Run Defence

[shatan]

By mid-second quarter the bengals should have enough points, that the other team can't really run the ball as much. hopefully that will help out our struggling run defence.

[Kazkal]

I don't think our run defense will be lacking like it did last year I think it will start out avg but quickly move it's way to above average then who knows from there

[ArmyBengal]

Optimism is a good thing, but if we are relying on the offense to solve our defensive woes, someone better refer to exhibit A... May I present the Indianapolis Colts. I will be to pissed off if our D blows again this year.

WHODEY !!!

[bengalsLB]

overall our defense was good last year except that we couldn't stop the run.

we forced a lot of turnovers.

[derekshank]

overall our defense was good last year except that we couldn't stop the run.

we forced a lot of turnovers.

turnovers is not a key stat. Even rushing yards isn't the most important. It is points allowed, and the Bengals sucked.

[Kazkal]

reeeeeeeeeee

[CantStop85]

turnovers is not a key stat.

It is in fantasy football.

[CBin2k7]

turnovers is not a key stat. Even rushing yards isn't the most important. It is points allowed, and the Bengals sucked.

Ahh my friend you hit the nail on the head. The Bengals averaged giving up 23.1 points per game last season, which ranked 21st in the league.

Top three teams in points allowed. Pittsburgh, New England and Philly.

Conversly, the Bengals offense was 10th in the league with points per game at 23.4

[derekshank]

turnovers is not a key stat. Even rushing yards isn't the most important. It is points allowed, and the Bengals sucked.

Ahh my friend you hit the nail on the head. The Bengals averaged giving up 23.1 points per game last season, which ranked 21st in the league.

Top three teams in points allowed. Pittsburgh, New England and Philly.

Conversly, the Bengals offense was 10th in the league with points per game at 23.4

It's nice that we scored more than we allowed...barely. But those numbers are still pretty bad. You mentioned that the top three teams in points allowed were the Steelers, the Patriots, and the Eagles (with 15.7, 16.2, and 16.2 again). They made those statistics more meaningful by scoring a lot of points (Pitt-23.2, NE-27.3, Phi-24.1)

I think it is important to note the stats of all the playoff teams to see any trends that we might need to duplicate to get into the playoffs

We'll start with the NFC (because they are the inferior conference)

Minn allowed 24.7, and scored 25.3, a difference of 0.6 points per game

GB allowed 23.8, and scored 26.5, a difference of 2.7 points per game

Sea allowed 23.3, and scored 23.2, a difference of -0.1 points per game

St.L allowed 24.5, and scored 19.9, a difference of -4.6 points per game

Atl allowed 21.1, and scored 21.2, a difference of 0.1 points per game

Phi allowed 16.2, and scored 24.1, a difference of 7.9 points per game

And in the AFC (the vastly superior conference)

Den allowed 19.0, and scored 23.8, a difference of 4.8 points per game

NYJ allowed 16.3, and scored 20.8, a difference of 4.5 points per game

SD allowed 19.6, and scored 27.9, a difference of 8.3 points per game

IND allowed 21.9, and scored 32.6, a difference of 10.7 points per game

Pit allowed 15.7, and scored 23.2, a difference of 7.5 points per game

NE allowed 16.2, and scored 27.3, a difference of 11.1 points per game

With the exception of the Eagles, the NFC is not impressive at all, but it might be the exception that proves the rule. Teams that had losing records almost made the playoffs in the NFC. That was not the case in the AFC.

In the AFC, the playoff teams averaged 7.8 more points scored than allowed.

The best 4 teams in the NFL (NE, PHI, PIT, and IND) averaged 9.3 more points scored than allowed.

So while it is not a hard and fast rule, it would seem that if we have any real chance of making the playoffs, we need to either start scoring 30.9 points per game, or start allowing only 15.6 points per game (or somewhere in between).

As shown last year, our 0.3 more points scored than allowed doesn't get us more than 8 wins. We'll have to do much better, both on offense and defense to make the playoffs, let alone compete for a superbowl.

[CBin2k7]

turnovers is not a key stat. Even rushing yards isn't the most important. It is points allowed, and the Bengals sucked.

Ahh my friend you hit the nail on the head. The Bengals averaged giving up 23.1 points per game last season, which ranked 21st in the league.

Top three teams in points allowed. Pittsburgh, New England and Philly.

Conversly, the Bengals offense was 10th in the league with points per game at 23.4

It's nice that we scored more than we allowed...barely. But those numbers are still pretty bad. You mentioned that the top three teams in points allowed were the Steelers, the Patriots, and the Eagles (with 15.7, 16.2, and 16.2 again). They made those statistics more meaningful by scoring a lot of points (Pitt-23.2, NE-27.3, Phi-24.1)

I think it is important to note the stats of all the playoff teams to see any trends that we might need to duplicate to get into the playoffs

We'll start with the NFC (because they are the inferior conference)

Minn allowed 24.7, and scored 25.3, a difference of 0.6 points per game

GB allowed 23.8, and scored 26.5, a difference of 2.7 points per game

Sea allowed 23.3, and scored 23.2, a difference of -0.1 points per game

St.L allowed 24.5, and scored 19.9, a difference of -4.6 points per game

Atl allowed 21.1, and scored 21.2, a difference of 0.1 points per game

Phi allowed 16.2, and scored 24.1, a difference of 7.9 points per game

And in the AFC (the vastly superior conference)

Den allowed 19.0, and scored 23.8, a difference of 4.8 points per game

NYJ allowed 16.3, and scored 20.8, a difference of 4.5 points per game

SD allowed 19.6, and scored 27.9, a difference of 8.3 points per game

IND allowed 21.9, and scored 32.6, a difference of 10.7 points per game

Pit allowed 15.7, and scored 23.2, a difference of 7.5 points per game

NE allowed 16.2, and scored 27.3, a difference of 11.1 points per game

With the exception of the Eagles, the NFC is not impressive at all, but it might be the exception that proves the rule. Teams that had losing records almost made the playoffs in the NFC. That was not the case in the AFC.

In the AFC, the playoff teams averaged 7.8 more points scored than allowed.

The best 4 teams in the NFL (NE, PHI, PIT, and IND) averaged 9.3 more points scored than allowed.

So while it is not a hard and fast rule, it would seem that if we have any real chance of making the playoffs, we need to either start scoring 30.9 points per game, or start allowing only 15.6 points per game (or somewhere in between).

As shown last year, our 0.3 more points scored than allowed doesn't get us more than 8 wins. We'll have to do much better, both on offense and defense to make the playoffs, let alone compete for a superbowl.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

turnovers is not a key stat. Even rushing yards isn't the most important. It is points allowed, and the Bengals sucked.

Ahh my friend you hit the nail on the head. The Bengals averaged giving up 23.1 points per game last season, which ranked 21st in the league.

Top three teams in points allowed. Pittsburgh, New England and Philly.

Conversly, the Bengals offense was 10th in the league with points per game at 23.4

It's nice that we scored more than we allowed...barely. But those numbers are still pretty bad. You mentioned that the top three teams in points allowed were the Steelers, the Patriots, and the Eagles (with 15.7, 16.2, and 16.2 again). They made those statistics more meaningful by scoring a lot of points (Pitt-23.2, NE-27.3, Phi-24.1)

I think it is important to note the stats of all the playoff teams to see any trends that we might need to duplicate to get into the playoffs

We'll start with the NFC (because they are the inferior conference)

Minn allowed 24.7, and scored 25.3, a difference of 0.6 points per game

GB allowed 23.8, and scored 26.5, a difference of 2.7 points per game

Sea allowed 23.3, and scored 23.2, a difference of -0.1 points per game

St.L allowed 24.5, and scored 19.9, a difference of -4.6 points per game

Atl allowed 21.1, and scored 21.2, a difference of 0.1 points per game

Phi allowed 16.2, and scored 24.1, a difference of 7.9 points per game

And in the AFC (the vastly superior conference)

Den allowed 19.0, and scored 23.8, a difference of 4.8 points per game

NYJ allowed 16.3, and scored 20.8, a difference of 4.5 points per game

SD allowed 19.6, and scored 27.9, a difference of 8.3 points per game

IND allowed 21.9, and scored 32.6, a difference of 10.7 points per game

Pit allowed 15.7, and scored 23.2, a difference of 7.5 points per game

NE allowed 16.2, and scored 27.3, a difference of 11.1 points per game

With the exception of the Eagles, the NFC is not impressive at all, but it might be the exception that proves the rule. Teams that had losing records almost made the playoffs in the NFC. That was not the case in the AFC.

In the AFC, the playoff teams averaged 7.8 more points scored than allowed.

The best 4 teams in the NFL (NE, PHI, PIT, and IND) averaged 9.3 more points scored than allowed.

So while it is not a hard and fast rule, it would seem that if we have any real chance of making the playoffs, we need to either start scoring 30.9 points per game, or start allowing only 15.6 points per game (or somewhere in between).

As shown last year, our 0.3 more points scored than allowed doesn't get us more than 8 wins. We'll have to do much better, both on offense and defense to make the playoffs, let alone compete for a superbowl.

Good post.

I would contend if the Bengals can significantly improve their run defense, they will move up into playoff contention category by doing that alone.

Consider the type of offenses in the AFC North (Pitt and Bal imparticular) and how they are set-up, and really all you have to do is shut down their RB's - no easy task, but if Lewis doesn't break their backs with a late game 60 yard TD run they sweep the Ravens possibly.

If Bettis or Staley don't do their typical "run over every little Bengal LB" act then I think the Bengals stand toe-to-toe with anyone in the division and the AFC in general.

It's going to be all about making teams in our division beat us with the pass - and exposing the weakenesses of Boller, Ben and Cleveland's inept passing games.

They may be young but the Bengals simply have to focus on letting the offense do the work and the defense stopping the run game as always - Marvin's draft picks and FA signings were indicative of this.

Stop Lewis, Bettis/Staley and whomever slob is running for Cleveland and they have a good chance at the division this year. By doing that everything falls into place - you give your QB more shots at scoring - and keep the other team off the field and thus not scoring as much, and force them to play catch-up with mediocre and overrated QB's while Palmer is able to show the world he's better than the ego maniac that has become Big Ben.

[Ickey44]

While agree that the points allowed is an important stat, how can you say turnovers are not? If we get turnovers, they aren't scoring. 9 times out of 10, who has the most turnovers wins. While stopping the run is indeed important, I think getting turnovers ranks right up there in importance.

[The Big Orange]

While agree that the points allowed is an important stat, how can you say turnovers are not? If we get turnovers, they aren't scoring. 9 times out of 10, who has the most turnovers wins. While stopping the run is indeed important, I think getting turnovers ranks right up there in importance.

Defensive stops are the most important...and turnovers are certainly one of those. But if the only way that you stop your opponent is by stripping the or getting an INT then you aren't going to win many games.

Forcing a team to punt has to be your bread and butter...especially giving your O good field position...which we aren't going to get much from our returners. So our D has to get quick stops early and often.

[CBin2k7]

If your D is like the Bengals was last year and not stopping the run, and giving up a lot of points. That is not a good combination by not stopping the run the other team is controlling the tempo of the game and then they are having long drives and scoring usually 7 at the end. It puts your team in always comeback mode that is why Carson had a high number of INT's at the beginning of the season, he always had to throw the ball to comeback.

Getting off the field on 3rd down should be a main focus, 3rd and longs should not be converted at a high rate. Those things can cost you games.

[derekshank]

While agree that the points allowed is an important stat, how can you say turnovers are not? If we get turnovers, they aren't scoring. 9 times out of 10, who has the most turnovers wins. While stopping the run is indeed important, I think getting turnovers ranks right up there in importance.

Well, the Bengals were tied for 3rd for best defense when it comes to turnovers, but were 21st in scoring defense, so that logic doesn't hold up.

And I'm not saying that turnovers aren't important, but the two teams with the most defensive takeaways were Carolina, and Buffalo. Neither team made the playoffs. Scoring defense is a far more important stat.

And even more important than that is that scoring ratio bewteen your offense and defense. Very few teams have a defense like that Baltimore Ravens team that managed to continue winning games when their offense went something like 6 weeks without a TD.

Our defense will not be that good. But if we can average 7 or 8 more points scoring than points allowed, we are well on our way to the AFC championship game... at least that is how the majority of the statistics seem to play out. Those are the stats I will be watching throughout the season.

[HairOnFire]

I would contend if the Bengals can significantly improve their run defense, they will move up into playoff contention category by doing that alone.

So true, but I'm guessing that early success will be hard to come by and most victories are likely to come in the form of offensive shootouts. Don't get me wrong, I like the players the Bengals have added defensively, and I think things are starting to shape up defensively in the ways Marvin probably envisioned when he first took the head coaching job. But current plans dictate that we'll have a new DT trying to protect two rookie LB's in a freshly tweaked scheme as well as new or shuffled players manning all four DL positons. That's an awful lot of defensive adjustments and uncertainty in the front seven. So I'm guessing the secret to early season success will come by way of offensive firepower and impressive run/pass balance while the run defense continues to struggle.

Frankly, I'll be as happy as anyone if the Bengals run defense starts strong right out of the gate, but my head and my gut both tell me that any first impressions, good or bad, won't be as important as a run defense pulse check taken somewhere around weeks 4 thru 6. And on that point I'll be far more interested in the average gain per attempt surrendered than the average of total yards rushing allowed per game.

In regards to competing with the teams in our division, stopping the Steelers bread and butter running attack is a great place to start, but instead of trying to beat that team in a ball control contest I'd much rather see Carson Palmer have some significant success throwing the ball against their defense. Both of last seasons Steeler games were winnable, but Palmer looked like a struggling QB on most plays, and seemed incapable of threatening their defense if trailing by more than two scores. By comparison, the opposite was true in games against Baltimore.

[HairOnFire]

So while it is not a hard and fast rule, it would seem that if we have any real chance of making the playoffs, we need to either start scoring 30.9 points per game, or start allowing only 15.6 points per game (or somewhere in between).

Sheesh, my money is on somewhere in between.

I don't think there's any way the Bengals offense or defense will threaten either of those averages. However, it's not too big of a stretch to think that the offense could up it's scoring average by two or three points...while the defense reduces it's average by the same respectable but still modest margin. And that would produce something close to the 7-8 point scoring differential that you spoke of.

A quick tweaking shows this type of modest improvement on both fronts bumps the current average points scored up from the Bengals 23.4 to the 25 to 27 point range that would be comparable to teams like New England, San Diego, and Green Bay. Not out of the realm of possibility at all. And a modest three point drop in average points allowed would move the Bengals near or under the 20 point average that seems to define good but not great defenses. Again, not at of the realm of possibility. Best of all, credibilty and speculation isn't stretched to it's logical breaking point by suggesting that the Bengals could quickly field an offense capable of scoring at a Colt-like pace OR a defense that almost overnight becomes as good as the Eagles. Instead, you're simply continuing the modest improvement already observed since Marvin arrived.

[derekshank]

So while it is not a hard and fast rule, it would seem that if we have any real chance of making the playoffs, we need to either start scoring 30.9 points per game, or start allowing only 15.6 points per game (or somewhere in between).

Sheesh, my money is on somewhere in between.

I don't think there's any way the Bengals offense or defense will threaten either of those averages.

Yes, I was being a bit facetious.

Although, if we acheived both of those averages, we would have a 15.3 point differential. Does that sound too homerish to expect?

[HairOnFire]

Yes, I was being a bit facetious.

I assumed as much. That said, this is the internet and I figured it was only a matter of time before somebody popped up to tell you how ridiculous it was to suggest that the Bengals might show that kind of quantum leap in offensive or defensive performance. Figured I beat 'em to it and point out how continued improvement from both units on the very modest scale we've already witnessed will provide the type of scoring differential your stats imply is required of playoff teams.

[CTBengalsFan]

turnovers is not a key stat.

are you kidding...?

