Dillon vs. Rudi

[Thepup]

I know some have said Rudi is having a better first season than CD and he is on pace for a better career.You have to remember the teams CD played on and what Rudi is getting to play with,Rudi would have been lucky to have 700 yrds a season with those teams.You can't get mad at CD,he just got tired of losing,all he did for this team and then he felt like he wasn't getting treated fairly by Marvin.Not taking up for CD,I would rather have Marvin than CD.

[oldschooler]

My second point was that our run defense sucks balls and that you taking away Jamal's 2 big runs and saying that he only gained 60 yards doesn't change that. It sucks plus it gives up big plays; it doesn't only suck because of the big plays (although it is a large contributing factor). My second point is the paragraph that begins with the word secondly.

I agree that Rudi is a good back. He's just not Dillon. The fact that he has gone up against such good defenses holds a lot of water, as does the fact that his stats have improved as defenses have had to worry about the pass more. I completely disagree that our run defense is good except for giving up the big play, which was my second point. Joisey Cat jumped in and took the post completely out of context.

OH !

I agree they haven`t looked great.

The Bengals D gave up 802 yards rushing in the 1st FIVEGAMES !!!!

They gave up an average of 160.4 yards a game.

And had a 1-4 start

In the 7 games since then they have allowed 901 yars rushing

an average of 128.7 yards a game.

Still not great but if you take into account that there

9 players from the defense placed on season

ending IR and another 4 that are injured....13 players total.

And 6 rookies or 2nd year players forced to play....then it

looks pretty damn good that they have IMPROVED.

[redsfan2]

From redsfan2:

Yawn !!!!!!!!

Sorry to bore you, old chum, but I obviously have too much time on my hands! Good to see you back.

Joisey ....... Howyoudoin???

Your point about the Bengals D having problems with giving up the big play is probably the most cogent on the topic.

Your posts are a lot of things ............. sometimes I agree and sometimes I just doesn't get it ..... But you're never boring.

[redsfan2]

Been gone too long. Unfortunately unavoidable. Been keeping an eye on things, but haven't really had time for a good sit down with you guys till now.

Good to see all the new faces ..... and most of the old ones as well.

Keep ya busy, eh? Do you get Sirius? If not, and if you can, you should look into getting it if your on the road to listen to the Bengals.... I think Sirius does MLB also, and you can never get enough of the Reds..

Been running my short chunky legs right off of me ............ Off topic tho ( and you know how the mods can be here ) so I'll leave you a message over in General Discussions.

[HoosierCat]

redsfan2:

Joisey ....... Howyoudoin???

Your point about the Bengals D having problems with giving up the big play is probably the most cogent on the topic.

Your posts are a lot of things ............. sometimes I agree and sometimes I just doesn't get it ..... But you're never boring. 

Oh, hell, I'm a pain in the a$$. Even if I forget my wife never fails to remind me! But thanks. Stick around, things may really get interesting if the Bengals manage to upset the Pats.

oldschooler:

In the 7 games since then they have allowed 901 yars rushing

an average of 128.7 yards a game.

Still not great

But not bad either (and as you note a heck of an improvement). 128 yards for the season would rank them around 23rd in rushing yards, per nfl.com's stats, and the difference between that and about 14th is about 10 yards/game. They aren't a top run D by any means -- and I never said they were -- but they're much better than they seem to be getting credit for.

[rudi05]

Rudi Rudi Rudi!!!

[redsfan2]

redsfan2:

Joisey ....... Howyoudoin???

Your point about the Bengals D having problems with giving up the big play is probably the most cogent on the topic.

Your posts are a lot of things ............. sometimes I agree and sometimes I just doesn't get it ..... But you're never boring. 

Oh, hell, I'm a pain in the a$$. Even if I forget my wife never fails to remind me! But thanks. Stick around, things may really get interesting if the Bengals manage to upset the Pats.

That would be SWEET !

There'd be an official Palmer fan club on here ( if there isn't already ) and the posts and posters would triple ... again.

And wives are always good for reminding us what pain the the asses we are.

[Dirtywater]

Who cares who's better? Both teams seem to be doing just fine with that deal. Rudi is kicking ass for your team, and Dillon has been better than advertised (labeled a headcase but has been a saint) for us.

Should be a great game on Sunday and I hope both teams stay healthy. May the best team win.

DW

[redsfan2]

Who cares who's better? Both teams seem to be doing just fine with that deal. Rudi is kicking ass for your team, and Dillon has been better than advertised (labeled a headcase but has been a saint) for us.

Should be a great game on Sunday and I hope both teams stay healthy. May the best team win.

DW

Well said.

Hoping for a game with a lot of good plays and no injuries to either side. The Bills Trolls could take a lesson from you ... if they could read.

Glad your guys didn't catch anything from them when they played you. Those social diseases can be nasty you know. Our guys are getting latex gloves and face masks for the game when they come to Cincy. It'll probably cost a ton to disinfect the visitors locker room too, but we have to before the next team will use it.

[jtsmith38]

Ask the TEAM who they would want to be built around, corey or Rudi? Theres your answer.

[Dirtywater]

Ask the TEAM who they would want to be built around, corey or Rudi? Theres your answer.

OK, but that is not the right question. Let's look at it from a balanced point of view.

If you were building a team that had experienced players, not building one from just the draft like an expansion team rather one that could compete right away with NFL tested players, but then had to finally choose a running back. Both Rudi & Corey are the same age, let's say 26.

Who would you choose for talent alone? Who would you choose for their attitude? And finally, if you had to pick one, who would you go for.

I can't say the decision would be easy on my end. I really respect Rudi quite a bit. He has a ton of talent and seems to have a great attitude.

On the flip side, the Dillon I've known has shown me a great "team" attitude. I have been surprised due to his past, but the surprise has been pleasent. Also, his talent has been amazing to me too. I am an NFL fan too, and have watched Dillon over the years and have always liked his running.

For me, the choice would be Dillon. Not an easy choice, but I feel he gives me the best chance to win.

- Side note, I am happy to see you guys finally get some wins. All the great fans of the Bengals who have had to put up with many seasons of losing records deserve this. Remember, us Pats fans went through many years of bad football.

Anyway, stay healthy and may the best team win.

DW

[Diesel]

Joisey,

I'll see if I can clear this up.

You said:

"The Bengals' problem against the run has not been a poor run defense per se, it's been giving up the big play, often on run but also on passes. Case in point is the infamous Baltimore game early this season when Jamal Lewis trampled the Bengals for 186. About 60 of those yards came on 15 runs. The other 125 came on two scampers resulting from missed tackles."

My response was:

"So you are saying that if we don't give up big runs then a 4 ypc average is good run defense. Usually running backs need the big runs just to get to the 4 ypc average. "

Then Old Schooler jumped in the argument with:

"The patriots are allowing an average of 4.0 yards per carry.

There are only 13 teams in the NFL that allow less than

4 yards per carry...and 1 is the 49`ers and another is the Raiders."

(I took this post to mean that he felt holding Jamal to 4 ypc excluding big runs was a good result)

My response to that was:

"Secondly: 13 teams allowing less than 4 ypc is over 40% of the league, and that includes big runs. That would put our run defense, based on the Jamal Lewis example, in the middle of the pack not including big plays, which obviously makes it worse. The flaw in your statement is that you did not see what the teams are allowing if you take away the big runs (defined as over say 12 yds?). If you do that analysis, I am willing to bet that over half of the teams in the league are holding RBs to less than 4 ypc. Hell, the Bengals might even be holding RBs to under 4 ypc. I said that RBs need big runs to get over the 4 ypc mark. So even if a back averaged 4.6 ypc, they may have averaged 3.2 ypc if you take away 2 or 3 big runs. Therefore, you are comparing apples to oranges and the analysis you gave holds no water."

Hope this clears it up. Also shows that I didn't mash two arguments together, but that Old Schooler jumped in. Anyway, my point was simply that Old Schooler's 4 ypc comparison of other teams' defenses to our defense against Jamal doesn't hold water. It doesn't make sense because he didn't take away the big runs from the other teams stats like he did the Bengals to get an apples to apples comparison. Also, your point about how Jamal didn't need the big runs to break the 4 ypc barrier helps to prove my point. It shows that while RBs need those runs to break the barrier against other teams, Jamal didn't need it against our team, thus our performance against him sucked.

[HoosierCat]

Yes, our performance against Jamal was poor -- but because of the two big runs we allowed, not because of his 4 yard average. You continue to ignore my point that, had we held him to that average on those two plays, he would have finished with about 70 yards and no TDs, versus 186 and 1 TD.

That a 70 yard, 0 TD day by Jamal would be considered poor run defense only points out that focusing on yards per carry is a poor measure of a run D's success. Oldschooler has already pointed out that the majority of teams in the league are allowing 4 or more yards per rush. And yes, that still leaves about 40% under that mark -- but of those teams, just one is significantly under 4 yards. That's the Skins, who are allowing 3.1 ypc. All the rest are allowing at least 3.5 ypc. Only 5 are allowing less than 3.7. If 4.0 is poor, what's 3.7? Or 3.5? Using YPC as the yardstick, run defense leaguewide appears to stink.

[oldschooler]

Joisey,

I'll see if I can clear this up.

You said:

"The Bengals' problem against the run has not been a poor run defense per se, it's been giving up the big play, often on run but also on passes. Case in point is the infamous Baltimore game early this season when Jamal Lewis trampled the Bengals for 186. About 60 of those yards came on 15 runs. The other 125 came on two scampers resulting from missed tackles."

My response was:

"So you are saying that if we don't give up big runs then a 4 ypc average is good run defense. Usually running backs need the big runs just to get to the 4 ypc average. "

Then Old Schooler jumped in the argument with:

"The patriots are allowing an average of 4.0 yards per carry.

There are only 13 teams in the NFL that allow less than

4 yards per carry...and 1 is the 49`ers and another is the Raiders."

