(Yesterday, 02:29 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: It kind of goes without saying that a better Oline opens up an avenue for some of the things they don't do very often. If i'm a QB and i'm under center, running a PA and i turn around to instantly feel defenders on me, i'm not gonna want to do that too much.

Yes and trusting that you have a 7 man blocking surface for 3rd or 4th and 1 or TEs that can get out in space to block for screens and RPOs. This was why Erick All was such a highlight for the Bengals with just mediocre play. 

(Yesterday, 02:16 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Percentage of plays run, by formation, run or pass, with or without play action, rpo and screen.

Under center - run  12%
Under center - pass w/PA 4%
Under center - pass w/o PA 1%

Shotgun - run 20%
Shotgun - pass w/PA 12%
Shotgun - pass w/o PA 43%
Shotgun - rpo 6%
Shotgun - screen 3%

I see now, thanks. It all adds up to 100 and is a percentage of total plays run. Out of total plays, the go under center and run 12% of the time etc. I stared at this thing for a good five minutes trying to figure out what was going on. 

The offense is not perfect. But certainly it’s geared for a poor OL and designed around our MVP level QB. I think it showed life in the run game the last of the season. It’s pretty efficient and good on third down. Hopefully ownership decides to be aggressive in FA and we draft better.

(Yesterday, 03:28 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: The offense is not perfect. But certainly it’s geared for a poor OL and designed around our  MVP level QB. I think it showed life in the run game the last of the season. It’s pretty efficient and good on third down. Hopefully ownership decides to be aggressive in FA and we draft better.

An interesting parallel is the 2010's Colts with Chuck Pagano as HC and Andrew Luck at QB.

Their OL was poor, which resulted in Luck getting sacked a lot plus RB performance was poor unless they had someone who was able to be more of a dynamic threat.
Even with that poor OL, Luck was able to put the team on his back as a passer and put up 4500+ yards and 35+ TDs multiple seasons, getting them to between 8-11 wins most of his time there.

You knew that they could be really special if they just could get a decent defense and some OL blocking, but it didn't really happen and they teetered usually around .500.

(Yesterday, 02:29 PM)Frank Booth Wrote: yes and youre gonna lose your mind doing so

Nah, not w/ Synric, he often brings up great points/topics. We don't always agree, but who does.  Now some others...

(Yesterday, 02:26 PM)Synric Wrote: I don't hate Zac's play calling as a staff they do a great job adjusting to coverages in game and getting the offense into advantageous passing concepts. I do hate that they don't prioritize blocking which gets them in trouble in short yardage, goal line, and horizontal passing plays. 

Oh, then we agree. We need better blocking. I just can't get behind changing our scheme. Joe likes it, Joe excels at it. Could it be better? Sure, but so could the dessert selection on The Titanic. 

There was no reason to fire Lou.. the personnel sucked and he got them to play well to finish with a winning record...

it was cowardice for Zac to fire Lou. The offense lost as many chances as the defense to score/win, even Burrow has highlighted this.

I like Zac overall, but firing Lou with the personnel Lou havd, to accommodate the offense, is just unjust and weak. If anything Zac failed miserably running the offense and failed to win more games  where the real $$$ is invested. Lou the scapegoat. Lou even came to Cinci when nobody wanted to.. very disgraceful to let him go. Good luck next season with same or worse personnel and a new system.. YIKES!

PS. The only reason we went to the SB was because of the defense and Lou, with talented personnel.

(Yesterday, 03:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, then we agree. We need better blocking. I just can't get behind changing our scheme. Joe likes it, Joe excels at it. Could it be better? Sure, but so could the dessert selection on The Titanic. 

I agree with this. I think we often see a QB getting pigeonholed into running an offense that the coach prefers and struggling to find success. I'm not saying Zac is perfect, but Burrow came from a high flying spread offense in college. Zac has implemented a spread offense in the NFL and it has worked. Burrow has developed into the best QB in the league when it comes to playing within structure IMO. I attribute some of this to Zac allowing Burrow to do what Burrow is actually good at. 

If someone like Ben Johnson was the OC here and Cincinnati was heavy under center and a lot of playaction, Burrow probably isn't who he is today. 

(Yesterday, 03:42 PM)ochocincos Wrote: An interesting parallel is the 2010's Colts with Chuck Pagano as HC and Andrew Luck at QB.

