SB Nation - Cincinnati Bengals

Chiefs Work Out a Former Bengals RB

Joel Thorman — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:27:57 -0000

Photo Source

The Kansas City Chiefs worked out free agent RB Chris Perry, reports Adam Caplan of Scout.

Perry was a 2004 Cincinnati Bengals first round draft pick and spent four years with the club.

He's had two seasons of significant carries. In 2005, he rushed 61 times for 279 yards. In 2008, he rush 103 times for 269 yards.

Last season, the Bengals cut starter Rudi Johnson paving the way for Perry to be the full time starter. However, things didn't go his way and he only averaged 2.7 (!) yards per carry before being benched for Cedric Benson.

Perry was also drafted by the UFL's Florida Tuskers this summer.

He's 6'0", 220 pounds or so and could fill an LJ-like role if the Chiefs chose to sign him. The Chiefs are a little light at RB with Dantrell Savage being down. Tim Castille has appeared to be a quick fix at running back seeing surprisingly a good number of carries last weekend despite signing last Wednesday.

Ryan over at KC Chiefs Blog seems to think he's worth taking a closer look at.

You can’t expect much from a guy that hasn’t gotten a sniff in the league since April, but he is still only 27 and wouldn’t cost the team anything to take a look. He was dynamic at Michigan and showed flashes (albeit small ones) during his time with the Bengals and might not be a bad idea to take a chance on him.

So, the Bengals sign a former Chiefs RB and now the Chiefs work out a former Bengals RB.

(H/T CHIEFER for the first FanShot)

Who is to Blame for the Bengals Offensive Struggles?

Jay McDonnell — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:45:09 -0000

The Cincinnati Bengals offense is considered by many to have the ability to explode for mass amounts of points at any given time. The teams' offensive weapons may have gone through some changes since lighting up NFL defenses during the 2005 playoff run with the departure of T.J. Houshmandzadeh, Rudy Johnson and the addition of Cedric Benson and Laveranues Coles. So why has the offense struggled to put up points at a rate that causes us fans to have angina?

The Bengals offensive coordinator Bob Bratkowski came to Cincinnati in 2001 on the heels of leading the Seattle Seahawks offense to the third spot overall in 1997. The expectation of a high powered offense followed him and he provided that in 2005 when the Bengals finished 6^th overall. He did it by keeping the defenses off balance with imaginative play calling and not hesitating throwing the deep ball. His play calling has now come under fire from those who feel he has become predictable with a game plan that is stale and unimaginative. Against the Oakland Raiders, it would appear that he supported this theory with a pattern of conservativeness in the second half with a run on first and second down and then throwing a short pass on third down philosophy. This may be due to the confidence in the defenses ability to stop the opposition on a regular basis over the past several weeks expecting a 14-7 lead to hold up. But this game became of tale of two halves with the Bengals dominating the first half and the Raiders dominating the second half.

So when you have the likes of Carson Palmer, Chad Ochocinco, emerging rookie running back Bernard Scott and an offensive line that has been opening holes and protecting Palmer to the likes not seen since 2005, is it really all Bratkowski's fault for the offensive struggles? Should there not be some blame placed on the players for not executing the play called to the level it was designed? When a receiver fails to catch a pass that hits him in his hands, is that Bratkowski's fault? When the fullback fails to make a lead block on a linebacker or pick up a blitzing safety, is that Brakowski's fault? When Carson is sacked by only four rushing linemen, is that Bratkowski's fault?

When a play is called, a certain level of execution is expected from the coach who calls it. Each player is expected to perform a certain task during the execution of that play, whether it is making a block or running a certain route, in order for it to be successful. If the play is not executed as expected, the ability for the offense to progress is impaired. These plays are derived from a game plan that is based on the perceived weakness of the opposition. The Raiders for instance had one of the worst running defenses in the league, so the tendency is to call plays to expose this weakness with the expectation of making significant gains. But the failure for the offensive line to open holes for Scott to dash through helped the team's demise against the Raiders. Scott may have gained 119 yards on 21 carries, but that is a skewed by the fact of a 61 yard gain on one play. Subtract that play; it becomes 58 yards rushing on 20 carries for a 2.9 yard average. You can make an argument that the offensive line did not execute the running plays properly.

Another aspect of the Bengals loss was they lost the turnover battle, which is a key indicator as to why underdogs such as the Raiders pull off the upset. Coaches preach every day that protection of the ball is a must and turnovers are not acceptable. When a play is called, the belief that the proper protection will be in effect to ensure loss of the football will not occur. But there are players that like to carry the ball as if it were a loaf of bread not wanting to smash it. So when the defense places the hit, the ball will squirt out and bound around with bodies flying all around it in hopes of landing on it. Another factor in this is the quarterback's decision making. An interception usually occurs when the QB decides to throw into double or triple coverage. So is this the fault of Bratkowski's play calling? I tend to think that this may fall on the player's ability of protecting the ball.

Defenses that face the Bengals know that they have a big play capability and look to take that away. By taking away the deep threat, this in turn leads to a short pass that may come up a few yards short of first down or the end zone. The play may have originally been designed to go much farther but the defense may have been able to make the correct adjustment preventing Palmer from going down field. He has acknowledged on a number occasions that the offensive struggles are also due to taking what the defense is giving.

So are the offensive struggles solely Bratkowski's fault? Should the players not take some of the brunt of criticism for not executing the play or failing to protect the ball properly? I am not saying Bratkowski's play calling is flawless as he should use a little imagination and creativity in certain situations to help keep the defenses off balance. He has the weapons as his disposal and he should try and use them to their utmost abilities.

Bratkowski was considered an offensive guru that was creative and imaginative in his play calling abilities. Since coming to the Bengals, the offense he guides puts fear in opposing defensive coordinators. They have to game plan around not just one or two weapons, but several that cause confusion as to what the defense should do. But when the players don't execute or mistakes are made, this can cause the offense to look anemic and ineffective. The obvious choice for the finger pointing is Bratkowski; but maybe that "fickle finger of fate" should be pointed in the direction of the players themselves who wound up ineffectively executing the play called or committing a drive killing mistake. If Bratkowski and the players make the commitment in correcting these concerns, the offense will score points at a clip that will cause the scoreboard to say "tilt".

Oh, and one more thing. After you chew me up and spit me out like turkey bones, my wife and I wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving!

Report: Benson has a very good chance to return against Cleveland

Kirkendall — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:47:46 -0000

More photos » by Tony Dejak - AP

about 1 month ago: Cincinnati Bengals running back Cedric Benson (32) runs past Cleveland Browns linebacker Kamerion Wimbley (95) in the fourth quarter of an NFL football game Sunday, Oct. 4, 2009, in Cleveland. The Bengals won 23-20 in overtime. (AP Photo/Tony Dejak)

Browse more photos »

Though it's hard to discredit what the Bengals rushing offense was able to do against the Oakland Raiders, who kept bringing an eighth man in the box, recording 177 yards rushing on 43 carries for a barely-above league average 4.1 yards-per-rush, they did it without the workhorse Cedric Benson. And even though it was the quarterback the recorded them, the Bengals as a team did pick up two rushing touchdowns.

Still, things didn't work out. Miscues and penalties chief among them.

Marvin Lewis said on Wednesday that Cedric Benson has a good chance to play. However, they are being extremely cautious with him, as Joe Reedy writes "Benson will be very limited in practice today." An AP report quoted Lewis as saying that Benson "seems to be very close".

Either way, it sounds like Benson's chances of returning range from 'good' to 'seems to be very close'. Both of which are really encouraging phrases against the Browns.

Thanksgiving Day BUCEM Predictions!!!

Niko Houllis — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:00:18 -0000

The Buc'em Turkey is smarter than he looks...

View full size photo »

We asked three of our guys to preview tomorrows games for us!

BUCWILD

GreenBay Packers at Detroit - In what has become an annual tradition, the Lions will get stomped at home on Turkey Day. This time they won't have Matt Millen to blame though. Stafford and the Lions have shown some progress, but with Stafford out to a shoulder injury and Megatron most likely not playing, the Lions just don't have what it takes to keep up. Green Bay seems to have found a way to protect Rodgers, and thats by throwing more short passes than long ones. Look for a balanced attack as Green Bay rolls through Detroit.

PAUL

Oakland at Dallas - The Cowboys have not been playing well, and the Raiders seldom do. Coming off an unlikely win against the Bengals at home last week, the Raiders will get a reality check when they walk in to Dallas on Turkey Day. Cowboys 31, Raiders 17.

CRAIG T

NewYork Giants @ Denver- Giants' offense seemed to be clicking on all cylinders last week. Denver will score, but the Giants will go to the air with surprising success against the talented Denver secondary, taking the game in the 4th quarter. NYG 24, DEN 20.

Thanks Guys...and we will have our whole staff's predictions up by tomorrow morning.

What about you?

Are you smarter than our Turkey? Lets hear your predictions...

Primer: Cleveland Browns (1-9) at Cincinnati Bengals (7-3). Part II

Kirkendall — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:36:34 -0000

More photos » by Mark Duncan - AP

about 1 month ago: Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Chad Ochocinco, left, catches a five-yard touchdown pass in front of Cleveland Browns cornerback Eric Wright (24) in the first quarter of an NFL football game Sunday, Oct. 4, 2009, in Cleveland. (AP Photo/Mark Duncan)

Browse more photos »

Game: Cleveland Browns (1-9) at Cincinnati Bengals (7-3)
Series Leader: Bengals 37-35
Streak: Bengals have won eight of the past 10 meetings
Coaches vs. Opponent: Lewis: 9-4. Mangini: 1-2
Broadcast: CBS (1:00 PM ET): Ian Eagle, Rich Gannon. SIRIUS: 129 (Cle.), 122 (Cin.). XM: 106 (Cin.).
SB Nation: Dawgs by Nature
NFL.com: Game Center
Weather: Mostly cloudy with a high of 54. [Weather.com]
Uniform: Orange
Television Coverage: State of Ohio, eastern Kentucky, Western West Virginia and western Pennsylvania. [506]

Cincinnati Bengals

With a win the Bengals will go undefeated against the division for the first time in franchise history.
Bengals have won four of the past five games against Cleveland
Quarterback Carson Palmer is 7-2 against the Cleveland Browns, completing 197 of 313 passes for 2,145 yards passing, 22 touchdowns and 14 interceptions for an 87.9 passer rating.
Palmer has a touchdown in all nine career games against Cleveland.
With four touchdowns, Palmer will become the third quarterback in franchise history to record 125 passing touchdowns (any wild guesses on the other two?)
Cedric Benson is averaging 122.5 yards rushing in previous two games against Cleveland.
Benson averages 106.2 yards rushing in games where he records 20 rushes or more -- his teams are 11-1-1.
Rookie running back Bernard Scott recorded his first career 100-yard game with 119 yards rushing against the Oakland Raiders.
Chad Ochocinco has three touchdowns in his previous two games against the Browns and looks to record a touchdown in his third straight game against the Browns.
Bengals defense has 10 interceptions in their past six games.
Johnathan Joseph looks to record an interception in three straight against the Browns.
Joseph has an interception in four of five divisional games this year.
Dhani Jones leads the Bengals with 68 tackles.

Cleveland Browns

The Browns look to record back-to-back wins in Cincinnati for the first time since the 2002-2003 seasons.
Brady Quinn, who recorded career highs in passing (304), touchdowns (4) and passer rating (133.1) last week, will make his first career start against the Bengals.
In 15 career games against the Bengals, Jamal Lewis is averaging 113.7 yards per game, which includes nine 100-yard rushing games.
In his only career game against the Bengals, rookie receiver Mohamed Massaquoi recorded a career high in receptions (8) and yards receiving (148).
Massaquoi recorded his second career 100-yard receiving game last week.
Receiver Chansi Stuckey posted his first touchdown reception with the Browns last week against the Lions.
Linebacker David Bowens looks to record a sack in three straight games.
Safety Brodney Pool has two interceptions in his past three games and looks to record a pick in two straight against the Bengals.

