(10-18-2023, 07:07 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yes, it actually really does. Because you're in a class of 32 students competing over who is the best and you're better than 90% of them, you are not competing against an arbitrary pass/fail mark, so you're doing quite well. Some tests are easier than others, but it doesn't matter because if you're the best you're the best, and if you're the worst, you're the worst regardless if you're score is a 5% or a 95%.

Ken Anderson led the NFL in Cmp% in 1974 with 64.9% and the league average was 54.5%.
Derek Carr is 19th in the NFL in Cmp% in 2023 with 65.0% and the league average is 65.1%.

One guy was the best in the league and far above average, the other is below average.

Basing things off static metrics with no care for the times or the norm of the day is insanity that will lead to just horrible conclusions, man. It literally will not "always be" good. 65.0% completion is below league average in 2023, and it was below league average in 2020 too.

(10-18-2023, 07:10 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Your test example doesn't work as well compared to the NFL. With a test, you always measure statically because there an established scale to grading. The reason a 60% isn't good is because we know exactly where it falls on that scale. However, in the NFL, that scale only exists relatively - there is no static scale, and the scale changes over time. 

If I go back to 1990 and score an 80% on a test, that 80% is viewed the same in 2023. However, if Joe Burrow goes back to 1971 and completes 65% of his passes, that 65% is viewed very different than it is in 2023. In 1971, 65% is comfortably leading the league. In 2023, it is tied for 19th. In this situation, good and bad are all relative. In order to be good, someone else has to be bad because a static scale doesn't exist. 

As far as accuracy goes, I think there are better metrics that can be used to try to account for how accurate a QB is. PFF's adjusted completion percentage is a pretty good one. It accounts for drops, batted passes, spikes and throwaways. Essentially, all "aimed" passes downfield. 

(10-18-2023, 06:46 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Look around the league and you see most teams have at least 1 RB with elite speed or is a great 3rd round back like they have in KC. The Dolphins have multiple burners, one is hurt but a rookie stud.

The Bengals do not have a burner in the RB room on the 53 man or practice squad. Years ago, we had a guy like Ickey Woods with James Brooks along with Stanley Wilson who missed the super bowl due drugs.

Woods could line up as Fullback or a tailback. Brooks was a little, but tough to tackle RB with speed and great hands. Wilson had more speed than the other two.

We keep harping on Mixon and our running game, but refuse to admit teams who use a fullback have a better run offense, McCaffrey is a great back, but behind no FB at Carolina was inconsistent. Goes to SF and only injury can stop him. Ravens have dual FB threat that weighs almost 300 lbs. They run without elite RB's because they are great run blockers and use a FB.

Why do we refuse to use a FB? The thing about the NFL is the more options a team can game plan, the harder for them to be defended. I cringe when Joey B. goes to an empty backfield. I cringe when we have 3rd or 4th and 1 because I know we have to throw it to get a first down more often than not. Our team is not built for 3rd and 2 or 3rd and 1 and defenses know it.

I hope our coaching staff would be open to adding a FB to the roster in the future, they are not expensive and may have limited use in our offense, but when used, it would hopefully get those last 1 or 2 yards. In the interim, we have to have a great athlete on defense that could become a FB on the goal line or on crucial 3rd and one sitautions.

(10-18-2023, 06:46 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Look around the league and you see most teams have at least 1 RB with elite speed or is a great 3rd round back like they have in KC. The Dolphins have multiple burners, one is hurt but a rookie stud.

The Bengals do not have a burner in the RB room on the 53 man or practice squad. Years ago, we had a guy like Ickey Woods with James Brooks along with Stanley Wilson who missed the super bowl due drugs.

Woods could line up as Fullback or a tailback. Brooks was a little, but tough to tackle RB with speed and great hands. Wilson had more speed than the other two.

We keep harping on Mixon and our running game, but refuse to admit teams who use a fullback have a better run offense, McCaffrey is a great back, but behind no FB at Carolina was inconsistent. Goes to SF and only injury can stop him. Ravens have dual FB threat that weighs almost 300 lbs. They run without elite RB's because they are great run blockers and use a FB.

Why do we refuse to use a FB? The thing about the NFL is the more options a team can game plan, the harder for them to be defended. I cringe when Joey B. goes to an empty backfield. I cringe when we have 3rd or 4th and 1 because I know we have to throw it to get a first down more often than not. Our team is not built for 3rd and 2 or 3rd and 1 and defenses know it.

I hope our coaching staff would be open to adding a FB to the roster in the future, they are not expensive and may have limited use in our offense, but when used, it would hopefully get those last 1 or 2 yards. In the interim, we have to have a great athlete on defense that could become a FB on the goal line or on crucial 3rd and one sitautions.

(10-19-2023, 09:37 AM)Bengalbug Wrote: As far as the FB goes.  This would work if, and only if, the bengals line up under center.  Callahan talked about doing this more, and maybe sample would be our Hback, but until then… a fullback won’t matter out of the gun.

(10-19-2023, 09:19 AM)ochocincos Wrote: We'll agree to disagree then, as I don't feel that way.

