15 thoughts - Bengals game

Gandhi

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Posts
1,861
Reaction score
2,427
Location
Denmark
1 – Rest in peace, Mr. Bidwill.

2 – Sure, the Bengals are 0-5, and obviously not one of the heavyweight team, but this is the NFL. There are no bad teams, and it is hard to win on the road. The Cards even had to travel from west to east and play an early game. If you play at 90%, you will lose.

3 – I was heavily critical of the move back then, but I must admit that I am much more excited about Kyler Murray than both Josh Rosen, Nick Bosa and Quinnen Williams.

4 – The defense were humiliated on the Bengals’ first drive in both first and third half, but from there Vance Joseph’ unit clamped down. Great in-game adjustment-work.

5 – Great to see David Johnson play better than he had done in a looong time. Great that they played from the front all game, so they were able to run that much. Great that they did just that.

6 – Kevin Peterson played 70% of the defensive snaps. When I saw him out on the field that often, I thought of this post from a Rams-fan (mojorizen7):

I predicted you guys would claim our first DB cut. Either Troy Hill, D.Hatfield or K.Peterson. I think you got the guy with the most upside of the three FWIW. He had a good camp & preseason this year.

7 – Supposedly the Bengals should have had a catastrophically bad offensive line. The Cardinals had absolutely zero pass rush. Zilch.

8 – I was really happy to see Kingsbury “getting cute” with some play calls. Yes, some of them were questionable, but that was what they hired him to do. That is not at all “cute”. That is the expectation! I feel like this was sort of a coming out party for him.

9 – Here is a free advice to their defensive coordinator as well as every defensive coordinator the Cards will meet going forward: Cover #11

10 – My God, it makes me so tired to see how they have a lot of penalties. Way, way too many. Every coach needs to get it fixed with his position group.

11 – Tough game for Deionte Thompson. Not great in coverage, one big illegal hit on an opponent, one big pass interference. He will probably be better next time. He has to be. He is important for the future, I think.

12 – Quick look behind the curtain: During games I take notes to make these posts. After all five games I have wrote “Kyler don’t look rookie” on my pad. It’s not as much his play as it is his demeanor. He just looks like he is control, and that this is his team. Like he always knows and understand the situation.

13 – Justin Murray is not a great player, but he is a good player. For a four year veteran, playing on his sixth team, and with only two games under his belt, that is a very, very good street pickup.

14 – Do they have something in Pharoh Cooper? Impossible to tell, but he certainly made the most of the chance given to him. I am proud of him. Would be huge if he can produce.

By the way, there has been a lot of criticism of the Cards’ wide receiver-group. Did you watch the Bengals’ receivers? Be careful what you wish for. Things can always get worse.

15 – I was surprised that the three big special teams contributors, Dennis Gardeck, Zeke Turner and Charles Washington was inactive.
 

Russ Smith

The Original Whizzinator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
84,419
Reaction score
33,078
I don't think they hired him to be cute I think they hired him to be innovative and I think there's a difference. Getting a motion penalty so you have to punt because he tried to do some line shift is not innovative it's trying to be cute. My guess is the entire design of that play is to draw the defense offsides, or get them lined up in a way that you think you can run a fake FG, except it was 4th and 7 so even a false start doesn't get you a first down just 4th and 2, so you're still looking at a FG or maybe going for it.

I love how he's adaptable playing 2 RB's, multiple TE's etc. as we keep reading he's not a trust the system coach, he's making adjustments on the fly and I love that. But there have been several times this year already where he got cute and it hurt us and it seems to happen way too often in scoring range. I suspect it's because he thinks his system works better between the 20's and the closer he gets to the redzone the harder it is to run his system, so he tries to get cute.

He's young I think he's clearly willing to learn and adapt so I hope he does there too. We have no guarantee Zane makes that FG of course but we wound up having to kick a FG at the end of the game to win, there are consequences to some of these things.
 