TEAM RANKINGS

Offense	Bengals	Browns
Total	335.6 (17th)	236.8 (31st)
Scoring	21.5 (16th)	11.5 (30th)
Third Downs	41% (14th)	29% (29th)
Rushing	127.8 (9th)	101.4 (22nd)
Rushing TDs	9 (t-12th)	2 (t-30th)
Passing	207.8 (20th)	135.4 (31st)
Passing TDs	14 (t-15th)	7 (31st)
Sacks Allowed	17 (t-7th)	24 (t-21st)
20-yard Passes	28 (t-16th)	18 (29th)

Defense	Bengals	Browns
Total	310.5 (10th)	402.0 (32nd)
Scoring	16.7 (3rd)	26.3 (28th)
3rd Downs Allowed	35% (8th)	39% (20th)
Rushing	84.3 (2nd)	154.9 (29th)
Rushing TDs	4 (t-5th)	13 (t-27th)
Passing	226.2 (19th)	247.1 (26th)
Passing TDs	12 (t-12th)	15 (t-19th)
Sacks	24 (t-8th)	19 (t-21st)
QB Rating	77.5 (t-7th)	93.7 (26th)
20-Yard Passes Allowed	30 (t-19th)	37 (30th)
Interceptions	12 (t-6th)	6 (t-30th)

Special Teams	Bengals	Browns
Kickoff Return	22.1 (23rd)	22.8 (18th)
Punt Return	11.4 (4th)	13.2 (2nd)
Punting (Net)	37.5 (19th)	38.8 (12th)
Punts Inside the 20	14 (t-22nd)	32 (1st)

2009 STATISTICAL INDIVIDUAL RANKINGS

Carson Palmer	Stat	Ranking
Quarterback Rating	87.2	15th
Yards Passing	2,217	16th
Touchdowns	14	t-14th
First Downs	112	t-15th
Average Yards/Att	7.1	16th
Completions	192	t-16th
Interceptions	8	t-17th
Times Sacked	17	t-15th

Cedric Benson	Stat	Ranking
Yards Rushing	859	7th
Attempts / Game	22.8	1st
Touchdowns	6	t-10th
First Downs	36	t-9th

Chad Ochocinco	Stat	Ranking
Receptions	50	t-21st
Yards Receiving	735	12th
Touchdowns	5	t-14th
20-yard receptions	11	t-9th
First Downs	39	t-7th

CAREER AGAINST THE BROWNS

Carson Palmer

Date	Result	Comp.	Att.	Yards	TDs	Int
10.4.09	W, 23-20	23	44	230	2	1
12.23.07	W, 19-14	11	21	115	1	2
9.16.07	L, 45-51	33	50	401	6	2
11.26.06	W, 30-0	25	32	275	3	1
9.17.06	W, 34-17	24	40	352	2	2
12.11.05	W, 23-20	13	27	93	1	1
9.11.05	W, 27-13	26	34	280	2	1
11.28.04	W, 58-48	22	29	251	4	3
10.17.04	L, 17-34	20	36	148	1	1

Chad Johnson

Date	Result	Rec	Yards	TDs
10.4.09	W, 23-20	3	24	2
9.28.08	L, 12-20	3	28	1
12.23.07	W, 19-14	4	44	0
9.16.07	L, 45-51	11	209	2
11.26.06	W, 30-0	7	123	0
9.17.06	W, 34-17	6	78	1
12.11.05	W, 23-20	2	22	0
9.11.05	W, 27-13	9	91	0
11.28.04	W, 58-48	10	117	1
10.17.04	L, 17-34	3	37	0
12.28.03	L, 14-22	4	29	0
9.28.03	L, 16-22	3	67	2
11.17.02	L, 20-27	4	103	1
9.15.02	L, 7-20	4	58	1
11.25.01	L, 0-18	1	7	0
10.14.01	W, 24-14	5	68	0

Cedric Benson

Date	Rushes	Yards	TDs
10.4.09	18	74
12.21.08	38	171	0
10.9.05	5	6	0

Laveranues Coles

Date	Rec	Yards	TDs
10.4.09	2	24	0
12.9.07	7	48	0
10.29.06	4	40	0
10.3.04	7	122	0
10.27.02	5	61	1

Six-Pack of Hu-Dey: Bengals rookies, offensive line and beating the rest of the schedule

Kirkendall — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:41:04 -0000

Chase Coffman's debut is more than just about being a receiving tight end.
All things considered, this year's rookie class has been a solid group of contributors to this football team. Players like Michael Johnson, Morgan Trent and Bernard Scott have improved the team's depth as backup and role players while Rey Maualuga and Kevin Huber already have a handful of starts underneath their belts. However, one high profile player who's being demanded by fans, and questioned by the media, is growing in urgency after an inconsistent run of critical errors by the Bengals tight ends in the past month.

With the Browns and Lions coming up, it makes sense to throw Chase Coffman into the fold. We're not talking as starters. We're not really talking about guys that will play half of the offensive snaps. We've read that Coffman is still struggling with his blocking technique. And if Coffman isn't going to be playing the bulk of the offensive snaps, then he'd at least have to contribute on special teams. Marvin Lewis has already said that he has to do one or the other. Block. Contribute on special teams. While the demand for Coffman is justified, loud and unified, he's going to have to do more than just catch passes in this offense.

Could Andre Smith's debut be coming after Scott Kooistra was released?
The idea is that the team's offensive line has performed far better than expectations. And quite bluntly, Smith isn't needed right now. With Anthony Collins and Dennis Roland playing right tackle, they've managed to do their job well enough to give Smith time to grow at his own rate. They did the same thing with Carson Palmer in 2003.

Here's food for thought. The Bengals released Scott Kooistra on Tuesday. He was active on game day. This could mean that Smith makes his NFL debut against the Browns in jumbo formations as the third offensive tackle?

It's the offensive line's performance that deserves the award for best team turn-around in 2009.
One of the biggest concerns coming into this season is how well would the offensive line improve. Last year's offense averaged 4.0 yards-per-play and 3.6 yards-per-rush. Bengals quarterbacks were sacked, on average, 3.2 times per game. Many, including me, criticized the offensive line. The demand to draft an offensive tackle in the first round was answered with Andre Smith.

