why 3-4?

[GO85CHAD]

i hope to god we dont switch our defense. as dumb as our guys are now i dont think they will be able to adjust. we are not a very good run stopping team so i dont see how switching to 3-4 helps us there. i always felt the 4-3 is better against the run and the 3-4 is better for pass. the question is who we draft might determine the factor. if we get lawson, then we use him at lb? wtf? why not just use him as a pass rusher which im getting tired of saying. this guy has a freakish speed burst. he doesnt have the talent and knowledge that pollack had or has. lawson can only be used as speed rusher. something very simple but hes very good at it. if we draft him adn swtich our defense id rather us get kiwanuka and stay at 3-4. please guys help me understand how the 3-4 will make us better. please!

[derekshank]

It won't. We won't. no worries. It's a question that Marvin always gets asked, and he always says he's thinking about it... but we aren't switching.

However... I don't know why you think our guys are dumb. Who is dumb on our defense? Most our guys are very smart. Odell is the only one who might be slow to learn a change... and that's just because he plays on instincts rather than his brains, and he's even getting better at that.

If we switched to a 3-4 our guys would pick it up jsut fine. The real problem is personnel, and that is what we are lacking. We aren't switching (to Spain's dismay)

[BlainThePain]

I'm for whatever puts the best personel on the field and right now we have more good linebackers than D-Linemen. In the long run I want to see a dominant 4-3, but I will take whatever works for now.

[ArmyBengal]

It won't. We won't. no worries. It's a question that Marvin always gets asked, and he always says he's thinking about it... but we aren't switching.

However... I don't know why you think our guys are dumb. Who is dumb on our defense? Most our guys are very smart. Odell is the only one who might be slow to learn a change... and that's just because he plays on instincts rather than his brains, and he's even getting better at that.

If we switched to a 3-4 our guys would pick it up jsut fine. The real problem is personnel, and that is what we are lacking. We aren't switching (to Spain's dismay)

What he said !!!

WHODEY !!!

[Kazkal]

will find out draft day but I like 4-3 as a base sense thats what are players are suited for but I woulden't mind seeing them experiment with 3-4 now then

[Kazkal]

1. STEELERS? I heard they were only decent sense 2001

poor browns

[KiLBurn]

Marvin likes fast DE/LB "tweeners". He seems to be building a "hybrid" defense that can play either a 4-3 or a 3-4 with a substitution or 2. Makes his defense more flexible and easier to disguise.

[Kazkal]

Marvin likes fast DE/LB "tweeners". He seems to be building a "hybrid" defense that can play either a 4-3 or a 3-4 with a substitution or 2. Makes his defense more flexible and easier to disguise.

thats what I would like start out with Justin,JT,shaunsmith & pollack on the line then all sudden Pollack drops back too A LB ....reason i say shaun over sam adams is because we dunno how he'll take too NT

[scott91575]

In the immortal words of Bluto..."Why not!"

[Bengalbob]

i hope to god we dont switch our defense. as dumb as our guys are now i dont think they will be able to adjust. we are not a very good run stopping team so i dont see how switching to 3-4 helps us there. i always felt the 4-3 is better against the run and the 3-4 is better for pass. the question is who we draft might determine the factor. if we get lawson, then we use him at lb? wtf? why not just use him as a pass rusher which im getting tired of saying. this guy has a freakish speed burst. he doesnt have the talent and knowledge that pollack had or has. lawson can only be used as speed rusher. something very simple but hes very good at it. if we draft him adn swtich our defense id rather us get kiwanuka and stay at 3-4. please guys help me understand how the 3-4 will make us better. please!

I thought the advantage of a 3-4 is that it's a good run oriented defense? From Football 101:

"The basic thing is how many players you have down (in a three-point stance). A 4-3 is generally considered better for rushing the passer, but you need complete linebackers and four good linemen. It’s easy to find four good linebackers and three linemen, but clubs have had greater success throwing against a 3-4 than the 4-3. The 3-4 became fashionable in the ’70s with coaches like Bum Phillips and Chuck Fairbanks bringing it in from the college ranks, because it was a better defense against the run."

http://archive.profootballweekly.com/conte...l101_050900.asp

I've seen more detailed write-ups on the run advantages of the 3-4, but I can't put my fingers on them right now. I assume this is the reason Marvin wants to work it in more.

[HoTbOy]

I wouldn't say our D is dumb, but BSims does make you wonder the way he constantly misses screens...3-4 defenses are e-z to pass on but they are tough to run against...I too would take whatever works best to stop the damn run...

[KiLBurn]

Here is a good site to get some basic information on what types of players fit into each system the best.

3-4

4-3

By the descriptions offered aboved, I think Marvin is trying to build a "hybrid" of the 2 defenses. He wants fast linebackers to cover the TE's and be able to recover and support the run D and he wants guys that will "lay the wood" to you when try to run the ball on us. He has selected too many DE/LB "tweener" type LB's to allow you to guess which scheme he is leaning towards. I think that his intention is to be able to switch between a hybrid "3-4" and a hybrid "4-3" depending on the situation.

[Bengalbob]

Here is a good site to get some basic information on what types of players fit into each system the best.

