Team Structure

[*ochocincos*]

A high-powered offense with a mediocre defense is more exciting to watch compared to a stingy defense and bad offense, so I went with high-powered offense.

[ezekiel23]

I really like this offense so I had to go with,(High Powered Offense).This Offense will be nothing short of exciting.If you have a red hot Offense,who needs a defense?(Just kidding).Anyways,This defense doesn’t have to be stingy good,but I expect it to be at least average.As far as the OL is concerned,that doesn’t concern me.We have 2 very good Tackles,and 2 decent Guards,and a good Center.Lightyears ahead of where we were last year.Although it won’t be perfect,it will be better.Our new OL coach is going to be the game changer for this OL.Go Bengals!

[*SHRacerX*]

(07-06-2021, 08:39 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: ..


2021 Tampa Bay  7   6
2020 Kansas City  6  17
2019 New England  5  21  
2018 Philadelphia  7  4
2017 New England  4  8
2016 Denver  16  1
2015 New England  11  13
2014 Seattle  17  1
2013 Baltimore  16  17
2012 New York Giants  8  27
2011 Green Bay  9  5
2010 New Orleans  1  25
2009 Pittsburgh  22  1
2008 New York Giants  16  7
2007 Indianapolis  3  21


The numbers next to each team's name represent their offensive and defensive rank for those given seasons.  As you can see, it's pretty mixed as to whichever approach works best.  The only deductions that I can surmise is that being good on both sides of the ball is good, and having the top defense wins the championship 3X as many times as the top offense.

Good stuff, Sunset.  I would imagine you could win a lot of bar bets with that ranking for the 2012 NYG having the 27th ranked defense.  I think their defense must have just figured it out in the playoffs because they had that NASCAR line that could just get after folks.  They held one of the greatest offenses of all time (The Pats in the Super Bowl) to something like 16 points.  

One thing I will say that is probably a common characteristic in every one of these teams is they had to be really good at SOMETHING.  Like, even that middling-ranked 2013 Ravens team....they had an excellent deep ball, and they would take appx 5 deep shots a game.  It was something they did extremely well that forced opponents to try and adapt to keep in check.  

Now, heading in to next season, I see a few things that the Bengals could be REALLY good at:

Spreading you out and attacking through the air.  This also makes me thing they could go more hurry-up.  With Burrow's cerebral side, and his quick decisions, I like the idea of not letting the opposing defense substitute.  Bengals could even come out with two TEs and still attack you in the air when you are in a base defense.  They have a lot of options, but still a lot of unprovens (the line, Chase).

Rushing attack.  Yep.  You heard me.  I think they could be an elite rushing team.  Mixon has set the bar high for himself, and with big guys like Spain and Carman in the middle, and better play out of the RT position (and a healthy Jonah), they could find themselves one of the better rushing attacks.  The mere threat that they have in the receiving corps could push safeties back and that would help the rushing attack. 

Run defense.  With the depth they now should have with big guys in the middle (Reader, Ogunjobi, Shelvin, Tupou, Wren), the rushing defense could be one of the greatest improvements on the team.  

I wish I had more optimism for the pass rush, but I feel a lot is being placed on the rookies like Ossai and Sample.  

[fredtoast]

Got to be the "balanced" approach.

I have been a fan of high powered offensive teams that too many times could not hold a lead late in a game.

I have also been a fan of defensive teams that could not score to put an opponent away.

A high powered offense may be more "entertaining" to watch, but it is still very frustrating to watch a weak defense blow a lead and lose. Who remembers Palmer throwing for 450 yards and losing to the Chargers? Or how about throwing 6 td passes and losing to the Browns? There was nothing "fun" about watching us lose those games.

[Luvnit2]

(07-07-2021, 11:31 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Got to be the "balanced" approach.

I have been a fan of high powered offensive teams that too many times could not hold a lead late in a game.

I have also been a fan of defensive teams that could not score to put an opponent away.

A high powered offense may be more "entertaining" to watch, but it is still very frustrating to watch a weak defense blow a lead and lose. Who remembers Palmer throwing for 450 yards and losing to the Chargers?  Or how about throwing 6 td passes and losing to the Browns?  There was nothing "fun" about watching us lose those games.

I was at the game in Cleveland. It was weird, Browns fans hated their QB, he came out and could not hit the side of a barn early and we jumped to a lead. Browns fans were booing. Then, next thing I knew we were losing and Browns fans switched their hatred to Bengals fans in the stadium, we had a group of 8 guys and we were being nice when we lead, next thing we know they want to start a fight.

Yeah, not a fun game to lose.

I also said balanced, with run defense stingy. It is hard to create long time consuming drives against our defense if teams are unable to run on them (less than 80 yards a game). That keeps our offense on the field and hopefully get them behind and they are pass only so we can create havoc.

[*bengalfan74*]

I went high powered offense. And if you go back and take a deep look at the most successful Bengal teams going back into the 70's even that's pretty much where they've been at their best.

