(10-26-2015, 01:41 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Formations only dictate personnel, pace, scheme and style but you are right. No big deal there. 

(10-26-2015, 02:31 PM)PDub80 Wrote: Oh, I get it now. I didn't realize that you don't actually watch the games. I will educate you. And THEN, you can kindly shut the **** up as I suggested you do before when you said I can't be conversed with. You know, right before you again engaged me in conversation?

We'll stick to the topic at hand and the one I was discussing. I know I know. It's a little unfair because you're clearly a unfamiliar with it... The topic is: The 2015 Bengals and how they play football and, in particular, how/when they run the football.

- The Bengals employ a West Coast scheme. They run plays out of the shotgun and they run plays from under center. Some of these plays are designed to move the ball by... ehem.... running it. Scheme & formation doesn't really matter when it comes to the concept of... will they run or won't they run it nor the level of success to be had on said running plays.

- "Ahhhh, but PDub", you say... What about personnel? They can't have multiple looks and personnel packages out there in shotgun &/or under center? That would be too confusing!!!! 

Nope, wrong again. The Bengals have such a versatile roster that their best option at FB, Ryan Hewitt, is actually listed on the roster as an H-Back and plays from the TE spot, too. See, he is often the lead blocker for Jeremy Hill. In fact, he is so much of a lead blocker in the Bengals overall scheme that, according to the Bengals head coach most of Hill's yards last year came from running behind Hewitt. You see, regardless of where the QB is presnap Hewitt can do his thing split out wide, in on the line as a TE, or in a 2-back set. It doesn't freaking matter.

The above goes for putting in extra O-lineman to block or sneakily go out for a pass, putting in more TEs, or putting in whatever they want... They do it regardless of where the QB is under center because their playbook and personnel are THAT diverse.... regardless of where the QB is.

- Pace? GTFO of here with that nonsense. What are you even blathering about? They can run hurry up, big splash plays, grind it out, etc., etc. from whatever the hell formation they want to and get whatever pace they want.

- Style? The Bengals look good to me, baby, regardless of where AD is presnap.

Things that dictate running game success about 10,000 x more than where the QB is presnap (in no particular order)......

- Offensive personnel on the field (we have already established that the Bengals are versatile enough that their personnel can be on the field and change into any formation/protections/audible on offense and perform the intended function of the play)
- Defensive personnel on the field
- Defensive tendencies
- Defensive scheme
- Success in the passing game
- Down and distance
- Score of the game
- Time on the clock
- Just about anything else other than where the QB is under center.

Jesus F Christ, man... The Wildcat and Read Option are even run from under center or the shotgun. It doesn't matter where the QB is presnap in terms of will the runner be successful or not. Not with any sort of appreciable gains on a regular basis.

Now, you want to talk about TYPES of running plays (like a draw? or QB sneak?) out of certain formations? Uhhh, maybe, I guess? But nothing concrete can be put down on that front because those play calls and formations are specific to the things I listed above and a whole host of other more important variables that all matter wayyyyyy more than where the QB is presnap.

(10-26-2015, 02:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Too much bickering in this thread.  I am going to post my final thoughts and bail on this one.

1.  Hill has been a disappointment so far this year.  Some people may have had their expectations set too high, but even people who just expected him to be around the same he was last year are disappointed.  Six TDs are nice, but we need more than 38 rushing yards and a 3.1 average from a guy with Hill's skills.

2.  It appears that Hill is not attacking the hole like he was last year.  This has nothing to do with if the QB is under center or in the shotgun.  A RB can be too hesitant no matter where he gets the ball unless he is running a a straight dive when he can just put his head down and charge.

3.  For some reason Hill does not seem to get the same holes to hit as Bernard does.  Even if Hill is too hesitant it is not like he is so slow that big hole close before he gets there.  I doubt this has anything to do with our O-line trying harder when Gio gets the ball.  Instead I think it is the result of a bunch of NFL Defensive Coordinators spending a lot of time worrying about Hill over the off season.  It is possible that they have different reads or run fits when Hill is in the game.  Or maybe we block plays slightly differently when Hill is in the game.  Without paying a lot of close attention it is hard to tell the slight differences in the many different ways a simple off-tackle run can be blocked.  Plus many blocking schemes look different based on how the defense lines up.  Even when a DT lines up in a gap it makes a big difference if he is on the inside our outside edge of the gap.

(10-21-2015, 10:16 AM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: Why does it have to be someone else's fault?  "Hue runs him out of the wrong scheme", "the line blocks better for Gio"... why can't he just be having a rough start to the season?  He is barely averaging 3 YPC this year with a long run of 11 yards.  Yes, he has five touchdowns on the ground, but how many of those are from extremely short yardage?

And for everyone saying "put Andy under center and bring in a fullback", please tell me why they would possibly change a single thing they are currently doing?  The team is 6-0 with the second ranked offense in the entire league.  Why on earth would they change what they are doing when it is working so well?

(10-26-2015, 03:42 PM)Wyche Wrote: Because, in this division, when the weather takes a turn for the worse, you may need that.  Maybe they don't want defenses seeing that unitl later on in the year?  Just a thought....

(10-26-2015, 04:26 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Maybe. But not now and not for the foreseeable future. You don't change until someone proves they can stop you.
We know we can do that, we did it the second half of last year. 

