Toxic differential rankings

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-26-2016, 09:25 PM)spazz70 Wrote: Like I said in my original post (talking about 20+ yard run plays)...Here is his career runs of 20+ yards...I think it is quite obvious that he is more likely to have a big gain when not in shotgun and the QB under center....

Runs over 20 yards..2014

Jaguars
60 yds…not in Shotgun
Saints
21 yds…not in shotgun
62 yds…not in shotgun
Browns
21 yds…not in shotgun
Denver
85 yds..shotgun
Steelers
22 yds…not in shotgun
2015..Ravens…only run over 20 yds
38 yds…not in shotgun
 
And if you go scroll through the play by play you will pick up obvious tendencies of when we are in shotgun and when Hill is in versus Bernard...Again, I am not saying that Hill is not effective in shotgun just his big plays come when not...

Even if we say all of those shotgun/not shotguns are right. Where does that leave you?

1 in 116 chance for 20+ out of the shotgun.
vs
6 in 329 chance for 20+ not in shotgun.

Which seems like a pretty easy answer that shotgun is worse, except for the fact that the other 54 or so carries in between 20+ yard runs not in the shotgun, he's only gaining 3.4 yards per carry. Who would you rather have?

RB #1: Gets 115 carries at 4.4 YPC, then gets a 20+ yard run, repeat.
RB #2: Gets 54 carries at 3.4 YPC, then gets a 20+ yard run, repeat.

Having Hill run with the QB under center is actually worse for both him and the offense. Maybe it might give him more long highlight runs, but in the meantime, for every single long run he's had, he's also had 54 crap runs. Give me a guy who can churn out steady yards every time. Not to mention the guy who can churn out steady yards every time also is better for the QB.

So while it might help your toxic differential thing, it wouldn't help your offense, your quarterback, or your running back.

[spazz70]

(01-26-2016, 10:01 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Even if we say all of those shotgun/not shotguns are right. Where does that leave you?

1 in 116 chance for 20+ out of the shotgun.
vs
6 in 329 chance for 20+ not in shotgun.

Which seems like a pretty easy answer that shotgun is worse, except for the fact that the other 54 or so carries in between 20+ yard runs not in the shotgun, he's only gaining 3.4 yards per carry. Who would you rather have?

RB #1: Gets 115 carries at 4.4 YPC, then gets a 20+ yard run, repeat.
RB #2: Gets 54 carries at 3.4 YPC, then gets a 20+ yard run, repeat.

Having Hill run with the QB under center is actually worse for both him and the offense. Maybe it might give him more long highlight runs, but in the meantime, for every single long run he's had, he's also had 54 crap runs. Give me a guy who can churn out steady yards every time. Not to mention the guy who can churn out steady yards every time also is better for the QB.

So while it might help your toxic differential thing, it wouldn't help your offense, your quarterback, or your running back.

Are you dense?  I have never said that once that it helped or hurt or it should happen or not happen...I simply stated...PERTAINING TO 20+ YARD RUNS...Hill is more likely than not to have these type of gains not in shotgun...that he needed a full head of steam lined up deep...  Is it really that hard to understand?  

Maybe I should have quoted someone previously...My original comment was after the discussion of 20+ yard plays came up.... It had nothing to due with his averages in and out of sg or anything else...Just that his long runs were not in the sg....  Does this help explain my thoughts better?

[SunsetBengal]

Blah!  A lot of it has to do with situation.  Down and distance, predictability, tendencies, etc.  Opposing DCs all watch film, you know...

[pdub2005]

(01-23-2016, 10:44 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Bengals would have been significantly better on that list if Jeremy Hill didn't turd it up all year. 1 rush of 20+ yards from him, plus another 2 from Gio set them at 3 from their two main RBs. (As many as Wilson and Newton, the two teams ahead of the Bengals each had on their own.)

Should be at the top of that list if Dalton comes back and is still 2015 Dalton, and Hill comes back and decides he wants to run hard/fast for a change. Nice link, StLu.

God how bad was Hill this year? The only thing he seemed to be okay at was punching in the rock on the goal line. He just wasn't decisive in his running this year at all. He needs to just focus on hitting the hole and getting his 4 to 5 yards each carry. I feel like he was looking for those second level runs, when he should've been focused on getting through the hole and to the first level of the defense, instead of getting dropped for minimal game every damn time.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-26-2016, 12:07 PM)spazz70 Wrote: 1. Easy fix for Hill

2. QUIT RUNNING HIM OUT OF THE SHOTGUN!!!

The kid needs a head of steam...He makes better decisions and hits the hole hard and fast when lined up deep and Dalton under center

(01-26-2016, 10:20 PM)spazz70 Wrote: Are you dense?  1. I have never said that once that it helped or hurt 2. or it should happen or not happen...I simply stated...PERTAINING TO 20+ YARD RUNS...Hill is more likely than not to have these type of gains not in shotgun...that he needed a full head of steam lined up deep...  Is it really that hard to understand?  

