Palmer

[HairOnFire]

1. I don't see a 50/50 balance as being a foundation issue hair. If they were trying to throw it 50 times with only 15 runs, I am right there with you. But that's not what they appear to be about.

I'm not the one pointing to a 50/50 balance as proof of anything. Rather, it's one of your fellow charter members who is doing that. But if I could snap my fingers and change anything about this team right now it would be simply this.

I want to see them run on 1st down far more often.

They simply have to be an effective passing team to get where they want to be. You and I may not agree on that, but that is where I come from.

We don't disagree on that point. Where we disagree seems rooted in a disagreement in how the offense is best suited to play now. Not so much because of the way the team is constructed, but because of what it's immediately capable of doing well.

I don't think the passing game will get to that effectiveness unless they actually try to, um, complete some passes.

Oh they're trying. In fact, I'd have to say they're practically killing themselves trying.

[HoosierCat]

Yesterday, 20 of Palmer's 35 passes were targeted to TO or 85. Only 6 were caught.

A fact that not only supports my rant, but should put an end to the debate once and for all. But sadly, I remind myself that this is the internet where things like that never really happen.

On the other hand, Shipley and Gresham were targeted 11 times and caught 8 balls. They averaged less per catch, about 7 yards per versus 16 for TO/Chad, but I think the Bengals do a better job of moving the chains and sustaining drives if that targeting is flipped.

See.

Supports your rant? Didn't you just say this one post up?

Isn't an inability to complete passes that should be completed reason enough to conclude this teams passing game isn't a foundation that can be built upon?

In Shipley and Gresham, they had two guys they had no problem completing passes to. More Gresham/Shipley. Less TO/Chad.

[HairOnFire]

A one-dimensional team is trying to become two-dimensional, that's all.

Trying and failing utterly save for a brief burst of success against a New England team that had already put the game away.

The problem isn't the philosophy, it's the execution (through all of two football games).

Sure, the sample size is too small to draw any lasting conclusions. And given enough time the passing game will surely develope an improved level of competency. Who knows how long that might be is anyones guess, but they may stop s**tting on themselves as early as next week, right? But if all of this stuff is just a product of my own tortured fever dreams then why is the headline from the Raven game about a return to basics? And why is Marvin Lewis talking about too many moving parts, trying to do too much with rookies, and how this team is guilty of killing it's own momentum/timing/rhythm.

If the Bengals fail to execute consistently in the coming weeks, then I'll be ready to clamor for a total return to 2009's offense.

To be clear, I don't want a total return to last years offense. Rather, I want last years offense supported by the pieces that have been added since, not vice versa.

[HairOnFire]

In Shipley and Gresham, they had two guys they had no problem completing passes to.

And?

Your own numbers proved how ineffective the Bengals passing game was overall, and in regards to Chad and Owens in particular. Yet you point to blown production, poor targeting, miserable execution, and a gameplan even you don't fully support as proof that I don't know what I'm talking about? Child please.

Seems to me the BSOPB are bitching about the state of the passing game NEARLY as much as I ever have, from Memphis griping about the execution, to Hoosier griping about the players targeted, to countless others griping in familiar ways about Bratkowski smelling of poop. And better still, none of you waited for me to show up on Monday with my familiar rantings. Rather, you each decided to lob your own barbs at the passing game preemptively, as if admitting the failure might better disquise it.

C'mon now.

[HoosierCat]

In Shipley and Gresham, they had two guys they had no problem completing passes to.

And?

What I said before and you chose to cut out: More Shipley/Gresham. Less TO/Chad.

[HairOnFire]

In Shipley and Gresham, they had two guys they had no problem completing passes to.

And?

What I said before and you chose to cut out:

What's this? A lesson on posting etiquette from the guy who quotes sentence fragments? Or in this latest example...(wait for it)...just one single word?

Are word fragments next?

More Shipley/Gresham. Less TO/Chad.

Yeah, I got it the first time. In fact, it's not very complicated. Just keep throwing to the guys who actually produced in the last game.

It's thin, but who could fault the logic?

[Stripes]

Trying and failing utterly save for a brief burst of success against a New England team that had already put the game away.

Absolutely. If the Bengals are to remedy that, they're faced with what I perceive to be two simple choices: continue trying despite two bad games to open the season or return to an offense which clearly favors the run regardless of circumstance. The former allows the offense to find effective balance sooner than later while putting games at increased risk as growing pains are endured. The latter is the safer choice, but its ceiling is lower and progress with balance would likely come more slowly.

