What the...?

[gregstephens]

Over at www.cincinnatibengalsnews.com, I blog about the Bengals' bizarre running game. Can someone tell me, with Dorsey and Watson, why the Bengals aren't running them more, especially Dorsey? It appears as though the Bengals realize they can't run Rudi anymore but, due to some warped sense of guilt, they aren't going to run the other two. Therefore, no running at all. What the...?

[BengalszoneBilly]

Over at www.cincinnatibengalsnews.com, I blog about the Bengals' bizarre running game. Can someone tell me, with Dorsey and Watson, why the Bengals aren't running them more, especially Dorsey? It appears as though the Bengals realize they can't run Rudi anymore but, due to some warped sense of guilt, they aren't going to run the other two. Therefore, no running at all. What the...?

I'm as bewildered as you are Greg.

[gregstephens]

Over at www.cincinnatibengalsnews.com, I blog about the Bengals' bizarre running game. Can someone tell me, with Dorsey and Watson, why the Bengals aren't running them more, especially Dorsey? It appears as though the Bengals realize they can't run Rudi anymore but, due to some warped sense of guilt, they aren't going to run the other two. Therefore, no running at all. What the...?

I'm as bewildered as you are Greg.

Nice picures by the way.

[jjakq27]

Bob Bratkowski is absolutely in love with the forward pass. As the pace of the game quickens, it seems to affect his play-calling. This has been a problem for awhile. Goes back beyond this year.

I had the same thought later in the game. Now Marvin will probably say that they didn't have any opportunities to run the ball in the third quarter because they only ran three plays (but there is no problem with the defense).

I seem to remember a similar rant during the middle of last year. Maybe it was the Atlanta game I don't remember for sure.

[kneepit]

Agreed...Why continue to give the ball to Rudi? It makes no sense.

They try too many risky passes like the low-percentage throw to CJ in the end zone on a 4th and 3 to stay in the game. That was just crazy. Why not a dump off to move the chains. It reminds me of the Carolina game last year on a 4th and 1 where they threw a risky pass to CJ down the sideline but they miraculously completed that one.

[GregCook]

Agreed...Why continue to give the ball to Rudi? It makes no sense.

They try too many risky passes like the low-percentage throw to CJ in the end zone on a 4th and 3 to stay in the game. That was just crazy. Why not a dump off to move the chains. It reminds me of the Carolina game last year on a 4th and 1 where they threw a risky pass to CJ down the sideline but they miraculously completed that one.

I think in SF game, the reason they didn't run much was because they didn't have the ball much and when they did, they were behind.

You got to figure, with our receivers and Carson's arm, a TD is one throw away. Not the same with our runners. We don't have explosive runners, DeDe not withstanding. After all, he is unproven whereas the other guys(TJ, Chad, Henry) are proven.

Watch Rudi this month, its probably the last we'll see of him in a Bengals uni. Right now the Bengals are sitting with the number 9 pick in the draft. Best available football player could be that great big back.

[bengalsfansince68]

You got to figure, with our receivers and Carson's arm, a TD is one throw away.

Therein lies the problem. Bratkowski has no idea of the importance of balance between run/pass. That one throw approach sucks and never works.

40 passes and 20 runs against the stealers is not balance and Brat should be publically flogged for that game.

ASS HAT!! Run the damned football!!

[chandon]

You got to figure, with our receivers and Carson's arm, a TD is one throw away.

Therein lies the problem. Bratkowski has no idea of the importance of balance between run/pass. That one throw approach sucks and never works.

40 passes and 20 runs against the stealers is not balance and Brat should be publically flogged for that game.

ASS HAT!! Run the damned football!!

I agree. It is similar to soccer here in the UK. The one long ball over the top, verses the passing game out of the defense, through the midfield and up to the strikers. The successful soccer teams find a balance between the two, but the preference is always the short passing game which takes longer...mover slower...but gets the job done with a much higher percentage of success.

We need to give 3D and Kenny the ball more often, and it is a failour of the coaching staff that this isn't happening. Too much emphasis on the passing gome makes us too predictable to the opponants defence, and therefore makes CP's job harder. His numbers will slide, and he will get more depressed because of this. That's a danger to a still young but very good QB, and the main-stay of our offense.

Run the football more and you will get more balance to the offense.

Chandon.

[membengal]

2 carries 11 yards for Dorsey.

7 carries 16 yards for Rudi.

8 carries 33 yards for Watson.

Not a lot of carries in general, but of the carriers that were to be had, I continue to be bewildered by the fact that Dorsety cannot get a longer look and more opportunities.

[GregCook]

2 carries 11 yards for Dorsey.

7 carries 16 yards for Rudi.

8 carries 33 yards for Watson.

Not a lot of carries in general, but of the carriers that were to be had, I continue to be bewildered by the fact that Dorsety cannot get a longer look and more opportunities.

For the record, 40% of the plays were runs(19 out of 50 offensive plays). In a game where the Bengals were behind for almost 3 quarters. Where their time of possession was about 25 minutes. In a game where SF ran a ball control offense because our D couldn't stop them in the second half.

Given the Bengals don't have an explosive running back why would they feed these guys the ball knowing the D won't hold and they won't get many offensive series? They had to pass, in fact I think they ran too much given the way the game was going. They needed to strike quick and often to win that game. Then they make that grocery clerk for a QB beat them with his passing.

As for Dorsey, the guy has been practice squad his entire career. He won't take snaps from higher paid and proven backs like Watson and Rudi. Next year he may be "the man". This year he's not.

Bengals, drafting in the 9th spot, 4 behind the Patriots in the 2008 NFL Draft.

[gregstephens]

2 carries 11 yards for Dorsey.

7 carries 16 yards for Rudi.

8 carries 33 yards for Watson.

Not a lot of carries in general, but of the carriers that were to be had, I continue to be bewildered by the fact that Dorsety cannot get a longer look and more opportunities.

For the record, 40% of the plays were runs(19 out of 50 offensive plays). In a game where the Bengals were behind for almost 3 quarters. Where their time of possession was about 25 minutes. In a game where SF ran a ball control offense because our D couldn't stop them in the second half.

Given the Bengals don't have an explosive running back why would they feed these guys the ball knowing the D won't hold and they won't get many offensive series? They had to pass, in fact I think they ran too much given the way the game was going. They needed to strike quick and often to win that game. Then they make that grocery clerk for a QB beat them with his passing.

As for Dorsey, the guy has been practice squad his entire career. He won't take snaps from higher paid and proven backs like Watson and Rudi. Next year he may be "the man". This year he's not.

Bengals, drafting in the 9th spot, 4 behind the Patriots in the 2008 NFL Draft.

For the record, if your numbers are accurate, 19 of 50 plays is 38%, not 40%, which is actually a big deal. Saturday night, just like every other game this season, they abandoned the running game early. You're telling me that with Watson's average and Dorsey's average yards per carry, it wasn't worth exploring the running options a little more, especially when they wasted the pass game? Come on, that pass on fourth and three was ridiculously risky and gained us nothing. Carson has been playing terrible for a month, and the game was never out of reach. If the Bengals are down by 14 or more, ok, I see it. That wasn't the case. The Bengals had no balance in their offense, hence why they were stopped repeatedly. Welcome to 2007.

[cincy9275]

the bengals are also 1-8 when trailing at the half. that right there shows that the coaches are to stupid to make any adjustments. brat is garbage as is bres both should be shown the door, hell with shown thrown through the f**king door. as for marvin screw him to. marvin is to damn hardheaded or to stupid to realize that his coaches should not even be coaching in the NFL or peewee for that matter.

[GregCook]

2 carries 11 yards for Dorsey.

7 carries 16 yards for Rudi.

8 carries 33 yards for Watson.

Not a lot of carries in general, but of the carriers that were to be had, I continue to be bewildered by the fact that Dorsety cannot get a longer look and more opportunities.

For the record, 40% of the plays were runs(19 out of 50 offensive plays). In a game where the Bengals were behind for almost 3 quarters. Where their time of possession was about 25 minutes. In a game where SF ran a ball control offense because our D couldn't stop them in the second half.

Given the Bengals don't have an explosive running back why would they feed these guys the ball knowing the D won't hold and they won't get many offensive series? They had to pass, in fact I think they ran too much given the way the game was going. They needed to strike quick and often to win that game. Then they make that grocery clerk for a QB beat them with his passing.

