bye ced

[HoosierCat]

I wish I had a photo shop program I would take a cartoon of Mr. Koolaidman and put Hater across him.

I'm sure it's out there if your google-fu is good enough...

[cHaD711Johnson]

I'd really love to draftTrent Richardson this off-season.. I like Ced, but little comments like this turn me off. I'd also like to see Bernard get more carries, as most of us do.

So you don't like LeMichael James? I have always been impressed when I watch Lattimore from South Carolina. What if Dyer has a down year and drops to the second round?

Save the first round pick for drafting a RT that can pass block AND run block. Or use the first round pick on Simpson's replacement (Michael Floyd).

I prefer a power back like Richardson. We can draft Simpson's replacement in later rounds and pick him up as a steal. Devier Posey from the Buckeyes. I think that the hometown kid would be a steal in R3-4, unless he kills the combine and finds himself in the 2nd round.

[Spor_tees]

I'd really love to draftTrent Richardson this off-season.. I like Ced, but little comments like this turn me off. I'd also like to see Bernard get more carries, as most of us do.

So you don't like LeMichael James? I have always been impressed when I watch Lattimore from South Carolina. What if Dyer has a down year and drops to the second round?

Save the first round pick for drafting a RT that can pass block AND run block. Or use the first round pick on Simpson's replacement (Michael Floyd).

I prefer a power back like Richardson. We can draft Simpson's replacement in later rounds and pick him up as a steal. Devier Posey from the Buckeyes. I think that the hometown kid would be a steal in R3-4, unless he kills the combine and finds himself in the 2nd round.

I think replacing Andre Smith and moving him to guard to replace Bobbie after this year would be a larger need than anything else. There are always free agent rent-a-backs out there that can be a stop gap for a year.

[walzav29]

Benson drives me nute with these comments. Everyone wants to run the ball, but if it isn't working you have to throw it and vice-versa. Does he think we can just run it 50 times against Pittsburgh and Baltimore? If he's getting 2 yards a carry, they can't keep running it. He's done really well here, but if he wasn't getting in trouble all of the time and had a giant contract. He would be a huge pain in the A$$. By the way, we could get win #3 Sunday. We didn't get the 3rd win last year until week 15.

[bwillycuse]

Benson drives me nute with these comments. Everyone wants to run the ball, but if it isn't working you have to throw it and vice-versa. Does he think we can just run it 50 times against Pittsburgh and Baltimore? If he's getting 2 yards a carry, they can't keep running it. He's done really well here, but if he wasn't getting in trouble all of the time and had a giant contract. He would be a huge pain in the A$$. By the way, we could get win #3 Sunday. We didn't get the 3rd win last year until week 15.

He is only hurting himself by making this public. Bengals will pay him less, other teams will pay him less. Who wants someone constantly talking to the media about not being happy about how the teams offense is run. Especially with all the baggage he carries.

Digging his own grave IMO. Seriously, cant he just shut up and play. Doesn't he realize he is becoming more and more of a punchline across the league.

Keep it in the locker room Ced. As stated above, you may be correct in what you say. But who you say it to only disrupts the team and makes you look even worse than before.

[derekshank]

He is only hurting himself by making this public.

Fair enough. But that still doesn't make him wrong.

Don't let Hoosier fool you. Just because he gets a lot of carries doesn't mean the Bengals are committed to the run. What down are the running the ball on? What formation are the running the ball from?

Look at the difference between 2009 and 2010. What changed? Not the number of carries. Not the personnel. It was the commitment. Instead of a power running game, Brat decided to try and run out of 3WR and 4WR sets.

Without wasting a large quantities of time (like I did last year at this time) and going through every offensive psnap this season, it seems to me that Dalton has had most of his success from play-action and running formations on non-passing downs. In other words... when the opposing defense knows the Bengals want to run the ball, that allows the Bengals to pass the ball.

For what it's worth... I'm not a huge Benson fan. I see him as an inexpensive and adequate solution to missing out on drafting Daniel Thomas. I believe Benson is in his final season as a Bengal... and assuming they draft another adequate RB, I won't miss him. But again... that doesn't make him wrong.

[skyline]

He is only hurting himself by making this public.

For what it's worth... I'm not a huge Benson fan. I see him as an inexpensive and adequate solution to missing out on drafting Daniel Thomas. I believe Benson is in his final season as a Bengal... and assuming they draft another adequate RB, I won't miss him. But again... that doesn't make him wrong.

Right or wrong, it still makes him yet another whiny, me-first guy. We seem to have purged most of those from our roster. I'll be happy when we purge this one at the end of the season.

[gregstephens]

He is only hurting himself by making this public.

