Is Jim Anderson the problem?

by steveinct on Oct 18, 2011 9:34 AM EDT

Ya know, I was thinking about the Bengals running attack for the past decade and there is one thing that has been consistent: Jim Anderson. Why do I bring this up? Well, maybe the problem with our run game isn't Ced as much as what Jim has taught Ced, thus killing his career.

Think back to Rudi Johnson. When he broke into the league, he was a north south runner. Hit the hole hard, gained a few yards, and beat up the D in the process. Sounds a lot like Ced, right? Well, after a couple of years, we started watching Rudi do the "Rudi shuffle". Unlike the Icky Shuffle taking place in the endzone, the Rudi Shuffle took place 3 yards deep and removed all of his momentum. At the time, I thought Rudi just lost it. Oddly, I have noticed Ced doing the same thing for the past two years. He plants both feet and comes to an almost complete stop in the backfield. It seems strange to me that two north south runners on the same team would start doing the exact same thing. Could it be that Jim Anderson is TEACHING that crap?

I would love if Cincy Jungle could explore that by looking back to some film of Rudi when he was running well and compare to his last couple of years. Then do the same for Benson. Did they use that "stop move" earlier in their careers or is that something that developed as time went on?

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Cincy Jungle's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Cincy Jungle's writers or editors.

Tweet Comment 5 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

so you're wondering if the longest tenured coach in bengals history is the issue?

uh, no.

talk to the offensive line. guards have killed our running game this year. and smith at RT, regardless of the hype, is still average at best.

" Mike Brown is the owner that Cincy doesn't deserve, not the one it needs..."

by palewook on Oct 18, 2011 9:37 AM EDT reply actions

Ok. Easy to say.

But explain to me why our backs STOP in the backfield. I am sure you watch other teams run the ball. Backs may skip sideways, hit the hole hard, or run up the back of their line, but rarely do I see the two foot plant that Rudi did and Ced now does all the time. When another back does it, it usually fails. Why do our guys do it all the time? The O Line made them do it? Come on.

by steveinct on Oct 18, 2011 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions

the line is failing to open holes

the holes that have happened this year tended to come from an isolated one on one where someone does their job and the back hits that lane. or pressley blows up someone to drop a lane, or a misread by the defense and they attack the wrong route. the bengals do not have a pulling guard. not one guard on cincy, is capable of being a pulling guard anymore. the guards we have fail to contain pressure around the pocket. watch the replays, we leak on both sides of the center. its the reason 2 step pocket runs aren’t working, the rb runs right into the blocked lanes.

" Mike Brown is the owner that Cincy doesn't deserve, not the one it needs..."

by palewook on Oct 18, 2011 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions

It's because as they play longer, they get beat up more

and eventually start trying to avoid contact as opposed to being a human wrecking ball. This is why running backs are the most overrated players with the shortest career spans.

After they sign their second contract, all downhill from there, trying to sustain their careers at the cost of their effectiveness.

Moisture is the essense of wetness, and wetness is the essense of beauty.

by Blue Steel on Oct 18, 2011 3:28 PM EDT reply actions

I don't think it's Anderson..

I think it’s whoever it is deciding that one back should get 20+ carries every game regardless of their effectiveness. Marvin has claimed that responsibility, but he thinks it’s his job to say it’s his fault if a beer vendor spills your budweiser, so I don’t know if I completely believe it.

The problem with this attitude is
A) The guy wears down fast, especially after a couple seasons of it
B) Sometimes a guy has an off day, and if he’s sucking every play and keeps getting the ball handed to him, your offense is in the toilet and it’s nearly impossible to convert third downs (sound familiar?)
C) If the guy keeps getting the ball no matter how poorly he’s performing, he’s almost certainly going to lose at least some of his desire to perform well. It’s hard to fight against that. If your boss accepts mediocrity or worse and keeps paying you, why strive to outperform anyone else? You know you’re not going to lose the job, so why risk hurting yourself?

The last point is the main one that bugs me. If they’re not going to replace Benson, they should at least make him earn the job. Bring in some competition and actually let them compete for the starting job. If Benson responds well and maintains the job, reward him. If he doesn’t, you’ve got your replacement. At least for a few seasons until he starts breaking down.

by indesignkat on Oct 18, 2011 8:15 PM EDT reply actions