16-0 when Rudi runs it at least 25 times

[Tasher]

I do not think that it is ever overlooked.

Every week, "Rudi carried it more than 25 times and we won." OR: "Why didn't Rudi get the ball more? We Lost!"

And, every week the weekly release recapps just exactly where we stand...

...when Rudi carries 1x, when Rudi carries 2x... when Rudi carries 67x, when Rudi carries 68x...

It is ridiculous.

It is NOT causality! One does not result from the other, in fact, WINNING is probably the cause of Johnson getting a higher number of carries and throwing it less, since you are trying to run the clock and not run up the score by throwing!

Thank you, that is all.

[Bengalhead]

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.

Agreed. I think we've proved this concept.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

yeah football isn't that simple and not something you can quantify with stats like you can in baseball, it's truly a team sport.

Rudi's # of carries are usually dependent on a # of other things happening in a game is a sympton of things going well in general.

It's like saying "Marvin's teams are 24-2 with a positive turnover ratio!"

Well duh, of course they'll win most of the time if they're turning the ball over less.

What Rudi did Sunday was keep the clock running and keep the defense honest, while the passing game got first downs and provided the scoring opp's.

It was those first few runs where Rudi got chunks of 10-12 yards or so that forced Cleveland to put 8 in the box or Rudi would've had his typical 150 yard day against them.

What makes the Bengals' so good when they're playing well, is that their offense is well-rounded and built to play in any sort of environment or scenario. They can beat you in all phases of the game when things are clicking like pretty much no other team in the NFL can.

The Bengals' should've throttled the Chargers and Saints (and did the latter) and those are two very good teams.

It just tells you how much potential this team has and how far they can go, and why people get so disappointed when they underachieve.

[Kazkal]

..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?

Yup and magic Beans actually work!

[bengalsfansince68]

I have been screaming for years that running the football wins games. A study was done a few years ago that said that the team who runs the ball the most wins a significant percentage of the games regardless of how well they did it.

I have posted about this several times over the years and have generally heard the same old crap that I have read today. Those who see Rudi's number of carries as the affect of the passing game don't get it. Big Willie said after the Saints game that we won because we pounded Rudi early and set up the play action. Is anyone here aware that if you run the ball, even if you don't get many yards, the safeties get closer to the line of scrimmage every time Rudi touches it, affording Carson more single coverage situations which he exploits.

The benefits of the run game are many and it has proven out over the years that the best way to win is to run the ball.

Is anyone aware that the stealers and broncos are heavily run oriented most years and they both win most years.

And finally who gives a sh*t why anyway. If pounding the ball 25 times a game has produced a 16-0 record, I pound it 25 more until you can prove to me that it is not effective.

Hint: You cannot

[Bengalhead]

I have been screaming for years that running the football wins games. A study was done a few years ago that said that the team who runs the ball the most wins a significant percentage of the games regardless of how well they did it.

I have posted about this several times over the years and have generally heard the same old crap that I have read today. Those who see Rudi's number of carries as the affect of the passing game don't get it. Big Willie said after the Saints game that we won because we pounded Rudi early and set up the play action. Is anyone here aware that if you run the ball, even if you don't get many yards, the safeties get closer to the line of scrimmage every time Rudi touches it, affording Carson more single coverage situations which he exploits.

The benefits of the run game are many and it has proven out over the years that the best way to win is to run the ball.

Is anyone aware that the stealers and broncos are heavily run oriented most years and they both win most years.

And finally who gives a sh*t why anyway. If pounding the ball 25 times a game has produced a 16-0 record, I pound it 25 more until you can prove to me that it is not effective.

Hint: You cannot

If running the ball 25 times guarantees victory, why doesn't every team do it every game?

HINT: Because just because you run a guy 25 doesn't guarantee a victory. What more proof do you need than that. If it was that simple, every team would run their primary back 25 or more times.

[Kazkal]

Everyteam doesn't have rudi running for 25 mybe? hehehe

we would never lose if Perry ran for 25!!!! to bad he can't stay healthy to do so lol.....mybe tab will

[derekshank]

I have been screaming for years that running the football wins games. A study was done a few years ago that said that the team who runs the ball the most wins a significant percentage of the games regardless of how well they did it.

That stat has been explained ad nauseum in this thread. Teams with the lead run the ball. Teams who have a lead and shorten the game with the run usually end up winning. It's not rocket science. Simply being a great running team doesn't win you games. You need balance... and more often than not a good passing game to win (Atlanta has 50 more rushing yards/game than any other team in the league... and they are 5-6. Atlanta also led the league in rushing last year... they finished 8-8).

Is anyone aware that the stealers and broncos are heavily run oriented most years and they both win most years.

Well... the 2 teams that have the best record since 2003 (the last 59 games) are Indy (48-11) and NE (46-13). The next best (Denver) has 19 losses, so it's not really all that close after them. In that span, Indy has thrown the ball 33.7 times/game, and rushed the ball 29.6 times/game. New England has thrown 33.1 times/game, and rushed 30.3 times/game.

Now if I'm not mistaken... both of those teams throw the ball more than they rush it. These teams have the 2 best QB's in the league... so they take advantage of that fact and win games on their arms. We have potentially one of the best in NFL history. So please... enough complaining that we throw the ball. This is how teams with the best QB's in the league function. They win on the basis of their franchise player.

Do we need balance? Absolutely. I don't want to throw the ball 60 times a game... but this 16-0 stat regarding Rudi is only true because Carson Palmer is able to give this team a lead, and force the defense to account for him. Rudi's back to back 1400 yard seasons would not have happened if Kitna was our QB.

[Bengalhead]

I have been screaming for years that running the football wins games. A study was done a few years ago that said that the team who runs the ball the most wins a significant percentage of the games regardless of how well they did it.

That stat has been explained ad nauseum in this thread. Teams with the lead run the ball. Teams who have a lead and shorten the game with the run usually end up winning. It's not rocket science. Simply being a great running team doesn't win you games. You need balance... and more often than not a good passing game to win (Atlanta has 50 more rushing yards/game than any other team in the league... and they are 5-6. Atlanta also led the league in rushing last year... they finished 8-8).

I agree, Derek. Well put. I don't know what more proof is needed.

[bengalsfansince68]

[quote

If running the ball 25 times guarantees victory, why doesn't every team do it every game?

HINT: Because just because you run a guy 25 doesn't guarantee a victory. What more proof do you need than that. If it was that simple, every team would run their primary back 25 or more times.

[Bengalhead]

[quote

If running the ball 25 times guarantees victory, why doesn't every team do it every game?

HINT: Because just because you run a guy 25 doesn't guarantee a victory. What more proof do you need than that. If it was that simple, every team would run their primary back 25 or more times.

Crissakes,

Nobody said that it guarentees victory

Nothing guarentees victory.

There is no question that running the ball sets up the pass, runs the clock and shortens the game. Also keeps their D on the field and our D on the sidelines which helps keep our D fresh in the 4th quarter and wears the opposing defense down.

The games that Rudi gets 20 or more have produced a playoffs record.

The games that Rudi gets 25 have produced 16-0.

How much more proof do YOU need than that?

What the flip is this argument about?

Give Rudi the damned ball

[bengalsfansince68]

[quote name=

[derekshank]

Proclaiming that the pass is the reason that these tams have had success is to discount the role running the ball has in making the pass work. It does so because running makes the safeties and linebackers come closer to the line of scrimmage to cover the possibility of the run.

While they are passing slightly more than running they are running just short of 30 times per game. That is all we are asking for.

12 carries for Rudi sucks and usually does not result in a win.

It goes both ways though. You can say that the run sets up the pass all you want... but if you watch a game (yes, even the ones where Rudi runs 25+) we pass to set up the run. Yes... an effective running game brings in the safety, and opens a passing game. A good passing game likewise causes the LB's and Safeties to drop deeper into coverage, allowing the running game to be more effective.

Tom Brady had Antwain Smith and Kevin Faulk for 2 of his Super Bowls. Please don't tell me that it was the run that set up the pass for the Patriots in those seasons. Just the opposite. You can wish we used the run to set up the pass all you want... but that's not really the way the NFL goes anymore. That was 20 years ago. It's becoming more and more a passing league... which is why teams that have great QB's are usually in the playoffs. It doesn't just take a good RB (ask Tomlinson about the year before Drew Brees got his act together).

[bengalsfansince68]

Proclaiming that the pass is the reason that these tams have had success is to discount the role running the ball has in making the pass work. It does so because running makes the safeties and linebackers come closer to the line of scrimmage to cover the possibility of the run.

While they are passing slightly more than running they are running just short of 30 times per game. That is all we are asking for.

12 carries for Rudi sucks and usually does not result in a win.

It goes both ways though. You can say that the run sets up the pass all you want... but if you watch a game (yes, even the ones where Rudi runs 25+) we pass to set up the run. Yes... an effective running game brings in the safety, and opens a passing game. A good passing game likewise causes the LB's and Safeties to drop deeper into coverage, allowing the running game to be more effective.

Tom Brady had Antwain Smith and Kevin Faulk for 2 of his Super Bowls. Please don't tell me that it was the run that set up the pass for the Patriots in those seasons. Just the opposite. You can wish we used the run to set up the pass all you want... but that's not really the way the NFL goes anymore. That was 20 years ago. It's becoming more and more a passing league... which is why teams that have great QB's are usually in the playoffs. It doesn't just take a good RB (ask Tomlinson about the year before Drew Brees got his act together).

