Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Towson
    Posts
    1,119

    Fun with Formations



    A Few Formation Notes vs. Bengals 9/7/08

    Reviewing the 2000 season again this off season got me curious about how the Ravens have done against various formations. Iíve got some background information in my Toolbox article from 8/28.

    http://www.ravens24x7.com/column_vie...0&view=archive

    By Formation (all of these are expressed as #WR/#TE/#RB, all of which are defined in the link above):
    032: 1 play for -1 yards (the Bengals final offensive play on 4th and 1)
    122: 1 play for 2 yards
    212: 9 plays, 14 yards, 1.6 YPPA, 1 sack
    221: 4/22, 5.5 YPPA
    302: 11/45, 4.1 YPPA, 1 sack
    311: 14/44, 3.1 YPPA, 1 TO (Lewis FF)
    401: 8/23, 2.9 YPPA, 1 TO (CMac INT)
    500: 1/5
    All: 49/154, 3.1 YPPA, 2 sacks, 2 TO (excludes the spike)

    Notes:
    ē The Bengals abandoned all of their 2 TE sets midway thru the 2nd quarter. They would have 2 TEís on the field again, but never lined up as TEs. Interestingly, they were more successful on those 5 plays than on any others.
    ē Itís a great tribute to the Ravens that they shut down the Bengals 3, 4, and 5 receiver sets. Those plays went 34/117 (3.4 YPPA). These are where the Bengals give other teams matchup fits, particularly with the slot receivers covered by a NB or LB. The Ravens used an impressive combination of blitzes and jamming at the LoS to neutralize these edges.
    ē The Bengals ran play action just 3 times (2 incomplete and a 24-yard pass play to TJH). My recollection is that they only ran it twice in last seasonís opener, but one of them was the 39-yard TD pass to Johnson (Heís going to remain Johnson for that game just the way Ali is still Clay for the Liston fight) that set off his ridiculous prop comic stylings. Given the difficulty they had getting the offense started, Iím surprised they didnít try more.
    ē The Bengals rarely chip block. During the entire game, I counted only 4 chip blocks and none of the 4 was a legitimate attempt to engage then disengage into the pattern. This was despite the fact the Ravens were getting some good pressure. They kept 14 eligible receivers in for set blocking on 27 pass plays, which was a lower ratio than most of the Ravens 2000 opponents. Of those, 7 of their set blocking assignments came on 3 plays in Q3 where they ran a 2-man pattern (1st and 10 on the Bengals 4th play of Q3, incomplete) and 2 3-man patterns (both also incomplete).
    ē They ran the no huddle a total of 9 times, 1 Pass Interference call on CMac, 4 incomplete passes, and 4 rushes for 17 yards. Itís difficult to execute the no huddle in a hostile environment, but teams like the Colts with good line calls and hand signals can do it. Sundayís game was a triumph of crowd noise and pre-snap movement over the no huddle.
    ē The Bengals operated out of the shotgun 10 times. They had a PI on CMac, a 4-yard sack, and were 2 for 6 for 35 yards (4.4 YPP). They also had runs of 7 and 9 yards, each of which occurred on 3rd down, came up short of the sticks, and was immediately followed by a failed 4th down attempt. Itís difficult to polish a turd, but the Bengals probably had their greatest success here, since they did not turn the ball over and averaged over 5 yards per play.




  2. #2

    Re: Fun with Formations

    They are a different team with Chris the Mad criminal Henry in the slot instead of whats his name who was there on Sunday. Henry is almost a Randy Moss in the slot against a 3rd CB or saftey. He would be just a good WR as an out side guy who drew the #1 CB, but with his size and speed is a nightmare for Ivy.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland