So how did we figure out how to run the ball after the bye last year, and can't run..

[THE PISTONS]

How did we figure out how to run the ball after the bye last year, and then can't run the ball this year? I know we changed schemes last year, and then I read we changed back this year as far as run blocking. WHY would we do that?

Saying our offensive line is bad just doesn't cut it as with the same personnel last year, they figured out a way to run block.

I see the few people that want Zac retained cite the passing success with Burrow as a reason to retain him. Well which OC in the NFL would struggle with Burrow? To me, not being able to figure out a way to run the ball is a reason to fire him and this staff. They showed last year that a scheme change could do it, yet this year they didn't fix it...which led to passing A LOT and ultimately Burrow injured.

Thoughts?

[*ochocincos*]

(12-08-2020, 11:06 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: How did we figure out how to run the ball after the bye last year, and then can't run the ball this year? I know we changed schemes last year, and then I read we changed back this year as far as run blocking. WHY would we do that?

Saying our offensive line is bad just doesn't cut it as with the same personnel last year, they figured out a way to run block.

I see the few people that want Zac retained cite the passing success with Burrow as a reason to retain him. Well which OC in the NFL would struggle with Burrow? To me, not being able to figure out a way to run the ball is a reason to fire him and this staff. They showed last year that a scheme change could do it, yet this year they didn't fix it...which led to passing A LOT and ultimately Burrow injured.

Thoughts?

While an injury can happen on any passing play for a QB, the likelihood of that injury increases the more times you attempt to pass.
Having a good rushing attack will help reduce the need to pass as often, which should reduce the likelihood of QB getting injured.
Also, if the running game was successful, it'd be helping open up the passing game.

But also, a team with a bad defense is naturally going to have to pass more because they are going to more often be behind in games.

[Gdale_Bengal]

Because Miami went to cover 2 on Sunday and they had no idea how to beat a cover 2. No one runs cover 2 anymore if you didn’t know.

[THE PISTONS]

(12-08-2020, 11:14 AM)ochocincos Wrote: While an injury can happen on any passing play for a QB, the likelihood of that injury increases the more times you attempt to pass.
Having a good rushing attack will help reduce the need to pass as often, which should reduce the likelihood of QB getting injured.
Also, if the running game was successful, it'd be helping open up the passing game.

But also, a team with a bad defense is naturally going to have to pass more because they are going to more often be behind in games.

Absolutely. More passes behind a bad offensive line equals more chances for an injury.

And we go empty backfield a lot...which tells teams a pass is coming.

Taylor doesn't seem to care about balance. He calls plays like it's a game of Madden.

[impactplaya]

(12-08-2020, 11:06 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: How did we figure out how to run the ball after the bye last year, and then can't run the ball this year? I know we changed schemes last year, and then I read we changed back this year as far as run blocking. WHY would we do that?

Saying our offensive line is bad just doesn't cut it as with the same personnel last year, they figured out a way to run block.

I see the few people that want Zac retained cite the passing success with Burrow as a reason to retain him. Well which OC in the NFL would struggle with Burrow? To me, not being able to figure out a way to run the ball is a reason to fire him and this staff. They showed last year that a scheme change could do it, yet this year they didn't fix it...which led to passing A LOT and ultimately Burrow injured.

Thoughts?

Whsts sad is the Bengals cant even run the ball vs a normal front. Teams dont have to load up the box and sell out for the run.all of a sudden you are in a 3rd and 9 and defenses 
Can rush only 4 to put the heat on the QB
Then.he is looking downfield and nobody is open.7 in coverge
All he has is Sample on a check down for a 5 yd gain.

Defenses are dicatating to the Bengals. 

[THE PISTONS]

No doubt. For a so-called offensive guru...he deserves to go.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I said this in the last offseason.

In the Bengals first 9 games, 7 of them were against winning teams.
In the Bengals last 7 games, 1 of them was against a winning team.

They didn't "figure out" anything. They just played worse teams and the two good teams they played after the bye (Ravens, Patriots) blew them out and were happy to let the Bengals run the ball a lot to let the game end quicker. Also got to play the Browns twice when they were at the peak of their Freddie Kitchens meltdown.

[fredtoast]

(12-08-2020, 06:27 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I said this in the last offseason.

In the Bengals first 9 games, 7 of them were against winning teams.
In the Bengals last 7 games, 1 of them was against a winning team.

They didn't "figure out" anything. They just played worse teams

First half of the season we played the 24th ranked run defense (Arizona) and the 28th (Jacksonville) and we only had a combined 141 rushing yards in those two games.  So our success the second half of the season was obviously not based on just weaker run defense.


We did play the Browns twice in the second half of the season and in both of those games we gained more rushing yards than 11 of their other 14 opponents.  We are not the only team that played weak defenses and we did better against the Browns weak run defense than all but three other teams.

We rushed for 164 yards against New England's #6 ranked rush defense, and it was not just because it was a blowout.  Why did the Steelers only get 33 rush yards in a 30 point loss, or the Dolphins 42 in a 43 point loss, or the Jets an average of 57 in two losses by a combined 63-14?

You also ignore the fact that the Raiders had the #8 rush defense in the league and we rushed for 173 against them in a close game.  Only one other team ran for more yards against them all season.

[*jason*]

(12-08-2020, 06:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: First half of the season we played the 24th ranked run defense (Arizona) and the 28th (Jacksonville) and we only had a combined 141 rushing yards in those two games.  So our success the second half of the season was obviously not based on just weaker run defense.


We did play the Browns twice in the second half of the season and in both of those games we gained more rushing yards than 11 of their other 14 opponents.  We are not the only team that played weak defenses and we did better against the Browns weak run defense than all but three other teams.

We rushed for 164 yards against New England's #6 ranked rush defense, and it was not just because it was a blowout.  Why did the Steelers only get 33 rush yards in a 30 point loss, or the Dolphins 42 in a 43 point loss, or the Jets an average of 57 in two losses by a combined 63-14?

You also ignore the fact that the Raiders had the #8 rush defense in the league and we rushed for 173 against them in a close game.  Only one other team ran for more yards against them all season.

Didn't we run the ball down Arizona's throat on the first drive of that game last year? I'm pretty sure we did. Then we abandoned the run, and didn't target a TE against a team that was putrid at covering them.

[*jason*]

(12-08-2020, 06:27 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I said this in the last offseason.

In the Bengals first 9 games, 7 of them were against winning teams.
In the Bengals last 7 games, 1 of them was against a winning team.

They didn't "figure out" anything. They just played worse teams and the two good teams they played after the bye (Ravens, Patriots) blew them out and were happy to let the Bengals run the ball a lot to let the game end quicker. Also got to play the Browns twice when they were at the peak of their Freddie Kitchens meltdown.

This...

It was funny watching Mixon have one of his best games of the season against the Patriots while we were getting blown out.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

(12-08-2020, 11:06 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I see the few people that want Zac retained cite the passing success with Burrow as a reason to retain him. Well which OC in the NFL would struggle with Burrow? To me, not being able to figure out a way to run the ball is a reason to fire him and this staff.

Thoughts?

Even success passing the ball with Joe Burrow hasn’t realized its full potential as the deep ball isn’t consistently there yet. Most of this is due to bad protection which breaks down too fast before deep plays develop. Also, Burrow doesn’t have a lot of success in the Red Zone yet; much of this is due to a bad scheme too. He put up lots of yards between the 20 yard lines and as impressive as that is, it didn’t result in lots of scoring.

Not running the ball is terrible. Just because the Bengals have Joe Burrow doesn’t mean slinging the ball all over creation fifty times per game is a good idea because it isn’t. At LSU Burrow put up his best numbers when he threw no more than 35 times. People forget LSU had an above average rushing attack too; they rarely went with an empty backfield.

Run blocking is harder than pass blocking because linemen are supposed to be proactive, moving defensive players out of the way at will. Depending on the technique the defense uses, the offensive line has to adjust.