Coaches have dug deep into the playbook (actually I think they just added it) and busted out the Pistol. However the only real way this will work is if we had a fb or used a TE as a lead block.

They tried to create a new run fit (something they should have done back in July). I don't think they committed to it and I don't think Rams were caught off guard with the switch up, and it didn't seem to lead to anything that would make you think they should continue with it.

If Burrow is unable to go under center and they are trying to switch it up by adding the Pistol, they are going to have to commit to it and run successfully out of it if they want it to work. It didn't look like they were committed to it and thus it failed.

Will the Pistol work with no FB? Will it work consistently in the NFL? Do you guys think they should continue to develop the offense around it and see where it goes? Or throw it all out since having a RB that many yards away from the line of scrimmage isn't really ideal....

Thoughts?

All our running plays are inside handoffs out of shotgun. We need some more variety. Toss it! Fake it to Mixon one way and hand it to an end in motion. Run some two back (gasp!).

Way too vanilla.

I agree, the run game has been vanilla, which is why adding the pistol was intriguing.

The problem with running under Center...is teams know it's coming because we like to pass out of Shotgun.

When Chase goes in motion a certain way, they usually run...and I think the Rams saw that a couple times and run blitzed.

(09-27-2023, 02:23 PM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: All our running plays are inside handoffs out of shotgun. We need some more variety. Toss it! Fake it to Mixon one way and hand it to an end in motion. Run some two back (gasp!).

Way too vanilla.

Remember when they were always attempting to run that stretch play, in the wide zone scheme?  Yeah, that was terrible..

(09-27-2023, 02:20 PM)jj22 Wrote: Coaches have dug deep into the playbook (actually I think they just added it) and busted out the Pistol. However the only real way this will work is if we had a fb or used a TE as a lead block.

They tried to create a new run fit (something they should have done back in July). I don't think they committed to it and I don't think Rams were caught off guard with the switch up, and it didn't seem to lead to anything that would make you think they should continue with it.

If Burrow is unable to go under center and they are trying to switch it up by adding the Pistol, they are going to have to commit to it and run successfully out of it if they want it to work. It didn't look like they were committed to it and thus it failed.

Will the Pistol work with no FB? Will it work consistently in the NFL? Do you guys think they should continue to develop the offense around it and see where it goes? Or throw it all out since having a RB that many yards away from the line of scrimmage isn't really ideal....

Thoughts?

I think I had mostly been in the "bring on the new age, high offensive output offensive" era, but one old-school thing I do like is seeing a power I run with a FB leading the way. Maybe that came from my love of the Little Giants movie as a kid lol.

I actually really do think versatile FBs who can block well and catch passes (like Kyle Juszczyk) can be very valuable.

I'd personally love to have one, and I think it'd help the team establish the run better.

Whatever the case is, this week the bengals will be atrocious in the run game… no matter what formation/package they use. Not because we suck, but because the Titans are the best. This will likely be another burrow 50+ att game, unfortunately. Things will get easier after this.

(09-27-2023, 02:35 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I think I had mostly been in the "bring on the new age, high offensive output offensive" era, but one old-school thing I do like is seeing a power I run with a FB leading the way. Maybe that came from my love of the Little Giants movie as a kid lol.

I actually really do think versatile FBs who can block well and catch passes (like Kyle Juszczyk) can be very valuable.

I'd personally love to have one, and I think it'd help the team establish the run better.

I agree...and I'm starting to get onboard with the idea of drafting a RB high. Just think what a Bijon Robinson would do here.

I know it's a terrible investment generally, but I think it could offset some of our salary constraints. (Our defense will lose guys, but we can control the ball more.)

(09-27-2023, 02:39 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I agree...and I'm starting to get onboard with the idea of drafting a RB high. Just think what a Bijon Robinson would do here.

I know it's a terrible investment generally, but I think it could offset some of our salary constraints. (Our defense will lose guys, but we can control the ball more.)

I actually don't think Bijan would be as good in the Bengals offense like he has with the Falcons.

