Mixon severely underutilized in passing game

[Fullrock]

(10-17-2019, 11:14 AM)Au165 Wrote: Why is getting him a ball in the passing game a priority? The disconnect here is you think that is more valuable than keeping the QB upright, which is the disconnect. Priority one is always to get the ball off and we struggle to do that. As I said, without knowing the call I'd venture to say the HB's are on a decent amount of check and release routes where they are being forced to stay in because of pressure not by play call.

Why is it a priority? Because he's the best offensive player on the field and you have to find a way to use him.

Obviously, in my original post, I stated the short comings of the offensive line. There are also things you can do to help the offensive line other than drop straight back 40 times a game. Move the pocket. While Andy's pocket presence isn't very good,  he can be serviceably mobile if the play design calls for it. Keep a TE in to block. Run mis-direction play action. Utilize Mixon in the passing game on 1st down when defenses are in their base defense. Use him on 3rd and short other than an off-tackle run. You can still create mis-matches with him in the passing game, but with a bad offensive line it will take more creativity than what I've seen. 

[Au165]

(10-17-2019, 11:55 AM)Fullrock Wrote: Why is it a priority? Because he's the best offensive player on the field and you have to find a way to use him.

Obviously, in my original post, I stated the short comings of the offensive line. There are also things you can do to help the offensive line other than drop straight back 40 times a game. Move the pocket. While Andy's pocket presence isn't very good,  he can be serviceably mobile if the play design calls for it. Keep a TE in to block. Run mis-direction play action. Utilize Mixon in the passing game on 1st down when defenses are in their base defense. Use him on 3rd and short other than an off-tackle run. You can still create mis-matches with him in the passing game, but with a bad offensive line it will take more creativity than what I've seen. 

This sounds cool and I can work through the new issues each of those "solutions create", in fact I can show cut ups of a lot of those solutions not working from this very year. I am a big fan of hiding flaws through scheme, but you can't hide much with a team this bad. Mixon catching more isn't saving this team, he is basically on pace to catch 10 balls less than last year when he was a pretty pedestrian weapon in the passing game. 

When the QB has to get the ball of quick teams play tighter which allows more rallying which makes the short passing game less effective. I'd actually argue AJ being back is going to be the biggest help to the passing attack out of the backfield. Even though the line will still stink teams will play with more depth off the snap which should prevent rallying giving Joe more one on one situations when he does catch the ball. I'd still point out, I think Mixon has been worse this year even when he has had solid blocking at times. 

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(10-17-2019, 11:46 AM)ochocincos Wrote: He basically puts up pass-catching RB numbers. But if he's in over Mixon or Bernard, it's more obvious what's going to be called, as he isn't going to pass block or rush with the ball. At least with having both Mixon and Bernard in, you don't know which one (if either) will run with the ball, go out for a pass, or help block.

Bottom line is I don't see Erickson offering as much on offense as either Mixon or Bernard will.
Not changing my mind on that.

Agreed.

[*Nately120*]

(10-17-2019, 11:55 AM)RunKijanaRun Wrote: It's easy and fun to keep piling on Taylor, and some of it is deserved.

He hired perhaps the worst collection of assistants in NFL history. Seriously. These guys are all useless.

But he's so freaking hamstrung by this offensive line and by missing his best WR, there's just not much he can do.

I know we all think we know more than coaches, but if there was something that could be figured out over coffee and a few chicken wings that would fix this, it would be done.

Now, if he doesn't at least show some improvement over the course of the season, I may join the ever-burgeoning Fire Zac contingency. But I'm nowhere near there yet. But his assistants? All of them - each and every one - should be gone.

He'd better get better or else we're going to be talking about how "anyone but ZT would know better how to coach this team" before you know it!

[THE PISTONS]

(10-17-2019, 12:20 PM)Nately120 Wrote: He'd better get better or else we're going to be talking about how "anyone but ZT would know better how to coach this team" before you know it!

Pretty hard to not blame ZT for atleast some parts of this. He pretty much is a main scout, main front office agent, player evaluator, head coach, and offensive coordinator.

Those are a big ask for people unless you're a Bill Parcels...and even Parcells couldn't win a SB or have mojor success under Jerry Jones ownership.

[truthfulbengal]

Dalton is a one read quarterback. Whenever he has to check down to his second read, most likely it will be an errant throw REGARDLESS of the pressure he's facing. Now having a horrible offensive coordinator like Zac certainly doesn't help. This "modern offense" he brought from the Rams is trash. You want to see Mixon get off? Then put the damn QB under center with/without a fullback and hit the the hole. Even if there isn't a hole, Mixon will have more time to read and react. Zac is a horrible horrible coach. He may get better down the road, but right now he's in way over his head. He doesn't have the innovative mind to be an OC, much less a f*&%&^k head coach.