For what it's worth... I'm not a huge Benson fan. I see him as an inexpensive and adequate solution to missing out on drafting Daniel Thomas. I believe Benson is in his final season as a Bengal... and assuming they draft another adequate RB, I won't miss him. But again... that doesn't make him wrong.

Right or wrong, it still makes him yet another whiny, me-first guy. We seem to have purged most of those from our roster. I'll be happy when we purge this one at the end of the season.

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, Ced is a bruiser that, when used properly, not only is capable of good gains, but more importantly punishes defenses.

On the other hand, he can't seem to stay out of trouble, which makes him immediately counterproductive to the environment the Bengals are supposedly trying to finally create.

On the third hand, skyline is right. Ced's attitude seems to leave something to be desired. A high-powered runner should be the Bengals priority to the tune of being one of the first two rounds.

[derekshank]

A high-powered runner should be the Bengals priority to the tune of being one of the first two rounds.

I really like Trent Richardson.

I would happily lead the march to draft him next year they way Hair did for A.J. Green... but I just have trouble advocating an early 1st round pick on a workhorse RB, when that type of player's shelf life is usually nearing it's end by the last year of his rookie contract.

[derekshank]

Right or wrong, it still makes him yet another whiny, me-first guy. We seem to have purged most of those from our roster. I'll be happy when we purge this one at the end of the season.

Again... fair enough.

Last year I found his comments to be a breath of fresh air, because when everyone else was talking about why the passing game wasn't clicking, and how they should be putting up eye-popping stats... he was talking about a formula for winning games.

But I'll admit that his comments this year are coming off a bit more selfish. And yet... I still agree with the premise.

[walzav29]

The more I think about it, the more annoyed I am with Cedric Bensons big mouth. Everyone including himself talked about the diva wr's were a distraction last year. It seems to me he was just jealous that they were getting the media attention over himself. They're 2-2 and have a real chance at being 4-2

[HoosierCat]

Don't let Hoosier fool you.

Certainly not. I completely agree there's no need to listen to me thanks to the fine job you're doing of demonstrating the team's commitment to the run. First you helpfully pointed out two successful drives in which they ran 14 out of a possible 16 times, and now you note that they've gone away from "bombs away!" looks to formations that enable either the run or play-action passing.

As for 2009 v. 2010, how about 2010 v. 2011? I haven't heard any complaints this season about them using the shotgun on third-and-short, or trying to force-feed wide receivers or lining up in empty-backfield sets. All of these issues were offered up as examples of how they weren't committed to the run last season, and apparently they've all disappeared now.

I just don't see where Benson has much room to complain. The OC he said he wouldn't play for? Gone. Pass-happy offensive system? Gone. Touches? On pace for 300+. You would think he'd be happy as a pig in sh*t, but apparently not.

[derekshank]

Don't let Hoosier fool you.

First you helpfully pointed out two successful drives in which they ran 14 out of a possible 16 times, and now you note that they've gone away from "bombs away!" looks to formations that enable either the run or play-action passing.

Yep. It is in those scenarios when I am at my happiest.

But apparently Benson agrees with me that if it is works, why stop? There have still been plenty of occasions when Gruden gets a little bit too cute... often resulting in 3-and-outs.

As for 2009 v. 2010, how about 2010 v. 2011? I haven't heard any complaints this season about them using the shotgun on third-and-short, or trying to force-feed wide receivers or lining up in empty-backfield sets.

Well... thankfully they have been running the ball on 3rd and short. And if you'll notice, they've been effective (4 of the 5 third down conversions against Buffalo were on the ground).

Unfortunately though, 3rd down has often been 3rd-and-long because of an incomplete pass on 1st down. And many of those incompletions have come from passing formations. If you want to read the complaints... you'll find plenty of them in the game thread. Lots of complaints about the play-calling in the first half last week resulting in Dalton completing something like 6 of his first 20 pass attempts.

[Spor_tees]

Don't let Hoosier fool you.

Certainly not. I completely agree there's no need to listen to me thanks to the fine job you're doing of demonstrating the team's commitment to the run. First you helpfully pointed out two successful drives in which they ran 14 out of a possible 16 times, and now you note that they've gone away from "bombs away!" looks to formations that enable either the run or play-action passing.

As for 2009 v. 2010, how about 2010 v. 2011? I haven't heard any complaints this season about them using the shotgun on third-and-short, or trying to force-feed wide receivers or lining up in empty-backfield sets. All of these issues were offered up as examples of how they weren't committed to the run last season, and apparently they've all disappeared now.

I just don't see where Benson has much room to complain. The OC he said he wouldn't play for? Gone. Pass-happy offensive system? Gone. Touches? On pace for 300+. You would think he'd be happy as a pig in sh*t, but apparently not.

