Run defense - a bigger problem than last year

[TJJackson]

The old topic appears to have been lost in transition to these new boards, so I restarted it.

Some of you seem to think I am overblowing this, but our Bengals are not always going to have the advantage of playing with a lead.....and plaing with a lead in the first two games is what has thus far minimized this weakness in our defense.

Lonnie Wheeler of the Post commented on this today just a bit

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar.../509220321/1022

2-0 is 2-0, and a win is a win no matter how you get it, but over the long haul of the season and in the playoffs (assuming we get there) treams who can run and/or who can defend us well enough that we don't play with a big lead will kill us with the run.

Heck, even Corey Dillon might be able to run on this defense....

[TippCityRick]

You're right, you are overblowing this. We're coming off two blowout wins. In the run game, with the limited number of runs against us, the numbers are skewed. We'll know a lot more about the run defense come Sunday at 4PM. Da Bears will not abandon the run even if we run up the score on them. They won't put that pressure on Orton.

[walshfan]

Our run defense will prove to be better this year as the season progresses....

[TJJackson]

In regards to "overblowing" it, I'll ask you how you feel the Bengals will fare against a team who can

1) contain or at least slow down the Bengals offense

and

2) run the ball well

Both Chicago and Pittsburgh more or less meet this criteria. Especially Pittsburgh, who the Bengals will face twice. Probably other teams as well, but those are the two that come immediately to mind.

Keep in mind that after what I'd call a bad defensive year last year, the Bengals are giving up more than a yard MORE per carry this year. They are actually defending the run worse than last year....

Let's also look where the Bengals are currently ranked on ypc allowed:

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/DEF-..._1=6&_1:col_1=6

So tell me, is everyone just dismissing this and assuming that we'll always have a lead and ergo the ypc don't matter? If so, thats in my opinion quite a bit short sighted.

[alleycat]

My hope is that the D starts to get a chip on their shoulder about all the attention the O is getting and comes out to prove themselves. No better place to start than with the dig that they can't stop the run. I am especially amped about B. Rob coming back to Chicago with a little something to prove. On the Game of the Week last night, he was clearly the vocal leader of that D-line. The guy's been here two months and he's leading the pregame huddle. Nice stuff.

[rob_justdmb]

Seriously. When you are up big, you have to play the pass. The makes you more vulnerable to the run. The most important defensive stat is points allowed. If you allow less than you score you win football games. You don't win by rushing the opponent. Who freaking cares. The 1988 team was ranked 22 in D, and that's out of 28.

[skyline]

In regards to "overblowing" it, I'll ask you how you feel the Bengals will fare against a team who can

1) contain or at least slow down the Bengals offense

and

2) run the ball well

Both Chicago and Pittsburgh more or less meet this criteria. Especially Pittsburgh, who the Bengals will face twice. Probably other teams as well, but those are the two that come immediately to mind.

Keep in mind that after what I'd call a bad defensive year last year, the Bengals are giving up more than a yard MORE per carry this year. They are actually defending the run worse than last year....

Let's also look where the Bengals are currently ranked on ypc allowed:

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/DEF-..._1=6&_1:col_1=6

So tell me, is everyone just dismissing this and assuming that we'll always have a lead and ergo the ypc don't matter? If so, thats in my opinion quite a bit short sighted.

Ok, look. The bottom line is that we don't really know, do we? We haven't had to face a rushing attack over the course of an entire game yet.

I guess we'll find out this Sunday, unless we once again jump out to a huge lead (which I might add, would be perfectly fine by me).

[TippCityRick]

Amen, Skyline. Amen.

[derekshank]

I'm pretty sick of the Bengals rushing defense getting pounded for it's yard/carry, as if that is the most important stat.

The Bengals defense is tied for first on being run on the least. You can not give all the credit to the offense. Minnesota gave up on the run, not merely because they were behind. You don't give up the run in the first quarter because you are down by 14. If the run was as effective as the 5.4 yds/carry make it seem, they should have never thrown the ball. They would have scored a TD on every drive, without seeing a 3rd down.

The yards/carry stat doesn't seem impressive, especially because both Minnesota and Cleveland ran very well on their first drives (Cle 12.5 yds/carry, Minn 9.5 yds/carry)... but then we adjusted, and the opponents started passing. Two other defenses out there have very similar stats to us, Indy and Atlanta.

