The "Fire Zach" stuff is WEIRD

[NUGDUKWE]

(12-04-2023, 02:33 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Are we sure that it's a play call by committee?  FWIW, I like HCs to be the 'big picture' guys, guys who hire men they trust to implement and call the shots for their respective offensive and defensive philosophies.  I get 'situational interjection' by the HC when he feels absolutely compelled to, otherwise why hire coordinators that you don't trust to make the general calls?

Yes I agree with this. I do think they're are a few HCs that have the ability to be great HC and playcaller but that is a rare ability.  I would prefer Zac to do just that and I wouldn't mind him to be in a more reversed role with Callahan ( although preferably not Callahan as i havent liked his comments on the run game ) where he helps design some of the offensive plays. 
Your post reminded me of that play against Washington when Sanu bombed it to AJ Green for the TD. The story came out after that they were practicing it during the week and Marvin told them to run it the 1st play of the game. Such a great decision with even better results.

[Soonerpeace]

(12-04-2023, 02:41 PM)WychesWarrior Wrote: If anything, they should have learned their lesson about skimping on backup QB. I also think the committee approach seems too cumbersome.

The committee approach has been dramatized. Zac has several coaches come up with play calls in their designated situation. Zac establishes a call sheet based on the plays designed. Occasionally he’ll go to them on the head phones and ask them what they think. It gives them ownership in the offense. But Zac’s brother Press when at Philly as QB coach was in charge of trick plays and the “Philly Special “ happened (copied from the Bears). Many many staffs do it that way.

[R3stangs]

(12-04-2023, 01:59 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: The season? Let’s take a look. Joe not close to 100%. Blame could be assessed that we weren’t smart with a poor backup. Start 0-3 But we were up ticking with a dismantling of SF 31-17 with 29 first downs (Samuel’s absence nothing burger here) 400 yards . We took it to them early and dominated. Then went and beat the Bills with 397 total offense. We dug a hole but let’s not blame the missing out on a Super Bowl season because of any other reason than Joe’s health. Would we have improved enough? Who knows but the SF win was indicative of a pretty good team.

Never said we were bad. And your own points make it somewhat confusing how were last in the division and have some head scratching losses as well. Although I could also argue we hit the niners when they were in a lull and the Bills have been a Jekyll and Hyde show themselves this year. 

Again, I'm just making a point that questioning Zacs performance this year isn't all that strange. 

[*PhilHos*]

(12-04-2023, 02:33 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Are we sure that it's a play call by committee?  FWIW, I like HCs to be the 'big picture' guys, guys who hire men they trust to implement and call the shots for their respective offensive and defensive philosophies.  I get 'situational interjection' by the HC when he feels absolutely compelled to, otherwise why hire coordinators that you don't trust to make the general calls?

Zac said that after the opening drive scripted plays, there are a few people who suggest the next play and I forget how he said the choice is made, but basically, it's a group of people deciding the plays.

(12-04-2023, 02:38 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: I agree. I get people don't want to change something that's generally worked. I'm not saying fire Taylor as there are several things he's done that I like and he's certainly deserving of some of the credit for our success. But we need to get rid of the committee approach so we can have accountability when things aren't working and make positive changes. I think we need a overall change at OC to try and get the run game fixed and try make things easier on Burrow. 

Mr. Sparrow, I do believe we have an accord. Excuse me, Captain Sparrow.

[*PhilHos*]

(12-04-2023, 03:28 PM)R3stangs Wrote: Again, I'm just making a point that questioning Zacs performance this year isn't all that strange. 

Far be it from me to speak for the OP, but I believe his issue isn't with people being critical with Zac's performance this season, but rather people suggesting he be fired for Zac's performance this season.

[SunsetBengal]

(12-04-2023, 03:51 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Zac said that after the opening drive scripted plays, there are a few people who suggest the next play and I forget how he said the choice is made, but basically, it's a group of people deciding the plays.


Mr. Sparrow, I do believe we have an accord. Excuse me, Captain Sparrow.

Perhaps they put numbers on ping pong balls in one of those bingo wheels, numbers coordinating with plays listed on a sheet?  In reality thought, does it really even matter what play is called, or by whom, if Joe is simply going to audible to what he feels he has the best shot of running successful at the line?

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(12-03-2023, 12:24 PM)Bing Ghuls Wrote: I don't see how watching players mess up is proof that they are "close to getting it right"

Lot's of fans keep claiming that all you have to do to make a bad running game better is to run more.  But I have never seen any evidence to back up this claim.  There should be some stats somewhere showing that teams with really bad run games can get better just by running more.

When I see a team with a weak running game it is usually just as bad in the 4th quarter than as in the first.

Just saying giving up on the running game after the first quarter is not the way to go unless the passing game is really working.

(12-03-2023, 12:37 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Yes, this is right. Sometimes if you run more, you rip off a chunk run that can make the numbers look better. However, if your running game is bad, then it is just bad. There is no "establishing" the run game. It either works, or does not. However, there are games where the running starts off slow and finds its way later on which people will use to back up their idea but that is just one of the many game flows that exists.

Yes, happens all the time with Offense's starting out slow in the running game and slowly they iron things out and it gets 
better. Just saying you don't abandon it completely, having a running game somewhat keeps Defense's honest and they 
cannot just pin their ears back and go after the QB all the time.

[Bing Ghuls]

(12-04-2023, 05:08 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Yes, happens all the time with Offense's starting out slow in the running game and slowly they iron things out and it gets 
better. 

Sorry, but I just don't see that.  I am looking for some numbers regarding running the ball in the first half compared to running in second half.  I can't find the totals I am looking for but I did find that 22 teams average at least 4.0 per carry in the first half, but only 15 do in the second half.  It appears that the running game tends to get worse as the game goes on instead of better.

[Soonerpeace]

(12-04-2023, 03:51 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Zac said that after the opening drive scripted plays, there are a few people who suggest the next play and I forget how he said the choice is made, but basically, it's a group of people deciding the plays.


Mr. Sparrow, I do believe we have an accord. Excuse me, Captain Sparrow.

Not quite. Not exact here but I may have responsibilities wrong. Zac has Dan Picher in charge of say 3rd downs. Brian goaline. The WR coach something. So it’s situational. They don’t suggest a play unless prompted but they are suppose to have one ready if it’s their situation. Of course they talk through it some. Lots of teams do this and they did it at the Rams.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(12-04-2023, 05:52 PM)Bing Ghuls Wrote: Sorry, but I just don't see that.  I am looking for some numbers regarding running the ball in the first half compared to running in second half.  I can't find the totals I am looking for but I did find that 22 teams average at least 4.0 per carry in the first half, but only 15 do in the second half.  It appears that the running game tends to get worse as the game goes on instead of better.

I don't have the numbers. I am just wondering? You are fine with running the ball 8 times against the stealers?

I am not. I don't like abandoning the run like we have, this is all I am saying. I have seen many games where a RB is averaging 0 YPC
and then breaks a big run which makes the numbers look better too. OL like to run block and it helps them to settle in. Do you disagree 
with this?

[Bing Ghuls]

(12-04-2023, 06:02 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: I don't have the numbers. I am just wondering? You are fine with running the ball 8 times against the stealers?

Would you have been fine with running it 20 more time for 40 more yards?

Our offense only ran 41 plays.  11 rushes was 27%.  Last year we won the division only running the ball 38% of the time.  So not a real big difference.

[Soonerpeace]

(12-04-2023, 03:28 PM)R3stangs Wrote: Never said we were bad. And your own points make it somewhat confusing how were last in the division and have some head scratching losses as well. Although I could also argue we hit the niners when they were in a lull and the Bills have been a Jekyll and Hyde show themselves this year. 

Again, I'm just making a point that questioning Zacs performance this year isn't all that strange. 

I’m just responding to your post. You were bemoaning that this was a Super Bowl season and we were first to worst in the division. You said is it not a stretch to question him on how the season was progressing? Again not having a better backup I’ve completely agreed with. We started 1-3 with two losses in the division. Obviously Joe’s injury contributed mightily. Progressing? You used that word. Well we seemed to be progressing when we won 4 straight don’t you think including SF & the Bills? we rebounded from 1-3 to 5-3. Then we lost to a surging Texans who have won 4-5. Then Joe got hurt as we took the lead 10-7 over Baltimore. I’m not saying there weren’t issues. The defense wasn’t playing as well, the run game sucked, and something didn’t seem right despite Joe’s injuries early with the calf and then the wrist. The run game was not worth a crap and that’s with or without Joe. Trying to blame Zac for not scheming them better by some is a total cop out. Pollack hasn’t produced a run game worth a crap yet.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(12-04-2023, 06:19 PM)Bing Ghuls Wrote: Would you have been fine with running it 20 more time for 40 more yards?

Our offense only ran 41 plays.  11 rushes was 27%.  Last year we won the division only running the ball 38% of the time.  So not a real big difference.

No, I wouldn't of been fine with that either. Just doubt out of that many carries Mixon or one of the other backs wouldn't 
break one big run out of all those chances. We are a passing Offense for sure, but we need a little more balance than what 
we have had in my opinion, if you disagree with that fine.

[Bengalstripes9]

(12-04-2023, 11:54 AM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: I get it. These two players certainly changed our franchise and we did need to actually make the picks so that counts for something. But being absolutely terrible at your job to get us into that position shouldn't count as a positive for you. In my opinion.

It’s a negative that turned into a positive. Marv could have got us into position to draft possibly outside the top 10. But what good would that do us? It doesn’t reflect positively on Zac’s coaching ability, but it ended up being a net positive that we drafted Chase and burrow so I felt it was worth including in his contributions so far.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(12-04-2023, 07:23 PM)Bengalstripes9 Wrote: It’s a negative that turned into a positive. Marv could have got us into position to draft possibly outside the top 10. But what good would that do us? It doesn’t reflect positively on Zac’s coaching ability, but it ended up being a net positive that we drafted Chase and burrow so I felt it was worth including in his contributions so far.

Similar to this year with Burrow out why it would be fine with me if we lost all of the rest of our games to have a chance at 
another special talent to go along with Burrow and Chase.

[Bengalstripes9]

(12-04-2023, 10:47 AM)Soonerpeace Wrote: Just a few notes
KC PFF final OL rankings 2022 #4
Cincy #28
SF #7 (#5 Pass) and the best in the entire league Trent Williams at LT. Give Jake Browning that not #28 then maybe he’s not so bad and your comments about SF would resonate. Of course their DL going into the season PFF had #2. So remember my comments that SF’s roster construction was different? Just trying to compare Joe’s weapons to determine how good we are doesn’t tell the whole story.

You said this…

We are capable of being successful with a more balanced approach as evidenced by the 9ers game.

We’ve won with Taylor, but he’s also got a stacked roster and mvp caliber qb.
____

Of course we’d be better with a more balanced offense but Zac doesn’t have a magic wand to get our OL elite like SF. I just get tired of the mantra Zac gets all the blame when things fail and no credit when they succeed. I realize some here don’t share that but there’s not enough of them.

I would absolutely give Zac credit if we came out well prepared for a game and he called plays in a manner where the players made it look easy. That happened against the 9ers. I gave him props for that game and the bills game. Other than those two games things have not been easy. In the playoffs things have not been easy. Good coaching makes things easier on the players, and makes the players look better than they are. There are players, such as Chase, that have regressed. Chase came out taking the nfl by storm his first year. Of course he gets more attention now, but so does tyreek hill. His coach is making him look better than ever.

As far as the 9ers dline, it is better. Their oline this year was ranked lower than our going into this season because they lost one of their best players in the offseason. They seem better than us, I agree. But we have good players. We should be doing better than we are.

Again, coaching and play calling makes a huge difference on player performance. All I’m saying is I see room for improvement. Zac can do better. He needs to have fans let him know he can do better. Failure can be a huge blessing as it can spur breakthroughs.

[*Go Cards*]

(12-04-2023, 07:21 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: No, I wouldn't of been fine with that either. Just doubt out of that many carries Mixon or one of the other backs wouldn't 
break one big run out of all those chances. We are a passing Offense for sure, but we need a little more balance than what 
we have had in my opinion, if you disagree with that fine.

