Rushing attack-How important?

[*SHRacerX*]

An interesting stat from last season:

When comparing "Rushing Yards Per Game" averages, 9 of the top 10 teams in the NFL made the playoffs. None of the bottom 10 in the NFL made the playoffs.

As the NFL Network replays some of the playoff games from a year ago, you can see how teams that can effectively rush the ball have their entire playbook open and they force defenses to alter coverages to help try and stop the run.

I know this isn't rocket science, but this gives me hope for how our team finished the year with the revised blocking scheme (which was incredibly difficult to install in-season), the new coach (Pollack), and new talent on the team (Glenn, Price).

[Au165]

(07-19-2018, 08:29 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: An interesting stat from last season:

When comparing "Rushing Yards Per Game" averages, 9 of the top 10 teams in the NFL made the playoffs.  None of the bottom 10 in the NFL made the playoffs.  

As the NFL Network replays some of the playoff games from a year ago, you can see how teams that can effectively rush the ball have their entire playbook open and they force defenses to alter coverages to help try and stop the run.

I know this isn't rocket science, but this gives me hope for how our team finished the year with the revised blocking scheme (which was incredibly difficult to install in-season), the new coach (Pollack), and new talent on the team (Glenn, Price).

This is always a chicken and the egg type thing to me. Teams that are generally winning games run more because they are trying to keep the clock moving. Teams that are trailing in games tend to have to throw more to catch up. One could argue that the amount of running isn't a predictor of success, but rather a product of success.Dave Lapham always used to throw out some stat about rushing attempts and the Bengals winning trying to associate it with causation, but again if the team is rushing that much it is because they most likely have a lead. It used to drive me nuts!

As to the question, you have to be able to run at least at an average clip to win.

[*bengalfan74*]

(07-19-2018, 08:36 AM)Au165 Wrote: This is always a chicken and the egg type thing to me. Teams that are generally winning games run more because they are trying to keep the clock moving. Teams that are trailing in games tend to have to throw more to catch up. One could argue that the amount of running isn't a predictor of success, but rather a product of success.Dave Lapham always used to throw out some stat about rushing attempts and the Bengals winning trying to associate it with causation, but again if the team is rushing that much it is because they most likely have a lead. It used to drive me nuts!

As to the question, you have to be able to run at least at an average clip to win.

There's a whole lot of truth to what you're saying and I mostly agree, but......

I feel for Andy Dalton and the Bengals O to operate on all 8 cylinders we need a "productive" running game. Dalton, as good as he is, isn't going to take over every game and throw us to victory.

We need to be able to convert those 3rd and two, 3rd and three's that we haven't been able to for several seasons now. Opposing D's have known we can't run and it's hurt us badly.

We don't have to have 200 yards rushing a game to be successful. But we do need productive gains, at least more so than in the recent past than we've been getting.

IMHO, it's very important

[grampahol]

(07-19-2018, 08:36 AM)Au165 Wrote: This is always a chicken and the egg type thing to me. Teams that are generally winning games run more because they are trying to keep the clock moving. Teams that are trailing in games tend to have to throw more to catch up. One could argue that the amount of running isn't a predictor of success, but rather a product of success.Dave Lapham always used to throw out some stat about rushing attempts and the Bengals winning trying to associate it with causation, but again if the team is rushing that much it is because they most likely have a lead. It used to drive me nuts!

As to the question, you have to be able to run at least at an average clip to win.

Kind of goes along with the notion that just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should do it. Can we build a great rushing team and sacrifice the passing game to do it? Sure. Should we? Probably not.. Kind of like the ideas some people get when it comes to the trading deadline. Just because you can make a trade doesn't necessarily mean you should. 
Hey, I could chop my arm off and try to sell it on craigslist. That doesn't necessarily mean that I should.  Lol

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(07-19-2018, 10:13 AM)bengalfan74 Wrote: There's a whole lot of truth to what you're saying and I mostly agree, but......

I feel for Andy Dalton and the Bengals O to operate on all 8 cylinders we need a "productive" running game. Dalton, as good as he is, isn't going to take over every game and throw us to victory.

