(03-23-2018, 10:27 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I think part of it is that in a 4-3 scheme the LBs are not supposed to be the big  play makers.  Most "big name" LBs are 3-4 OLBs who get tons of sacks

But we have still missed on a lot of players.

When Marvin first arrived he brought in a lot of LBs.  Free agents Kevin Hardy and Nate Webster .  Two third rounders in '04 (Landon Johnson, Caleb Miller) and a first and second rounder in '05 (Pollack and Thurman).  But none of them worked out very well.

Then after that we did not seem to be really interested in LBs until we used a first on Rivers and a second on Maualuga.

I definitely agree with this. The only "playmaker" from LB position is supposed to be the WILL (at least from what I recall some people saying in the past). The MIKE and SAM are supposed to be quality role players but don't need to be elite.

The playmakers are supposed to be:
DEs
3T
WILL
CBs

(03-23-2018, 11:45 AM)fredtoast Wrote: They stunted Michael Johnsons development as a DE for 2 years because they kept him a skinny LB/DE hybrid.

The NFL is too much of a passing league to have a DE playing LB even on first and second down.  If you want to have a DE who is just a pass rush specialist then bring him off the bench when you bring in the 5th DB (who now plays more snaps than our 3rd LB).

I agree with that. They still drop him into coverage from time to time, not a big fan of that either.

(03-23-2018, 12:24 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I definitely agree with this. The only "playmaker" from LB position is supposed to be the WILL (at least from what I recall some people saying in the past). The MIKE and SAM are supposed to be quality role players but don't need to be elite.

The playmakers are supposed to be:
DEs
3T
WILL
CBs

An elite Mike can shape a whole defense, think Kuechly. Your Will tends to be undersized and can't always shed blocks as well but shows great athleticism so you "hide" him on the backside.  The Will also tends to have to cover backs out of the backfield so they need to be able to match up with some of the shiftier guys. An elite Mike though who can cover hash mark to hash mark and stuff the run is a game changer, there just aren't many of those around anymore.

(03-23-2018, 12:34 PM)Au165 Wrote: An elite Mike can shape a whole defense, think Kuechly. Your Will tends to be undersized and can't always shed blocks as well but shows great athleticism so you "hide" him on the backside.  The Will also tends to have to cover backs out of the backfield so they need to be able to match up with some of the shiftier guys. An elite Mike though who can cover hash mark to hash mark and stuff the run is a game changer, there just aren't many of those around anymore.

From what I recall some people mentioning in the past is the Bengals mimic the TB 4-3 such that the positions I listed are the ones where the playmakers are needed the most.

(03-23-2018, 12:24 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I definitely agree with this. The only "playmaker" from LB position is supposed to be the WILL (at least from what I recall some people saying in the past). The MIKE and SAM are supposed to be quality role players but don't need to be elite.

The playmakers are supposed to be:
DEs
3T
WILL
CBs

Don't necessarily agree with that. You give me MLB that is smart and can move and tackle any day and I will have one of the best defenses year after year. Examples would be Kuekley, Urlacker, Singletary, Lewis.

(03-23-2018, 12:36 PM)ochocincos Wrote: From what I recall some people mentioning in the past is the Bengals mimic the TB 4-3 such that the positions I listed are the ones where the playmakers are needed the most.

They run a 4-3 over and under mainly. Either way the Will is about containing the cutback and covering the HB. If they had an elite Mike it would be transformative, which is actually why I'd like them to move Burfict to Mike, because finding really good Will play is easier. The thing a lot of Mike's tend to not have anymore is the ability to stuff the run while still having coverage instincts to take away the middle of the field. We run a lot of cover 2 which means the mike tends to have the "softest" part of the field, so with that in mind having great instinct to read and react is a big deal.

(03-23-2018, 12:36 PM)sandwedge Wrote: Don't necessarily agree with that. You give me MLB that is smart and can move and tackle any day and I will have one of the best defenses year after year. Examples would be Kuekley, Urlacker, Singletary, Lewis.

