(07-08-2019, 02:56 PM)Synric Wrote: They allowed a ton of pressures is why they are 27th. 

Redmond was one of the worst in the league at guard. Both tackles also struggled giving up a ton of pressures. Price wasnt awful in pass pro but also didnt stand out and struggled with 1vs1 run blocks against IDL. Boling also had a career worst year in pass pro.

That said... they did improve drastically over 2017 which had to be the worst offensive line play I have ever seen.

Pressures is pretty subjective, but even if you said the Bengals were a dead last 32nd in Pressures Allowed, that would still average out to a 14.5 average with their other stat ratings.  If you said they were dead last 32nd in Penalties, that would drag them down to an average of 18.


To get a rating of 27th based on objective stats, you would have to insanely overweight Pressures compared to Sacks and Hits in your equation, which makes no sense.  The offense can function if the QB gets pressured.  It can't if he gets sacked.

Concrete data doesn't bear out their ratings.  If Joe Mixon is only a "Good" RB by their rankings, how does he lead the conference in rushing behind one their worst ranked OL's in the league?

(07-08-2019, 04:12 PM)Whatever Wrote: Pressures is pretty subjective, but even if you said the Bengals were a dead last 32nd in Pressures Allowed, that would still average out to a 14.5 average with their other stat ratings.  If you said they were dead last 32nd in Penalties, that would drag them down to an average of 18.


To get a rating of 27th based on objective stats, you would have to insanely overweight Pressures compared to Sacks and Hits in your equation, which makes no sense.  The offense can function if the QB gets pressured.  It can't if he gets sacked.

Concrete data doesn't bear out their ratings.  If Joe Mixon is only a "Good" RB by their rankings, how does he lead the conference in rushing behind one their worst ranked OL's in the league?

Pressures are a measured stat they are not subjective.

(07-07-2019, 04:31 PM)jason Wrote: So... In summation; we are not done crying and moaning.

Personally I'm done crying; however, the moaning may continue.

(07-08-2019, 04:12 PM)Whatever Wrote: Pressures is pretty subjective, but even if you said the Bengals were a dead last 32nd in Pressures Allowed, that would still average out to a 14.5 average with their other stat ratings.  If you said they were dead last 32nd in Penalties, that would drag them down to an average of 18.


To get a rating of 27th based on objective stats, you would have to insanely overweight Pressures compared to Sacks and Hits in your equation, which makes no sense.  The offense can function if the QB gets pressured.  It can't if he gets sacked.

Concrete data doesn't bear out their ratings.  If Joe Mixon is only a "Good" RB by their rankings, how does he lead the conference in rushing behind one their worst ranked OL's in the league?

I think that almost everyone in this forum would agree that our offensive line is bad and not one of the better ones in the league.

Pressures, sacks, false starts, penalties, poor run blocking...it all factors in.

(07-08-2019, 04:38 PM)Synric Wrote: Pressures are a measured stat they are not subjective.

How are they measured?  You get a sack if you tackle the QB while he still has the ball.  There's concrete indisputable evidence that says whether it was a Sack or not.  Pressures are based solely on human judgement, hence subjective.

(07-08-2019, 04:46 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I think that almost everyone in this forum would agree that our offensive line is bad and not one of the better ones in the league.

Pressures, sacks, false starts, penalties, poor run blocking...it all factors in.

You forgot my favorite.... Lining up in the neutral zone.

Yes Pressures are a weird stat precisely because there is no fixed standard for what is a pressure. But also yes our OL has had real issues for years, and it started before Whit and Zeitler left. Really our last good Center was Braham and we've had other interior line issues too. The change when we lost Whit was the trouble areas started including the Tackle spots too.

(07-08-2019, 05:24 PM)Whatever Wrote: How are they measured?  You get a sack if you tackle the QB while he still has the ball.  There's concrete indisputable evidence that says whether it was a Sack or not.  Pressures are based solely on human judgement, hence subjective.

Pressures which includes Sacks and QB Hits is now a stat measures through GPS tags in every players shoulder pads. It shows if the defender is closer to the QB than the guy that was blocking him in a set amount of time.

It is now a stat which we have definite precise numbers through Next Gen Stats and PFF.

(07-08-2019, 06:25 PM)Synric Wrote: Pressures which includes Sacks and QB Hits is now a stat measures through GPS tags in every players shoulder pads. It shows if the defender is closer to the QB than the guy that was blocking him in a set amount of time.

It is now a stat which we have definite precise numbers through Next Gen Stats and PFF.

Pressures are not listed as a Next Gen stat, or at least not as I can find on their site.  PFF doesn't have access to the GPS trackers and evaluates a pressure per human judgment on game film.  The metric you describe is also terrible.  If a DE gets closer to the QB than the T right when the ball is thrown, it's a pressure whether the DE is 5 inches from the QB or 5 yards from the QB.  On a HB screen, I guess everyone on the OL gets dinged for a pressure since they are literally supposed to let the DL go.