Their OL was poor, which resulted in Luck getting sacked a lot plus RB performance was poor unless they had someone who was able to be more of a dynamic threat.
Even with that poor OL, Luck was able to put the team on his back as a passer and put up 4500+ yards and 35+ TDs multiple seasons, getting them to between 8-11 wins most of his time there.

You knew that they could be really special if they just could get a decent defense and some OL blocking, but it didn't really happen and they teetered usually around .500.

JMO no inside info but I think Zac got too comfortable. I don’t mean from an effort standpoint. He has seen the team focus and play so well the last half of the last several seasons. He’s got a lot of faith in the culture and locker room. But he dug too big of a hole this year. He also didn’t have the best luck in games. Money Mac and things didn’t materialize. Lou has had lots of success. The OL players liked Pollack. I think this season shocked him. I think he overestimated how good the team was. I expect ownership and Zac came to a mutual agreement that changes needed to be made and they did. Ownership likes his culture and him and Burrow for sure does. You can get Burrow is frustrated with the OL and the defense. I’m sure he was consulted.  He’s their top paid asset. Not Zac or Duke. Just his opinion.  

(Yesterday, 04:18 PM)Bengalitis Wrote: There was no reason to fire Lou.. the personnel sucked and he got them to play well to finish with a winning record...

it was cowardice for Zac to fire Lou. The offense lost as many chances as the defense to score/win, even Burrow has highlighted this.

I like Zac overall, but firing Lou with the personnel Lou havd, to accommodate the offense, is just unjust and weak. If anything Zac failed miserably running the offense and failed to win more games  where the real $$$ is invested. Lou the scapegoat. Lou even came to Cinci when nobody wanted to.. very disgraceful to let him go. Good luck next season with same or worse personnel and a new system.. YIKES!

PS. The only reason we went to the SB was because of the defense and Lou, with talented personnel.

I think Lou was a good gameday coordinator. His coverage ideas worked well. He disguised them well. I liked what he did, even though he was a tad conservative when it came to bringing pressure but I also chalk that up to personnel. I suspect one of the biggest reasons he was let go was personnel, but specifically his input and use of said personnel. 

He's the defensive coordinator. Players are not just being brought in and he has to figure it out. I think it is a reasonable assumption to make that he had quite a bit of input of who he could work with when it came to player selection. Did he have final say? I would assume not, but I think it is reasonable to believe his opinion was given serious weight.

With that in mind, the free agent selections and draft picks over the last couple of years simply haven't panned out. Bates was let go and that was beyond his control. However, they were never able to find an adequate replacement for Bates. Nick Scott was awful. Geno Stone wasn't very good, either. Hill struggled playing safety and was moved to corner. The defensive line outside of Hendrickson has been very quiet and he wasn't able to solve this, either. Ossai might be turning a corner but is a bit too inconsistent to tell. Myles Murphy has been fairly quiet so far. Little to no interior pass rushers. 

I don't think it is all his fault, either. The Bengals don't have a robust scouting department to help in this process. However, this is the reason I suspect he was let go. 

(Yesterday, 04:35 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I think Lou was a good gameday coordinator. His coverage ideas worked well. He disguised them well. I liked what he did, even though he was a tad conservative when it came to bringing pressure but I also chalk that up to personnel. I suspect one of the biggest reasons he was let go was personnel, but specifically his input and use of said personnel. 

He's the defensive coordinator. Players are not just being brought in and he has to figure it out. I think it is a reasonable assumption to make that he had quite a bit of input of who he could work with when it came to player selection. Did he have final say? I would assume not, but I think it is reasonable to believe his opinion was given serious weight.

With that in mind, the free agent selections and draft picks over the last couple of years simply haven't panned out. Bates was let go and that was beyond his control. However, they were never able to find an adequate replacement for Bates. Nick Scott was awful. Geno Stone wasn't very good, either. Hill struggled playing safety and was moved to corner. The defensive line outside of Hendrickson has been very quiet and he wasn't able to solve this, either. Ossai might be turning a corner but is a bit too inconsistent to tell. Myles Murphy has been fairly quiet so far. Little to no interior pass rushers. 

I don't think it is all his fault, either. The Bengals don't have a robust scouting department to help in this process. However, this is the reason I suspect he was let go. 

Like this when we meeting for Thunder game? They’re pretty good.