Crimson Warrior

Dangerous Murray Zealot
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Posts
7,570
Reaction score
7,337
Location
Home of the Thunder
I don't think they hired him to be cute I think they hired him to be innovative and I think there's a difference. Getting a motion penalty so you have to punt because he tried to do some line shift is not innovative it's trying to be cute. My guess is the entire design of that play is to draw the defense offsides, or get them lined up in a way that you think you can run a fake FG, except it was 4th and 7 so even a false start doesn't get you a first down just 4th and 2, so you're still looking at a FG or maybe going for it.

I love how he's adaptable playing 2 RB's, multiple TE's etc. as we keep reading he's not a trust the system coach, he's making adjustments on the fly and I love that. But there have been several times this year already where he got cute and it hurt us and it seems to happen way too often in scoring range. I suspect it's because he thinks his system works better between the 20's and the closer he gets to the redzone the harder it is to run his system, so he tries to get cute.

He's young I think he's clearly willing to learn and adapt so I hope he does there too. We have no guarantee Zane makes that FG of course but we wound up having to kick a FG at the end of the game to win, there are consequences to some of these things.

I think we're seeing some of both Russ. Some instances of some very clever play calling, and then also where Kingsbury is out-smarting himself.

An example of the former on Sunday is when I think a couple of times we were running a TE out of the backfield as a lead blocker on some outside runs? It seemed to work really well.

Another was the bootleg call for the TD on 4th and goal. It fooled the defense some, and Kingsbury put the ball, in space, in the hands of our most elusive runner. It was close, but Murray was able to make it happen.

One thing is for sure, and that's were moving the ball up and down field. We're 16th in yardage through five games. If both guys continue to progress, we might fight our way into the top ten of offenses in just their first year. That would give some hope for what they might be able to cook up in their 2nd full season.
 

dreamcastrocks

Chopped Liver Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
45,763
Reaction score
11,024
I don't think they hired him to be cute I think they hired him to be innovative and I think there's a difference. Getting a motion penalty so you have to punt because he tried to do some line shift is not innovative it's trying to be cute. My guess is the entire design of that play is to draw the defense offsides, or get them lined up in a way that you think you can run a fake FG, except it was 4th and 7 so even a false start doesn't get you a first down just 4th and 2, so you're still looking at a FG or maybe going for it.

I love how he's adaptable playing 2 RB's, multiple TE's etc. as we keep reading he's not a trust the system coach, he's making adjustments on the fly and I love that. But there have been several times this year already where he got cute and it hurt us and it seems to happen way too often in scoring range. I suspect it's because he thinks his system works better between the 20's and the closer he gets to the redzone the harder it is to run his system, so he tries to get cute.

He's young I think he's clearly willing to learn and adapt so I hope he does there too. We have no guarantee Zane makes that FG of course but we wound up having to kick a FG at the end of the game to win, there are consequences to some of these things.

The refs got that one wrong. Their shift, (which was legal) caused the defense into encroachment. It should have been called. The Cards have gotten the short end on a lot of these calls. Just like the clapping issue in the preseason.
 

Russ Smith

The Original Whizzinator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
84,419
Reaction score
33,078
The refs got that one wrong. Their shift, (which was legal) caused the defense into encroachment. It should have been called. The Cards have gotten the short end on a lot of these calls. Just like the clapping issue in the preseason.


Maybe so but it was an attempt to trick them into an offsides and it backfired.

I'm still trying to find a decent video of it that explains it. The replay on tv looked like a false start to me. I'm willing to accept they may have gotten it wrong, Kliff clearly felt they did, but again to me it was trying to be cute to get them offsides and it didn't work, even if it didn't work because the refs got it wrong.

I'm assuming during the week we'll hear that one way or the other they usually clarify things like that.
 