Maybe I should have quoted someone previously...My original comment was after the discussion of 20+ yard plays came up.... It had nothing to due with his averages in and out of sg or anything else...Just that his long runs were not in the sg....  Does this help explain my thoughts better?

1. fix : to make (something) whole or able to work properly again

This whole discussion has been built from the fact that you said without any other qualifiers that in order to fix Hill, they needed to stop running him out of the shotgun. That's it, no other context. So maybe before you call other people dense, you should first either make your own post more clear with what you're trying to say, or you should at least remember what it is you said, because you clearly did say both that it helped and that the shotgun should not happen.

You don't get to say "I clearly thought my mind while typing this that I was only talking about 20+ yard runs", type that, and then call other people dense when they didn't read your mind and instead reply to your post. It's why we have a quoting feature, for context.

Next you'll be insulting people for not getting your sarcasm when you don't use a ninja or anything.

[Bengalzona]

(01-24-2016, 03:09 AM)Yojimbo Wrote: Kind of shows it was more of a blocking problem than a RB problem when there's only 3 20+ runs between two backs we know can do it better than that.

Hopefully replacing Andre will help that and possibly Bodine if we bring in competition for him.

Yeah, I was kinda wondering about the run blocking myself. I'm always hesitant to point a finger at an RB without considering the OL. Good run blocking can make even a mediocre RB look like an all star.

[tlotharw]

(01-26-2016, 01:27 PM)spazz70 Wrote: Go look at a highlight reel...9 out of 10 long runs from him are not in the shotgun...He is lined up 6-8 yards deep...The Denver run was from the shotgun..He had a guy wrapped around his ankle in the backfield but luckily broke loose for the big run...It is not a myth...

What formation were the Bengals in when he fumbled away a sure playoff win?

[spazz70]

(01-26-2016, 11:22 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 1. fix : to make (something) whole or able to work properly again

This whole discussion has been built from the fact that you said without any other qualifiers that in order to fix Hill, they needed to stop running him out of the shotgun. That's it, no other context. So maybe before you call other people dense, you should first either make your own post more clear with what you're trying to say, or you should at least remember what it is you said, because you clearly did say both that it helped and that the shotgun should not happen.

You don't get to say "I clearly thought my mind while typing this that I was only talking about 20+ yard runs", type that, and then call other people dense when they didn't read your mind and instead reply to your post. It's why we have a quoting feature, for context.

Next you'll be insulting people for not getting your sarcasm when you don't use a ninja or anything.

Like I said...maybe I should have quoted someone...almost every post prior to mine was talking about the 20+ yard runs...That is what I was elaborating on because I had already looked at his runs and knew that his long runs were not from shotgun.  Next time I will make sure to quote someone else so you do not just read my post and not the context of the thread to that point.  Damn the whole thread and the article from the OP was about "explosive" plays.  


I will be the bigger man and apologize for insulting you.

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2016, 10:36 PM)pdub2005 Wrote: God how bad was Hill this year? The only thing he seemed to be okay at was punching in the rock on the goal line. He just wasn't decisive in his running this year at all. He needs to just focus on hitting the hole and getting his 4 to 5 yards each carry. I feel like he was looking for those second level runs, when he should've been focused on getting through the hole and to the first level of the defense, instead of getting dropped for minimal game every damn time.

I didn't see this as much as other people seemed to.

What I saw as bot of our RBs getting hit at the line or behind it way too often.  In the playoff game against the steelers it seemed like 75% of out runs were for 1 yard or less until the fourth quarter.  They just got totally owned at the line of scrimmage.  Some of it was poor blocking, but a lot of it was clearly just bad schemes.  Many times a lb or ss was coming untouched to stuff a RB.

We had some seccess at times running the ball during the regular season. but we were never consistent.  At the beginning of the year we were having some trouble stopping the run, but after we got that fixed the only weakness on the entire team was the running game.  We were still top half of the league, but we need to be much better with the talent we have both on the line and in the backfield.

[fredtoast]

(01-27-2016, 01:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What I saw as bot of our RBs getting hit at the line or behind it way too often.  In the playoff game against the steelers it seemed like 75% of out runs were for 1 yard or less until the fourth quarter.  They just got totally owned at the line of scrimmage.  Some of it was poor blocking, but a lot of it was clearly just bad schemes.  Many times a lb or ss was coming untouched to stuff a RB.

Shocking stat.  Through 3 quarters our RBs had 13 carries against the Steelers.  Hill had a 38 yard run and Gio had a 12 yarder.  The other 11 carries gained a total of (-1) yards.  None of the eleven were longer than 2 yards, and six went for zero or negative yardage.  

Our run game was getting stuffed.