Should the Bengals stop using hybrid defenses?

[Joelist]

I am going to say yes and this is my reasoning. Feel free to disagree but at least state why.

First, I think the constantly changing and weird sets are hampering the progress of our young linebackers. We actually can field a LB core for a 4-3 (Pratt, Wilson, ADG) or a 3-4 (Pratt, Bynes, Wilson, ADG) and if we would pick one and stick to it as the base these young backers would be able to develop as a unit and would not have constantly changing areas they have to cover - which leads to confusion especially with inexperienced players.

Second, picking either 4-3 or 3-4 and sticking to it as the base would help the defense develop some kind of identity. Right now they play like 11 players sent out there unsure of their responsibilities and not really feeling what they as a group are good at.

Whether they did 4-3 or 3-4 pick one. Right now with the depleted DL we might be better at 3-4 but either way choose one and stick with it both in practice and in play.

[Yogo]

I approve of this message.

You're going to need much more specific role players that take up precious space on a limited needed roster.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(11-04-2020, 04:43 PM)Joelist Wrote: I am going to say yes and this is my reasoning. Feel free to disagree but at least state why.

First, I think the constantly changing and weird sets are hampering the progress of our young linebackers. We actually can field a LB core for a 4-3 (Pratt, Wilson, ADG) or a 3-4 (Pratt, Bynes, Wilson, ADG) and if we would pick one and stick to it as the base these young backers would be able to develop as a unit and would not have constantly changing areas they have to cover - which leads to confusion especially with inexperienced players.

Second, picking either 4-3 or 3-4 and sticking to it as the base would help the defense develop some kind of identity. Right now they play like 11 players sent out there unsure of their responsibilities and not really feeling what they as a group are good at.

Whether they did 4-3 or 3-4 pick one. Right now with the depleted DL we might be better at 3-4 but either way choose one and stick with it both in practice and in play.

I agree, too complicated on Defense and it shows with the Linebackers and Secondary big time. Even Bynes seems confused 
out there and he is a long tenured veteran. Also we need to do less Zone coverage on the back end and more Man coverage.

Good point about the D-line, going to a 3-4 might be a good way to go if Covington or Xavier Williams could handle the NT 
but I don't know if they can. Thinking a 4-3 with Pratt, Wilson and ADG is best for what we have at this point. When we lost
Reader the 3-4 kind of went out the window.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

4-3 is still best IMO, with Nickel being used the majority of the time anyways (and 3-4 nickel or rather, 3-3 nickel, isn't that stellar).

[*ochocincos*]

(11-04-2020, 04:43 PM)Joelist Wrote: I am going to say yes and this is my reasoning. Feel free to disagree but at least state why.

First, I think the constantly changing and weird sets are hampering the progress of our young linebackers. We actually can field a LB core for a 4-3 (Pratt, Wilson, ADG) or a 3-4 (Pratt, Bynes, Wilson, ADG) and if we would pick one and stick to it as the base these young backers would be able to develop as a unit and would not have constantly changing areas they have to cover - which leads to confusion especially with inexperienced players.

Second, picking either 4-3 or 3-4 and sticking to it as the base would help the defense develop some kind of identity. Right now they play like 11 players sent out there unsure of their responsibilities and not really feeling what they as a group are good at.

Whether they did 4-3 or 3-4 pick one. Right now with the depleted DL we might be better at 3-4 but either way choose one and stick with it both in practice and in play.

I think it's pretty clear that it's been a tough transition from Marvin's 4-3 model into the hybrid.
They don't really have guys who are well-suited for 3-4 DE.
With that said, Hubbard has some coverage ability, so he can play OLB.
I don't think Atkins fits as a 3-4 DL. He's not as long as guys like JJ Watt and Cam Heyward to play 3-4 DE. He's not as big as someone like Ngata to be a true 3-4 NT.
I thought Dunlap had the length and size to play 3-4 DE, but it seems the coaching staff wanted him at OLB in a 3-4 setting.

I agree they need to pick one and stick with it, especially from a personnel standpoint.
Going back to 4-3 is easier based on current staff.
Going to 3-4 will require moving on from certain players.
They need to make the decision so they know what type of players to pursue in the offseason. 

[*Synric*]

All NFL defenses are hybrids. Every teams in the league runs odd and even fronts. Every team in the league 2 gaps and 1 gaps.

Finding edge players that can do it all is the issue.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(11-04-2020, 07:23 PM)Synric Wrote: All NFL defenses are hybrids. Every teams in the league runs odd and even fronts. Every team in the league 2 gaps and 1 gaps.

Finding edge players that can do it all is the issue.