Dr. Jones

Has No Time For Love
Joined
Nov 2, 2004
Posts
24,912
Reaction score
13,614
The refs got that one wrong. Their shift, (which was legal) caused the defense into encroachment. It should have been called. The Cards have gotten the short end on a lot of these calls. Just like the clapping issue in the preseason.
Not to mention that later in the game Cincy did something similar and we got flagged for the NZI. I was so freaking pissed!!!
 

Dr. Jones

Has No Time For Love
Joined
Nov 2, 2004
Posts
24,912
Reaction score
13,614
Maybe so but it was an attempt to trick them into an offsides and it backfired.

I'm still trying to find a decent video of it that explains it. The replay on tv looked like a false start to me. I'm willing to accept they may have gotten it wrong, Kliff clearly felt they did, but again to me it was trying to be cute to get them offsides and it didn't work, even if it didn't work because the refs got it wrong.

I'm assuming during the week we'll hear that one way or the other they usually clarify things like that.
They moved in unison, performed a shift, and we got hit with the penalty.

It was a joke.
 

CardsSunsDbacks

Not So Skeptical
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Posts
9,908
Reaction score
6,121
Maybe so but it was an attempt to trick them into an offsides and it backfired.

I'm still trying to find a decent video of it that explains it. The replay on tv looked like a false start to me. I'm willing to accept they may have gotten it wrong, Kliff clearly felt they did, but again to me it was trying to be cute to get them offsides and it didn't work, even if it didn't work because the refs got it wrong.

I'm assuming during the week we'll hear that one way or the other they usually clarify things like that.
It wasn't about drawing them off sides, but to create some confusion and get them out of position on the play. It drawing them into encroachment should have just been an added bonus.
 

GoldGloveschmidt

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Posts
4,056
Reaction score
6,424
The defense getting embarrased on the first drive of the game and first drive of the second half is a recurring theme. It's almost as if Vance Joseph does no research on his opponent at all and uses those drives to figure out what the offense is wanting to do. Everything is always so soft and allows them to get into a rhythm with ease.
 

football karma

Happy in the pretense of knowledge
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Posts
14,815
Reaction score
13,048
Getting a motion penalty so you have to punt because he tried to do some line shift is not innovative it's trying to be cute.

Russ -- I think the offensive line shift move was a different possession. The penalty on the long FG was a flat out false start by Gunter
 

football karma

Happy in the pretense of knowledge
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Posts
14,815
Reaction score
13,048
They moved in unison, performed a shift, and we got hit with the penalty.

usually: if you are going to do something legal but weird -- the coach will alert the ref and give him a warning

curious if that was done
 

football karma

Happy in the pretense of knowledge
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Posts
14,815
Reaction score
13,048
when it comes to Kliff:

As a play designer and caller -- I have no doubt he will get there. I see innovative stuff every week, and as he gets more and more NFL experience, I think the low spots will get filled in. Further, as K1s experience grows, I think the offense performs better as well.

my concern:

can Kliff's HC approach make the players deliver the attention to detail and fundamentals necessary?
 

Russ Smith

The Original Whizzinator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
84,419
Reaction score
33,078
It wasn't about drawing them off sides, but to create some confusion and get them out of position on the play. It drawing them into encroachment should have just been an added bonus.


That's my point if the intent was to go for it on 4th and 7 it didn't work. If the intent was to create confusion while kicking a FG, that's to me "cute."

The first replay they showed it sure looked to me like one of our guys moved before everyone else did but I admit the announcers were confused and Kliff clearly thought it was a bad call.

I'm still waiting to see something more official that explains it. We might have missed the FG anyways but having to punt there could have cost us the game.
 

Russ Smith

The Original Whizzinator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
84,419
Reaction score
33,078
Russ -- I think the offensive line shift move was a different possession. The penalty on the long FG was a flat out false start by Gunter


I think you might be right the false start was on Gunter but I thought that was the play that cost us the FG. I can't tell from the play by play on ESPN's site.
'
ESPN seems to show only 2 false starts, the one by Murray, and the one by Gunter on the FG.

So I'm not sure if have the plays confused or not.
 

CardsSunsDbacks

Not So Skeptical
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Posts
9,908
Reaction score
6,121
I think you might be right the false start was on Gunter but I thought that was the play that cost us the FG. I can't tell from the play by play on ESPN's site.
'
ESPN seems to show only 2 false starts, the one by Murray, and the one by Gunter on the FG.

So I'm not sure if have the plays confused or not.
Neither of the shifts were during a FG. The FS on the FG was just an early jump.
 

BurqueCardFan

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Posts
1,748
Reaction score
1,692
Location
Albuquerque, NM
I don't think they hired him to be cute I think they hired him to be innovative and I think there's a difference. Getting a motion penalty so you have to punt because he tried to do some line shift is not innovative it's trying to be cute. My guess is the entire design of that play is to draw the defense offsides, or get them lined up in a way that you think you can run a fake FG, except it was 4th and 7 so even a false start doesn't get you a first down just 4th and 2, so you're still looking at a FG or maybe going for it.

I love how he's adaptable playing 2 RB's, multiple TE's etc. as we keep reading he's not a trust the system coach, he's making adjustments on the fly and I love that. But there have been several times this year already where he got cute and it hurt us and it seems to happen way too often in scoring range. I suspect it's because he thinks his system works better between the 20's and the closer he gets to the redzone the harder it is to run his system, so he tries to get cute.

He's young I think he's clearly willing to learn and adapt so I hope he does there too. We have no guarantee Zane makes that FG of course but we wound up having to kick a FG at the end of the game to win, there are consequences to some of these things.

Completely agree with this. We didn't hire him to be cute. He was supposed to be an offensive mastermind. I have not seen anything super innovative.
 

Russ Smith

The Original Whizzinator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
84,419
Reaction score
33,078
Completely agree with this. We didn't hire him to be cute. He was supposed to be an offensive mastermind. I have not seen anything super innovative.


I do think he's good. Given the lack of talent at WR and the OL, that we're moving the ball as well as we are is impressive. the redzone on the other hand is not impressive.
 

football karma

Happy in the pretense of knowledge
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Posts
14,815
Reaction score
13,048
I think you might be right the false start was on Gunter but I thought that was the play that cost us the FG. I can't tell from the play by play on ESPN's site.
'
ESPN seems to show only 2 false starts, the one by Murray, and the one by Gunter on the FG.

So I'm not sure if have the plays confused or not.

there was a play inside the 10 where the Cards whole o-line stood up, shifted over to go unbalanced --- and the Bengals came across and the Cards got the false start

Speilman faulted KK -- basically saying the offense was rolling, and then you get close and you add some quasi trick play -- and it backfires. Something to be said for that.

This was the drive where K1 ran it in on 4th down

oddly enough -- the Cards did the same thing later in the game (a bit more smoothly) , the Bengals ignored it, and nothing was called
 

Russ Smith

The Original Whizzinator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
84,419
Reaction score
33,078
there was a play inside the 10 where the Cards whole o-line stood up, shifted over to go unbalanced --- and the Bengals came across and the Cards got the false start

Speilman faulted KK -- basically saying the offense was rolling, and then you get close and you add some quasi trick play -- and it backfires. Something to be said for that.

This was the drive where K1 ran it in on 4th down

oddly enough -- the Cards did the same thing later in the game (a bit more smoothly) , the Bengals ignored it, and nothing was called


I think you are right I just can't find it on the ESPN play by play for some reason but I do think you're correct
 

Krangodnzr

Captain of Team Murray
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
34,765
Reaction score
31,056
Location
Orange County, CA
Completely agree with this. We didn't hire him to be cute. He was supposed to be an offensive mastermind. I have not seen anything super innovative.

It's funny, because I like the run plays MORE than the passing plays so far. The fact that defenses often have to account for a jet sweep, Murray keeping the ball, AND DJ on a draw is really nice play design.