(Yesterday, 04:35 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I think Lou was a good gameday coordinator. His coverage ideas worked well. He disguised them well. I liked what he did, even though he was a tad conservative when it came to bringing pressure but I also chalk that up to personnel. I suspect one of the biggest reasons he was let go was personnel, but specifically his input and use of said personnel. 

He's the defensive coordinator. Players are not just being brought in and he has to figure it out. I think it is a reasonable assumption to make that he had quite a bit of input of who he could work with when it came to player selection. Did he have final say? I would assume not, but I think it is reasonable to believe his opinion was given serious weight.

With that in mind, the free agent selections and draft picks over the last couple of years simply haven't panned out. Bates was let go and that was beyond his control. However, they were never able to find an adequate replacement for Bates. Nick Scott was awful. Geno Stone wasn't very good, either. Hill struggled playing safety and was moved to corner. The defensive line outside of Hendrickson has been very quiet and he wasn't able to solve this, either. Ossai might be turning a corner but is a bit too inconsistent to tell. Myles Murphy has been fairly quiet so far. Little to no interior pass rushers. 

I don't think it is all his fault, either. The Bengals don't have a robust scouting department to help in this process. However, this is the reason I suspect he was let go. 

Unless Lou single handedly caused the personnel change in the D, then its on him. Gives Zac and the FO more weight on firing him.

Anybody still want Epps over Zac?

(Yesterday, 11:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Anybody still want Epps over Zac?

I think Joe would have made it a little more competitive than Mr Unlimited.

(11 hours ago)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: I think Joe would have made it a little more competitive than Mr Unlimited.

Steelers are a good example of why you probably shouldn't spend less than $70m in cap space on your offense. Least in the league. 

But hey, they spent the most on their defense which paid dividends, lol.

(7 hours ago)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Steelers are a good example of why you probably shouldn't spend less than $70m in cap space on your offense. Least in the league. 

But hey, they spent the most on their defense which paid dividends, lol.

George Pickens on the Steelers offense: Yeah I’ve seen signs of growth for sure

Reporter: Does that make you optimistic going forward?

George Pickens: Nah.
pic.twitter.com/1vmsyYZtqX

— Barstool Sports (@barstoolsports) January 12, 2025

(Yesterday, 11:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Anybody still want Epps over Zac?

Took me a minute....

(Yesterday, 04:22 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: JMO no inside info but I think Zac got too comfortable. I don’t mean from an effort standpoint. He has seen the team focus and play so well the last half of the last several seasons. He’s got a lot of faith in the culture and locker room. But he dug too big of a hole this year. He also didn’t have the best luck in games. Money Mac and things didn’t materialize. Lou has had lots of success. The OL players liked Pollack. I think this season shocked him. I think he overestimated how good the team was. I expect ownership and Zac came to a mutual agreement that changes needed to be made and they did. Ownership likes his culture and him and Burrow for sure does. You can get Burrow is frustrated with the OL and the defense. I’m sure he was consulted.  He’s their top paid asset. Not Zac or Duke. Just his opinion.  

I'm going to have to go back and re-watch the Patriots game. First game of the season, and the offense only scores 10 points. Put up 25 the next week against KC and 33 the following week against Washington. Was Joe not trusting the wrist in that first game? I don't really remember what the major malfunction was, the defense held them to 16.

(Yesterday, 04:18 PM)Bengalitis Wrote: There was no reason to fire Lou.. the personnel sucked and he got them to play well to finish with a winning record...

it was cowardice for Zac to fire Lou. The offense lost as many chances as the defense to score/win, even Burrow has highlighted this.

I like Zac overall, but firing Lou with the personnel Lou havd, to accommodate the offense, is just unjust and weak. If anything Zac failed miserably running the offense and failed to win more games  where the real $$$ is invested. Lou the scapegoat. Lou even came to Cinci when nobody wanted to.. very disgraceful to let him go. Good luck next season with same or worse personnel and a new system.. YIKES!

PS. The only reason we went to the SB was because of the defense and Lou, with talented personnel.

I agree with this take. In a season where 1 more win gets us into the playoffs the defense did enough to win and the offense failed more than a few times. The only reason i see moving on from Lou is he seems to really struggle to change his scheme to match his personnel. We waited way too long to simplify his scheme with the defensive struggles this year. The defense was horrendous for the first half + of the season and the quick firing makes me wonder if they hadn't just made they're mind up and not taking the end of the season into account. Although it was against lesser competition.