(Yesterday, 02:11 PM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: I always get the yips in camp when the DL or OL plays well. If the OL plays well, I think it is because the DL stinks. If the DL plays well, I think it is because the OL stinks.

I know that is circular reasoning that makes no sense, but I just have PTSD on our line play. The effect is stronger with IOL/DT. 

More specifically, I think Karras and the starting OTs are legit. I think Patrick is a fringe starter quality G who is oft injured. And Ford is not starter quality, at G or OT, though he is a fine utility lineman. I hope Fairchild hits, but is a rookie. 

Beyond those 6, we have zero proven guys. I'd feel much better with a vet OT. I'd have brought Trent Brown back, or a similar type guy. $1.7 mil cap hit with Houston. I'd have cut Volson. 

Rivers needs to be able to play. 

Oh just stop man..even with a patched up offensive line missing two starting tackles last year burrow and the offense kicked butt..

(Yesterday, 10:27 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: It's the first week of camp. Who cares. Seriously. 

We saw him play really, really well the back half of last year before he got hurt. I'm gonna lean on that sample a littttle more than 5 training camp days. 

1000%..we have had 3-4 days of camp essentially tag football..nobody is struggling except negative nelly doom and gloom posters creating fabricatiins to complain about...comical

(Yesterday, 02:16 PM)ERIC1 Wrote: Oh just stop man..even with a patched up offensive line missing two starting tackles last year burrow and the offense kicked butt..

Joe literally said he initially thought he might have broke his neck on this play.

ERIC1:

(Yesterday, 02:19 PM)ERIC1 Wrote: 1000%..we have had 3-4 days of camp essentially tag football..nobody is struggling except negative nelly doom and gloom posters creating fabricatiins to complain about...comical

OK, now I know I'm wrong in my opinion because Eric agrees with me. 

(Yesterday, 02:04 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I get what you are saying, but I don't feel Iosivas is in the same consideration as Auden Tate/Alex Erickson in 2019.
In 2024, the Bengals did not have their #1 WR miss the entire year nor their #2 WR miss even half the year.
Chase played the entire year.
Higgins played 12 games.
Gesicki (the team's real 3rd option) played the entire year.

So Iosivas was only ever 3rd on the pecking order at best.

Look, I'm not trying to sit here and say Iosivas is worthy of being starting 2nd option in an offense.
I'm not even saying great in the slot role.
What I am saying is I think he's ok (not good) and his skill set may be better used outside rather than as a slot receiver. I thought they mainly just put him inside because he happened to be the 3rd best option they had and they needed a slot to replace Boyd, so he got selected for that.
All I was getting at with the lower YPR for slot receivers is how they are used typically leads to fewer yards compared to their outside WR counterparts, especially if they are 3rd/4th in the pecking order.

I'm willing to give Iosivas this 3rd season (typically when guys usually show they can hack it or not) before looking to replace him on the roster.

I think he, right now, is a perfectly fine WR4-WR5. He has excellent traits. Is smart. And works hard. And is a willing blocker. But as a track guy who started football a bit late and coming from an Ivy league school, he was always gonna be a bit of a project. 

10 TD's in 2 years with Chase/Higgins ahead of him both years and Boyd/Gesicki as well is pretty impressive. I do not think he is particularly suited to the slot, however. All our WRs were outside guys primarily, even Jones. Well, save for Gesicki. Chase & Sizzle can do it some. Williams if he makes the team. I'd have loved Tez Johnson late in the draft. But I get we had bigger problems. 

I would not be looking to replace Yoshi anytime soon. Jones/Burton/Williams are where the upgrades need to come. A true slot guy would help. 

(Yesterday, 02:23 PM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: I think he, right now, is a perfectly fine WR4-WR5. He has excellent traits. Is smart. And works hard. And is a willing blocker. But as a track guy who started football a bit late and coming from an Ivy league school, he was always gonna be a bit of a project. 

10 TD's in 2 years with Chase/Higgins ahead of him both years and Boyd/Gesicki as well is pretty impressive. I do not think he is particularly suited to the slot, however. All our WRs were outside guys primarily, even Jones. Well, save for Gesicki. Chase & Sizzle can do it some. Williams if he makes the team. I'd have loved Tez Johnson late in the draft. But I get we had bigger problems. 

I would not be looking to replace Yoshi anytime soon. Jones/Burton/Williams are where the upgrades need to come. A true slot guy would help. 

In 3-WR looks, I'd like to see more Chase in the slot with Iosivas/Burton outside.
Ideally though, I'd like to see Fant signed and Bengals run a lot of 12 personnel.

(Yesterday, 02:16 PM)ERIC1 Wrote: Oh just stop man..even with a patched up offensive line missing two starting tackles last year burrow and the offense kicked butt..

No they didn't. The put up a lot of yards, but had a chance to win/put away good teams and they failed almost every time. 

We were very productive down 2 scores or early on. Much less so 1 score either way or even or late on. 

NE, KC, both Baltimore games, and Chargers were games the O had a chance to win & failed. Multiple chances. Lost shootout to WASH. Couldn't keep up with Philly. Yeah, Mac missed a FG vs Chargers, but it isn't like we marched down and scored a TD and ended them. 

We were 6th in scoring. Eagles were better on points per drive and almostcscored as many points. No way we were better than 7th offensively. 7th/32 is good, but not great or dominant. 

And we outright sucked @$$ in short yardage. 

The line and the running game are also bad. And we don't have a healthy 2 way TE on the roster. 

A kick ass offense wins you games. A kick ass offense gets crucial first fowns late and ends up in victory formation late. We RARELY get there. 

The Denver game was the high point. The O did perform well vs terrible teams (Carolina, Raiders, Tenn). 

We got a FG late to go up 10 vs Carolina. We legit blew the Raiders away and hammered Tennessee. And Burrow legit bailed us out after we slmost blew the Denver game. But even there  we went punt, missed FG, TD in OT. 

Yeah, Mac missed a FG, but we got the ball first & punted, too. 

Yes, the D was a much bigger problem. Yes, the FG unit cost us 2 games. But the O eon us exactly 1 game vs a non-garbage team. Not great. 

I have seen many Bengal teans with better or as good offenses than whatcwe had last year. Anderson teams. Esiason teams. Palmer teams. Dalton teams. In terms of straight scoring, we were better than 6th in: 1981 (3rd), 1982 (4th), 1985 & '86 (3rd), 1988 (1st), 1989 (4th), 1996 (5th), 2005 (4th). 

6th in 1969, 1977, 2013. 

Burrow is great. Chase is great. The offense isn't. Last 4 years: 7th, 7th, 16th (Buerow injured), 6th.

(Yesterday, 03:06 PM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: No they didn't. The put up a lot of yards, but had a chance to win/put away good teams and they failed almost every time. 

We were very productive down 2 scores or early on. Much less so 1 score either way or even or late on. 

NE, KC, both Baltimore games, and Chargers were games the O had a chance to win & failed. Multiple chances. Lost shootout to WASH. Couldn't keep up with Philly. 

We were 6th in scoring. Eagles were better on points per drive and almostcscored as many points. No way we were better than 7th offensively. 7th/32 is good, but not great or dominant. 

And we outright sucked @$$ in short yardage. 

The line and the running game are also bad. And we don't have a healthy 2 way TE on the roster. 

A kick ass offense wins you games. A kick ass offense gets crucial first fowns late and ends up in victory formation late. We RARELY get there. 

The Denver game was the high point. The O did perform well vs terrible teams (Carolina, Raiders, Tenn). 

We got a FG late to go up 10 vs Carolina. We legit blew the Raiders away and hammered Tennessee. And Burrow legit bailed us out after we slmost blew the Denver game. But even there  we went punt, missed FG, TD in OT. 

Yeah, Mac missed a FG, but we got the ball first & punted, too. 

Yes, the D was a much bigger problem. Yes, the FG unit cost us 2 games. But the O eon us exactly 1 game vs a non-garbage team. Not great. 

I have seen many Bengal teans with better or as good offenses than whatcwe had last year. Anderson teams. Esiason teams. Palmer teams. Dalton teams. In terms of straight scoring, we were better than 6th in: 1981 (3rd), 1982 (4th), 1985 & '86 (3rd), 1988 (1st), 1989 (4th), 1996 (5th), 2005 (4th). 

6th in 1969, 1977, 2013. 

Burrow is great. Chase is great. The offense isn't. Last 4 years: 7th, 7th, 16th (Buerow injured), 6th..

....and with all of that, Mac hitting a 53 yarder against the Ravens and Daijon Anthony not getting PI on 4th and 16 and this team is 11-6 and no one really talks about it as they head into the playoffs.

We will never truly know some of the chicken or egg issues with this team, offense specifically, I think. Does Burrow take too many sacks because the line is bad? Yes. Does he also take a bunch more because he believes he can make something happen? Yes. Are we bad at rushing especially in short yardage? Yes. Are we bad at rushing in short yardage because we cater to our elite QB who doesn't want to play from under center? Yes. Is Zach Taylor's play calling bad at times? Yes. Does Joe Burrow check into plays at times that make it look worse? Yes.

I think at the end of the day though what we can say is, the offense is good enough to win right now and was good enough to win 11/12 games last year including against two of the best teams in the AFC. I get the desire to protect Burrow, but as mentioned above, I don't know if we are ever going to be able to actually do that because I fear with more protection he just becomes more emboldened to take more risks. It's a double edged sword.

2. When they are not with their position groups, Andrei Iosivas and Chase Brown are inseparable on the field.
“We’re honestly trying to outdo each other,” said Brown. “We’re both extremely competitive and we’re both trying to increase our role in such an explosive offense.” pic.twitter.com/K52c2wcNum

— Dan Hoard (@Dan_Hoard) July 28, 2025

4. Yesterday, Stewart described Amarius Mims’ heavy hands as “two bricks in my chest.”
Today, Mims returned the compliment.
“He’s a fierce ball of fire,” said Mims. “Look at him! We drafted him with the 17th pick for a reason. I 100% believe that he’s going to be a great player.” pic.twitter.com/sYm8S4Npbc

— Dan Hoard (@Dan_Hoard) July 28, 2025

5. Charlie Jones had his best day of camp after having two surgeries in the offseason to fix a sports hernia.
“This is the best I felt since coming into the league,” said Jones. “I’m ready to make plays whenever they need me and wherever they need me.” pic.twitter.com/NQ77ZwvB0j

— Dan Hoard (@Dan_Hoard) July 28, 2025

Amarius Mims vs Shemar Stewart

Let's slow down the original video from @Dan_Hoard and see how it went down.

?️?️ pic.twitter.com/hd6twpMm7W

— Goodberry (@JoeGoodberry) July 28, 2025

(Yesterday, 02:13 PM)ERIC1 Wrote: My man..Shemur...looking great already...defensive rookie of the year

Our o line is just ass.

(Yesterday, 03:54 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote:

Amarius Mims vs Shemar Stewart

Let's slow down the original video from @Dan_Hoard and see how it went down.

?️?️ pic.twitter.com/hd6twpMm7W

— Goodberry (@JoeGoodberry) July 28, 2025

Last clip of Stewart is impressive, to move Mims takes some power.

(Yesterday, 02:23 PM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: But as a track guy who started football a bit late and coming from an Ivy league school, he was always gonna be a bit of a project.

The Ivy League part is true, but the started football a bit late part is not. He's been playing football since he was 5-6, so like 20 years now.

Awhile back I did some research after someone made that claim and pulled up an article from his highschool when he was in college, that he was interviewed in and talked about playing football since he was real young.

(Yesterday, 03:13 PM)Au165 Wrote: ....and with all of that, Mac hitting a 53 yarder against the Ravens and Daijon Anthony not getting PI on 4th and 16 and this team is 11-6 and no one really talks about it as they head into the playoffs.

We will never truly know some of the chicken or egg issues with this team, offense specifically, I think. Does Burrow take too many sacks because the line is bad? Yes. Does he also take a bunch more because he believes he can make something happen? Yes. Are we bad at rushing especially in short yardage? Yes. Are we bad at rushing in short yardage because we cater to our elite QB who doesn't want to play from under center? Yes. Is Zach Taylor's play calling bad at times? Yes. Does Joe Burrow check into plays at times that make it look worse? Yes.

I think at the end of the day though what we can say is, the offense is good enough to win right now and was good enough to win 11/12 games last year including against two of the best teams in the AFC. I get the desire to protect Burrow, but as mentioned above, I don't know if we are ever going to be able to actually do that because I fear with more protection he just becomes more emboldened to take more risks. It's a double edged sword.