(07-08-2019, 06:49 PM)Whatever Wrote: Pressures are not listed as a Next Gen stat, or at least not as I can find on their site.  PFF doesn't have access to the GPS trackers and evaluates a pressure per human judgment on game film.  The metric you describe is also terrible.  If a DE gets closer to the QB than the T right when the ball is thrown, it's a pressure whether the DE is 5 inches from the QB or 5 yards from the QB.  On a HB screen, I guess everyone on the OL gets dinged for a pressure since they are literally supposed to let the DL go.

That's just general how it works. Its distance to the QB too.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/next-gen-stats/0ap3000001034365/Next-Gen-Stats-Who-created-most-QB-pressures-in-2019

Pressuring the QB consistantly is more important that sack numbers. Consistent pressure forces the ball out fast, it forces bad desicions, and bad throws. It also limits what plays the OC can call. 

It's a trackable stat now better get used to it.

(07-08-2019, 04:46 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I think that almost everyone in this forum would agree that our offensive line is bad and not one of the better ones in the league.

Pressures, sacks, false starts, penalties, poor run blocking...it all factors in.

Do you have anything to add that isn't an appeal to authority or straw man?

(07-07-2019, 06:56 PM)jason Wrote: Are turnovers flukey when the Bengals commit them?

It's a case-by-case thing.

There are turnovers that are caused by exceptional defensive play, and also turnovers caused by bonheaded offensive plays.

Ryan Tannehill and Isiah Oliver were dumbasses. Not a lot of football players reach those kinds of stupidity levels.

(07-08-2019, 03:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is a perfect example of what I was talking about.  In the Dolphins game we completely dominated every phase of the game from the middle of the third quarter.  Here is what happened after the Dolphins took a 17-0 lead with 9:25 left in the third quarter.

Bengals offense next 3 possessions...…...27 plays...175 yards...10 firstdowns…......3 scores...0 turnovers
Dolphins offense next 5 possessions...…..22 plays.... 46 yards... 3 firstdowns..……. 0 scores...3 turnovers

That was not luck.  That was a total beat down by the Bengals on both offense and defense.



And why does that fact that Atlanta had a poor defense mean that we should have lost to them.  That makes no sense at all.  

We didn't dominate every phase of that game from the end of the third onward. We had a shitty anemic offense that made one eceptional play (Dalton to Mixon TD), and a defense aided by Tannehill being Tannehill.

What i'm saying is that Atlanta's defense was putrid, yet it STILL took a dumbass in Isiah Oliver for us to win that game.

(07-08-2019, 04:46 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I think that almost everyone in this forum would agree that our offensive line is bad and not one of the better ones in the league.

Pressures, sacks, false starts, penalties, poor run blocking...it all factors in.

Agreed.  There was an improvement from 2017 in my eyes, but it was still a glaring weakness.

(07-08-2019, 11:34 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: It's a case-by-case thing.

There are turnovers that are caused by exceptional defensive play, and also turnovers caused by bonheaded offensive plays.

Ryan Tannehill and Isiah Oliver were dumbasses. Not a lot of football players reach those kinds of stupidity levels.

Sometimes, (well a LOT of times) fans tend to overlook the opposing team's just great plays as if every great play by any opposing team has to be faulted somewhere by our team..
I remember a recent home run by one of the Brewers players. The pitch was really low out of the strike zone almost in the dirt, but he reached down and knocked it over the fence.. That wasn't the fault of the pitcher, it was just a great play by the Brewers hitter at the time.. Well, basically just dumb shit luck on his part, but he got the home run anyway.. 
The stats in that will never tell the story of a lousy pitch almost in the dirt and if he had swung and missed and struck out the stat would have been of just another strikeout.. Instead, just another homerun, nothing more, nothing less.. 

(07-08-2019, 11:39 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: 1.  We didn't dominate every phase of that game from the end of the third onward. We had a shitty anemic offense that made one eceptional play (Dalton to Mixon TD), and a defense aided by Tannehill being Tannehill.

What i'm saying is that Atlanta's defense was putrid, yet it STILL took a dumbass in Isiah Oliver for us to win that game.

1.  If our offense was "shitty and anemic" and only made ONE play then how were we able to convert 10 first downs on 3 scoring drives that were all over 8 plays long to eat up the third and fourth quarters?  And how does a 57 rating and 2 ints amount to "Tannehill being Tannehill" when in his other ten games he had a 97.9 rating and only threw 7 picks?


2.  And, again, why is the other team being worse than us "luck"?  When the Bengals are worse than the opposing team why is that not just "luck" also. 

Just checking to see if everyone is done crying and moaning, yet.

Eh. It has changed a bit now to boredom and wondering if they will do the obvious and trade people to stock up picks.

(10-07-2019, 12:54 AM)Joelist Wrote: Eh. It has changed a bit now to boredom and wondering if they will do the obvious and trade people to stock up picks.

I have absolutely no reason to believe they can correctly utilize stocked draft picks. They'll trade a Benz for 3 Corollas.

(10-07-2019, 12:49 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Just checking to see if everyone is done crying and moaning, yet.

This may go on for about 3 years....