Marvin Lewis was a 4-3 Defense guy. That doesn't mean the new coaches will be. Word is the Florida Coach is high on D coach list. Well, in NFL and College he has used the 3-4 at times and is still known for his great D Lines and getting after the QB. Bengals 2 Super Bowl Teams were 3-4 LeBeau type Defenses. So I'm just saying Marvin Is Gone, and CHANGES are wide open. Now I know there are more complicated terms for modern defenses, but Marvin was mostly a 2 Defensive Tackle guy. That doesn't mean the new coaches will be. They might prefer a Nose Guard like a Krumrie and a Pass Rushing Down Linebacker James Harrison type. Marvin Is Gone.

Myself, I would like to see Bengals have the players to play 3-4 and 4-3. Zone or One on One. The QBs are pretty good and with these touch football rule changes, maybe you have to mix it up and throw everything and the kitchen sink at these QBs to keep them from putting 50 points on the board. Hanks Defense in 1981 to Super Bowl was the other QB had no idea who was blitzing. He really mixed it up on defense and Bengals went Super Bowl. LeBeau mixed it up getting us to 1988 Super Bowl. Just seems the more packages you can run, it makes it harder on the QB. Dynasty Patriots mix their D up, hard for a QB to read it.

You can "mix it up" with either base defense. You can run stunts, bring pressure from any where, even blitz DBs and drop DL into coverage. But you need settle on one base scheme so you can get the right guys to fit your system.

Apparently Taylor does not know which defense he wants to run. That could be part of the problem with finding a DC.

I have been intrigued with getting more 3-4 looks on the field for the last year. I think Hubbard adds an interesting chess piece along with Lawson when they are healthy.

(02-12-2019, 10:23 AM)Au165 Wrote: I have been intrigued with getting more 3-4 looks on the field for the last year. I think Hubbard adds an interesting chess piece along with Lawson when they are healthy.

Adding a guy like Justin Hollins in maybe the 3rd would help a switch.

To run the 3 4 need more 605 290 pound defensive ends. Steelers have the prototype ends on their team.

I think Marvin's always been more of a hybrid guy -- even though he ran a 4-3 base in Baltimore, Washington, and Cincy, you always saw 3-4 looks (particularly on 3rd down) and he was always looking for that elusive rush linebacker/"joker" in the draft. Could be from his time in Pittsburgh as a LB coach, when they ran a 3-4.

I like a 3-4, as I think it's generally more versatile and better-suited to defend the modern, pass-heavy NFL offenses. But you gotta have the personnel to run it, and currently we don't have 3 quality LBs, much less 4 ... (or a proven NT, for that matter).

But it could happen. Spitballing here, but if we were to draft, e.g., Dexter Lawrence in 1 and Mack Wilson in 2, you could theoretically go 3-4 with Atkins (DE), Lawrence (DT), Dunlap (DE) and Hubbard (OLB), Burfict (ILB), Wilson (ILB), Lawson (ILB). Looks good on paper, and could work IF Hubbard/Lawson can cover, Burfict can stay healthy, etc.

So our best player on defense is Geno Atkins. Moving to a 3-4 basically negates him and Dunlap as they will be taking on blockers as lineman in a 3-4 don't produce a lot of sacks.

Then, our LB unit was our absolute worst unit on the team...and instead of finding 2 new linebackers...we'd need 3.

Why can't we keep running a 4/3 and just bring Lawson and Hubbard in at OLB on passing downs and have them blitz?

Plus, Lawson was pretty 1 dimensional. He's a good pass rusher. He's not good at stopping the run. He's not good in coverage. Moving him to ILB would be terrible.

(02-12-2019, 11:46 AM)Socal Bengals fan Wrote: To run the 3 4 need more 605 290 pound defensive ends.  Steelers have the prototype ends on their team.

Steelers need those longer guys cuz they use a 2 gap front almost exclusively. Wade Phillip runs a single gap 34 and uses Aaron Donald as a DE.

Issue is less 34 or 43 alignment because most teams run alot of each it's more about gap responsibility....and really there are so many different alignments of each.

(02-12-2019, 11:58 AM)shanebo Wrote: I think Marvin's always been more of a hybrid guy -- even though he ran a 4-3 base in Baltimore, Washington, and Cincy, you always saw 3-4 looks (particularly on 3rd down) and he was always looking for that elusive rush linebacker/"joker" in the draft.  Could be from his time in Pittsburgh as a LB coach, when they ran a 3-4.

I like a 3-4, as I think it's generally more versatile and better-suited to defend the modern, pass-heavy NFL offenses.  But you gotta have the personnel to run it, and currently we don't have 3 quality LBs, much less 4 ... (or a proven NT, for that matter).

But it could happen.  Spitballing here, but if we were to draft, e.g., Dexter Lawrence in 1 and Mack Wilson in 2, you could theoretically go 3-4 with Atkins (DE), Lawrence (DT), Dunlap (DE) and Hubbard (OLB), Burfict (ILB), Wilson (ILB), Lawson (ILB).  Looks good on paper, and could work IF Hubbard/Lawson can cover, Burfict can stay healthy, etc.

It doesn't even look good on paper. Defensive lineman in a 3-4 don't produce many sacks. You'd waste Atkins and Dunlap.

Lawson is a 1 dimensional pass rusher. He's bad against the run and can't cover. He'd be a terrible fit at ILB.

Same with Hubbard. How many 265 lb Linebackers are good in coverage?

(02-12-2019, 12:07 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: It doesn't even look good on paper. Defensive lineman in a 3-4 don't produce many sacks. You'd waste Atkins and Dunlap.

Lawson is a 1 dimensional pass rusher. He's bad against the run and can't cover. He'd be a terrible fit at ILB.

Same with Hubbard. How many 265 lb Linebackers are good in coverage?

Tell that to Aaron Donald, JJ Watt, and Chris Jones.

(02-12-2019, 12:07 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: It doesn't even look good on paper. Defensive lineman in a 3-4 don't produce many sacks. You'd waste Atkins and Dunlap.

Lawson is a 1 dimensional pass rusher. He's bad against the run and can't cover. He'd be a terrible fit at ILB.

Same with Hubbard. How many 265 lb Linebackers are good in coverage?

Lawson would be an OLB (hit the I instead of O ...).  Hubbard @ 265 is not particularly oversized for a 3-4 OLB.  Justin Houston, Chandler Jones, Ryan Kerrigan, Derrick Morgan, Robert Quinn, Brian Orakpo all go 260.  Suggs, Dupree and Mercilus are 265.  Clowney is 270.  Question is can they cover, or at least cover well enough on 20-25 plays per game to allow our pass rushers to get the QB?

I think Atkins and Dunlap could be very good 3-4 DEs, but you would be wasting one of Atkins' greatest strengths, which is quick penetration vs. guards.

Just saying it could work, not that we should do it.  As I said, we currently don't have the personnel.  And I agree it doesn't play to the strengths of the guys we have -- e.g., Atkins is a better 4-3 DT than he would be a 3-4 DE, Dunlap and Hubbard seem to be better suited as 4-3 DEs, etc.  Plus, you're drafting Defense in 1-2, which means no O-line help until Rd. 3.     

(02-12-2019, 05:43 AM)kevin Wrote: Marvin Lewis was a 4-3 Defense guy.  That doesn't mean the new coaches will be.  Word is the Florida Coach is high on D coach list. Well, in NFL and College he has used the 3-4 at times and is still known for his great D Lines and getting after the QB.   Bengals 2 Super Bowl Teams were 3-4 LeBeau type Defenses.  So I'm just saying Marvin Is Gone, and CHANGES are wide open.  Now I know there are more complicated terms for modern defenses, but Marvin was mostly a 2 Defensive Tackle guy.  That doesn't mean the new coaches will be. They might prefer a Nose Guard like a Krumrie and a Pass Rushing Down Linebacker James Harrison type.  Marvin Is Gone.

Myself, I would like to see Bengals have the players to play 3-4 and 4-3.  Zone or One on One.  The QBs are pretty good and with these touch football rule changes, maybe you have to mix it up and throw everything and the kitchen sink at these QBs to keep them from putting 50 points on the board. Hanks Defense in 1981 to Super Bowl was the other QB had no idea who was blitzing. He really mixed it up on defense and Bengals went Super Bowl.  LeBeau mixed it up getting us to 1988 Super Bowl.  Just seems the more packages you can run, it makes it harder on the QB.  Dynasty Patriots mix their D up, hard for a QB to read it.

would take a massive change in personel.... 

(02-12-2019, 12:52 PM)shanebo Wrote: Lawson would be an OLB (hit the I instead of O ...).  Hubbard @ 265 is not particularly oversized for a 3-4 OLB.  Justin Houston, Chandler Jones, Ryan Kerrigan, Derrick Morgan, Robert Quinn, Brian Orakpo all go 260.  Suggs, Dupree and Mercilus are 265.  Clowney is 270.  Question is can they cover, or at least cover well enough on 20-25 plays per game to allow our pass rushers to get the QB?

I think Atkins and Dunlap could be very good 3-4 DEs, but you would be wasting one of Atkins' greatest strengths, which is quick penetration vs. guards.

Just saying it could work, not that we should do it.  As I said, we currently don't have the personnel.  And I agree it doesn't play to the strengths of the guys we have -- e.g., Atkins is a better 4-3 DT than he would be a 3-4 DE, Dunlap and Hubbard seem to be better suited as 4-3 DEs, etc.  Plus, you're drafting Defense in 1-2, which means no O-line help until Rd. 3.     

