Does Burrow like the 5 wide sets because the line is trash or because

[Housh]

He simply likes being 5 out?

If Burrow’s brain prefers 5 wide sets then it’s smart to address WR/TE and put decent money into both the line and WR/TE. With this said it’s a given Chase, Boyd, and Tee will be in on these sets. The TE and RB will be interchangeable. This year we tended to go with Perine and Uzomah. I know ppl love Uzomah and i do too. Would you rather we do any of the 4 following:

1. Put Mixon in Perines spot and trust him as a blocker if Burrow does have to check the RB to block. This cost no money.

2. Go out and get a running back whose already a good blocker and just plug him into Perines role. This will likely cost some million. Anyone established that can actually block will be a hot commodity.

3. Let Perine go and trust Evans? Cost nothing to just give Perine’s role to Evans.

4. Give up on Sample and get another established TE and run the 5 wide set with 2 TEs. This is tough because with Sample still under contract you are giving up on a 2nd round pick while he’s still young. And you double whammy yourself because this move would cost decent money.



My conventional wisdom says we already have too much money in skill positions. But the line will be better next year no matter what. So it’s possible we get more time in the pocket and at that point we’d need guys that can win routes. Then you have to add in Burrow isn’t really a checkdown guy. He usually throws to one of his first looks. So in that case you kinda want everyone in the 5 wide set to be able to win against their man. So getting another 5 million plus TE in that case would be smart. Doing this is going to affect your ability to bring in a defender tho.

After we fix the line we will probably have one more position we can address. I guess the question is do you give Burrow his unstoppable personnel for his favorite offensive set. Or do you go in house and run with Evans and Uzomah as your 2 non WRs in that set? Evans is not a good blocker and i cannot imagine a big jump in the off-season so that to me is asking a lot. He is a great runner tho, so if we theoretically are getting more time and better protection a player like Evans could have a breakout year because the RB won’t be asked to block as much.



Idk what you do here.

[*bfine32*]

He's always preferred 5 man protection. He had to talk Coach O into it at LSU

[Hammerstripes]

He likes the 5 man stuff. Not sure where I read it, but he feels like it puts him in control of the game and makes it easier to make plays.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

Nice thread Housh. It is a great question going into the season as Burrow loves empty sets sometimes to his demise.

I would bring in another TE like Gronk or somebody and have both Mixon and Evans really work on their blocking in the
Offseason, bring in a RB in the Draft that is great at blitz pickup. Both Mixon and Evans were good at blitz pickup in college
and Mixon has gotten much better in pass protection in the NFL than he was initially. I am saying this as most don't want
Perine back after the Superbowl.

Moving on from Sample is also something lots are wanting to do cause he brings nothing to the passing game even if he
is a good blocker. Of course bring back Uzo. We just need to adapt more to this Offense and at least be better at it if this
is what Burrow truly wants to run even while getting hit cause of it. Burrow loves the empty sets, just the way he is.

He loves the matchups he gets. I would run more 4 Receiver sets myself with at least 1 pass protector back there with
Burrow but it isn't up to me, it is up to Burrow and what he likes.

[Au165]

5 wide forces easier declarations of coverage pre snap. It’s harder to disguise extra rushers and also forces some things in alignment that can create stress on certain zone defenses forcing defenders to essentially give away types of zones.

[fredtoast]

Sorry, but I don't see any way we spend more money on a second TE if we bring back Uzo.

If Burrow can't light any team up with Chase, Higgins, Boyd, Mixon, and Uzomah then we need to look for a new offensive coordinator.

[WeezyBengal]

(02-28-2022, 03:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry, but I don't see any way we spend more money on a second TE if we bring back Uzo.

If Burrow can't light any team up with Chase, Higgins, Boyd, Mixon, and Uzomah then we need to look for a new offensive coordinator.

This x1000 

We arent sinking 20 million dollars into TE. We don't need another one and we honestly don't even need an above average pass catching tight end. Uzomah was fine for what we needed, but if hes too expensive then im letting him walk as well. 

This team just needs to focus on the OL help. They don't need any more offensive weapons. 

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(02-28-2022, 03:32 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: This x1000 

We arent sinking 20 million dollars into TE. We don't need another one and we honestly don't even need an above average pass catching tight end. Uzomah was fine for what we needed, but if hes too expensive then im letting him walk as well. 

This team just needs to focus on the OL help. They don't need any more offensive weapons. 

Well yeah, if Gronk or one of the TE's are THAT expensive nevermind. 

The OL is what needs to be taken care of first and foremost. 

Just thought Gronk would take less money to play with the one guy he said he would like to play with.

[Shake n Blake]

If you can get someone like Gronk for 5 million, you do it. We can still address the line in a major way even with an addition like that. That's the joy of having guys like Burrow, Chase and Tee on rookie deals.

Gronk is also a good blocker, btw.

The 5 wide stuff is interesting. If that's Burrow's bread and butter, you stick with it. That said, you don't want to be overly predictable, and obviously some teams will match up better with that than others.