[schweinhart]

But current plans dictate that we'll have a new DT trying to protect two rookie LB's in a freshly tweaked scheme as well as new or shuffled players manning all four DL positons. That's an awful lot of defensive adjustments and uncertainty in the front seven. So I'm guessing the secret to early season success will come by way of offensive firepower and impressive run/pass balance while the run defense continues to struggle.

Have to say it looked that way for the Jets last year w/ new LBs, a gutted secondary, and a new DC.

For the first 2 games it was w/ the Jets giving up 26 pts per game but pulling out 2 Ws because they outscored the opposition.

After that the Jets D pretty much kicked a$$ all the way through and really should have been in the AFC title game.

Can the Bengals do something of the like?

I feel a lot less doubtful about them improving their run D given the players being replaced at the outset of the season from last year are essentially Tony Williams, Kevin Hardy, and Nate Webster. Not hard to go up from there IMO.

The Bengals can still win games when the run D falters but it makes it hard. Even when it's bend but don't break like the second Steelers game last year, not coming up with stops and letting the clock keep ticking with the chains moving puts more pressure on the offense to execute w/ a narrower margin of error because of field position and fewer chances on the field.

So hopefully the D adjusts quickly and while they are adjusting, Brat can give the offense every op it needs to sustain drives and score.

[cincy90]

Turnovers are very, very important. If my recollection is correct, I believe the Bengals significantly outgained the patriots as far as yardage. However stupid plays and turnovers were the key. Also against the Baltimore, the Ed Reed/Chris McAlister INT return did not help one bit. I don't feel like studying statistics, but I bet you would also find that the league leaders also had the highest turnover ratio.

[derekshank]

Turnovers are very, very important. If my recollection is correct, I believe the Bengals significantly outgained the patriots as far as yardage. However stupid plays and turnovers were the key. Also against the Baltimore, the Ed Reed/Chris McAlister INT return did not help one bit. I don't feel like studying statistics, but I bet you would also find that the league leaders also had the highest turnover ratio.

Turnover ratios are as follows

IND +19

NYJ +17

SD +15

[derekshank]

Turnovers are very, very important.  If my recollection is correct, I believe the Bengals significantly outgained the patriots as far as yardage.  However stupid plays and turnovers were the key.  Also against the Baltimore, the Ed Reed/Chris McAlister INT return did not help one bit.    I don't feel like studying statistics, but I bet you would also find that the league leaders also had the highest turnover ratio.

Turnover ratios are as follows

IND +19

NYJ +17

SD +15

damn, I wasn't finished. I accidentally hit "ADD REPLY"

Turnover ratios are as follows

IND +19

NYJ +17

SD +15

CAR +12

BAL +11

PIT +11

BUF +10

NE +9

SEA +8

NO +7

PHI +6

JAC +5

HOU +5

CIN +4

(St.L was -24 and made the playoffs!)

Anyway, sure there are some good teams high on that list, but Carolina had one of the best ratios in the league, and was 7-9. Baltimore also failed to make the playoffs, while teams like N.E. and PHI with far less impressive turnover ratios played in the superbowl.

Now hear me say it again. I'm not saying that turnovers don't have importance. What I am saying is that the stats clearly point to the fact that the only thing you can really point to of real importance is that of points scores/allowed. There are lots of ways that points get scored/allowed (including the turnover battle) but points are the one and only KEY stat.

I've researched enough to get my point across. If anyone will continue to challenge this seemingly undenialable fact, don't do it on assumptions.

[schweinhart]

All this turnover talk shows one thing...if you base great revelations on stats:

Turnover differential rankings coincide with who wins division titles and earns playoff spots in the AFC. It doesn't look like a factor at all in the NFC.

Your research there Shankster shows that you've got all four AFC division winners and 1 AFC wildcard team out of the top 8. Of the other 2 AFC teams in the top 8, you've got 2 w/ winning records.

Carolina is the only NFC team in the top 8. The only AFC playoff team not in the top 8 is the Donkeys who nobody should count them anyway because they suck

How's that for assumptions.