A Tale Of Two Halves: Breaking Down Cincinnati's Last 24 Games Into Two 12-Game Segments
Breaking down the Bengals past 24 games (including the team's playoff loss to the New York Jets) into two parts, you'll notice, if not completely hurl, that Cincinnati's struggles began as recently as the team's 30-10 loss to the Minnesota Vikings. Dating back to 2009, the Bengals went 9-3 through the first 12 games. Including the team's playoff loss to the New York Jets, the Bengals have only won three of their previous 12. In our quest to find the differences, we took the major statistical categories and broke them down to the first 12 (team's 9-3 record in 2009) and the last 12 (every game since the Bengals loss to the Vikings).
| Offensive Split | First 12 | Last 12 |
| Points Scored | 21.2 | 17.6 |
| First Downs | 241 | 218 |
| Yards Total | 331.9 | 311.0 |
| Passing Yards | 198.0 | 200.4 |
| Rushing Yards | 133.9 | 110.6 |
Unfortunately, aside from the team redirecting into a pedestrian rushing offense, the overall drop on offense isn't nearly as severe as the defense. Through the first 12 games into the 2009 season, the Bengals only allowed 15.6 points per game. In the previous 12 games, they've allowed over 24 points a game, nearly 30 more first downs and a 40-yard increase in overall yards allowed to opposing offenses. They averaged well over two quarterback sacks a game through their 9-3 start in 2009. Since then, they've averaged less than one. Worse yet is that the team's rushing defense went from a tough core of guys only allowing 81.8 yards rushing per game, to the more softer version that we're seeing today, allowing well over 134 yards rushing. Here's the defensive breakdown.
| Defensive Split | First 12 | Last 12 |
| Points Allowed | 15.6 | 24.3 |
| First Downs | 197 | 229 |
| Yards Total | 293.3 | 337.5 |
| Passing Yards | 211.5 | 203.5 |
| Rushing Yards | 81.8 | 134.0 |
| Quarterback Sacks | 29 | 11 |
| Interceptions | 14 | 14 |
Since Carson Palmer has been the greatest target (of the players) from fans' frustrations, let's breakdown his previous 24 games into equal 12-game splits.
| COMP | ATT | YARDS | COMP% | TD | INT | RATING | |
| First 12 | 222 | 365 | 2,547 | 60.1% | 16 | 10 | 85.0 |
| Last 12 | 246 | 419 | 2,548 | 58.7% | 18 | 11 | 79.7 |
In truth, the units on offense and defense are relatively the same personnel-wise, revoking the argument that there was a shift in talent causing the team's breakdown dating back late last season -- unless you want to include injuries as a heavy factor. If we are to set personnel changes aside, let's take the more obvious approach by braking down the Bengals' opponents based on their respective record the year that they played them (such as the Vikings record last year, rather than the Vikings record this year).
Bengals opponents sported a .458 winning percentage during their 9-3 start in 2009 (the first 12). In the 12 games since, Cincinnati's opponents have have a combined .581 winning percentage. Could the difference between the two 12-game stretches simply be the fact Cincinnati is playing better teams, unable to beat win the more challenging games against teams like the (12-4) Vikings, the (13-3) Chargers, the (5-2) Buccaneers or the (5-2) Atlanta Falcons? Is it really that simply, yet equally as frustrating?
Let's break it down further. During the team's 9-3 start, Cincinnati won five of six games (.833 winning percentage) against an opponent with a winning record. The only loss came against the Houston Texans. Oddly enough during the same stretch, they had a worse winning percentage against teams with a record at or below .500 with losses to the Denver Broncos and the Oakland Raiders. Knowing Cincinnati's historically terrible record against the AFC West playing at their home, that's not entirely surprising. Alternatively, during the team's final 12 games, the Bengals have only won one of nine games against a team with a winning record (the 15-10 win over the Baltimore Ravens this season). The other two wins in the previous 12 games came against the Kansas City Chiefs (4-12 in 2009) and the Carolina Panthers (1-6 in 2010).
Here's an awesome friendly chart.
| First 12 Games | Wins | Losses | Winning % |
| First 12 Games Record | 9 | 3 | .750 |
| Record Against Winning Teams | 5 | 1 | .833 |
| Record Against .500 Or Worse Teams | 4 | 2 | .667 |
| Last 12 Games | Wins | Losses | Winning % |
| Last 12 Games Record | 3 | 9 | .250 |
| Record Against Winning Teams | 1 | 8 | .111 |
| Record Against .500 Or Worse Teams | 2 | 1 | .667 |
Whatever the reason, Cincinnati's downfall dates as far back as the team's 20-point loss to the Minnesota Vikings, losing most of their games, further compounded by the increased competition against teams that are simply better than the Bengals.
11 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Brian Griese
Brian Griese just asked during the Michigan-Illinois game which team was more disfunctional, the Vikings or the Bengals?
WTF is that supposed to mean? Just because Terrell Owens and Ochocinco are on our team, we’re disfunctional? Tell me again what they have done to make the team disfunctional?
I'd take disfunctional over...
Maybe disfunctional isn’t the best choice of words. Disjointed…uninspired…unprofessional…undisciplined…more like it.
Forget Mukelroy
we have had a stud linebacker in Brandon Johnson that goes wasted game after game. When Brandon is on the field he makes plays. It’s as simple as that
Don’t understand the dhani criticism. He only tackles. It would be nice if Rey could cover but he can’t. Unfortunately, he’s asked to….
by quickslant on Nov 6, 2010 9:42 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
The defensive line
is one of the worst in football, the safeties cannot cover anybody, and the linebackers are nobodies who frequently disappear (they may “lead the team in tackles” but that’s meaningless when it’s seven yard gain after seven yard gain)
Lack of talent on defense. Was there last year too but Zimmer covered it up with excellent cornerback play and scheming… at least against the weaker teams.
Simple as that.
JJo and Hall are pretty good players (not All World but near the top)
Everybody else is at scrub level, pretty much.
by occams_tiger_teeth on Nov 7, 2010 1:58 AM EDT reply actions
RE:
You might be right, but I’d argue that injuries have saturated the “talent” argument more this year than Zimmer covering up personnel deficiencies from last year. Jonathan Fanene, second last year on quarterback sacks, has missed all but two games. Johnathan Joseph and Leon Hall have been hurt and two starting safeties have missed time recently. It’s not an excuse, but should be factored…
Managing Editor at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.
by Josh Kirkendall on Nov 7, 2010 8:51 AM EST up reply actions
Peko is not playing at the same level he was last year
before his injury. Niether is tank for that matter. Zimmer knew after last season the Def. line needed shoring up and new tactics. I have to give him and Marvin big fails for not getting improving a known weakness (but what else is knew in Bengaldom?).
When you chart (the plays) and see where it broke down there was no common theme to it. Bob Bratkowski
How much is on Mike Brown
the “general manager”. Maybe Marvin and Zimmer had ideas about who to get and those got vetoed by Mr Moneybags. We have no way to know. We do know that Mike Brown sits in on the meetings (shown by Hard Knocks) and he has asinine ideas like converting scrub tight ends to defensive linemen.
by occams_tiger_teeth on Nov 7, 2010 4:09 PM EST up reply actions
It's true
I should have included Mickey in me condemnation. Mikey did seem to go out of his way to bring in FAs. Sure wish he would have spent that 7mill on a stud D-lineman or O-lineman.
When you chart (the plays) and see where it broke down there was no common theme to it. Bob Bratkowski
known weakness
we also couldn’t cover TE’s and they didn’t seem too anxious to do anything about that
by smoormandiddy on Nov 7, 2010 8:59 PM EST up reply actions
Right
Dhani is too slow and the safety position was barely tinkered with.
When you chart (the plays) and see where it broke down there was no common theme to it. Bob Bratkowski

by 





