(I took this post to mean that he felt holding Jamal to 4 ypc excluding big runs was a good result)

My response to that was:

"Secondly: 13 teams allowing less than 4 ypc is over 40% of the league, and that includes big runs. That would put our run defense, based on the Jamal Lewis example, in the middle of the pack not including big plays, which obviously makes it worse. The flaw in your statement is that you did not see what the teams are allowing if you take away the big runs (defined as over say 12 yds?). If you do that analysis, I am willing to bet that over half of the teams in the league are holding RBs to less than 4 ypc. Hell, the Bengals might even be holding RBs to under 4 ypc. I said that RBs need big runs to get over the 4 ypc mark. So even if a back averaged 4.6 ypc, they may have averaged 3.2 ypc if you take away 2 or 3 big runs. Therefore, you are comparing apples to oranges and the analysis you gave holds no water."

Hope this clears it up. Also shows that I didn't mash two arguments together, but that Old Schooler jumped in. Anyway, my point was simply that Old Schooler's 4 ypc comparison of other teams' defenses to our defense against Jamal doesn't hold water. It doesn't make sense because he didn't take away the big runs from the other teams stats like he did the Bengals to get an apples to apples comparison. Also, your point about how Jamal didn't need the big runs to break the 4 ypc barrier helps to prove my point. It shows that while RBs need those runs to break the barrier against other teams, Jamal didn't need it against our team, thus our performance against him sucked.

Well I was just saying what other teams allow 4 ypc.

The 49`ers allow less and they have 1 win all season.

As far as your arguement about taking other teams big runs

away....do you actually think I`m going to break down 31 other

teams run defenses ?

Anyway you said the Bengals have let "big runs" kill them.

Jets longest run 24 yards. (lost)

Miami longest run 8 yards. (won)

Ravens longest run 75 yards. (lost)

Steelers longest run 16 yards. (lost)

Browns longest run 26 yards. (lost)

Broncos longest run 13 yards (won)

Titans longest run 19 yards (lost)

Cowboys longest run 13 yards. (won)

Redskins longest run 11 yards (won)

Steelers longest run 11 yards (lost)

Browns longets run 46 yards (won)

Ravens longest run 47 yards (won)

I`m not sure what your point is though ?

2 out of the 3 games that they have allowed the longest

runs they WON. 2 out of 4 games that they allowed the longest

runs they WON.

So I`ll just direct you back to this post.

The Bengals D gave up 802 yards rushing in the 1st FIVEGAMES !!!!

They gave up an average of 160.4 yards a game.

And had a 1-4 start

In the 7 games since then they have allowed 901 yars rushing

an average of 128.7 yards a game.

Still not great but if you take into account that there

9 players from the defense placed on season

ending IR and another 4 that are injured....13 players total.

And 6 rookies or 2nd year players forced to play....then it

looks pretty damn good that they have IMPROVED.

[HoosierCat]

As far as your arguement about taking other teams big runs

away....do you actually think I`m going to break down 31 other

teams run defenses ? 

Actually, that would be more my point. And you're right, breaking that all down is somthing I'm not going to do unless someone pays me to! You can sort defensive rushing stats on nfl.com by number of 20 yard rushes allowed, tho, and that's fairly interesting. Here's the top third of the league:

Team 20+

San Diego 1

New England 2

Baltimore 2

Pittsburgh 4

San Francisco 4

Buffalo 4

Oakland 4

Jacksonville 5

Washington 5

Denver 6

Philadelphia 6

That's 8 playoff teams among the top 11, a pretty strong correlation. What I'd really like to do is match this up with something like, number of 20+ yard pass plays, which would help prove or disprove my "big play" theory one way or another. But nfl.com doesn't break that out...know anyplace that does?

[Diesel]

I know you're not going to break it down. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't a meaningful comparison.

[TubThumper]

I hope Corey Dillon continues to do well in New England, and I really hope Rudi continues to do well in Cincinnati (or anywhere else if the Bengals don't sign him). But at the moment, my favorite Bengal back is still Pete Johnson.

Pete Johnson understood football, was extremely athletic to be as big as he was, and was a master at taking the right angle to the hole and getting leverage at the point of attack. He busted up defenders and complemented the work of the big, masher-style offensive line the Bengals favored.

The bottom line on Pete Johnson was that when Pete was playing, the Bengals won, and when he wasn't playing, they lost. Go back and look at the period in which he was out with a deep thigh bruise, and then what happened when he came back. Then look at what happened when he was suspended, and then what happened when he returned. They went to Pete one time too many in the Superbowl, but Pete was a difference maker for that team. It took at least two guys to create what Pete Johnson gave the Bengals when they returned to championship form in the Ickey Woods-Stanley Wilson days.

[BengalszoneBilly]

corey is a ton better on the field. TON.

Rudi's stats: 24 attempts for 89 yards against a top defensive unit.

Mr."Ton": 22 attempts for 88 yards. Against one of the leagues weakest defenses and behind a better offensive line to boot!

You guy's call this a "ton"!?! You must get ripped everytime you pick up a bag!

Corey is better, but only slightly. His advantage is inside the tackles. That's it. :player: