(01-15-2018, 03:00 PM)Wyche Wrote: It's actually some of both.  The blocking scheme absolutely was changed up per Bill Lazor in his presser.  It absolutely made a positive difference, because Ludwig's scheme did not play to his guys' strengths.  In fact, it exposed their weaknesses.  This absolutely helped Giovanni Bernard.  As for Mixon, the scheme, and his own changes helped him.

Also agree with coach, he was rather underwhelming.....

In his only full starts after that change, he went for 114 yards on 23 carries, then 96 yards on 18 carries.

I'm not going to say he set the world ablaze, but he showed well after the change. I'm more concerned about 2 things:

1. I'm not sure he learned his lesson, considering how cocky he acted on the field.
2. Injuries. If we talk about Gio not being able to handle a full load, it's only fair to bring up Mixon missing time.

(01-15-2018, 03:09 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: In his only full starts after that change, he went for 114 yards on 23 carries, then 96 yards on 18 carries.

I'm not going to say he set the world ablaze, but he showed well after the change. I'm more concerned about 2 things:

1. I'm not sure he learned his lesson, considering how cocky he acted on the field.
2. Injuries. If we talk about Gio not being able to handle a full load, it's only fair to bring up Mixon missing time.

As I noted, I saw a difference in both the line, and him.  He said after the Cleveland game that he and the o line had a sit down.  I think he got more decisive, and the line played a little better.  Gio was hitting the hole hard all season.

Look at the improvements, Gio went from 3.5 per to 4.7, Mixon came all the way from 2.9 to 5.0 per.  The line absolutely was the biggest issue, but Joe had his own issues as well from what I watched.

1. That's a sticking point for me as well.
2. Agree with that as well.

(01-15-2018, 03:17 PM)Wyche Wrote: As I noted, I saw a difference in both the line, and him.  He said after the Cleveland game that he and the o line had a sit down.  I think he got more decisive, and the line played a little better.  Gio was hitting the hole hard all season.

Look at the improvements, Gio went from 3.5 per to 4.7, Mixon came all the way from 2.9 to 5.0 per.  The line absolutely was the biggest issue, but Joe had his own issues as well from what I watched.

1. That's a sticking point for me as well.
2. Agree with that as well.

Fair enough. I'd definitely put more of that on the line and scheme though. Even with Gio, the games he was having towards the end of the season are something we haven't seen in several years. It was a thing of beauty, and the firing of PA and hiring of Pollack (along with retaining Lazor) leads me to believe we're in for more of what we saw over those last 6 weeks.

Who knows? It might even show up in the playoffs, if we make it that far.

(01-15-2018, 03:25 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Fair enough. I'd definitely put more of that on the line and scheme though. Even with Gio, the games he was having towards the end of the season are something we haven't seen in several years. It was a thing of beauty, and the firing of PA and hiring of Pollack (along with retaining Lazor) leads me to believe we're in for more of what we saw over those last 6 weeks.

Who knows? It might even show up in the playoffs, if we make it that far.

Oh, no doubt the line had a bigger part in the improvement of both backs.....I just think it was moreso a factor for Gio, as I felt Mixon wasn't as decisive as he should have been.  In other words, I think he got better, as did the line.  Gio didn't suddenly get better, he was playing his best, but being held back.

I guess we can "hope".

(01-15-2018, 03:33 PM)WychesWarrior Wrote: Oh, no doubt the line had a bigger part in the improvement of both backs.....I just think it was moreso a factor for Gio, as I felt Mixon wasn't as decisive as he should have been.  In other words, I think he got better, as did the line.  Gio didn't suddenly get better, he was playing his best, but being held back.

I guess we can "hope".

Leonard Fournette behind the Bengals’ line would have been ugly. Period. We could invent time travel and bring back Barry Sanders, Gale Sayers, or even OJ Simpson from their prime years, put them behind the 2016-2017 Bengals’ offensive line, and watch them go bust.

(01-15-2018, 06:36 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: Leonard Fournette behind the Bengals’ line would have been ugly.  Period.  We could invent time travel and bring back Barry Sanders, Gale Sayers, or even OJ Simpson from their prime years, put them behind the 2016-2017 Bengals’ offensive line, and watch them go bust.

The way we insult NFL All-Time greats here is amazing. Simply because our skill players under-perform. 

Sander would go about 5.0 YPC behind no oline. 

(01-15-2018, 07:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The way we insult NFL All-Time greats here is amazing. Simply because our skill players under-perform. 

Sander would go about 5.0 YPC behind no oline. 

Maybe you're taking such statements too literally when they are actually just hyperbole to make a point.

(01-15-2018, 07:47 PM)McC Wrote: Maybe you're taking such statements too literally when they are actually just hyperbole to make a point.

Ya think?  This line was ever bit as atrocious as any line I've ever watched play.  

(01-14-2018, 03:45 PM)coachmcneil71 Wrote: He ran wild on them last time they played as well, Harley. Joe had an entire season to show something, anything. Didn't show much.

Hows That Jacksonville OL vs ours.

(01-14-2018, 03:57 PM)samhain Wrote: The entire offensive gameplan was dogshit for all of camp and the first two games.  The blocking scheme was a monkey making love to a football up until late November.  The staff could hardly decide which back to give the ball to before Hill took himself out of the equation.  I'll reserve judgement on Mixon until he gets another year and a chance to take on a larger role.  I'd run the whole damn offense through him if he's healthy.  

Let's hope Mixon doesn't do a Hill-flop in year two.

(01-16-2018, 04:57 PM)Derrick Wrote: Let's hope Mixon doesn't do a Hill-flop in year two.

To have a season similar the Hill's 2nd year, Joe would have to improve in every rushing category

(01-15-2018, 07:47 PM)McC Wrote: Maybe you're taking such statements too literally when they are actually just hyperbole to make a point.

To be fair to bfine, Barry Sanders never really had a good OL and he's still considered one of the greatest RB of all time. I remember having debates with people over whether Barry would have better stats than Emmitt Smith if Sanders was in Dallas (and vice versa Emmitt in Detroit).

So, yeah, you put Barry Sanders behind our oline and I still think he plays as a surefire Hall of Famer.

(01-17-2018, 01:00 PM)PhilHos Wrote: To be fair to bfine, Barry Sanders never really had a good OL and he's still considered one of the greatest RB of all time. I remember having debates with people over whether Barry would have better stats than Emmitt Smith if Sanders was in Dallas (and vice versa Emmitt in Detroit).

So, yeah, you put Barry Sanders behind our oline and I still think he plays as a surefire Hall of Famer.

I agree, but Barry is one of the few where you could say that. If you take Kamara or Elliott and put them behind this line and Joe Mixon behind the Dallas or NO line, I wonder who'd be making the pro-bowl.

(01-14-2018, 03:39 PM)coachmcneil71 Wrote: Mixon couldn't carry Fournette's, Hunt's, Kamara's, or Cook's jock strap.

Fournette GASHING Pissburgh. Here's the blueprint. Gotta have a stud RB.

Little Joe ran for 48 & 34 yards against Pitt. He has a long ways to go.

Eh, Mixon ran well against Pitt both times, the first game they gave up on him, the 2nd he got hurt.

We have a stud RB, two of them actually and with a better O-line next year you will see this Coach.

BTW, Kamara is special for sure and looking back i would of taken him over Mixon but he may be the only one actually IMHO.

Just watch Mixon next year and he will be right with these guys i bet.

Loved watching Fournette running all over Pitt, thoroughly enjoyable.