You're exactly right Hoosier. It's easy to cherry pick parts of a game and say, "See this is when they are the most successful!" Derek what would you consider a successful percentage in football? What I mean by that is, if you take into account the number of times the team runs on first and second down, and then are forced to throw on third down and eventually have to punt, versus those successful TD drives, what makes the philosophy good?

You also seem to leave out the drives where Dalton throws a bomb to Green or Simpson and the Bengals score in one just a couple plays or less. Like I said earlier if there is a drive during the game where it seems the Bengals might be moving away from the run, it just might be that the coaches see something in the defense they can take advantage of in the passing game, OR simply Dalton doing an audible because he sees a mismatch like Green in single coverage with no safety help.

There are so many variables in football and you can't criticize something without knowing all the details. Unfortunately, we as fans will never really know what is going on between Dalton and Gruden all the time nor what plays are audibles (correct or incorrect) or not.

[Spor_tees]

Don't let Hoosier fool you.

First you helpfully pointed out two successful drives in which they ran 14 out of a possible 16 times, and now you note that they've gone away from "bombs away!" looks to formations that enable either the run or play-action passing.

Yep. It is in those scenarios when I am at my happiest.

But apparently Benson agrees with me that if it is works, why stop? There have still been plenty of occasions when Gruden gets a little bit too cute... often resulting in 3-and-outs.

Derek I will admit that in recent history that when the Bengals have had a 100 yard rusher in a game that their winning percentage is insanely better than without, BUT I would like to point out there are several ways to get a guy 100 yards rushing without him rushing the ball 40 times. Backs in a West Coast offense get 100 yards all the time, yet the overall percentage of run to pass ratio is usually pretty even or leans more on the pass. Of coarse a lot of those passes are short and might as well be pitches or long handoffs. If I was to give you a recent example, look at Brian Westbrook when he was with the Eagles. He could 100 yards rushing and rack up quite a few receiving yards. Honestly, Scott would make a much better West Coast offense back than Benson.

[derekshank]

You also seem to leave out the drives where Dalton throws a bomb to Green or Simpson and the Bengals score in one just a couple plays or less.

No I don't. That bomb to Green was set up by the Bengals successful running game.

By the way... weren't you the one complaining the loudest about the play-calling?

[Spor_tees]

You also seem to leave out the drives where Dalton throws a bomb to Green or Simpson and the Bengals score in one just a couple plays or less.

No I don't. That bomb to Green was set up by the Bengals successful running game.

By the way... weren't you the one complaining the loudest about the play-calling?

Yes I have been, but my argument goes along with my example of the Eagles and Brian Westbrook. We did finally see some screens to Leonard this past week, both of which were successful. I think there was even a draw play. I also made a long post in a thread about how the Bengals could use a mismatch by putting Gresham and Green to the same side. The main point I have is, you can be a successful run oriented team without lining up double TE, unbalanced line and running the ball every play.

Quality > Qunatity

[derekshank]

The main point I have is, you can be a successful run oriented team without lining up double TE, unbalanced line and running the ball every play.

Perhaps... but the Bengals current roster certainly hasn't demonstrated this idea.

[Spor_tees]

Ok for s**ts and giggles I went through the first 4 games and calculated the number of plays, run plays, and passing plays on each scoring drive. Here are the results:

Cleveland Game

First FG 9 plays runs-5 pass-4

Gresham TD 7 plays runs-5 pass-2

FG 8 plays runs-4 pass-4

Green TD 5 plays runs-1 pass-4

Benson TD 3 plays runs-3 pass-0

Denver Game

FG 5 plays runs-1 pass-4

FG 6 plays runs-0 pass-6

Caldwell TD 6 plays runs-1 pass-5

FG 3 plays runs-1 pass-2

Green TD 4 plays runs-0 pass-4

San Fran Game

FG 11 plays runs-5 pass-6

FG 4 plays runs-2 pass-2

Buffalo Game

FG 8 plays runs-6 pass-2

FG 6 plays runs-4 pass-2

Gresham TD 7 plays runs-3 pass-4

Dalton TD 10 plays runs-5 pass-5

FG 6 plays runs-3 pass-3

Seems like most scoring drives are more pass oriented than run oriented.

[skyline]

Seems like most scoring drives are more pass oriented than run oriented.

To be exact, 8 of the scoring drives have favored more passing plays, 5 of them have featured more running plays, and 4 of them have been equal.

The difference is not astronomical, nor does it really mean very much. It doesn't give any insight as to whether where we were playing with a lead or playing from behind. It doesn't take into account anything regarding what the opposing defense was doing. It also doesn't take into account non-scoring drives which might indicate in certain games that the run simply wasn't working, which is why we reverted to the pass, etc.

In other words:

*shrug*

[gregstephens]

Seems like most scoring drives are more pass oriented than run oriented.

To be exact, 8 of the scoring drives have favored more passing plays, 5 of them have featured more running plays, and 4 of them have been equal.

The difference is not astronomical, nor does it really mean very much. It doesn't give any insight as to whether where we were playing with a lead or playing from behind. It doesn't take into account anything regarding what the opposing defense was doing. It also doesn't take into account non-scoring drives which might indicate in certain games that the run simply wasn't working, which is why we reverted to the pass, etc.

In other words:

*shrug*

It also doesn't take into account the defense we are playing against. There may be weeks it makes sense to run 40 times a game because a run defense sucks. May be weeks we ask Red Velvet to throw 40 times because of a weak secondary. Just not a fan of demanding a vanilla set game plan for all occasions.

[skyline]

Seems like most scoring drives are more pass oriented than run oriented.

To be exact, 8 of the scoring drives have favored more passing plays, 5 of them have featured more running plays, and 4 of them have been equal.

The difference is not astronomical, nor does it really mean very much. It doesn't give any insight as to whether where we were playing with a lead or playing from behind. It doesn't take into account anything regarding what the opposing defense was doing. It also doesn't take into account non-scoring drives which might indicate in certain games that the run simply wasn't working, which is why we reverted to the pass, etc.

In other words:

*shrug*

It also doesn't take into account the defense we are playing against.

*ahem*

[gregstephens]

Seems like most scoring drives are more pass oriented than run oriented.

To be exact, 8 of the scoring drives have favored more passing plays, 5 of them have featured more running plays, and 4 of them have been equal.

The difference is not astronomical, nor does it really mean very much. It doesn't give any insight as to whether where we were playing with a lead or playing from behind. It doesn't take into account anything regarding what the opposing defense was doing. It also doesn't take into account non-scoring drives which might indicate in certain games that the run simply wasn't working, which is why we reverted to the pass, etc.

In other words:

*shrug*

It also doesn't take into account the defense we are playing against.

*ahem*

Oh come now...you don't actually expect me to READ all that before commenting, do you?

Ok, now I guess I know how Derek feels.

[Spor_tees]

Seems like most scoring drives are more pass oriented than run oriented.

To be exact, 8 of the scoring drives have favored more passing plays, 5 of them have featured more running plays, and 4 of them have been equal.

The difference is not astronomical, nor does it really mean very much. It doesn't give any insight as to whether where we were playing with a lead or playing from behind. It doesn't take into account anything regarding what the opposing defense was doing. It also doesn't take into account non-scoring drives which might indicate in certain games that the run simply wasn't working, which is why we reverted to the pass, etc.

In other words:

*shrug*

It also doesn't take into account the defense we are playing against. There may be weeks it makes sense to run 40 times a game because a run defense sucks. May be weeks we ask Red Velvet to throw 40 times because of a weak secondary. Just not a fan of demanding a vanilla set game plan for all occasions.

See there is the rub. Basically the team told the fans that they were going to be a run heavy team and they were no longer going to follow Brat's philosophy of letting the other team's defense dictating what the offense would run. They also agreed to get rid of a lot of the audible heavy lingo that was causing so many delays of game and false starts. So I don't think the fact that the Bengals have continued as a more heavily (not by too much) team is a result of what other teams is giving them, as much as I think Gruden believe with AJ Green and Gresham that they should be throwing the ball more. I think another factor leading into the extra passing is that the offensive line just isn't set up right now to be a power running team. How can you be when your left guard gets blown up 50% of the time or more and the starting veteran right guard has been out with suspension.

[HairOnFire]

I really like Trent Richardson.

I would happily lead the march to draft him next year they way Hair did for A.J. Green... but I just have trouble advocating an early 1st round pick on a workhorse RB, when that type of player's shelf life is usually nearing it's end by the last year of his rookie contract.

If you don't mind me asking, does Richardson rank amongst the very best players likely to be available in the draft?

Frankly, it's way too early for me to pick a horse for next years race, but I'm fine with the idea of drafting a RB in the 1st round if the player is truly special, as I believed AJ Green was. In fact, my open disdain for drafting yet another WR is well documented, but I found myself pimping Green despite all of that precisely because I felt he was the very best player in the entire draft, but due to the positon he played wouldn't be one of the very first selected. Best, his selection allowed the Bengals to get rid of a player I no longer wanted under any circumstance, something that isn't true, at least for me, in regards to Benson.