(09-15-2022, 02:39 AM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Okay, so no point in anything is all I got from this...

You would think being good at something would result in something good.

There are plenty of points and relationships in football. This just isn’t one of them. There is a reason why many people believe that your run game isn’t really that important, and it is because it isn’t normally. Cincinnati was one of the best offensive teams last season and they had a terrible run offense, as a quick example.

Not everything that we think is logically true, is true.

(09-15-2022, 02:39 AM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Okay, so no point in anything is all I got from this...

You would think being good at something would result in something good.

Well...it does. What they're saying is, running well doesn't mean your play action game is "better". There's nothing to support that. 

Overall, simply adding play action makes your passing game mo' betta, because there are certain things a defender does based on formation and keys and what a player has been taught over the years. 

This is just a case where, back in the day, someone came up with a cool catchphrase and it's just hard to get away from that mentality--even though hours and hours of reasearch and data show it not to be true. 

(09-15-2022, 10:51 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Well...it does. What they're saying is, running well doesn't mean your play action game is "better". There's nothing to support that. 

Overall, simply adding play action makes your passing game mo' betta, because there are certain things a defender does based on formation and keys and what a player has been taught over the years. 

This is just a case where, back in the day, someone came up with a cool catchphrase and it's just hard to get away from that mentality--even though hours and hours of reasearch and data show it not to be true. 

There's also a perception bias that plays into it.  Everyone can remember isolated instances of play action passes going for long gains against loaded boxes on 3rd/4th and short when the offense has been running all day.  That fools people into thinking it's more of a correlation than what there is.  We don't typically remember all the times the QB had to check it down to the TE in the flat for a 3 yard gain or the defense doesn't get fooled and the QB gets smacked or throws it away.  

I would also wager that play action in general is a case of diminishing returns.  The more you use it in a game, the less effective it becomes as the opposition comes to expect it.  

Another big thing is good playcallers will show tendencies in order to take advantage of the opposition cheating towards those tendencies.  Play calling is a chess match and good playcallers will sacrifice plays here and there to set up something big later.  That's one of the reasons the Bengals have been such a good 2nd half team the past year or so.

(09-13-2022, 03:48 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: I've seen a few posts in different threads where guys are talking about this. We've got to get more creative! We can't run the ball every time Sample comes in. We can't throw the ball every play that Hurst is in. so on so on

Hope Ossai starts picking it up.

We did the same with Stanley Morgan in the game last season... Zac has to do better.

(09-15-2022, 08:26 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: There are plenty of points and relationships in football. This just isn’t one of them. There is a reason why many people believe that your run game isn’t really that important, and it is because it isn’t normally. Cincinnati was one of the best offensive teams last season and they had a terrible run offense, as a quick example.

Not everything that we think is logically true, is true.

Boomer Esiason was the greatest play action QB to play the game, this is logically and factually true.  He and Brooks confused the camera guy multiple times each game.  Sadly Joe has zero desire to get to that level, and I get it, in todays game the goal is simply to freeze the LBs for a second.

We need to fix the predictability under center and with Sample.  No way Callahan AND Zac dont see this?

(09-15-2022, 08:26 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: There are plenty of points and relationships in football. This just isn’t one of them. There is a reason why many people believe that your run game isn’t really that important, and it is because it isn’t normally. Cincinnati was one of the best offensive teams last season and they had a terrible run offense, as a quick example.

Not everything that we think is logically true, is true.

(09-15-2022, 10:51 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Well...it does. What they're saying is, running well doesn't mean your play action game is "better". There's nothing to support that. 

Overall, simply adding play action makes your passing game mo' betta, because there are certain things a defender does based on formation and keys and what a player has been taught over the years. 

This is just a case where, back in the day, someone came up with a cool catchphrase and it's just hard to get away from that mentality--even though hours and hours of reasearch and data show it not to be true. 

(09-15-2022, 12:35 PM)Whatever Wrote: There's also a perception bias that plays into it.  Everyone can remember isolated instances of play action passes going for long gains against loaded boxes on 3rd/4th and short when the offense has been running all day.  That fools people into thinking it's more of a correlation than what there is.  We don't typically remember all the times the QB had to check it down to the TE in the flat for a 3 yard gain or the defense doesn't get fooled and the QB gets smacked or throws it away.  

I would also wager that play action in general is a case of diminishing returns.  The more you use it in a game, the less effective it becomes as the opposition comes to expect it.  

Another big thing is good playcallers will show tendencies in order to take advantage of the opposition cheating towards those tendencies.  Play calling is a chess match and good playcallers will sacrifice plays here and there to set up something big later.  That's one of the reasons the Bengals have been such a good 2nd half team the past year or so.

(09-15-2022, 01:05 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Boomer Esiason was the greatest play action QB to play the game, this is logically and factually true.  He and Brooks confused the camera guy multiple times each game.  Sadly Joe has zero desire to get to that level, and I get it, in todays game the goal is simply to freeze the LBs for a second.

We need to fix the predictability under center and with Sample.  No way Callahan AND Zac dont see this?

It is a great conversation that really makes me think. I just see examples of as Casear here says with Boomer and our 
great running game in the late 80's with Ickey and the boys and the Titans much more recently with Tannehill and King 
Henry and how play-action was so effective. To me these 2 examples argue that a great running game really makes 
play-action THAT much more effective. But I am sure there are tons of examples that argue different...

Like us last year as KillerGoose says.

(09-15-2022, 01:05 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Boomer Esiason was the greatest play action QB to play the game, this is logically and factually true.  He and Brooks confused the camera guy multiple times each game.  Sadly Joe has zero desire to get to that level, and I get it, in todays game the goal is simply to freeze the LBs for a second.

The "empty hand fake" was new back then.  It is not some amazing skill that Boomer had and Joe can't learn.  It just does not fool everyone anymore because it is not new.

(09-15-2022, 01:05 PM)casear2727 Wrote: We need to fix the predictability under center and with Sample.  No way Callahan AND Zac dont see this?

Our offense just rolled up 429 yards and 31 first downs against the Steelers.

The so-called "predictability" of our plays was obviously meaningless.  Just another case of NFL level coaches seeing more than fans.

"Hayden Hurst 63.4 Get this: Played 75 snaps, stayed in to pass block 1 snap. ONE! Anyone else think we are so damn predictable how they use Sample and Hurst?"

There are some pretty gross tendencies on this team.

(09-15-2022, 08:26 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: There are plenty of points and relationships in football. This just isn’t one of them. There is a reason why many people believe that your run game isn’t really that important, and it is because it isn’t normally. Cincinnati was one of the best offensive teams last season and they had a terrible run offense, as a quick example.

Not everything that we think is logically true, is true.

What metric are you using to say they were one of the best teams last year offensively? I don't see that... 

(09-15-2022, 01:47 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: "Hayden Hurst 63.4 Get this: Played 75 snaps, stayed in to pass block 1 snap. ONE! Anyone else think we are so damn predictable how they use Sample and Hurst?"

There are some pretty gross tendencies on this team.

I don't really understand what you guys are complaining about.

Defenders will cover Sample and Hurst exactly same no matter how often either of them runs a route or stays in to block.  Just because we use sample to block a lot does not mean the defense will no longer treat him like an eligible receiver.

(09-15-2022, 01:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Our offense just rolled up 429 yards and 31 first downs against the Steelers.

The so-called "predictability" of our plays was obviously meaningless.  Just another case of NFL level coaches seeing more than fans.

Under center the safeties crept up and we ran the ball 16 out of 18 times.  Last year we ran the ball when Morgan came in and we do it now with Sample.    

(09-15-2022, 04:18 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Under center the safeties crept up and we ran the ball 16 out of 18 times.  

I did not see that happening Sunday.

Got a link?


When did they start "creeping up"?  Third quarter?  Fourth quarter?

(09-15-2022, 04:18 PM)casear2727 Wrote:  Last year we ran the ball when Morgan came in and we do it now with Sample.    

Sample was not just in the game when we ran the ball.  I know for certain you are wrong about that.

But what if we did?  We also throw the ball about 100% of the time when we go 5 wide.  But somehow we manage to gain a lot of yards from the formation.

(09-15-2022, 04:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I did not see that happening Sunday.

Got a link?


When did they start "creeping up"?  Third quarter?  Fourth quarter?



Sample was not just in the game when we ran the ball.  I know for certain you are wrong about that.

But what if we did?  We also throw the ball about 100% of the time when we go 5 wide.  But somehow we manage to gain a lot of yards from the formation.

We throw in empty set?  Wow, you are such a genius. 

Imagine if you were even half as intelligent as you think you are....

(09-13-2022, 04:58 PM)Synric Wrote: That was 2021 Welcome to 2022. Last year the Steeles expected Stephon Tuitt back be he never got their and they they lost their NT Tyson Alualu 2 games into the season forcing Heyward into that position.

This year they signed Ogunjobi to replace Tuitt and Alualu is healthy. They also drafted DeMarvin Leal and just picked a role guy Malik Reed from Denver.

That's fair. I think you are more knowledgeable than the Steelers fan who was in the room with me when I watched the game who kept telling me "I am glad you guys aren't running on us, we're really weak against the run."

(09-15-2022, 01:48 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: What metric are you using to say they were one of the best teams last year offensively? I don't see that... 

Points and yards per play. Cincinnati was #7 in both. 

EPA they are lower at 13th, due to all of the turnovers. However, they trended up very sharply. From week 10 on, they were 7th and for the final four weeks, they were 5th. 

(09-15-2022, 04:18 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Under center the safeties crept up and we ran the ball 16 out of 18 times.  Last year we ran the ball when Morgan came in and we do it now with Sample.    

Looks liked we audible a good amount but was not effective,  Burrow had alot of control of the offense

(09-15-2022, 01:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Our offense just rolled up 429 yards and 31 first downs against the Steelers.

The so-called "predictability" of our plays was obviously meaningless.  Just another case of NFL level coaches seeing more than fans.

Couldn't one argue that 5 turnovers and 7 sacks proved the obvious predictability of our plays was meaningful?

(09-15-2022, 06:46 PM)TheFan Wrote: Couldn't one argue that 5 turnovers and 7 sacks proved the obvious predictability of our plays was meaningful?

Not really since we moved the ball but we're killed by turnovers and sacks

(09-15-2022, 09:33 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Not really since we moved the ball but we're killed by turnovers and sacks

How does that have anything to do with it? They could have got the turnovers and sacks by playing the tendencies and knowing when we were going to run/pass. Based on the predictable formations we used each out of.