Easy answer to our short yardage probems.

[fredtoast]

(03-07-2022, 01:38 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: You’ve got 2 plays to make 1 yard. The Bengals have to fix their short yardage inadequacies. Plain and simple. 

Thank you Captain Obvious.

That is the whole point of this conversation.

Would it help fix the problem if we ran with Joe under center instead of from the shotgun?

[BFritz21]

(03-07-2022, 12:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They could be on the line of scrimmage pre-snap.

Do you not know the difference between "in the box" and "on the line of scrimmage"?

There's not much in the box and on the line, especially when two backers are lined up just outside the box and are collapsing in at the snap. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

(03-07-2022, 12:14 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I don't believe they had 8-in-the-box. The box is generally described as the area between the tackles, spanning about five yards deep into the defensive backfield. Here is a visualization of what the Rams had right at snap.



The blue lines represent the "box". The Rams had four players in this area with their ends split out into a wide 9. What if we include those, though?



At best, I see an argument for seven players in the box, one of which is a corner. In reality, the "box" has four defensive players in it. 

Ok, there was technically four in the box with the two outside linebackers collapsing in at the snap, so really six, and then one other DB collapsing in when he was just outside the box. 

For all intents and purposes, they stacked the box. Bottom line.

[Soonerpeace]

(03-07-2022, 01:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Thank you Captain Obvious.

That is the whole point of this conversation.

Would it help fix the problem if we ran with Joe under center instead of from the shotgun?

That’s not an absolute. The absolute is just better blocking. But you’ve also got to have a play to go to. McVay had Kupp convert and really won them a SB on his 4th down conversion. Taylor earlier in the playoffs had Chase motion to the backfield and it was a great play. Frankly I’d have had him do that again but have fake it to him. I fault them not having a play ready there.

[*rfaulk34*]

(03-07-2022, 04:54 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: For all intents and purposes, they stacked the box. Bottom line.

You're wrong. 

They were in the shotgun so they were playing pass, while being aware of the run (that's what that formation does).

If Burrow had gone under Center, everyone would have packed in closer just like the Raiders did on the 4th down end around to Chase in their playoff game. 

[BFritz21]

(03-07-2022, 06:57 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: You're wrong. 

They were in the shotgun so they were playing pass, while being aware of the run (that's what that formation does).

If Burrow had gone under Center, everyone would have packed in closer just like the Raiders did on the 4th down end around to Chase in their playoff game. 

THEY CRASHED THE LINE! HOW CAN YOU SAY THEY WERE PLAYING PASS?!

They knew we weren't going to try and throw the ball.

I explained with video evidence how they crashed the line and run blitzed. They couldn't have packed it in any closer besides for the one linebacker but he was only two yards off the ball and would have crashed but he didn't need to.

If Burrow had been under center, Perine or Mixon would have at least hit the line faster and had more momentum.

[*rfaulk34*]

(03-07-2022, 07:06 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: THEY CRASHED THE LINE! HOW CAN YOU SAY THEY WERE PLAYING PASS?!

They knew we weren't going to try and throw the ball.

I explained with video evidence how they crashed the line and run blitzed. They couldn't have packed it in any closer besides for the one linebacker but he was only two yards off the ball and would have crashed but he didn't need to.

If Burrow had been under center, Perine or Mixon would have at least hit the line faster and had more momentum.

Nope. You're wrong. I already explained why. 

[BFritz21]

(03-07-2022, 07:17 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Nope. You're wrong. I already explained why. 

The packed in closer argument doesn't work because they were packed in pretty much as close as they could be.  Perine would have had more speed, making it harder to stop, and he would have hit the hole faster giving the defense less time to get penetration, and he only came up a little bit short, meaning that he would gave gotten the first.

Your explanation was wrong.

[*rfaulk34*]

(03-07-2022, 11:06 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: The packed in closer argument doesn't work because they were packed in pretty much as close as they could be.  Perine would have had more speed, making it harder to stop, and he would have hit the hole faster giving the defense less time to get penetration, and he only came up a little bit short, meaning that he would gave gotten the first.

