Depth

[HoosierCat]

Nah.

We don't have to be New England.

Not saying we do. But his comments about Eifert are pretty conventional. Maybe a two TE lineup if he can block, Jermaine's backup, maybe a swap for Sanu in the slot. Nothing you couldn't say about Charles or Coffman or any other TE they've had.

[Stripes]

Nah.

We don't have to be New England.

Not saying we do. But his comments about Eifert are pretty conventional. Maybe a two TE lineup if he can block, Jermaine's backup, maybe a swap for Sanu in the slot. Nothing you couldn't say about Charles or Coffman or any other TE they've had.

That's just it, I think. These concepts aren't new, but they're actually applicable and reasonable now assuming Eifert pans out. The existence of these notions in the playbook wasn't noteworthy before because Coffman, Charles, etc. weren't good enough to make it a consistently sensible approach. Now they have more freedom to exercise that ability on the field because they just drafted a player who gives them that freedom.

It's probably not their only motive for making Eifert a first round pick, but it's definitely a part of it.

[redsbengalsbucks]

"We featured probably more of the personnel groupings with one tight end and one back and three receivers. It's very easy to take out that third receiver and put a tight end in there and call the same plays," he says. "A lot of it is the same thing. It's a matter of keeping the personnel on the field that you want to dictate. If (the defense) wants to play nickel, we'll match up. If they want to use base, it's a good deal for us.

IMO this statement is exactly why another TE will not be as potent with the Bengals as it can be. The coaches still have the mind set of playing against what the defense is doing, not dictating how the game will be played. It seems to me that good Offensive teams play the style that they want and dictate how the D has to compensate for them not the other way around.

With all the talent they now have, why not go out and do what you want on offense until the opposing team stops you from doing it. In other words, play to your strengths not your opponents weaknesses.

[skyline]

"We featured probably more of the personnel groupings with one tight end and one back and three receivers. It's very easy to take out that third receiver and put a tight end in there and call the same plays," he says. "A lot of it is the same thing. It's a matter of keeping the personnel on the field that you want to dictate. If (the defense) wants to play nickel, we'll match up. If they want to use base, it's a good deal for us.

IMO this statement is exactly why another TE will not be as potent with the Bengals as it can be. The coaches still have the mind set of playing against what the defense is doing, not dictating how the game will be played. It seems to me that good Offensive teams play the style that they want and dictate how the D has to compensate for them not the other way around.

With all the talent they now have, why not go out and do what you want on offense until the opposing team stops you from doing it. In other words, play to your strengths not your opponents weaknesses.

This is all wordplay that amounts to exactly the same thing.

Yes, you want the offense to take charge and have the defense scrambling to keep up. That said, if the defense comes out in a nickel package, then you would be stupid to try and throw it anyway. The appropriate response would be to run the ball and if you have two versatile TEs on the field that are capable of both running routes AND blocking in the run game, then this is something that you're more easily able to do.

Football is like chess game. Yes, you want to take command and dictate overall play (tempo and initiative in chess lingo), but if you just ignore what the defense is doing, then you are going to lose.

[redsbengalsbucks]

"We featured probably more of the personnel groupings with one tight end and one back and three receivers. It's very easy to take out that third receiver and put a tight end in there and call the same plays," he says. "A lot of it is the same thing. It's a matter of keeping the personnel on the field that you want to dictate. If (the defense) wants to play nickel, we'll match up. If they want to use base, it's a good deal for us.

IMO this statement is exactly why another TE will not be as potent with the Bengals as it can be. The coaches still have the mind set of playing against what the defense is doing, not dictating how the game will be played. It seems to me that good Offensive teams play the style that they want and dictate how the D has to compensate for them not the other way around.

With all the talent they now have, why not go out and do what you want on offense until the opposing team stops you from doing it. In other words, play to your strengths not your opponents weaknesses.

This is all wordplay that amounts to exactly the same thing.

Yes, you want the offense to take charge and have the defense scrambling to keep up. That said, if the defense comes out in a nickel package, then you would be stupid to try and throw it anyway. The appropriate response would be to run the ball and if you have two versatile TEs on the field that are capable of both running routes AND blocking in the run game, then this is something that you're more easily able to do.

Football is like chess game. Yes, you want to take command and dictate overall play (tempo and initiative in chess lingo), but if you just ignore what the defense is doing, then you are going to lose.

I agree to a point, especially when talking about a team that is as good or better than yours. The problem I see with this style of counterattacking the defense is when your talent could overmatch whatever pass defense is on the feild and just because the other team is playing nickel, you run for 2-3 yards against the stregth of a bad teams defense. This can go the other way also, there are many times when the Bengals give up on the run game because the other team starts to stack the box. Sure pass more often but dont allow the defense to take away part of your game, unless they prove they can stop it. Not just because they started playing a defense that is geared to try and stop it.

For examples of this bad idea, see almost every game the Bengals have played against teams they should have pounded the past two years. For far to long they have allowed other teams to dictate the game on both sides of the football. Why play the style of offense that thier defense wants you to all day long. And why not start dictating what other offenses can do with the pressure the D-line can now put on the other teams plans to pass or run at the line of scrimmage.

At least some of the time, line up your best players with your best plays and have at it, no matter how the other team lines up!

[HoosierCat]

I have to disagree, sky. It isn't wordplay, and ideally your offense dictates far more than tempo. There's a world of difference between imposing your will and taking what the defense gives you. If you have the talent to do the former, only the most talented defenses make you take notice of them.

We saw this in Cincinnati back in 2005. Protected by the best o-line in football, a pre-injury Carson Palmer sliced teams apart because hardly anyone had the personnel to march up with Chad, TJ and Henry. When they chose, FO example, to run instead against a favorable formation, it was because they wanted to, not because the defense was dictating anything or because it would be stupid to pass.

Obviously, we haven't had that kind of talent here in a long time. Instead it's been a lot more taking what the defense gives and as a result out offense has been depressingly predictable and only marginally effective. I believe we finally have the talent to get back to dictating on offense. We'll see if Jay gets that.

[redsbengalsbucks]

I have to disagree, sky. It isn't wordplay, and ideally your offense dictates far more than tempo. There's a world of difference between imposing your will and taking what the defense gives you. If you have the talent to do the former, only the most talented defenses make you take notice of them.

We saw this in Cincinnati back in 2005. Protected by the best o-line in football, a pre-injury Carson Palmer sliced teams apart because hardly anyone had the personnel to march up with Chad, TJ and Henry. When they chose, FO example, to run instead against a favorable formation, it was because they wanted to, not because the defense was dictating anything or because it would be stupid to pass.

Obviously, we haven't had that kind of talent here in a long time. Instead it's been a lot more taking what the defense gives and as a result out offense has been depressingly predictable and only marginally effective. I believe we finally have the talent to get back to dictating on offense. We'll see if Jay gets that.

OK, when did we pass into Bizzaro world. That is like 3-4 times that Hooosier and I have agreed in the last few weeks. I'm beginning to think I maybe a CYLON.

[skyline]

I have to disagree, sky. It isn't wordplay, and ideally your offense dictates far more than tempo. There's a world of difference between imposing your will and taking what the defense gives you. If you have the talent to do the former, only the most talented defenses make you take notice of them.

We saw this in Cincinnati back in 2005. Protected by the best o-line in football, a pre-injury Carson Palmer sliced teams apart because hardly anyone had the personnel to march up with Chad, TJ and Henry. When they chose, FO example, to run instead against a favorable formation, it was because they wanted to, not because the defense was dictating anything or because it would be stupid to pass.

Obviously, we haven't had that kind of talent here in a long time. Instead it's been a lot more taking what the defense gives and as a result out offense has been depressingly predictable and only marginally effective. I believe we finally have the talent to get back to dictating on offense. We'll see if Jay gets that.

Not really.

Do you remember when Manning would come to Cincy with the Colts and completely carve us up? We'd try to take away the deep ball and he'd just complete one 10-15 yard pass after another. Then, we'd try to tighten our coverage up, and he'd kills us over the top. And, since we were so worried about the pass, they could pretty much run at will. What were we going to do to stop it? Our defense was running around like crazy, but they were always one step ahead of anything we wanted to do. An exercise in futility if you will. You may not call this an offense "imposing it's will", but who really cares? I guarantee that's pretty much what it felt like to the Bengals at the time.

Now, let's take your example. A team is playing to stop the pass, but you pass it anyway because you have a talented roster like we had and you know you can be successful. Or, they load up the box, and you run it anyway and have success in doing so. But, this isn't a case of the coach ignoring the opposing defense. They are looking at the opposing defense, taking it into account, and running plays because they know they can be successful. Why? Because our guys can beat their guys one-on-one.

I would argue that the only difference in these two approaches is in perception. They both amount to same thing; a coach reading the opposing defense and putting their guys in a position to succeed. They also both result in the same thing; an offense scoring a ridiculous amount of points.

And, where I think we find our common ground is the fact that both approaches rely on the same thing, which is the talent necessary to pull it off. An offense needs versaitility, and assuming Eifert and Bernard pan out, this is something we finally have. When we line up in a two TE set, the defense should have no clue what we're going to do with that and that's exactly the vibe I'm getting from Gruden's comments.

I don't think there's any doubt that Jay "gets it". Now, whether or not he's able to successfully implement it, or whether Dalton is able to execute it, only time will tell.

[HoosierCat]

I would argue that the only difference in these two approaches is in perception.