I agree. But the question/comment I was responding to, was, the offense is "kick ass." 

I interpret kick ass to be elite. Dominant. Elite scoring. You give us the ball under 4 min with a lead & you don't get it back. Tied & under 2 min and we win. Down 3 and under 2 min is OT. More than 2 and we most likely win. Not every time, obviously. But more often than not. 

Good enough to make the PO's eith a better D? Or a couple made FG's? Yep. 

Good enough to come up clutch when the chips are down & beat good teams? Sketchy at best. 

With a little help they could be elite. A run game, better G play, and a TE who can block and catch and we are a PO team regardless of the D, and a threat to go deep in the POs. 

TE pickins were slim, so I get bringing back Gesicki in FA. Most of the TEs in the draft were pass catchers primarily (Ferguson & the ND TE I liked more than Rivers/Carter). But fine. 

But we could have done much better at guard. 

The interest in Fant probes my point at TE. He isn't high end, but certainly a more diverse skill set than Sample, Grandy, Gesicki, & Hudson. 

(Yesterday, 03:06 PM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: Burrow is great. Chase is great. The offense isn't. Last 4 years: 7th, 7th, 16th (Buerow injured), 6th.

Being 6th or 7th in the league isn't great? GTFOH.

(Yesterday, 04:17 PM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: I agree. But the question/comment I was responding to, was, the offense is "kick ass." 

I interpret kick ass to be elite. Dominant. Elite scoring. You give us the ball under 4 min with a lead & you don't get it back. Tied & under 2 min and we win. Down 3 and under 2 min is OT. More than 2 and we most likely win. Not every time, obviously. But more often than not. 

Good enough to make the PO's eith a better D? Or a couple made FG's? Yep. 

Good enough to come up clutch when the chips are down & beat good teams? Sketchy at best. 

With a little help they could be elite. A run game, better G play, and a TE who can block and catch and we are a PO team regardless of the D, and a threat to go deep in the POs. 

TE pickins were slim, so I get bringing back Gesicki in FA. Most of the TEs in the draft were pass catchers primarily (Ferguson & the ND TE I liked more than Rivers/Carter). But fine. 

But we could have done much better at guard. 

The interest in Fant probes my point at TE. He isn't high end, but certainly a more diverse skill set than Sample, Grandy, Gesicki, & Hudson. 

This offense is elite. I am not sure what on earth you are talking about. They were literally scoring at will last year. 

(Yesterday, 04:33 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: This offense is elite. I am not sure what on earth you are talking about. They were literally scoring at will last year. 

Are there 6+ "elite" offenses per year? Because the Bengals did not have a top-5 scoring offense in 2024 and weren't even in the top 25% of the league in yardage.

The Bengals offense last year was 6th scoring and 9th overall.

They had a very very good offense last year, but I don't think you can call a 6th/9th offense "elite". Because then what does that make all the teams better than them?

I think the three "elite" offenses last year were the Lions (1st scoring/2nd overall), Ravens (3rd scoring/1st overall), and probably the Bucs as the third (4th scoring/3rd overall).

- - - - - 

It's not an official standard by any means, but personally I think unless you're at least in the top 1/10th of the league, you're not elite at your position. (Top-3 QBs, Top-6 WRs, Top-3 RBs, Top-6 CBs, etc) I would extend that to the other stats as well, otherwise how can more than 10% of the league be elite? Or even over 28% in the instance of our yardage ranking.

(Yesterday, 04:40 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Are there 6+ "elite" offenses per year? Because the Bengals did not have a top-5 scoring offense in 2024 and weren't even in the top 25% of the league in yardage.

The Bengals were 9th in the league in total yards last year.

EDIT: Oh, I see, 9 out of 32 is 28.1% hence the "top 25%". Cute. Not a very strong point of yours if you're have to use language like "top 25% of the league" to make it.

FYI, I am not claiming our offense was elite last year (passing offense was), but it was definitely better than good.

(Yesterday, 03:06 PM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: No they didn't. The put up a lot of yards, but had a chance to win/put away good teams and they failed almost every time. 