They also promoted Kyle Cook as the starting center while electing not to sign Eric Ghiaciuc (best offseason move). After starting the final six games last year, Anthony Collins and Nate Livings impressed the coaches enough to keep them on as starters -- ironically, they've both been demoted as the year went on by Dennis Roland and Evan Mathis respectively. Andrew Whitworth moved back to his natural position at left offensive tackle.

What's the result?

They've cut the sacks allowed per game by half (1.7). Cedric Benson and Bernard Scott are averaging 4.2 and 4.3 yards-per-rush respectively and the offense's overall yards-per-play improved by 1.2 yards.

I think the defense is a great argument for best turnaround by a unit, but we had already known that they were improving at the end of last season. We had no idea what to expect with the offensive line heading into the season.

If Cedric Benson is out against the Browns, Larry Johnson's role should be expanded.
Bernard Scott has proven that once he builds endurance as a feature back, he could have even more potential; especially if he builds his strength to run between the tackles. Brian Leonard can fight for that extra yard as well as any running back on this roster. But Larry Johnson should have an expanded role against the Browns.

I understand the points that he shouldn't even be on the team. The reality is, he's here and the team should have enough confidence in his knowledge of the playbook to give him more than the two carries for five yards he rushed for against the Raiders.

Without Benson, the Bengals don't have a workhorse. And between Johnson, Scott and Leonard, the Bengals could have a three-headed beast, all of whom have different abilities and fresh legs. The stretch run is appearing to shape up nicely for the Bengals rushing offense -- especially when Benson makes his return.

The Bengals can beat the Minnesota Vikings... but the San Diego Chargers?
First things first. The Bengals have to beat teams that they should beat. If they don't, then don't be surprised if they miss the playoffs after a 7-2 start. With that thought in mind, the Bengals could be assured four wins at least, with tough games in Minnesota and in San Diego. This alone would give them double-digit wins for the first time since 2005. Provided they don't do what they did against Oakland, the Lions, Browns, Chiefs and Jets are games that the Bengals should win.

And I think Cincinnati will be tough as nails against the Vikings or Chargers. We might play down to the competition this year (like the Browns or Raiders). But we also play up to the competition. I think the Bengals chances of beating the Vikings are very good. We're a tough rush defense that can pressure the quarterback with tremendous cover cornerbacks. Offensively, we can wear down any defense, provided we do it unpredictably.

And it's not like I put the Chargers on a pedestal that I don't think they'll beat them. But we know how the Bengals do in the state of California. So I'm going on a limb. Bengals beat Vikings, but struggle against the Chargers.

The Bengals and Shayne Graham should move on after this next season.
Let me preface this. Shayne Graham has been a great person for this community. His charity has raised a lot of money and "resources to under served children and other charitable initiatives. Our mission is to lend assistance to those in need and be an organization that makes a lasting impression, empower those who want to make a difference, and strengthen communities."

And for six straight seasons with the Bengals, Graham has converted at least 83.3% of his attempted field goals.

Until this year.

This year Graham is on pace to record a career-low 70.6% of his field goals. Has already more blocks in one season (3) than he did his entire career coming into the season (2). However, it hasn't been entirely his fault. Brad St. Louis was in large part the problem with Graham's lack of success, making terrible snaps that, at the very best, caused Graham to stutter on his approach to the football.

Regardless, Graham has missed a field goal in five of ten games this season, including a missed 37-yard attempt that would have given Cincinnati a 7-point lead with 5:41 left in the third quarter. Furthermore, after Robert Geathers recovered a fumble and returned it 38 yards, Graham did convert a 25-yard attempt. However, if the missed field goal was converted, that's a 10-point lead.

I think Graham has done a lot of great things for this city and this team. But after season, with Graham hitting the free agency market, I think the Bengals should say farewell.

The Dude Abides...The Stats That Don't Lie, Week 11

TJ Johnson — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:30:11 -0000

More photos » by David Zalubowski - AP

Heeeere's Philip!!!!!

Browse more photos »

"All stats and no play makes Jack a dull boy." --Jack Torrance

Week 11 in the NFL was a classic horror movie. There were some spine-chilling moments (Chiefs over the Steelers), terrifying screams (Ravens fans watching their red zone offense), and when the Raiders beat the Bengals, things got downright bloodcurdling.

For their part, the Denver Broncos treated their fans to a B-movie slasher flick, in which they played the victim. By the time the 4th quarter rolled around their rush defense had been so hacked to pieces, they simply tried to survive until the sequel.

Welcome again to the Stats That Don't Lie, Week 11. This is your weekly descent into statistical madness. These are the stats that give you Cabin Fever. They are the packaged little REDRUM of stats. As always, they are Turnovers, Field Position, Time of Possession, and 3rd-down efficiency.

This week, we're going to shake things up slightly. While you'll get the same summary statistics that you get each week (for those that like light reading) for all the teams and all the games, I'm going to spend a significant amount of time in this piece looking at the first half of the Denver/San Diego game in order to demonstrate some important lessons about these four statistical categories. Hopefully, this will help us understand not only the complexities of how these four statistical categories intertwine, but the actions/strategies behind these statistics.

Let's first begin, however, at the 10,000-foot level. There's no reason to sugarcoat the Broncos' misfortunes. These turnover-margin numbers over the last four games are as one-sided as a Tom Cable/Randy Hanson cage match:

Denver's turnover margin keeps getting worse each game. And every game that they've lost, they've come out of the game with a negative turnover margin. Statistically, teams that have a turnover margin of -3 (minus three) only win about 17% of the time. However, more disturbing than this individual game (or its statistic) is the trend. When Denver was winning they were not turning the ball over, to the point of being labelled a "dink and dunk" offense. Now that they are losing, they are giving the ball up in droves. So we can talk all day and night (and we will) about Simms, Orton, onside kicks, who owns whom, and whether pigs have wings. The Broncos' season stops and starts in one place: turnover margin.

It might sound like a broken record, but if Denver does one thing against the Giants that will ensure a win, it is to simply hold on to the ball. Easier said than done, of course.

Denver continues its ghastly fall in all four of the statistically categories, however - not just turnovers. Here are where they rank against all 32 teams:

Denver is 10th in Turnovers, 27th in Field Position, 22nd in Time of Possession, and 21st in 3rd downs. I'm not saying this is becoming a ghost ship just yet, but things are getting rather ghoulish. Denver is beginning to drift into the territory of the Rams, Lions, and (GASP!) Raiders with these grisly rankings.

Notice the San Diego Chargers and where they rank. After Denver backhanded the Bolts in Week 6, the Chargers ranked 6th in Turnovers, 25th in Field Position, 30th in Time of Possession, and 17th in 3rd downs. Now they are 2nd in Turnovers, 9th in Field Position, 21st in Time of Possession, and 13th in Third Downs. All of this has come on the heels of a commitment to the running game--something Denver has struggled with.

You can certainly draw your own conclusions about the other teams on the list, but if I'm picking a Super Bowl match-up today, you can go ahead and give me New England and Minnesota based upon these statistics. Perhaps I enjoy the prospect of Jared Allen talking about mullets next to Tom Brady talking about Gisele. Or perhaps I simply think the Colts' field position struggles will cost them at some point and that the Saints give the ball up too much on average.

Before moving on to the weekly rankings, I can't resist pointing out that the Bears rank second in field position. Imagine the kind of damage they could inflict on opponents if their QB didn't dispense interceptions like Pez candy.

Week-11 Summaries:

2-Turnover Rule (Explained Here)

7 teams had 0 turnovers. 5 won (71%); For the season, 53/65 (82%)
11 teams had 1 turnover. 4 won (36%); For the season, 44/87 (55%)
5 teams had 2 turnovers. 3 won (60%); For the season, 43/94 (46%)
6 teams had 3 turnovers. 4 won (67%); For the season, 12/45 (26%)
2 team had 4 turnovers. None won (0%); For the season, 4/21 (19%)
1 teams had 5+ turnovers. None won (0%); For the season, 0/8 (0%)

Week-11 Big Picture

The team that won the turnover battle won 8 of 16 games played (50%). This is the lowest percentage for turnovers I've seen all year.
In the previous category, remove the ties (1 game) and this changes to 47%
The team that won the time of possession battle won 12 of the 16 games played (75%).
The team that had better third-down efficiency won 11 of the 16 games played (69%).
The team that had better average starting field position won 9 of the 16 games played (56%). This is the lowest percentage for field position I've seen all year.
There were 5 games this week in which a team won all four categories. In 4 of the 5, the same team won on the scoreboard (80%). For the season, this stat is 52 out of 56 games. In only 2 games, however, has a team won outright in all four categories (no ties in the turnover battle) and lost.
The winning teams this week averaged 1.38 turnovers, 32:14 in time of possession, 47.42% on 3rd downs, and their average starting field position was the 30.63 yard line.

Top 5 in Week 11:

Top 5 in giveaways: 7 Teams tied with 0
Top 5 in time of possession: 1.Pittsburgh 2.Minnesota 3.Green Bay 4.New York Jets 5. Cincinnati
Top 5 in 3rd downs: 1.Minnesota 2.Jacksonville 3.Atlanta 4.Indianapolis 5.Green Bay
Top 5 in avg. starting field position: 1.New Orleans 2.San Diego 3.Oakland 4.Kansas City 5.Chicago

Running Totals, Season (through 11 weeks):

160 games have been played this season
80% were won by the team with less turnovers (counting ties as wins)
67.50% with a better time of possession
66.25% by the team who won on 3rd down
71.25% by the team that won the field-position battle.

11-week League Averages:

11-week running average/game, turnovers (all teams): 1.68

11-week running average/game, time of possession (all teams): 30:11 (thanks to numerous OT games)

11-week running average/game, 3rd down efficiency (all teams): 37.91%

11-week running average, starting field position (all teams) 29.81 yard line

The Denver/San Diego Game

Even though there were several interesting games from last week, including one where the stats did lie (Detroit/Cleveland), this is the weekly look in-depth at the Denver/San Diego game. So let's see what we can learn:

Drive 1 - Denver

Eddie Royal takes the ball from his end zone and returns it to the 26-yard line, so it's better than a touchback. Denver proceeds to line up in a series of Single-Back, 3 WR sets, varying slot-left and slot-right. They also use one shotgun formation to run for a 3rd-and-3 conversion.. They cram the ball off of the right tackle, getting huge chunks of yards until they are stopped at the San Diego 17-yard line. In the 2nd-down play that follows, Simms doesn't step up into the pocket, is stripped of the ball, and Denver commits its first turnover of the day. San Diego recovers at their own 31-yard line.

What can we learn from this drive? Denver chews up 4:25 of clock on this drive, only to have 3 to 7 points destroyed by a turnover. So even though Denver is ahead in time of possession, they are behind in the turnover battle and in field position. Here one can see that time of possession is much less important than the fact that Denver could not extend its drive and score. Even worse, the momentum has clearly shifted in San Diego's favor. Turnovers kill. Time of possession means nothing without a score.

Drive 1 - San Diego

San Diego takes over on its own 31-yard line. They use a series of their own single-back formations, I and Off-I formations to gash Denver in the running game off left end and up the middle. Denver's middle linebackers are consistently getting caught in traffic and a stupid personal foul penalty allows San Diego to score an easy touchdown.

San Diego holds onto the ball, chews up 4:37 of clock, achieves two 3rd-down conversions, and the score. So now the Chargers are leading in all four statistical categories. But the most important stat of this drive is San Diego's average yards/play: 7.1 yards.

Drive 2 - Denver

Royal takes a touchback, which is better than nothing. This drive is a disaster, however, with two penalties, and Simms looking very rusty in the shotgun formation. The drive ends in a sack and an unconverted 3rd-down opportunity. Even worse, the ineptness of the offense forces a Denver punt from its goal line.

Drive 2 - San Diego

San Diego takes over at its own 43-yard line after an excellent Mitch Berger punt. However, San Diego is benefiting from excellent field position already in this game. San Diego continues to show a variety of single-back, shotgun- , and offset-I formations. A stupid penalty from Jarvis Moss helps give San Diego another easy 3rd-down conversion, and before one can say "LT," San Diego is deep into Denver territory. Although they settle for a field goal, they've added to their lead and taken another 7:14 off the clock. If we looked at the 4 statistical categories at this moment we would see:

Turnovers: Den (1), SD (0)

Field Position: Den (23), SD (37)

Time of Possession: Den (7:15), San Diego (11:54)

3rd-Down Efficiency: Den (1/2), San Diego (3/4)

Drive 3 - Denver

The ball flies through the end zone for another touchback, so Denver gets the ball on its 20-yard line once again. Denver is victimized on this drive by a tipped pass, a penalty on Ryan Clady, and a safety blitz on third down. So Denver goes three and out. It's important to note that Denver is doing nothing whatsoever to help itself in the field position battle.

Drive 3 - San Diego

The Chargers start from their own 27-yard line. They now use a lot of play action off of their offset-I formations to march down the field with level-two out routes. They also convert a big 3rd-and-one conversion in the process with a back shoulder fade to Vincent Jackson. Denver only rushes 3 or 4 at a time, so it's easy pickings for Phil Rivers. A couple of bad calls by the Chargers sets up a long 3rd-down conversion that the Chargers can't quite pick up. The Chargers settle for another field goal while taking more time off the clock. However, the key stat for the Chargers from this drive is passing yards/play: 10 yards.

Let's face facts. This game could be 21-0 at this point.

Drive 4 - Denver

Royal takes the kickoff return to the 38-yard line. For once, Denver starts with good field position. And the Chris Simms experience is also done, as Kyle Orton jogs onto the field. Orton uses a series of max-protect shotgun and single-back formations to zip some deep balls on the left side of the field. Denver is quickly to the Chargers 4-yard line. On the next play (Single-back, slot-right formation), Moreno fumbles. Despite the fact that Moreno had actually crossed the plane, the referee rules that the fumble stands. San Diego takes over at the 20-yard line.

Denver squanders another opportunity with a penalty. Throw time of possession and 3rd downs out the window. This drive was all about the turnover. At this point in the football game, 2 turnovers have essentially cost the Broncos between 6 and 14 points.

Drive 4 - San Diego

San Diego starts at their 20-yard line and it's their goal to now kill clock and take it into the half with runs out of the offset I-formation. This is the first time San Diego has gone conservative all game. And what does it get them? Three and out. The punt is also horrible, only traveling 28 yards.

Drive 5 - Denver

Denver again gets the ball in good field position, at their 45-yard line. This is a perfect opportunity to get some points before the half. Denver comes out in the Shotgun. Orton tries to go to a deep out to Royal, but is intercepted.

Drive 5 - San Diego

San Diego takes over at their own 42-yard line. Turner again goes conservative, letting the clock hit halftime.

At halftime, when the game was effectively over, here is where both teams stood in the four statistical categories:

Turnovers: Den (3), San Diego (0)

Field Position: Den (29.60), San Diego (32.40)

Time of Possession: Den (10:43), San Diego (19:17)

3rd-down efficiency: Den (1/3), San Diego (1/3)

What does all of this teach us about how the four categories work together? There are several points to consider:

1) Turnovers depend on context and situation. As has been said many times, a Hail Mary at the end of the half is not as important as a fumble in the red zone. This game certainly illustrated that. In this case, the three Denver turnovers cost them points. They could have had (in my estimation) at worst 3 FGs, and at best 2 TDs and 1 FG. This represents between 9 and 17 points.

2) Field position is fluid. The Football Outsiders are the ones who have coined this phrase, but it's certainly true. In short, it means that your chances of scoring increase/decrease for each yard you move north or south. In this case, the Broncos gave the Chargers good field position twice in the first half, once with a turnover and once with their three-and-out drive after a touchback. And they paid for it. The Chargers put up 10 points during these opportunities. Short fields are not good, unless your team is getting them.

3) Time of Possession doesn't equal run domination. This is an important concept, and was touched upon last week in the comments to the Stats That Don't Lie by MHR members like warmick. San Diego won the time of possession in the half through through a balanced attack (14 passes, 16 rushes). Furthermore, San Diego only had four more rushing yards than Denver going into halftime. So how did they do it? They simply ran more plays and sustained their drives with scores, despite having the same number of drives as the Broncos. They did it through a steady yards per play average. In the 2nd half this became even more pronounced, as San Diego ran more often to kill the game clock. Thus, the huge time-of-possession advantage that San Diego possessed at the end of the game was also a result of them being ahead at halftime.

4) 3rd down is important...if you need it. Don't get me wrong. 3rd-down efficiency is a critical stat to measure because it means you are sustaining drives, and, hopefully, you are scoring at the end of these drives. However, if your offense sustains its drives on 1st and 2nd down, the 3rd-down-efficiency battle may not be as important. In this game, on the Chargers' third drive of the afternoon, they got a lot of big plays on 1st and 2nd down, and, as such, only faced 2 third-down conversions.

The Look Ahead

Looking ahead to New York, here is how the two teams stack up in the four statistical categories (keeping in mind these are averages/game):

Team Turnovers/Game Time of Possession Field Position 3rd-Down Efficiency

Denver 1.40 28:56 27.51 35.99%

New York 1.60 34:06 31.68 43.10%

While these statistics would indicate a Giants victory, I'm not buying it. There are several reasons I feel this way. First, there's a reason why the Giants are complaining about travelling on a short week to altitude. That's because it will have an effect. Second, Eli Manning has a gunslinger streak in him that can be coaxed out with a few blitzes (something Denver did not do against San Diego). So look for Denver to get a turnover or two. And third, losing three home games in a row is a rarity for any Bronco team. That's a horror movie no one wants to see.

Hail, Kyle Orton!!