We allow only 16 carries per game. Indy: 22.5 carries/game at 4.6 yds/carry. Atl: 24 carries/game at 4.5 yds/carry. These high yards per carry are directly related to the number of passing attempts the opposing teams have.

Atlanta is allowing 38 passing attempts per game, Cincy 40, and Indy 41.5. The difference I suppose is that Atlanta and Indy were not playing in blow-outs, but it is interesting that the stats are so similar.

The fact is that if your running game is very effective, you don't get blown out, because you can move the ball on the other team's defense. High numbers of passes are more indicative of an inneffective running game, more than being behind by multiple scores.

The high yds/carry stat is then directly related to the opponent throwing the ball 71% of the time. When you know they are throwing it so often, you are in pass coverage packages, which allow higher yds/carry stats... but that is a deceiving stat.

Last year teams ran the ball on us nearly 50% of the time at 4.4 yards/carry. A much more disconcerting stat. I'm willing to allow 4 to 5 yds/carry all year long, assuming the opponents keep running the ball less than 30% of the time.

If the Bears don't give up on the run the way Cleveland and Minnesota did, I expect to see our defense in run stopping packages, which will result in a much lower yard/carry stat. Don't be deceived by every stat you read. Fantasy nerds get sucked in to this trap... but people who know football care much more about attempts/game, not yds/carry.

[Wraith]

We have had 32 rushing attempts that is not enough of a statistical sample to judge anything. Do you think teams will only rush for 2.5 YPC against Tampa? Not a chance, but they haven't given up any long runs, we have given up three 20 + runs 3 carries at 20 YPC when your statistical sample is only 32 it totally changes the results where as a long run when there are 432 plays to average it out (2004 attempts against) has a minimal impact.

We have allowed 172 yards on the ground this season and 32 carries, take away those three runs and it is approx. 112 yards in 29 carries or 3.82 YPC which I think we would all agree is an acceptable average. While you cannot take away those three runs keep in mind that they were ONLY three runs. Over the course of the season that becomes statisticly insignificant.

[San Antonio Bengal]

Said before, saying again, both teams we've played abandoned the running game. There's simply not enough stats to judge from after two games. Comparing last years 4.5 to the current 5.5 after two games only is comparing apples to oranges.

[JPW]

You can't read too much into Y/C when teams have only run like 16 times a game on you.

Just like the QB Efficiency Rating, the Y/C stat MUST be looked at in the light of Total Attempts and Total Yards gained.

For example, if a QB goes 9-11 in a game it does NOT follow that he would have been 36-44 if he would have just thrown the ball more.

You can not just project that these two teams would have racked up 348 yards on the ground against us if they had run the ball twice as much.

It just isn't that simple ...

The jury is still out on our defense but keep this in mind, the one stat that is by far the most important on that side of the ball is Points Allowed.

The Bengals' Defense has done a darn good job so far ...

[Jet23]

Given the position changes, new coordinator and rookie LBs, I expected a learning curve. But, with their speed, they will create a lot of turnovers. I also expect Ohalete to see more time, especially on running downs.

IMO, by mid-year, this will be a top 10-15 defense statistically, but that will not even tell the tale. Check out their turnover ration at year end.

[jjakq27]

I think it's a little too early to tell. Allowing less than 100 yards per game is the key stat for me. Points allowed per game is also more important than yards per carry.

In 2000, Corey Dillon had 278 yards rushing against the Broncos, averaging over 12 yards per carry, yet the Bengals still almost lost that game. That is one statistic that can be can be misleading.

Let 'em run between the 20's all they want, as long as they don't get in.

[jrandom42]

Let 'em run between the 20's all they want, as long as they don't get in.

So long as the Bengal Defense allows only 10.5 points per game, I don't care if opponents rush for an average of 400 yards a game!

[kingwilly]

Just as important as YPC and Points Allowed is Turnover differential.

2 games - Cincy +7

They can run wild, till we Force Fumbles or shut them down in the red zone.

We have given up more, bigger plays in the pass game than the run game. Context of the game situation is also a big factor in how well this defense is playing.