Kerouac said this in another thread, but the Cardinals clearly are a good RT away from having a good offensive line. RT Murray hasn't actually been that bad, though, I've overall been impressed that a guy off the street could come in and quickly play reasonably well. Cardinals fans have been treated to some of the worst offensive line I've seen on any team. D'Anthony Batiste was perhaps the single worst tackle I have ever watched in my 30ish years of watching NFL football.

I think you have to credit Kingsbury for moving away from so much use of 10 personnel. I was saying to Redrage on the phone that Maxx Williams and Chase Edmonds are better than the WRs that would play in their stead. Good offenses get their best players on the field the majority of the time, and Williams is perhaps the best blocking TE Ive seen from the Cardinals in a very long time. I love Edmonds running style; he runs a bit like Emmitt Smith did.
 
OP
OP
Gandhi

Gandhi

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Posts
1,861
Reaction score
2,427
Location
Denmark
I don't think they hired him to be cute I think they hired him to be innovative and I think there's a difference. Getting a motion penalty so you have to punt because he tried to do some line shift is not innovative it's trying to be cute.

Well, my point is that I don’t think it is getting cute. I think it is trying to be innovative.
 

Crimson Warrior

Dangerous Murray Zealot
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Posts
7,570
Reaction score
7,337
Location
Home of the Thunder
Kerouac said this in another thread, but the Cardinals clearly are a good RT away from having a good offensive line. RT Murray hasn't actually been that bad, though, I've overall been impressed that a guy off the street could come in and quickly play reasonably well. Cardinals fans have been treated to some of the worst offensive line I've seen on any team. D'Anthony Batiste was perhaps the single worst tackle I have ever watched in my 30ish years of watching NFL football.

I'm not sure about the bolded part Krang. I'm not an expert on offensive line play, but Hump seems right now to be middling in terms of LTs, and Shipley appears to me to be just okay at center.

Pugh? Having a decent season, right? Playing a little dinged up gets him some respect. Haven't seen him called for many penalties, and I think he's above average in pass protection. He's 29, and in the 2nd year of a five year deal.

Sweezy has been a good addition though. He's 30, and on a two year deal, so not sure what his long term future is with the team.

So if we put in a good RT, we have Hump, Pugh, Ship, Sweezy and "good RT".

hmmm... Let's say Hump continues to progress, and we keep the same five starting for ten or fifteen games through the 2020 season. I think in that case they might be an above-average unit. If we could upgrade the center position, then I would be more likely to buy in.

Wow Shipely is old. 33. And it looks like his deal expires this year. So it will be Cole, or new center next year probably.
 

RON_IN_OC

https://www.ronevansrealty.com
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Posts
25,664
Reaction score
32,281
Location
BirdGangThing
I'm not sure about the bolded part Krang. I'm not an expert on offensive line play, but Hump seems right now to be middling in terms of LTs, and Shipley appears to me to be just okay at center.

Pugh? Having a decent season, right? Playing a little dinged up gets him some respect. Haven't seen him called for many penalties, and I think he's above average in pass protection. He's 29, and in the 2nd year of a five year deal.

Sweezy has been a good addition though. He's 30, and on a two year deal, so not sure what his long term future is with the team.

So if we put in a good RT, we have Hump, Pugh, Ship, Sweezy and "good RT".

hmmm... Let's say Hump continues to progress, and we keep the same five starting for ten or fifteen games through the 2020 season. I think in that case they might be an above-average unit. If we could upgrade the center position, then I would be more likely to buy in.

Wow Shipely is old. 33. And it looks like his deal expires this year. So it will be Cole, or new center next year probably.
To me, the biggest thing with the OL is health...They all played every snap together against Cincy...if they can continue that trend for a few games, they will get better and better. Their is something to be said for continuity and growing as a unit. Bad OLs and can become serviceable and average/good, simply by playing together and having good coaching. When they all drop like flies, like last season though, all bets are off.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 
Top