Last stat: 2.5% (percentage chance that Brandon Marshall and Knowshon Moreno are still upset with each other)

Interview With Pro Football Focus Reveals Excellent Analysis, New Jinx

ncoolong — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:51:14 -0000

BTSC writer Neal Coolong met up with one of the writers of Pro Football Focus, a web site dedicated to providing thorough and detailed statistics on every NFL player in every game. Neil and six other members of the site have been in existence since 2007, and were recently mentioned in SI writer Peter King's Monday Morning Quarterback column (beating Coolong to the punch, he's yelled at King since then). The interview took place over several emails in the past two weeks, here are the highlights:

NC: First off, thanks for doing this. I'll admit, when a co-worker of mine gave me the link to this site, my productivity at work was reduced greatly. So maybe I shouldn't be thanking you. But if I'm pissed at anyone, it's at Peter King for beating me to giving you guys the recognition I feel you deserve (No. 8 of 10 Things I Think I Think). Who does he think he is, anyway? Give me a little background. Who are you guys? How many people do you have on staff? How long has the site been up?

PFF: The site in some form or another has been up since 2006. In it’s initial guise it was more a vehicle for displaying my limited data than anything else. There’s a whole section on how we got going in the "About" tab under the "History" section which explains a lot more about how we started.

At the moment we have 7 guys working on the site. Interestingly (or perhaps shockingly) all bar one of us are based outside the US with the majority of us based in the UK.

NC: That brings me to the issue of grading, which is thoroughly explained here.

I'll paraphrase you, "We are not grading style or technique; just result...We've all heard the terms knee-bender, stiff hips, inconsistent footwork or over-extension etc. but as far as we're concerned it doesn't matter whether you know what they mean or not. All we care about is the result."

So you're grading the pure results of the play, black and white, win or lose. Personally, I love that approach in terms of ranking an evaluating individual players. Answer me this, though, in particular reference to the defensive backs, do you feel the amount of statistical data you keep on each player fairly takes into account the roles of that particular player in that particular defense?

For example, Ike Taylor and William Gay play in a different defensive scheme than, say, Antoine Winfield. While I am not surprised Winfield scores as highly as he does, do you feel your evaluations hold up when compared to his peers? Is it fair? Or is your intention more to show the results of individual players, without the concern of how they stack up against their peers?

PFF: I don’t think we’ll ever get a full view on secondary or WR play until the NFL allow us access to game film so we can actually grade each player on each play (I’m led to believe hell will be freezing over shortly so we should be OK). I think until then everything is a fudge to some degree, regardless of the scheme.

That said I think we do more than anyone else with equal access. Most people who delve into advanced type stats will just note down whose in coverage on a play. While we also compile the base stats for coverage we do it more for completeness than anything else. The truth of the matter is we try to use a combination of factors when rating CBs but go more off our grading than anything. The base statistics can tell a lot of lies regardless of whether the coverage is zone, man or some combination. Let me give you a few examples:

A team run a WR screen at a CB who is in man coverage. The CB is double-teamed by screen blocks and can do nothing but because of missed tackles by other players the screen goes for 80 yards and a TD. The CB was clearly in coverage and hence the yardage goes against him.
A CB is beaten badly for a reception but the WR then drops the ball.
Another CB is beaten badly and gives up a 70 yard TD by peeking in the backfield (Chris McAlister has patent pending on this) but the play is called back on a holding call

In the first of these the CB has done nothing wrong and is penalised by having 80 yards and a TD logged against him. In the latter two the CB has been poor but is rewarded with incomplete passes to his credit. Obviously in our grading the CB would not be penalised in the first but marked down significantly in the others.

To come back to the original question of schemes, I think the situation with CBs is fairly straight forward. The CB almost always has initial responsibility for the man across from them, he starts off in their zone and to all intents and purposes is in man coverage until such time as he’s handed off to a LB (on a crossing route) or a Safety (on a deeper route). As soon as he’s handed the guy off (and that point is normally very easy to judge) he no longer has responsibility. So the CB stats, taking into account my reservations above, are pretty accurate from a standpoint of responsibility and performance.

So I guess the question is back to you… can you give me an example where or why you think a Steeler CB may be at a disadvantage in our ratings? We were pretty high on both Bryant McFadden and William Gay last year.

NC: I wasn't suggesting they were at a disadvantage, I was simply using the Steelers players in a 3-4 zone blitzing scheme as opposed to Antoine Winfield, who plays in a Cover 2. I'd likely be hunted down and beaten up if I brought up Leon Hall and Jonathan Joseph.

But since you mentioned Bryant McFadden, and I felt he was a very strong producer on last year's Super Bowl team, do you feel his play has really fallen off that much (currently 79th on your CB rankings)? William Gay hasn't produced, per your stats, nearly as much this year as he did last year.

I'm gonna have to plant a phrase on you: The Pro Football Focus Jinx. For Steelers Players. Cornerbacks in Particular.

There maybe something to be said for an overall scheme benefitting an individual players skills more than another, but that's a separate issue. Lemme ask you this, do you think you could apply your approach on Pro Football Focus to coaching? Do you think there is a measurable way to analyze coaches, beyond the normal wins/losses metrics? I understand any coach will tell you wins are all that matters, but do you think there is a statistical measurement for coaches?

PFF: Certainly Bryant doesn’t look as solid as he was last year. In 2009 he was in coverage for 344 snaps, gave up 342 yards and a TD, defensed 5 passes and intercepted a further 2. In addition he held up well in run defense and was pretty consistent in terms of having very few off days but never particularly setting the world on fire. It was therefore no surprise at all when he was picked up by the Cards who’d got a bit fed up with Rod Hood’s inconsistency and having two corners playing in that style (I’m not sure anybody thinks Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie will stop being "mercurial" any time soon) was a liability.

That said he appears to have morphed from a relatively safe pair of hands into Rod Hood II. Even excluding the W10 game vs. Seattle, Bryant has already been in coverage only 23 snaps less than last year and has had some decent performances but also some bad games. So far he has been marginally better than Rod Hood in 2008 but isn’t as sure as he was last year for you guys. In those 321 snaps he hasn’t given up a TD and he’s defensed 8 passes which is great but he’s also given up 467 yards including 171 YAC. All this suggests a more aggressive approach since the move and I’ve seen that on tape too.

Regarding William Gay I’d just be a little cautious when using the rankings in that way (a few points is very insignificant) and what we’ve seen is a reasonably average NFL corner who has had some good days (most notably against the Chargers) but has been less effective of late. Last year he was above average but as a part-time player and he’s already had a good couple of games worth of snaps in coverage more than last year.

