16-0 when Rudi runs it at least 25 times

[kingwilly]

It is just so damn simple.

I've got to say that if Brat does not perma-etch this into his brain my head might explode.

Let's all just say this over and over together:

16-0 when Rudi runs it at least 25 times

16-0 when Rudi runs it at least 25 times

16-0 when Rudi runs it at least 25 times

16-0 when Rudi runs it at least 25 times

16-0 when Rudi runs it at least 25 times

16-0 when Rudi runs it at least 25 times

16-0 when Rudi runs it at least 25 times

16-0 when Rudi runs it at least 25 times

now that feels better.

Brat, make note.

[Kazkal]

I know even when he runs 25 times and gets sub 75 yards we still win

so brat needs make tally sheet of how much rudi runs each game lol.

[Stripes]

If the Bengals just start running Rudi over and over to get to that number, it'll become 16-1 pretty quickly.

[cincyhokie]

If the Bengals just start running Rudi over and over to get to that number, it'll become 16-1 pretty quickly.

Exactly. Thank you.

[Wraith]

Coincidentally, the only time Rudi gets more than 25 carries is when the Bengals are already ahead by a good margin, just thought I would throw that in.

[skyline]

I agree with the last few posts. Rudi running the ball that many times is a result of us playing well. We don't play well simply BECAUSE he runs the ball 25 times.

He got a lot of carries last week, because we jumped out to an early lead.

[agreen_112]

The numbers are, what the numbers are homie... If we're 16-0 when he touches the ball at least 25 times, then gotdamn it give him the rock! I don't care if we're up or down, Rudi shouldn't touch the ball no less than 20-25 times a game. Period.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

The numbers are, what the numbers are homie... If we're 16-0 when he touches the ball at least 25 times, then gotdamn it give him the rock! I don't care if we're up or down, Rudi shouldn't touch the ball no less than 20-25 times a game. Period.

I assume the distinction between correlation and causality is completely lost on you.

[derekshank]

...Right...

So, if we had just given Rudi a bunch of meaningless carries when we were losing 31 to 13 in the 4th quarter against NE, we would have magically won the game?

Rudi is a great back... but that stat really only indicates one thing. When the Bengals get a lead, they are difficult to beat. The offense has too many weapons, and Rudi gets more touches as the game wears on when we're winning.

When the defense plays like crap though, and you need fast points, you don't hand it to Rudi all the time. It's not about giving Rudi a bunch of carries... it's about executing on both sides of the ball so that you have the luxury of handing it off 25+ times and running down the clock.

[agreen_112]

...Right...

So, if we had just given Rudi a bunch of meaningless carries when we were losing 31 to 13 in the 4th quarter against NE, we would have magically won the game?

Rudi is a great back... but that stat really only indicates one thing. When the Bengals get a lead, they are difficult to beat. The offense has too many weapons, and Rudi gets more touches as the game wears on when we're winning.

When the defense plays like crap though, and you need fast points, you don't hand it to Rudi all the time. It's not about giving Rudi a bunch of carries... it's about executing on both sides of the ball so that you have the luxury of handing it off 25+ times and running down the clock.

No.

We might of had a chance at beating NE if they were not the best team in the NFL!

Also, give Rudi the ball early and the whole game's outcome could've been different. All I'm saying is that under no circumstance should Rudi touch the ball less than 20-25 times.

[membengal]

...Right...

So, if we had just given Rudi a bunch of meaningless carries when we were losing 31 to 13 in the 4th quarter against NE, we would have magically won the game?

Rudi is a great back... but that stat really only indicates one thing. When the Bengals get a lead, they are difficult to beat. The offense has too many weapons, and Rudi gets more touches as the game wears on when we're winning.

When the defense plays like crap though, and you need fast points, you don't hand it to Rudi all the time. It's not about giving Rudi a bunch of carries... it's about executing on both sides of the ball so that you have the luxury of handing it off 25+ times and running down the clock.

Thank you. The blind braying about this stat out of context makes me sad.

Does anyone find it surprising, really, that when the Bengals are up and can feed Rudi and D is actually getting off the field, that they win? I would say Rudi getting 25 carries in wins is an EFFECT, not a CAUSE.

[derekshank]

Also, give Rudi the ball early and the whole game's outcome could've been different. All I'm saying is that under no circumstance should Rudi touch the ball less than 20-25 times.

Well, all I'm saying is that the 16-0 stat has a lot more to do with game circumstances. We ran the ball 12 times in the first half against NE, and were down 14-6 at half time. Continuing to run down the clock on a game you are losing doesn't make sense.

It's all about game situations. We've got one of the best QB's in the league. You don't run the ball every 1st and 2nd down just because you want to give Rudi a bunch of carries. the 16-0 stat when Rudi rushes the ball is a team stat... not a Rudi stat. The whole offense (and defense) need to be functioning correctly for that stat to play out with any type of success.

You don't just go into a game with the mindset that you're going to give Rudi the ball 25 times regardless of the situation. You give him the ball when it makes sense... and with our team, it makes the most sense when you have a lead.

[agreen_112]

...Right...

So, if we had just given Rudi a bunch of meaningless carries when we were losing 31 to 13 in the 4th quarter against NE, we would have magically won the game?

Rudi is a great back... but that stat really only indicates one thing. When the Bengals get a lead, they are difficult to beat. The offense has too many weapons, and Rudi gets more touches as the game wears on when we're winning.

When the defense plays like crap though, and you need fast points, you don't hand it to Rudi all the time. It's not about giving Rudi a bunch of carries... it's about executing on both sides of the ball so that you have the luxury of handing it off 25+ times and running down the clock.

Thank you. The blind braying about this stat out of context makes me sad.

Does anyone find it surprising, really, that when the Bengals are up and can feed Rudi and D is actually getting off the field, that they win? I would say Rudi getting 25 carries in wins is an EFFECT, not a CAUSE.

It's not an EFFECT 100% of the time. Yeah, maybe for some of those wins, but not all 16 of them. Think about it. You can't honestly say that your's and dereks point is 100% correct....

[Bengalhead]

...Right...

So, if we had just given Rudi a bunch of meaningless carries when we were losing 31 to 13 in the 4th quarter against NE, we would have magically won the game?

Rudi is a great back... but that stat really only indicates one thing. When the Bengals get a lead, they are difficult to beat. The offense has too many weapons, and Rudi gets more touches as the game wears on when we're winning.

When the defense plays like crap though, and you need fast points, you don't hand it to Rudi all the time. It's not about giving Rudi a bunch of carries... it's about executing on both sides of the ball so that you have the luxury of handing it off 25+ times and running down the clock.

Thank you. The blind braying about this stat out of context makes me sad.

Does anyone find it surprising, really, that when the Bengals are up and can feed Rudi and D is actually getting off the field, that they win? I would say Rudi getting 25 carries in wins is an EFFECT, not a CAUSE.

I agree whole heartedly. Rudi rushing 25 times is a good thing because if he is rushing that much then typically: 1. The running game is working, 2. The Bengals have a lead 3. Are working the clock.

All three of these are HUGE factors in winning a football game.

[derekshank]

It's not an EFFECT 100% of the time. Yeah, maybe for some of those wins, but not all 16 of them. Think about it. You can't honestly say that your's and dereks point is 100% correct....

Well, our points are for the most point common sense. The burden of proof lies with you. You need to do the research and show us a game that Rudi got 25+ carries, and we won, even though the rest of the team played poorly (Hint: that game doesn't exist).

[agreen_112]

Also, give Rudi the ball early and the whole game's outcome could've been different. All I'm saying is that under no circumstance should Rudi touch the ball less than 20-25 times.

Well, all I'm saying is that the 16-0 stat has a lot more to do with game circumstances. We ran the ball 12 times in the first half against NE, and were down 14-6 at half time. Continuing to run down the clock on a game you are losing doesn't make sense.

It's all about game situations. We've got one of the best QB's in the league. You don't run the ball every 1st and 2nd down just because you want to give Rudi a bunch of carries. the 16-0 stat when Rudi rushes the ball is a team stat... not a Rudi stat. The whole offense (and defense) need to be functioning correctly for that stat to play out with any type of success.

You don't just go into a game with the mindset that you're going to give Rudi the ball 25 times regardless of the situation. You give him the ball when it makes sense... and with our team, it makes the most sense when you have a lead.

I agree it is a team stat, the team gets the win not Rudi...

My whole thing is that Rudi can absolutely pound the ball, he's a punishing back. I don't like the way we try to model Indy's stretch plays with Rudi though. He's should be running counters and misdirections to get outside. I feel like we have a better chance at winning the game when Rudi is getting fed properly. He also sets up the playaction better than any back IMO.

It's not an EFFECT 100% of the time. Yeah, maybe for some of those wins, but not all 16 of them. Think about it. You can't honestly say that your's and dereks point is 100% correct....

Well, our points are for the most point common sense. The burden of proof lies with you. You need to do the research and show us a game that Rudi got 25+ carries, and we won, even though the rest of the team played poorly (Hint: that game doesn't exist).

I can't remember exactly, but what about his career game? When he rushed for over like 200 yards.

[Bengalhead]

...Right...

