Eh, they could have tried it, to me Philbin was just focused on field position the Bengals were going to start at not trying to pull a rabbit out of the hat.

TBH, that sounds like a Sparano move Gish

 

I dunno Gish...

Remember...they had already taken one of their timeouts...if Im not mistaken. They only get 2. Lining up to try and draw them offsides, would have meant using up that last TO. He knows what he has in his Pro Bowl punter....and we had been getting pressure on Dalton, so if we pinned them against their goal line...things looked very good for us getting the ball back with decent field position.

 

Timeouts in OT are basically useless though, unless you consider icing the opposing teams kicker a legitimate strategy.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

I dunno...are they though? If we are trying to get in field goal position with under a minute left and have to drive the field....cant say as that timeout is worthless. I think you can spend one...but ....

I think Phiblin believed in the Defense

 

tiny mole hill....meet mountain.

 

Much ado about nada IMO.

 

The defense had gotten a breather after the two minute warning; when Tannehill drove them for the field goal, and during the first series of overtime. Philbin played the field position game during OT and eventually the ST pinned the Bengals against their own end zone, after the defense had had a chance to recover and was playing well. It was only a matter of time before the pressure got to Dalton; and a bit more remotely, only a matter of time before the Kraken savaged somebody on third and long. I have no complaints.

 

I don't understand why you think that? Are timeouts useless in the fourth quarter? They stop the clock in ot too. And the challenge rules are the same, right?

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2

 

This. I would have challenged the spot also, but that Timeout was important now that both teams had a possession and we were planning on punting anyways.
If the decision was to punt, then I agree with what he did. I would've punted.

The 3rd down call...now that's a different story.

 

In overtime all reviews are initiated by the booth

 

The odds of needing to stop the clock in OT are slim because it's a 15 min quarter. Also, all challenges in OT are booth reviewed IINM

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

Actually agree with the OP, hadn't really thought about it til now. Could have just took a delay penalty and not burned a timeout in the end like Paul said.

 

I have a bigger issue with the 3rd and 1 playcall. Just QB sneak it twice if you have to. A slow developing run play with Daniel Thomas is always awful.

 

Right on the challenge rules, but I disagree that they're useless. This OT played out as a field position battle, where neither offense moved that effectively. And when we won, there were what, five minutes or so left? A tie, imo, would have hurt us much more than it would have the Bengals. If the Bengals would have gotten a first down or two rather than a sack, still been on our side of the field, and the clock starts dipping toward or under 2:00, I think time outs could be very useful.

 

I'd rather give the ball to Charles Clay on short yardage than Daniel Thomas.

And I agree with the sentiment that you can run a QB sneak knowing that you have two plays to eat up the yard rather than just one.

Philbin even admitted that his mindset entering the 3rd & 1 play was that he was going to go for it on 4th & 1, but he changed his mind because Thomas was thrown back for a 1 yard loss.

 

Charles Clay absolutely tanked Kirkpatrick on an earlier run, squared him up and just ran him over.

 

Also, not for nothing but this short yardage thing has been an issue in Miami ever since they drafted Mike Pouncey. It's a consistent weakness for him. THERE IS NO RULE IN THE RULEBOOK which states that you can't sub out your center situationally. What's the downside to subbing out Pouncey, whose lone weakness is power in short yardage situations, for some beefy mother ****er like Nate Garner who can be more powerful firing out on blocks? As long as you actually PRACTICE it, you shouldn't be at a considerable risk of bad snap exchanges.

 

He ran for 1200+ yards and 8 TDs at Tulsa. He was a hybrid fullback/h-back and took a ton of carries.

 

That's an interesting idea and creative thinking like that is what this coaching staff needs to start doing. Using Yeatman as a 6th OL was done out of necessity (injury to Simms) but why not use this line-up more, particularly if all you are asking Simms to do is block. I'd also like to see them use this jumbo line-up on the goal line and then let Yeatman release for a pass. As a former TE I would image he can catch.

 

Hell I'm not usually one that buys the idea of using inordinately sized players at fullback, like when teams put a defensive lineman at fullback...but in this case is there really much harm in experimenting with a short yardage package that puts the 6'7" and 325 lbs Nate Garner at center and then puts Mike Pouncey at fullback? For as big as Pouncey is, he moves like a rabbit. And unlike a defensive tackle that is trying to flip sides, Pouncey has an understanding of the blocking schemes and the threats to the runner in the backfield.

 

That would be a pretty neat wrinkle. Imagine if we ran a PA off that. Pouncey as the extra blocker in the backfield.

 

I wouldn't agree that it was a coaching mistake. They could have tried it but saving one time out could have some value as well especially if there was a delay in getting a call in or some confusion at a critical time.

I did think that the run call was a mistake. They'd been successful running to the left early in the game but that also means that Cincy may be anticipating that. I thought that the way the D was aligned that RT should have audibled to a sneak or quick hitter over RG. I don't know how much flexibility he has.

 

Very strange string of agreements here. Agree with everything you say. I'm not one to complain about failing to try and draw the Bengals offsides.

 

I didn't think of that. What about a bootleg off the play-action? Get Pouncey from the upback spot rolling to the weak side, fake the handoff to the tailback who runs to the strong side, have Tannehill turn around and follow Pouncey on a boot to the weak side? Something like that? Don't know if that works mechanically. I'm not a play designer.

 

You know it does seem that Tannehill throws better on the run and with the O-line stinking up the joint, roll outs doesn't sound like a bad idea.

 

I don't know that we really disagree on that many topics. There's just one or two which get talked about to death here where we differ. On everything else it's at most a matter of degree.

 

Did you see the 4th and 1 when he ran for 20+ last week?

 

The worst part is after the Saints game when we tried to run a slow developing play on just 3rd and inches Sherman pretty much admitted he might have picked the wrong play to run but then he repeats his mistake again last night, does this dude ever learn from his mistakes?

 

If the idea is to punt it anyway, you don't need to burn another timeout. Just take the delay of game penalty.

Slightly OT but I wonder why more teams don't snap the ball and run a play when they're trying to draw someone offsides. It becomes fairy obvious quickly with the excessive motions and QB histrionics that the offense isn't going to snap the ball. Wouldn't the next logical step be to line up in a big personnel package, go through the motions and histrionics so the defense believes you're just trying to draw them offsides, and then snap the ball with the play clock at 2 or 1? Seems likely that you'll catch someone up front not ready to fire off the ball.

I'd like to see us do this.

 

Lewis did the exact same thing during their game with Buffalo. Played the field position battle and won by pinning Buffalo deep, the defense got the stop which gave the offense a short field to kick a field goal to win the game.

 

If you're always trying to draw a penalty, that kind of negates the effectiveness of doing so?