We need to be able to convert those 3rd and two, 3rd and three's that we haven't been able to for several seasons now. Opposing D's have known we can't run and it's hurt us badly.

We don't have to have 200 yards rushing a game to be successful. But we do need productive gains, at least more so than in the recent past than we've been getting.

IMHO, it's very important

Exactly, it is very important to be unpredictable and be able to do a variety of things to be successful.

If you can run it for a first down consistently on 3rd down it opens up down field throws and deflates Defenses.

The more a Defense has to prepare for the harder it is for them to stop you.

A QB's best friend is a good running game and honestly Dalton has not had very good running games in his time in stripes.

[Shake n Blake]

(07-19-2018, 08:36 AM)Au165 Wrote: This is always a chicken and the egg type thing to me. Teams that are generally winning games run more because they are trying to keep the clock moving. Teams that are trailing in games tend to have to throw more to catch up. One could argue that the amount of running isn't a predictor of success, but rather a product of success.Dave Lapham always used to throw out some stat about rushing attempts and the Bengals winning trying to associate it with causation, but again if the team is rushing that much it is because they most likely have a lead. It used to drive me nuts!

As to the question, you have to be able to run at least at an average clip to win.

Totally agree with your point, but I'd also say that rushing is still a huge key to offensive success. It's why "establish the run" has become a cliche. 

The teams at the top of the rushing standings are there just as much due to a focus on running (and dominance doing so) as it is milking a lead.

Just think of all the times teams have come out pounding us with the run (any Steelers game or playoff game comes to mind).

[Shake n Blake]

(07-19-2018, 08:36 AM)Au165 Wrote: This is always a chicken and the egg type thing to me. Teams that are generally winning games run more because they are trying to keep the clock moving. Teams that are trailing in games tend to have to throw more to catch up. One could argue that the amount of running isn't a predictor of success, but rather a product of success.Dave Lapham always used to throw out some stat about rushing attempts and the Bengals winning trying to associate it with causation, but again if the team is rushing that much it is because they most likely have a lead. It used to drive me nuts!

As to the question, you have to be able to run at least at an average clip to win.

Totally agree with your point, but I'd also say that rushing is still a huge key to offensive success. It's why "establish the run" has become a cliche. 

The teams at the top of the rushing standings are there just as much due to a focus on running (and dominance doing so) as it is milking a lead.

Just think of all the times teams have come out pounding us with the run (any Steelers game or playoff game comes to mind).

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(07-19-2018, 02:26 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Totally agree with your point, but I'd also say that rushing is still a huge key to offensive success. It's why "establish the run" has become a cliche. 

The teams at the top of the rushing standings are there just as much due to a focus on running (and dominance doing so) as it is milking a lead.

Just think of all the times teams have come out pounding us with the run (any Steelers game or playoff game comes to mind).

Yup, I recall this debate on the mother ship......I still say you gotta run the ball some, especially late in the season in inclement weather.  If you can run, you stand a better chance of winning.

[*Synric*]

Having a successful run game is huge.

First a consistent run game keeps the down and distance manageable which helps open up the playbook. It allows a team to control the clock and shut out football games. It limits what a defense can do because they have to first and foremost shut down the rushing attack. 

And most importantly trying to stop a consistently successful run game is physically and psychologically draining on a defense.

[HarleyDog]

We’ve got an OL with some great potential. Hope they put it together quickly. As has been said a number of times, they are much better already with the coaching changes and the additions and that’s a gimme. Just hope it doesn’t take a season to getting it all together.

[Tiger Teeth]

(07-20-2018, 07:54 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: We’ve got an OL with some great potential. Hope they put it together quickly. As has been said a number of times, they are much better already with the coaching changes and the additions and that’s a gimme. Just hope it doesn’t take a season to getting it all together.

I think he'll have them ready to go by week 1.  But I'm an eternal optimist.  

[*SHRacerX*]

(07-19-2018, 08:36 AM)Au165 Wrote: This is always a chicken and the egg type thing to me. Teams that are generally winning games run more because they are trying to keep the clock moving. Teams that are trailing in games tend to have to throw more to catch up. One could argue that the amount of running isn't a predictor of success, but rather a product of success.Dave Lapham always used to throw out some stat about rushing attempts and the Bengals winning trying to associate it with causation, but again if the team is rushing that much it is because they most likely have a lead. It used to drive me nuts!

As to the question, you have to be able to run at least at an average clip to win.

Note that the stat I used was simply "Rushing Yards Per Game".  These teams were able to run the ball successfully, not just have multiple attempts.  

[Au165]

(07-20-2018, 08:33 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Note that the stat I used was simply "Rushing Yards Per Game".  These teams were able to run the ball successfully, not just have multiple attempts.  

The attempts thing was in regards to Lapham. My comment still stands using Rushing Yards Per Game, you are more likely to have more rushing yards if you rush more, you tend to rush more when you are winning. You saying they were able to run successfully is a bit misleading as well as yards per game is not indicative of success, yards per attempt is more relative to success as I can run 50 times for 2 yards a carry, but running 20 times for 5 yards a carry was much more successful.

[*SHRacerX*]

(07-19-2018, 10:20 AM)grampahol Wrote: Kind of goes along with the notion that just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should do it. Can we build a great rushing team and sacrifice the passing game to do it? Sure. Should we? Probably not.. Kind of like the ideas some people get when it comes to the trading deadline. Just because you can make a trade doesn't necessarily mean you should. 
Hey, I could chop my arm off and try to sell it on craigslist. That doesn't necessarily mean that I should.  Lol

A better rushing attack will help the passing game, not hurt it.  It will lead to more possession time, extended drives, and (hopefully) more points.

It will also have a huge impact on the defense if it is able to help us sustain more drives.  I believe that an improved rushing attack is the most important element that is needed to help our offense.  On the other side of the ball?  LB play, and ability to cover backs and TEs.  

[*SHRacerX*]

(07-20-2018, 07:54 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: We’ve got an OL with some great potential. Hope they put it together quickly. As has been said a number of times, they are much better already with the coaching changes and the additions and that’s a gimme. Just hope it doesn’t take a season to getting it all together.

Dead on, Harley.  So were you, Synric.  

I am optimistic for several reasons:

1.) The personnel-  Having Price vs. Bodine in Dalton's lap is probably the single greatest upgrade this team could make at any one spot, and we also got Glenn for that pick.  Brilliant.  Westerman and Redmond finally got their shot, and showed they are capable maulers even if they have some work to do in pass protection.

2.) Pollack-  This is every bit as important.  I know some defended Alexander, but when a guy that is as big a homer as anyone here (Lapham) openly complained of the lack of power, drive blocking, especially in short yardage....I think the new scheme will help the rushing attack tremendously.  And, historically, when this team rushes the ball well, they win.

3.) Lazor-  He may not be coaching the line directly, but his ability to impact the rushing game last year with no offseason preparation for what he wanted to do, was impressive.  Both Mixon and Gio finished with 100 yard rushing games with two new starters on the offensive line and one playing out of position.  He knew what was being done wasn't going to accomplish anything, so he stood his ground, made changes, and got the team to buy in.  I am VERY glad this guy is our OC and I can't wait to see what he can do with a full offseason.  

4.) Competition- No one is being handed the RG or RT position, and there could be a number of different scenarios that play out, but either way, competition improves the breed.  Hope is not a strategy, but competition at the positions should get the most out of the candidates for those spots.

5.) The RBs-  Mixon may be having heard about becoming more of a bell-cow, but Gio and Walton will be battling for snaps as well.  I have a feeling that all the RBs will be more involved in the passing game as well.  

[*SHRacerX*]

(07-20-2018, 08:37 AM)Au165 Wrote: The attempts thing was in regards to Lapham. My comment still stands using Rushing Yards Per Game, you are more likely to have more rushing yards if you rush more, you tend to rush more when you are winning. You saying they were able to run successfully is a bit misleading as well as yards per game is not indicative of success, yards per attempt is more relative to success as I can run 50 times for 2 yards a carry, but running 20 times for 5 yards a carry was much more successful.

Actually, it is.  I understand what you are saying about YPC, but you could also argue that you only rushed it two times for 50 yards and you would be ranked very high in terms of YPC, but only 50 yards.  Your example is only relevant because the total yardage was the same.   Total yards shows success, in total, in a game.  And I just found it very indicative of playoff attendance.  

[Au165]

(07-20-2018, 08:57 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Actually, it is.  I understand what you are saying about YPC, but you could also argue that you only rushed it two times for 50 yards and you would be ranked very high in terms of YPC, but only 50 yards.  Your example is only relevant because the total yardage was the same.   Total yards shows success, in total, in a game.  And I just found it very indicative of playoff attendance.  

Correlations isn't causation.

[3wt]

(07-20-2018, 08:37 AM)Au165 Wrote: The attempts thing was in regards to Lapham. My comment still stands using Rushing Yards Per Game, you are more likely to have more rushing yards if you rush more, you tend to rush more when you are winning. You saying they were able to run successfully is a bit misleading as well as yards per game is not indicative of success, yards per attempt is more relative to success as I can run 50 times for 2 yards a carry, but running 20 times for 5 yards a carry was much more successful.

This.  Being able to consistently run the ball effectively opens all your options up.  Then obviously how you use it becomes almost important.

I remember (don't recall the year) that we went out to San Diego and just demolished them at the end of the game running the ball.  Then they came here in the playoffs and stuffed the run and ran all over us.  I think we have a number of significant injuries (was that the year we had most of our receiver squad - including TE - on the bench and many of our offensive line were playing injured) that would have impacted that, but not being able to run the ball or stop the run sunk us.

The last couple of years we have not reliably been able to stop the run or run it effectively.  That totally set up our struggling O-line for failure in the passing game.

Single most important thing in 2018 will be whether we can run the ball effectively (yards per attempt)

[3wt]

(07-20-2018, 08:53 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Dead on, Harley.  So were you, Synric.  

I am optimistic for several reasons:

1.) The personnel-  Having Price vs. Bodine in Dalton's lap is probably the single greatest upgrade this team could make at any one spot, and we also got Glenn for that pick.  Brilliant.  Westerman and Redmond finally got their shot, and showed they are capable maulers even if they have some work to do in pass protection.

2.) Pollack-  This is every bit as important.  I know some defended Alexander, but when a guy that is as big a homer as anyone here (Lapham) openly complained of the lack of power, drive blocking, especially in short yardage....I think the new scheme will help the rushing attack tremendously.  And, historically, when this team rushes the ball well, they win.

3.) Lazor-  He may not be coaching the line directly, but his ability to impact the rushing game last year with no offseason preparation for what he wanted to do, was impressive.  Both Mixon and Gio finished with 100 yard rushing games with two new starters on the offensive line and one playing out of position.  He knew what was being done wasn't going to accomplish anything, so he stood his ground, made changes, and got the team to buy in.  I am VERY glad this guy is our OC and I can't wait to see what he can do with a full offseason.  

4.) Competition- No one is being handed the RG or RT position, and there could be a number of different scenarios that play out, but either way, competition improves the breed.  Hope is not a strategy, but competition at the positions should get the most out of the candidates for those spots.

5.) The RBs-  Mixon may be having heard about becoming more of a bell-cow, but Gio and Walton will be battling for snaps as well.  I have a feeling that all the RBs will be more involved in the passing game as well.  

Nice post.  I agree with all your reasons for optimism.  And I have to admit that the Walton pick and Flowers UDFA signing were both excellent ideas.  I think it will give us some needed depth at RB and QB.

The only draft pick I have questions about is Jefferson.  Other than that I think we had a really nice draft.

Can't wait for training camp

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(07-20-2018, 02:37 PM)3wt Wrote: Nice post.  I agree with all your reasons for optimism.  And I have to admit that the Walton pick and Flowers UDFA signing were both excellent ideas.  I think it will give us some needed depth at RB and QB.

The only draft pick I have questions about is Jefferson.  Other than that I think we had a really nice draft.

Can't wait for training camp

But boy howdy if Jefferson can pick up the mental part of the game, could be a star with his physical traits.

Physically reminds me a lot of my fave LB in the draft Trumaine Edmunds.

Which is why i had a 2nd round grade on Malik. But not necessarily for us with our Dawson debacle.

He will have to practice well and get smart to do something here. Doesn't matter how gifted he is.