I don't think either option is fundamentally incorrect. The Bengals just defeated a pretty good football team by employing a balanced attack despite both the running game and passing game stalling repeatedly (and lost to a better team when absolutely nothing went right). They probably could have beaten the Ravens with fewer three receiver sets and more Ced too.

Sure, the sample size is too small to draw any lasting conclusions. And given enough time the passing game will surely develope an improved level of competency. Who knows how long that might be is anyones guess, but they may stop s**tting on themselves as early as next week, right? But if all of this stuff is just a product of my own tortured fever dreams then why is the headline from the Raven game about a return to basics? And why is Marvin Lewis talking about too many moving parts, trying to do too much with rookies, and how this team is guilty of killing it's own momentum/timing/rhythm.

I'd assume Marvin does agree with you, at least on one of your points. The offense too often twists itself into a pretzel with its needless complexity, seen either by ridiculous miscommunication between Palmer and Cook, stupid pre-snap penalties, or receivers running the wrong routes. Reversion to the basics won't necessarily mean they run the ball more, but it ought to spare us the 3rd and 2 play designed for Daniel Coats. It may mean Bratkowski asks less of his newcomers, especially Gresham and Owens. It may mean more Ced.

To be clear, I don't want a total return to last years offense. Rather, I want last years offense supported by the pieces that have been added since, not vice versa.

Truly, I don't disagree at all. A strong running game bolstered by a rebuilt passing game with diverse capabilities would equate to the very balance I think the Bengals are looking for.

[Sea Ray]

Let me now make an open request to anyone who recorded the game. Specifically, please rewatch this play and report your findings in regards to the above....especially the part shown in bold. If possible, confirm my observation that Chad was actually wide f**king open, both early and late on this play. Pay no attention to Owens in the foreground. Focus on the background action. Because if I'm not mistaken the endzone view starts with a more distant Chad running uncovered through zone coverage, then shows him cut towards, but well behind, the Ravens bracketed coverage.

In short, I believe Chad was actually open from start to finish on this play, but Palmer doesn't pull the trigger....choosing instead to checkdown too late to a crossing Owens.

Hair, don't you have the Sunday Ticket to follow Bengals football?

[HairOnFire]

If the Bengals are to remedy that, they're faced with what I perceive to be two simple choices: continue trying despite two bad games to open the season or return to an offense which clearly favors the run regardless of circumstance. The former allows the offense to find effective balance sooner than later while putting games at increased risk as growing pains are endured. The latter is the safer choice, but its ceiling is lower and progress with balance would likely come more slowly.

Don't you make the safer choice when working with such a narrow margin? And if other methods can result in a playoff berth, as proven, how aggressively should the strategy for winning be tweaked? Say whatever you will about last seasons team but it was rarely blown out before halftime and it already proved it could go toe to toe with teams like the Ravens and not only win consistently, but physically outplay. And that plays right into the things that are best for the running game, best for THIS offensive line, and best for the defense. In short, what's best for the whole team, not just the passing game.

I'd assume Marvin does agree with you, at least on one of your points. The offense too often twists itself into a pretzel with its needless complexity, seen either by ridiculous miscommunication between Palmer and Cook, stupid pre-snap penalties, or receivers running the wrong routes.

Ahhh yes, the now painfully familiar themes of the too-complicated over-engineered watchwork that is a Clockwork Orange. Some of my best and most despised work.

[Stripes]

Don't you make the safer choice when working with such a narrow margin? And if other methods can result in a playoff berth, as proven, how aggressively should the strategy for winning be tweaked? Say whatever you will about last seasons team but it was rarely blown out before halftime and it already proved it could go toe to toe with teams like the Ravens and not only win consistently, but physically outplay. And that plays right into the things that are best for the running game, best for THIS offensive line, and best for the defense. In short, what's best for the whole team, not just the passing game.

I'd wager you'll have your way, at least to a degree we didn't see against Baltimore and didn't even approach against New England. The riskier of the two strategies has likely proven more risky than the Bengals expected, both because of the newcomers' inconsistency and Palmer's six bad quarters. They surely expect improvement in both areas and will work towards that, but they'll slow their roll a bit over the next few games. Should such a prediction prove accurate, I won't find it disagreeable. I think the offense has shown enough of those frustrating little flashes though that a continued struggle for balance wouldn't make much less sense, if less at all.

[HoosierCat]

While we're on the subject of running games, Reggie Bush just went down...leg injury, had to be helped off the field.

[BengalszoneBilly]

While we're on the subject of running games, Reggie Bush just went down...leg injury, had to be helped off the field.

