(07-19-2018, 10:33 PM)Synric Wrote: Having a successful run game is huge.

First a consistent run game keeps the down and distance manageable which helps open up the playbook. It allows a team to control the clock and shut out football games. It limits what a defense can do because they have to first and foremost shut down the rushing attack. 

And most importantly trying to stop a consistently successful run game is physically and psychologically draining on a defense.

This. All of this. 

It still amazes me that the Eagles were 3rd in the NFL in rushing yards last season at 2115, as they don't have any truly elite RBs. Blount led all RBs on that team with just 766 yards. They also only totaled 9 rushing TDs.

I think if the Bengals are to become a good rushing team, they'll likely follow suit to the Eagles' style of rushing where they get a lot of yards but not a lot of TDs. I don't see the Bengals becoming the 2009 version of themselves with a ground-and-pound offense led through a workhorse RB (like '09 Benson), only having one receiver put up 1000+ yards (Chad), and the rest put up less than 600 yards (Coles, Caldwell).

Anyone who would think that not having a good rushing attack, or at least the proven ability to run the ball with success consistently, are just fooling themselves. Teams that can't run the ball don't get labeled as "one dimensional" for nothing, by not being able to successfully move the ball on the ground, it makes the defenses job so much easier.


I still hold onto the philosophy that says the way to build a strong, winning football team is from the inside out. On defense that means putting a premium on DT, LB, and S, and on offense you must covet dominate OL, durable backs and a smart QB. If you have strong players at those positions, you can just about plug and play anyone at the CB and WR positions, and be highly competitive.

(07-20-2018, 06:09 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Anyone who would think that not having a good rushing attack, or at least the proven ability to run the ball with success consistently, are just fooling themselves.  Teams that can't run the ball don't get labeled as "one dimensional" for nothing, by not being able to successfully move the ball on the ground, it makes the defenses job so much easier.


I still hold onto the philosophy that says the way to build a strong, winning football team is from the inside out.  On defense that means putting a premium on DT, LB, and S, and on offense you must covet dominate OL, durable backs and a smart QB.  If you have strong players at those positions, you can just about plug and play anyone at the CB and WR positions, and be highly competitive.

Think you just explained Jacksonville. All the above makes the plug and play anyone players put up respectable numbers and also gets them on ESPN/NFLN highlights. 

(07-20-2018, 07:23 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Think you just explained Jacksonville. All the above makes the plug and play anyone players put up respectable numbers and also gets them on ESPN/NFLN highlights. 

And to think that the architect of that Jacksonville team could have been HC of the Bengals...  Oh well, It's all just water under now.

(07-20-2018, 04:39 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: But boy howdy if Jefferson can pick up the mental part of the game, could be a star with his physical traits.

Physically reminds me a lot of my fave LB in the draft Trumaine Edmunds.

Which is why i had a 2nd round grade on Malik. But not necessarily for us with our Dawson debacle.

He will have to practice well and get smart to do something here. Doesn't matter how gifted he is.

No denying his athletic abilities to be sure.  If he gets his mind around the game it would be really exciting.

Hmm, this is a nuanced stat for sure. Cleveland had 4.5 YPA last season, which is tied for 3rd in the league. I wouldn't have guessed that. They were 0-16, they had one of the worst QBs in the league leading them, and they let their top RB just walk out the door afterwards.

(07-19-2018, 08:36 AM)Au165 Wrote: This is always a chicken and the egg type thing to me. Teams that are generally winning games run more because they are trying to keep the clock moving. Teams that are trailing in games tend to have to throw more to catch up. One could argue that the amount of running isn't a predictor of success, but rather a product of success.Dave Lapham always used to throw out some stat about rushing attempts and the Bengals winning trying to associate it with causation, but again if the team is rushing that much it is because they most likely have a lead. It used to drive me nuts!

As to the question, you have to be able to run at least at an average clip to win.

