Someone show this to Meyer to explain that Joe Burrow didn't have to throw the ball a billon times in a game to win.

But we need to keep in mind, the Bengals never trailed in that game.  That makes it a lot easier to stick to the run.

Had we stuck to the run using JAMES ROBINSON, we may not have been in the lead, but at least contended.

---

What that says is that based on down, distance, score, etc, we didn't pass that much more than the guys who made the chart would expect.  I guess they would assume that on 1st and 20, or if we were behind by 14 points, we would be expected to pass the ball and not run it.  What they are saying is that our run/pass ratio was not as far out of whack as we think. 

Not sure I agree, but that's what they are saying.

The whole thing is subjective to "someone's"  feelings on what should be expected. Whether it uses situational data or not, it's basically horse dung from the get.

It's not subjective, it is based on previous plays for the league. Not sure how much they take into account but at minimum they take all the down and distance and the get the run pass %. Then they checked against what you did and create the %.

So they don't think the Jags should have passed, it's that the league has passed in the same situations in the past. They probably aren't looking at enough variables though to include rookie QB, HC, on the road, team defensive ranking, etc.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

If we get blown out by the Broncos, i'll be deeply concerned for the coaching staff. That team is not good either, and has a below average game manager at QB.

---