I'm not saying it wouldn't help, but clearly it isn't a priority to find a MIKE like that. Otherwise, the Bengals would have made it a priority over the past 15 years.

(03-23-2018, 12:39 PM)Au165 Wrote: They run a 4-3 over and under mainly. Either way the Will is about containing the cutback and covering the HB. If they had an elite Mike it would be transformative, which is actually why I'd like them to move Burfict to Mike, because finding really good Will play is easier. The thing a lot of Mike's tend to not have anymore is the ability to stuff the run while still having coverage instincts to take away the middle of the field. We run a lot of cover 2 which means the mike tends to have the "softest" part of the field, so with that in mind having great instinct to read and react is a big deal.

Agreed, but Burfict has stated he prefers playing WILL. So it's either make him unhappy or find a 3-down MIKE that can both stuff the run and defend the pass well.

(03-23-2018, 12:42 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Agreed, but Burfict has stated he prefers playing WILL. So it's either make him unhappy or find a 3-down MIKE that can both stuff the run and defend the pass well.

Not sure where you heard that. 

 
“Now he’s just playing MIKE, and that’s what he loves,” defensive coordinator Paul Guenther said, according to Geoff Hobson of Bengals.com. “Some teams will try to get him out of the box, get him out of the way and run it the other way, so now they can’t out-formation us to get him out of the mix of things.”

He went on to say, “I’m starting to play a little faster day-by-day. The hands are different, the eyes are different. Who you’re on … I enjoy it. It’s my natural spot.”

As for the 3 down Mike, hopefully that's Brown.

(03-23-2018, 12:46 PM)Au165 Wrote: Not sure where you heard that. 

 
“Now he’s just playing MIKE, and that’s what he loves,” defensive coordinator Paul Guenther said, according to Geoff Hobson of Bengals.com. “Some teams will try to get him out of the box, get him out of the way and run it the other way, so now they can’t out-formation us to get him out of the mix of things.”

He went on to say, “I’m starting to play a little faster day-by-day.  The hands are different, the eyes are different. Who you’re on … I enjoy it. It’s my natural spot.”

As for the 3 down Mike, hopefully that's Brown.

Hobson Wrote:The signing of Brown, the ex-middle linebacker for the Bills, allows Burfict to stay at his preferred spot at WILL and has the coaches excited about teaming the two in the middle of the field.

http://www.bengals.com/news/article-1/Bengals-hit-a-homer-with-signing-of-MLB-Brown/74a1c3de-b69f-491f-92f3-83d6ffa4c42a

(03-23-2018, 12:39 PM)Au165 Wrote: They run a 4-3 over and under mainly. Either way the Will is about containing the cutback and covering the HB. If they had an elite Mike it would be transformative, which is actually why I'd like them to move Burfict to Mike, because finding really good Will play is easier. The thing a lot of Mike's tend to not have anymore is the ability to stuff the run while still having coverage instincts to take away the middle of the field. We run a lot of cover 2 which means the mike tends to have the "softest" part of the field, so with that in mind having great instinct to read and react is a big deal.

I tend to think an offseason and TC with Burfict at MIKE would really help this D. But with this suspension thing again hanging over his head, it might not be worth it.

(03-23-2018, 12:51 PM)ochocincos Wrote: http://www.bengals.com/news/article-1/Bengals-hit-a-homer-with-signing-of-MLB-Brown/74a1c3de-b69f-491f-92f3-83d6ffa4c42a

Yea, I just don't give Hobson any respect saying that. To me it is him trying to spin the situation, the quotes I posted were from Guenther and Burfict last season.As they alluded too teams can just run away from him as a Will.

Odell Thurman could have been something special. Multi-million dollar talent with a 10 cent brain. Such a waste.

(03-23-2018, 12:59 PM)Au165 Wrote: Yea, I just don't give Hobson any respect saying that. To me it is him trying to spin the situation, the quotes I posted were from Guenther and Burfict last season.As they alluded too teams can just run away from him as a Will.