I know what you mean BUT...
it seems some teams attitude is,
 they ARE GOING to run the ball a lot PERIOD ....!!!!
use to seem that was more of an NFC thing, but any team can use that as their formula to success.....stealers have done that several years...
as in step #1 RUN THE BALL....short passes over the middle to the TE.....wear down the "D"...
the game may end up 21-17, but as long as they win, they don't mind a low scoring game....control the clock...

but it seems the Bengals don't do that....they're more wide open, dare I say finesse.....
pass more to the WR's.…..& maybe our O-lines have suffered b/c of this....???
look at how many times we'd have a 3rd & 2-3 yards & we'd pass....SMH.....kind of aggravating....that's how Dalton broke his thumb....
maybe....this year we'll go back to that style a little more.......try to get Mixon going early in every game.....ALOT of touches......get 3-4-5 yards per carry........I know we have to mix in some passes....we have excellent WR's but.....don't be afraid to run the ball....especially on 1st or 2nd down....
 if it's goal to go from the 3-4 yard line maybe don't get cute....just run it straight ahead....
that's IF we have the horses than can do it.....we'll find out pretty soon....pre-season is just a few weeks away...
if we can't do that then we shouldn't be in the play-offs...

In perfect conditions the pass can set up the run just as effectively as the run setting up the pass.

However if you do not always play in domed stadiums then perfect weather can not be counted on.

When the wind starts whipping and swirling around you better be able to run if you want a W.

Then in the frigid cold that the AFCN provides often. If a team can pound the ball down the other teams throat it quickly becomes demoralizing.

Think ultimately you have to have both in arsenal. But run is definitely important.

Yet hope to see a balance of the two personally.

(07-19-2018, 10:20 AM)grampahol Wrote: Kind of goes along with the notion that just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should do it. Can we build a great rushing team and sacrifice the passing game to do it? Sure. Should we? Probably not.. Kind of like the ideas some people get when it comes to the trading deadline. Just because you can make a trade doesn't necessarily mean you should. 
Hey, I could chop my arm off and try to sell it on craigslist. That doesn't necessarily mean that I should.  Lol

no ones suggesting we ditch the air attack....we have great WR's...
BUT....
we need to have a BETTER ground game.....period....
we have to be able to get those 3rd & shorts, ON THE GROUND sometimes.....
we pass on them too much....b/c we've had weak O-lines....
that's what we want fixed....
more runs for 3-4-5 yards all though out the game.....every series....
not just the first 1/2 then the 2nd 1/2 we abandon the run......end up losing w/ poor run #'s.....way too many passes....Dalton being chased & sacked....

(07-20-2018, 08:37 AM)Au165 Wrote: The attempts thing was in regards to Lapham. My comment still stands using Rushing Yards Per Game, you are more likely to have more rushing yards if you rush more, you tend to rush more when you are winning. You saying they were able to run successfully is a bit misleading as well as yards per game is not indicative of success, yards per attempt is more relative to success as I can run 50 times for 2 yards a carry, but running 20 times for 5 yards a carry was much more successful.

50 rushes for 2 yards per carry is still the winning team.

Each team, on average, gets 12 or less drives per game.  If you never throw a single pass and never get a first down, 50 rushes at 2 per carry would equate to 16+ drives.  And we know that isn't really the way it works out.  Unless your opponent went up by 40 in the first quarter and you are trying to insure the clock will not stop, 50 carries is a virtual guarantee of a win, regardless of the yards per carry.

Meanwhile, a team trailing by 28 entering the second half can easily exceed 5 yards a carry and 100 yards on the ground in that half, as everyone is playing the pass.

You can't have a high number of carries without being ahead or even on the scoreboard, which is why Lapham brings it up.  A large number of carries means the scoreboard and clock are in your favor, and your defense is not gassed.  Even at 2 yards per carry...

(07-20-2018, 06:09 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Anyone who would think that not having a good rushing attack, or at least the proven ability to run the ball with success consistently, are just fooling themselves.  Teams that can't run the ball don't get labeled as "one dimensional" for nothing, by not being able to successfully move the ball on the ground, it makes the defenses job so much easier.


I still hold onto the philosophy that says the way to build a strong, winning football team is from the inside out.  On defense that means putting a premium on DT, LB, and S, and on offense you must covet dominate OL, durable backs and a smart QB.  If you have strong players at those positions, you can just about plug and play anyone at the CB and WR positions, and be highly competitive.

In 2012 everyone and their mother's claimed the rushing attack was a thing of the past.

