Players are turning on Zac finally

[KillerGoose]

(10-11-2022, 02:46 PM)Go Cards Wrote: Pipe down, I said this all off season only two hear analytics does not support a good run game helping the passing game out 


No, bringing the safeties up to help stop the run absolutely helps. 

It doesn't. This is easily verifiable and isn't even "analytics". It is just finding trends in performances. Now, to be fair, most run games average out to somewhere between 3.8 yards and 5.5 yards per carry. The difference between these is essentially non-existent in how it affects your passing game. 

The Bengals just now surpassed the 3 yard per carry mark. So, they have been absolutely, undeniably AWFUL at running the ball. Even still, the Bengals have the 12th best passing offense by passer rating and 10th best passing offense by EPA per attempt. So, even then, the passing offense has still been effective. 

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(10-11-2022, 03:00 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: It doesn't. This is easily verifiable and isn't even "analytics". It is just finding trends in performances. Now, to be fair, most run games average out to somewhere between 3.8 yards and 5.5 yards per carry. The difference between these is essentially non-existent in how it affects your passing game. 

The Bengals just now surpassed the 3 yard per carry mark. So, they have been absolutely, undeniably AWFUL at running the ball. Even still, the Bengals have the 12th best passing offense by passer rating and 10th best passing offense by EPA per attempt. So, even then, the passing offense has still been effective. 

This isn't so much the argument that the run sets up the pass, it's more a feared run game may force teams to rethink the Cover 2/Tampa 2 defenses we've been seeing. I.e.....bringing the safeties up closer to the LOS.

[KillerGoose]

(10-11-2022, 03:06 PM)Wyche Wrote: This isn't so much the argument that the run sets up the pass, it's more a feared run game may force teams to rethink the Cover 2/Tampa 2 defenses we've been seeing. I.e.....bringing the safeties up closer to the LOS.

Sure, the normal way to attack a Cover 2 is to run the ball. The safeties aren't the force players anymore, the corners are. However, I was moreso arguing about the insinuation that a good running game helps your passing game. It doesn't, or the effects are negligible. Cincinnati has still had an effective passing attack, just not as effective as we had hoped. Normally, when your running game is working, you may see more single high looks. That brings a safety closer to the LOS, but you will still be facing a center fielder. Cover 3/1 is no weaker than cover 2 as far as coverage is concerned. It is just different. 

A good passing game is still good, regardless of running game. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(10-11-2022, 03:06 PM)Wyche Wrote: This isn't so much the argument that the run sets up the pass, it's more a feared run game may force teams to rethink the Cover 2/Tampa 2 defenses we've been seeing. I.e.....bringing the safeties up closer to the LOS.

Yep. The only way to bring the safeties up is to consistently run the ball effectively. 

[*Go Cards*]

(10-11-2022, 03:00 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: It doesn't. This is easily verifiable and isn't even "analytics". It is just finding trends in performances. Now, to be fair, most run games average out to somewhere between 3.8 yards and 5.5 yards per carry. The difference between these is essentially non-existent in how it affects your passing game. 

The Bengals just now surpassed the 3 yard per carry mark. So, they have been absolutely, undeniably AWFUL at running the ball. Even still, the Bengals have the 12th best passing offense by passer rating and 10th best passing offense by EPA per attempt. So, even then, the passing offense has still been effective. 

The Bengals are only 16 yards per game EPA from being 21st in the NFL and if you think that can't flip quickly you'd be mistaken. They're not as good as you're claiming, to this point anyway.

Like I've pointed out in other posts about this is that their parameters are too broad in rankings. Many teams that are the league leaders in rushing are built for this and probably have lower tier QB's and WR's that are never going to grade out highly in passing ratings. There are just so many variables that have to be factored in that its just not so black and white as you state.

Most teams that do have the QB's to do so are usually strapped by the salary cap per the QB weighting down the cap and causing them to have lesser talent.

The Bengals have 3 great WR and a good QB, I promise you that when the run game begins to click and used as a weapon the long balls will open up.  

Am willing to wager that the Bengals become a better passing team this year and score more points if they can establish the run and bring the safeties up, sure bet for you and your analytics. You cant lose, check your stats and name the wager.

All that being said I love your intelligent posts, but just can't get on board with this claim regardless of what the #'s say

[*bengalfan74*]

(10-11-2022, 03:22 PM)Go Cards Wrote: The Bengals are only 16 yards per game EPA from being 21st in the NFL and if you think that can't flip quickly you'd be mistaken. They're not as good as you're claiming, to this point anyway.

Like I've pointed out in other posts about this is that their parameters are too broad in rankings. Many teams that are the league leaders in rushing are built for this and probably have lower tier QB's and WR's that are never going to grade out highly in passing ratings. Their are just so many variables that have to be factored in that its just not black and white.

Most teams that do have the QB's to do so are usually strapped by the salary cap per the QB weighting down the cap and causing them to have lesser talent.

The Bengals have 3 great WR and a good QB, I promise you that when the run game begins to click and used as a weapon the long balls will open up.  

Am willing to wager that the Bengals become a better passing team this year if they can establish the run and bring the safeties up, sure bet for you and your analytics. You cant lose, check your stats and name the wager.

Stats and numbers can't tell the whole story of football. Getting those safeties and LBers to cheat up and/or hesitate for a split second can make all the difference in the world on a pass play.

And I don't care how many slide rules and computer programs you show me. The play action fake hasn't been a football staple for 40 years because it doesn't work,

[KillerGoose]

(10-11-2022, 03:22 PM)Go Cards Wrote: The Bengals are only 16 yards per game EPA from being 21st in the NFL and if you think that can't flip quickly you'd be mistaken. They're not as good as you're claiming, to this point anyway.

Like I've pointed out in other posts about this is that their parameters are too broad in rankings. Many teams that are the league leaders in rushing are built for this and probably have lower tier QB's and WR's that are never going to grade out highly in passing ratings. Their are just so many variables that have to be factored in that its just not black and white.

Most teams that do have the QB's to do so are usually strapped by the salary cap per the QB weighting down the cap and causing them to have lesser talent.

The Bengals have 3 great WR and a good QB, I promise you that when the run game begins to click and used as a weapon the long balls will open up.  

Am willing to wager that the Bengals become a better passing team this year and score more points if they can establish the run and bring the safeties up, sure bet for you and your analytics. You cant lose, check your stats and name the wager.

The bolded makes no sense, or I am not understanding what you're meaning. EPA is expected points added, and encompasses interceptions, touchdowns, yards along with which half it is, where at on the field you are and time left in the half. Being "16 yards away from 21st" is either a misunderstanding of what you're trying to read, or an incorrect assessment. Or, amazing math somewhere. 

If you think that the conclusion has been reached by just simply looking at who is good at rushing and then correlating that to their passing effectiveness, then you aren't thinking very deeply about it. This has been studied with a wide variety of QB tiers and analyzed by season, week, drive to see how their rating/EPA per attempt fluctuates by how good the running game is performing. If what you believe to be true, was true, then QB efficiency would increase as the running game performs better. It doesn't. For instance, Brady/Manning/Rodgers/Brees never saw a notable increase in efficiency while their running games were hot. 

To your wager, we would need to lay out more precise parameters. What are you meaning by "establish the run", and how would we dictate who wins the wager? For instance, Burrow had a ~90 QB rating from week 1-4, where the running game was averaging 2.7 yards per carry. Against the Ravens, the running game averaged 5.7 yards per carry, and Burrow posted an 82 QB rating. At season end, I would want to see clear evidence of the running game performance correlating to passing game performance. From a statistical standpoint, that would mean a correlation coefficient of 0.4 or better to demonstrate that the relationship is at least moderate. 

[KillerGoose]

(10-11-2022, 03:31 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Stats and numbers can't tell the whole story of football. Getting those safeties and LBers to cheat up and/or hesitate for a split second can make all the difference in the world on a pass play.

And I don't care how many slide rules and computer programs you show me. The play action fake hasn't been a football staple for 40 years because it doesn't work,

This starts an interesting conversation. Play action DOES work, and it works incredibly well. However, it doesn't work any better if your running game is strong. It just works. This is because defenses have to read and react. Each defensive call has run fits built into it, and defenders have to play those run fits. If you don't the running game goes wild. 

Take this example.

I created this GIF, and it is one of my favorite plays to show to demonstrate this. Look where my cursor goes prior to the snap. Lance Briggs, #55, doesn't play his run fit and instead sprints out covering the TE in the flat. Best takes the ball and runs right where Briggs vacated. That is what happens when you don't play your run fits, you give the back a ton of room to work with and he scored the ball there from 88 yards out. That is why PA works. These guys have to read the play and then react. If they react wrong, shit can hit the fan. 

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(10-11-2022, 03:10 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Sure, the normal way to attack a Cover 2 is to run the ball. The safeties aren't the force players anymore, the corners are. However, I was moreso arguing about the insinuation that a good running game helps your passing game. It doesn't, or the effects are negligible. Cincinnati has still had an effective passing attack, just not as effective as we had hoped. Normally, when your running game is working, you may see more single high looks. That brings a safety closer to the LOS, but you will still be facing a center fielder. Cover 3/1 is no weaker than cover 2 as far as coverage is concerned. It is just different. 

A good passing game is still good, regardless of running game. 

Absolutely agree, and I honestly wouldn't have without the analysis you and a couple others have provided here backing up that claim. So, let me say thanks for teaching me something that seems counter to common sense, lol. Seriously, I would have never guessed that correlation. My old school ways of thinking about the game always made me think the opposite.

But.... getting those safeties cheating up to stop the run that has been gashing them, gives really speedy guys a second or two to gain ground in the passing game that the S may not be able to make up....and sometimes that's all you need. We just need to start the gashing. Until we do, no one is cheating up....or hell, short passes... whatever. 

[*Go Cards*]

(10-11-2022, 03:45 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: The bolded makes no sense, or I am not understanding what you're meaning. EPA is expected points added, and encompasses interceptions, touchdowns, yards along with which half it is, where at on the field you are and time left in the half. Being "16 yards away from 21st" is either a misunderstanding of what you're trying to read, or an incorrect assessment. Or, amazing math somewhere. 

If you think that the conclusion has been reached by just simply looking at who is good at rushing and then correlating that to their passing effectiveness, then you aren't thinking very deeply about it. This has been studied with a wide variety of QB tiers and analyzed by season, week, drive to see how their rating/EPA per attempt fluctuates by how good the running game is performing. If what you believe to be true, was true, then QB efficiency would increase as the running game performs better. It doesn't. For instance, Brady/Manning/Rodgers/Brees never saw a notable increase in efficiency while their running games were hot. 

To your wager, we would need to lay out more precise parameters. What are you meaning by "establish the run", and how would we dictate who wins the wager? For instance, Burrow had a ~90 QB rating from week 1-4, where the running game was averaging 2.7 yards per carry. Against the Ravens, the running game averaged 5.7 yards per carry, and Burrow posted an 82 QB rating. At season end, I would want to see clear evidence of the running game performance correlating to passing game performance. From a statistical standpoint, that would mean a correlation coefficient of 0.4 or better to demonstrate that the relationship is at least moderate. 

Put in EPA but guess it came up overall but they also sit 12th in overall passing and only 16 yards better than 21st. Sure they do much analyzing if its the exact same ranking as without their #'s factored in ? 

Let's just go by the Bengals verses the Bengals instead of lumping them in with the Titans and such.

2021 Bengals ..........................2022 bengals

Mixon 4.1 yds per carry..................Mixon 3.1

QBR ......108.......................................  82
PPG........27...........................................22
INTPG....0.82........................................1.0
TD'sPG......2.........................................1.8
PYDPG.....271........................................263
sacked 51 times..................on pace for 61 sacks

Looks to me like all measurable's climb with better rushing and the QB is more experienced this year opposed to last. 

Also the Bengals only scored less than 22 points in only 4 games last year and this year are only averaging 22 points per game and have scored less than 20 three times already

Could care less about if we wager or not, but am game if you want to and you can set the parameters as long as they appear fair to both sides. 
Can be monetary, sig, or friendly I told you so or nothing at all. Tired of this argument

[*rfaulk34*]

(10-11-2022, 03:31 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Stats and numbers can't tell the whole story of football. Getting those safeties and LBers to cheat up and/or hesitate for a split second can make all the difference in the world on a pass play.

And I don't care how many slide rules and computer programs you show me. The play action fake hasn't been a football staple for 40 years because it doesn't work,

That's not in dispute. The dispute is...though there really is no dispute...that you need a good running game for play action to be successful. You don't. PA is successful regardless.

[*Go Cards*]

(10-11-2022, 04:25 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: That's not in dispute. The dispute is...though there really is no dispute...that you need a good running game for play action to be successful. You don't. PA is successful regardless.

My argument does not claim anything about PA at all. Makes sense that the split second it takes them to react to PA will always help

[KillerGoose]

(10-11-2022, 04:24 PM)Go Cards Wrote: Put in EPA but guess it came up overall but they also sit 12th in overall passing and only 16 yards better than 21st. Sure they do much analyzing if its the exact same ranking as without their #'s factored in ? 

Let's just go by the Bengals verses the Bengals instead of lumping them in with the Titans and such.

2021 Bengals ..........................2022 bengals

Mixon 4.1 yds per carry..................Mixon 3.1

QBR ......108.......................................  82
PPG........27...........................................22
INTPG....0.82........................................1.0
TD'sPG......2.........................................1.8
PYDPG.....271........................................263
sacked 51 times..................on pace for 61 sacks

Looks to me like all measurable's climb with better rushing and the QB is more experienced this year opposed to last. 

Also the Bengals only scored less than 22 points in 4 games last year and this year are only averaging 22 points per game and have scored less than 20 three times already

Could care less about if we wager or not, but am game if you want to and you can set the parameters as long as they appear fair to both sides. 
Can be monetary, sig, or friendly I told you so or nothing at all. Tired of this argument

This isn't an informative way to look at it. You're comparing a complete dataset to an incomplete dataset. Go week by week in 2021 and see how those metrics were compiled and effected by the run game in that matchup. Something like this...



Now, it all depends on how you want to break this up. The best way to find a relationship is just to run a regression and be done with it. This data will tell you there is a weak relationship between rating and yards per carry. What is funny is that the relationship is actually negative. This means that as the yards per carry became worse, the passer rating went up. Now, the relationship is weak, so it isn't very informative and we also know correlation does not equal causation. It's just meaningless - they don't affect each other. We can also just break the data into groups. For instance...

Passer rating when Bengals averaged >= 4 yards per carry - 102.4
Passer rating when Bengals averaged < 4 yards per carry - 108.2

Or...

Passer rating when Bengals averaged >= 3.8 yards per carry - 100.57
Passer rating when Bengals averaged < 3.8 yards per carry - 112.47

Or...

Passer rating when Bengals averaged >= 3.6 yards per carry - 101.49
Passer rating when Bengals averaged < 3.6 yards per carry - 115.02

Again, we know that this isn't the case. If you do the same thing with this season, you get a result that looks similar. The lower the YPC, the higher the passer rating. They just don't matter to each other. A good run game forces a defense to play you differently, but it doesn't make your QB play any better. This is true across two-plus decades worth of data. It just is what it is. 

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(10-11-2022, 01:20 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: I know Chase has shown some frustration with the snatching of mouthpieces and all, but this is what a coach losing control of his locker room really looks like…

Davante Adams was frustrated after the loss ?pic.twitter.com/eEAT3yNXMo

— ??? ???????? ???? (@sportingnews) October 11, 2022

LMAO! 

Get outta my way! 

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(10-11-2022, 02:16 PM)Wyche Wrote: Yessir. There's a lot to like about the job Taylor has done to get this team back to winning.....but this aspect needs a lot of work. Being fair, there are those times he calls a good play, and the execution is shit.  There are also times a complete surprise catches everyone and it's a good call, a ballsy call (see Ja'Marr Chase sweep on 4th and 1 against Vegas in the playoffs) and then they go back to the well and too often (see Ja'Marr Chase sweep on 4th and 1 against Miami, lol). Then there's the Philly special calls....where you're just...."what?". 

I'll tell you this though, and my brother and I talk about this every Saturday and Sunday, OCs seem to be way overthinking things a lot these days. It's not just us, and it's not even just the pros.

Nice post Wyche, need this positivity. We all just need Zac to settle down and not overthink things like a lot of OC's are
doing all across the NFL this season.

(10-11-2022, 02:17 PM)Wyche Wrote: ....and another thing, I think their strategy for calling plays is way too complicated/cumbersome. 

So true, keep it simple stupid.

(10-11-2022, 02:46 PM)Go Cards Wrote: Pipe down, I said this all off season only two hear analytics does not support a good run game helping the passing game out 


No, bringing the safeties up to help stop the run absolutely helps. 

Was right there with you Go Cards and still stand by it. Even if KG can put up stats that refute it.

[Sled21]

(10-11-2022, 05:14 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: LMAO! 

Get outta my way! 

Yeah, that's gonna cost him, the photographer filed a police report after he got out of the hospital. Open that checkbook

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(10-11-2022, 05:22 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Nice post Wyche, need this positivity. We all just need Zac to settle down and not overthink things like a lot of OC's are
doing all across the NFL this season.


So true, keep it simple stupid.


Was right there with you Go Cards and still stand by it. Even if KG can put up stats that refute it.

It's in the college ranks too. I give you UKs handling of its redshirt QB as exhibit A. I get being conservative, but this kid won a state championship at a school that had never won it. He has a decent arm, and by all accounts is calm under fire and very smart. Just let him throw the damn thing a bit. Not run a double reverse on play 1 that results in a fumble that sets your opponent up on the 4 yard line going in.

[*bengalfan74*]

(10-11-2022, 03:55 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: This starts an interesting conversation. Play action DOES work, and it works incredibly well. However, it doesn't work any better if your running game is strong. It just works. This is because defenses have to read and react. Each defensive call has run fits built into it, and defenders have to play those run fits. If you don't the running game goes wild. 

Take this example.

I created this GIF, and it is one of my favorite plays to show to demonstrate this. Look where my cursor goes prior to the snap. Lance Briggs, #55, doesn't play his run fit and instead sprints out covering the TE in the flat. Best takes the ball and runs right where Briggs vacated. That is what happens when you don't play your run fits, you give the back a ton of room to work with and he scored the ball there from 88 yards out. That is why PA works. These guys have to read the play and then react. If they react wrong, shit can hit the fan. 

I can see that 

[*Go Cards*]

(10-11-2022, 04:48 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: This isn't an informative way to look at it. You're comparing a complete dataset to an incomplete dataset. Go week by week in 2021 and see how those metrics were compiled and effected by the run game in that matchup. Something like this...



Now, it all depends on how you want to break this up. The best way to find a relationship is just to run a regression and be done with it. This data will tell you there is a weak relationship between rating and yards per carry. What is funny is that the relationship is actually negative. This means that as the yards per carry became worse, the passer rating went up. Now, the relationship is weak, so it isn't very informative and we also know correlation does not equal causation. It's just meaningless - they don't affect each other. We can also just break the data into groups. For instance...

Passer rating when Bengals averaged >= 4 yards per carry - 102.4
Passer rating when Bengals averaged < 4 yards per carry - 108.2

Or...

Passer rating when Bengals averaged >= 3.8 yards per carry - 100.57
Passer rating when Bengals averaged < 3.8 yards per carry - 112.47

Or...

Passer rating when Bengals averaged >= 3.6 yards per carry - 101.49
Passer rating when Bengals averaged < 3.6 yards per carry - 115.02

Again, we know that this isn't the case. If you do the same thing with this season, you get a result that looks similar. The lower the YPC, the higher the passer rating. They just don't matter to each other. A good run game forces a defense to play you differently, but it doesn't make your QB play any better. This is true across two-plus decades worth of data. It just is what it is. 

Sorry my mother got rushed to Emergency room and had to step away for awhile.  

Interesting stats but will dive a little deeper at lunch tomorrow when afforded more time and energy and will compare some full seasons against full seasons to get a complete dataset on both sides. You may be right.   

Yet either way I still want the run game to get going and believe it will equate to more points, wins, and open up the passing game. 

Said all offseason that running the ball was the key to our success this year per they were going to play us like we did Mahomes. You argued well against it each time and that's ok because I learned some things. 

I've offered stats to show this is happening right now and all of a sudden you disagree with #'s, and that's ok too.  There is more than one way to skin a cat and sure your #'s will come fruition by the seasons end, but presently they're not imho.




   


 

[*Go Cards*]

(10-11-2022, 05:27 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Yeah, that's gonna cost him, the photographer filed a police report after he got out of the hospital. Open that checkbook

Bet he had lawyers swarming him at the hospital trying to get that case.