This Offense is Offensive.

[The Scales]

Booo.

[Tigris]

I think we have the talent, and sometimes we look great (98 yard drive for a TD). Then other times, we look downright diseased. Like previously discussed, can the Bengal WRs get open??? If they can't, then it's them or the offensive coordinator who needs to change. If they are... then it's Carson. The offensive line did well today and the backs are top notch.

[-GoBengals-]

[quote name='Tigris' date='27 December 2009 - 06:27 PM' timestamp='1261952875' post='848410']
I think we have the talent, and sometimes we look great (98 yard drive for a TD). Then other times, we look downright diseased. Like previously discussed, can the Bengal WRs get open??? If they can't, then it's them or the offensive coordinator who needs to change. If they are... then it's Carson. The offensive line did well today and the backs are top notch.
[/quote]

the oline is pretty bad actually.. if it werent piss poor we wouldnt have 3 offensive tackles on the field at once... and we wouldnt ahve a tackle going in motion...

its quite impossible to argue that the line isnt bad...

when you need 6 linemen and a blocking TE to run or passs at all... youre not doing it for show.

[ColorChanginClique]

[quote name='GoBengals' date='27 December 2009 - 06:46 PM' timestamp='1261954015' post='848444']
the oline is pretty bad actually.. if it werent piss poor we wouldnt have 3 offensive tackles on the field at once... and we wouldnt ahve a tackle going in motion...

its quite impossible to argue that the line isnt bad...

when you need 6 linemen and a blocking TE to run or passs at all... youre not doing it for show.
[/quote]

remember when I responded to this same type of post with something along the lines of

"we're doing it to the confuse the defense"

and you thought I might be serious

and I thought the sarcasm was obvious


good times haha

[Tigris]

[quote name='GoBengals' date='27 December 2009 - 06:46 PM' timestamp='1261954015' post='848444']
the oline is pretty bad actually.. if it werent piss poor we wouldnt have 3 offensive tackles on the field at once... and we wouldnt ahve a tackle going in motion...

its quite impossible to argue that the line isnt bad...

when you need 6 linemen and a blocking TE to run or passs at all... youre not doing it for show.
[/quote]

How about the tight ends are so bad in the blocking dept. that the coaches would rather have an extra offensive lineman instead of a tight end? I've seen Roland shifting up and down the line and stay in during pass plays.

You can take that as either way, I believe. Your way, which we suck, or the possible way that the tight ends are crummy.

There's no doubt we're thin at tight end. As much as I didn't know this guy in the preseason, I would say it's hard to argue that we have a legit tight end outside of Foschi. As much as we use to go into double tight end sets, the offense had to do something to keep the scheme similar to year's pasts. Thus, here comes the extra lineman frolicing up and down the line of scrimmage.

Maybe the receivers can't get open... I'd rather have an extra offensive lineman in the backfield than and extra WR out there that can't be open. Sometimes it's better to excel in one area (in our case, running) and be sub par in another than to be sub par in both.

Just some thoughts... what you got?

[Whodonkeys]

As above, the 7 lineman running schemes are a problem. We are getting results running the ball, but it is so predictable. We are putrid on offense those kinds of predictable schemes will catch up with us as they have in losses to bad teams like Oakland. We need talent in multiple areas

[dex]

We are desperate for a gamebreaking WR. Might be much different if the Bengals hadn't decided that Desean Jackson was too short...and chose the taller Jerome Simpson instead. From having Chad and TJ for so many years, you would think they would appreciate the great route runners. More than anything the team needs someone who can score from anywhere on the field. That's why I hope Bernard Scott is Benson's backup in the playoffs, not Johnson. I know Scott didn't score many TDs this year, but at least he's a legit threat any time he touches the ball.

[CTBengalsFan]

In order imo:

1. WR
2. TE
3. O-line

Which o-lineman is the first to go? Livings/Mathis?

[Whodonkeys]

x2 on B scott getting back in the mix. That is the difference on O. We have to work so hard for points. An easy score now and again (see the Steeler game and B Scott), could be huge for us.

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' date='28 December 2009 - 08:37 AM' timestamp='1261957029' post='848530']
In order imo:

1. WR
2. TE
3. O-line

Which o-lineman is the first to go? Livings/Mathis?
[/quote]
Bobbie's showing some serious tread wear this season, imo. If Shirley shows any signs of earning his spot in the future, I'm with you. Otherwise, I'd be tempted to take any damn good G no matter which side of the line he was destined to play on long-term.

And as for who's first to go... Collins was inactive this week. Just sayin.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Tigris' date='27 December 2009 - 07:18 PM' timestamp='1261955890' post='848496']
How about the tight ends are so bad in the blocking dept. that the coaches would rather have an extra offensive lineman instead of a tight end? I've seen Roland shifting up and down the line and stay in during pass plays.

You can take that as either way, I believe. Your way, which we suck, or the possible way that the tight ends are crummy.

There's no doubt we're thin at tight end. As much as I didn't know this guy in the preseason, I would say it's hard to argue that we have a legit tight end outside of Foschi. As much as we use to go into double tight end sets, the offense had to do something to keep the scheme similar to year's pasts. Thus, here comes the extra lineman frolicing up and down the line of scrimmage.

Maybe the receivers can't get open... I'd rather have an extra offensive lineman in the backfield than and extra WR out there that can't be open. Sometimes it's better to excel in one area (in our case, running) and be sub par in another than to be sub par in both.

Just some thoughts... what you got?
[/quote]

Isn't that what Go is basically saying, though? We are using an extra tackle to help block because our remaining TE's cannot hold their own in the blocking department due to injuries (and because the oline is still a work in progress).
[quote name='Whodonkeys' date='27 December 2009 - 07:22 PM' timestamp='1261956146' post='848504']
As above, the 7 lineman running schemes are a problem. We are getting results running the ball, but it is so predictable. We are putrid on offense those kinds of predictable schemes will catch up with us as they have in losses to bad teams like Oakland. We need talent in multiple areas
[/quote]

I don't know what you can really do about it at this point, though. We are out of options and the coaches are trying to compensate for our shortcomings in our blocking by using as much beef as possible in the run game. I also don't know if I'd call it [i]predictable[/i] so much as I would bad [i]situationally[/i] sometimes in the playcalling. I don't like how we continually run the ball (mostly up the gut) on second and very long plays, generally with poor results, also generally leading to unmanageable third and long situations. We should just pass there. There's not much difference between 3rd and 20 or 3rd and 17 to me if the second and long pass falls incomplete.

[quote name='dex' date='27 December 2009 - 07:27 PM' timestamp='1261956445' post='848512']
We are desperate for a gamebreaking WR. Might be much different if the Bengals hadn't decided that Desean Jackson was too short...and chose the taller Jerome Simpson instead. From having Chad and TJ for so many years, you would think they would appreciate the great route runners. More than anything the team needs someone who can score from anywhere on the field. That's why I hope Bernard Scott is Benson's backup in the playoffs, not Johnson. I know Scott didn't score many TDs this year, but at least he's a legit threat any time he touches the ball.
[/quote]
I agree about Scott and about wideout. The absence due to injury and now permanent absence of Henry due to death has bumped our WR need up quite a bit, as we no longer have any fast height at the position.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' date='27 December 2009 - 07:37 PM' timestamp='1261957029' post='848530']
In order imo:

1. WR
2. TE
3. O-line

Which o-lineman is the first to go? Livings/Mathis?
[/quote]


Id be shocked if we went TE early.

[cwing]

Go is 100% correct and there are issues in the line and at TE.

For much of 2009 Mathis/Collins were typically in the lineup when we threw and Livings/Roland when we ran. This is not something that is regularly done in the NFL as it shows your hand. These kind of rotations show that your lineman are not the total package.

Smith appears to have displaced Collins in the RT rotation and will eventually lock down ths spot and should be able to handle both run/pass blocking. Whit will remain at Lt at least for the remainder of this season........ who knows about next year but the number 1 need on this team continues to be the O-Line. We need 5 guys and quality backups that can get it done without all the rotating around. I think some of the guys here may grown into those roles as either starters or backups but more is needed. Once that is addressed then the needs at TE and wide out will need addressed.

[sammyj1404]

[quote name='cwing' date='27 December 2009 - 09:46 PM' timestamp='1261964762' post='848682']
Go is 100% correct and there are issues in the line and at TE.

For much of 2009 Mathis/Collins were typically in the lineup when we threw and Livings/Roland when we ran. This is not something that is regularly done in the NFL as it shows your hand. These kind of rotations show that your lineman are not the total package.

Smith appears to have displaced Collins in the RT rotation and will eventually lock down ths spot and should be able to handle both run/pass blocking. Whit will remain at Lt at least for the remainder of this season........ who knows about next year but the number 1 need on this team continues to be the O-Line. We need 5 guys and quality backups that can get it done without all the rotating around. I think some of the guys here may grown into those roles as either starters or backups but more is needed. Once that is addressed then the needs at TE and wide out will need addressed.
[/quote]

the bottom line here is I don't think there is one NFL team besides us that runs 6 linemen + 1 TE sets...i can understand if that was the only way we can move the ball, but when we do that, the defense brings one or two more guys in the box and stop us every time. the 4th quarter drives that we've been excelling in this year have been standard 5 linemen, tight end/fb, and 3 wrs. we need to get rid of this 6 lineman/bring the hogs out formations and stick to our bread and butter, as evidenced today with the few drives when we moved well

is there anyone else who sees us moving the ball better (passing AND running) when we have just 5 linemen?

[ThurmanMunster]

LT.

[ColorChanginClique]

lineman and recievers please


all day

maybe a safety and corner sprinkled in too for good measure

[Jason]

Considering how close we are to being an elite team, I wouldn't fool around with the offensive coaching staff too much. I would like to see some changes made in play calling, but am not sure I want a major change. I would not object to promoting from within though (i.e. Zampese).

As far as personnel, we need 1 more WR who can go deep and consistently get open, and an upgrade at RG. I think Whit will get better next year, and Andre will lock down the right side. Cook and Mathis should also get better with more experience. I would keep the unbalanced line, but would stop rotating linemen.

I think the combination of Kelly and Coffman will be a solid TE combination next year, and Foschi is at least a solid 3. Bye-bye Coats. I might consider drafting Kelly's replacement (i.e. blocking TE, not starting TE) in later rounds.

My draft plan would be WR and S in the first 3 rounds, and a guard somewhere in 2-4. But if there isn't value at WR or S in 1, I wouldn't object to DT, LB, or CB. If we draft an OT at all, I think it will be late. The only way I see a RB getting drafted is if there is an irresistible value somewhere and/or Leonard isn't re-signed.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='sammyj1404' date='27 December 2009 - 10:01 PM' timestamp='1261965684' post='848689']
the bottom line here is I don't think there is one NFL team besides us that runs 6 linemen + 1 TE sets...i can understand if that was the only way we can move the ball, but when we do that, the defense brings one or two more guys in the box and stop us every time. the 4th quarter drives that we've been excelling in this year have been standard 5 linemen, tight end/fb, and 3 wrs. we need to get rid of this 6 lineman/bring the hogs out formations and stick to our bread and butter, as evidenced today with the few drives when we moved well

is there anyone else who sees us moving the ball better (passing AND running) when we have just 5 linemen?
[/quote]
I think its a total situational crapshoot. What we are doing is a bit unconventional, but not unheard of. Its really just a bigger version of a two TE set, really, a formation which has always sorta screamed "RUN", although you certainly can throw out of it. The trick is being lined up in such a way that it doesn't matter if the opposing defense knows you're going to run the ball, if they physically cannot stop it, especially if you have enough of a threat like we do in Carson and Chad to at least force defenses to keep a few guys back to respect the pass. I do realize that Chad comes out on a lot of these jumbo running plays, but the same logic applies.

This is the Bengals variant of what the Redskins used to do with the Hogs and John Riggins back when having a line chock full of 300 pounders was not the norm. Power runs for four yards, over and over and over.

[sammyj1404]

[quote name='Bunghole' date='27 December 2009 - 10:23 PM' timestamp='1261966993' post='848708']
I think its a total situational crapshoot. What we are doing is a bit unconventional, but not unheard of. Its really just a bigger version of a two TE set, really, a formation which has always sorta screamed "RUN", although you certainly can throw out of it. The trick is being lined up in such a way that it doesn't matter if the opposing defense knows you're going to run the ball, if they physically cannot stop it, especially if you have enough of a threat like we do in Carson and Chad to at least force defenses to keep a few guys back to respect the pass. I do realize that Chad comes out on a lot of these jumbo running plays, but the same logic applies.

This is the Bengals variant of what the Redskins used to do with the Hogs and John Riggins back when having a line chock full of 300 pounders was not the norm. Power runs for four yards, over and over and over.
[/quote]

lately we're lucky if we get 4 yards....and like you said, chad comes out on most of those plays. we'll usually leave caldwell or coles in. it just doesnt make sense to me. one day we need to pass to Roland out of it, or else just get rid of it. i don't think it works anymore. i think we are way more effective running standard offenses. but thats just my opinion

[Jamie_B]

Depends on a few things.

Obviously we all agree that oline and WR are needs as well as I think most think safety.

If we cant get tank resigned, then DT becomes a need.

I dont think Brandon Johnson will be here, so a LB will be a need.

TE to me is a no earlier than our 2nd 3rd round pick. I think we need to see what we have in Coffman, and Kelly and Fochi can rotate imo. We may take a guy but i dont think it will be early.

I'd like to take a QB to groom as the backup.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='sammyj1404' date='27 December 2009 - 10:26 PM' timestamp='1261967213' post='848712']
lately we're lucky if we get 4 yards....and like you said, chad comes out on most of those plays. we'll usually leave caldwell or coles in. it just doesnt make sense to me. one day we need to pass to Roland out of it, or else just get rid of it. i don't think it works anymore. i think we are way more effective running standard offenses. but thats just my opinion
[/quote]
Dude! It all depends. Yeah, we have some stinker runs, but we consistently break runs off of four or more yards with regularity...if we didn't, we wouldn't have a winning record!

I think the predictability factor seems to come into play more when we get off schedule due to penalties or a bad play. 2nd and 15 or more isn't a very good down for running, yet we often do, and a lot of times, we end up in 3rd and 15 or more. It just depends on where we are on the field and what the score is, I guess.

[ColorChanginClique]

We better resign Tank

dude gets more penetration than...*insert sexual joke here*


seriously he gets into the backfield more in 1 game than John Thornton did his entire time in Cinci. Him + Peko = BONER

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='ColorChanginClique' date='27 December 2009 - 10:33 PM' timestamp='1261967635' post='848721']
We better resign Tank

dude gets more penetration than...*insert sexual joke here*


seriously he gets into the backfield more in 1 game than John Thornton did his entire time in Cinci. Him + Peko = BONER
[/quote]


I know I hope to god we can keep him.

[sammyj1404]

[quote name='Bunghole' date='27 December 2009 - 10:33 PM' timestamp='1261967590' post='848720']
Dude! It all depends. Yeah, we have some stinker runs, but we consistently break runs off of four or more yards with regularity...if we didn't, we wouldn't have a winning record!

I think the predictability factor seems to come into play more when we get off schedule due to penalties or a bad play. 2nd and 15 or more isn't a very good down for running, yet we often do, and a lot of times, we end up in 3rd and 15 or more. It just depends on where we are on the field and what the score is, I guess.
[/quote]

oh i agree with u, we have been getting good runs once in a while, but im just thinking that those good runs are coming from the 5 lineman formations, when the defense has no idea if we are going to pass or run. i'd have to watch the game again, but im pretty sure we have been running much better in 5 lineman formations...who knows, something has to change though. we need to put up more points if we want to be successful in the playoffs

[JBandJoeyV]

I for one hope we have a few tricks up our sleeves for the playoffs.

And by tricks I dont mean a double reverse to chad.