Then the Seahawks won the SB in dominating fashion by shutting down the run and running the ball at will

Then they did it again, except someone decided to NOT run the ball on the goal line...

The ground game is still of utmost importance.  If you can consistently get three yards and a cloud of dust on the ground, I can throw 3 TD's off of PA passes...

(07-20-2018, 09:43 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Hmm, this is a nuanced stat for sure.  Cleveland had 4.5 YPA last season, which is tied for 3rd in the league.  I wouldn't have guessed that.  They were 0-16, they had one of the worst QBs in the league leading them, and they let their top RB just walk out the door afterwards.

Well, a part of that stat (rushing) was because their QB ran for over 400 yards in 15 games.  Not a ton, but did influence the stat somewhat. 

And they, supposedly, had a very good offensive line.

If Josh Gordon returns to form, their offense will be a lot different this year.  

a running game is extremrly important on many fronts
a team that can run at will on a front 7 can mentally defeat them.
once you've beat a player mentally hes checked out for the game.
number 2 it forces the lb'ers to play closer to the LOS wbich can lead to nice play action
seam routes to the TE.
and as stated before you control the clock.control the clock and you keep a lethal offense like
the Steelers out of rythem
as long as your getting 3 4 yards a pop 3rd down is a guessing game for the defense
and a running game is Andys best buddie.
he really does well with play action.

We need to be able to run the ball better. I feel like we havent even been able to run the clock down to protect a lead effectively since Rudi. When our offense lets up at all, teams stop us and get back in the game. Our run blocking has been really bad for quite some time, but I think a change in blocking philosophy is what is needed and we have it. Like Icky said, under PA we used to step back and 'catch' run defenders instead of going out to hit them and knock them back. I think we are gonna see a really big difference this year. Those two playing styles are very different.

(07-23-2018, 08:19 AM)bengaloo Wrote: We need to be able to run the ball better. I feel like we havent even been able to run the clock down to protect a lead effectively since Rudi. When our offense lets up at all, teams stop us and get back in the game. Our run blocking has been really bad for quite some time, but I think a change in blocking philosophy is what is needed and we have it. Like Icky said, under PA we used to step back and 'catch' run defenders instead of going out to hit them and knock them back. I think we are gonna see a really big difference this year. Those two playing styles are very different.

I sure hope so.

It can't hurt that the likes of pitt, Baltimore, etc haven't seen this kind of offense from us, either.

It is commonly dismissed under the heading of "they are professionals", but human nature of being aggressive vs. passive...it is just bound to get more out of our players.  I feel a little (very little) bit bad for Bodine as he didn't really get a shot with this offensive line coach and a full offseason to learn Lazor's offense, but I am excited about the guys we have in here to start some nastiness across the offensive line. 

Billy Price looks like a bowling ball with arms (and not because he is bald).  The guy was one of the strongest linemen (all positions on the line) in the draft, and he is a vocal leader with a case of the red ass.  Glenn is certainly a massive man.  Like Lapham said:  "It will be like running around a condominium".  Boling might be better than we thought, as evidenced somewhat by his play at LT with a solid LG at his side.  Maybe Bodine and Og hurt Boling's ability to play his best and focus on his man/zone.  I am VERY excited at the thought of having Westerman and Redmond side by side at RG and RT.  I know Redmond hasn't been mentioned with the RT competition other than to say the competition is there for every spot.  I just have a feeling the guy is going to get a shot after we see very little from Fish, Og, and Hart.

If you think the play of Boling will improve based on the talent around him, just wait until we see what our RBs can do when they aren't having to make a guy miss two yards in the backfield.  

(07-23-2018, 08:19 AM)bengaloo Wrote: We need to be able to run the ball better. I feel like we havent even been able to run the clock down to protect a lead effectively since Rudi. When our offense lets up at all, teams stop us and get back in the game. Our run blocking has been really bad for quite some time, but I think a change in blocking philosophy is what is needed and we have it. Like Icky said, under PA we used to step back and 'catch' run defenders instead of going out to hit them and knock them back. I think we are gonna see a really big difference this year. Those two playing styles are very different.

I don't find it to be a coincidence that the last time we were able to run the clock was when we had a good Center.