We were very productive down 2 scores or early on. Much less so 1 score either way or even or late on. 

NE, KC, both Baltimore games, and Chargers were games the O had a chance to win & failed. Multiple chances. Lost shootout to WASH. Couldn't keep up with Philly. Yeah, Mac missed a FG vs Chargers, but it isn't like we marched down and scored a TD and ended them. 

We were 6th in scoring. Eagles were better on points per drive and almostcscored as many points. No way we were better than 7th offensively. 7th/32 is good, but not great or dominant. 

And we outright sucked @$$ in short yardage. 

The line and the running game are also bad. And we don't have a healthy 2 way TE on the roster. 

A kick ass offense wins you games. A kick ass offense gets crucial first fowns late and ends up in victory formation late. We RARELY get there. 

The Denver game was the high point. The O did perform well vs terrible teams (Carolina, Raiders, Tenn). 

We got a FG late to go up 10 vs Carolina. We legit blew the Raiders away and hammered Tennessee. And Burrow legit bailed us out after we slmost blew the Denver game. But even there  we went punt, missed FG, TD in OT. 

Yeah, Mac missed a FG, but we got the ball first & punted, too. 

Yes, the D was a much bigger problem. Yes, the FG unit cost us 2 games. But the O eon us exactly 1 game vs a non-garbage team. Not great. 

I have seen many Bengal teans with better or as good offenses than whatcwe had last year. Anderson teams. Esiason teams. Palmer teams. Dalton teams. In terms of straight scoring, we were better than 6th in: 1981 (3rd), 1982 (4th), 1985 & '86 (3rd), 1988 (1st), 1989 (4th), 1996 (5th), 2005 (4th). 

6th in 1969, 1977, 2013. 

Burrow is great. Chase is great. The offense isn't. Last 4 years: 7th, 7th, 16th (Buerow injured), 6th.

(Yesterday, 03:13 PM)Au165 Wrote: ....and with all of that, Mac hitting a 53 yarder against the Ravens and Daijon Anthony not getting PI on 4th and 16 and this team is 11-6 and no one really talks about it as they head into the playoffs.

We will never truly know some of the chicken or egg issues with this team, offense specifically, I think. Does Burrow take too many sacks because the line is bad? Yes. Does he also take a bunch more because he believes he can make something happen? Yes. Are we bad at rushing especially in short yardage? Yes. Are we bad at rushing in short yardage because we cater to our elite QB who doesn't want to play from under center? Yes. Is Zach Taylor's play calling bad at times? Yes. Does Joe Burrow check into plays at times that make it look worse? Yes.

I think at the end of the day though what we can say is, the offense is good enough to win right now and was good enough to win 11/12 games last year including against two of the best teams in the AFC. I get the desire to protect Burrow, but as mentioned above, I don't know if we are ever going to be able to actually do that because I fear with more protection he just becomes more emboldened to take more risks. It's a double edged sword.

Points per play 2021-24 avg rank over that period injuries or not

KC 8th
SF 8th
Philly 7th
Bills 3rd
Ravens 11
Cincy 8th

So only Philly & Bills better efficiency

NFL Team Red Zone Scoring Percentage (TD only)
2021-24 avg rank
Cincy 11
Bills 4
Ravens 13
Philly 8
SF 10
KC 13

(Yesterday, 04:48 PM)PhilHos Wrote: The Bengals were 9th in the league in total yards last year.

EDIT: Oh, I see, 9 out of 32 is 28.1% hence the "top 25%". Cute. Not a very strong point of yours if you're have to use language like "top 25% of the league" to make it.

FYI, I am not claiming our offense was elite last year (passing offense was), but it was definitely better than good.

Why not? 1 out of every 4 teams were better than us last year in yardage. That's not having to "use language" so much as just being a mathematical reality. Would it have made you feel better if I said one fourth instead of 25%?

I said in the post you quoted...

Quote:They had a very very good offense last year, but I don't think you can call a 6th/9th offense "elite".

So I already said they were better than good. 

We had a good offense, they were not the issue, I just am pointing out we weren't as good as Weezy was portraying with "elite" and "score at will". It doesn't mean I think they weren't good, just removing the orange colored glasses to look at reality. Not even being negative because, again, very very good were the words I used.