(12-28-2022, 11:07 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: They absolutely are. PFF grades are silly and unreliable at best, an absolute joke at worst. PFF grades are about the only metric you will find that paints Cincinnati as a good running team. The Bengals are a bottom tier rushing offense, there isn’t much way around it.

We are like 28th in yards per attempt. We aren’t very good but we can’t be one dimensional

(12-28-2022, 10:48 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: The Bengals are absolutely not "One of the worst running teams in the NFL."  The Bengals have a PFF grade of 84.4, and are ranked #11. They're right at the top 1/3 of the league. 

use your eyes and stats instead of pff

bengals are averaging 3.9 ypa. Last year they averaged 4.1. The run game got worse

(12-28-2022, 11:20 PM)Frank Booth Wrote: use your eyes and stats instead of pff

bengals are averaging 3.9 ypa. Last year they averaged 4.1. The run game got worse

So what? That's still 3.9 YPA, and that is not a bad rushing team.  That's like saying you'd be unhappy to be faced with a 3rd down and 2.  3.9*3= 11.7 and that's a first down all day long.   We're better now that we employed the GAP blocking scheme.

(12-28-2022, 10:29 AM)Bengalitis Wrote: Let's save the run strategy for the playoffs, catching them with their pants down!!!!

I've never seen Monday night football with one team with their pants down. I hope they're all wearing underwear.  It would make it tougher for them to run, catch or most everything football related.

(12-28-2022, 11:25 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: So what? That's still 3.9 YPA, and that is not a bad rushing team.  That's like saying you'd be unhappy to be faced with a 3rd down and 2.  3.9*3= 11.7 and that's a first down all day long.   We're better now that we employed the GAP blocking scheme.

....yes it is. It's a bottom 5 rushing offense

(12-28-2022, 11:26 PM)Frank Booth Wrote: ....yes it is. It's a bottom 5 rushing offense

We will have to agree to disagree on that one.  I think we've improved greatly since the OL has jelled and we've changed our blocking schemes.  The Carolina game is when we started to really show improvement.   

Not every play can be a 50+ yard strike to Chase or T-Higgs (Although those are sweet when they happen).  You have to be happy with a 4-yard run up the gut a few times, a toss sweep, and a screen; keeping the other team's defense in the boundary.  Then, hitting the defense with a play-action boot pass to the TE.   Like we did with Wilcox for a TD.  That was a thing of beauty!

(12-28-2022, 11:33 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: We will have to agree to disagree on that one.  I think we've improved greatly since the OL has jelled and we've changed our blocking schemes.  The Carolina game is when we started to really show improvement. 

Let's stop giving this guy reputation points please. Have some god damn standards

(12-28-2022, 11:15 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Come on now.  Even running at the interior of our line we're averaging 3.775 * 2= 7.55.  That's 3rd and a long 2, and I'll take that all day long.  We are night and day better once we went to gap down, man on, 2-level backer blocking, and dismissed the zone blocking scheme. Our runs in the RPO have been decent. 

I have never understood the logic behind this argument. This simply isn't the way it works. Look at it this way - let's say the Bengals draft a RB who averages three yards per carry. No more, no less. He will always get three yards. 

He would be the greatest player in football history. The Bengals would go undefeated almost every season and would become a dynasty. By the end of his career, they would have the most Super Bowl victories of any franchise in the NFL. Unfortunately, reality isn't like 3.775 * 2 = 7.55 WOOOOOO! It is more like...

0

1
12
2
0
6
3
7

The run game stinks. What decides whether or not something is "good" is the relative ranking of that something. We can't have "good" without "bad". Everything, other than PFF grades, will tell you that Cincinnati is a bad rushing team.

I wouldn’t underestimate this Bills defense.But,as the old saying goes,there’s no defense for a perfectly thrown ball.
I love it when the Bengals are able to throw the ball downfield.When you have a QB like Joe Burrow,I want the ball in his hands when the game is on the line.

(12-28-2022, 10:01 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I'm not saying go run-heavy, but I think we need to establish the run to keep the chains moving and keep Allen on the sideline as much as possible. 

You can't establish the run if you're not able to establish the run. 

Forcing a running game isn't going to make this team better. Running better when they're passing well is what's going to make this team better and if short passes that take the place of runs are better, that's what they need to do--not just run the ball a bunch in the attempt to "establish" it. 

