I think the schemes are a big issue

[KillerGoose]

(10-30-2024, 11:00 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Goose, you seem like an insightful individual that knows a thing or two about football. How much difference, in your opinion, would it make if we had someone else calling plays on defense? Whether that's firing Lou and promoting within or bringing in an outside replacement?

Also, what if Lou was replaced with someone mid-season as our new DC (not interim) and they tried to implement their schemes each week and during the bye week but by-and-large keeping Lou's system? How much, if any, positive/negative effect do you think any of the potential replacement options would make?

I don't think it would make much difference in the short-term. Defensive schemes are complex and coaches have their own preferences & terminologies that really can't be implemented mid-season. So, hiring a new DC would force them to work within Lou's infrastructure for the rest of the season. This was a big point against hiring someone like Saleh as a DC. You'd have to bring him in as an analyst or a consultant like GB did. As far as calling plays, I think the answer would largely be the same. You'd see some differences if you got a guy in that was more aggressive as he may be more prone to call blitzes and attempt to pressure the QB but that doesn't necessarily mean "good", right? The defensive line is just unable to generate any consistent pressure outside of Trey. Blitzing may actually make it worse because you're taking a player out of coverage to rush. If the blitz isn't working, you can end up making life easier on the QB. 

Defense, in my opinion, is a bit more straightforward than offense. If you have a receiver that isn't the greatest route runner you can throw him screens or hand him the ball out of the backfield. You can run plays where he doesn't have to run an option route. You can be more creative. On defense, if you have pass rushers that can't pass rush or corners that can't cover, what can you do? There's not really a way to mask that. I don't think Cincinnati's DBs are an issue outside of the safety room but the defensive line just isn't getting it done and those guys are the foundation. 

[WeezyBengal]

Looking back, one of the worst things this team did was just automatically promote Pitcher as OC without even thinking about interviewing other candidates.

I get continuity and Burrow and the staff is comfortable with Pitcher, but damn...bringing in an OC with fresh eyes could have done wonders.

[*Synric*]

(10-30-2024, 11:16 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: I don't think it would make much difference in the short-term. Defensive schemes are complex and coaches have their own preferences & terminologies that really can't be implemented mid-season. So, hiring a new DC would force them to work within Lou's infrastructure for the rest of the season. This was a big point against hiring someone like Saleh as a DC. You'd have to bring him in as an analyst or a consultant like GB did. As far as calling plays, I think the answer would largely be the same. You'd see some differences if you got a guy in that was more aggressive as he may be more prone to call blitzes and attempt to pressure the QB but that doesn't necessarily mean "good", right? The defensive line is just unable to generate any consistent pressure outside of Trey. Blitzing may actually make it worse because you're taking a player out of coverage to rush. If the blitz isn't working, you can end up making life easier on the QB. 

Defense, in my opinion, is a bit more straightforward than offense. If you have a receiver that isn't the greatest route runner you can throw him screens or hand him the ball out of the backfield. You can run plays where he doesn't have to run an option route. You can be more creative. On defense, if you have pass rushers that can't pass rush or corners that can't cover, what can you do? There's not really a way to mask that. I don't think Cincinnati's DBs are an issue outside of the safety room but the defensive line just isn't getting it done and those guys are the foundation. 

Overall defensive schemes are alot more simple than most fans realize. It's when you get down to the individual players that it gets really complicated. I'm mentioned a few times the Bengals are a heavy cover 1 man team but that same cover 1 has to be prepared for different keys from different types of offenses. 

[PCB Bengal Fan]

(10-30-2024, 08:02 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: All of those things are true, and the Bengals base defense is a 4-3. The problem with running in base often is that teams then are able to feast on the middle of the field with throws to the TEs and RBs on the edges.

They feast on us regardless of the base.

[THE PISTONS]

Let me connect the dots on our problems:

Ownership (Small Market Mentality) -> Small Scouting Staff -> Average to Below Average Coaching Staff/Inadequate Scheme -> Drafted Players Not Performing -> Free Agent Whiffs that don't replace players that left.

We tend to look at 1 or 2 of those things in each thread, but it's a holistic problem.

Interestingly, the Bengals try to fix the downstream issues, but the top of the pyramid is the issue that causes the downstream stuff.

[TheCincinnatiKid]

(10-30-2024, 09:26 AM)Mer Wrote: And I fear we never will be "there" under Taylor.

We were 2-3 years ago. We were a very good team and had a defence that wasn't shut out, but appeared at the right times. Yes, we've had the luck of drafting Joe and Ja'Marr, but those two weren't really the guys winning us playoff games.

