What's more important to the Bengals.....

[BengalHawk62]

Our offensive line or our defensive line?  If your Mike Brown, should you invest more money into protecting the most important figure, QB, or do you put your money on the people that are out to hurt the other team's QB, the DL? 

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(07-10-2018, 02:44 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Our offensive line or our defensive line?  If your Mike Brown, should you invest more money into protecting the most important figure, QB, or do you put your money on the people that are out to hurt the other team's QB, the DL? 

Seems like the O-line was actually important this Offseason for once. In the end you are correct, the O-line protects
the QB and opens up holes in the running game which in turn keeps your D-line fresh and able to hit the other team's
QB. It starts with the O-line in my opinion, that is where you should invest most of your money.

But we need to pay Geno and Carlos very soon.

[XenoMorph]

(07-10-2018, 02:44 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Our offensive line or our defensive line?  If your Mike Brown, should you invest more money into protecting the most important figure, QB, or do you put your money on the people that are out to hurt the other team's QB, the DL? 

to have a great football team you cant over invest in any one position... without the others suffering unfortantely.


Choosing the right players to keep isn't always cut and dry..

[Millhouse]

It depends how good the o-line already is. The last couple of years it has been pretty bad overall, so it needed to be invested in. A team with a bad o-line will rarely go far in a season.

For sake of argument let's assume the o-line is a solid average kind of line. Nothing great, but good enough for the QB to not get killed often while not hindering the run game.

In that case one can say that having a dominate d-line could be more valuable when the playoffs roll around, as we have seen in the past with teams like the Giants or the Broncos. I dont know if having a superb o-line with an average d-line would be better to be honest.

[*bengalfan74*]

In my opinion the football books first chapter is offensive line. How many games have the Bengals lost over the last several seasons that they could have won if they could simply convert a 3rd down and two on the ground ? Keep a drive going and run out the clock.

Hell every position and position group is important. But I feel the Bengals skimping on the interior O-line has hurt and hurt bad.

[XenoMorph]

(07-10-2018, 04:02 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: In my opinion the football books first chapter is offensive line. How many games have the Bengals lost over the last several seasons that they could have won if they could simply convert a 3rd down and two on the ground ? Keep a drive going and run out the clock.

Hell every position and position group is important. But I feel the Bengals skimping on the interior O-line has hurt and hurt bad.

Don't know if we Skimped but the guys they had did pan out....   OL coach going to bat for these guys didn't help get them replaced either.

[3wt]

(07-10-2018, 04:02 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: In my opinion the football books first chapter is offensive line. How many games have the Bengals lost over the last several seasons that they could have won if they could simply convert a 3rd down and two on the ground ? Keep a drive going and run out the clock.

Hell every position and position group is important. But I feel the Bengals skimping on the interior O-line has hurt and hurt bad.

John Madden agrees with you.   He spoke of a war between him and Al Davis.  Davis wanted the uber corners and wide receivers - Madden wanted O-line

[McC]

There is the old saying about defense winning championships but when was the last time a defense dominated a SB? No matter what the sport is, you have to be able to score. In football, if you can't block, you can't score.

[SunsetBengal]

This is going to sound corny, but they are both fundamentally important to having a successful football team. I might give a slight edge to having a good OL, simply because you can have a really good defense with an average DL, you just have to invest in exceptional players at LB and Secondary. Unfortunately, the same doesn't typically hold true for offense.

[*bengalfan74*]

(07-10-2018, 06:14 PM)McC Wrote: There is the old saying about defense winning championships but when was the last time a defense dominated a SB?  No matter what the sport is, you have to be able to score. In football, if you can't block, you can't score.

Ain't no doubt

(07-10-2018, 10:02 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: This is going to sound corny, but they are both fundamentally important to having a successful football team.  I might give a slight edge to having a good OL, simply because you can have a really good defense with an average DL, you just have to invest in exceptional players at LB and Secondary.  Unfortunately, the same doesn't typically hold true for offense.