Arthur Smith came from the Titans, and his two seasons as OC for them were the two best years Derrick Henry has had.
Smith runs a run-heavy offense.

For better comparison:
Falcons - 91 rushing attempts (8th in league), 4.2 YPC (13th in league)
Bengals - 58 rushing attempts (2nd to last in league), 3.6 YPC (25th in league)

Would Robinson be better than what the Bengals have now? I think most would say yes.
Would he average 5.5 YPC like he's averaging in ATL and be 7th in the league in rushing yards? I don't think so.

(09-27-2023, 02:39 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I agree...and I'm starting to get onboard with the idea of drafting a RB high. Just think what a Bijon Robinson would do here.

I know it's a terrible investment generally, but I think it could offset some of our salary constraints. (Our defense will lose guys, but we can control the ball more.)

guys like Bijan come around and every 5-10 years, and cost top 10 draft capital (see Bijan and Saquon). However you’re not wrong in that a dynamic back would help tremendously.

I would call the Washington football team and see what an Antonio Gibson would cost. They are using him horribly and he would be a great 3rd down back - think a better Giovani Bernard.

We don't really have a FB on the roster, maybe use Sample or Wilcox as an H-Back might help out of the I formation at times.

We do need to change up our formations on not being a Shotgun Offense all the time. Thing is, Burrow loves empty sets and throwing
out of the Shotgun and he is the guy checking out of the run. If people want to blame someone for the lack of running game Burrow
should get some of the blame. Mixon has actually ran well this season and he ran well against the Titans in our Playoff win a couple
years ago. We will see if we run it much in the pistol against the Titans.

(09-27-2023, 02:44 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I actually don't think Bijan would be as good in the Bengals offense like he has with the Falcons.

Arthur Smith came from the Titans, and his two seasons as OC for them were the two best years Derrick Henry has had.
Smith runs a run-heavy offense.

For better comparison:
Falcons - 91 rushing attempts (8th in league), 4.2 YPC (13th in league)
Bengals - 58 rushing attempts (2nd to last in league), 3.6 YPC (25th in league)

Would Robinson be better than what the Bengals have now? I think most would say yes.
Would he average 5.5 YPC like he's averaging in ATL and be 7th in the league in rushing yards? I don't think so.

Bijan is an excellent pass catching back which would fit with Burrow.

His young legs burst would also help. (likely have more long runs than Mixon)

I agree that Bijan would have a better yards per carry with Arthur Smith but I would expect a helpful improvement in 

yards per carry for the Bengals if Bijan came to Cincinnati.

I also think that Defenses would worry about Bijan a little more than they do Mixon. (I still respect Mixon but he will be 28 next July)

(09-27-2023, 03:35 PM)depthchart Wrote: Bijan is an excellent pass catching back which would fit with Burrow.

His young legs burst would also help. (likely have more long runs than Mixon)

I agree that Bijan would have a better yards per carry with Arthur Smith but I would expect a helpful improvement in 

yards per carry for the Bengals if Bijan came to Cincinnati.

I also think that Defenses would worry about Bijan a little more than they do Mixon. (I still respect Mixon but he will be 28 next July)

Other than 2018 when Mixon had 4.9 YPC, he's mostly been in the 3.9 to 4.1 YPC range.
His age is not the problem.

Too often Mixon is getting hit in the backfield or right at the LOS.
The OL hasn't opened up many holes for him.
I would expect the same problems to happen for Bijan, but I do think he'd be a bit better.
Maybe in the 4.3-4.5 range.
I don't think he gets close to the 5.5 he's averaging in ATL.

(09-27-2023, 05:56 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Other than 2018 when Mixon had 4.9 YPC, he's mostly been in the 3.9 to 4.1 YPC range.
His age is not the problem.

Too often Mixon is getting hit in the backfield or right at the LOS.
The OL hasn't opened up many holes for him.
I would expect the same problems to happen for Bijan, but I do think he'd be a bit better.
Maybe in the 4.3-4.5 range.
I don't think he gets close to the 5.5 he's averaging in ATL.