As for Dorsey, the guy has been practice squad his entire career. He won't take snaps from higher paid and proven backs like Watson and Rudi. Next year he may be "the man". This year he's not.

Bengals, drafting in the 9th spot, 4 behind the Patriots in the 2008 NFL Draft.

For the record, if your numbers are accurate, 19 of 50 plays is 38%, not 40%, which is actually a big deal. Saturday night, just like every other game this season, they abandoned the running game early. You're telling me that with Watson's average and Dorsey's average yards per carry, it wasn't worth exploring the running options a little more, especially when they wasted the pass game? Come on, that pass on fourth and three was ridiculously risky and gained us nothing. Carson has been playing terrible for a month, and the game was never out of reach. If the Bengals are down by 14 or more, ok, I see it. That wasn't the case. The Bengals had no balance in their offense, hence why they were stopped repeatedly. Welcome to 2007.

For the record the Bengal's are 2ed Worst in the AFC for running the ball. For the record the Bengal's are 2ed BEST in the AFC for passing the ball.

Explain to me the "big deal" where I rounded 38% to 40%? Especially in light of the above?

[gregstephens]

2 carries 11 yards for Dorsey.

7 carries 16 yards for Rudi.

8 carries 33 yards for Watson.

Not a lot of carries in general, but of the carriers that were to be had, I continue to be bewildered by the fact that Dorsety cannot get a longer look and more opportunities.

For the record, 40% of the plays were runs(19 out of 50 offensive plays). In a game where the Bengals were behind for almost 3 quarters. Where their time of possession was about 25 minutes. In a game where SF ran a ball control offense because our D couldn't stop them in the second half.

Given the Bengals don't have an explosive running back why would they feed these guys the ball knowing the D won't hold and they won't get many offensive series? They had to pass, in fact I think they ran too much given the way the game was going. They needed to strike quick and often to win that game. Then they make that grocery clerk for a QB beat them with his passing.

As for Dorsey, the guy has been practice squad his entire career. He won't take snaps from higher paid and proven backs like Watson and Rudi. Next year he may be "the man". This year he's not.

Bengals, drafting in the 9th spot, 4 behind the Patriots in the 2008 NFL Draft.

For the record, if your numbers are accurate, 19 of 50 plays is 38%, not 40%, which is actually a big deal. Saturday night, just like every other game this season, they abandoned the running game early. You're telling me that with Watson's average and Dorsey's average yards per carry, it wasn't worth exploring the running options a little more, especially when they wasted the pass game? Come on, that pass on fourth and three was ridiculously risky and gained us nothing. Carson has been playing terrible for a month, and the game was never out of reach. If the Bengals are down by 14 or more, ok, I see it. That wasn't the case. The Bengals had no balance in their offense, hence why they were stopped repeatedly. Welcome to 2007.

For the record the Bengal's are 2ed Worst in the AFC for running the ball. For the record the Bengal's are 2ed BEST in the AFC for passing the ball.

Explain to me the "big deal" where I rounded 38% to 40%? Especially in light of the above?

You got to be kidding me. First off, rounding 38% to 40% is like rounding $700 to $1,000. Those intricate stats affect games and standings. The Bengals have scored one offensive touchdown in each of their last three games. Two of those games have been against San Francisco and St. Louis. The Bengals have one of the worst third down conversion rates and touchdown red zone rates in the league. Their opponents have outrushed them 39 plays and have outscored them by 23 points. Let's compare winning teams.

New England runs the ball 44 percent of the time, 4.0 yards per carry.

Dallas runs the ball 43 percent of the time, 4.4 yards per carry.

Green Bay runs the ball 38 percent of the time, 3.8 yards per carry, but more since they found a decent runner.

Indianapolis runs the ball 45 percent of the time, 3.8 yards per carry.

Pittsburgh runs the ball 51 percent of the time, 4.3 yards per carry.

Cincinnati runs the ball 40 percent of the time, but for only 3.7 yards per carry.