[Columbusbengal]

<High numbers of passes are more indicative of an inneffective running game, more than being behind by multiple scores.>

So does that mean the Bengals have an ineffective running game????

[San Antonio Bengal]

<High numbers of passes are more indicative of an inneffective running game, more than being behind by multiple scores.>

So does that mean the Bengals have an ineffective running game????

Nope. The number of runs and the number of passes is actually pretty even on the offensive side, although there are a handful more passes.

[Stripes]

<High numbers of passes are more indicative of an inneffective running game, more than being behind by multiple scores.>

So does that mean the Bengals have an ineffective running game????

Nope. The number of runs and the number of passes is actually pretty even on the offensive side, although there are a handful more passes.

Yep, there has been excellent balance. When you have a Carson to Chad sort of explosive combination, you are likely to have a few more pass attempts a game.

[jamesbrooks21]

Seriously. When you are up big, you have to play the pass. The makes you more vulnerable to the run. The most important defensive stat is points allowed. If you allow less than you score you win football games. You don't win by rushing the opponent. Who freaking cares. The 1988 team was ranked 22 in D, and that's out of 28.

You are right. But the Vikings put up their good running numbers when the game was close. Minnesota only ran the ball 4 times for 6 yards after we went up 17-0. This does not count the two scrambles by Culpepper for 10 yards and a TD. Our Run D concerns me until we prove otherwise and I'm am worried about this game.

[Kirkendall]

Seriously. When you are up big, you have to play the pass. The makes you more vulnerable to the run. The most important defensive stat is points allowed. If you allow less than you score you win football games. You don't win by rushing the opponent. Who freaking cares. The 1988 team was ranked 22 in D, and that's out of 28.

You are right. But the Vikings put up their good running numbers when the game was close.

Yeap. The Vikings gained 48 yards on their first 5 carries... all on the edge too (think Geathers and Smith)

[derekshank]

Once again... If they had been that effective for more than just their first 5 carries, they would have never needed to abandon the run. I know they had a fumble that put them behind early, but if you're getting nearly 10 yards a carry... do you stop running the ball because you are down by 14, or 17 due to a turnover?

Same with the Browns. The run was abandoned early due to a lack of consistency. It was abandoned to a much higher degree late because of the score... but the fact remains, they didn't abandon the run that early simply because of the score.

On the other hand... I think you can attribute the high turnover differential to our offense. Not only are we not giving up the ball very much... the high score forces the QB to try to make plays that aren't there, resulting in INT's. Culpepper didn't throw his first of 5 INT's until they were down by 20. Dilfer didn't throw either of his until they were behind significantly either.

It will be interesting to see both the number of rushing attempts and the tunrover differential this week. I think both will tell us a lot more about our defense than we know to this point.

[rob_justdmb]

Seriously. When you are up big, you have to play the pass. The makes you more vulnerable to the run. The most important defensive stat is points allowed. If you allow less than you score you win football games. You don't win by rushing the opponent. Who freaking cares. The 1988 team was ranked 22 in D, and that's out of 28.

You are right. But the Vikings put up their good running numbers when the game was close.

Yeap. The Vikings gained 48 yards on their first 5 carries... all on the edge too (think Geathers and Smith)

But guys, 2 of those plays ended up with vicious forced fumbles and turnovers by Odell. Tackling the ball is part of the run defense that doesn't show up in yards per carry.

[derekshank]

But guys, 2 of those plays ended up with vicious forced fumbles and turnovers by Odell. Tackling the ball is part of the run defense that doesn't show up in yards per carry.

Actually, one of the fumbles was on a pass to Bennett. Didn't have anything to do with the run. But that actually adds to this argument. You don't stop running the ball due to fumbles any more than you stop passing the ball due to INT's. They had 6 turnovers due to the pass, and only one on the run. They abandoned the run because they no longer felt it was effective for them to move down the field. Before long, they realized that there was no effective way to move down the field.

[jtsmith38]

As long as the Bengals keep pulling out 3 or 4 TD leads, a some what porous run D doesn't really matter. But eventually the offense is going to have a bad day, its inevitable, and I believe the D can step up and win a game or 2.

On a side note, Cincinnati helping out the Texans is a class act move. Good publicity along with a good winning streak. Keep it up and the Bengals might turn out to be ESPN's golden child.