So, if we had just given Rudi a bunch of meaningless carries when we were losing 31 to 13 in the 4th quarter against NE, we would have magically won the game?

Rudi is a great back... but that stat really only indicates one thing. When the Bengals get a lead, they are difficult to beat. The offense has too many weapons, and Rudi gets more touches as the game wears on when we're winning.

When the defense plays like crap though, and you need fast points, you don't hand it to Rudi all the time. It's not about giving Rudi a bunch of carries... it's about executing on both sides of the ball so that you have the luxury of handing it off 25+ times and running down the clock.

Thank you. The blind braying about this stat out of context makes me sad.

Does anyone find it surprising, really, that when the Bengals are up and can feed Rudi and D is actually getting off the field, that they win? I would say Rudi getting 25 carries in wins is an EFFECT, not a CAUSE.

It's not an EFFECT 100% of the time. Yeah, maybe for some of those wins, but not all 16 of them. Think about it. You can't honestly say that your's and dereks point is 100% correct....

You're missing the point. Do you think that if the Bengals are down by 17 points (insert reason here - turnovers, poor D play, whatever) just handing the ball to Rudi magically will win the game? Of course not. It is a cause that - if effective - leads to wins, not the other way around. An example off the top of my head is the Cardinals/Bears game earlier this year. If I remember correctly, Edgerrin James had 33 carries and something like 65 yards. They lost. Granted it's the Cardinals but still. . . What good does it do to run Rudi on first and second down only to have third and long every time. They are not going to convert every conversion. Hence, it woud provide the adverse effect. they would lose both field position and time of possession.

How pi$$ed off would people be at Bratkowski if we are down early and simply keep running Rudi into the backs of our O-line? People would be calling for his head. Football is a game of adjustments. Those teams that win find ways to get points no matter what the situation is.

It's not an EFFECT 100% of the time. Yeah, maybe for some of those wins, but not all 16 of them. Think about it. You can't honestly say that your's and dereks point is 100% correct....

Well, our points are for the most point common sense. The burden of proof lies with you. You need to do the research and show us a game that Rudi got 25+ carries, and we won, even though the rest of the team played poorly (Hint: that game doesn't exist).

Well, if it doesn't exist, it's because the coaches would have realized (in the games where Rudi rushed fewer than 25 times) that it wasn't working so they tried something else. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly but expecting a different result.

I can't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp. If the running game is working, they will continue to run. = more carries for Rudi. If it is not (after a legitimate attempt to get it to work) then they should stop (not completely, of course) and try something else = fewer carries for Rudi. It's that simple folks!

[agreen_112]

...Right...

So, if we had just given Rudi a bunch of meaningless carries when we were losing 31 to 13 in the 4th quarter against NE, we would have magically won the game?

Rudi is a great back... but that stat really only indicates one thing. When the Bengals get a lead, they are difficult to beat. The offense has too many weapons, and Rudi gets more touches as the game wears on when we're winning.

When the defense plays like crap though, and you need fast points, you don't hand it to Rudi all the time. It's not about giving Rudi a bunch of carries... it's about executing on both sides of the ball so that you have the luxury of handing it off 25+ times and running down the clock.

Thank you. The blind braying about this stat out of context makes me sad.

Does anyone find it surprising, really, that when the Bengals are up and can feed Rudi and D is actually getting off the field, that they win? I would say Rudi getting 25 carries in wins is an EFFECT, not a CAUSE.

It's not an EFFECT 100% of the time. Yeah, maybe for some of those wins, but not all 16 of them. Think about it. You can't honestly say that your's and dereks point is 100% correct....

You're missing the point. Do you think that if the Bengals are down by 17 points (insert reason here - turnovers, poor D play, whatever) just handing the ball to Rudi magically will win the game? Of course not. It is a cause that - if effective - leads to wins, not the other way around. An example off the top of my head is the Cardinals/Bears game earlier this year. If I remember correctly, Edgerrin James had 33 carries and something like 65 yards. They lost. Granted it's the Cardinals but still. . . What good does it do to run Rudi on first and second down only to have third and long every time. They are not going to convert every conversion. Hence, it woud provide the adverse effect. they would lose both field position and time of possession.

How pi$$ed off would people be at Bratkowski if we are down early and simply keep running Rudi into the backs of our O-line? People would be calling for his head. Football is a game of adjustments. Those teams that win find ways to get points no matter what the situation is.

Thank you for explaining to me how football is played.....OMG, I had no idea. Seriously though, I understand your point. Running the ball isn't going to ensure a win by any means. Game situations are different every Sunday. BUT, you gotta run to set up the pass, don't kid yourselves!

[CBin2k7]

The more and more I watch Rudi play the more, I start to think that if he loses a step he is not going to be very good.

I am not Rudi bashing, I think he is great, but he misses a lot of holes. He seems to run into the back of his lineman alot, and he is a downhill runner for sure.

If the Bengals wanna run sweeps and stretch plays, they need to find them another running back. If not, play they need to play to Rudi's strong points and run off tackle plays and counters.

[Bengalhead]

[duus]

Thank you for explaining to me how football is played.....OMG, I had no idea. Seriously though, I understand your point. Running the ball isn't going to ensure a win by any means. Game situations are different every Sunday. BUT, you gotta run to set up the pass, don't kid yourselves!

Tell Brady and Co. that you need to run to set up the pass. How many big games have they passed to set up the run? Far more than the opposite. I dare you go back and check that one out. Also, what was it that kept the Steelers winning in the playoffs last year? Check it out ... they came out passing, built a lead, and then ran to control the clock and game. Is it more typical to run to set up the pass? Of course. But I think it is becoming less and less true in the last several years in terms of winning big games. The bigger thing is to keep the opposing defense guessing and on their heals. To do that, you need a QB that can use the short pass (5-15 yards) as a type of 'run'. Brady has done this better than anyone.

Just a couple points.

[agreen_112]

The more and more I watch Rudi play the more, I start to think that if he loses a step he is not going to be very good.

I am not Rudi bashing, I think he is great, but he misses a lot of holes. He seems to run into the back of his lineman alot, and he is a downhill runner for sure.

If the Bengals wanna run sweeps and stretch plays, they need to find them another running back. If not, play they need to play to Rudi's strong points and run off tackle plays and counters.

I agree with you. He does miss some holes and runs into the backs of his lineman sometimes.

I dont' understand the stretch plays. I like the sweeps in the redzone though, especially with Whitworth lead blocking.

Thank you for explaining to me how football is played.....OMG, I had no idea. Seriously though, I understand your point. Running the ball isn't going to ensure a win by any means. Game situations are different every Sunday. BUT, you gotta run to set up the pass, don't kid yourselves!

Tell Brady and Co. that you need to run to set up the pass. How many big games have they passed to set up the run? Far more than the opposite. I dare you go back and check that one out. Also, what was it that kept the Steelers winning in the playoffs last year? Check it out ... they came out passing, built a lead, and then ran to control the clock and game. Is it more typical to run to set up the pass? Of course. But I think it is becoming less and less true in the last several years in terms of winning big games. The bigger thing is to keep the opposing defense guessing and on their heals. To do that, you need a QB that can use the short pass (5-15 yards) as a type of 'run'. Brady has done this better than anyone.

Just a couple points.

Now, now, now. Please dont' go there. Brady is the perfect pocket passer, BUT he still feeds off of the run. Right now NE is averaging, the magic number here in this thread, 25.7 carries a game and 105 yards. Duus, your wrong!

[duus]

Now, now, now. Please dont' go there. Brady is the perfect pocket passer, BUT he still feeds off of the run. Right now NE is averaging, the magic number here in this thread, 25.7 carries a game and 105 yards. Duus, your wrong!

I DID NOT say that the Pats do not run the ball. They do. Duh. What I said was HOW they use the run ... IN BIG GAMES. You cannot look at their 2006 average runs per game to find fault in my statement. Look at what they have done in the first and second quarters of AFC championship games over the years, etc. That's my point. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you that much, but I just think there is some level of 'myth' to the 'run to set up the pass' thing over the years.

[Wraith]

Last week Rudi Johnson had 25 carries but at just over 2.5 YPC are you going to sit here and say that their effective running game was the key to that win? After the first two drives, Cleveland decided that they were going to stop the run if it killed them and they did and it did.

Balance is the key to building a successful offense just as team balance (Offense, Defense, Special Teams) are the key to building a successful team. If teams are going to shut down the run you must be able to beat a team throwing the ball and vice versa. There is no reason what so ever that the Bengals cannot and do not setup the run with the pass that thinking is very 1960's.

[agreen_112]

Last week Rudi Johnson had 25 carries but at just over 2.5 YPC are you going to sit here and say that their effective running game was the key to that win? After the first two drives, Cleveland decided that they were going to stop the run if it killed them and they did and it did.

Balance is the key to building a successful offense just as team balance (Offense, Defense, Special Teams) are the key to building a successful team. If teams are going to shut down the run you must be able to beat a team throwing the ball and vice versa. There is no reason what so ever that the Bengals cannot and do not setup the run with the pass that thinking is very 1960's.

And what did Carson say after the game? That the effective run helped the develop the playaction game! Nice Try though wraith...