(12-15-2021, 01:07 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I would like to believe you're being frivolous because I've already address this. Total dropbacks are what we should be looking at here because those are attempted pass plays. The Bengals have only won two games where they have dropped back less than 30 times - both Pitt games. A sack/scramble is a result of a pass play. Now, if the argument is that Cincinnati has won more games when they have attempted less passes, then that is a fair discussion. If Joe were to have 24 attempts but get sacked seven times with Cincinnati winning, it's a bit silly to say "well, see, they won and Joe had 24 attempts so this has to be something." 

Don't know what you are trying to say.

We still win more often when we either "drop back" fewer times or "attempt fewer passes".  

You are wrong to say there is no correlation.  The numbers prove it.

(12-15-2021, 12:48 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Even if you add drop backs, it really is not changing the result... It is not a knock on Burrow that we throw less, it is that we are a more effective team as a whole when we have thrown less than more... It is not about giving him less it is putting him in better position when he throws and that is a getting a lead, a more balance offense, the numbers don;t lie when you look at this team this year...   Now lets say next year we can improve on the line, give him more protection and getting early leads, I can see us more effective throwing more but the trend and stats this year and last do not reflect that.

The part you're not grasping is the result of the average pass (what Fred has posted multiple times). 

It's a fact that the sack numbers are the same from last year to this year.
It's also a fact that last year, the average ypa was much lower, which means he was having to get the ball out quicker, and shorter, to try and avoid sacks. 
This year, the average ypa is deeper which means he has more time to throw--deeper. The sacks still need to be corrected, whether it's player or sheme, but the reason for the sacks isn't the same as it was last year so you can't say "nothing has changed". The line is giving Burrow more time to throw deeper. 

The "fix" this year is different from what the "fix" was last year. They upgraded the line some, Burrow is getting more time to throw downfield, now they just need to fix the fact that he's still getting sacked at the same rate on deeper throws. That's a combination of upgrading players and tweaking the scheme. 

(12-15-2021, 01:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Don't know what you are trying to say.

We still win more often when we either "drop back" fewer times or "attempt fewer passes".  

You are wrong to say there is no correlation.  The numbers prove it.

Because that isn't the argument that I was trying to making, but I re-read my post and see that I said "drop back less". I was meaning to say "attempt less than 30 passes". Essex was specifically pointing out that the Bengals win more games when Burrow attempts less than 30 passes. I was saying that this isn't true and there is nothing there - Cincinnati has only done that twice this season, in both of the Pitt games. I was merely saying that dropbacks are a better way of looking at this because it is an attempted pass. 

(12-15-2021, 12:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: WTF?

Last 4 years we have used 2 first round picks and one second round pick on O-line.

It’s such a tired narrative. The problem hasn’t been ignoring the OL, it’s been the players we’ve picked.

(12-15-2021, 01:07 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I would like to believe you're being frivolous because I've already address this. Total dropbacks are what we should be looking at here because those are attempted pass plays. The Bengals have only won two games where they have dropped back less than 30 times - both Pitt games. A sack/scramble is a result of a pass play. Now, if the argument is that Cincinnati has won more games when they have attempted less passes, then that is a fair discussion. If Joe were to have 24 attempts but get sacked seven times with Cincinnati winning, it's a bit silly to say "well, see, they won and Joe had 24 attempts so this has to be something." 

ok run the numbers with sacks etc. still going to add up to the same answer the less often we have dropped back overall in a game the more likely we have won... moving on

(12-15-2021, 01:31 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: It’s such a tired narrative. The problem hasn’t been ignoring the OL, it’s been the players we’ve picked.

This X 1000

(12-15-2021, 11:03 AM)WychesWarrior Wrote: That's gotta be their worst performance of the season. As Fred mentioned, it's improved over last year, but it's not enough.

I've been rolling with the "It's improved" crowd all year long, but really where is the improvement? We're on pace for more sacks in fewer attempts. Pressures have been off the chain multiple times through the year.

People have said we're better in the run game, but we're 25th in YPC.

ESPN grades us 31st in pass block win rate and 14th in run block win rate. Yay, I guess?

PFF grades are mixed at best. Tbh, I think people are looking at our overall winning record, all the changes we made in the off-season and the fact that Burrow has stayed healthy, and it's leading to some overly rosy outlooks on our improvement, which I think has been marginal.

Tbh I think our Tackles are very average, and Hopkins and RG have been massive issues. Spain is our only "plus" lineman.

We've tried to address the line via the draft, but in the last 6 off-seasons, the best FA/trades we've pulled off are Cordy Glenn and Riley Reiff. Weak sauce.

(12-15-2021, 02:22 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I've been rolling with the "It's improved" crowd all year long, but really where is the improvement? We're on pace for more sacks in fewer attempts. Pressures have been off the chain multiple times through the year.

Last year for the entire season the Bengals had 9 pass completions of over 30 yards and 3 of those were short passes in the air. This year in just 13 games we have 19 completions of over 30 yards and only 6 have been short passes in the air.

Overall Burrow's "yards per completion" has improved a huge 20%.

Sack numbers are deceptive because last year all we could do was dink and dunk with short passes while this year we have more time to throw the ball deep.

(12-15-2021, 02:26 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: We've tried to address the line via the draft, but in the last 6 off-seasons, the best FA/trades we've pulled off are Cordy Glenn and Riley Reiff. Weak sauce.

What is "weak sauce" about Riley Reiff?

(12-15-2021, 02:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Last year for the entire season the Bengals had 9 pass completions of over 30 yards and 3 of those were short passes in the air. This year in just 13 games we have 19 completions of over 30 yards and only 6 have been short passes in the air.

Overall Burrow's "yards per completion" has improved a huge 20%.

Sack numbers are deceptive because last year all we could do was dink and dunk with short passes while this year we have more time to throw the ball deep.

That theory sounds reasonable, but I have a couple problems with it. One, I didn't just look at sack numbers. Also, even with us throwing longer, you can't say we've improved much if we're giving up more sacks on far fewer attempts.

(12-15-2021, 02:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What is "weak sauce" about Riley Reiff?

He's average at best, and that's the best we could manage in 6 years?

(12-15-2021, 02:49 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: He's average at best

Based on what?

(12-15-2021, 02:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Last year for the entire season the Bengals had 9 pass completions of over 30 yards and 3 of those were short passes in the air. This year in just 13 games we have 19 completions of over 30 yards and only 6 have been short passes in the air.

Overall Burrow's "yards per completion" has improved a huge 20%.

Sack numbers are deceptive because last year all we could do was dink and dunk with short passes while this year we have more time to throw the ball deep.

Chase versus no Chase.

(12-15-2021, 02:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What is "weak sauce" about Riley Reiff?

Reiff was the best move OL move made by the Bengals since Taylor arrived. But it's only one of five spots and Reiff is only on a one-year deal. Unless he re-signs it was nothing more than a temporary patch.

 

(12-15-2021, 02:49 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: That theory sounds reasonable, but I have a couple problems with it. One, I didn't just look at sack numbers. Also, even with us throwing longer, you can't say we've improved much if we're giving up more sacks on far fewer attempts.

I don't measure the success of the passing game just on sacks.  That would be silly.

I will gladly give up an extra 1.7 sacks per 100 attempts in exchange for an extra 170 yards gained and twice as many tds (6 to 3).

(12-15-2021, 02:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Based on what?

You don't think we could do better than Reiff?

(12-14-2021, 11:15 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: Joe Burrow isn’t the only Joe suffering from bad blocking.  Joe Mixon is having issues too.  

Joe Mixon is currently second among NFL rushers.  Given bad blocking this is miraculous but Joe accumulates 55 yards one week and 155 yards the next.  That’s great for his personal statistics but it yields a wildly inconsistent rushing attack.  With better blocking he would gain yards consistently which would help the Bengals score more often.

Joe Burrow above the median in touchdown passes thrown but he also leads the league in interceptions.  This doesn’t surprise me at all because he has also been sacked the most, knocked down the most, and many of his passes get deflected because defensive linemen and linebackers are in his face.  When Burrow has had time to go through his progressions, set his feet, and throw he’s been great.  When he gets hurried or flushed out of the pocket his accuracy suffers which happens to everyone.

On run plays it’s time to resurrect the 2009 “jumbo package” with an extra tackle especially with Riley Reiff hurt.  We’re going to need two tackles to take his place.

On pass plays it might be time to keep a tight end in the backfield to block and send one less receiver deep.

His yards per carry are pretty low for so many yards. Yeah, he could benefit from a better line. Maybe next year they will protect Burrow better which would have had an advantage for Mixon too. Should have kept Whitworth somehow, would have probably trained from within.

(12-15-2021, 02:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't measure the success of the passing game just on sacks.  That would be silly.

I will gladly give up an extra 1.7 sacks per 100 attempts in exchange for an extra 170 yards gained and twice as many tds (6 to 3).

Why are you attributing our deep passing success to the o-line instead of Ja'Marr Chase?

We're still giving up copious amounts of sacks, we've just hit on more big plays WHEN Burrow has time. Even bad lines can allow enough time for big plays to sometimes develop. Especially when your QB has the pocket presence of Joe Burrow.

(12-15-2021, 03:11 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Why are you attributing our deep passing success to the o-line instead of Ja'Marr Chase?

Because Chase has not been the only receiver to catch deep passes this year.

And if pressure doesn't have anything to do with passing efficiency then there is no need to spend any money on O-linemen.  We could go back to the guys we had last year for a fraction of the cost and still have a top ten passing games.

(12-15-2021, 03:06 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: You don't think we could do better than Reiff?

Sure.  We could spend $15 million on every O-line position and improve almost every one of them.

(12-15-2021, 05:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because Chase has not been the only receiver to catch deep passes this year.

And if pressure doesn't have anything to do with passing efficiency then there is no need to spend any money on O-linemen.  We could go back to the guys we had last year for a fraction of the cost and still have a top ten passing games.

Except sacks still hurt the offense and risk QB injury due to more hits.

Offense is good. Would be better if the line was better.

(12-15-2021, 05:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sure.  We could spend $15 million on every O-line position and improve almost every one of them.

We haven't done this even once. Which is my point.