Need Hubbard back...

[fredtoast]

(11-04-2020, 07:23 PM)Synric Wrote: All NFL defenses are hybrids. Every teams in the league runs odd and even fronts. Every team in the league 2 gaps and 1 gaps.

This.

Defenses have to be able to adjust to different personnel packages ran by opponents.  Defenses also have to be able to give the offense different looks.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(11-04-2020, 07:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This.

Defenses have to be able to adjust to different personnel packages ran by opponents.  Defenses also have to be able to give the offense different looks.

Well I think Joelist is meaning less complicated more than not running hybrid Defenses at all...

[SunsetBengal]

(11-04-2020, 04:43 PM)Joelist Wrote: I am going to say yes and this is my reasoning. Feel free to disagree but at least state why.

I'm going to disagree, for the same reasons others have chosen to disagree.  Every NFL defense is a hybrid defense.  Offensive play has become so complex that simply lining up in any "base" defense is futile.  Versatility is a must in today's league.

I'm not against the team choosing the 3-4 hybrid as their "base".  If you look at 3-4 in Nickle, it's basically a 4-3, and most teams play 2/3 of the game in Nickle sets.  The key is getting the LBs adept at stuffing the run, covering the pass, and having a blitz specialist or two on the roster.  The team went heavy on athletic LBs that can tackle in the past two drafts, just allow them to continue developing.  

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(11-04-2020, 08:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm going to disagree, for the same reasons others have chosen to disagree.  Every NFL defense is a hybrid defense.  Offensive play has become so complex that simply lining up in any "base" defense is futile.  Versatility is a must in today's league.

I'm not against the team choosing the 3-4 hybrid as their "base".  If you look at 3-4 in Nickle, it's basically a 4-3, and most teams play 2/3 of the game in Nickle sets.  The key is getting the LBs adept at stuffing the run, covering the pass, and having a blitz specialist or two on the roster.  The team went heavy on athletic LBs that can tackle in the past two drafts, just allow them to continue developing.  

All true, think we need to see less of Bynes out there cause as you say need to see the young LB's develop and they look better to
me than Bynes anyways, especially Wilson and Pratt. Wilson has great instincts and just tackles well, the more snaps these guys get
I think the better they will get. Same with ADG who is raw. Haven't seen much of Bailey yet this year, would like to see this guy play
some.

Bynes has been missing tackles and taking bad angles. Sometimes he isn't even in position and the young LB's like Pratt have to line 
him up. Thought he would be the guy doing this for our young fellas, been the other way around.

[Joelist]

Actually most defenses in the league are not as "hybrid" as we are. They have looks for different scenarios to be sure but they still have a base the operate out of and that establishes identity. The Bengals on the other hand don't really have any base at all and it shows in the constant confusion on the defensive side of the ball. This is similar to the nonsense perpetrated by Teryl Austin where the total lack of consistency in the roles players play in the defense leads to confusion on the field.

You can have different looks but they need to be based on a common base formation - the better defenses do that because it lends cohesion.

[SunsetBengal]

(11-04-2020, 08:31 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: All true, think we need to see less of Bynes out there cause as you say need to see the young LB's develop and they look better to
me than Bynes anyways, especially Wilson and Pratt. Wilson has great instincts and just tackles well, the more snaps these guys get
I think the better they will get. Same with ADG who is raw. Haven't seen much of Bailey yet this year, would like to see this guy play
some.

Bynes has been missing tackles and taking bad angles. Sometimes he isn't even in position and the young LB's like Pratt have to line 
him up. Thought he would be the guy doing this for our young fellas, been the other way around.

I agree, although no knock on Bynes, as he has been exactly as advertised and as testified by a fan of his former team.  No ill will toward Josh Bynes, he's made some good stops and plays with good effort.  He can't help what age and injury do to an athlete's body.  Pratt and Wilson are definitely the future, along with ADG.  I was ecstatic watching Wilson get his 1st sack, hopefully many more where that came from.    

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(11-04-2020, 08:51 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I agree, although no knock on Bynes, as he has been exactly as advertised and as testified by a fan of his former team.  No ill will toward Josh Bynes, he's made some good stops and plays with good effort.  He can't help what age and injury do to an athlete's body.  Pratt and Wilson are definitely the future, along with ADG.  I was ecstatic watching Wilson get his 1st sack, hopefully many more where that came from.    

Yeah, I don't mean to be hating on Bynes too bad as I thought he was a good pick up.

Just want to see our young guys get more snaps and him get less is all.

Wilson could be much better than I thought he even would be.

