(03-04-2022, 07:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually it is exactly what most defensive coordinators do in short yardage situations.

And what the hell are you talking about "run into the backfield untouched".  So sad that you can't address what I actually said and instead have to make up stuff like this.

Actually, and once again you have absolutely no football knowledge. On short yardage, defenders typically line up heads up so they can play two gaps and also because, like I said, if they're on the side of the o-linemen, it is easier to push them to the side.

And running into the backfield untouched comes from you saying it's easier for them to get into the backfield if they're in the gap, which works good in theory, but the linemen aren't going to not block them because they're lined up in the gaps and it is also easier to knock them off balance.

You accuse me of making stuff up because, once again, you have no clue what you're talking about and you're going down in flames.

(03-04-2022, 07:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are clueless about force, angle of rebound, and angle of incidence if you think an offensive lineman striking a defender driving into the gap will push him sideways and eliminate penetration.

I didn't say it would eliminate penetration, but it would knock him off balance and make it easier to stand him up and slow him down, unless he changes his angle to hit the offensive lineman straight-up. 

(03-04-2022, 07:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What do you mean "like".  I need a definition I can apply to all plays so I can test your theory.

What exactly makes a play an "obvious run situation"?

Down?

Distance?

Field position?

Time remaining?

Score?

All of those things, like I explained.

This entire post strengthened my points, so I thank you 

(03-04-2022, 07:31 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: All of those things, like I explained.

I apologize that I missed where you explained your definition of an "obvious running situation".

Care to tell me what the post number was?

I can't test your theory without a clear definition so I can identify which short yardage situations were "obvious running situations".

What down?

What score?

What time remaining?

What field position?

(03-04-2022, 08:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I apologize that I missed where you explained your definition of an "obvious running situation".

Care to tell me what the post number was?

I can't test your theory without a clear definition so I can identify which short yardage situations were "obvious running situations".

What down?

What score?

What time remaining?

What field position?

You keep telling me to post more specifics because you're hoping you can find an error in my posting because you know your "argument" holds no water.

Just fix the line.

(03-05-2022, 03:38 AM)BFritz21 Wrote:


You keep telling me to post more specifics because you're hoping you can find an error in my posting because you know your "argument" holds no water.

We simply can not have an adult debate about this issue until you answer my questions.

If you are so certain that you are right and I am wrong then just answer the questions.

What are you afraid of?

(03-05-2022, 03:38 AM)BFritz21 Wrote:


You keep telling me to post more specifics because you're hoping you can find an error in my posting because you know your "argument" holds no water.

Brad, I think you are a cool dude from what I know of you based on what you have posted on these forums about yourself, what you have overcome and your contributions to the community through your work.  But when there is a debate those debating with you are of course looking for an error in your debate.   That's how debates go.  The entire purpose of a debate is to find a flaw in the argument of the person being debated against in order to support one's opinion. 

Again this thread debating one play with "what-ifs" based mostly on hindsight and isn't even the reason the Bengals lost the Super Bowl.  Time to move on in my opinion.

(03-05-2022, 01:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We simply can not have an adult debate about this issue until you answer my questions.

If you are so certain that you are right and I am wrong then just answer the questions.

What are you afraid of?

I'm not afraid of anything.

There are thousands of different specific situations. 

You ask questions with many answers on a broad spectrum because you know that, when we get specific like the situation in the game, your "argument" falls apart.

That's what I keep telling you- it's situational, yet you keep throwing out posts like this because you know that your empty rhetoric has no actual basis.

(03-05-2022, 02:31 PM)George Cantstandya Wrote: Brad, I think you are a cool dude from what I know of you based on what you have posted on these forums about yourself, what you have overcome and your contributions to the community through your work.  But when there is a debate those debating with you are of course looking for an error in your debate.   That's how debates go.  The entire purpose of a debate is to find a flaw in the argument of the person being debated against in order to support one's opinion. 

Again this thread debating one play with "what-ifs" based mostly on hindsight and isn't even the reason the Bengals lost the Super Bowl.  Time to move on in my opinion.

What was the point of this post?

I know all of this.

I post errors in Fred's reasoning and post football logic and he has nothing to counter any of it.

(03-05-2022, 03:47 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: What was the point of this post?

I know all of this.

I post errors in Fred's reasoning and post football logic and he has nothing to counter any of it.

Okay the point of my post was you said Fred was trying to find errors in your posts and that was why you would not answer it.  That is what a debate is about.  A series of responses on the topic of debate while pointing out errors in the argument as an attempt to validate the counter argument.   But you refused to answer and instead said, "You keep telling me to post more specifics because you're hoping you can find an error in my posting."  Yeah of course, when a debate is in progress one is looking to find errors in the debate they are countering.  

I tried to be nice about it and am not taking sides. I'd pay money to see you and Fred hang out at a tailgate party next season so hopefully you two can get over each other.  I make an effort to be a friendly and kind person here when it comes to discussion (even though I fail at times.)  So from here I'm out because I don't think my aspirations can continue if I participate more in this thread.  You two have fun arguing about a play that wasn't the reason the Bengals lost the Super Bowl. Sigh...

