(10-25-2015, 03:24 PM)Synric Wrote: What Fred is saying could be right I don't know but he needs more information to prove his point is all I'm saying.

It is up to the people calling me wrong to provide that information.

My opinion is not based "just on stats".  It is also based on the games I have watched.

I think some people may believe that "under center" means the same thing as "behind a FB".

(10-25-2015, 03:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I gave my part.  So it is up to you to proved your part.

ProFootballOutsiders has a great stat for RBs called "success rate".  A run is a "success" if it gains 40% of the yardage needed on first down (typically 4 yards on first-and-ten), 60% on second down, or 100% on third down.  (I think they adjust these percentages in the fourth quarter if the RB's tream is either losing or winning by a large margin)

So if you can find Hill's success rate in the shotgun versus "under center" then I will concede that number might be more important than yards-per-carry.  But I have watched a lot of Bengal games and I do not get the impression that Hill is more successful when Dalton is under center.

You could be right I don't know just saying you need more info to prove your point. Before telling anyone you're right he's wrong.

(10-25-2015, 12:00 PM)Synric Wrote: Sorry Fred but stats are not everything. How effective was each play. What that shows me is that he was more effective when the QB was under center because they ran it over 2× more from those than in shotgun.

Exactly what I pointed out, but Fred only deals with objectivity without looking at circumstances or details, not subjectivity.

(10-25-2015, 03:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can not just make up your own definitions of "more effective".

Then why didn't we just run more plays from the shotgun?  Andy had about equal stats from the shotgun as he did from lone-setback, so why wouldn't we have run solely from the gun?

Think about how much better Andy could have been with defenses having to focus on stopping Hill more from the gun.

(10-25-2015, 03:47 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Then why didn't we just run more plays from the shotgun?  Andy had about equal stats from the shotgun as he did from lone-setback, so why wouldn't we have run solely from the gun?

Because the offense only works if it is diverse.  I don't know why you bring this up because I have always been in favor of the offense running from multiple sets.

You are the one who is screaming that we need to run Hill 25 times a game from the same formation.

(10-25-2015, 04:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because the offense only works if it is diverse.  I don't know why you bring this up because I have always been in favor of the offense running from multiple sets.

You are the one who is screaming that we need to run Hill 25 times a game from the same formation.

Then why don't teams run shotgun as much as they run other formations, especially on first and second down?

Even if it's not 25 times from the same formation, it needs to be 25 times, with the majority being with Andy under center (I believe I stated with him under center, not from the same formation).

It's much, much easier to run the ball starting with the QB under center.

(10-25-2015, 04:45 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Then why don't teams run shotgun as much as they run other formations, especially on first and second down?

Many teams run more shotgun than under center even on first and second down.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/fo-basics




Clearly, NFL teams have figured the importance of the Shotgun out for themselves. In 2001, NFL teams only used Shotgun on 14 percent of plays. Five years later, in 2006, that had increased slightly, to 20 percent of plays. Shotgun usage has risen steadily since then, shattering the halfway point in 2013 (when NFL teams used Shotgun 59 percent of the time) and then creeping over the 60 percent threshold in 2014. Before 2007, no team had ever used Shotgun on more than half its offensive plays. In 2014, 26 different teams used Shotgun over 50 percent of the time,led by Philadelphia which used Shotgun on an NFL-record 86 percent of plays. (That was actually a very slight decline for Philadelphia, from 86.0 percent in 2013 to 85.6 percent last year.) It is likely that if teams continue to increase their usage of the Shotgun, defenses will adapt and the benefit of the formation will become less pronounced. But it certainly isn't happening yet; the difference between success on Shotgun and non-Shotgun plays in 2001 was bigger than in 2008, 2009, or 2010.

(10-25-2015, 04:45 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: It's much, much easier to run the ball starting with the QB under center.

No it isn't

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/fo-basics



Over the past five seasons, offenses have averaged 5.8 yards per play from Shotgun (not counting the Wildcat or other college-style option plays), but just 5.0 yards per play with the quarterback under center. This wide split exists even if you analyze the data to try to weed out biases like teams using Shotgun more often on third-and-long, or against prevent defenses in the fourth quarter. Shotgun offense is more efficient if you only look at the first half, on every down, and even if you only look at running back carries rather than passes and scrambles.

(10-25-2015, 09:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Many teams run more shotgun than under center even on first and second down.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/fo-basics




Clearly, NFL teams have figured the importance of the Shotgun out for themselves. In 2001, NFL teams only used Shotgun on 14 percent of plays. Five years later, in 2006, that had increased slightly, to 20 percent of plays. Shotgun usage has risen steadily since then, shattering the halfway point in 2013 (when NFL teams used Shotgun 59 percent of the time) and then creeping over the 60 percent threshold in 2014. Before 2007, no team had ever used Shotgun on more than half its offensive plays. In 2014, 26 different teams used Shotgun over 50 percent of the time,led by Philadelphia which used Shotgun on an NFL-record 86 percent of plays. (That was actually a very slight decline for Philadelphia, from 86.0 percent in 2013 to 85.6 percent last year.) It is likely that if teams continue to increase their usage of the Shotgun, defenses will adapt and the benefit of the formation will become less pronounced. But it certainly isn't happening yet; the difference between success on Shotgun and non-Shotgun plays in 2001 was bigger than in 2008, 2009, or 2010.

It doesn't matter if many teams are doing it, the fact of the matter remains that Jeremy Hill is better suited with Andy under center.

(10-25-2015, 09:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it isn't

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/fo-basics



Over the past five seasons, offenses have averaged 5.8 yards per play from Shotgun (not counting the Wildcat or other college-style option plays), but just 5.0 yards per play with the quarterback under center. This wide split exists even if you analyze the data to try to weed out biases like teams using Shotgun more often on third-and-long, or against prevent defenses in the fourth quarter. Shotgun offense is more efficient if you only look at the first half, on every down, and even if you only look at running back carries rather than passes and scrambles.

Look at the top ten backs in the league and see that almost all of them, even if some have a higher YPC, run better from a lone setback or an I formation.  The top backs are only running a third or fourth of the time, if that, from the shotgun, meaning that it's a much smaller sample size to evaluate from.  Teams line-up with the QB under center to run the ball because it's easier to establish the run that way.

Shotgun might be good to switch it up occasionally, but it doesn't play to Hill's strengths.

Like I said, the eye test proves that.

(10-26-2015, 01:24 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Look at the top ten backs in the league and see that almost all of them, even if some have a higher YPC, run better from a lone setback or an I formation. 

How are they running better if they are gaining fewer yards?

Plus the percentage of snaps is meaningless because it appears even the WORST rbs in the league carry the ball less from the shotgun formation than from under center.

Here is a really simple job for you Brad.  Show the percentage of times the best RBs in the league run from the shotgun and compare it to the number of times the worst RBs do.  I'll bet there is no proof that running more from under center makes a RB more efficient.

You simply have an idea in your head that does not match reality.  Running Hill more with the QB under center will not improve his production.  It doesn't work with any other RB and it won't work with Hill.

(10-26-2015, 07:35 AM)fredtoast Wrote: How are they running better if they are gaining fewer yards?

Plus the percentage of snaps is meaningless because it appears even the WORST rbs in the league carry the ball less from the shotgun formation than from under center.

Here is a really simple job for you Brad.  Show the percentage of times the best RBs in the league run from the shotgun and compare it to the number of times the worst RBs do.  I'll bet there is no proof that running more from under center makes a RB more efficient.

You simply have an idea in your head that does not match reality.  Running Hill more with the QB under center will not improve his production.  It doesn't work with any other RB and it won't work with Hill.

Because doing something in spurts is more effective than doing it regularly because the defense isn't prepared for it and it's a "wrinkle," if you will.  

That is why the percentage of snaps is meaningless.  

My stats weren't about the talent of the running backs but more just about the reality of the situation.

It seems to work a lot with other backs starting with the Qb under center and it would work for Hill because of his running style.

(10-25-2015, 09:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it isn't

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/fo-basics



Over the past five seasons, offenses have averaged 5.8 yards per play from Shotgun (not counting the Wildcat or other college-style option plays), but just 5.0 yards per play with the quarterback under center. This wide split exists even if you analyze the data to try to weed out biases like teams using Shotgun more often on third-and-long, or against prevent defenses in the fourth quarter. Shotgun offense is more efficient if you only look at the first half, on every down, and even if you only look at running back carries rather than passes and scrambles.

The Pats run a ton of Shotgun. What if the teams that run shotgun just tend to be better teams?

(10-26-2015, 12:41 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: The Pats run a ton of Shotgun. What if the teams that run shotgun just tend to be better teams?

Than we should follow the trend of good teams and continue to run the shotgun instead of changing our offensive philosophy to fit one RB. Our offense has been dominate this year and it would be idiotic to change what has been working just for Hill. This is also assuming that running from under center would even matter. From every stat posted so far it would appear that running under center would not make a difference. 

I'm pretty sure Alfred Morris led the league in rushing and did that from the shotgun a few years back.

Either way, I don't see why we are arguing how to run the offense, when the offense has been running as crisply as it has the past decade.

The mix of play calling has been perfect, and I expect Hue and Dalton to keep it up :)

I'm sorry, but this whole line of thinking when it comes to ONLY blaming Hill or thinking something is wrong with the running game makes very little sense.

1: Running the football and running plays are a total team effort as is stopping the run. Bengals opponents, especially early both in the season and in games, have geared up to stop the run and dared AD to beat them through the air. The running has been tough sledding because of this. As teams respect the pass more from the start of the games through the finish, Hill's yards between the tackles will open up.

2: According to Marvin, most of Hill's yards last year came out from running behind Hewitt. Hewitt has not been as good this year, either = Hill's production is down some.