Look who we have now, the best run blocking Center in the Draft. Rudi wasn't near the talent of either Mixon or Gio either.

(07-23-2018, 08:35 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: I sure hope so.

It can't hurt that the likes of pitt, Baltimore, etc haven't seen this kind of offense from us, either.

It is commonly dismissed under the heading of "they are professionals", but human nature of being aggressive vs. passive...it is just bound to get more out of our players.  I feel a little (very little) bit bad for Bodine as he didn't really get a shot with this offensive line coach and a full offseason to learn Lazor's offense, but I am excited about the guys we have in here to start some nastiness across the offensive line. 

Billy Price looks like a bowling ball with arms (and not because he is bald).  The guy was one of the strongest linemen (all positions on the line) in the draft, and he is a vocal leader with a case of the red ass.  Glenn is certainly a massive man.  Like Lapham said:  "It will be like running around a condominium".  Boling might be better than we thought, as evidenced somewhat by his play at LT with a solid LG at his side.  Maybe Bodine and Og hurt Boling's ability to play his best and focus on his man/zone.  I am VERY excited at the thought of having Westerman and Redmond side by side at RG and RT.  I know Redmond hasn't been mentioned with the RT competition other than to say the competition is there for every spot.  I just have a feeling the guy is going to get a shot after we see very little from Fish, Og, and Hart.

If you think the play of Boling will improve based on the talent around him, just wait until we see what our RBs can do when they aren't having to make a guy miss two yards in the backfield.  

Definately need to give Redmond a shot at RT with his size, length and mauling style.

My only question is his pass protection.

(07-23-2018, 01:50 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Definately need to give Redmond a shot at RT with his size, length and mauling style.

My only question is his pass protection.

I guess I would counter that by saying:  "Have you seen the pass protection by Hart, Ced, or Fisher?"  What I have seen hasn't been good.  


I think Redmond not only would upgrade the run blocking, but is likely better than any of those three.  And, he is actually built more like a tackle:  6'5". 330 lbs. 33 and 1/4" arms.  


Granted, he would have to show very well to beat out the other guys who have all played tackle in the NFL, but I want to find a way to get this guy on the field.  Lined up next to Westerman, I like our chances on short yardage and goal line, let alone straight up rushing plays. 

(07-24-2018, 06:38 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: I guess I would counter that by saying:  "Have you seen the pass protection by Hart, Ced, or Fisher?"  What I have seen hasn't been good.  


I think Redmond not only would upgrade the run blocking, but is likely better than any of those three.  And, he is actually built more like a tackle:  6'5". 330 lbs. 33 and 1/4" arms.  


Granted, he would have to show very well to beat out the other guys who have all played tackle in the NFL, but I want to find a way to get this guy on the field.  Lined up next to Westerman, I like our chances on short yardage and goal line, let alone straight up rushing plays. 

Good point, probably cannot be much worse in pass pro than those guys, especially Og and Hart.

I have seen good pass protection from Fisher in the past but i still stand by that Fisher has always been more of a LT
then RT in my eyes. Would rather have a mauling type like Redmond or Perkins there. Perkins actually played well in
the one chance he got at RT against the Ravens. Went right down the field and scored a TD with him there.

People throwing out the notion of Redmond, Perkins or Taylor at RT i think are undervaluing what Pollack has been
saying. No one is given a starting position, no one. The best players will start.

(07-20-2018, 06:09 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Anyone who would think that not having a good rushing attack, or at least the proven ability to run the ball with success consistently, are just fooling themselves. Teams that can't run the ball don't get labeled as "one dimensional" for nothing, by not being able to successfully move the ball on the ground, it makes the defenses job so much easier.


I still hold onto the philosophy that says the way to build a strong, winning football team is from the inside out. On defense that means putting a premium on DT, LB, and S, and on offense you must covet dominate OL, durable backs and a smart QB. If you have strong players at those positions, you can just about plug and play anyone at the CB and WR positions, and be highly competitive.

Remember 2009? Cincinnati became a run-first team and pancaked the entire AFC North.

(07-24-2018, 02:38 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: Remember 2009?  Cincinnati became a run-first team and pancaked the entire AFC North.

I sure do

Welcome back ole buddy, ain't seen you around in awhile.