Tweet
After much reflection, here are my reasons while the score was exaggerated:
• It seems that MM is highly secretive and wants to win the first Bear game at all costs – so much so that he is already closing off practices to game plan for the Bears and dedicating his time focusing on developing a scheme to stop the Bears rather than to stop the opposing teams in preseason. (MM is also unwilling to do much cut-blocking in the preseason (for whatever reason) – I am assuming this will change in the regular season.)
• So far, the offensive and defensive sets for the Packers have been very vanilla, which seems to reinforce the MM is worried about letting too much out too quickly.
• Playing a vanilla scheme is not necessarily bad – it can lead to a better valuation of talent. Differing schemes can hide deficiencies, but by playing vanilla, you either make the play or not.
• Reinforcing this idea is that MM went for it on 4th down two different times in the game and the amount of onside kicks. It seems he cares less about the game and more about putting his players in situations and seeing how they react.
• The Bengals were getting back Palmer - and purposely developed a game plan for him to succeed. This included the no-huddle offense, 4 – 5 receiver sets, multiple formations. They knew it was imperative for him to have a good game and created schemes to create an atmosphere to have him succeed.
• The players also were incredibly psyched in the game to play their best for Palmer (even saying so in interviews before the game) – this created an effect similar to the game that Favre played after his father died, when all the Packers brought their A game for Favre.
• The Bengals are better than 95% of the NFC and 100% of the NFC North. Palmer is better than any QB that we play against in the NFL North.
All of the above led to the loss to be a lopsided loss. Don’t get me wrong – the Bengals are better than the Packers, but they are better than most of the teams in the league. Also, the Packers have a lot to work on – individually we were beat a lot.
However, it seems the lopsidedness of the loss is causing everyone to jump ship. By putting in elaborate schemes against vanilla defenses, with a psyched team, the Bengals assured themselves of a better performance. To me, this exaggerated the score and how the Packers lost.
There is always a chance that our schemes are because 1) our coaches lack the creativity or understanding to develop more elaborate schemes or 2) our players are too inexperienced or can’t implement them. I prefer to look at the other side for now due to the reasons mentioned above – but we will get to see what is the reality at the Bears game.
However, while the score on Monday night does represent a win by a better team, I think it is more representative of how well a team that purposely creates multiple schemes will do against a team that does not.
• It seems that MM is highly secretive and wants to win the first Bear game at all costs – so much so that he is already closing off practices to game plan for the Bears and dedicating his time focusing on developing a scheme to stop the Bears rather than to stop the opposing teams in preseason. (MM is also unwilling to do much cut-blocking in the preseason (for whatever reason) – I am assuming this will change in the regular season.)
• So far, the offensive and defensive sets for the Packers have been very vanilla, which seems to reinforce the MM is worried about letting too much out too quickly.
• Playing a vanilla scheme is not necessarily bad – it can lead to a better valuation of talent. Differing schemes can hide deficiencies, but by playing vanilla, you either make the play or not.
• Reinforcing this idea is that MM went for it on 4th down two different times in the game and the amount of onside kicks. It seems he cares less about the game and more about putting his players in situations and seeing how they react.
• The Bengals were getting back Palmer - and purposely developed a game plan for him to succeed. This included the no-huddle offense, 4 – 5 receiver sets, multiple formations. They knew it was imperative for him to have a good game and created schemes to create an atmosphere to have him succeed.
• The players also were incredibly psyched in the game to play their best for Palmer (even saying so in interviews before the game) – this created an effect similar to the game that Favre played after his father died, when all the Packers brought their A game for Favre.
• The Bengals are better than 95% of the NFC and 100% of the NFC North. Palmer is better than any QB that we play against in the NFL North.
All of the above led to the loss to be a lopsided loss. Don’t get me wrong – the Bengals are better than the Packers, but they are better than most of the teams in the league. Also, the Packers have a lot to work on – individually we were beat a lot.
However, it seems the lopsidedness of the loss is causing everyone to jump ship. By putting in elaborate schemes against vanilla defenses, with a psyched team, the Bengals assured themselves of a better performance. To me, this exaggerated the score and how the Packers lost.
There is always a chance that our schemes are because 1) our coaches lack the creativity or understanding to develop more elaborate schemes or 2) our players are too inexperienced or can’t implement them. I prefer to look at the other side for now due to the reasons mentioned above – but we will get to see what is the reality at the Bears game.
However, while the score on Monday night does represent a win by a better team, I think it is more representative of how well a team that purposely creates multiple schemes will do against a team that does not.
So your a math major? 
Comment