Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Turner Made a Clear Effort to Make a Point - It Worked... But I Still Didn't Like It


tukafan21

Recommended Posts

Am I the only one who felt that there was a clear and concerted effort to NOT pass the ball to CMC throughout most of this game?

He only had 2 catches on 2 targets, and I'm pretty sure they were both very late in the game if I remember correctly. 

Now I get it, they wanted to put tape out there that showed we don't NEED to pass the ball to him 10+ times a game to be dangerous, and it worked... but at the same time I don't think anyone could say that right now he is still the most dangerous weapon in our passing game (even if he's just a decoy).

I don't think he really even ran many (any) routes during the first 3 quarters, which honestly I felt was a way to keep Cam from checking it down to him a bunch of times, and while it worked, I didn't like it as just the threat of him out there catching passes changes the way a defense attacks our offense and because of that I don't think we should ever go a quarter without him getting a couple targets in the passing game.

Long story short... the tape is out there of CMC having a monster game without being utilized in the passing game, teams have to prepare for him as a legit RB now... I never want to see another game like that again, he MUST be utilized in the passing game and make defense account for him on each and every play to open up the rest of the offense.

Okay... now bash me for being a "bad fan" for complaining after we won by double digits, I'm clearly a terrible fan..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, given how stout Cincy's rush defense has been, I'm thinking Turner was banking on Cincy game planning for us to throw it to CMC 15 times.  They never expected we'd hand him the ball right up the gut 28 times --- worked like a charm as CMC gashed them over and over again.  Kind of wish we would have had this type of chess playing mentality going into SB 50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CashNewton22 said:

You’re not a terrible fan and I understand the concern but it’s entirely possible then staff saw something on film indicating we could run on the Bengals and I’m pretty sure they were right. The offensive gameplan was great imo.

This is correct.  The game plan was clearly to attack on the ground first to open up the passing game.  And it worked very well, so no need to complain the week after he just caught 14 balls and ran only a few times.  This is the sign of a good OC - gameplanning for a specific opponent rather than calling the same plays every game resulting in offensive gridlock (Shula).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turner gameplanning for the Bengals and then rode the hot hand. He wasn't trying to do anything as a statement and clearly wasn't trying to not throw it to CMC. The Bengals defense was set up with the DEs playing a wide 9 and often 6 or 7 in the box. This was to contain Newton in the pocket and keep CMC from going wild on dumpoffs in the flats. The running lanes were between the tackles as were our best run blockers. Look at what happened late when Christian got the pass in the flat and 2 defenders were right there.  Turner and the offense took what the Bengals gave us. Turner did a good job scheming against a fast defense that is prone to overpursuing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • lol, that second part is quite literally one of the dumbest things ever. Having or not having guaranteed contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how much these billionaires have to pay.  Because there is a hard cap and a minimum cap spend requirement, and teams either use their cap or roll it over to use it all the next year, so the owners have to pay the same amount of money in the end no matter what. Having fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL would only hurt salary cap management, and thus would end up screwing over the team and its fan base when teams kiss on signings as they take up cap room that is needed to improve the roster. Look at the Browns with Watson, they gave him the fully guaranteed deal and all it’s doing is sucking up massive cap space now.  If they hadn’t done that, the owner would still be paying the same amount of money each year as that cap space would still be used elsewhere. If you want to argue for fully guaranteed contracts because the players deserve it, that’s an entirely different argument and a fair one to discuss.  But anyone against fully guaranteed deals isn’t doing it to argue for the billionaire owners.
    • Start posting in threads in the other forums instead of just creating threads. No one comes over here so you aren't starting conversations.  Get your ass up to 100 posts. It's not that hard. Don't create 100 posts. Contribute to conversations. 
    • Ryabkin could be the steal of the draft, he was a Top 10 pick heading into last season and had a rough year.  Lots of GMs passed on him because of that and his workouts. Pick has really high upside and Svech should be able to translate Rod tearing his arse a new one for making dumb plays since Svech has had several years of it.  🤣😂
×
×
  • Create New...