There's another old saying "the game is won in the trenches" and it mostly holds true. But yes I agree

[Bilbo Saggins]

I think that both lines have a little bit of a skew to their value. What I mean by that is that on offense you would rather have a whole group of average players than say one elite, 3 average, and one poor player. On the d-line I believe that you're more likely to get bang for your buck with an elite player. Take Kalil Mack for instance - he can line up anywhere and cause pressure for the defense. An elite left tackle can only control his man or his gap, leaving the worst player on the offensive line exposed. Basically, I feel that on defense you are most likely to notice the best player, while on offense you are more likely to feel the effects of the worst player. 

Both lines are very important, I just think that there is a bit of a skew as far as talent goes. "Average" and "solid" types of starters may be more valuable for the offense because of how quickly one bad play or player can sink things for the entire offense. 

[Nicomo Cosca]

(07-10-2018, 06:14 PM)McC Wrote: There is the old saying about defense winning championships but when was the last time a defense dominated a SB? No matter what the sport is, you have to be able to score. In football, if you can't block, you can't score.

Denver. 2015.

[Bengalbug]

(07-10-2018, 11:40 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Denver. 2015.

Seattle 2014

[BengalFanInNJ]

(07-11-2018, 12:03 AM)Bengalbug Wrote: Seattle 2014

Cincinnati 2019

[McC]

(07-10-2018, 11:40 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Denver. 2015.

So, a few years ago and it's becoming more of a rarity with each new rule that handcuffs defenses.  So, you'd better be able to score.

[Beaker]

(07-10-2018, 06:14 PM)McC Wrote: There is the old saying about defense winning championships but when was the last time a defense dominated a SB?  

broncos vs panthers

[*SHRacerX*]

(07-10-2018, 02:44 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Our offensive line or our defensive line?  If your Mike Brown, should you invest more money into protecting the most important figure, QB, or do you put your money on the people that are out to hurt the other team's QB, the DL? 

This went round and round on ESPN the other morning, and it is a challenging debate.  

I would lean more to offensive line for several reasons:  First, because it protects your most important player, the QB.  Second, a strong defensive line doesn't mean you have a great defense.  We had a very solid front four, but poor LB play that couldn't stop the run or cover TEs/RBs out of the backfield.  A team with a good offensive line can generally run the ball well and run play-action to move the ball down the field.  They are also able to sustain longer drives, helping your defense.  

It just seems to me that unless you have a front four that can consistently get pressure without blitzing, it just seems like teams can go maximum protection and hold the ball until someone is open or check it down to a running back.  In other words, I see a lot of decent offensive lines that can scheme against a really good front four.  Look at the Super Bowl:  Aside from one big play that knocked the ball out of Brady's hand, the offenses were unstoppable because they had great offensive lines and a great scheme.  

The rules favor offense, and spending all your budget on a position group where the game is set against them and it is easier to scheme against doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

Just my two cents.  

[*jason*]

(07-10-2018, 06:14 PM)McC Wrote: There is the old saying about defense winning championships but when was the last time a defense dominated a SB? No matter what the sport is, you have to be able to score. In football, if you can't block, you can't score.

The Seattle defense dominated the Super Bowl just a few years back didn't they? The year they beat Denver?

[*SHRacerX*]

(07-10-2018, 03:45 PM)Millhouse Wrote: It depends how good the o-line already is. The last couple of years it has been pretty bad overall, so it needed to be invested in. A team with a bad o-line will rarely go far in a season.

For sake of argument let's assume the o-line is a solid average kind of line. Nothing great, but good enough for the QB to not get killed often while not hindering the run game.

In that case one can say that having a dominate d-line could be more valuable when the playoffs roll around, as we have seen in the past with teams like the Giants or the Broncos. I dont know if having a superb o-line with an average d-line would be better to be honest.

I think those teams also had a really good LB corps and secondary, but I get what you are saying.  

[*SHRacerX*]

(07-11-2018, 08:55 AM)jason Wrote: The Seattle defense dominated the Super Bowl just a few years back didn't they? The year they beat Denver?

They absolutely did, but like I told Millhouse when he brought up that Denver defense (that beat the Panthers), that defense had a lot more than a great line,  it had Pro Bowl talent at all three levels.  Seattle had the legion of boom.  But, yes, their defense won that game, clearly.