[motoarch]

(10-17-2019, 10:17 AM)Fullrock Wrote: Saw this stat on Twitter. Mixon is averaging 8 pass routes run per game. 8!?!
To put that in perspective, Leveon Bell averages 24. Gurley and Kamara 20+
Most effective pass catching backs are between 15-21
Joe gets 8 despite the Bengals trailing on nearly 77 percent of their offensive snaps. Mind-blowing.

I realize with a bad offensive line he's probably being asked to block more than other RB's, but this is just an obsurd under-utilization of the skill set of your top offensive player on the field.

If you don't get first downs you can't get snaps.  How to we get him more involved in the passing game if he's not on the field?  These stats only tell half the story.

[RunKijanaRun]

(10-17-2019, 12:20 PM)Nately120 Wrote: He'd better get better or else we're going to be talking about how "anyone but ZT would know better how to coach this team" before you know it!

Oh, it's begun. And as I said, I don't completely absolve him. But I guess I made my peace with the fact that he (and therefore, we) would endure some OJT. Which made hiring a good staff that much more important. But who needs Jack Del Rio?

[*Nately120*]

(10-17-2019, 02:50 PM)RunKijanaRun Wrote: Oh, it's begun. And as I said, I don't completely absolve him. But I guess I made my peace with the fact that he (and therefore, we) would endure some OJT. Which made hiring a good staff that much more important. But who needs Jack Del Rio?

Who needs Jack Del Rio when you have Lou "coaches like Diarhea-o?"  


Damn, I'm clever.

[*ochocincos*]

(10-17-2019, 02:50 PM)RunKijanaRun Wrote: Oh, it's begun. And as I said, I don't completely absolve him. But I guess I made my peace with the fact that he (and therefore, we) would endure some OJT. Which made hiring a good staff that much more important. But who needs Jack Del Rio?

I'm really interested to know why Zac Taylor thought JDR wasn't a good fit for the DC job, which supposedly JDR would have accepted if offered according to Fletcher Page of the Cincy Enquirer.
https://www.cincyjungle.com/2019/2/14/18225354/bengals-jack-del-rio-nfl-news-rumors-zac-taylor

Also, I'm interested to know why Frank Pollack wanted to leave after Taylor was brought in. 

It really made/makes me question Taylor's assessment of talent.

I firmly believe this team would have been in a better position with JDR and Pollack compared to Anarumo and Turner. There's no getting Pollack back but they still could get JDR. They can get a legit OC too.

[Fullrock]

(10-17-2019, 12:06 PM)Au165 Wrote: This sounds cool and I can work through the new issues each of those "solutions create", in fact I can show cut ups of a lot of those solutions not working from this very year. I am a big fan of hiding flaws through scheme, but you can't hide much with a team this bad. Mixon catching more isn't saving this team, he is basically on pace to catch 10 balls less than last year when he was a pretty pedestrian weapon in the passing game. 

When the QB has to get the ball of quick teams play tighter which allows more rallying which makes the short passing game less effective. I'd actually argue AJ being back is going to be the biggest help to the passing attack out of the backfield. Even though the line will still stink teams will play with more depth off the snap which should prevent rallying giving Joe more one on one situations when he does catch the ball. I'd still point out, I think Mixon has been worse this year even when he has had solid blocking at times. 

Other teams with bad offensive lines figure out a way. Let's look at 3 bad offensive lines, 2 of which have allowed more sacks than the Bengals unit.

NY Jets - terrible line has allowed 25 sacks yet Bell leads the NFL in routes run per game at 24.4.

San Diego Chargers - PFF ranked their line 29 AFTER the preseason games. Ekeler runs 19.2 routes per game.

Arizona Cardinals - Terrible line. Ranked 30 after preseason games. Have allowed the ultra-mobile Kyler Murray to get sacked 22 times yet David Johnson runs 17.7 routes per game.

Now let's compare the receiving stats of those running backs to Mixon's.

Mixon 14 REC, 97 YDS, 1 TD (6 games)
Bell 28 REC, 169 YDS, 1 TD (5 games)
Ekeler 42 REC, 372 YDS, 3 TD (6 games) Hell, Ekeler had more receptions in 1 game against Denver than Mixon has had all season.
D. Johnson 30 REC, 315 YDS, 3 TD (6 games)

Again, other teams with terrible offensive lines find a way to get their playmakers out of the backfield the ball, but the Bengals resign themselves to not doing it. That's what it comes down to.

[Fullrock]

(10-17-2019, 02:46 PM)motoarch Wrote: If you don't get first downs you can't get snaps.  How to we get him more involved in the passing game if he's not on the field?  These stats only tell half the story.