Of course it's best if you have at least a middle of the road D to go with it.

[*Go Cards*]

Just want strong trench play to protect our QB and pressure theirs and would always want to build from trenches out. .

Would not go with best player because I feel that has always been Bengals blueprint and we can see the results that have blossomed from that approach. When you go all in on best player that is not really a need and it busts, it takes years to get back on course. If it hits you're golden but don't like the gamble personally. Especially with small scouting staff.

Love stingy defenses and who does not want that ? But then you have to build your offense via FA like Tampa Bay did and our owner just is not willing to do that apparently.

Balance ? Hell yes, would love that but really think the new NFL is all geared toward the high powered offense with the rules now and voted that way from choices available.

[EatonFan]

Actually the most entertaining (to me) to watch is a defensive stand or an INT to seal the game. But I want balanced. We can beat you either way.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-06-2021, 01:31 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: With all the rules making it tougher to play defense and it becoming a passing league, I think you make your offense explosive and able to move the chains and sustain drives.  The other team can't score if they're on the sidelines.

On defense, you obviously have to at least be able to slow down the run, but I think it's most important to get people that can rush the passer because anyone can play DB if the QB doesn't have time to let the receivers get into their routes.

With our team right now and a QB like Burrow, receiver like Chase, and back like Mixon, I think, first and foremost, you build a line to protect Burrow, open holes for Mixon, and say "try and stop us."

Peyton Manning always seemed like he had shitty-to-average defenses but always managed to have winning seasons, and that was back when defenses could still hit people..

First and foremost, build an offensive line and then get pass rushers.  That's the next direction we need to go to be competitors.

He had a top-10 scoring defense 5 times with the Colts and 2 times with the Broncos. So 7 of his 15 years he had a top-10 scoring defense. Did have a couple stinkers mixed in there, though. I think they just seemed worse than they were because they were being compared to Peyton Manning offenses. Lol

The Colts Ds allowed a lot of yards because teams were playing from behind, but generally okay/good vs scoring and they always had Mathis/Freeney combining for ~15-25 sacks and ~10-12 forced fumbles each year which helps any D.

- - - - - - -

I agree with most of your post, though. Both the league and the Bengals current setup leans towards focusing on offense because they're at least close-ish to being good. The D is so far away and in a league that already is tilted against them.

[TJHoushmandzadeh's Shiny Shoes]

(07-06-2021, 08:39 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: ..


2021 Tampa Bay 7 6
2020 Kansas City 6 17
2019 New England 5 21
2018 Philadelphia 7 4
2017 New England 4 8
2016 Denver 16 1
2015 New England 11 13
2014 Seattle 17 1
2013 Baltimore 16 17
2012 New York Giants 8 27
2011 Green Bay 9 5
2010 New Orleans 1 25
2009 Pittsburgh 22 1
2008 New York Giants 16 7
2007 Indianapolis 3 21


The numbers next to each team's name represent their offensive and defensive rank for those given seasons. As you can see, it's pretty mixed as to whichever approach works best. The only deductions that I can surmise is that being good on both sides of the ball is good, and having the top defense wins the championship 3X as many times as the top offense.

I'm struggling to put a marker on when exactly but my perception is that in recent years the league is moving more and more to being an offensive league with rule changes and interpretations favoring offense (and passing offense in particular). I'm therefore not sure how instructive rankings from 15 years ago are in judging the modern NFL which I think is only going to continue to move in the direction of passing offenses and skill players.

(The Bengals are surprisingly well set for this with a highly marketable QB and an abundance of young skill guys like Chase, Higgins and Mixon. A big season from Burrow and the Bengaldom will find itself in the unusual situation of being a fashionable franchise)

I'd say my hierarchy is as follows:

1. BPA - I'd take a great D player over a good O player and a great O player over a good D player.
2. Make a virtue of existing strengths - if D and O players are of equal ability I'd rather an elite unit and an average unit over two good units. So if I already had a good D but an average O, I'd prioritizing build on my strengths to get one unit to elite and go with the great D player over the great O player
3. O over D - this is the direction the League is travelling in, so if the two units were of similar standards and the two players of the same caliber I'd prioritize improving the O over the D

[XenoMorph]

(07-06-2021, 10:57 AM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: The Bengals are closest to high powered offense based on the options you provided, so I’d go all in on that. If I was starting a team I’d go for stingy defense.

just need a playcaller.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(07-06-2021, 10:49 AM)EatonFan Wrote: If you are the Bengals organisation, would you rather structure the team as a high-powered offense/average defense, stingy-Defense/average offense, balanced approach or opportunistic -- best player available mentality (whether that be in the draft or free agency) which would as a result have potential superstars with an moderate supporting cast.

Which would you prefer?  And if your preference is one and the Bengals are another, why do you feel the way you do?  And why should the Bengals change in the direction?

I went with balanced approach. Was tempted to go with stingy D but you have to score points to win in this league now a days.

Good poll, another one that made me think for a minute.