(12-28-2022, 10:48 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: The Bengals are absolutely not "One of the worst running teams in the NFL."  The Bengals have a PFF grade of 84.4, and are ranked #11. They're right at the top 1/3 of the league. 

PFF grades aren't jack shit when compared to YPC. YPC is the measuring stick on how effective your running game is, not some mythical grade.

(12-28-2022, 11:25 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: So what? That's still 3.9 YPA, and that is not a bad rushing team.  That's like saying you'd be unhappy to be faced with a 3rd down and 2.  3.9*3= 11.7 and that's a first down all day long.   We're better now that we employed the GAP blocking scheme.

3.9 is an average. That means, half the time, it's worse. It doesn't even come close to meaning that on 3rd and 2 they get the first down.

I would love to see the Bengals suddenly develop dangerous running offense but that is very unlikely to happen. The current success of the run game during the Bengals win stretch is because they finally married the rushing offense to the passing offense. The Bengals are running alot more 11 personnel spread formation RPOs moving the linebackers in a light box creating angles. As Rfaulk said the Bengals need to continue with what got them where they are... A spread pass offense that takes advantage of coverages and the quarterbacks ability to quickly read and check it down to the RB in space.

(12-28-2022, 11:55 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: PFF grades aren't jack shit when compared to YPC. YPC is the measuring stick on how effective your running game is, not some mythical grade.

Ok then, where do you find to be the most creditable resource for stats broken down by teams? I have to pay PFF for their so-called premium research and stats.  If they're not worth "Jack Shit" as you say, then where do I find Jill's shit? 

bigdaddyfromcincinnati is 100% fredtoast

(12-29-2022, 12:07 AM)Frank Booth Wrote: bigdaddyfromcincinnati is 100% fredtoast

Fredtoast would never link a PFF article.

(12-29-2022, 12:09 AM)Synric Wrote: Fredtoast would never link a PFF article.

he's larking

(12-28-2022, 11:52 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: You can't establish the run if you're not able to establish the run. 

Forcing a running game isn't going to make this team better. Running better when they're passing well is what's going to make this team better and if short passes that take the place of runs are better, that's what they need to do--not just run the ball a bunch in the attempt to "establish" it. 

OUR YPA or YPC is 3.9 and that's not bad.  Methinks too many of y'all are spoiled and are always looking for the 50+ yard play to Chase or T-Higgs.  You need to realize the 3 to 5 yard gain up the gut is very effective in setting up the big play. 

(12-29-2022, 12:05 AM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Ok then, where do you find to be the most creditable resource for stats broken down by teams? I have to pay PFF for their so-called premium research and stats.  If they're not worth "Jack Shit" as you say, then where do I find Jill's shit? 

I'm saying don't base your opinion on a grade that some college aged kid wrote down, based off of some rubric, which is also based on the fact they don't know what a players assignment might be--over things like averages and EPAs. 

You can look at every single team and regardless of their gross attempts, you can look at how "effective" those runs are on average, which will give you a barometer on whether what they're doing is more or less effective than everyone else. 

Objective always trumps subjective in these matters. 

You referenced earlier how the Bengals should run between the guards more when it's ojectively observable that other avenues are more successful. 

No one here wants the Bengals to fling the ball 60 times a game and abandon the run, they just want them to be better at it and like Synric said above, changing or mixing and matching schemes to better balance their attack is what is going to bring positive results. Just saying, "hell, let's line up and just run it down their throat" is absolutely not the way to go about it. Finding what is working best and tweaking that is what is going to do it. 

(12-29-2022, 12:22 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I'm saying don't base your opinion on a grade that some college aged kid wrote down, based off of some rubric, which is also based on the fact they don't know what a players assignment might be--over things like averages and EPAs. 

You can look at every single team and regardless of their gross attempts, you can look at how "effective" those runs are on average, which will give you a barometer on whether what they're doing is more or less effective than everyone else. 

Objective always trumps subjective in these matters. 

You referenced earlier how the Bengals should run between the guards more when it's ojectively observable that other avenues are more successful. 

No one here wants the Bengals to fling the ball 60 times a game and abandon the run, they just want them to be better at it and like Synric said above, changing or mixing and matching schemes to better balance their attack is what is going to bring positive results. Just saying, "hell, let's line up and just run it down their throat" is absolutely not the way to go about it. Finding what is working best and tweaking that is what is going to do it. 

Ok, fair enough!