Also, even with a better line, we'll always give up sacks. Not 70 of them, but 40 might be the best we can hope for. Can he stay healthy through a career of that? Idk, but as long as we're in SB contention with that style, you have to roll with it.

If teams start to defend it better, that's when you start playing the long game and being more conventional to protect Joey B.

[Au165]

(02-28-2022, 03:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry, but I don't see any way we spend more money on a second TE if we bring back Uzo.

If Burrow can't light any team up with Chase, Higgins, Boyd, Mixon, and Uzomah then we need to look for a new offensive coordinator.

The Patriots used to run a really cool formation out of 12 personnel where they'd start in Ace (Think single back and TE and WR each side of line) then would audible into a 5 wide set with their #1 and #2 to the short side of the formation and TE 1/ TE 2/ HB to the wide. What this formation did was force essentially all your bad defenders into space on one side of the field in man allowing for easy pick plays OR in zone it created a massive mismatch to the short side of the field because you'd have a S or LB on the #2 WR. 

I think adding another TE is kind of a luxury but even that could be used in 5 wide looks. You could do this same thing with 2 TE's and 3 WR's which would probably still keep the defense in a Nickle look and could create some additional mismatches with motions or bunching in 5 wide. If we want to get creative the additional piece is great but if we aren't going to use TE 2 on at least 35% of plays then I am with you and think CJ is a fine option for what we do.

[reuben.ahmed]

(02-28-2022, 06:09 PM)Au165 Wrote: The Patriots used to run a really cool formation out of 12 personnel where they'd start in Ace (Think single back and TE and WR each side of line) then would audible into a 5 wide set with their #1 and #2 to the short side of the formation and TE 1/ TE 2/ HB to the wide. What this formation did was force essentially all your bad defenders into space on one side of the field in man allowing for easy pick plays OR in zone it created a massive mismatch to the short side of the field because you'd have a S or LB on the #2 WR. 

I think adding another TE is kind of a luxury but even that could be used in 5 wide looks. You could do this same thing with 2 TE's and 3 WR's which would probably still keep the defense in a Nickle look and could create some additional mismatches with motions or bunching in 5 wide. If we want to get creative the additional piece is great but if we aren't going to use TE 2 on at least 35% of plays then I am with you and think CJ is a fine option for what we do.

I don't see much of that "confuse the defense" in our plays though I'm probably not looking for it. It'd be nice to have those plays and let Burrow no huddle. I didn't see much no huddle in most of our games this year (even from opposing teams), where did this go? 

[Yogo]

I am a proponent of formations with more protection for Burrow, but as long as they work on more timing pattern plays with quick reads and releases... sure let him have his 5 wide. Quick reads and timing patterns is how Andy survived enough here.

[Ell Prez]

(02-28-2022, 03:32 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: This x1000 

We arent sinking 20 million dollars into TE. We don't need another one and we honestly don't even need an above average pass catching tight end. Uzomah was fine for what we needed, but if hes too expensive then im letting him walk as well. 

This team just needs to focus on the OL help. They don't need any more offensive weapons. 

Definitely agree. We don’t have THAT much money for Fa. We’re losing some key D starters we need to resign or replace. All will get pay raises. Really not much money to address O Line.

Which is why I really think the best business move is to let Bates walk and draft a S at 31. I’d rather take $14M and throw it at a proven O Lineman + rookie S; than have Bates + rookie O line (pick 31).

[Housh]

(02-28-2022, 08:52 PM)Ell Prez Wrote: Definitely agree. We don’t have THAT much money for Fa. We’re losing some key D starters we need to resign or replace. All will get pay raises. Really not much money to address O Line.

Which is why I really think the best business move is to let Bates walk and draft a S at 31. I’d rather take $14M and throw it at a proven O Lineman + rookie S; than have Bates + rookie O line (pick 31).

I think Bates and all secondary ppl kinda get forgotten. An elite Bates game could see him not targeted once so you can forget about him and think he’s inconsequential when in reality he was 80% of the reason we didn’t get beat deep for a pass. I cannot condone letting Bates walk and giving that position to a rookie. I just can’t. If we let anyone walk it’d be Hill and Larry O. With Reader as the centerpiece i lowkey feel like ANY solid vets we’ve got at DT will produce.


Nobody can see the future though.

[Housh]

(02-28-2022, 06:09 PM)Au165 Wrote: The Patriots used to run a really cool formation out of 12 personnel where they'd start in Ace (Think single back and TE and WR each side of line) then would audible into a 5 wide set with their #1 and #2 to the short side of the formation and TE 1/ TE 2/ HB to the wide. What this formation did was force essentially all your bad defenders into space on one side of the field in man allowing for easy pick plays OR in zone it created a massive mismatch to the short side of the field because you'd have a S or LB on the #2 WR. 

I think adding another TE is kind of a luxury but even that could be used in 5 wide looks. You could do this same thing with 2 TE's and 3 WR's which would probably still keep the defense in a Nickle look and could create some additional mismatches with motions or bunching in 5 wide. If we want to get creative the additional piece is great but if we aren't going to use TE 2 on at least 35% of plays then I am with you and think CJ is a fine option for what we do.