If Burfict really does want to play MIKE, I agree that I think it makes sense for him to be there and get a(nother) playmaker at WILL. But that also likely means moving Preston Brown to SAM, right? While I think Brown would be a good SAM, I don't think he'd like to drastically reduce his snaps, which would be expected if he played SAM.

(03-23-2018, 01:03 PM)ochocincos Wrote: If Burfict really does want to play MIKE, I agree that I think it makes sense for him to be there and get a(nother) playmaker at WILL. But that also likely means moving Preston Brown to SAM, right? While I think Brown would be a good SAM, I don't think he'd like to drastically reduce his snaps, which would be expected if he played SAM.

You can play Brown as a Will, he has played all over. I think Lawson is the SAM and he kicks down to end for pass rushing snaps.

(03-23-2018, 12:36 PM)ochocincos Wrote: From what I recall some people mentioning in the past is the Bengals mimic the TB 4-3 such that the positions I listed are the ones where the playmakers are needed the most.

MLBs were always key in a Tampa 4-3.

Hardy Nickerson outperformed Brooks, when they were both on the team.

Now, the Hardy Nick-man was a once a generation talent at MLB (an absolute crime he isn't in the HOF), but still, he was better than Brooks, each year they played together, save for 1999 ('98, Nickerson was injured). Jamie Duncan then got outperformed by Brooks to death, for the following few year.

Shelton Quarles was next and while he wasn't Nickerson, he too was right up there with Brooks.

I've always thought that the WLB and MLB are 1A and 1B, in a 4-3.

If I were to put together my own personal best Tampa LBs, I'd put:

WLB: Brooks
MLB: Nickerson
SLB: Boulware

Bmore also used the Tampa 4-3.

And yes, there is honest to God, 0 bias in that; I'd take Nickerson over Ray Lewis all day, every day.

(03-23-2018, 02:27 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: MLBs were always key in a Tampa 4-3.

Hardy Nickerson outperformed Brooks, when they were both on the team.

Now, the Hardy Nick-man was a once a generation talent at MLB (an absolute crime he isn't in the HOF), but still, he was better than Brooks, each year they played together, save for 1999 ('98, Nickerson was injured). Jamie Duncan then got outperformed by Brooks to death, for the following few year.

Shelton Quarles was next and while he wasn't Nickerson, he too was right up there with Brooks.

I've always thought that the WLB and MLB are 1A and 1B, in a 4-3.

If I were to put together my own personal best Tampa LBs, I'd put:

WLB: Brooks
MLB: Nickerson
SLB: Boulware

Bmore also used the Tampa 4-3.

And yes, there is honest to God, 0 bias in that; I'd take Nickerson over Ray Lewis all day, every day.

Well the Bengals also have Hardy Nickerson, so they're covered then!

(03-23-2018, 02:14 PM)Au165 Wrote: You can play Brown as a Will, he has played all over. I think Lawson is the SAM and he kicks down to end for pass rushing snaps.

I'd prefer someone a little better in coverage over Brown when it comes to WILL, but that's just me. I'd much rather Burfict at WILL than Brown.

Also, Lawson was not the starting SAM last year, Vigil was. Can't find the article link that I read a few weeks ago, but it said Vigil was still the starting SAM with Brown at MIKE and Burfict at WILL.

(03-23-2018, 02:40 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Well the Bengals also have Hardy Nickerson, so they're covered then!

lol!

I know he needed a few weeks to get up to speed (and still wasn't that stellar) but I'm super glad he was on the team! He did have a great last 2 weeks, as did the other LBs, for the most part.

Keep in mind there is a difference between the front and the coverage shell. When people talk about "Tampa" they are talking about Tampa 2 coverage most the time where the MLB basically has the zone from the his starting point back to a deep middle, think depth similar to where you'd normally see safeties start and location wise in between them. In a standard cover 2 the MLB is going to take a hook zone drop and then can adjust into man coverage depending on route combination and receiver count. The Bucs ran multiple different fronts from 1 gap DT play to two gap and all sorts of various alignments off it, so saying that defense ran the "Tampa" 4-3 is a little misleading.