(07-11-2025, 11:01 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Stop it. 

We're talking about one guy who does his job well. 

If you have 5, 6 or 7 guys blocking and one guy clearly doing his job well, you still have 4, 5 or 6 guys who can **** it up.

On top of that, if the RB goes the wrong way, the play is dead. 

I just don't understand why people are downplaying how well All blocks in the run game. He's not turning the Bengals into a top 5 rushing team but he's solidifying what he's being asked to do, better than a lot of other guys. 

I don't understand downplaying what All did either. He was very impressive on Wham blocks, pulls and lining up in a variety of places and 
when he came down to block somebody it was with intensity. People site his numbers which don't tell the entire story nor do we know how
much a rookie would improve as season goes on. Too bad he got hurt.

All was athletic and strong enough to allow our Offense to be unpredictable in run sets, he also was only asked to run shallow routes in the
passing game which explains his YPC being so low.

(Yesterday, 12:36 PM)XsandOs Wrote: I was at this game and All stood out. Physically, he looked as big as the OL. But his speed was amazing, in not only taking simple tosses/flats for good gains, but also in blocking.

He lined up in-line, in the backfield, and on the perimeter. 

On our first TD (8:24 mark) what this video doesn't show is that he was lined up outside with a CB on him, before he came across the entire formation to seal the LB for Brown's TD. 

Then coming out of half time, he caught the first ball for a first down, then had three great blocks for Brown that led to 40+ yards, putting us in the Panthers red zone. One of the blocks was on a safety 10 yards downfield on a swing pass to Brown. 

These plays signified to me that he is truly a complete TE. With him, you can show a power run and simultaneously a pass, from the same formation. 

Last year he caught 20 of 22 targets for 7.9 yards per. Taylor was opening the passing game for him with some curls and outs, but the unfortunate happened. 

Saw the same thing. Very impressive rookie and I was against the pick at the time because of his injury history. But I could not ignore his play.

(Yesterday, 01:28 PM)ochocincos Wrote: In my context, I was told 4.1 YPC earlier in the thread is "below average" for RBs last year, which I believe the average was 4.3.
4.3 and 4.1 is not so big of a difference (to me) that I would be so hugely concerned.
Maybe I'm still stuck in the past where anything 4.0 or above is satisfactory, but that's where I stand.

I think part of the problem with our 4.1 is that it's based off incredibly low number of attempts. We're not grinding out the tough yards (we famously chose to throw back-to-back bombs on 3rd and 4th and short) or running out games in the 4th quarter with a lead when teams know we are going to run it.

So that 4.1 is inflated by a lack of carries in situations when you innately get less yards per carry. 30th in carries, 30th in yards per game.

(It's a similar situation to how Germaine Pratt was graded better against the pass back when he was a 2-down LB. It's easier to hide being bad at something if you just don't do it much.)

(07-11-2025, 07:00 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yes, I agree. It's different when you have a naturally athletic TE that not only embraces blocking, but absolutely excels at it. For example, Drew Sample is a good blocker, but he can't pull off the wham nearly as smoothly and efficiently as a guy like All. Given a full healthy season, I feel like All could also show his value as an intermediate level receiving TE as well. As it is now, we're just hoping that he recovers well enough to even be able to play football again.

Ali unfortunately is and has been...severely suppceptible to injuries..that is not going to change

(Yesterday, 01:28 PM)ochocincos Wrote: In my context, I was told 4.1 YPC earlier in the thread is "below average" for RBs last year, which I believe the average was 4.3.
4.3 and 4.1 is not so big of a difference (to me) that I would be so hugely concerned.
Maybe I'm still stuck in the past where anything 4.0 or above is satisfactory, but that's where I stand.

(Yesterday, 02:59 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I think part of the problem with our 4.1 is that it's based off incredibly low number of attempts. We're not grinding out the tough yards (we famously chose to throw back-to-back bombs on 3rd and 4th and short) or running out games in the 4th quarter with a lead when teams know we are going to run it.

So that 4.1 is inflated by a lack of carries in situations when you innately get less yards per carry. 30th in carries, 30th in yards per game.

(It's a similar situation to how Germaine Pratt was graded better against the pass back when he was a 2-down LB. It's easier to hide being bad at something if you just don't do it much.)

If you both recall when Steelers would run all over our defense, and we knew they were going to run at us. There are game situations that each side knows what is coming, so it is a matter of who wins the rep.

When you run and the defense knows you are running, averaging 4 YPC is excellent. 

Therefore; a below average running game is one that can't consistently generate that YPC average on obvious run downs. 

We were last in the league in first downs gained by running the ball. In the four games against KC, Eagles and two Ravens games, we averaged 63 yards rushing per game. 

If we had a run game, we would have beaten the Ravens the first game. Up by 3 points, ball on the Ravens 38 yard line, first and 10, with less than 4 minutes left in the game. This is the classic example of situational football. This is grind and kill the clock time. But Burrow throws an INT. 

(Yesterday, 05:01 PM)XsandOs Wrote: If you both recall when Steelers would run all over our defense, and we knew they were going to run at us. There are game situations that each side knows what is coming, so it is a matter of who wins the rep.

When you run and the defense knows you are running, averaging 4 YPC is excellent. 

Therefore; a below average running game is one that can't consistently generate that YPC average on obvious run downs. 

We were last in the league in first downs gained by running the ball. In the four games against KC, Eagles and two Ravens games, we averaged 63 yards rushing per game. 

If we had a run game, we would have beaten the Ravens the first game. Up by 3 points, ball on the Ravens 38 yard line, first and 10, with less than 4 minutes left in the game. This is the classic example of situational football. This is grind and kill the clock time. But Burrow throws an INT. 

Great post XsandOs. If we get a scary run game our Offense could be unstoppable. Sure hope the additions of Peters as OL Coach, Fairchild,
Patrick, Perine and Tahj Brooks help. I think we will be better this season, but how much is the question.

(Yesterday, 05:33 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Great post XsandOs. If we get a scary run game our Offense could be unstoppable. Sure hope the additions of Peters as OL Coach, Fairchild,
Patrick, Perine and Tahj Brooks help. I think we will be better this season, but how much is the question.

I agree Nate. We are very close. We need an improved run game to tip the scale. Eagles and Ravens did it last year and had success.



 

(Yesterday, 04:01 PM)ERIC1 Wrote: Ali unfortunately is and has been...severely suppceptible to injuries..that is not going to change

Hypocrites gonna hyprocrite. 

(Yesterday, 05:01 PM)XsandOs Wrote: If you both recall when Steelers would run all over our defense, and we knew they were going to run at us. There are game situations that each side knows what is coming, so it is a matter of who wins the rep.

When you run and the defense knows you are running, averaging 4 YPC is excellent. 

Therefore; a below average running game is one that can't consistently generate that YPC average on obvious run downs. 

We were last in the league in first downs gained by running the ball. In the four games against KC, Eagles and two Ravens games, we averaged 63 yards rushing per game. 

If we had a run game, we would have beaten the Ravens the first game. Up by 3 points, ball on the Ravens 38 yard line, first and 10, with less than 4 minutes left in the game. This is the classic example of situational football. This is grind and kill the clock time. But Burrow throws an INT. 

The Steelers were a far different style of offense (and way better defense) when they were doing that compared to how the Bengals are now.
If that's the type of offense you want, they probably need more drastic changes than having Erick All on the field.

(Yesterday, 01:27 PM)ochocincos Wrote: If the Bengals really wanted to improve their running game, they should have invested in better IOL first and foremost.

But if we're just focusing on TEs, are Bengals in worse shape without Erick All compared to Cam Grandy?
Looking at last year, here are the PFF run blocking scores and run blocking snaps of All, Grandy, and Sample
All (109 snaps) - 49.9 run block grade (60.7 grade overall)
Sample (295 snaps) - 50.2 run block grade (48.5 grade overall)
Grandy (38 snaps - joined the Bengals after All went out for the year) - 65.6 run block grade (63.5 grade overall)

Can Grandy not be at least close to the level of blocking that Erick All was able to do?


The way I see it, this year, Bengals have Gesicki and Hudson as the pass catching TEs with Sample and Grandy as the run blocking ones.
It doesn't seem like the Bengals have an all-around TE with All out, but that's their fault for not getting (a better) one in the draft or FA.
I'm not expecting a big dropoff in the running game though compared to with or without All.
There may be some things the Bengals can't do (as well) with All out, but I would expect they can or should be able to adjust playcalling and adapt and succeed without relying solely on one role player.

Grandy does look like an interesting prospect from those grades, however that is a very small sample size. If he can average that on 150-200 run blocking snaps over the course of an entire season, then we all need to get behind and rally for him to become a fixture on the roster.

Why do Sample and Grandy need to be pigeonholed as "run blocking" TEs? Can't they also block on pass plays that they aren't the target? 

But in order for the running attack to gain any traction, it has to be a bigger part of the weekly game plan rather than an afterthought.  Allowing the OL to establish a solid rushing game will only make them more efficient in their pass blocking duties, as defenders will have to respect that the Bengals might be running the ball, instead of just knowing that they're pass rushing 70+ percent of plays that matter.

(10 hours ago)ochocincos Wrote: The Steelers were a far different style of offense (and way better defense) when they were doing that compared to how the Bengals are now.
If that's the type of offense you want, they probably need more drastic changes than having Erick All on the field.

For the most part, Steelers used zone blocking with some power gap, pin-pulls. 

Bettis mainly ran counters between the tackles, with traps and whams. With fast Willie, they called more outside zones with pin-pulls. 

They didn't have a sophisticated run game, nor was there a secret or specific "type" of offense. Ben was good at power and inverted counter reads.

And there is no need for drastic changes for us to have a good run game. We have the OL and RBs. Yes, All would have been good to have, but Sample can function in-line or as an H/F Back.

It is a matter of commitment to the run game and repetition in camp.