Crap, the Bengals didn't even run the ball as much against San Francisco as their own season average--and the 49ers are 23rd in the NFL in rush defense. The fact the Bengals are second to last in running yards goes to my point about a balanced offense AND using runners other the Rudi, who is not effective. The fact the Bengals are second in passing yards, but 13th in the league in points scored and are 5-9 also goes to my point. Use the runners that may be more effective than Rudi and run the ball more to keep defenses off their feet.

And if you are going to use stats to argue a point, whatever your point was, you can't freaking round up two whole percentage points. Its like singing the wrong lyrics to a song. Be accurate or get out of the conversation.

[gregstephens]

2 carries 11 yards for Dorsey.

7 carries 16 yards for Rudi.

8 carries 33 yards for Watson.

Not a lot of carries in general, but of the carriers that were to be had, I continue to be bewildered by the fact that Dorsety cannot get a longer look and more opportunities.

For the record, 40% of the plays were runs(19 out of 50 offensive plays). In a game where the Bengals were behind for almost 3 quarters. Where their time of possession was about 25 minutes. In a game where SF ran a ball control offense because our D couldn't stop them in the second half.

Given the Bengals don't have an explosive running back why would they feed these guys the ball knowing the D won't hold and they won't get many offensive series? They had to pass, in fact I think they ran too much given the way the game was going. They needed to strike quick and often to win that game. Then they make that grocery clerk for a QB beat them with his passing.

As for Dorsey, the guy has been practice squad his entire career. He won't take snaps from higher paid and proven backs like Watson and Rudi. Next year he may be "the man". This year he's not.

Bengals, drafting in the 9th spot, 4 behind the Patriots in the 2008 NFL Draft.

The score wasn't 51-24. They were never behind more than ten. If they had run the ball and controlled the clock, they would have been fine. They lost the possession battle because they threw too much on a night where Carson was off as were the receivers. You can't move the chains on swing passes all day. They needed to strike quick and often? Are you kidding me? Ran too much? Did you watch the game?

[GregCook]

2 carries 11 yards for Dorsey.

7 carries 16 yards for Rudi.

8 carries 33 yards for Watson.

Not a lot of carries in general, but of the carriers that were to be had, I continue to be bewildered by the fact that Dorsety cannot get a longer look and more opportunities.

For the record, 40% of the plays were runs(19 out of 50 offensive plays). In a game where the Bengals were behind for almost 3 quarters. Where their time of possession was about 25 minutes. In a game where SF ran a ball control offense because our D couldn't stop them in the second half.

Given the Bengals don't have an explosive running back why would they feed these guys the ball knowing the D won't hold and they won't get many offensive series? They had to pass, in fact I think they ran too much given the way the game was going. They needed to strike quick and often to win that game. Then they make that grocery clerk for a QB beat them with his passing.

As for Dorsey, the guy has been practice squad his entire career. He won't take snaps from higher paid and proven backs like Watson and Rudi. Next year he may be "the man". This year he's not.

Bengals, drafting in the 9th spot, 4 behind the Patriots in the 2008 NFL Draft.

For the record, if your numbers are accurate, 19 of 50 plays is 38%, not 40%, which is actually a big deal. Saturday night, just like every other game this season, they abandoned the running game early. You're telling me that with Watson's average and Dorsey's average yards per carry, it wasn't worth exploring the running options a little more, especially when they wasted the pass game? Come on, that pass on fourth and three was ridiculously risky and gained us nothing. Carson has been playing terrible for a month, and the game was never out of reach. If the Bengals are down by 14 or more, ok, I see it. That wasn't the case. The Bengals had no balance in their offense, hence why they were stopped repeatedly. Welcome to 2007.

For the record the Bengal's are 2ed Worst in the AFC for running the ball. For the record the Bengal's are 2ed BEST in the AFC for passing the ball.

Explain to me the "big deal" where I rounded 38% to 40%? Especially in light of the above?

You got to be kidding me. First off, rounding 38% to 40% is like rounding $700 to $1,000. Those intricate stats affect games and standings. The Bengals have scored one offensive touchdown in each of their last three games. Two of those games have been against San Francisco and St. Louis. The Bengals have one of the worst third down conversion rates and touchdown red zone rates in the league. Their opponents have outrushed them 39 plays and have outscored them by 23 points. Let's compare winning teams.

New England runs the ball 44 percent of the time, 4.0 yards per carry.

Dallas runs the ball 43 percent of the time, 4.4 yards per carry.

Green Bay runs the ball 38 percent of the time, 3.8 yards per carry, but more since they found a decent runner.

Indianapolis runs the ball 45 percent of the time, 3.8 yards per carry.

Pittsburgh runs the ball 51 percent of the time, 4.3 yards per carry.

Cincinnati runs the ball 40 percent of the time, but for only 3.7 yards per carry.

Crap, the Bengals didn't even run the ball as much against San Francisco as their own season average--and the 49ers are 23rd in the NFL in rush defense. The fact the Bengals are second to last in running yards goes to my point about a balanced offense AND using runners other the Rudi, who is not effective. The fact the Bengals are second in passing yards, but 13th in the league in points scored and are 5-9 also goes to my point. Use the runners that may be more effective than Rudi and run the ball more to keep defenses off their feet.

And if you are going to use stats to argue a point, whatever your point was, you can't freaking round up two whole percentage points. Its like singing the wrong lyrics to a song. Be accurate or get out of the conversation.

My friend the difference between 38% and 40% in this thread is exactly 1 rushing play.

Hey its the time of the year to receive gifts. Go to the Kenwood Mall and look for the big boy in red with white trim. When its your turn in line, sit down and ask ol Saint Nick for a gift of .........

C

O

M

M

O

N

S

E

N

S

E.

He may be out, ok, there is always next year.

[gregstephens]

2 carries 11 yards for Dorsey.

7 carries 16 yards for Rudi.

8 carries 33 yards for Watson.

Not a lot of carries in general, but of the carriers that were to be had, I continue to be bewildered by the fact that Dorsety cannot get a longer look and more opportunities.

For the record, 40% of the plays were runs(19 out of 50 offensive plays). In a game where the Bengals were behind for almost 3 quarters. Where their time of possession was about 25 minutes. In a game where SF ran a ball control offense because our D couldn't stop them in the second half.

Given the Bengals don't have an explosive running back why would they feed these guys the ball knowing the D won't hold and they won't get many offensive series? They had to pass, in fact I think they ran too much given the way the game was going. They needed to strike quick and often to win that game. Then they make that grocery clerk for a QB beat them with his passing.

As for Dorsey, the guy has been practice squad his entire career. He won't take snaps from higher paid and proven backs like Watson and Rudi. Next year he may be "the man". This year he's not.

Bengals, drafting in the 9th spot, 4 behind the Patriots in the 2008 NFL Draft.

For the record, if your numbers are accurate, 19 of 50 plays is 38%, not 40%, which is actually a big deal. Saturday night, just like every other game this season, they abandoned the running game early. You're telling me that with Watson's average and Dorsey's average yards per carry, it wasn't worth exploring the running options a little more, especially when they wasted the pass game? Come on, that pass on fourth and three was ridiculously risky and gained us nothing. Carson has been playing terrible for a month, and the game was never out of reach. If the Bengals are down by 14 or more, ok, I see it. That wasn't the case. The Bengals had no balance in their offense, hence why they were stopped repeatedly. Welcome to 2007.

For the record the Bengal's are 2ed Worst in the AFC for running the ball. For the record the Bengal's are 2ed BEST in the AFC for passing the ball.

Explain to me the "big deal" where I rounded 38% to 40%? Especially in light of the above?

You got to be kidding me. First off, rounding 38% to 40% is like rounding $700 to $1,000. Those intricate stats affect games and standings. The Bengals have scored one offensive touchdown in each of their last three games. Two of those games have been against San Francisco and St. Louis. The Bengals have one of the worst third down conversion rates and touchdown red zone rates in the league. Their opponents have outrushed them 39 plays and have outscored them by 23 points. Let's compare winning teams.

New England runs the ball 44 percent of the time, 4.0 yards per carry.

Dallas runs the ball 43 percent of the time, 4.4 yards per carry.

Green Bay runs the ball 38 percent of the time, 3.8 yards per carry, but more since they found a decent runner.

Indianapolis runs the ball 45 percent of the time, 3.8 yards per carry.

Pittsburgh runs the ball 51 percent of the time, 4.3 yards per carry.

Cincinnati runs the ball 40 percent of the time, but for only 3.7 yards per carry.

Crap, the Bengals didn't even run the ball as much against San Francisco as their own season average--and the 49ers are 23rd in the NFL in rush defense. The fact the Bengals are second to last in running yards goes to my point about a balanced offense AND using runners other the Rudi, who is not effective. The fact the Bengals are second in passing yards, but 13th in the league in points scored and are 5-9 also goes to my point. Use the runners that may be more effective than Rudi and run the ball more to keep defenses off their feet.

And if you are going to use stats to argue a point, whatever your point was, you can't freaking round up two whole percentage points. Its like singing the wrong lyrics to a song. Be accurate or get out of the conversation.

My friend the difference between 38% and 40% in this thread is exactly 1 rushing play.

Hey its the time of the year to receive gifts. Go to the Kenwood Mall and look for the big boy in red with white trim. When its your turn in line, sit down and ask ol Saint Nick for a gift of .........

C

O

M

M

O

N

S

E

N

S

E.

He may be out, ok, there is always next year.

Let me guess...you're sending your resume in for offensive coordinator if Brat gets the ax, right? I think you'd fit right in with their current system.

[Bengals44]

Brat needs more variety and less predictability in his play calling. It has been said by some of our "opponents" (and even hinted at by some of our own players) that we run predictable plays and that is never good. At least if he wants to run similar plays in certain situations, he needs change up the formation from time to time and add some wrinkles. I dont pretend to be an OC, but when opponents state this, it is an obvious issue.

[Kirkendall]

Over at www.cincinnatibengalsnews.com, I blog about the Bengals' bizarre running game. Can someone tell me, with Dorsey and Watson, why the Bengals aren't running them more, especially Dorsey? It appears as though the Bengals realize they can't run Rudi anymore but, due to some warped sense of guilt, they aren't going to run the other two. Therefore, no running at all. What the...?

Aren't we giving a little too much credit for Dorsey than he deserves with the small sample he's had. I don't mind handing the ball off to Rudi. It really wouldn't matter unless the line starts blocking the run better. You do what your team gives you. Tremendous pass blockers, poor rush blockers = more passing.

And while I think Dorsey is benefit right now with a demotion to the perception of Rudi Johnson, I do wonder why Watson doesn't get a few more carries. Nothing feature back like. But a few carries. Though, when it's fourth quarter and we're winning, there's no one that should have that ball other than Rudi Johnson.

I'm not sure if that logic really works. But Bob Bratkowski is a smart guy. We've run fine in the past. So something is known that we're left to speculate. While I want to blame him, what we do so well, I'm still not committed towards pouring holy water on him, just yet.

[Kirkendall]

Bob Bratkowski is absolutely in love with the forward pass.

Do you blame him though? Think about it. In the past two seasons we've had two different wide receivers, a pro bowl MVP quarterback and a two time alternate Pro Bowl left tackle (Jones) that's considered one of the best pass blockers in the game.

[Kirkendall]

The score wasn't 51-24. They were never behind more than ten. If they had run the ball and controlled the clock, they would have been fine. They lost the possession battle because they threw too much on a night where Carson was off as were the receivers. You can't move the chains on swing passes all day. They needed to strike quick and often? Are you kidding me? Ran too much? Did you watch the game?

The plays Saturday night, in terms of pass/run ratio, is very consistent with most of the Bengals win. Consider if the Bengals ran on 40% of their plays in a 70-play game, they run the ball between 28-30 times. That's not bad for the makeup of our team. Palmer had an awful night. That's it.

[Kirkendall]

An interesting tid-bit.

The Bengals average 33.6 pass plays per game -- that's 12th most.

The Bengals average 25.6 rush plays per game -- that's 23rd most.

It's more balanced than we think. Our rush offense stinks.

[Bengals44]

An interesting tid-bit.

The Bengals average 33.6 pass plays per game -- that's 12th most.

The Bengals average 25.6 rush plays per game -- that's 23rd most.

It's more balanced than we think. Our rush offense stinks.

Good poimt Kirk! I just wish we were not so predictable, we run the ball on first down too much... First down is a great down to pass on, but I know most everyone probably runs more on first down than they pass...