CIN Observations

[Rangers9]

Look one thing Fitz did was to give us time of possession. We had the ball for like 35 minutes. That is a key factor usually in determining who wins the game. Keeping our D off the field. And we had 4 more first downs than they did plus our conversion rate on 3rd downs was better. You could say Dalton had the bigger game stats wise but he's the Qb who was sacked 7 times. 

[slats]

9 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

Look one thing Fitz did was to give us time of possession. We had the ball for like 35 minutes. That is a key factor usually in determining who wins the game. Keeping our D off the field. And we had 4 more first downs than they did plus our conversion rate on 3rd downs was better. You could say Dalton had the bigger game stats wise but he's the Qb who was sacked 7 times. 

It's a key factor in having no quick strike capability. 

I expect to see the Jets ahead in TOP a lot this year. With Fitz at QB, they're forced to be a dink, dunk, and run team. They need to be able to methodically move the ball down the field, convert a lot of third downs, and score if/when they make it all the way to the red zone. The Jets have been good over the last two years in cutting back on sacks and penalties, which kill teams built like this, so that's a positive. Still, very tough way to run an offense in today's NFL. 

The Bengals won on big plays. The Jets don't have a big play QB. 

[CrazyCarl40]

2 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

Yup okay dude.  152 yards rushing, 5.1 average, 5 rushing plays 10+ yards (4 on the right side our weakest link), 1 sack. I get it, I'm delusional, and so are all the other people on this board.  Have a good one.

152 rushing yards. Cool. 5 rushing plays of 10+ yards. Cool. Those 5 rushing accounted for 69 yards of the 152. That means on the other 25 carries, they managed only 83 yards. That's not good enough. Oh, and they couldn't get it done for the most part in short yardage or at the goal line either.

1 sack doesn't matter. How many pressures/hits/hurries? How many times was Fitz forced to step up in the pocket before even setting up in his dropback because someone on the o-line whiffed hard? Any other QB on this team likely gets sacked much more than once last Sunday.

Like I said, better than expected but not great or an 'A' or excellent or whatever your praise of choice is.

[Rangers9]

42 minutes ago, slats said:

It's a key factor in having no quick strike capability. 

I expect to see the Jets ahead in TOP a lot this year. With Fitz at QB, they're forced to be a dink, dunk, and run team. They need to be able to methodically move the ball down the field, convert a lot of third downs, and score if/when they make it all the way to the red zone. The Jets have been good over the last two years in cutting back on sacks and penalties, which kill teams built like this, so that's a positive. Still, very tough way to run an offense in today's NFL. 

The Bengals won on big plays. The Jets don't have a big play QB. 

The Bengals won because we missed an extra point. And our secondary didn't play well and couldn't handle Green. As for us being unable to make a big play that's TBD. We did make big plays last year and I think we will this year. But you get what you pay for. We did not get a franchise Qb performance on Sunday from Fitz we got a 12 mil one year contract performance from Fitz. The franchise Qb guys like Dalton are getting a lot more. And Fitz wasn't sacked 7 times either. It's a long season.

[CanadaSteve]

3 hours ago, CrazyCarl40 said:

152 rushing yards. Cool. 5 rushing plays of 10+ yards. Cool. Those 5 rushing accounted for 69 yards of the 152. That means on the other 25 carries, they managed only 83 yards. That's not good enough. Oh, and they couldn't get it done for the most part in short yardage or at the goal line either.

1 sack doesn't matter. How many pressures/hits/hurries? How many times was Fitz forced to step up in the pocket before even setting up in his dropback because someone on the o-line whiffed hard? Any other QB on this team likely gets sacked much more than once last Sunday.

Like I said, better than expected but not great or an 'A' or excellent or whatever your praise of choice is.

WOW...

Wanna know?  1 sack, 3 hits...THAT'S IT.  How many batted balls: 7.  THOSE are on the QB. 