(03-05-2022, 03:43 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You ask questions with many answers on a broad spectrum because you know that, when we get specific like the situation in the game, your "argument" falls apart.

That's what I keep telling you- it's situational, yet you keep throwing out posts like this because you know that your empty rhetoric has no actual basis.

How can we debate your opinion if you refuse to tell us what it is?

Your entire logic behind the Bengals being more successful running from the shotgun is apparently based on the difference between "obvious running situations" and other plays.

The only way to know if you are right or wrong is to look at the plays that were "obvious running situations".  Since you were the one who made to argument I don't think it is asking too much for you to explain what you mean.

How can we see if what you are saying is true if we have no idea what you are saying.

Since it is your argument then you are the one required to back it up.

All I have to do to prove I am correct is point to the actual stats and production which proves we are more effective running out of the shotgun in short yardage situations.  So if you don't want to explain what you mean you can just concede that I am correct about this.

(03-06-2022, 01:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How can we debate your opinion if you refuse to tell us what it is?

Your entire logic behind the Bengals being more successful running from the shotgun is apparently based on the difference between "obvious running situations" and other plays.

The only way to know if you are right or wrong is to look at the plays that were "obvious running situations".  Since you were the one who made to argument I don't think it is asking too much for you to explain what you mean.

How can we see if what you are saying is true if we have no idea what you are saying.

Since it is your argument then you are the one required to back it up.

All I have to do to prove I am correct is point to the actual stats and production which proves we are more effective running out of the shotgun in short yardage situations.  So if you don't want to explain what you mean you can just concede that I am correct about this.

Show me the statistics for running the ball from the ball from the shotgun on third and one from midfield in the Super Bowl when you have a horrible offensive line that doesn't make the defense fear a pass because they know the line can't protect the quarterback so they'll obviously sell-out to stop the run with 8 men in the box and, even if they didn't have 8 in the box, trying to run over one of the best DTs in the league like Donald. 

You can do all that or just concede that I'm correct about this.

(03-06-2022, 03:36 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Show me the statistics for running the ball from the ball from the shotgun on third and one from midfield in the Super Bowl when you have a horrible offensive line that doesn't make the defense fear a pass because they know the line can't protect the quarterback so they'll obviously sell-out to stop the run with 8 men in the box and, even if they didn't have 8 in the box, trying to run over one of the best DTs in the league like Donald. 

You can do all that or just concede that I'm correct about this.

This can be pulled, you'll just need to provide criteria on what you define as a horrible offensive line. Here are some base statistics, since 1999.

Short yardage rushes in the Super Bowl (down = 3, yards to go = 1)

119 rushes with a 57% conversion rate

Short yardage rushes in the Super Bowl, under center (down = 3, yards to go = 1)


102 rushes with a 54% conversion rate

Short yardage rushes in the Super Bowl, shotgun (down = 3, yards to go = 1)


17 rushes with a 71% conversion rate


You mentioned midfield, so I can provide some data about rushes that occurred around midfield as well.

Short yardage rushes in the Super Bowl, shotgun (down = 3, yards to go = 1, yard line between the 40s)


32 rushes with a 62% conversion rate

Short yardage rushes in the Super Bowl, shotgun (down = 3, yards to go = 1, yard line between the 40s)


Three rushes with a 100% conversion rate


In all reality, these datasets are too small to determine anything effectively, even if they still follow the overall trend of shotgun rushes being more successful than under center rushes in short yardage situations. Limiting it to the Super Bowl really hurts our dataset. Here is a dataset including all regular and postseason games for the same criteria.

Short yardage rushes since 1999, under center (down = 3, yards to go = 1, yard line between the 40s)


3331 rushes with a 58% conversion rate

Short yardage rushes since 1999, shotgun (down = 3, yards to go = 1, yard line between the 40s)


482 rushes with a 66% conversion rate

(03-06-2022, 03:56 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: This can be pulled, you'll just need to provide criteria on what you define as a horrible offensive line. Here are some base statistics, since 1999.

Short yardage rushes in the Super Bowl (down = 3, yards to go = 1)

119 rushes with a 57% conversion rate

Short yardage rushes in the Super Bowl, under center (down = 3, yards to go = 1)


102 rushes with a 54% conversion rate

Short yardage rushes in the Super Bowl, shotgun (down = 3, yards to go = 1)


17 rushes with a 71% conversion rate


You mentioned midfield, so I can provide some data about rushes that occurred around midfield as well.

Short yardage rushes in the Super Bowl, shotgun (down = 3, yards to go = 1, yard line between the 40s)


32 rushes with a 62% conversion rate

Short yardage rushes in the Super Bowl, shotgun (down = 3, yards to go = 1, yard line between the 40s)


Three rushes with a 100% conversion rate


In all reality, these datasets are too small to determine anything effectively, even if they still follow the overall trend of shotgun rushes being more successful than under center rushes in short yardage situations. Limiting it to the Super Bowl really hurts our dataset. Here is a dataset including all regular and postseason games for the same criteria.