Regardless of which sets up the other, the fact is you have to have both. 12 carries for Rudi is not enough to establish the run much less use it to dictate to the defense.

If we use the 30 pass 30 run that the colts and Pats have used we generally win.

When we don't use the run enough we often times lose.

I think the Colts/Pats stats only reinforce my theory in my own little mind.

Get Rudi his touches

[Bengalhead]

I'm bored with this topic now. Let's fry up some Raven wings!

[bengalsfansince68]

I'm bored with this topic now. Let's fry up some Raven wings!

Ahh, I love it when common sense prevails.

[Tasher]

How sad of a statement is it about our week when we are about to face the Ravens; play one of the most hugest games in recent Bengal history and we are debating cause and effect of running the ball and winning the football game?

And the thread generates 2 pages worth of posts!

Oh, and the CINCINNATI BENGAL DEFENSE shutout an NFL (although this is debateable) opponent.

[agreen_112]

I'm with u 100% bengalsence68. Derek you make a good point but it's just not true... You stated it yourself, Indy and NE both average right at 30 carries per game! nuff said....

Give Rudi the rock early and a good quantity of carries and that will = a W.

I'm also sure that the 16-0 record will eventually crack, but still. 16-1, 16-2, 17-2, 18-3, ect. ect. ect. That's still a good number if Rudi touches the ball 25 times.

Give it to em'!!! HE's a DOG!!!!!!!!

How sad of a statement is it about our week when we are about to face the Ravens; play one of the most hugest games in recent Bengal history and we are debating cause and effect of running the ball and winning the football game?

And the thread generates 2 pages worth of posts!

Oh, and the CINCINNATI BENGAL DEFENSE shutout an NFL (although this is debateable) opponent.

That's my point, we're going to face a tremendous defense Thursday Night. I want them to run the damn ball and wear out Baltimore's D and then light their Ass on fire with Carson's precision passing...

[bengalsfansince68]

How sad of a statement is it about our week when we are about to face the Ravens; play one of the most hugest games in recent Bengal history and we are debating cause and effect of running the ball and winning the football game?

And the thread generates 2 pages worth of posts!

Oh, and the CINCINNATI BENGAL DEFENSE shutout an NFL (although this is debateable) opponent.

What I see as sad is everyone's insistance that running the ball is far less a factor in winning football games than it is.

I talk about it to my Bengal Buds down here in Texas all the time.

Rudi is a huge part of our team winning games!

Period!

[derekshank]

I'm with u 100% bengalsence68. Derek you make a good point but it's just not true... You stated it yourself, Indy and NE both average right at 30 carries per game! nuff said....

Give Rudi the rock early and a good quantity of carries and that will = a W.

I guess you'll have to point out what I said that wasn't true. I said that Indy and NE throw the ball more than they run it (which is true). I said that they pass to set up the run, not the other way around (which is true). I never said they don't run the ball at all. In fact... their run to pass percentage is very similar to our own.

Indy runs the ball 46.8% of the time. NE runs the ball 47.7% of the time. We run the ball 44.9% of the time. I guess my point is that I'm very satisfied with the percentage of running plays to passing plays we run. Rudi is a stud. He's the hardest guy in the NFL to tackle... but without Palmer setting up the run with the pass, his stats would be very average.

I also love it when he gets 25+ carries... because it does mean we're going to win. If we give him the ball that many times, it means we are milking a lead, and that's a good thing. But to assume that it's just because we ran him 25+ times that we do win is to oversimplify how you win football games.

Anyway... I just wanted to respond to what you said to me. I'm now officially in the camp that is bored with this topic.

[duus]

I guess you'll have to point out what I said that wasn't true. I said that Indy and NE throw the ball more than they run it (which is true). I said that they pass to set up the run, not the other way around (which is true). I never said they don't run the ball at all. In fact... their run to pass percentage is very similar to our own.

Indy runs the ball 46.8% of the time. NE runs the ball 47.7% of the time. We run the ball 44.9% of the time. I guess my point is that I'm very satisfied with the percentage of running plays to passing plays we run. Rudi is a stud. He's the hardest guy in the NFL to tackle... but without Palmer setting up the run with the pass, his stats would be very average.

I also love it when he gets 25+ carries... because it does mean we're going to win. If we give him the ball that many times, it means we are milking a lead, and that's a good thing. But to assume that it's just because we ran him 25+ times that we do win is to oversimplify how you win football games.

Anyway... I just wanted to respond to what you said to me. I'm now officially in the camp that is bored with this topic.

Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto.

What he said. Agree with all of it. Especially the part about being bored with this ridiculous back-and-forth about a very arguable statistic.

[agreen_112]

I'm with u 100% bengalsence68. Derek you make a good point but it's just not true... You stated it yourself, Indy and NE both average right at 30 carries per game! nuff said....