This game just got GOOD!

[Sea Ray]

While we're on the subject of running games, Reggie Bush just went down...leg injury, had to be helped off the field.

This game just got GOOD!

Fractured fibula, smaller bone in lower leg, out 6 weeks. I'd be very surprised if he's back on an NFL field getting tackled in just 6 weeks. Football needs a DL where they can replace a guy like this and still bring him back at some point. Let's hope they address this in the next CBA

[Jet23]

Here's an idea. Stop flipping through the thesaurus during the game and pay attention to what is actually taking place on the field.

I'm curious. What would you estimate to be, from your perspective well outside my reality, the probability that I have ever flipped through a thesaurus during a Bengals football game?

I spend a good portion of my day reading endless contracts, yet most of them make my head hurt far less than your typical post.

Rest assured I don't much care that your head hurts or even that I may have been a contributing cause.

Relatively light on the 'big boy' words.....nice job!

[jjakq27]

While we're on the subject of running games, Reggie Bush just went down...leg injury, had to be helped off the field.

This game just got GOOD!

Fractured fibula, smaller bone in lower leg, out 6 weeks. I'd be very surprised if he's back on an NFL field getting tackled in just 6 weeks. Football needs a DL where they can replace a guy like this and still bring him back at some point. Let's hope they address this in the next CBA

Better check with Ray Lewis first.

[WhoDey93285]

What happened to our Golden Boy? Where did he go wrong? In 2005, Carson led the league in touchdown passes (32) and was second in passer rating, an astounding 101.1. And in 2006, coming on a severe knee injury mind you, he was 2nd in TD passes with 28 and sixth in passer rating. After those two years, Carson was in the discussion of elite quarterbacks. Right up there with Manning and Brady. Then in 2007, he started to decline. My question is why? The skillset is there. Nothing seems to have changed except his age...and quarterbacks usually get better with age at this point in their careers. Quarterbacks in their prime usually don't decline for no apparent reason. How did Carson go from elite quarterback to a quarterback that we now officially win in spite of? It doesn't make sense. I'm a very logical person, so I try to find the logic in everything, however I'm having a hard time finding the logic in this one.

[BengalszoneBilly]

What happened to our Golden Boy? Where did he go wrong? In 2005, Carson led the league in touchdown passes (32) and was second in passer rating, an astounding 101.1. And in 2006, coming on a severe knee injury mind you, he was 2nd in TD passes with 28 and sixth in passer rating. After those two years, Carson was in the discussion of elite quarterbacks. Right up there with Manning and Brady. Then in 2007, he started to decline. My question is why? The skillset is there. Nothing seems to have changed except his age...and quarterbacks usually get better with age at this point in their careers. Quarterbacks in their prime usually don't decline for no apparent reason. How did Carson go from elite quarterback to a quarterback that we now officially win in spite of? It doesn't make sense. I'm a very logical person, so I try to find the logic in everything, however I'm having a hard time finding the logic in this one.

Merged with the topic already open.

[wpeldios]

What happened to our Golden Boy? Where did he go wrong? In 2005, Carson led the league in touchdown passes (32) and was second in passer rating, an astounding 101.1. And in 2006, coming on a severe knee injury mind you, he was 2nd in TD passes with 28 and sixth in passer rating. After those two years, Carson was in the discussion of elite quarterbacks. Right up there with Manning and Brady. Then in 2007, he started to decline. My question is why? The skillset is there. Nothing seems to have changed except his age...and quarterbacks usually get better with age at this point in their careers. Quarterbacks in their prime usually don't decline for no apparent reason. How did Carson go from elite quarterback to a quarterback that we now officially win in spite of? It doesn't make sense. I'm a very logical person, so I try to find the logic in everything, however I'm having a hard time finding the logic in this one.

I can handle this question easily.

2006 offensive line

Pre injury Levi Jones, Andrew Whitworth, Eric Stienbach, Bobbie Williams, Willie Anderson

2007 offensive line

Post injury Levi Jones, Andrew Whitworth, Eric Ghiaciuc, Bobbie Williams, Stacy Andrews

Mystery solved. Protect a quarterback and he can perform.

[kingwilly]

What happened to our Golden Boy? Where did he go wrong? In 2005, Carson led the league in touchdown passes (32) and was second in passer rating, an astounding 101.1. And in 2006, coming on a severe knee injury mind you, he was 2nd in TD passes with 28 and sixth in passer rating. After those two years, Carson was in the discussion of elite quarterbacks. Right up there with Manning and Brady. Then in 2007, he started to decline. My question is why? The skillset is there. Nothing seems to have changed except his age...and quarterbacks usually get better with age at this point in their careers. Quarterbacks in their prime usually don't decline for no apparent reason. How did Carson go from elite quarterback to a quarterback that we now officially win in spite of? It doesn't make sense. I'm a very logical person, so I try to find the logic in everything, however I'm having a hard time finding the logic in this one.