Short yardage rushes since 1999, under center (down = 3, yards to go = 1, yard line between the 40s)


3331 rushes with a 58% conversion rate

Short yardage rushes since 1999, shotgun (down = 3, yards to go = 1, yard line between the 40s)


482 rushes with a 66% conversion rate

You have a link for all that?

You don't think our offensive line was horrible?

You also left out the statistics when they have 8 in the box and a DT as good as Donald and all also having a line that can't pass block so they don't fear the pass.

(03-06-2022, 04:03 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You have a link for all that?

You don't think our offensive line was horrible?

You also left out the statistics when they have 8 in the box and a DT as good as Donald and all also having a line that can't pass block so they don't fear the pass.

It's pulled from a programming language called R, using a library called nflfastR. R is a data analytics language and you can essentially write queries for situations to pull data from, looking like this..



Here is a link to the website for nflfastR, but it won't tell you anything. It just describes the package. nflfastR is just a play-by-play library that goes back to 1999 and allows you to perform analysis on the data.

https://www.nflfastr.com/

The dataset that you're asking for is likely so specific that there would be no recorded statistics, or very few (I would guess less than 10 data points) so it would likely be worthless. I could probably put something together for all of that criteria aside from having eight in the box. There is no box information provided in this data library. 

EDIT - I never said our offensive line wasn't horrible, so I am not sure why you asked that question. I just said you would have to define what constitutes as horrible.

(03-06-2022, 04:09 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: It's pulled from a programming language called R, using a library called nflfastR. R is a data analytics language and you can essentially write queries for situations to pull data from, looking like this..



Here is a link to the website for nflfastR, but it won't tell you anything. It just describes the package. nflfastR is just a play-by-play library that goes back to 1999 and allows you to perform analysis on the data.

https://www.nflfastr.com/

The dataset that you're asking for is likely so specific that there would be no recorded statistics, or very few (I would guess less than 10 data points) so it would likely be worthless. I could probably put something together for all of that criteria aside from having eight in the box. There is no box information provided in this data library. 

EDIT - I never said our offensive line wasn't horrible, so I am not sure why you asked that question. I just said you would have to define what constitutes as horrible.

What constitutes as horrible is being ranked 20th for the 2021 season in final grades, and that is skewed because our line was healthier earlier in the season, so it wasn't even as good as 20th in the Super Bowl.

(03-06-2022, 03:36 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Show me the statistics for running the ball from the ball from the shotgun on third and one from midfield in the Super Bowl when you have a horrible offensive line that doesn't make the defense fear a pass because they know the line can't protect the quarterback so they'll obviously sell-out to stop the run with 8 men in the box and, even if they didn't have 8 in the box, trying to run over one of the best DTs in the league like Donald. 

You can do all that or just concede that I'm correct about this.

I don't think you even understand what we are talking about. Let me re-cap.

1.  You claim running back has better chance of converting short yardage situation with QB under center instead of shot gun.

2.  We show you stats that prove RBs are more effective running the ball in short yardage situations from shotgun.

3.  You say these stats are wrong because they don't consider "obvious running situations".

4.  I insist that stats are correct, but in order to analyze you opinion I need to know how you define "obvious running situation".

5.  You refuse to tell us how you define "obvious running situation" and instead ask for stats from one play that we have nothing to compare to.

How do you even think you are making any type of logical argument based on one play.  Do you really think that 100% of the time RBs convert short yardage situations when the QB is under center?  If not then what do the results from one play have to do with anything?

(03-06-2022, 05:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think you even understand what we are talking about. Let me re-cap.

1.  You claim running back has better chance of converting short yardage situation with QB under center instead of shot gun.

2.  We show you stats that prove RBs are more effective running the ball in short yardage situations from shotgun.

3.  You say these stats are wrong because they don't consider "obvious running situations".

4.  I insist that stats are correct, but in order to analyze you opinion I need to know how you define "obvious running situation".

5.  You refuse to tell us how you define "obvious running situation" and instead ask for stats from one play that we have nothing to compare to.

How do you even think you are making any type of logical argument based on one play.  Do you really think that 100% of the time RBs convert short yardage situations when the QB is under center?  If not then what do the results from one play have to do with anything?

Show me the statistics of running the ball with a horrible offensive line in a situation where the defense is selling out to stop the run with 8 in the box because they know we can't throw the ball because Burrow would have no time and they know we run the best from the shotgun.

That's an obvious running situation: 3rd and 1 from midfield late in the game when we only need to get into field goal range so we wouldn't risk throwing it or risk taking a sack which would make a 4th down even harder to get.

They don't convert 100% of the time but you have a better chance of converting if the back hits the line faster and with more speed because the defense is selling out to stop the run.

Just saw we are interested in Laken Tomlinson and Bradley Bozeman.

This would go far in improving our short yardage problems.

(03-06-2022, 05:32 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Just saw we are interested in Laken Tomlinson and Bradley Bozeman.

This would go far in improving our short yardage problems.

Go pretty far in improving the entire line!

Still would need work, but those two would be welcomed additions.

(03-06-2022, 05:43 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Go pretty far in improving the entire line!

Still would need work, but those two would be welcomed additions.

Those 2 and Morgan Moses or Trent Brown and the Draft would be opened up.