Sorry Fellas. Mike McCoy is not the guy.

[Panama]

It has nothing to do with any of that stuff. I am just pointing out no one is shocked. You all should have been shocked we did it. Same time essentially, worse down and distance, if anything you go more conservative cuz you have the lead, you don't run and punt in that situation.

You're absolutely correct, because we all know Andy Dalton is as dangerous as Tom Brady so under no circumstances should we give him the ball back.

[BlazingBolt]

Yeah Andy dalton. Sure. That justifies complete abandonment of rational strategic decisions at the end of the half. Geez man.

Somebody said their was howling winds in Cincy. What?

Man, the ridiculous inability of some posters to admit McCoy made a mistake is stunning and dumb founding. You don't have to turn on him and say he stinks or anything, but if you can't admit such an obvious and blatant mistake happened you have no credibility.

[QSmokey]

Yeah Andy dalton. Sure. That justifies complete abandonment of rational strategic decisions at the end of the half. Geez man.

Somebody said their was howling winds in Cincy. What?

Man, the ridiculous inability of some posters to admit McCoy made a mistake is stunning and dumb founding. You don't have to turn on him and say he stinks or anything, but if you can't admit such an obvious and blatant mistake happened you have no credibility.

Then I guess we are a board with a credibility score of ONE (i.e., only one poster - you - has any credibility). If you do imply so yourself.

[BlazingBolt]

Sure, if you want to keep thinking that. Most people know it was a mistake, doesn't mean they are going to participate in this ridiculous discussion about it. That I am the only one willing to doesn't mean I am the only one who realizes it was a bad move.

[QSmokey]

Sure, if you want to keep thinking that. Most people know it was a mistake, doesn't mean they are going to participate in this ridiculous discussion about it. That I am the only one willing to doesn't mean I am the only one who realizes it was a bad move.

Nice play on words. You have no reason to 'prove' anything; because no one (who agrees with you) is going to participate in this ridiculous discussion. LOL! Seems you've managed to convince yourself of that, anyway. But until you take a poll (or something) you're still a voice crying in the wilderness, IMO. But you 'obviously' have enormous, and silent, army of posters standing behind you.

[richpjr]

What BlazingBolt is ignoring is the very deliberate strategy by the coaching staff to NOT take chances in a close game that could backfire. The game WASN'T on the line at that point. They KNEW Dalton and the Bengals would self destruct if they let him. Go back and re-read or re-listen to some of the post game interviews and more than one player said that that this was the strategy. And it worked. And we won. So while some coaches might have played it differently that doesn't mean it was a mistake. It worked. The only ridiculous thing in this thread is the inability to concede that just because someone chooses a different strategy than you would is that it is unequivocally wrong.

[Stinky Wizzleteats+]

Was it Sun su swho aid do as I say, not as I do?

[Panama]

Yeah Andy dalton. Sure. That justifies complete abandonment of rational strategic decisions at the end of the half. Geez man.

Somebody said their was howling winds in Cincy. What?

Man, the ridiculous inability of some posters to admit McCoy made a mistake is stunning and dumb founding. You don't have to turn on him and say he stinks or anything, but if you can't admit such an obvious and blatant mistake happened you have no credibility.

No, you see, it factors into the decision. This is called "situational football," a concept several have tried to explain to you yet which you conveniently and stubbornly refuse to acknowledge. Football decisions do not exist in a vacuum. Lots of factors are taken into account, the pros and cons are weighed, and a decision is made.

As has been mentioned, the "Andy Dalton" factor is a big piece of the process here. If the opposing QB were, say, "Manning" or "Brady" or "Rodgers," someone who has better than average odds of moving the team the requisite distance in the given time and producing points, the better playcall is for a more aggressive attempt to pick up the first down and play keep-away. When the opposing QB is "Andy Dalton," the chances of him doing that are small, so the better playcall is the one that reduces the amount of time the most (or forces the other team to burn timeouts), thus placing a greater burden on the QB should the team fail to convert a first down. Thus, in the situation we've discussed ad nauseam, the Chargers' playcalling was perfectly sound.

The fact that Dalton made a great throw and the receiver made a great catch in FG range and they just barely got the stoppage of time with 2 seconds left doesn't make the playcall bad; it just means that Dalton and the Bengals beat the odds in this situation. I would bet that 8 out of 10 times in that situation the Bengals run out of time.

[Panama]

Most people know it was a mistake...

Yet I only see you trumpeting that claim.

And even if there were a majority who felt it was a mistake, they still wouldn't "know" that; they would, rather, "be of the opinion" that it is.

[BlazingBolt]

What BlazingBolt is ignoring is the very deliberate strategy by the coaching staff to NOT take chances in a close game that could backfire. The game WASN'T on the line at that point. They KNEW Dalton and the Bengals would self destruct if they let him. Go back and re-read or re-listen to some of the post game interviews and more than one player said that that this was the strategy. And it worked. And we won. So while some coaches might have played it differently that doesn't mean it was a mistake. It worked. The only ridiculous thing in this thread is the inability to concede that just because someone chooses a different strategy than you would is that it is unequivocally wrong.

Except they did take a chance and it did backfire. Running and punting was a bigger gamble than trying to get the first down by any rational analysis.

They gave up the lead at half, allowed cincy to regain some momentum, and the Bengals got the ball first in second half. No matter how badly you want that to be justified as a gameplan of "not taking chances and waiting for the other team to self destruct" it doesn't pass the sniff test. Gifting your opponent a possession with that much time left with great field position with a chance to run the two minute drill to take the half time lead is just not a sound strategy. No matter that going in to a playoff game with a don't make a mistake and hope your opponent does is not something I want my coaches doing anyway. Whether or not that is the strategy for the game, taking it and applying to the game management at the end of the half that backfired by giving up the lead, and then saying well they won the game so it was brilliant strategy, is an argument full of so many logical holes you can drain your spaghetti with it.

[BlazingBolt]

Yet I only see you trumpeting that claim.

And even if there were a majority who felt it was a mistake, they still wouldn't "know" that; they would, rather, "be of the opinion" that it is.

Yeah, because you people are being weird. I have seen and talked to many people about this situation and the only response I have seen similar was someone saying "I didn't like it but I get what he was doing there."

Well I get what he was doing there too and I still don't like it and all analysis shows it was clearly a foolish strategical move and that it didn't work.

I mean just look at the arguments defending the strategy in this thread, they are practically laugh out loud absurd.

The only legitimate reasons for being so ridiculously conservative in that situation were a lack of trust in the backup centers pass pro and the risk of an incomplete pass and a punt leaving cincy with an extra time out. Earlier, in similar field postion, they did attempt to pass....so that reason loses some of its influence. The risk of leaving cincy an extra time out is such a minor factor in the grand scheme, yeah it helps their chances to score in 2 minute offense but you are already conceding giving them a solid chance to score anyway so you are still forcing your defense to make a stop. The benefits of driving the ball on that possession far and away over ride any minimal risk taken by being something less than as foolishly conservative as humanly possible.

[Panama]

Yeah, because you people are being weird. I have seen and talked to many people about this situation and the only response I have seen similar was someone saying "I didn't like it but I get what he was doing there."

Well I get what he was doing there too and I still don't like it and all analysis shows it was clearly a foolish strategical move and that it didn't work.

I mean just look at the arguments defending the strategy in this thread, they are practically laugh out loud absurd.

The only legitimate reasons for being so ridiculously conservative in that situation were a lack of trust in the backup centers pass pro and the risk of an incomplete pass and a punt leaving cincy with an extra time out. Earlier, in similar field postion, they did attempt to pass....so that reason loses some of its influence. The risk of leaving cincy an extra time out is such a minor factor in the grand scheme, yeah it helps their chances to score in 2 minute offense but you are already conceding giving them a solid chance to score anyway so you are still forcing your defense to make a stop. The benefits of driving the ball on that possession far and away over ride any minimal risk taken by being something less than as foolishly conservative as humanly possible.

If, as you claim, most people would have attempted a pass in that situation, then you are wrong to call our playcalling "ridiculously conservative." If anything, it was progressive and aggressively forced the opponent's time management hand.

I'll agree that those of us who disagree with you and your friends have a different opinion about this scenario. I find the idea that this makes us "weird" offensive, and the idea that your perception of majority opinion by default makes our position wrong is rather subjective.