Easy answer to our short yardage probems.

[BFritz21]

(03-01-2022, 02:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just curious, Brad, but what is your theory regarding why the Bengali were more successful running the ball in short yardage situations from the shotgun. You know a lot about football. How do you explain it.

Probably because the other instances weren't obvious running situations.

That's what I mean. You can't look at numbers and make deciding coaching decisions or coaching would be easy.

I explained that a few times already but it doesn't seem to be registering.

[George Cantstandya]

I don't know. I've read all the posts here including stats and objective info. It's easy to say what should have happened or should have been called after the fact. Maybe it's just best to agree to disagree instead of bickering over it. For the record I agree with the statistics and respect the analysis of the play presented here by people that know more about football than me. However, the play is over, the play called didn't work out, and well that was that. The Super Bowl is over and maybe let's put it behind us and look forward to upcoming season, free agency and the draft instead of dwelling on one play. Just my 2 cents.

[BFritz21]

(03-01-2022, 01:43 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Would it have been better, or is that just your opinion?  The data from the season clearly showed that the Bengals offense was much more effective out of shotgun in that situation than under center.

As for giving the RB the ball from shotgun giving the DL and advantage?  I don't know about that, either.  If a rushing play is called, the OL is still supposed to be the aggressors, and move their opponents off of the ball, same as when lined up under center.

It wasn't a play call that failed the Bengals, it was a failure to execute on the line of scrimmage.  If it truly were shoddy play calling, we'd have 20+ current threads on here about how Zac Tayor or Brian Callahan needs to be replaced, rather than the large number of threads focused on how the Bengals can/should improve the offensive line.

A running back being starting towards the line at the snap and being handed the ball as he's running forward has more momentum, more speed, and gets their faster than being handed the ball while standing still. The defenders also get to the line a half inch slower.

Also, no one has yet to argue how Perine wouldn't have gotten the first down if he had started a split second earlier when he only came up a fraction of a yard short.

[*rfaulk34*]

(03-01-2022, 01:43 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Would it have been better, or is that just your opinion?  The data from the season clearly showed that the Bengals offense was much more effective out of shotgun in that situation than under center.

As for giving the RB the ball from shotgun giving the DL and advantage?  I don't know about that, either.  If a rushing play is called, the OL is still supposed to be the aggressors, and move their opponents off of the ball, same as when lined up under center.

It wasn't a play call that failed the Bengals, it was a failure to execute on the line of scrimmage.  If it truly were shoddy play calling, we'd have 20+ current threads on here about how Zac Tayor or Brian Callahan needs to be replaced, rather than the large number of threads focused on how the Bengals can/should improve the offensive line.

Yep. 

I spent some time the other day going through play by play for each game, finding all the times the Bengals failed in 3rd and 4th and 1, while running with the QB under center. I stopped about 3/4 of the way through because i realized how stupid it was to waste time on it and i wasn't shocked that up to that point i had found about 5 times that it was tried and failed. 

It's utterly ridiculous that this stupid argument has gone on this long. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(03-01-2022, 09:15 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I wouldn't care if they lined up in the "lonesome polecat" all game long, as long as the blocking was effective and it kept moving the ball and putting points on the board.

My whole point (along with many others') is that when you need a yard, because in this case it was the difference between having a chance to win the championship or lose the game, you have to have enough ass to move the line for that one yard.  While reading through the arguments for and against "we should have lined up under center" has been entertaining at moments, and also enough to make one want to jab forks into their eyes at others, it's all been a rabbit hole leading away from the real point that we need more push on the interior OL.

I'd put it about...100% on Zac for calling such a bland, by-the-book play in that situation. Biggest call of the year and he calls that. 

[*ochocincos*]

(02-25-2022, 09:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Short yardage = 3rd or 4th down, 2 yd or less to go.

Bengals conversion rate running the ball... 55.2% (30th in league)
Bengals conversion rate throwing the ball. 72.0% (3rd in league)

Joe Burrow in short yardage situations... 16-19, 84.2%, 277 yds, 4 td, 0 int, 158.3 rating, 15 first downs.

But here is the most shocking stat.  With all the problems we had running the ball in these "short yardage situations" you would think we would have thrown the ball more often.  But Burrow's 19 attempts in "short yardage situation" ranked EIGHTEENTH in the league.  Lots of other coaches realize how easy it is to get 1 or 2 yards throwing the ball.

The World Champion Rams were one of the two teams in the league who were worse at converting short yardage situations running the ball.  In fact they were dead last in the league at 50%.  But Stafford's 30 pass attempts in short yardage situations were the third most in the league.

I thought the thread was going to be about getting an actual FB to pave the way for the RB lol.

[fredtoast]

(03-01-2022, 03:52 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Probably because the other instances weren't obvious running situations.

When is 3rd/4th and one yard to go not an obvious running situation?

[fredtoast]

(03-01-2022, 03:56 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Also, no one has yet to argue how Perine wouldn't have gotten the first down if he had started a split second earlier when he only came up a fraction of a yard short.

Actually many people have argued that the defense would have lined up differently with Burrow under center, and also it would have been impossible to run the same play with the pre-snap motion with Burrow under center.

[fredtoast]

(03-01-2022, 11:42 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Backers moving into the gaps makes it easier to block them down or out and opens holes! 

No it does not?

Where did you ever come up with this idea?

[BFritz21]

(03-02-2022, 12:01 AM)fredtoast Wrote: When is 3rd/4th and one yard to go not an obvious running situation?

We threw on fourth down.

Like I keep saying, which you fail to understand, it's situational.

(03-02-2022, 12:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually many people have argued that the defense would have lined up differently with Burrow under center, and also it would have been impossible to run the same play with the pre-snap motion with Burrow under center.

If the they collapse they line up between the guards and center, you hand the ball to Mixon or Perine the ball going off tackle and they're running so fast that they're impossible to stop from getting a yard. If they're not outside the guards, you QB sneak.

(03-02-2022, 12:07 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No it does not?

Where did you ever come up with this idea?

Once again, you prove that you have absolutely no clue how football is played.

If a lineman is heads up, he likely hits the offensive lineman heads up and pushes back or at least tries to stay put. If you hit him an angle, it is much easier to move him further to that side because he doesn't have all of his force behind him.

That's actually just common sense on the motion of objects.

[*bfine32*]

[Whatever]

(03-01-2022, 03:56 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: A running back being starting towards the line at the snap and being handed the ball as he's running forward has more momentum, more speed, and gets their faster than being handed the ball while standing still. The defenders also get to the line a half inch slower.

Also, no one has yet to argue how Perine wouldn't have gotten the first down if he had started a split second earlier when he only came up a fraction of a yard short.

That's an assumption that doesn't always hold true in reality.  No RB just runs as fast as they towards the LoS when the ball is snapped.  They are typically at a jog while they scan for a hole and then accelerate through.  You will often hear commentators praise good RB's for being patient and allowing their blocks and holes to develop.  

If you watch the clip, Perrine actually stutter steps and kills his own momentum with a false step to the left before seeing the hole on the right and accelerating towards it.  If he begins heading towards the LoS at the snap, he will have to slow himself even more to allow himself time to see the hole.  

[wanga]

The answer doesn’t actually seem that easy after all does it.

[BFritz21]

(03-02-2022, 02:18 AM)Whatever Wrote: That's an assumption that doesn't always hold true in reality.  No RB just runs as fast as they towards the LoS when the ball is snapped.  They are typically at a jog while they scan for a hole and then accelerate through.  You will often hear commentators praise good RB's for being patient and allowing their blocks and holes to develop.  

If you watch the clip, Perrine actually stutter steps and kills his own momentum with a false step to the left before seeing the hole on the right and accelerating towards it.  If he begins heading towards the LoS at the snap, he will have to slow himself even more to allow himself time to see the hole.  

Backs typically don't jog on short yardage and, if they're looking for holes, they may stutter step, but they're facing towards the line, so it's easy to hit full speed.

Perine had to take that false step to get the handoff from Joe. It wasn't a false step. It was a shitty play call.

[fredtoast]

(03-02-2022, 12:57 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Once again, you prove that you have absolutely no clue how football is played.

If a lineman is heads up, he likely hits the offensive lineman heads up and pushes back or at least tries to stay put. If you hit him an angle, it is much easier to move him further to that side because he doesn't have all of his force behind him.

That's actually just common sense on the motion of objects.

Here we go with the "common sense" argument again.

The fact is that almost every NFL and college coach will bring defensive players up to the line in the gaps in short yardage situations because it is easier to get penetration.  It does not help to just move a player to the side if there is penetration all across the line.

[fredtoast]

(03-02-2022, 12:57 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: We threw on fourth down. 

So your position is that "obvious running situations" do not even exist?

I thought that your entire argument was based on "obvious running situations".

If they do not exist then you have no argument.

If 4th and one is not an "obvious running situation" then please give me an example of an "obvious running situation".

[BFritz21]

(03-03-2022, 10:23 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Here we go with the "common sense" argument again.

The fact is that almost every NFL and college coach will bring defensive players up to the line in the gaps in short yardage situations because it is easier to get penetration.  It does not help to just move a player to the side if there is penetration all across the line.