Wanna know how many times Dalton was sacked?  7.  Wanna know how many times he was hit: 10. 

So now we are determining the running game by NOT including large gains.  GOT IT.

As far as not getting it done on the goal line, A) Terrible play calling.  NO runs outside the tackles where they were effective.  B  ) Bear boy didn't EXACTLY light it up with his passes in that area.

Seriously......Go read some rankings and ratings about the game.  I think you might be able to find 1-2 that will rank their performance below B+.  Then you won't be the only one thinking this way. 

[Integrity28]

6 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Win or lose I love KRL's analysis.  And somehow it always makes me feel better.  As if Coach Bowles is reading it, nodding along, and formulating a plan to fix everything, or something.  It's that good. 

Get off your knees.

[jamesr]

4 hours ago, FidelioJet said:

That's the NFL though.  It's not just a Jet thing it's an NFL thing.

Looks around the league...Week in and week out - many of the games every week are last possession type games.

The good teams win those games, the bad ones lose them.  

 

Absolutely. A better snap in Arizona and maybe the Patsies are 0-1. A worse snap by Cinci on their FG and and Jets are 1-0.

11 out of 16 games this week were decided by 1 score; 4 games decided by 1 point; 2 games decided by 2 points. Only 3 or 4 teams were truly "out of it" late in the game.

The way to not lose those games can either be - don't let the other guy hang around long enough to beat you late, or stop them on the last drive. Given how little success we were having stopping Cinci, I'd much rather have played aggressively on offense to put us in a better position. We were 20-16 down, with 2 yards to go, 11:29 left. Kicking a FG there means we MUST stop Cinci from scoring again in that remaining time AND get a score of our own. I think that was too much to expect, and kicking the FG was a cop out. We have to score again anyway, so why not go for the TD - get it, you're up by 3, fail and Cinci are on the 2 yd line, and you're not much worse off than having kicked the FG - you still have to stop Cinci, AND score again, only difference is you need a TD rather than another FG.

Kicking on 20-19 was a tougher call, as the FG changes who has the lead; but if we'd been more aggressive earlier I think we would have had a better chance at the W. That's on Bowles - I'd like to see him be more aggressive, especially in these games against top opposition, rather than playing it safe and hoping his D would get a stop (when evidence was that they would not).

[Jetsfan80]

3 hours ago, Integrity28 said:

Get off your knees.

No thanks.  I <3 KRL.

[ljr]

3 hours ago, jamesr said:

Absolutely. A better snap in Arizona and maybe the Patsies are 0-1. A worse snap by Cinci on their FG and and Jets are 1-0.

11 out of 16 games this week were decided by 1 score; 4 games decided by 1 point; 2 games decided by 2 points. Only 3 or 4 teams were truly "out of it" late in the game.

The way to not lose those games can either be - don't let the other guy hang around long enough to beat you late, or stop them on the last drive. Given how little success we were having stopping Cinci, I'd much rather have played aggressively on offense to put us in a better position. We were 20-16 down, with 2 yards to go, 11:29 left. Kicking a FG there means we MUST stop Cinci from scoring again in that remaining time AND get a score of our own. I think that was too much to expect, and kicking the FG was a cop out. We have to score again anyway, so why not go for the TD - get it, you're up by 3, fail and Cinci are on the 2 yd line, and you're not much worse off than having kicked the FG - you still have to stop Cinci, AND score again, only difference is you need a TD rather than another FG.

Kicking on 20-19 was a tougher call, as the FG changes who has the lead; but if we'd been more aggressive earlier I think we would have had a better chance at the W. That's on Bowles - I'd like to see him be more aggressive, especially in these games against top opposition, rather than playing it safe and hoping his D would get a stop (when evidence was that they would not).

Our short yardage O is more suspect now (more finesse with Forte than power with Ivory) so it's a tough call ... I would have preferred to go for it as well ... But Bowles made the safe call

kicking to take the lead  at 19-20 is a MUST though (not a tougher call)