The problem is we haven't transitioned from the Super Bowl team very well. Look at the roster from then and now, and while it's pretty similar in terms of 'key guys', we've not moved forward. We are and will be limited by the Burrow and Chase contracts, but the defence looks an absolute shell of what it was. And it's not like it was phenomenal then either, it just turned up at the right times.

I guess it's a great example of what happens when you need draft picks to pay off and they don't. 

[reuben.ahmed]

I guess 1 player can make all the difference (J. Bates)

[TheCincinnatiKid]

(10-30-2024, 02:42 PM)reuben.ahmed Wrote: I guess 1 player can make all the difference (J. Bates)

I think his loss has made a big difference, but it's not just him. It's the aging of the rest of the team.

Vonn Bell was a good part of that secondary. A younger Mike Hilton... 

Not the secondary, but a younger Hubbard... I'd say Hendrickson and Hill are still effective, but we've lost Reader too.

I'm not even 100% sure we've replaced a guy like Eli Apple sufficiently! If that statement is true, then that says it all.

Long and short of it for me on defence is we're at its core the same defence... but these guys are all older now and the one(s) that weren't that old aren't on the roster. The players who were to make up for the shortfall have been draftees who haven't really been very good. We haven't successfully moved with the times here.

[Nicomo Cosca]

(10-30-2024, 02:40 PM)TheCincinnatiKid Wrote: We were 2-3 years ago. We were a very good team and had a defence that wasn't shut out, but appeared at the right times. Yes, we've had the luck of drafting Joe and Ja'Marr, but those two weren't really the guys winning us playoff games.

The problem is we haven't transitioned from the Super Bowl team very well. Look at the roster from then and now, and while it's pretty similar in terms of 'key guys', we've not moved forward. We are and will be limited by the Burrow and Chase contracts, but the defence looks an absolute shell of what it was. And it's not like it was phenomenal then either, it just turned up at the right times.

I guess it's a great example of what happens when you need draft picks to pay off and they don't. 

Chase literally set a new rookie record for yards in the playoffs (previously held by Tory Holt) during the Super Bowl run. He had back-to-back 100+ yard games in the wild card and divisional rounds. He was every bit as vital to that run as the timely turnovers from the defense and McPherson was.

[THE PISTONS]

(10-30-2024, 02:40 PM)TheCincinnatiKid Wrote: We were 2-3 years ago. We were a very good team and had a defence that wasn't shut out, but appeared at the right times. Yes, we've had the luck of drafting Joe and Ja'Marr, but those two weren't really the guys winning us playoff games.

The problem is we haven't transitioned from the Super Bowl team very well. Look at the roster from then and now, and while it's pretty similar in terms of 'key guys', we've not moved forward. We are and will be limited by the Burrow and Chase contracts, but the defence looks an absolute shell of what it was. And it's not like it was phenomenal then either, it just turned up at the right times.

I guess it's a great example of what happens when you need draft picks to pay off and they don't. 

Well, we had a star QB on a rookie contract. Tee and Chase were on rookie deals.

We've lost some free agents and our drafts haven't replaced many of them with quality. And with the salaries going up, we can't have as many good free agents.

[TheCincinnatiKid]

(10-30-2024, 03:07 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Chase literally set the rookie record for yards in the playoffs during the Super Bowl run. He had back-to-back 100+ yard games. He was every bit as vital to that run as the timely turnovers from the defense (plus McPherson).

I disagree he was 'every bit as vital' as the defence in that run, though it's quite difficult for one WR to be as important as an entire half of the team. Just look at us now, Chase literally leads the league in yards but it means nothing with a bad defence. 

Raiders - Good performance all round really.
Titans - With the defence keeping King Henry to 3.1 YPC, we'd have been in this game regardless of what the offence did, as long as they didn't turn the ball over.
Chiefs - Horrible from both facets in the first half. The defence kept Mahomes extremely limited for over a half of football, an exceptional performance. Gave the offence a short field on the BJ Hill pick. Gave the offence a good starting position on the OT drive. Offence did their bit but the defence were the catalyst here.

I think we could've beaten the Raiders with a worse defence, as the offence would've kept playing. I don't believe we beat the Titans if the defence doesn't smother their offence. Their 9 sacks and good defence meant we were never scoring a boatload in that game, but had Henry been effective they could've ran all over us. The Chiefs was a phenomenal defensive performance 2nd half, to bottle up the best QB in the league. Offence did its bit, but the big moments were from the defence. Far from just about turnovers as well, they won their battles against Henry and Mahomes, the best RB and QB in the league.