If that's your argument, then we will have to agree to disagree. IMHO there is a big difference between doing what you want to do and doing what you're allowed to do. Manning would be a case in point; he doesn't even need an OC. He's a once-in-a-generation talent at the position. If the game were noting more than calling the appropriate play -- run or pass -- versus the defensive alignment, everyone would look like Peyton.

[skyline]

I would argue that the only difference in these two approaches is in perception.

If the game were noting more than calling the appropriate play -- run or pass -- versus the defensive alignment, everyone would look like Peyton.

That is obviously not my argument. You have to call not just run or pass, but the right type of run and the right type of pass at the right time. It also can't be based purely on defensive alignment because the particular matchups on the field will always come into play. This is why you're sometimes able to run successfully against a run-stopping defense or why you may pick the right call and still get burned because you decided to challenge a star player on the opposing defense. And after all of this is taken into account you still have to have the personnel to execute. There are a lot of variables. All I'm saying is that the defensive scheme is always taken into account whether you are "dictating" play or not.

If the defensive scheme doesn't have to be taken into account, then I completely agree with your last statement that Peyton's play-calling skills are not only highly overrated, but flat out irrelevant.

[HoosierCat]

I would argue that the only difference in these two approaches is in perception.

If the game were noting more than calling the appropriate play -- run or pass -- versus the defensive alignment, everyone would look like Peyton.

That is obviously not my argument...All I'm saying is that the defensive scheme is always taken into account whether you are "dictating" play or not.

I don't think anyone would argue that it isn't. What I'm saying is that there's a difference between basing your attack on how the defense is lined up, and basing your attack on your offensive talent, that's more than just semantics. And it sounds to me that Gruden is still thinking along the lines of the former instance. I don't think that's particularly surprising since the offense has not exactly been stacked the last couple of years, and he has yet to actually see how guys like Eifert perform in real-game situations. Assuming everyone works out as hoped (or hyped), there should come a point where he can be more aggressive. We'll see if he does.

[skyline]

I would argue that the only difference in these two approaches is in perception.

If the game were noting more than calling the appropriate play -- run or pass -- versus the defensive alignment, everyone would look like Peyton.

That is obviously not my argument...All I'm saying is that the defensive scheme is always taken into account whether you are "dictating" play or not.

What I'm saying is that there's a difference between basing your attack on how the defense is lined up, and basing your attack on your offensive talent, that's more than just semantics.

I understand what you're saying, but you act like it's going to be one or the other. You always base your attack on BOTH of those things. Always. You may go ahead and decide to pass into a pass-oriented defense which is what you're describing, but only because you've analyzed specific matchups and believe that your guys can win. My TE can beat THAT linebacker, my T can decimate their DE, etc.

Why you think Jay Gruden's comments indicate otherwise is beyond me. What I've gotten from his comments so far:

1) We don't have to rewrite the playbook. This is true...the semi-WCO offense should be fine. It's a flexible offense to begin with and now we have the offensive personnel to better take advantage of it (especially the RB catching passes).

2) Last year we ran 2 TE sets about 28% of the time and 3 receiver sets over 50% of the time. Now we can increase the percentage of 2 TE sets run, but still have the versatility to run the same plays we called when we used 3 receivers. So, essentially, he can now leave 2 TEs in the game more often because of his newfound ability to run whatever he wants to run out of that particular personnel grouping. He can pretend he has 4 receivers on the field, load up the line and run the ball, or pretty much everything in between from a single personnel grouping. Sounds like ability to "dictate" the defenses actions to me. You've argued that he could have done this in the past and have opted not to, but the Bengals staff obviously feels that Eifert is head and shoulders better than any #2 TE they've had in the past, Charles included.

3) If the defense wants to run nickel, we'll match up. If they want to run base, it's a good deal for us. This is what I assume you're reacting to. I don't think he means "we'll match up" as a passive approach. I think it means that we have the personnel on the field to handle it, and if they want to run the base, we're good with that too. A.K.A. who cares what the defense does? We've got the versatility on the field to handle anything they throw at us.

[HoosierCat]

I understand what you're saying, but you act like it's going to be one or the other. You always base your attack on BOTH of those things. Always.

In practical terms (in other words, when actually making the calls during the game) yes, you should. Either extreme is likely to quickly create problems. Too much focus on what the defense is doing makes the offense predictable and easy to stop. Too much "my way to the highway" and you become the 2001 version of Mike Martz, continuing to pass into the teeth of New England's six-DB defense when you could just hand the ball to Faulk for easy first downs.

But I think which mindset you approach the game with is also important. Are you primarily concerned with what you are going to do, or what they are going to do? To do the former requires a talent advantage that I think the team has, and I want to see more of that approach this season. So far, Jay's comments suggest tweaks to me more than anything else. And again, that may be just a desire to wait and see, something he mentions at the end of the piece.