(05-08-2018, 08:16 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: It isn't much, but I like to hear this....

From Bengals.com:


New offensive coordinator Bill Lazor has been calling for more aggression and he's getting it. Wide receiver Brandon LaFell noted Monday they no longer want those, 10-12 play drives to be the norm.

“It’s more attack. Stretching it down the field,” LaFell said. “We’re trying to attack quick and get in the end zone and get on the sideline."

I think that is how we played in 2005 and 2015.  More attacking style.

There is a place for 10-12 play drives, but to have that be our norm is koo-koo. It gives the defense that many chances to stop you.

Stretching the field and scoring quickly will open up things so that when we need a 12 play, 7 minute drive to close our a game the defense will have to play it more straight up and if they don't you just push it down field anyways and score.

I like it. I didn't know the team was shooting for 10-12 play drives as the norm. Of course, that approach sounds like Marvin Lewis.

(05-09-2018, 08:44 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 1.  EVERY team tries to score every time they get the ball.

2.  EVERY team plays more conservative with a big lead in the second half.  Even the Patriots.  If yiou don't believe me just look at when they played the Browns two years ago.  23-7 lead at halftime.  Played it safe the second half to seal 33-13 win.

Wrong.  How ironic you gave a single example 

AU is exactly right about the D being broke by "quick" 3 and outs. It's why the Chip Kelly Offense failed so miserably in the NFL. His D's were gassed by the 4th q and the opposing Offenses couldn't be stopped towards the end of games.

Def something to think about.

(05-09-2018, 10:12 AM)BengalChris Wrote: There is a place for 10-12 play drives, but to have that be our norm is koo-koo. It gives the defense that many chances to stop you.

Stretching the field and scoring quickly will open up things so that when we need a 12 play, 7 minute drive to close our a game the defense will have to play it more straight up and if they don't you just push it down field anyways and score.

I like it. I didn't know the team was shooting for 10-12 play drives as the norm. Of course, that approach sounds like Marvin Lewis.

control the ball

Controll the clock

win the game

(05-09-2018, 11:27 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: control the ball

Controll the clock

win the game

Worked pretty well for this guy named Parcells.

(05-08-2018, 10:55 AM)fredtoast Wrote: A good offense is about balance.  The yin and the yang.

You want to open up your run game?  Hit enough shots down the field so that the safety can't just sit on the line of scrimmage.

You want to help your pass game?  Have a good enough run game so that the safeties can't just play deep cover.

You don't have to be great at both, but if you are too weak at one then it will hurt the other.

Establishing the run opens up the pass and play action. Hitting them over the top opens up the run even more. Pretty soon, the defense doesn't know WHAT to do.

See our defense in either Texans playoff game.

(05-09-2018, 01:48 AM)cinci4life Wrote: He had an offensive line that year that could actually block and give him time to throw. 

That's definitely part of it.

I know this is the old football cliche, but you gotta win on 1st down. When you are constantly in 3rd and 6 or longer, we play it safe.

Glad to hear and hoping OL can give Dalton protection and enough of a rushing attack to get back to that style.

Keeps coming back to the offensive line.  Need to be able to run the ball for PAP to be effective.  Can't run the ball unless the offensive line has been improved.  I think Price will help but RT is still a question mark.  

Hurry-up and no-huddle schemes usually work best with rhythm QB which I am not certain adequately describes Dalton.  Dalton needs time to hit targets on complex routes which is why Zampese's schemes did not work well.

What I would like to see is a grinding running game with quick strikes on crossing routes and occasionally a deep ball to stretch the defenses.  I remember when the Bengals ran the sugar-huddle and no-huddle offenses, the defense players on both sides of the ball were sapped.  But it was dynamic and exciting to watch and gave the sense that the offense was in control of the game.  

(05-09-2018, 11:11 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Wrong.  How ironic you gave a single example 

Still one more example than you.

But here are more.

Last year Pats led Saints 30-13 at half.  Coasted to 36-20 with just 2 FG in second half.

Led Falcons by 17 at half.  Again coasted with just 2 FGs in second half of 23-7 win

Led Broncos by 18 at half.  Coasted to just 2 scores in second half of 41-16 win.

Led Jets by 18 at half.  Offense just scored 1 FG in 2nd half of 26-6 win.

(05-08-2018, 08:16 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: It isn't much, but I like to hear this....

From Bengals.com:


New offensive coordinator Bill Lazor has been calling for more aggression and he's getting it. Wide receiver Brandon LaFell noted Monday they no longer want those, 10-12 play drives to be the norm.

“It’s more attack. Stretching it down the field,” LaFell said. “We’re trying to attack quick and get in the end zone and get on the sideline."

I think that is how we played in 2005 and 2015.  More attacking style.

Might actually be able to do this a decent O-line. Gonna have to give Dalton some time to stretch the field and with
the additions of Cordy Glenn and Billy Price we should be able to give him a lot more time. Coach up Fisher and one
of Westerman and Redmond and boom. We have the talent at the skill positions already in place pretty much.

(05-08-2018, 11:26 AM)sandwedge Wrote: Not to mention, you can shorten the field! 

You know what they say about having a short field...

(05-08-2018, 10:49 AM)fredtoast Wrote: He said "attack quick" but I don't know if that means "up tempo".  It could just mean taking more deep shots down the field, i.e. "quick strike offense".

I have some concerns because taking deeper shots means needing longer pass protection.