This division, isn't what people want it to be. Sorry but the days of "smash mouth AFCN football" breathed it's last breath when Haloti Ngata left. It was on life support for the last 5 years.

Teams in this division, Browns excluded, are offensive teams. Pittsburghs defense is poop. So is Baltimores. Ours is bend but don't break. Baltimore is built to air it out. Pittsburgh is built to air it out. Cincy, is built to air it out. 

(10-26-2015, 04:39 PM)Wyche Wrote: Yes....but Pitt has Bell, Balt had Rice, and Cleveland tried Richardson....because there ARE days in this division when chucking the ball is not exactly desirable.  Each of these teams has/had a backup plan when the weather goes south in the form of a decent ground game.  Well, save for the Browns, but they tried. 

(10-26-2015, 04:49 PM)MrRager Wrote: I also wonder if the entire idea that a certain RB wears down defenses is true. You would think that any combination of backs would have the same effect. If Gio has 12 carries going into the fourth and Hill has 8 wouldn't the defense be just as worn down as if Hill had 20? I figure the constant blocking and being him from the line wears the defense, not the specific RB.

Also, if a RB is getting the ball 20+ times in a game it means the running game is working and the defense is probably out on the field more often, wearing them out. Why does it have to be a single RB to achieve that effect? Running the ball probably means the game is close or the team running is winning. With that you can assume the opposing offense is struggling, making the defense even more tired.

I have no idea if any of this is true, but it seems like the idea that a single running back carrying the ball a lot wears the opposing defense strictly because of that RB is a farce.

(10-26-2015, 05:04 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: A good example to support your theory is Tennessee when they had Lendale and CJ2K. 
As long as the RB is good, they will wear the defense out. Whether it's chasing them sideline to sideline or delivering painful hits all game up the gut. 

(10-26-2015, 04:44 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: That's every division though.
Bell as "tough gritty between the tackles runner" is a myth anyways. He's more one cut go and make people miss. His size is misleading. He's not a traditional power back. He's probably better on the outside zones than anyone else his size right now. Not saying he's not good at all things, he is...but his money is outside zone. 

Rice hasn't been shit for 3 years. Now he's out of the league. 

We have one. We just have no reason to use it. And until someone stops the 4 headed monster, why stop? 

(10-26-2015, 06:40 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Very true....

Le'Veon Bell's career by direction:

Left Sideline = 42 carries for 271 yards (6.45 ypc)
Left Side = 180 carries for 860 yards (4.78 ypc)
Middle = 171 carries for 556 yards (3.25 ypc)
Right Side = 208 carries for 846 yards (4.07 ypc)
Right Sideline = 36 carries for 199 yards (5.28 ypc)

The further from the middle he runs, the higher YPC he has in his career. He's actually a very poor runner up the middle. People just see he's 6'1", 244 lbs and go with that statement.

(10-26-2015, 06:45 PM)PDub80 Wrote: Do you have a link to where you found this info? i would like to look up a lot of different backs. Thanks!

(10-26-2015, 05:18 PM)MrRager Wrote: Exactly. It's not that Jeremy Hill is specifically wearing defenses down, but a successful running game wears defenses down. Gio could run the ball 20 times in the first three quarters and Hill could close the game out against a tired defense. It doesn't have to be Hill "wearing them down and getting into a rhythm." 

Hell, Hill's biggest run of the year last year came in the 1st quarter and he dominated the 1st quarter of the Browns game. This idea that he has to carry the ball all game to be effective might just be a cliche people say.

(10-26-2015, 11:58 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I think Hill wears defenses down because they have to be in better position to get a hit on him squarely to tackle him, whereas Gio doesn't really have the ability to bulldoze people, so, even though he's faster sideline to sideline, defenses don't necessarily have to go as far to be in a position to tackle him.  He's not really getting outside too often, especially since we're running from the gun and most runs stay between the tackles.

If they leave even a small crease when Dalton starts from under center, he's done and they're chasing him, so I think it's more just about defenses having to be in position to tackle him that wears them out, plus it's tougher to bring him down than it is Gio.

(10-27-2015, 12:10 AM)MrRager Wrote: While I agree it's tougher to bring down Hill, I think 90% of the reason teams get worn out is because, during a run play, the Oline attacks the D and hits them. That and the fact that being successful at running just means the defense is on the field longer. You don't think teams try to "get in position" to tackle when Gio is running? Giving Gio a crease could just as easily make the defense chase him. He is more elusive in the open field so I would worry even more about getting in position to tackle him. 

Do you have any evidence to back up literally anything you have claimed in this thread?

(10-26-2015, 11:58 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I think Hill wears defenses down because they have to be in better position to get a hit on him squarely to tackle him, whereas Gio doesn't really have the ability to bulldoze people, so, even though he's faster sideline to sideline, defenses don't necessarily have to go as far to be in a position to tackle him.  He's not really getting outside too often, especially since we're running from the gun and most runs stay between the tackles.

If they leave even a small crease when Dalton starts from under center, he's done and they're chasing him, so I think it's more just about defenses having to be in position to tackle him that wears them out, plus it's tougher to bring him down than it is Gio.

(10-27-2015, 02:23 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I don't know if you haven't noticed but Hill has been easy to get down this year. If his knee truly has been a problem, that could be the cause but i've seen way too many times where he's been out-muscled this year.