It's Not the Running Game, Stupid: Turnovers Are Killing The Bengals Offense
by Josh Kirkendall on Nov 19, 2010 1:31 PM EST
in Analysis
Email
Print
Here's something I'm willing to bet money that you didn't know. This year's offense absolutely stinks. Alright, so what if this year's squad (5.2 yards/play) actually averages more yards than last year's offense that averaged 4.9 yards/play. It's not like that Carson Palmer's pace to break his own franchise record for most passing yards is that big of a deal. And does anyone really care that this year's offense will record 30 more first downs? Like first downs even matter. This year's squad is actually averaging 63 more total yards per game than last year. Big deal. And it's not like the pace that this year's squad is going to score more touchdowns than last year makes that big of a difference, right? Scoring 22 more points than last year's squad is totally meaningless, bro.
So what's the team's solution? Run the football more.
If you compare last season's offense, one noticeable difference that stands out is the team's run/pass ratio. With 505 rushes against 511 passes (attempts and quarterback sacks) last year, the Bengals balanced offense propelled them to the playoffs. At least that's generally believed, considering that this season, the team is projected to pass 242 times more than run -- a difference of 60 more passes than the team's 181 difference in 2007. Obviously, the two are directly are related.
| Runs | Passes* | Difference | |
| 2010 | 398** | 640** | 242 |
| 2009 | 505 | 511 | 6 |
| 2008 | 420 | 530 | 110 |
| 2007 | 416 | 597 | 181 |
| 2006 | 435 | 558 | 123 |
| 2005 | 459 | 566 | 107 |
| 2004 | 437 | 573 | 136 |
| * Pass attempts plus sacks. ** Projected. | |||
“We want to generate something in the running game. We’re at our best when we’re generating 120-130 rushing yards per game,” offensive coordinator Bob Bratkowski said.
As much as it might sting to hear it, Bratkowski is right. However, only partly, because taking a historical account and comparing this year's squad to last year's squad is a bit simplistic. The issue isn't so much that the team is on pace to run the football 100 times less than last year (though it doesn't help either), it's that the offense is careless with the football.
Between Carson Palmer's interceptions and the team's propensity to fumble the football, the Bengals offense is on pace turn the football over 34 times. That's nine more turnovers than last year's squad. Palmer is two interceptions from reaching last year's interception total (13). Four more lost fumbles and the offense will reach last year's total of 12 fumbles lost.
In fact, you could argue that turning the ball over is a primary reason that this team is losing -- though I'm not one to make such simplistic claims when your defense is arguably one of the worst defenses that this Bengals squad has put on the field during the Marvin Lewis era. However, based on the game-by-game chart of who wins the turnover battles, it's again not as simple as that.
| Opponent | Turnover Ratio | Result |
| Patriots | -2 | L, 38-24 |
| Ravens | +4 | W, 15-10 |
| Panthers | +2 | W, 20-7 |
| Browns | -1 | L, 23-20 |
| Buccaneers | -1 | L, 24-21 |
| Falcons | +1 | L, 39-32 |
| Dolphins | +1 | L, 22-14 |
| Steelers | 0 | L, 27-21 |
| Colts | -5 | L, 23-17 |
There are some instances in which it's clear. When the turnover ratio decidedly sides more in one direction, the team clearly wins or loses. For example, a -2 turnover ratio or worse, the team loses and a +2 turnover ratio or better, the team wins. That's basic football understanding. Games against the Falcons and Dolphins, the team won the turnover battle, but lost the game.
In Atlanta, the defense quickly put Cincinnati in the hole giving up 24 points in the first half. Even then, Cincinnati nearly completed the comeback of the year -- even taking a one-point lead in the third quarter. Yet a late Cedric Benson fumble led to Atlanta's eventual game-winning touchdown. Turnover. Bengals lose. With a 14-12 lead coming out of half-time, the Bengals punted five straight times while the Miami Dolphins scored 10 points before a late interception by Palmer sealed the loss. Turnovers led directly to the loss to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers with three Palmer interceptions leading to 17 Buccaneers points. Within the first five minutes against the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Bengals found themselves in a quick hole with a fumble on the game's opening kickoff and a blocked punt (also considered a turnover on downs) on the next possession. Palmer's first half interception also led to seven points. And five turnovers isn't a really good formula to beat a team like the Indianapolis Colts.
Sometimes this team is blown out in the turnover battle and sometimes they lose by only one. And sometimes they win the turnover battle, but lose because of an untimely and costly turnover late in the game.
And that's the biggest difference from last year to this year. Turnovers. It might not seem like much, considering that the team is only -1 in the turnover department for the season. Yet timing is everything. Losing the football early in the first quarter is easily rectified and resolved. Lose it with a few minutes left in the fourth quarter, and you might as well go to the media and say you lost the game.
So it's turnover. Well, aside from the team setting a pace of passing the football 242 times more than running it. Oh, and a defense that's on pace to give up the second most points in the Marvin Lewis era. But it's not like we're looking at what's actually wrong with this team or anything because the solution that escaped us all, running the football more effectively, completely escaped us.
26 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
They can't run. They CANNOT run. That's it.
No sustained drives this year based on running. None. The running game is horribly consistent. A good run here or there, followed by a stuff, followed by a 2 yard gain, followed by a 3 yard gain, followed by a stuff, followed by a good run.
I don’t know what makes people think this team can run. They haven’t been able to. At all. There is no sign that this team can run other than that they were okay at it last year.
The only time this team looked good running is against Tampa’s 7 man in the box second half defense. That’s it.
How will Chris Carpenter explain this to his children?
re:
I would argue that most of the time they are playing from behind and can’t establish the run, therefore when they try to run, there’s absolutely no rhythm.
Managing Editor at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.
by Josh Kirkendall on Nov 19, 2010 2:36 PM EST up reply actions
On the flip side.....
it could be argued that they get behind b/c they try to establish the run early and cannot, thus having trouble offensively in the first half. Quick possessions, little scoring, and then they get behind and have to pass.
I don’t know if there’s any way to compare this, but I’d like to compare their first quarter runs and YPA from this year as compared to last year.
How will Chris Carpenter explain this to his children?
RE:
Damn it. Quit giving me stuff to do! :)
Managing Editor at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.
by Josh Kirkendall on Nov 19, 2010 3:06 PM EST up reply actions
Hah! I'd just popped in to say I gave it a whirl trying to find ways to do it,
but unlike baseball there seems to be a severe lack of split stats out there on the internet.
How will Chris Carpenter explain this to his children?
here ya go
1st – 58 rushes (3.4 yards/rush)
2nd – 37 rushes (4.1 yards/rush)
3rd – 45 rushes (3.6 yards/rush)
4th – 35 rushes (3.3 yards/rush)
Managing Editor at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.
by Josh Kirkendall on Nov 19, 2010 3:09 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks....is that for this year?
BTW, how’d you find a way to split up the carries between quarters? I eventually found splits for individual players based on halves, but can’t find anything for a player or team by quarter.
How will Chris Carpenter explain this to his children?
RE:
Yea, I meant to say. Those are Benson’s breakdowns for this year. Since he gets about 95% of the team’s total carries, figured it was strong enough for your argument.
Managing Editor at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.
by Josh Kirkendall on Nov 19, 2010 3:33 PM EST up reply actions
You could argue it...
09 game att yards negative/zero rush td
NE 4 11 1
BAL 7 24 2
NC 10 27 1 1yd
CLE 6 10 2
TB 3 22 0
ATL 8 36 1
MIA 9 37 2
PIT 8 37 0
IND 5 13 fumble
Now THOSE are some lovely coconuts
UMM DUH!!
everybody is at their best when they run 120-130 yards a game
"In Zim We Trust"-TennBengalfan
"You don't live in Cleveland, You live in Cincinnati"-Sam Wyche
yep
and the number of carries is deceptive as well. often includes just running the ball to burn clock
Now THOSE are some lovely coconuts
if Running is so important
and Ced is consistently failing maybe try to use Scott and Leonard more.
He is a genius. Excellent querey Bob.
Bengals 2010. Road to the Superbowl
Yeah, Leonard rips off a 45 yarder, though its a trick play
that was his only touch last week. Look a Bernard Scott’s yard per carry average, and he barely touches the ball. Lunacy… Can’t win if you have a coach who doesn’t know how to use his personnel.
MIKE BROWN STEP DOWN!!!
apologies for formatting. dunno how to make it better
game att yards negative/zero rush td
NE 4 11 1
BAL 7 24 2
NC 10 27 1 1yd
CLE 6 10 2
TB 3 22 0
ATL 8 36 1
MIA 9 37 2
PIT 8 37 0
IND 5 13
DEN 9 42 1
GB 7 59 0
PIT 4 0 3
CLE 7 29 0
BAL 7 14 2
HOU 4 15 0
CHI 8 66 1
BAL 9 45 1 1yd
PIT 5 15 1
OAK 8 19 4
CLE 8 43 0
DET 7 13 2 *
MIN 4 15 1
SD 6 20 0
KC 6 26 1
NYJ 1 1 0
detroit weirdness:C.Benson right end to DET 38 for 4 yards (L.Foote; L.Delmas). PENALTY on CIN-M.Purify, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at DET 39. {Benson credited with 3 yards rushing due to the penalty}
Now THOSE are some lovely coconuts
oy
after the IND is the stats for the 2009 season. Before and including are current season stats.
Now THOSE are some lovely coconuts
Well, not counting the 3 games Benson didn't play in in 09
In 2009: 83 carries and 360 yards and 13 no yard or negative gains in 13 games, for a YPA of 4.34
In 2010: 55 carries and 210 yards and 9 no yard or negative gains in 9 games, for a 3.81.
Is a .53 YPA that different? I guess we’d have go a little further and look at variance, by looking at runs of 2 yards or less, and runs of 6 yards or more, so we could find a consistency element.
My argument would go to a lack of consistency, still getting some 6+ yard runs, but on average getting more 2 or less yard runs, which stops the offense in its tracks. Whereas in 2009 it seemed like there were more 3-6 yard runs, more consistency, closer to his average on each carry, thus keeping the football moving down the field.
How will Chris Carpenter explain this to his children?
RE:
Plus last year the team was calling more jumbo formations with Roland as a TE and Smith as the RT. I wonder how that compares to the numbers difference this year and last year.
Managing Editor at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.
by Josh Kirkendall on Nov 19, 2010 3:49 PM EST up reply actions
fuzzy math would be a good tool
or a fuzzy engine at least. I, too, would rather classify runs as “loss”, “lame”, “decent”, “strong” and almost ignore the cases where someone (bengals) screwed up and took a nine yard loss or someone (def) screwed up and the bengals got a 40 yard gain. Gives you more a measure of success than just 4.09 ypa. 10 3 yard losses and a 75 yard td run gives you a 4.09 average. I think i’d prefer a guy who gets 3, 3, 3, 6, 10, 2, etc… to a guy who kills drives but occasionally would bust one. [not making any comparisons to any one in particular]
Now THOSE are some lovely coconuts
I have two issues with this post's logic
1. What are the turnover % rates for passing and rushing on the year? Carson hasn’t looked great or even good this year, but those two stats are critical for showing which is the safer option. It’s almost always higher for passing, but passing has higher rewards.
2. How many yards are the Bengals getting per pass play, and how many per run play? This is critical for understanding what the ideal ratio of pass/run should be.
RE:
It isn’t so much about the play selection, or even the amount of turnovers, it’s when they’re actually happening.
Managing Editor at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.
by Josh Kirkendall on Nov 19, 2010 4:23 PM EST up reply actions
Alright, but it's not like they've been more crippling for us than for Bengals opponents.
Like you said, the Bengals are -1 on the year. I don’t know the situations in which the opponents’ turnovers occurred, but the Colts game is the only one where turnovers directly and unequivocally cost us the game. Is the margin between 3-6 and 2-7 so great?
What worries me more is Bratkowski’s quote about getting 120-130 yards per game rushing. If those yards come at 2 YPC, they’re garbage! What he means is that the Bengals need to emphasize running the ball and being effective at running the ball, and running 50% of the time at about 4 YPC is how they can get it done. Relying on total yards, like he is doing, is foolish. For all we know, the Bengals need to pass more to get better at running the ball.
One word
FULLBACK!
"When you chart (the plays) and see where it broke down there was no common theme to it." - Bob Bratkowski
Ruminations on turnovers, Bratkowski, fan expectations and why the Bengals stink
I know I’m a broken record on this, but I think the problem comes down to the offensive line. Last year our offensive line was not that good. It was deceptive because early on in the season, teams were expecting a "Carson Palmer" offense a la 2005-2007—wide open passing using the run to keep the teams honest. What they got was the old single wing with Roland in motion. Overloaded lines, student body left, student body right. Why did the Bengals do this? Was it stroke of genius by Bratkowski? Maybe, but it was more reaction to reality. Our offensive line was poor at pass protection and average at run blocking, we didn’t have a TE worth mentioning, and our receiving corps was thin (and got thinner over the year).
So—what we can’t do with 5 mediocre guys on the line (pass block or conceal run plays), we might be able to do with 6 or 7—and that‘s scream "We’re running the ball!" and actually do it somewhat effectively. Quantity over quality. The problem is teams stopped looking at film from 2007 and started looking at last week’s film and they soon discovered that if you pack the box and sit on the short routes with a guy in centerfield just in case Chad tries to go deep, you pretty much have us covered.
To digress a moment, everyone wanted Brat’s head because he wasn’t cutting Palmer loose (I am sure I can find a dozen threads that were outraged at how we ran the ball too much and Brat doesn‘t know how to run a passing offense, just as I can find a dozen threads for 2006 on how we passed the ball too much and we need to use Rudi more). To defend Brat for a moment, I think his decision was right. We had a good defense that would keep us in games, so just grind it out. It worked relatively well. 10-6.
It’s funny this year, everyone is, ironically, "Why aren’t we running more? After all, we are run first! Brat doesn’t know what he’s doing!" I realize it is the fan’s prerogative criticize what doesn’t work even if it doesn’t make any sense, but I guess I’m pointing out what I see as a very ironic twist given last year’s complaints of Brat.
Ending my digression….what is the real difference? Last year, our offense turned the ball over at about the same rate we are this year. Even more so, we turned the ball over on downs constantly—how many three and outs in crucial situations kept other teams in the game? How many times did our defense have to come up big, on consecutive drives, when our offense simply refused to put a game away? A lot. This year the team is putting the ball on the ground and throwing the occasional pick six in "untimely" situations—as opposed to the timely ones?—and it’s causing problems. The defense this year has not been able to come up "big" for reasons which aren’t totally clear other than I think teams have been able to better neutralize our already mediocre pass rush and exploit the inability of our safeties and middle linebacker to effectively cover the middle of the field and underneath routes. Last year’s apparent pass rush was also somewhat deceptive. Take away Odom’s ridiculous day against Green Bay and our sack numbers are pretty poor (as are his during his tenure as a Bengal—"bust"). MJ came on at the end, but it seems clear to me that moving him to LB has been a massive "fail"— at least so far.
To summarize, we need to improve both lines significantly. We need a center and/or guard to plug up the middle, we need Smith to come back and prove he’s worth it or get replaced. We need a DT that blows people up and give the DEs and LBs more one on one situations to open the pass rush lanes. Personally, I think we should move MJ back to DE and make him a pass rush specialist which is what he was drafted for to begin with and then look for additional help at DE/LB either through the draft or free agency.
Do I think we need a new offensive coordinator? I am one of the few people who does see a method Brat‘s madness, but yes, I do think Brat has worn out his welcome. Although we do have personnel problems, the task of getting the right personnel and developing them accordingly falls on the coaches. The biggest criticism I have of Brat is his apparent inability to make a adjustments to the game plan depending what is actually working or not working. I simply don’t get why Scott has not been more a part of the offense, why Simpson is still on the roster, why we don’t seem to maximize our guy’s potential.
It’s really hard to say what is going to happen next year, but I do see some coaching changes on the horizon and possibly some significant ones if Lewis decides that working for Mike Brown simply isn’t worth it.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Cincy Jungle
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