You've got to help the back up QB out somewhat.

Believe as most that 8 carries was not enough runs. Bengals ran 38% of the time with Burrow as QB  and only 27% of the time with a back up QB in his first start, against the steelers D, and Tee Higgins is not playing ?  We really want Jake throwing more often than Joe ? Does Mixon wear a C on his chest ? 

The counter argument may be correct that the run game was not producing anyway and was not going to start producing either. Yet that's speculation and a more balanced attack keeps the Defense guessing at what's coming instead of basically knowing a pass was coming nearly 3/4's of the plays and just pin their ears back against the inexperienced QB.  Plus it was not a blowout where Browning needed to throw often to try and catch up even. 

The whole thing was just odd to me, but expect it to be corrected tonight unless the Jags start blowing out quickly.  

[Bengalstripes9]

(12-04-2023, 07:56 PM)Go Cards Wrote: You've got to help the back up QB out somewhat.

Believe as most that 8 carries was not enough runs. Bengals ran 38% of the time with Burrow as QB  and only 27% of the time with a back up QB in his first start, against the steelers D, and Tee Higgins is not playing ?  We really want Jake throwing more often than Joe ? Does Mixon wear a C on his chest ? 

The counter argument may be correct that the run game was not producing anyway and was not going to start producing either. Yet that's speculation and a more balanced attack keeps the Defense guessing at what's coming instead of basically knowing a pass was coming nearly 3/4's of the plays and just pin their ears back against the inexperienced QB.  Plus it was not a blowout where Browning needed to throw often to try and catch up even. 

The whole thing was just odd to me, but expect it to be corrected tonight unless the Jags start blowing out quickly.  

How I saw it too. The funny thing is we were in the game until browning’s ugly pick. But nobody was open on the throw so the play call wasn’t great. A more balanced approach to the play calling takes pressure off the qb and maybe he doesn’t throw that game turning pick?

Overall we didn’t run the ball well though. The Steelers did. That made me think we would eventually lose the game. The teams that run the ball more effectively and take care of the ball win those games. Once we evened out the turnover ratio our fate was sealed.

More effort should have been made to develop an effective run game last week. It was our key to victory and Zac didn’t know it.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(12-04-2023, 07:21 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: No, I wouldn't of been fine with that either. Just doubt out of that many carries Mixon or one of the other backs wouldn't 
break one big run out of all those chances. We are a passing Offense for sure, but we need a little more balance than what 
we have had in my opinion, if you disagree with that fine.

Mixon is averaging a 20+ yard run once every 80.5 carries right now. 

2023: 80.5 carries per
2022: 52.5 carries per
2021: 48.7 carries per
2020: 39.7 carries per
2019: 46.3 carries per
2018: 21.5 carries per
2017: 89.0 carries per

So it actually is pretty easy to say that if you gave him 20 carries he wouldn't break a big run because he would only average one every 2-4 games, with the exception of 2018.

[NUGDUKWE]

(12-04-2023, 08:14 PM)Bengalstripes9 Wrote: How I saw it too. The funny thing is we were in the game until browning’s ugly pick. But nobody was open on the throw so the play call wasn’t great. A more balanced approach to the play calling takes pressure off the qb and maybe he doesn’t throw that game turning pick?

Overall we didn’t run the ball well though. The Steelers did. That made me think we would eventually lose the game. The teams that run the ball more effectively and take care of the ball win those games. Once we evened out the turnover ratio our fate was sealed.

More effort should have been made to develop an effective run game last week. It was our key to victory and Zac didn’t know it.

Actually on Goodberrys recent episode they looked at this play. Hudson was basically wide open on the other side of the field. I guess it appeared overall that Browning was predeterming where to throw and probably only going off a pre snap read and never accounting for any post snap changes. 
They did bring something up that I'm sure we all know but certainly hasn't been mentioned enough. This season is lost so it's not just running to win said game. It's running to get something working. I'm sure it will change the rest of the way but if we do continue to give up on the run it'll definitely be worrisome for the future because we are gonna need to give Burrow help in that regard next season.