Bengals average 62.2 snaps a game which ranks 19th in the league. The Jets rank 31st with 56 snaps a game but find a way to get Bell involved in the passing game. It also might shock you that New Orleans average 61 snaps a game, but there is a guy named Kamara catching balls there. The perceived lack of snaps is just another excuse.

[Au165]

(10-17-2019, 03:10 PM)Fullrock Wrote: Other teams with bad offensive lines figure out a way. Let's look at 3 bad offensive lines, 2 of which have allowed more sacks than the Bengals unit.

NY Jets - terrible line has allowed 25 sacks yet Bell leads the NFL in routes run per game at 24.4.

San Diego Chargers - PFF ranked their line 29 AFTER the preseason games. Ekeler runs 19.2 routes per game.

Arizona Cardinals - Terrible line. Ranked 30 after preseason games. Have allowed the ultra-mobile Kyler Murray to get sacked 22 times yet David Johnson runs 17.7 routes per game.

Now let's compare the receiving stats of those running backs to Mixon's.

Mixon 14 REC, 97 YDS, 1 TD (6 games)
Bell 28 REC, 169 YDS, 1 TD (5 games)
Ekeler 42 REC, 372 YDS, 3 TD (6 games) Hell, Ekeler had more receptions in 1 game against Denver than Mixon has had all season.
D. Johnson 30 REC, 315 YDS, 3 TD (6 games)

Again, other teams with terrible offensive lines find a way to get their playmakers out of the backfield the ball, but the Bengals resign themselves to not doing it. That's what it comes down to.

Other teams with bad O lines are running their backs out more and are still losing? Is that the argument you are making? I said they could run him out more but it won't make a difference in the teams success because of the O line issues, this confirms that. We choose not to run them out and try to block and lose they choose to run them out instead of blocking and lose, bottom line bad lines make you lose.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(10-17-2019, 10:17 AM)Fullrock Wrote: Saw this stat on Twitter. Mixon is averaging 8 pass routes run per game. 8!?!
To put that in perspective, Leveon Bell averages 24. Gurley and Kamara 20+
Most effective pass catching backs are between 15-21
Joe gets 8 despite the Bengals trailing on nearly 77 percent of their offensive snaps. Mind-blowing.

I realize with a bad offensive line he's probably being asked to block more than other RB's, but this is just an obsurd under-utilization of the skill set of your top offensive player on the field.

Don't understand this at all.

[Fullrock]

(10-17-2019, 03:17 PM)Au165 Wrote: Other teams with bad O lines are running their backs out more and are still losing? Is that the argument you are making? I said they could run him out more but it won't make a difference in the teams success because of the O line issues, this confirms that. We choose not to run them out and try to block and lose they choose to run them out instead of blocking and lose, bottom line bad lines make you lose.

Those 3 teams have won a combined 5 games more than the Bengals.

The argument I am making is that if Taylor is really looking for the best opportunity to win games that HAS to involve getting the ball to Mixon, and that should have been a big part of their offensive game plan to start the season. The fact that there hasn't been more of an effort is alarming in my opinion from an offensive-minded head coach who is trying desperately to win a game.

[Au165]

(10-17-2019, 03:38 PM)Fullrock Wrote: Those 3 teams have won a combined 5 games more than the Bengals.

The argument I am making is that if Taylor is really looking for the best opportunity to win games that HAS to involve getting the ball to Mixon, and that should have been a big part of their offensive game plan to start the season. The fact that there hasn't been more of an effort is alarming in my opinion from an offensive-minded head coach who is trying desperately to win a game.

Okay...so 3 teams have 5 wins between them, that is a sign of doing things right? Also saying those guys have 5 wins and do X so that means X equals wins isn't actually based in any sort of reality. We also have the worst running defense in the NFL and worst running offense. Do any of those three teams have either of those?

He doesn't HAVE to do anything. Mixon has averaged 6.9 yards a catch and 3.4 a carry, that to me is a guy who has regressed. He isn't making anyone miss no matter how he gets the ball. I have plenty to criticize Taylor for schematic wise, but this is such a weird claim I can't get behind it. 

[Fullrock]

(10-17-2019, 04:09 PM)Au165 Wrote: Okay...so 3 teams have 5 wins between them, that is a sign of doing things right? Also saying those guys have 5 wins and do X so that means X equals wins isn't actually based in any sort of reality. We also have the worst running defense in the NFL and worst running offense. Do any of those three teams have either of those?

He doesn't HAVE to do anything. Mixon has averaged 6.9 yards a catch and 3.4 a carry, that to me is a guy who has regressed. He isn't making anyone miss no matter how he gets the ball. I have plenty to criticize Taylor for schematic wise, but this is such a weird claim I can't get behind it. 