I am for whatever works.  Some people claim they hate the "dink and dunk" offense, but I really don't care what works.  It is not like the short controlled passing game is so simple that any team can just march down the field and score all the time.  It is still difficult to execute really well.  It takes skill and precision.

Agree that that the "dink & dunk" offense is difficult to execute.  It is a thing of beauty when it is firing on all cylinders though.  As you note in your next post a good offense is dependent on balance.  So being able to run the ball effectively and having the real potential of scoring on a long yardage play at any time forces the defense to cover the whole field.   With Marvin Jones, Eifert and our complete offensive line our offense was difficult to deal with.

I love the West Coast Offense, especially when they go no huddle and dictate all the matchups without subbing.  I hope Lazor doesn't deviate from it too much.

We'll see

(05-09-2018, 10:12 AM)BengalChris Wrote: There is a place for 10-12 play drives, but to have that be our norm is koo-koo. It gives the defense that many chances to stop you.

Stretching the field and scoring quickly will open up things so that when we need a 12 play, 7 minute drive to close our a game the defense will have to play it more straight up and if they don't you just push it down field anyways and score.

I like it. I didn't know the team was shooting for 10-12 play drives as the norm. Of course, that approach sounds like Marvin Lewis.

That is part of the design of the West Coast Offense.   It is a ball control offense.  The obvious risk as you point out is that it gives the defense more chances to stop you.  But its success is predicated on a high volume of high percentage plays.   There guys out there now (don't ask me who cuz I heard it on a podcast and didn't write it down) who talk about the stronger likelihood of getting first downs by running the ball on 2nd and 3rd down more often - but again, high percentage plays.   The long ball is an awesome tool - if you're good at it.  And it is typically a low percentage play.  So the risk of using it more often is that you end up with more 3 and outs and your defense gets gassed really quickly.

So it really is not a Marvin thing.  It really had been our MO since Gruden was the OC.

Lazor seems really bright.   Hopefully he doesn't swing the pendulum too far the other way.   I'm not sure our O line is up to the task.

(05-09-2018, 08:26 PM)3wt Wrote: That is part of the design of the West Coast Offense.   It is a ball control offense.  The obvious risk as you point out is that it gives the defense more chances to stop you.  But its success is predicated on a high volume of high percentage plays.   There guys out there now (don't ask me who cuz I heard it on a podcast and didn't write it down) who talk about the stronger likelihood of getting first downs by running the ball on 2nd and 3rd down more often - but again, high percentage plays.   The long ball is an awesome tool - if you're good at it.  And it is typically a low percentage play.  So the risk of using it more often is that you end up with more 3 and outs and your defense gets gassed really quickly.

So it really is not a Marvin thing.  It really had been our MO since Gruden was the OC.

Lazor seems really bright.   Hopefully he doesn't swing the pendulum too far the other way.   I'm not sure our O line is up to the task.

I think the Bengals somehow weren't seeing those "high percentage" plays. We did seem to see quite a number runs for -1 to 3 yards on first down though. Appeared very predictable.

I understand controlling the clock and having long drives to wear down the other team and keep your defense fresh. But to do that on every drive lets the defense know exactly what to expect. And from a team that couldn't open up any running lanes or pass block it just seemed ugly and it was ugly.

(05-09-2018, 08:32 PM)BengalChris Wrote: I think the Bengals somehow weren't seeing those "high percentage" plays. We did seem to see quite a number runs for -1 to 3 yards on first down though. Appeared very predictable.

I understand controlling the clock and having long drives to wear down the other team and keep your defense fresh. But to do that on every drive lets the defense know exactly what to expect. And from a team that couldn't open up any running lanes or pass block it just seemed ugly and it was ugly.

It was indeed ugly.  The only thing that seemed to make a difference was changing the blocking scheme at the end of the year, which better suited our players.  And there's no guarantee that opposing teams will not make a quick adjustment to that right out of the gate.

When you let your two best offensive linemen slip away and make a colossal error in assessing your two top drafted replacements - and that on the heels of letting your # 2 receiver walk the year before (I realize he wanted to be the man, but he's not the man in Detroit, and you just make an offer the guy can't refuse), you're going to go down the poop chute like greased lightning.

That's what we did and that's what happened.  

There's no offensive scheme that will survive that.  And it will take more than 1 year of better management to reverse the losses, which is why (I believe) Lewis was signed for 2 years.

(05-10-2018, 02:08 PM)3wt Wrote: It was indeed ugly.  The only thing that seemed to make a difference was changing the blocking scheme at the end of the year, which better suited our players.  And there's no guarantee that opposing teams will not make a quick adjustment to that right out of the gate.

When you let your two best offensive linemen slip away and make a colossal error in assessing your two top drafted replacements - and that on the heels of letting your # 2 receiver walk the year before (I realize he wanted to be the man, but he's not the man in Detroit, and you just make an offer the guy can't refuse), you're going to go down the poop chute like greased lightning.

That's what we did and that's what happened.  

There's no offensive scheme that will survive that.  And it will take more than 1 year of better management to reverse the losses, which is why (I believe) Lewis was signed for 2 years.

Just blame Mike Brown, that's what I do.

(05-11-2018, 09:50 AM)BengalChris Wrote: Just blame Mike Brown, that's what I do.

Of this, we are painfully aware.

(05-11-2018, 09:50 AM)BengalChris Wrote: Just blame Mike Brown, that's what I do.

I don't blame him for everything.   But for this I do.