Lawson is not an every down LB at this stage of career. He's good at pass rushing and pretty poor in other aspects of the game.


I feel like Hubbard could work into an every down role.


I think we have too many needs to draft for than to add 3-4 personnel to the list. We'd need to add that big clogger of a DT too. 

(02-12-2019, 12:06 PM)Synric Wrote: Steelers need those longer guys cuz they use a 2 gap front almost exclusively. Wade Phillip runs a single gap 34 and uses Aaron Donald as a DE.

Issue is less 34 or 43 alignment because most teams run alot of each it's more about gap responsibility....and really there are so many different alignments of each.

605 320 Cam Hayward n 606 315 Stephon Tuitt are ideal 3 4 ends

When people think of 3-4 they think of the generalized base formation, but the reality is very few teams even run this generic version anymore



In comparison a 3-4 under looks very similar to the same front a 4-3 would be doing in an under formation. The only difference most would notice is the outside backer is in a 2 point stance, but the real small details 90% of people here wouldn't even notice.



The reality is running over and under variations is common in the NFL today and it's why so many people any more are scheme versatile. There isn't a huge difference and you can use other variation to line you stars up in more advantages positions. Phillips still lines Donald up often as a 3 technique by adjusting the run fits behind him to ensure the wider gap isn't exposed. 

All the discussion about needing all new personnel is just overblown. Hubbard would be capable as playing the SAM and being good enough in coverage while Lawson could play the weak side rush backer who basically rushes 90% of the time. The amount of coverage expected out of 3-4 OLB's is really minimal, far below of what you ask out of your 4-3 linebackers. 

(02-12-2019, 01:34 PM)Au165 Wrote: When people think of 3-4 they think of the generalized base formation, but the reality is very few teams even run this generic version anymore



In comparison a 3-4 under looks very similar to the same front a 4-3 would be doing in an under formation. The only difference most would notice is the outside backer is in a 2 point stance, but the real small details 90% of people here wouldn't even notice.



The reality is running over and under variations is common in the NFL today and it's why so many people any more are scheme versatile. There isn't a huge difference and you can use other variation to line you stars up in more advantages positions. Phillips still lines Donald up often as a 3 technique by adjusting the run fits behind him to ensure the wider gap isn't exposed. 

All the discussion about needing all new personnel is just overblown. Hubbard would be capable as playing the SAM and being good enough in coverage while Lawson could play the weak side rush backer who basically rushes 90% of the time. The amount of coverage expected out of 3-4 OLB's is really minimal, far below of what you ask out of your 4-3 linebackers. 

Any way you slice it, we need MLB's who can cover. And in a 3-4 we'd need 2.

Meh..... I like the 4-3, we have our personnel picked for that defense. No reason to change....

(02-12-2019, 01:26 PM)Socal Bengals fan Wrote: 605 320 Cam Hayward n 606 315 Stephon Tuitt are ideal 3 4 ends

Ideal 2 gap 34 ends. In that kinda defense they need the size and length to stack and shed. In a single gap 34 you need ends that can get leverage and penetrate. The Steelers run 2 gap almost exclusively.

Geno Atkins has lined up alot more than people think as a 34 end so has MJ and Carlos Dunlap. People are stuck on the 34 and 43 as a base but those are just alignments. In fact there's a few different 43 and 34 alignments examples like 43 under/over 43 flex 43 wide nine. 

What is more important is the gap responsibilities and even then teams mix up those responsibilities too. Look at alot of zone blitzes the Bengals have run over the years alot of that is 2 gap front.

(02-12-2019, 01:49 PM)Synric Wrote: Ideal 2 gap 34 ends. In that kinda defense they need the size and length to stack and shed. In a single gap 34 you need ends that can get leverage and penetrate. The Steelers run 2 gap almost exclusively.

Geno Atkins has lined up alot more than people think as a 34 end so has MJ and Carlos Dunlap. People are stuck on the 34 and 43 as a base but those are just alignments. In fact there's a few different 43 and 34 alignments examples like 43 under/over 43 flex 43 wide nine. 

What is more important is the gap responsibilities and even then teams mix up those responsibilities too. Look at alot of zone blitzes the Bengals have run over the years alot of that is 2 gap front.

But we don't even have 3 Capable LBers  and now will need 4 lol

Don't the Pats, Steelers and Ravens run a 3-4.

The question is not what is best for next year- what is best for the future given the pass happy NFL?

Not to mention that Bengals were in the bottom of the league defending the run with a 4-3.

They are not winning anything next year. This team is a project. And it is about time.

Everything assumption and tendency needs to be challenged.