Every bit of that is wrong.

[*bfine32*]

For the love of god. Kill this. kill it now.

[BFritz21]

(03-07-2022, 11:12 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Every bit of that is wrong.

And yet you can't point out one thing.

Your entire argument has been "you're wrong," but logic doesn't lie.

I proved it with pictures and explained the video and you explained it with "you're wrong."

Explain how he wouldn't have hit the hole faster.

[*rfaulk34*]

(03-07-2022, 11:41 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: And yet you can't point out one thing.

Again, you're wrong. I, like everyone else in this thread, pointed out multiple times where you're wrong but you refuse to see it because you think your opinions and ideas are infallible. 

You're wrong in that as well.

You're told constantly where and why you're wrong and you always ignore it or move the goal posts. Talking to a wall would be less frustrating because i'd expect nothing from a wall that doesn't have the ability to think.

[BFritz21]

(03-07-2022, 11:53 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Again, you're wrong. I, like everyone else in this thread, pointed out multiple times where you're wrong but you refuse to see it because you think your opinions and ideas are infallible. 

You're wrong in that as well.

You're told constantly where and why you're wrong and you always ignore it or move the goal posts. Talking to a wall would be less frustrating because i'd expect nothing from a wall that doesn't have the ability to think.

He would have hit gotten to the line faster if Burrow wasn't in the shotgun and Perine had run at the line at the snap of the ball.

That's a fact that you can't refute.

[BFritz21]

(03-08-2022, 12:12 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: He would have hit gotten to the line faster if Burrow wasn't in the shotgun and Perine had run at the line at the snap of the ball.

That's a fact that you can't refute.

And with a horrible offensive line and the other team crowding the line, you need every little bit of extra time and distance because he came up just short.

That's also a fact you can't refute.

[*rfaulk34*]

(03-08-2022, 12:12 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: He would have hit gotten to the line faster if Burrow wasn't in the shotgun and Perine had run at the line at the snap of the ball.

That's a fact that you can't refute.

lol. Wrong. 

Both runs = ZERO yards gained.

[BFritz21]

(03-08-2022, 02:25 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: lol. Wrong. 

Both runs = ZERO yards gained.

Two different runners in two different circumstances.

Mixon didn't run straight at the line at the snap, like I keep arguing we would have done with Burrow under center, so it wasn't a true power run or dive.

Stop trying so hard and posting bogus "evidence" because it just weakens your argument.

[*rfaulk34*]

(03-08-2022, 02:32 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Two different runners in two different circumstances.

Mixon didn't run straight at the line at the snap, like I keep arguing we would have done with Burrow under center, so it wasn't a true power run or dive.

Stop trying so hard and posting bogus "evidence" because it just weakens your argument.

You're ridiculous and wrong.

Bye Felicia.

[fredtoast]

(03-07-2022, 11:06 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: The packed in closer argument doesn't work because they were packed in pretty much as close as they could be.

They were NOT packed in as close as they could be.  LBs were not on the LOS at the snap.  They were not packed in the box.

YOU were the one who posted the photo that proves this is true.

[fredtoast]

(03-08-2022, 02:32 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Mixon didn't run straight at the line at the snap, 

Yes he did.  He put down his head and ran straight forward.

If you disagree then tell me which way he cut, left or right?

[fredtoast]

(03-08-2022, 12:12 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: He would have hit gotten to the line faster if Burrow wasn't in the shotgun and Perine had run at the line at the snap of the ball.

That's a fact that you can't refute.

But he would have had less of a chance of gaining the yards to gain the first down.

That is a fact you can not refute.  We have posted the actual stats and facts to prove it.

We care about reality more than your opinion.

[*Synric*]

(03-08-2022, 02:25 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: lol. Wrong. 

Both runs = ZERO yards gained.

Ugh #77...