[Nicomo Cosca]

(10-30-2024, 04:13 PM)TheCincinnatiKid Wrote: I disagree he was 'every bit as vital' as the defence in that run, though it's quite difficult for one WR to be as important as an entire half of the team. Just look at us now, Chase literally leads the league in yards but it means nothing with a bad defence.

Raiders - Good performance all round really.
Titans - With the defence keeping King Henry to 3.1 YPC, we'd have been in this game regardless of what the offence did, as long as they didn't turn the ball over.
Chiefs - Horrible from both facets in the first half. The defence kept Mahomes extremely limited for over a half of football, an exceptional performance. Gave the offence a short field on the BJ Hill pick. Gave the offence a good starting position on the OT drive. Offence did their bit but the defence were the catalyst here.

I think we could've beaten the Raiders with a worse defence, as the offence would've kept playing. I don't believe we beat the Titans if the defence doesn't smother their offence. Their 9 sacks and good defence meant we were never scoring a boatload in that game, but had Henry been effective they could've ran all over us. The Chiefs was a phenomenal defensive performance 2nd half, to bottle up the best QB in the league. Offence did its bit, but the big moments were from the defence. Far from just about turnovers as well, they won their battles against Henry and Mahomes, the best RB and QB in the league.

The bold is a fair point. Bates was definitely our best player in the Super Bowl run, but Chase was up there.

[TheCincinnatiKid]

(10-30-2024, 03:51 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Well, we had a star QB on a rookie contract. Tee and Chase were on rookie deals.

We've lost some free agents and our drafts haven't replaced many of them with quality. And with the salaries going up, we can't have as many good free agents.

Yeah of course, it is part and parcel of the NFL. Can't keep them all and you have to transition into the next phase. Ideally through good draft picks, supplemented by FA. We simply haven't achieved it.

[TheCincinnatiKid]

(10-30-2024, 04:18 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: The bold is a fair point. Bates was definitely our best player in the Super Bowl run, but Chase was up there.

He's absolutely pivotal to the team moving forward, I'd never doubt how good Chase is. I just think as is being proven currently, there is only so much a top QB and WR can do. Stafford and Megatron won 0 playoff games together, and barely even played any. 

[Joelist]

Still fix the schemes especially on offense. Make our plays less easy to predict, put our linemen in scenarios where they can attack and thus build cohesion and use our power line in power ways.

[125250]

Dink and dunk garbage offense.

[KillerGoose]

(10-30-2024, 12:38 PM)Synric Wrote: Overall defensive schemes are alot more simple than most fans realize. It's when you get down to the individual players that it gets really complicated. I'm mentioned a few times the Bengals are a heavy cover 1 man team but that same cover 1 has to be prepared for different keys from different types of offenses. 

I'm a bit more of a layman than you are but that is where my thought of defensive schemes being complex comes in. Those different checks and pre-snap adjustments have to be built in by the DC, right? Is it a situation where the installs aren't too difficult but the decision making in-game by players is? 

[SladeX]

We need a top shelf OC, OL coach, and a proper scouting staff.

[samhain]

On offense, I believe the scheme is absolutely the issue.  The quality of the personnel is far too good to be this predictable.  Scripted plays are solid on opening drive, but after that we're subject to Zac's on the fly decision making.  This team has a guy that is capable of being the best player in the league and are paying him to be that or thereabouts right now.  Throw the ball downfield.  Put the game in Joe's hands.  Find a new way to convert 3rd and short.  Hell, we just watched a team curb stomp them that all but guarantees 3rd and 1.  It's a copycat league.  At like it.  

On defense, I don't think they have the horses right now.  Trey is a great player and the linebackers are pretty solid.  God bless BJ Hill for outperforming expectations nearly every week.  Mike Hilton is one of the better nickel corners in the league.

Only Trey is borderline elite in this discussion.  The corners are maddeningly inconsistent.  The safeties are either slowing down or soft.  Battle barely plays.  

They don't have the talent in the secondary to hold down coverage when the opposing qb has forever and a day to throw.  I'm not sure many teams do, tbh.  There is zero pressure from players not named Hendrickson.  Hubbard is old and banged up and Murphy has a lot to figure out.  

IMO lack of d-line talent is the main culprit in this season being in the toilet.  A real pass rush would fix most problems that they have.  Not sure that's fixable in-season, regardless of scheme.

[*ochocincos*]

(10-29-2024, 06:14 PM)pally Wrote: We have the most predictable offense in the league.

Has someone told Zac trying to go past the first page on Madden when picking the play?