Yeah, such a weird claim that they aren't trying enough to utilize Mixon to his full capabilities. So weird. What's weird is I have to explain that concept to you. Get the ball in the hands of your play makers. Let them make plays. Football 101. Again, other teams with bad offensive lines find a way. No, it doesn't make that team good. Yes, it's common sense. Are teams just to give up on utilizing their best offensive skill players because they realize they have a bad offensive line? That's what this Bengals team has done all season with Mixon. Can't run it so he's a non-factor.

Having the worst rushing offense is even more reason to try to get the ball in Mixon's hands in other ways.

Players of Mixon's age and ability don't just suddenly regress. This offensive scheme has done nothing to utilize his pass catching skills. 14 receptions in 6 games, most of which have been screens.

[Au165]

(10-17-2019, 04:22 PM)Fullrock Wrote: Yeah, such a weird claim that they aren't trying enough to utilize Mixon to his full capabilities. So weird. What's weird is I have to explain that concept to you. Get the ball in the hands of your play makers. Let them make plays. Football 101. Again, other teams with bad offensive lines find a way. No, it doesn't make that team good. Yes, it's common sense. Are teams just to give up on utilizing their best offensive skill players because they realize they have a bad offensive line? That's what this Bengals team has done all season with Mixon. Can't run it so he's a non-factor.

Having the worst rushing offense is even more reason to try to get the ball in Mixon's hands in other ways.

Players of Mixon's age and ability don't just suddenly regress. This offensive scheme has done nothing to utilize his pass catching skills. 14 receptions in 6 games, most of which have been screens.

Man, I get you think you know football at some advanced level...but you don't. Trying to pull the "Football 101" card on me is bad enough but let's not pretend like you know more than a professional coach and it's so obvious. If we put the ball in Mixon's hands what actually changes? Let's say he gets 5 more receptions a game at 6.9 yards a catch. We now have 34.5 more yards, but that took away catches from receivers who as a group average 11 yards a reception. Maybe you break one occasionally, or maybe he keeps getting hit right when he catches it. 

It's easy to say throw him the ball, it's harder to make it happen with success. We have thrown non screen passes that have not gone anywhere, acting like we haven't is disingenuous. I'm guessing you read/heard this stat somewhere and have zero'd in on it, but there is no actual proof behind it making any difference. Using a bunch of teams who as a whole average less than two wins isn't the move either.

[Fullrock]

(10-17-2019, 04:43 PM)Au165 Wrote: Man, I get you think you know football at some advanced level...but you don't. Trying to pull the "Football 101" card on me is bad enough but let's not pretend like you know more than a professional coach and it's so obvious. If we put the ball in Mixon's hands what actually changes? Let's say he gets 5 more receptions a game at 6.9 yards a catch. We now have 34.5 more yards, but that took away catches from receivers who as a group average 11 yards a reception. Maybe you break one occasionally, or maybe he keeps getting hit right when he catches it. 

It's easy to say throw him the ball, it's harder to make it happen with success. We have thrown non screen passes that have not gone anywhere, acting like we haven't is disingenuous. I'm guessing you read/heard this stat somewhere and have zero'd in on it, but there is no actual proof behind it making any difference. Using a bunch of teams who as a whole average less than two wins isn't the move either.

You're right, bro. Thanks for bringing me back down to earth. I clearly know nothing about football. Lol.

You're right in one capacity, you can't just say throw Mixon the ball, especially if he isn't running routes, which brings me back to my original post. Bengals average 62.2 snaps a game. Mixon runs 8 routes a game. If that doesn't seem underused to you then I don't know what to tell you. You use his 6.9 yards per average reception against my argument; I use it for my argument. He's averaging 6.9 yards because its nearly all screens and dump offs. Next to no effort to use him in the passing game other than that. The 8 routes run per game shows that.

Who the hell knows what difference it would make because it's not happening.

[impactplaya]

(10-17-2019, 11:46 AM)ochocincos Wrote: He basically puts up pass-catching RB numbers. But if he's in over Mixon or Bernard, it's more obvious what's going to be called, as he isn't going to pass block or rush with the ball. At least with having both Mixon and Bernard in, you don't know which one (if either) will run with the ball, go out for a pass, or help block.

Bottom line is I don't see Erickson offering as much on offense as either Mixon or Bernard will.
Not changing my mind on that.

Erickson has been given so many chances. He's extremely over rated in these parts. What he offers as a WR is limited.
Yeah he can catch. That's it. He doesn't outrun anybody.
He can't highpoint the ball. He rarely makes a tackler miss 
A DB can play off him and limits what he can do when he catches the ball.
Catch boom he's down. 
Thank.god he's no longer the kickoff returner.