I can handle this question easily.

2006 offensive line

Pre injury Levi Jones, Andrew Whitworth, Eric Stienbach, Bobbie Williams, Willie Anderson

2007 offensive line

Post injury Levi Jones, Andrew Whitworth, Eric Ghiaciuc, Bobbie Williams, Stacy Andrews

Mystery solved. Protect a quarterback and he can perform.

Ok, fair enough.

Tell me then, what happened in 2008, before Palmer got hurt (elbow)?

Starting Line =

Jones - Whit - Gaychic - Williams - Andrews

Hmmmm......

Is it a lack of WR? nope. Chad. TJ (in a contract year, no less). Holt. Chatman.

Is it the running game? maybe. Watson and Perry.... Not ideal.

The line gave up 9 sacks in 3 games, 6 against the Giants alone, where he was hurt.

It was partly the line but also the D.

I am not convinced.

[Stripes]

Relatively light on the 'big boy' words.....nice job!

That was your problem? Sheesh, don't blame me for your vocabulary shortcomings.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

What happened to our Golden Boy? Where did he go wrong?

In addition to the OL reason given, he was advised to get Tommy John surgery and didn't. To what extend that affects him now, I can't say.

One other difference from 2006 to 2007 that just occurs to me? Hue Jackson left. I realize he wasn't a QB coach, but the connection between Carson and his receivers (and not just Chad) hasn't been the same since he left.

[HairOnFire]

I'll throw this into the mix.

A poster on the GoBengals messageboard broke down every pass play against the Ravens and confirmed that the pass protection was actually very good on nearly every play. In fact, on most of Palmer's miscues it was claimed that Palmer actually had more time to throw than he took.

So what was the problem?

Well, according to the guy who did the breakdown the biggest failure was Palmer's game long habit of forcing balls to Chad and Owens rather than checking down to open recievers. In a few of those examples the poster claimed Shipley should have been targeted, but time and time again the most cited error was a failure to check down to an uncovered Bernard Scott. In fact, the guy claimed Scott could have easily scored on more than one occasion if he had been targeted simply because the Raven defense was all but ignoring Scott.

If true, and I'm not doubting the analysis one bit, the current problem in the passing game isn't rooted in a failure to be uptempo and wide open, but rather....a failure to accept what's being given.

[COB]

Just as I suspected. Dysfunctional douchebags f**king up the good guys on this team. Palmer knows the whining he'll have to endure from his prima donnas, so he tries to jam it to them whenever he can.

Be a f**king man. Run the ball.

[cincyhokie]

I'll throw this into the mix.

A poster on the GoBengals messageboard broke down every pass play against the Ravens and confirmed that the pass protection was actually very good on nearly every play. In fact, on most of Palmer's miscues it was claimed that Palmer actually had more time to throw than he took.

So what was the problem?

Well, according to the guy who did the breakdown the biggest failure was Palmer's game long habit of forcing balls to Chad and Owens rather than checking down to open recievers. In a few of those examples the poster claimed Shipley should have been targeted, but time and time again the most cited error was a failure to check down to an uncovered Bernard Scott. In fact, the guy claimed Scott could have easily scored on more than one occasion if he had been targeted simply because the Raven defense was all but ignoring Scott.

If true, and I'm not doubting the analysis one bit, the current problem in the passing game isn't rooted in a failure to be uptempo and wide open, but rather....a failure to accept what's being given.

At this point, I'd say that's still speculation. Shipley has 10 catches for over 110 yards, tied for first for rookies. Gresham has also been a contributor thus far to the offense, save the INT for the TD. If anything, Palmer just isn't good at his reads. Maybe he's not used to having so much time. Still doesn't explain his much more efficient performance in the no-huddle.

Isn't Chad consistently saying "give the ball to Cedric"? I know he's quoted that this week. Or is that BS?

[HairOnFire]

At this point, I'd say that's still speculation. Shipley has 10 catches for over 110 yards, tied for first for rookies. Gresham has also been a contributor thus far to the offense, save the INT for the TD. If anything, Palmer just isn't good at his reads.

Right, but I think the larger point being made was in regards to Scott...who didn't catch a single pass against Baltimore.