I don't see Mixon's age as a problem for 2023.

Another 200 plus carries & 40 plus catch season then turning 28 before next season would make getting a younger back 

for 2024 and beyond more of something to consider. Mixon would be getting to an age in 2024 where his durability could 

start to break down or he just becomes a little less productive. 

I agree with a 4.3 to 4.5 range for Bijan with the Bengals. 

I would simply be open to a range of options/positions (including RB) with early picks in the 2024 Draft and then choose a 

player that I see as most likely to be impactful or very good at his position.

(09-27-2023, 06:14 PM)depthchart Wrote: I don't see Mixon's age as a problem for 2023.

Another 200 plus carries & 40 plus catch season then turning 28 before next season would make getting a younger back 

for 2024 and beyond more of something to consider. Mixon would be getting to an age in 2024 where his durability could 

start to break down or he just becomes a little less productive. 

I agree with a 4.3 to 4.5 range for Bijan with the Bengals. 

I would simply be open to a range of options/positions (including RB) with early picks in the 2024 Draft and then choose a 

player that I see as most likely to be impactful or very good at his position.

Unless a trade happens to get extra picks, you'd have a hard time convincing me to draft a RB early over a RT, DT, and TE (and WR if Higgins leaves or is tagged).
Bengals will have a few different spots they'll need immediate starters for those based on impending FAs.
They might be able to get some value FAs to cover some of those though to reduce the draft needs.

Where’s that Blake Corum supposed to get drafted?

(09-27-2023, 02:23 PM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: All our running plays are inside handoffs out of shotgun. We need some more variety. Toss it! Fake it to Mixon one way and hand it to an end in motion. Run some two back (gasp!).

Way too vanilla.

You missed Burrow being under center, that is way vanilla don't u think

(09-27-2023, 06:29 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Unless a trade happens to get extra picks, you'd have a hard time convincing me to draft a RB early over a RT, DT, and TE (and WR if Higgins leaves or is tagged).
Bengals will have a few different spots they'll need immediate starters for those based on impending FAs.
They might be able to get some value FAs to cover some of those though to reduce the draft needs.

It will likely come down to what specific players are available in the early rounds when the Bengals come up to pick and 

how much the Coaches/GM like a particular person/player. I simply would not rule out the RB position all together unless

I just didn't like any of the Top RB prospects. It may all come down to the Caliber of each option RT, DT, TE (RB) (WR)

If one person/player really fits and is considered a better prospect and that turns out to be RB then I would pull the trigger.

Keep Mixon in 2024 but let that rookie develop and gain playing time as the season goes on.

If that best guy is RT then take RT.  If DT then take DT etc.

I just would not Box myself in as anti RB early if a solid one is the best option.

(09-28-2023, 10:09 AM)depthchart Wrote: It will likely come down to what specific players are available in the early rounds when the Bengals come up to pick and 

how much the Coaches/GM like a particular person/player. I simply would not rule out the RB position all together unless

I just didn't like any of the Top RB prospects. It may all come down to the Caliber of each option RT, DT, TE (RB) (WR)

If one person/player really fits and is considered a better prospect and that turns out to be RB then I would pull the trigger.

Keep Mixon in 2024 but let that rookie develop and gain playing time as the season goes on.

If that best guy is RT then take RT.  If DT then take DT etc.

I just would not Box myself in as anti RB early if a solid one is the best option.

I for sure believe the bolded that you said.
That's been very clear their strategy in the draft.
But that strategy has also resulted in some positions being constant struggles to have consistency, performance, health, etc.
Mainly RT, DT, TE.

(09-28-2023, 10:14 AM)ochocincos Wrote: I for sure believe the bolded that you said.
That's been very clear their strategy in the draft.
But that strategy has also resulted in some positions being constant struggles to have consistency, performance, health, etc.
Mainly RT, DT, TE.

I agree.

For example, they had a lot of options at Tight End in early rounds last Draft and went other directions.

Getting a good TE seemed to be the talk of Fans Pre Draft yet they didn't even Draft one at all.