gave up against Baltimore were at a point in the game when the Bengals were not playing the Indy-game defense you and Hair both hate.

If the GUToBD was correct, you would expect to a big difference in points between the two Browns games and the two Steeler games. Yet we don't. Similarly, in the first Baltimore game, before this alleged philosophical change, Baltimore scored 9; after the change, Baltimore actually scored less, 0, until the Bengals dropped into different, prevent, defense.

Yeah, our D got schooled by Indy. But other than that, it's pretty much same old, same old.

[HairOnFire]

I'm not spinning anything, it's you and Hair trying to prop up some Grand Unified Theory of Bad Defense. I'm just laying out the facts.

We gave up 27 to the Steelers pre-Indy and 31 post-Indy, hardly a "points explosion." We gave up 27 against the Browns the first time (fortunately 14 were called back) and 20 the second time. And the 29 we gave up against Baltimore were at a point in the game when the Bengals were not playing the Indy-game defense you and Hair both hate.

The idea that you're not spinning things might be easier to take if you weren't constantly giving Cleveland credit for 14 points that they didn't score...while dismissing the 29 points that the Ravens did score.

You're not laying out facts....you're ignoring them. You're ignoring the fact that the Bengals are now stopping the run but giving up more points due to a change in strategy. You're ignoring the fact that the Bengals are stacking against the run and conceding the pass. You're ignoring the fact that instead of gameplanning against the pass the Bengals are now allowing very marginal passing teams (Ravens, Steelers, Browns) the time and cushion needed to operate at a level they could only dream of. And last, you're ignoring the fact that in an attempt to stop the Colt running game the Bengals allowed the finest QB in the game today to gash, carve, and slice the Bengals pass defense into complete and total submission.

[derekshank]

Spin it any way you want...

I'm not spinning anything, it's you and Hair trying to prop up some Grand Unified Theory of Bad Defense. I'm just laying out the facts.

we were not giving up these points earlier in the season.

Yes we were! That was my point. We gave up 27 to the Steelers pre-Indy and 31 post-Indy, hardly a "points explosion." We gave up 27 against the Browns the first time (fortunately 14 were called back) and 20 the second time. And the 29 we gave up against Baltimore were at a point in the game when the Bengals were not playing the Indy-game defense you and Hair both hate.

If the GUToBD was correct, you would expect to a big difference in points between the two Browns games and the two Steeler games. Yet we don't. Similarly, in the first Baltimore game, before this alleged philosophical change, Baltimore scored 9; after the change, Baltimore actually scored less, 0, until the Bengals dropped into different, prevent, defense.

Yeah, our D got schooled by Indy. But other than that, it's pretty much same old, same old.

I like that you aren't spinning anything, and are only looking at facts, a true man of science... all the while completely ignoring 29 points given up against the Ravens... And let's not act like they were all meaningless. We were up 34-0... and then 34-21. Winning by only 13 points with 12 minutes to go in the game after giving up 21 unanswered points in less than 7 minutes is hardly something to write off.

But as you say... Let's look at facts.

Facts:

Before the Colts game...

We were giving up an average of 14.8 points/game against teams scoring an average of 17.9 points/game.

Our defense was holding teams to a FG less than they usually score.

After the Colts game...

We are now giving up an average of 31.2 points/game against teams averaging 20.4 points/game.

Our defense is giving up 11 points more than they usually score.

This is a 2 TD swing. We were giving up lots of rushing yards... but giving up very few points. Now we are giving up fewer rushing yards... and lots of points. These are facts. I'll let you interpret them... with no spin of course.

[HoosierCat]

The idea that you're not spinning things might be easier to take if you weren't constantly giving Cleveland credit for 14 points that they didn't score...while dismissing the 29 points that the Ravens did score.

If you want, forget about the 14 in the Cleveland game. That still leaves an "explosion" of just 7 more points. (Which had far more to do with Palmer's red zone TO than anything the D did.)

As for the Ravens game, yes, that 29 can be dismissed because the bengals were NOT in the defense you were arguing against when those points were scored. In fact, during the first half of that game and into the third quarter, when the Bengals were not playing a soft prevent, the Ravens scored 0.

You're not laying out facts....you're ignoring them.

No more than you and derek are. You're ignoring the fact that the Ravens didn't score their points against this run-focused D you despise. You're ignoring the fact that the increase in points is measly at best -- 4 for Pitt, 7 for Cleveland. And you're ignoring the fact that letting James run wild in Indy -- a game you clearly still haven't gotten over -- would have resulted in greater time of posssion for Indy. Given the additional fact that the bengals scored something like 13 points combined in the final two minutes of each half, focusing on Manning, even had it been sucessful, likely wouldn't have changed the outcome.

[duus]

All this means to me is that the coaching staff has come to a clear conclusion that the offense is far ahead of the defense. Boy, that's a tough one to figure out! In any case, I actually don't criticize the decision to stop the run at all costs, versus the alternative that the first several games showed us. The point here is that it is obvious to me that they feel our offense is both ahead of our defense as well as ahead of most other defenses ... and all other offenses except the Colts. You see, if the other team runs the ball well, then time is taken off the clock, and the likelihood for turnovers is less. This is a well known fact. If you let them chew up the clock and maintain possession, then the number of points you can score on offense is greatly reduced, regardless of how great your offense is. So ... the strategy is to almost 'force' the other team into your offensive strength ... making them outscore you. If you strongly believe you have the superior offense, and that your offense knows how to execute it such that they can minimize turnovers through the air, etc., then you win.

