I understand the importance of continuity with coaching staff, but why would he not push for a new offensive line coach/run coordinator when those have been the biggest issues from day one in his tenure and nothing has changed since?

As tired of a topic this must be for some, I really am dumbfounded with the stubbornness sticking with Pollack. If we had an OL that could protect Joe and create a good run game this offense would be absolutely unstoppable.

Yet here we are going into another season and I don’t care who we pick up this off-season in free agency and draft picks, Pollack is going to get out schemed by the opponents on both fronts and Zac is going to have to take the blame for keeping him on.

So why are they choosing to keep him?

(02-03-2024, 05:59 PM)GodFather Wrote: I understand the importance of continuity with coaching staff, but why would he not push for a new offensive line coach/run coordinator when those have been the biggest issues from day one in his tenure and nothing has changed since?

As tired of a topic this must be for some, I really am dumbfounded with the stubbornness sticking with Pollack. If we had an OL that could protect Joe and create a good run game this offense would be absolutely unstoppable.

Yet here we are going into another season and I don’t care who we pick up this off-season in free agency and draft picks, Pollack is going to get out schemed by the opponents on both fronts and Zac is going to have to take the blame for keeping him on.  

So why are they choosing to keep him?

The easy answer is that the problem is more complex than many of us fans like to admit. 

The issue isn't all on the offensive line. Running back is an issue, for example. The style of offense that Cincinnati runs is an issue for pass protection. Now, I understand that the buck stops somewhere eventually and Pollack may very well end up being fired, largely for his talent evaluation and how they fit into the offense. I am not going to be up in arms about this, but I will say that I don't believe that much changes if you do fire him. If the Bengals continue sending out five into routes often, Joe will continue getting sacked and hit at higher than league average. If Mixon is still the bellcow, the run game will still continue to underperform.

The Bengals offensive linemen aren't doing anything notably different than the rest of the league. Pollack has changed the run game to fit their strengths and aside from more under center looks, I think the run game is being squeezed for all it can be with Mixon as the lead guy. Could the offensive line be better? Sure, but they aren't the bottleneck IMO. The backs are. In pass pro, is it infuriating to see a rusher come free and smash Burrow? Yes, but when the defense sends six and you only have five blockers it becomes arithmetic. Or maybe you have six blockers, but the sixth blocker is one of our RBs that can't pass protect and the pick-up is missed. 

I will say it all off-season - firing Pollack is probably warranted and I'm not some staunch Pollack defender but I do believe we will be having another OL conversation next off-season unless the offense changes or a new, more dynamic RB is inserted as the lead guy. 

(02-03-2024, 05:59 PM)GodFather Wrote: I understand the importance of continuity with coaching staff, but why would he not push for a new offensive line coach/run coordinator when those have been the biggest issues from day one in his tenure and nothing has changed since?

As tired of a topic this must be for some, I really am dumbfounded with the stubbornness sticking with Pollack. If we had an OL that could protect Joe and create a good run game this offense would be absolutely unstoppable.

Yet here we are going into another season and I don’t care who we pick up this off-season in free agency and draft picks, Pollack is going to get out schemed by the opponents on both fronts and Zac is going to have to take the blame for keeping him on.

So why are they choosing to keep him?

Mike Brown hired him that’s why. Zac was coming off a horrible season and the fiasco that was Jim Turner. I’m certainly not intimating that Zac wasn’t compliant or agreeable. Being a young coach with many years at TAMU Zac didn’t have the contacts then. He needed to rely on management. Duke liked him too. This is not to exonerate Zac. I agree he must go and I believe if Zac was adamant he needed to go they’d do it. So it still falls on him. I think Frank is the major issue but I wish they’d get him help or do something. He can’t scheme obviously and Zac has no confidence in the run game. We were #31 in rushing attempts. Zac gives up on it too much IMO. But it’s frustrating as hell.

(02-03-2024, 07:03 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote:  Zac has no confidence in the run game.

because it stinks and is ineffective. and a lot of it is the fault of your boy from oklahoma

I dont know if u guys remember 2021, but Zac Taylor was getting criticized for running the ball TOO much with an ineffective running game.

(02-03-2024, 07:47 PM)Frank Booth Wrote: because it stinks and is ineffective. and a lot of it is the fault of your boy from oklahoma

Well he deserves the credit for the good and the bad as head coach.But living with it the last several years is indefensible

I watched the 49ers game yesterday and Mixon was a different man. Mixon is old enough in his career now that I cn tell he has motivation issues, I don't know what they are though, he did not run like this in most other games of recent memory. He also seems to suffer from whatever blocking scheme we've put out there for him, though.

(02-03-2024, 08:56 PM)reuben.ahmed Wrote: I watched the 49ers game yesterday and Mixon was a different man. Mixon is old enough in his career now that I cn tell he has motivation issues, I don't know what they are though, he did not run like this in most other games of recent memory. He also seems to suffer from whatever blocking scheme we've put out there for him, though.

