Bengals plan on using unbalanced line in 2010
The Bengals rushing offense averaged 95.0 yards per game (29th in the NFL) with a 3.6 yard-per-rush average (30th in the NFL) in 2008. Playing his first game in a 22-31 loss to the Dallas Cowboys during the fifth week of the season, Cedric Benson's 747 yards rushing led the team with Ryan Fitzpatrick's 304 yards rushing beating out Chris Perry's 269 yards as the second most productive runner on the team. Yikes. The Bengals rushing offense that season was sickening. Granted, the quarterback situation was bad and the offensive line was a disaster. All combined, it was simply terrible.
One year later, things changed. The offensive line made a series of changes which meant that Bobbie Williams was the only starting offensive lineman to return to his position while Andrew Whitworth moved out to left tackle; Anthony Collins, Nate Livings, Evan Mathis, Dennis Roland, Kyle Cooke became starters and contributors. Carson Palmer returned after having lost most of his 2008 season with an injured elbow that he suffered against the New York Giants and the team replaced Chris Perry and Kenny Watson with rookie Bernard Scott and Brian Leonard, who was traded for in the offseason.
All that change and the Bengals became one of the better rushing offenses in the NFL. Their 2,056 yards rushing ranked ninth. The team's feature running back Cedric Benson rushed for 1,251 yards. Considering he missed three games on the season, his yards-per-game average was second to a guy that rushed for over 2,000 yards. Bernard Scott added another 321 yards rushing and a 4.3 yard-per-rush average and Brian Leonard's third down contributions out of the backfield was instantly epic. Oh, and Benson rushed for 169 yards against the Jets during the team's 14-24 loss during Wild Card weekend.
One of the reasons for the team's success in the running game was their use of the unbalanced line. Bringing in another tackle, like Roland, to play the tight end spot forced defenses to adjust. Rather than having an average-at-best tight end taking on the edges, Cincinnati's use of a tackle out wide opened lanes. You could probably argue that the team's use of an unbalanced line was the primary reason for the team's rich successes in the rushing offense.
And don't expect that to change. NFL.com's Pat Kirwan writes:
Cincinnati Bengals coach Marvin Lewis discussed how his team effectively used the unbalanced line on offense last season. The Bengals would bring in an extra tackle as a tight end and force defenses to shift over based on how the Bengals constructed formations. Lewis said that the various ways that unbalanced line was used made opponents prepare for a lot of extra things. The Bengals plan on using that strategy again in 2010.
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hopefully, we resign Reggie Kelly who can act as another O lineman and really make teams prepare for our running game. Brat needs to develop more plays out of the unbalanced line before it because a true weapon. With the addition of Bryant, and hopefully another WR, and the return of Kelly it should make that formation a lot more diverse and really help our lackluster passing attack.
by ochocinco4pres on Mar 24, 2010 12:06 PM EDT reply actions
RE:
Theoretically, if the team uses an unbalanced line, then Kelly wouldn’t be in anyway. If he were, then it’s either not unbalanced or the team would have only one WR — unless they elect not to use a FB.
Blogger at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.
by Josh Kirkendall on Mar 24, 2010 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions
unbalanced or not, we used a lot of tackle-eligible formations. We ran well out of these formations, but, if we had a TE that could block nearly as well as a tackle they wouldn’t be necessary. The fact the our tight ends, who repeatedly demonstrated that they we’re horrible receivers, needed to be subbed-out for Roland in running situations, shows how worthless they were.
Ideally, if we had a pass-catching TE who could block some, and someone like Reggie Kelly, who could block like a T, but be a threat for the occasional 10-15 yarder over the middle to keep the defense honest, there could be a noticeable improvement in the offense.
They definitely need to throw the ball while using the unbalanced line to have a surprise attack.
by IckeySuffleTime on Mar 24, 2010 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Or even a few flea flickers… I hope! :)
For those who can't remember the uncapped FA rules, this link's for you.
We never used play-action when Palmer’s hand was healthy…
or screens…
or draws
Brat! Master of deception!
In fairness to Brat...
…play-action faking has never been Carson’s strong suit. I can’t believe they can’t teach it to him.
by Big Sky Bengal on Mar 24, 2010 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
that's fine.
..the inbalanced line worked fine for most of the season, no reason to not keep it in the tool kit, the problem was that we are too dependent on it to generate an offense. Hopefully, the addition of Bryant, a TE, and some better pass protection will give us more options.
great..
that means another season of hearing.. “number 74 is an eligible receiver, number 74”
by 80%OFTHETIMEIMRIGHTEVERYTIME on Mar 24, 2010 2:40 PM EDT reply actions
I heard that we planned on using an unbalanced team again this year too..
-Great scheme on defense that gets players playing above their level with astounding results.
-Terribly coached offense only capable of scoring 14-17 points a game and running it to the opponents red zone, despite 45 yards of offensive penalties, upon where the drive stalls and we all grab another beer.
by 80%OFTHETIMEIMRIGHTEVERYTIME on Mar 24, 2010 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions
i hope this is the 20% of the time
www.fantasydaddy.com
by Joe Goodberry on Mar 24, 2010 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s the funny thing about being labeled a “running team”. It’s as if struggling on 3rd down and in the red zone is all part of the design. How is last year different from any Bengal team Corey Dillon carried? You add a killer defense and we’re “smashmouth”. Take away that defense and it’s 2000-2001 all over again.

by 
























