How bad is the Bengals offense?

by Kirkendall on Sep 18, 2008 2:12 PM EDT in Stats Comment 3 comments

"Before you name the receivers, before you even name the quarterback, it all starts with that offensive line. It don't start with us at all. I think it starts with the offensive line. It's going to have a trickle effect. When they're playing well, Carson's going to play well, and it means us on the outside, we're going to play well. Because if it doesn't start with them, the rest of us really don't matter."
- Chad ______ (fill in the blank) on the team's struggling offense.

I disagree with the assessment that Johnson is blaming the line with any maliciousness. Simply stated as fact, if the offensive line doesn't perform up to the standards that this "finesse" offense needs, then we're not going to score points. Bobbie Williams has been the most vocal about the line's disappointing relation to the team's struggling offense.

I hate harping on it, but after the loss to the Ravens, we posted Palmer's worst career performances. Now that list is updated.

Date	Opponent	Passer Rating
September 7, 2008	@ Baltimore	35.5
September 14, 2008	Tennessee	41.3
September 26, 2004	Baltimore	43.4
December 23, 2007	Cleveland	44.8
December 2, 2007	@ Pittsburgh	51.6
October 3, 2004	@ Pittsburgh	52.1

I'm sure the relation is coincidence, but his top three worst performances are played during September. Four of his top-six worst passing-yardage games were also played in September.

Date	Opponent	Yards Passing
December 11, 2005	Cleveland	93
September 7, 2008	@ Baltimore	99
December 23, 2007	Cleveland	115
September 10, 2006	@ Kansas City	127
September 14, 2008	Tennessee	134
September 19, 2004	Miami	147

I know it's just through two games, but the Bengals scoring offense is ranked 28th -- the lowest since 2002 (ranked 28th). On the other hand, the Bengals scoring defense is ranked 16th -- best since 2001 (when they were 14th).

How have the Bengals rushing offense faired in the first two games since 2001?

Season	Att.	Yards	Average
2008	52	158	3.0
2007	49	192	3.9
2006	66	276	4.2
2005	71	315	4.4
2004	57	207	3.6
2003	61	180	3.0
2002	44	192	4.4
2001	56	224	4.0

Here's an eye-opening stat for you. The Bengals total offensive yardage through two games is 369. The opposing offense, through two games, is averaging 326.5 per game.

Kyle Larson has 163 more yards punting (532), than the Bengals offense has yards (369). Just to show you how ridiculously lop-sided that differential is, the Bengals offense had 5,568 total net yards last season, compared to Larson's 2,437 yards punting.

Last year, the Bengals passed 52.20% of the time on first-and-ten. This season, the Bengals have passed 52.38% of the time on first-and-ten. Talk about trends. However, inside the Red Zone, the Bengals have rushed every single time on first-and-ten this season (65.71% last season).

Through the first two games this season, Chris Perry has rushed the ball 11 times in the second half for 18 yards rushing (1.6 yards-per-carry). He still hasn't rushed for a first down in the second half. Perry's best quarter is clearly the first; 14 carries, 47 yards (3.4 average).

Chris Perry on First Down: 18 rushes for 68 yards rushing.
Chris Perry on Second Down: 16 rushes for 22 yards rushing.

As a team, the Bengals rushing on second down.

Yards to Go	Plays	Yards	Average
1 to 2	4	1	0.25
3 to 5	4	5	1.25
6 to 10	10	20	2.0
11 to 15	1	0

Play calling by downs (no matter the yardage to-go which differs from the notes above about first-and-ten)

Downs	Rushing	Passing
First	22	20
Second	19	15
Third	7	19
Fourth	2	2

0 recs | Comment 3 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The key phrase there, Kirkendall,

is “finesse offense”, because that’s what we have- or had until those who know better decided to simply will the converse into fruition. Now, we’ve got an offensive identity crisis on our hands as these pass blockers, speed back, and route runners are put before the plow and not allowed to do what they do best, what they were born to do, what they were drafted to do. As much as Blandkowski is to blame for the playcalling itself, Marvin is ultimately at fault for the entire scheme or philosophy- or catchphrase or whatever. He decides the direction. I’ve never thought Marvin was up there with a Belichick or a Cowher but I thought he at least represented a counterbalance to the ineptitude of this front office- Hear me, Mike? Katie? Troy?. Now, that’s not clear at all. This whole “we’re a running team” and folks like Hobson praising the team for “sticking with the run”, it’s like they’re all delusional.

This offense is meant to fly, to go no huddle, to go deep early and often, to get athletic specimens like Simpson and Caldwell on the field- even if for Caldwell it’s just as a punt returner, to stand play-action on it’s head by running delays, draws, screens against stretched out defenses, and, ultimately, to dictate the pace and manner of the game and not react to Rex Ryan gimmicks. Who cares how the defense is set up? We do what we do and let them worry about it.

It’s fucking ridiculous. This offense should be like the Colts’ of the last several years, with Perry as the Addai type change of pace and check down. One of the main reasons for our offensive problems last year was that our defense wasn’t up to the task of being on the field as long as a fast scoring offense demands. This year, so far, we do seem to be able to hold our own on that side of the ball, even if it is because of three and outs and not quick scoring. I don’t know if Marvin’s lost his mind, his nards, or his will to live- maybe a little bit of all three, but if this were a ship, he’d be ripe for mutiny.

by IgnatiusJReilly on Sep 18, 2008 7:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Our offense is built to throw the ball down the field, not be a conservative, grind it out team.

However, few teams that play that style have won the super bowl recently, just the Rams. When Indy won, it was with Addai running the ball. The other Colts teams, and the Patriots last year were successful, but didn’t end up winning. I’m guessing that this is the flawed logic that Lewis is going with, trying to make this team into the ball control/defense Ravens that he won with.

But winning a super bowl? Really. We need to build up a team that can get to the playoffs on a semi-regular basis and then think about getting to the super bowl.

If Lewis wants to change us into a ball control, defensive team, I’m fine with that. But if that is the case, then we needed to trade 8 5 when we had the chance. If were not going to throw down the field, we should have picked up Washington’s drafts picks. If we had Ellis and Rivers, and a 2-3rd round type middle or strong side linebacker, maybe we could win games with our offense.

Sadly, we are stuck with the worst of both worlds.

by R.F. Mehl on Sep 18, 2008 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Chad definitely should have gone

if the plan were to be a- cringe- power running team. Rudi and Willie should have been kept. Instead of Utecht, we should have gone after another lineman, maybe a center in free agency and, failing that, bring in a bookend to the good blocking Reggie Kelly. We should have acted to bring in, say, the Broncos O-Line coach to teach their zone blocking scheme. We should have dumped Carson’s huge salary for a solid, middle-of-the-road journeyman like Kerry Collins- I mean, what’s the point of a stud QB playing not to lose? Where’s Trent Dilfer when we need him? We should have used one of those Chad picks to take a stud guard like Branden Albert, gone up to Cleveland and kidnapped Steinbach, hauled Richie Braham out of retirement, shot Munoz and Montoya full of steroids…

Apparently, this braintrust has decided that just by wishing it were so, wishing really, really hard, and saying that it’s so, saying it really, really often, this quintet of pass-blocking specialists will become the Hawgs. Douchebags.

by IgnatiusJReilly on Sep 18, 2008 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs