(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.

(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.

(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.

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

(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?

(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.

(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?

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

(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.

(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.

(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. 

(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.

(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.

(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?

(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.

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

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

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

(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

(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.

(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.