If you wish to talk jinx it’s not the Steelers who should be concerned…… we’ve had a far more negative effect on the Bengals at a player level. We name Evan Mathis and Keith Rivers to our mid-season All-Pro and both are injured. You should be paying us to put their CBs on the team too!

On the coaching question it’s something I notice analyzing games; the whole play is executed well but it doesn’t work… at all. You wonder what they were thinking when they drew it up. That said it doesn’t happen often enough to be significant in my view and as we break down each play, 95% of the time I’d guess, a play works or fails because individual players either blow assignments or do something extraordinary. Obviously this is a coaching responsibility too for either a) not getting someone good enough to do the job b)not teaching them well enough or c)not motivating them sufficiently to see it through.

I suppose something we could do to check at a strategy level what coaches are performing (although I have absolutely no idea as to how relevant it might be) is to compare overall team performances on offense and defense with records. For example I would contend the Saints have a lot of below average players on defense (and some very good ones in the secondary) but haven’t lost a game and rank 17th in points allowed and 21st in defense. It might be expected that they would be a bit worse than that.

NC: Well, we still may see Cincinnati in the playoffs, so there's still time. How much would it cost to ensure the ratings of Joseph, Hall and their impressive nickel back, Morgan Trent, go way down? I'll get with Blitzburgh (our publisher) and work out some kind of payment. I'm not talking dismemberment or death here, just maybe like a debilitating stomach flu...

Obviously with the amount of games/plays you're watching on a regular basis, you have to develop a sense of overall teams as well. You mentioned the Saints, do you think they are the best team in football through nine weeks? Does any team have a clear advantage over the field in terms of Super Bowl contention right now?

PFF: It’s interesting because no team is without some significant weakness and I could genuinely still see 13 teams winning. My Preseason pick was the Vikings, mostly because of their defense but as it turned out their offense has been better than suspected and their defense worse.

I’m really sorry to tell you this but regardless of last weeks result I still think the Steelers are the best team in the AFC (and probably the NFL); just too much balance, too many quality players in every unit. Apologies for damning you to a season without playoffs.

In the NFC it’s difficult to look past the Saints but the cracks that have always been in the defense are starting to widen and I’m not going to get off an 8-1 horse at this stage.

NC: I was like you, I called the Steelers and Vikings at the beginning of training camp (pre-Favre) and it was because of the defense of those teams. Both of the Steelers recent championship teams had slides at or right after the mid-season point. There's still a ton of football to be played.

There seems to be enough football to play, and a tight enough race to wonder who will be league MVP. Who's your horse in that race?

PFF: For me MVP is all about what would happen if you remove that player from the team. We saw last year without Brady the Patriots were still functional as were the Steelers when Ben was hurt. Minnesota was still a playoff team without Favre. I think the same would be true this year too.

Without Brees and Manning I don’t think either the Saints or the Colts are over .5 and truthfully I believe the Colts record would be 2-7 not 9-0. When we analyze QBs we grade each pass and In the past we have seen games where we have not given Peyton a single negative mark. I think he’s likely to go down as the best of all time and a worthy MVP in 2009.

On a lighter note the most ridiculous comment I’ve ever heard was a sentence from Dan Patrick in SI which started with the phrase "It’s debatable which Manning brother is the better QB………"

NC: Almost as ridiculous as the idea that Kansas City would beat Pittsburgh...any given Sunday, right?

PFF: I’m really sorry, as soon as I said "I liked the Steelers in the AFC", I knew something like this would happen.

NC: Ok, we're blaming you.

Bengal Banter: Brownies Week

jsl413 — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:42:25 -0000

More photos » by Marcio Jose Sanchez - AP

Does this look like a guy that's going to lose again? (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)

Browse more photos »

This is going to have to be short. Sorry, I'm sick and writing a thesis.

Very cool story on Johnathan Fanene by John Eradi for the Enquirer. Read it if you didn't get the chance! This guy was a 7th round gem, not unlike late-round picks Ndukwe and Houshmandzadeh (they turned out pretty good, huh?), who has cracked the starting lineup and has been majorly productive. Coach Lewis says he's made the most progress of any Bengal player this year!
Power rankings. Bengals fall to 6 from 4 in CBS's rankings, getting a generous C- grade from Pete Prisco after they blew things in Oakland.
In ESPN's rankings, The Bengals fell to 7 from 4, with New England, Arizona, and San Diego moving ahead. We'll have a chance to play San Diego in a few weeks to prove these rankings wrong. I guess losing to Oakland does that to a team's prestige.
Washington Post's Les Carpenter writes that the Bengals are an "arresting story" this year in a good way! That's cute.

Vikings/Cardinals Moved to Sunday Night for Week 13

Gonzo — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:21:21 -0000

Well, the Vikings have officially had their schedule changed. Pro Football Talk first broke the story that has since been repeated in several FanPosts here on the site, and that's the story that the Week 13 matchup that will see the Beloved Purple travel to Arizona to take on the Cardinals will be broadcast on Sunday night on NBC.

The original game that was scheduled was between the New England Patriots and the Miami Dolphins.

When I did my post a couple of weeks ago about which Minnesota games could potentially be flexed, I cited this one as a game that definitely had some flex potential. And, apparently, the folks at NBC agreed. I'm guessing that that's largely because they couldn't a) find a compelling game involving an NFC East team (although Michael Vick's return to Atlanta is on the Week 13 docket as well) or b) find an excuse to give the Chicago Bears another well-deserved prime time appearance.

I'm guessing that this also means that the Week 14 matchup between the Vikings and the Cincinnati Bengals is no longer a flex candidate, since I don't think NBC would feature one of the same teams in consecutive weeks. Then again, with the Eagles and Giants set to square off on the peacock network that weekend, I wouldn't have expected that game to change anyway.

So, it appears our only other candidate for a flex game would be Week 17 against the Giants, and I still think there's a very good chance we get flexed OUT of our Week 15 matchup against the Panthers, unless Carolina engineers a turnaround in fairly short order.