Loved the guy at U-Dub but I think he has grown more than I expected him to so fast.

Excellent pick, could be a great one.

[GreenCornBengal]

(11-04-2020, 09:46 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Yeah, I don't mean to be hating on Bynes too bad as I thought he was a good pick up.

Just want to see our young guys get more snaps and him get less is all.

Wilson could be much better than I thought he even would be.

Loved the guy at U-Dub but I think he has grown more than I expected him to so fast.

Excellent pick, could be a great one.

Wilson is awesome. I think once he gets the privelage to be out there majority of the game we will see more come from him. He is very disciplined which is why he plays well IMO. I worried about if he would be able to shed blocks and how he would tackle coming from a small conference school but doesn’t look to big for him.

On the flip slide, ADG lacks discipline so badly he looks like a fool at times. He really needed some more time before starting IMO but if he can improve his consistency could be alright.

I still think drafting another LB early two drafts from now or a FA pickup would be enticing.

[J24]

I don't think it's an issue we still run a one gap scheme it's not like we run a traditional 2 gap 3-4.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(11-04-2020, 10:42 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: Wilson is awesome. I think once he gets the privelage to be out there majority of the game we will see more come from him. He is very disciplined which is why he plays well IMO. I worried about if he would be able to shed blocks and how he would tackle coming from a small conference school but doesn’t look to big for him.

On the flip slide, ADG lacks discipline so badly he looks like a fool at times. He really needed some more time before starting IMO but if he can improve his consistency could be alright.

I still think drafting another LB early two drafts from now or a FA pickup would be enticing.

I had the same concerns with Wilson but he clearly knows how to shed blocks well. Just looks like a pro out there as a rookie.

I think ADG could be more then alright down the road, just raw as I thought he would be. Could end up being very good to great
too once he gets disciplined. Wilson I just expected to be solid right off the bat but he is already much more then solid as a rookie.

Logan makes plays man, just makes plays. Think Bailey could do the same but I am down for another FA pickup this Offseason at 
LB just as long as we get the trenches taken care of.

[804 fan]

(11-04-2020, 04:43 PM)Joelist Wrote: I am going to say yes and this is my reasoning. Feel free to disagree but at least state why.

First, I think the constantly changing and weird sets are hampering the progress of our young linebackers. We actually can field a LB core for a 4-3 (Pratt, Wilson, ADG) or a 3-4 (Pratt, Bynes, Wilson, ADG) and if we would pick one and stick to it as the base these young backers would be able to develop as a unit and would not have constantly changing areas they have to cover - which leads to confusion especially with inexperienced players.

Second, picking either 4-3 or 3-4 and sticking to it as the base would help the defense develop some kind of identity. Right now they play like 11 players sent out there unsure of their responsibilities and not really feeling what they as a group are good at.

Whether they did 4-3 or 3-4 pick one. Right now with the depleted DL we might be better at 3-4 but either way choose one and stick with it both in practice and in play.

Totally agree with this and the 4-3 set , with the 3-4 I think the LOLB would be Hubbard or ADG with Pratt being the LILB, Wilson the RILB and Lawson the ROLB but not saying its the say all end all but Lawson and Hubbard or ADG would be best rushing the passer and Pratt has enough coverage ability to be inside and Wilson definitely can run fill and cover.

[ezekiel23]

This defense appears confused too often.Should not be happening as much midway through the season.

[BengalChris]

(11-04-2020, 04:43 PM)Joelist Wrote: I am going to say yes and this is my reasoning. Feel free to disagree but at least state why.

First, I think the constantly changing and weird sets are hampering the progress of our young linebackers. We actually can field a LB core for a 4-3 (Pratt, Wilson, ADG) or a 3-4 (Pratt, Bynes, Wilson, ADG) and if we would pick one and stick to it as the base these young backers would be able to develop as a unit and would not have constantly changing areas they have to cover - which leads to confusion especially with inexperienced players.

Second, picking either 4-3 or 3-4 and sticking to it as the base would help the defense develop some kind of identity. Right now they play like 11 players sent out there unsure of their responsibilities and not really feeling what they as a group are good at.

Whether they did 4-3 or 3-4 pick one. Right now with the depleted DL we might be better at 3-4 but either way choose one and stick with it both in practice and in play.

I agree. I also agree with others that the 4-3 is best suited for the Bengals.

It's just another indicator about this coaching staff not using the scheme best suited for the personnel they have and working to put the players in the best position to succeed, as witnessed by the 4 wins in one and a half seasons. They made the same mistake last year with the OL and had to switch back mid-season.

Taylor and pals make Dave Shula and Co look like wizards.