We’ve been chasing that Patriots 2TE set ghost since the Pats won with it. Just think no team has really had the money to duplicate it as the Pats drafted both their guys if i believe correctly. Hernandez would probably be playing today if he wasn’t a thug

[Soonerpeace]

Mixon has fantastic hands and speed. Being able to move him to receiver is a huge advantage. I read somewhere that Mixon scored every 14 times he touched the ball at Oklahoma and that’s #2 in frequency for any in history at Oklahoma. If they can get a line that can open lanes for him he becomes more dangerous than Chase. And it will make it tough on all defenses

[Au165]

(02-28-2022, 09:07 PM)Housh Wrote: We’ve been chasing that Patriots 2TE set ghost since the Pats won with it. Just think no team has really had the money to duplicate it as the Pats drafted both their guys if i believe correctly. Hernandez would probably be playing today if he wasn’t a thug

The Eagles ran a similar set with Ertz and Goedert a couple years back. Pats were still running it when they had Gronk and Benjamin Watson. It’s not about duplicating that exact formation or plays, the point is more creativity that getting from a “big” formation to a spread look can be used to improve efficiency.

[Ell Prez]

(02-28-2022, 09:03 PM)Housh Wrote: I think Bates and all secondary ppl kinda get forgotten. An elite Bates game could see him not targeted once so you can forget about him and think he’s inconsequential when in reality he was 80% of the reason we didn’t get beat deep for a pass. I cannot condone letting Bates walk and giving that position to a rookie. I just can’t. If we let anyone walk it’d be Hill and Larry O. With Reader as the centerpiece i lowkey feel like ANY solid vets we’ve got at DT will produce.


Nobody can see the future though.

I want to keep Bates. I really do. But I also want min. 3 new o linemen. We need another DT, starting CB, starting TE, and starting S. Plus rotational pieces. I don’t think we can do all that with 49M. I’m also in favor of letting go of Mixon if it meant a better O line.


We actually have quite a few holes. And every team is looking to get better. I saw an article about Chiefs going after Chris Godwin. Could you imagine us beating the chiefs with Hill, Godwin, Kelce + their other super fast receivers. The Bengals have to improve if they want to win the super bowl. Not only because they lost, so easy thing to say is they need to improve, but also because the chiefs, Titans, bills, chargers, patriots are all trying to get better.

I actually want another WR added to the mix. If chase or Huggins go down, we may be struggling to score 30+. FA WR or a ;thanks round speedster would be nice.

[Soonerpeace]

(03-01-2022, 12:55 AM)Ell Prez Wrote: I want to keep Bates. I really do. But I also want min. 3 new o linemen. We need another DT, starting CB, starting TE, and starting S. Plus rotational pieces. I don’t think we can do all that with 49M. I’m also in favor of letting go of Mixon if it meant a better O line.


We actually have quite a few holes. And every team is looking to get better. I saw an article about Chiefs going after Chris Godwin. Could you imagine us beating the chiefs with Hill, Godwin, Kelce + their other super fast receivers. The Bengals have to improve if they want to win the super bowl. Not only because they lost, so easy thing to say is they need to improve, but also because the chiefs, Titans, bills, chargers, patriots are all trying to get better.

I actually want another WR added to the mix. If chase or Huggins go down, we may be struggling to score 30+. FA WR or a ;thanks round speedster would be nice.

Respectfully we can’t come close to your wish list. I’m gonna have to scratch my head at some of your wishes. Retaining Bates at minimum on a franchise tag to develop a plan there. You obviously want to fix the OL with 3 FA’s. If they went with 3 that are in demand that will take a huge chunk of our money. We are in much better shape than the Bills or Chiefs. They’ve got some FA’s to resign and a whole lot less money to work with.

Of course the OL needs an overhaul. I’m gonna have to disagree with your plan. Such an overhaul on the team that came down to the wire of winning a SB doesn’t need to mess with the roster as much as you suggest. The OL needs 2 FA’s and the first round pick.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(02-28-2022, 06:09 PM)Au165 Wrote: The Patriots used to run a really cool formation out of 12 personnel where they'd start in Ace (Think single back and TE and WR each side of line) then would audible into a 5 wide set with their #1 and #2 to the short side of the formation and TE 1/ TE 2/ HB to the wide. What this formation did was force essentially all your bad defenders into space on one side of the field in man allowing for easy pick plays OR in zone it created a massive mismatch to the short side of the field because you'd have a S or LB on the #2 WR. 

I think adding another TE is kind of a luxury but even that could be used in 5 wide looks. You could do this same thing with 2 TE's and 3 WR's which would probably still keep the defense in a Nickle look and could create some additional mismatches with motions or bunching in 5 wide. If we want to get creative the additional piece is great but if we aren't going to use TE 2 on at least 35% of plays then I am with you and think CJ is a fine option for what we do.

Sure would love for the Offense to give this formation a shot at times. Love this.