I believe this was the thinking ... and I believe it is the right one. Just look at what has happened recently. Who would have ever thought we could get the Steelers and Ravens to play 'our game'? Did they score points? Yes, ... but we scored more. And with the Pittsburgh game, they turned the ball over 4 times. Why do you think a team like the Steelers turned the ball over 4 times in that game? They almost NEVER do that. Contrary to popular opinion in the Burgh, it was not a case of them 'self-destructing' in some rare, never again to be seen fashion. It was simply them having to play a style of ball they are not comfortable with, and therefor are more prone to error.

It's our style. Lewis and Company are forcing other teams to play our style. And doing so starts with stopping the opponent's ability to control the ball and the clock. So far ... complete success with that strategy.

Who Dey?

[HairOnFire]

If you want, forget about the 14 in the Cleveland game. That still leaves an "explosion" of just 7 more points. (Which had far more to do with Palmer's red zone TO than anything the D did.)

As for the Ravens game, yes, that 29 can be dismissed because the bengals were NOT in the defense you were arguing against when those points were scored. In fact, during the first half of that game and into the third quarter, when the Bengals were not playing a soft prevent, the Ravens scored 0.

I don't want to forget about the first Cleveland game. I simply want to make clear that it wasn't the close game that the rematch was. In the opener the Bengal offense left as many points off the board as Cleveland did, but the Bengal offense was helped all game long by an aggressive defense that set up most of its scores. In addition, that close game wasn't really all that close when you consider the fact that it ended with the Bengals running out the clock instead of aggressively trying to score more points. In fact, near the end of that game the Bengals passed up a chance to kick a meaningless FG. Now compare that boring ending to the drama filled scramble we just witnessed where the Bengals had to rally for a late TD to tie the game and a last second FG to win....against a team led by a rookie QB maing his 2nd start.

As for the Raven game, no...those 29 points can't be dismissed because they were produced by an offense that got back into a game by attacking a soft pass defense...the very thing I'm complaining about. You're right that the Bengals were no longer in a stacked run defense, game conditions dictated that, but they were most certainly in the softest pass defense that can be imagined.

And you're right, I still haven't gotten over the Colt game. Watching a team score 5 touchdowns on it's first five possessions is in my opinion an indication that the defensive strategy being used can't be defended. Pun intended. Yet many of you have attempted to defend the startegy by claiming that the Bengals probably would have lost had Edge been allowed more running room. Well pardon me, but the Bengals did lose that game despite the fact that their own offense was operating at it's highest possible level. So maybe, just maybe, this team needs to rethink some things.

Frankly, it's amazing to me that Bengal fans would complain as loudly as they did about the 1st half run defense of a Bengal team that wasn't allowing very many points or total yards surrendered, yet many of those same fans will turn around and make excuses for a defense that has been gashed for an average of 416 yards and 35 points per game against Indy, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh. In my opinion those numbers are staggering, and far too large for anyone to claim that they aren't an indicator of a major problem.

[HairOnFire]

Lewis and Company are forcing other teams to play our style. And doing so starts with stopping the opponent's ability to control the ball and the clock. So far ... complete success with that strategy.

Yeah, complete success....with the exception of the Colt game. And the senseless comback by the Ravens. Or the narrow squeekers over the mighty Steelers and the hapless Browns.

Frankly, the Bengals were making teams play their style far better in the 1st half of the season than the games of late where no opposing team is ever out of the game.

Hey, remember when it was said that this team was jumping on teams so early and often that it took the opposing teams breath away? Whatever happened to that strategy?

[duus]

Lewis and Company are forcing other teams to play our style. And doing so starts with stopping the opponent's ability to control the ball and the clock. So far ... complete success with that strategy.

Yeah, complete success....with the exception of the Colt game. And the senseless comback by the Ravens. Or the narrow squeekers over the mighty Steelers and the hapless Browns.

Frankly, the Bengals were making teams play their style far better in the 1st half of the season than the games of late where no opposing team is ever out of the game.

Hey, remember when it was said that this team was jumping on teams so early and often that it took the opposing teams breath away? Whatever happened to that strategy?

Well, I surely understand we can look at both sides of this. But the thing that pulls me to the 'second half strategy' side is the difference between the first game against the Steelers and the second. The first was clearly doing things 'the Steeler way'. For the first half of that game, we went toe-to-toe. But, as I believe, we began to get a bit 'impatient' as we were playing their style (slow, methodical). Again, when you force a team to play a style other than what they want, they are prone to mistakes. Then, in the second game, we stuck with 'our style', and they had to adjust and play opposite their style. This time, they made mistakes.

Honestly, I'll take what wins. And as far as I can tell, regardless of the point spreads, they did win versus the Steelers in the second game. They did beat these other teams. Their one loss is to the Colts. Hard to argue with that. Then again, they only lost to the Jags and Steelers in the first half. But I still say I would rather them WIN the way they did against the Steelers in December as opposed to LOSE the way they did in October. Remember ... that first meeting against the Steelers was their worst loss of the year. I think we all know how big the victory against the Steelers was. Do you think they win that game if they approach it like the first? I don't.