You obviously don't understand things like laws of motion.

If I am standing straight over you and you fire off directly at me, it is tougher for me to block you to one side because you have a stable force coming from your back.

If you're on my left shoulder and you fire straight off, it is easier for me to push you to the left because you don't have a stable force pushing from the back left.

(03-03-2022, 10:26 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So your position is that "obvious running situations" do not even exist?

I thought that your entire argument was based on "obvious running situations".

If they do not exist then you have no argument.

If 4th and one is not an "obvious running situation" then please give me an example of an "obvious running situation".

Fourth and one was no longer an obvious running situation, especially at that point in the game.

You don't understand situational football and try to twist words because you think we're all too stupid to see when you have stupid arguments.

[fredtoast]

(03-03-2022, 02:51 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You obviously don't understand things like laws of motion.

If I am standing straight over you and you fire off directly at me, it is tougher for me to block you to one side because you have a stable force coming from your back.

If you're on my left shoulder and you fire straight off, it is easier for me to push you to the left because you don't have a stable force pushing from the back left.

It is called physics and I do understand it perfectly.  If you hit me at an angle then you will move me at an angle but my forward motion will carry me into the backfield not sideways down the line.  That is why it is easier to get penetration into the backfield by lining up in the gaps.  If you don't believe me thne just ask any college or NFL coach who lnes up his players in the gaps on short yardage siutations.

(03-03-2022, 02:51 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Fourth and one was no longer an obvious running situation, especially at that point in the game.

You don't understand situational football

I understand situational football more than you.  And here is how I will prove it.

Give me an example of an "obvious running situation".  Don't tell me what "isn't" one.  Tell me what "is" one.

Your explanation for why Bengal RBs were more successful in short yardage situations running from the shotgun was based on the difference between "obvious running situations" and other situations.  So I just want to test your answer to see if you have a clue what you ar talking about.

So, Mr "Expert on Situational Football", give me your definition of an "obvious running situation".

[BFritz21]

(03-04-2022, 11:40 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It is called physics and I do understand it perfectly.  If you hit me at an angle then you will move me at an angle but my forward motion will carry me into the backfield not sideways down the line.  That is why it is easier to get penetration into the backfield by lining up in the gaps.  If you don't believe me thne just ask any college or NFL coach who lnes up his players in the gaps on short yardage siutations.

You obviously don't understand it because a player that gets hit at an angle will lose some momentum and get knocked off balance and fall over unless he's pushing back at the blocker, in which case he's not just shooting the gap. 

If lining up in the gap meant that they could run into the backfield untouched, don't you think all defenders would do that?

It's also very hard to keep their balance if they're just firing off and running straight into the backfield but getting hit from the side. 

You obviously don't understand physics unless you're just ignoring them and lying.

(03-04-2022, 11:40 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I understand situational football more than you.  And here is how I will prove it.

Give me an example of an "obvious running situation".  Don't tell me what "isn't" one.  Tell me what "is" one.

Your explanation for why Bengal RBs were more successful in short yardage situations running from the shotgun was based on the difference between "obvious running situations" and other situations.  So I just want to test your answer to see if you have a clue what you ar talking about.

So, Mr "Expert on Situational Football", give me your definition of an "obvious running situation".

An obvious run situation would be like the play on third and one from midfield that we are talking about with under a minute to go in the fourth where you want to take the least risk and the easiest way to get a yard, which would be running the ball in between the tackles.

You throw out insults and the name calling like a child because you think I'll think "oh, he must really know what he's talking about if he's willing to throw out insults," but, like so many times before with me, you're going down in flames.

[fredtoast]

(03-04-2022, 04:51 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: If lining up in the gap meant that they could run into the backfield untouched, don't you think all defenders would do that?

Actually it is exactly what most defensive coordinators do in short yardage situations.

And what the hell are you talking about "run into the backfield untouched".  So sad that you can't address what I actually said and instead have to make up stuff like this.

(03-04-2022, 04:51 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You obviously don't understand physics unless you're just ignoring them and lying.

You are clueless about force, angle of rebound, and angle of incidence if you think an offensive lineman striking a defender driving into the gap will push him sideways and eliminate penetration.

(03-04-2022, 04:51 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: An obvious run situation would be like the play on third and one from midfield that we are talking about with under a minute to go in the fourth where you want to take the least risk and the easiest way to get a yard, which would be running the ball in between the tackles.

What do you mean "like".  I need a definition I can apply to all plays so I can test your theory.

What exactly makes a play an "obvious run situation"?

Down?

Distance?

Field position?

Time remaining?

Score?