If I get an A on a test, I don't care how many others in the class got it. I did a good job, at least for me.
If I got a D on a test, I don't care how many others did. I did a poor job, at least for me.

(10-19-2023, 10:17 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: Sure, that wasn't my argument at all. If everyone gets an A on a test, then everyone did great. If everyone gets a D, then everyone did poorly. There is an established scale for tests. That scale doesn't exist for sports. It has to be relative. If a QB has a 65% completion percentage in 2023, they are doing OK. Slightly below league average. It isn't "good" regardless of your personal feelings about it. Maybe by 2030, it'll be considered good again, these things ebb & flow. 

(10-18-2023, 04:20 PM)ochocincos Wrote: We heard during the Dalton era that an offense shouldn't need a full set of strong weapons and good OL to be effective.
Having a good QB and just 2 offensive weapons and just a decent OL should be enough that you can be top half of league with some cheaper veterans and/or mid-late round draft picks.
The Bengals should be able to be a Top 10 offense with Burrow, Chase, and Higgins. Add in Boyd and Mixon and this should easily be a Top 5 offense.

(10-19-2023, 05:01 PM)Joelist Wrote: Just look at Burrow's Advanced Passing Stats here:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BurrJo01.htm#all_passing_detailed

His On Target % has plummeted this season while his Bad Throw % shot up. We've seen it in games with the constant throws behind the receiver as well as the constant over/underthrows on longer shots. THIS is what needs to be worked out or it really won't matter who lines up at receiver or TE.

(10-19-2023, 06:35 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Fair, but he didn't start getting "right" until Game 5.
Do you have a breakdown per game?
I'm curious if these percentages are skewed because of his September injury and (hopefully) we're seeing closer to norm these past two games.

(10-18-2023, 09:33 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well I imagine they would also throw from under center more often.

(10-19-2023, 06:59 PM)Joelist Wrote: I'm sure the injury had a lot to do with this, but as we saw last week he is still not fully back. Assuming he is the whole offense will look different. 

(10-19-2023, 05:01 PM)Joelist Wrote: Just look at Burrow's Advanced Passing Stats here:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BurrJo01.htm#all_passing_detailed

His On Target % has plummeted this season while his Bad Throw % shot up. We've seen it in games with the constant throws behind the receiver as well as the constant over/underthrows on longer shots. THIS is what needs to be worked out or it really won't matter who lines up at receiver or TE.

(10-20-2023, 12:44 PM)NotBigzo Wrote: Think it's important to note that many of the more potent offenses over the years are also on a downturn. Is the downturn as worse as ours? No. But it's still a downturn.

Mahones stats this year are down relative to Mahones standards.

Hurts already has as many picks this year that he did last year, postseason included.

Maybe defenses are just getting better and starting an overdue correction to rule changes and "muh passing league". Has anyone actually considered that?

Think of it like this, the best team in the NFL right now is who? The Detroit Lions. I haven't seen many games, but i've heard their offense is really, really balanced.

The Sewell-Chase debate has taken an unexpected twist. If my theory is correct, smashmouth football is making a comeback.

Quote:NFL offenses have been sputtering, scoring the fewest points per game through the opening six weeks (20.5) since 2010.

Quote:NFL offenses had an offensive success rate of 41.2% and passing success rate of 43.7% through the first six weeks of this season. Both are the third-lowest rates in their categories since 2000 and the lowest in a decade.

(10-20-2023, 12:52 PM)chrisball96 Wrote: As others have said on the board, offense is down this year for sure, as you can see here, with a few quotes below: https://sports.yahoo.com/the-overhang-nfl-scoring-is-down-and-offenses-have-been-sputtering-and-heres-why-130059011.html#:~:text=NFL%20offensive%20statistics%20in%202023,the%20lowest%20in%20a%20decade.



So even healthy offenses have been struggling, and we had a very injured QB for the start of the season. Glad to see it's not just a Bengal thing. 

(10-17-2023, 10:40 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Pollack might be a problem, but he’s not the problem. It’s been going on since before he got here. Duke and the FO haven’t hit on an OL pick (unless you count Jonah) since Zeitler and Boling. That was a decade ago. And that’s not going to cut it. Especially when you blow premium picks on the position.

(10-18-2023, 12:23 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: They threw the ball 70% of the time. In the 2nd half, Burrow was 6/14 for 42 yards, completion % 43%, 0 TDs, 1 INT, was sacked 3 times, and was forced to scramble once.

Meanwhile, they only attempted to run 15 times total. They got positive yardage on every run except two straight up the middle.

Know what is working and what isn’t. Set up a 3rd and manageable instead of taking deep shots down the field when Burrow is still struggling with that.

(10-20-2023, 12:58 PM)NotBigzo Wrote: i'd bet my left nut that teams that pass more than run have seen a steeper decline than vice versa.

(10-20-2023, 02:34 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: You'd be right, but there is a massive caveat - there's only two teams that fit this criterion. The Baltimore Ravens and San Francisco 49ers. They are both averaging slightly more points than they did last year.