3: Jeremy Hill has NOT hit the hole as fast as the previous year, nor has he been as slippery between the tackles.... But there also haven't been a ton of giant holes opened up Again.. teams have loaded up for the run. People comparing him to Trent Richardson have clearly never seen Trent Richardson play.

4: Jeremy Hill has KILLED KILLED KILLED opposing teams in the red zone.
   - Is the POWER there? YES
   - Has he been elusive there? YES
   - Has he made plays there? YES

He's the same player. Period.

^ If you acknowledge that teams have clearly loaded up to stop the run, but yet see Hill getting it done in the Red Zone to the tune of the Bengals being 2nd (as of last week) in the NFL in rushing TDs and 10th in total yards, what's the F'ing complaint? That one guy is getting it done in the long field (Bernard - and typically later in the game after the Bengals have thrown it all over the yard - forcing teams to play the pass more, might I add) and that one guy is finding the end-zone in the short field? You guys complaining: :snark:

5: The whole shotgun vs. whatever is a silly debate. Running the ball is running the ball. Period. There are a lot of factors, outside of Hill that factor into the running game's success.

NO, I am not giving Hill a complete pass. YES, I am saying that the player is the same guy, is young, and is going to continue to get stronger as the weather turns. Let the season unfold.

EDIT: Just looked it up & Hill is tied for 2nd in the NFL in TDs with 6 (Eifert has 6, too). He is tied with David Johnosn (RB, AZ) for 2nd in TDs by a running back. What the ehll is Hill supposed to do better?

(10-26-2015, 01:31 PM)PDub80 Wrote: I'm sorry, but this whole line of thinking when it comes to ONLY blaming Hill or thinking something is wrong with the running game makes very little sense.

1: Running the football and running plays are a total team effort as is stopping the run. Bengals opponents, especially early both in the season and in games, have geared up to stop the run and dared AD to beat them through the air. The running has been tough sledding because of this. As teams respect the pass more from the start of the games through the finish, Hill's yards between the tackles will open up.

2: According to Marvin, most of Hill's yards last year came out from running behind Hewitt. Hewitt has not been as good this year, either = Hill's production is down some.

3: Jeremy Hill has NOT hit the hole as fast as the previous year, nor has he been as slippery between the tackles.... But there also haven't been a ton of giant holes opened up Again.. teams have loaded up for the run. People comparing him to Trent Richardson have clearly never seen Trent Richardson play.

4: Jeremy Hill has KILLED KILLED KILLED opposing teams in the red zone.
   - Is the POWER there? YES
   - Has he been elusive there? YES
   - Has he made plays there? YES

He's the same player. Period.

^ If you acknowledge that teams have clearly loaded up to stop the run, but yet see Hill getting it done in the Red Zone to the tune of the Bengals being 2nd (as of last week) in the NFL in rushing TDs and 10th in total yards, what's the F'ing complaint? That one guy is getting it done in the long field (Bernard - and typically later in the game after the Bengals have thrown it all over the yard - forcing teams to play the pass more, might I add) and that one guy is finding the end-zone in the short field? You guys complaining: :snark:

5: The whole shotgun vs. whatever is a silly debate. Running the ball is running the ball. Period. There are a lot of factors, outside of Hill that factor into the running game's success.

NO, I am not giving Hill a complete pass. YES, I am saying that the player is the same guy, is young, and is going to continue to get stronger as the weather turns. Let the season unfold.

Uhh....no

You basically described differences in it then say it's no different....

(10-26-2015, 01:34 PM)PDub80 Wrote: Uhhhh..... yes.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

But running from the shotgun in vastly different than under center and with a FB.
If you can't figure out that running the ball is not just "running the ball" then there is no real conversation to be had with you

(10-26-2015, 01:32 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Uhh....no

You basically described differences in it then say it's no different....

Uhh No, dude... I said that the formation is not a big deal. Then I said that there are other factors that weigh more heavily on running game success than just where the QB is behind center.

(10-26-2015, 01:35 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: I'm sorry you feel that way.

But running from the shotgun in vastly different than under center and with a FB.
If you can't figure out that running the ball is not just "running the ball" then there is no real conversation to be had with you

Then shut the **** up and quit replying to me.

(10-20-2015, 06:45 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: He cherrypicks and, like everything else, he assumes that people are too stupid to see.

Like you said, I don't know why he bothers because I have to think that everyone sees through him by now.

But two were before he was benched for fumbling, then the other three rushing were when we gave him the ball inside the 20 after Gio and receivers got us down there, and then the receiving was from 13 yards out.

Hue said the carries will change back to Hill carrying the load, but, so far, Hill has been a disappointment when you consider the high hopes that were pinned on him coming in.  

He can turn it around, but he's been a disappointment so far.

Brad took the bait, I see... 

(10-26-2015, 01:35 PM)PDub80 Wrote: Uhh No, dude... I said that the formation is not a big deal. Then I said that there are other factors that weigh more heavily on running game success than just where the QB is behind center.

Formations only dictate personnel, pace, scheme and style but you are right. No big deal there.