You mean the Joe Mixon who was 8th in rushing and 12th in receiving for running backs in ‘23? That guy?

(02-03-2024, 09:06 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: You mean the Joe Mixon who was 8th in rushing and 12th in receiving for running backs in ‘23? That guy?

ok now where did he rank in yards per attempt/yards per carry?

(02-03-2024, 09:07 PM)Frank Booth Wrote: ok now where did he rank in yards per attempt/yards per carry?

Barely ahead of Saqoun Barkley, Najee Harris, Tony Pollard

(02-03-2024, 09:11 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: Barely ahead of Saqoun Barkley, Najee Harris, Tony Pollard

yea not good. those are very bad offenses 

(02-03-2024, 09:30 PM)Frank Booth Wrote: yea not good. those are very bad offenses 

Well we all know the run game issues are multi-faceted

(02-03-2024, 06:56 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: The easy answer is that the problem is more complex than many of us fans like to admit. 

The issue isn't all on the offensive line. Running back is an issue, for example. The style of offense that Cincinnati runs is an issue for pass protection. Now, I understand that the buck stops somewhere eventually and Pollack may very well end up being fired, largely for his talent evaluation and how they fit into the offense. I am not going to be up in arms about this, but I will say that I don't believe that much changes if you do fire him. If the Bengals continue sending out five into routes often, Joe will continue getting sacked and hit at higher than league average. If Mixon is still the bellcow, the run game will still continue to underperform.

The Bengals offensive linemen aren't doing anything notably different than the rest of the league. Pollack has changed the run game to fit their strengths and aside from more under center looks, I think the run game is being squeezed for all it can be with Mixon as the lead guy. Could the offensive line be better? Sure, but they aren't the bottleneck IMO. The backs are. In pass pro, is it infuriating to see a rusher come free and smash Burrow? Yes, but when the defense sends six and you only have five blockers it becomes arithmetic. Or maybe you have six blockers, but the sixth blocker is one of our RBs that can't pass protect and the pick-up is missed. 

I will say it all off-season - firing Pollack is probably warranted and I'm not some staunch Pollack defender but I do believe we will be having another OL conversation next off-season unless the offense changes or a new, more dynamic RB is inserted as the lead guy. 

I agree with most of this and would note they already were starting to reshape the offense last season before we lost Burrow and after his calf was back - look at the SF game for example. They were moving to an approach with more under center and more runs (but likely still majority pass and shotgun just not so heavily) and also doing some tendency breaking. If they keep this up and get a back who actually breaks some tackles (if drafting, Blake Corum, Audric Estime and Trey Benson all fit the bill) Burrow's life will become progressively easier because the offense becomes harder for defenses to guess what is coming. 

Mixon is one of the main issues. They need to get younger and faster at the position.

(02-03-2024, 10:50 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Mixon is one of the main issues. They need to get younger and faster at the position.

They tried, the last 5 games, with success. We had the second fastest ball carrier in the league last year, and it was a RB.

I’d caution against the replacing Mixon thing, without a suitable replacement. Everyone thought pollard was an every down back in Dallas, and it doesn’t seem so.

Not for keeping or getting rid of Mixon, but I think the combo of Mixon/brown can be effective.

Judging anything that this offense did last year is not a true testament to what production they had anticipated for all offseason. We saw a 90% healthy Joe burrow for 3 games and they looked dominant and well balanced.

This is a big offseason for the bengals.

Overall eye test for me said that the OL and run/screen game looked better with the QB under center. I am not a genius at football but I do know that timing,athletic ability, etc changes depending on alignment. Maybe our OL personnel more fit a under center scheme? I know Joe does not like this but is this the disconnect between the OL coach and our star QB?

I hope Taylor doesn't think he is immune to needing to get better as a coach because of his successes thus far.

Disappointed in keeping Pollack , he really has had little success as a OL coach, Dallas he had so many high end picks was hard not to be good there, since then i have seen little in the majority of draft picks under him, then we go out and get the FA style Oline he prefers and each of them had worse years under him than before so im not sure why we keep him.. I understand the argument of letting Mixon go but Pollack is the bigger issue, and if we let Mixon go and keep Pollack makes little sense..

I'm willing to bet Pollack has incriminating photos of a certain senior Blackburn in a quinceanera dress.

(02-04-2024, 11:28 AM)spazz70 Wrote: Overall eye test for me said that the OL and run/screen game looked better with the QB under center. I am not a genius at football but I do know that timing,athletic ability, etc changes depending on alignment. Maybe our OL personnel more fit a under center scheme? I know Joe does not like this but is this the disconnect between the OL coach and our star QB?

That's what it seems to all of us, but the efficiency stats show little to no difference.

It seems like our entire fanbase and the whole world en masse as well, are forgetting that Burrow couldn't operate under center for a full month AND that he was still hurt even when he did play, so that heavily skews the shotgun numbers: it's not our norm.