Give Rudi the rock early and a good quantity of carries and that will = a W.

I guess you'll have to point out what I said that wasn't true. I said that Indy and NE throw the ball more than they run it (which is true). I said that they pass to set up the run, not the other way around (which is true). I never said they don't run the ball at all. In fact... their run to pass percentage is very similar to our own.

Indy runs the ball 46.8% of the time. NE runs the ball 47.7% of the time. We run the ball 44.9% of the time. I guess my point is that I'm very satisfied with the percentage of running plays to passing plays we run. Rudi is a stud. He's the hardest guy in the NFL to tackle... but without Palmer setting up the run with the pass, his stats would be very average.

I also love it when he gets 25+ carries... because it does mean we're going to win. If we give him the ball that many times, it means we are milking a lead, and that's a good thing. But to assume that it's just because we ran him 25+ times that we do win is to oversimplify how you win football games.

Anyway... I just wanted to respond to what you said to me. I'm now officially in the camp that is bored with this topic.

I never said what you said isn't true. What I meant is that your point isn't true.

You make a good point but your point of Indy and NE is not true! We need to give the ball to Rudi 25 times per game to give us a better chance for a win just like Indy and NE and Denver. Anyone can say whatever the want about both Indy and NE both passing first to set up a run, well I see it the complete opposite. I don't care how you see the gameplay, the stats don't lie: Both teams average almost 30 carries per game, that doesn't change. We're 16-0 when Rudi touches the ball 25 times. Yeah Palmer and Co. help, BUT like I said, the stats don't lie.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

You guys are twisting this into too much.

Rb's get the ball 25+ times a game typically because of how the game is unfolding, and the score, among other things, not the other way around.

When you're down 17-0 or more and don't get back in it until the middle of the 4th quarter, your RB will not get the ball 25 times.

So people saying "give it to Rudi 25 times and we'll win," as if it's some secret formula, is just stupid. Don't you think at some point, some football genius would've figured that out already, if it were that simple?

Cmon, i agree, time to drop this tired subject.

[duus]

... and just to keep this stupid waste-of-time discussion going (misuse/misapplication of statistics really bugs the heck out of me!) ... allow me to quote Football Outsiders (Football Outsiders):

Correlation and Causation

The Kneel to Win theory is pretty stupid, isn’t it? Obviously, anyone who thinks that kneel plays lead to victories doesn’t realize the difference between correlation (the relationship between two variables) and causation (one variable directly affecting the other).

In the example above, the relationship between the variables is exactly backwards. Kneeling does not cause winning. Winning causes kneeling. Every 10-year-old knows this, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs serious psychological attention.

So we can all chuckle at the Kneel to Win theory. We’re all smarter than that. But then, we pick up the local newspaper and read pre-game analysis like this: “The Home Team has to run the ball more often this week. When they run the ball 30 times, they win 90 percent of the time.”

Here we go again, folks.

The relationship between running the ball and winning is more complicated than the relationship between kneeling and winning. A good running game certainly contributes to the winning effort. But teams don’t win because they run 30 times. Teams run the ball 30 times because they are protecting the lead on their way to a win. It’s a fact every thoughtful fan appreciates, and the Run to Win myth was debunked decades before Football Outsiders came into existence. Yet sportstalk hosts and local columnists still trot out the Run to Win theory as if they think that 30 straight handoffs to start the game will guarantee a victory by statistical fiat. That’s as silly as thinking that kneeling on the ball is the key to success.

Aaron Schatz founded Football Outsiders three years ago to combat just this sort of lazy analysis. Boston media pundits consistently hammered the Patriots in 2002 for not running the ball often enough; the team ran far more often in their Super Bowl season than they did during that disappointing 9-7 campaign. Why couldn’t they see that they were throwing the ball too often? Aaron ran the numbers and proved that the Patriots run-pass ratio early in games changed little from 2001 to 2002, but in 2001 they ran to protect leads in the second half while in 2002 they passed to catch up. The experts had it backwards. While conducting his research, Aaron laid the groundwork for the statistics that would become DVOA and DPAR, paving the way for him to launch the top independent football research site on the Internet.

Still, the Run to Win theory survives and thrives. It has corollaries, too. There’s the He Throws Too Much corollary: Brett Favre isn’t that great, because the Packers are 7-15 (or whatever) when he throws over 40 passes per game. Of course, Favre only throws 40 passes when the Packers are already trailing, but never mind. And there’s the Good Teams Run and Stop the Run postulate, which extends Run to Win to defense. And there are other nuggets of conventional wisdom, like Good Teams Find a Way to Win Close Games, that have little factual basis but live on in the minds of fans and sportscasters.

Of course, if everybody took a careful, thoughtful, analytical approach to football, Football Outsiders would have a hard time standing apart from the crowd.