3-4

4-3

By the descriptions offered aboved, I think Marvin is trying to build a "hybrid" of the 2 defenses. He wants fast linebackers to cover the TE's and be able to recover and support the run D and he wants guys that will "lay the wood" to you when try to run the ball on us. He has selected too many DE/LB "tweener" type LB's to allow you to guess which scheme he is leaning towards. I think that his intention is to be able to switch between a hybrid "3-4" and a hybrid "4-3" depending on the situation.

Thanks KiLBurn, that's the info I had seen before . . .

[Kirkendall]

It won't. We won't. no worries. It's a question that Marvin always gets asked, and he always says he's thinking about it... but we aren't switching.

However... I don't know why you think our guys are dumb. Who is dumb on our defense? Most our guys are very smart. Odell is the only one who might be slow to learn a change... and that's just because he plays on instincts rather than his brains, and he's even getting better at that.

If we switched to a 3-4 our guys would pick it up jsut fine. The real problem is personnel, and that is what we are lacking. We aren't switching (to Spain's dismay)

OK, then why would Marvin say we'll see what happens after the draft? Lance's "insider" has said the same thing regarding a 3-4, unprompted, not in a press conference and not with a name attached. Not saying we should or we will -- I didn't graduate the college of predicting the future -- but via Marvin and "insider", that's hardly the same as "we won't". Wouldn't you agree?

[Spain]

Kilburn is right were going to a hybrid , its called te Joker d.

[Stripes]

We've been in a pseudo-hybrid set up for a while now. Don't expect us to be going 3-4 for even a fourth of the plays on defense though.

[Spain]

Dude its the no huddle of the D, it is best to handle the no huddle. They want options when a QB catches a D that the Os 11 can beat up on, or get tired. With the 3-4 hybrid you can change up. Winner of the last 4 of 5 superbowls.

[ArmyBengal]

We've been running a combo of 4-3 and 3-4 sets for the past year and think the goal is to get the guys in here that allow that to continue. I love the complexity direction we are going to with this defense. Now if we can get another one or two impact players, we will be set for years to come and will be much closer to that "dominant" D that has been eluding this team for so long !!!

WHODEY !!!

[derekshank]

What is the biggest problem our defense had last year? The pass rush.

I know a lot of people think our run defense was really bad... but go back and look. The KC game was meaningless. Take away the first Pittsburgh game, and our run defense was fine. There is no need to change the scheme for this problem... especially now that our LB's have some experience. Our problem was that we had a decent secondary that got torched, because the QB was standing back there patting the ball.

The biggest weakness of the 3-4 is that it is the most difficult scheme to get pressure on the QB. Pittsburgh pulls it off because they blitz every single down... and that just doesn't seem like out style. So we are discussing changing to the scheme that will actually make our biggest weakness even weaker. hmm...

[Bengalbob]

We've been running a combo of 4-3 and 3-4 sets for the past year and think the goal is to get the guys in here that allow that to continue. I love the complexity direction we are going to with this defense. Now if we can get another one or two impact players, we will be set for years to come and will be much closer to that "dominant" D that has been eluding this team for so long !!!

WHODEY !!!

I've even seen a little 4-4 mixed in (at least against the Bears and Ravens) . . .

[Kirkendall]

What is the biggest problem our defense had last year? The pass rush.

I know a lot of people think our run defense was really bad... but go back and look. The KC game was meaningless. Take away the first Pittsburgh game, and our run defense was fine. There is no need to change the scheme for this problem... especially now that our LB's have some experience. Our problem was that we had a decent secondary that got torched, because the QB was standing back there patting the ball.

The biggest weakness of the 3-4 is that it is the most difficult scheme to get pressure on the QB. Pittsburgh pulls it off because they blitz every single down... and that just doesn't seem like out style. So we are discussing changing to the scheme that will actually make our biggest weakness even weaker. hmm...

I disagree. I think you use the scheme that fits your team. Does it fit this team? Well, I can't say with complete certainty so I'm not sure. But, for the base 4-3 at least, we only had 28 team sacks. It's not like we're blowing people away sticking with the status quo and we've not upgraded our personnel enough to think we'll be getting better either.

There has to be some substance with Marvin leaving the issue teetering like that though.

[derekshank]

What is the biggest problem our defense had last year? The pass rush.

I know a lot of people think our run defense was really bad... but go back and look. The KC game was meaningless. Take away the first Pittsburgh game, and our run defense was fine. There is no need to change the scheme for this problem... especially now that our LB's have some experience. Our problem was that we had a decent secondary that got torched, because the QB was standing back there patting the ball.

The biggest weakness of the 3-4 is that it is the most difficult scheme to get pressure on the QB. Pittsburgh pulls it off because they blitz every single down... and that just doesn't seem like out style. So we are discussing changing to the scheme that will actually make our biggest weakness even weaker. hmm...

I disagree. I think you use the scheme that fits your team. Does it fit this team? Well, I can't say with complete certainty so I'm not sure. But, for the base 4-3 at least, we only had 28 team sacks. It's not like we're blowing people away sticking with the status quo and we've not upgraded our personnel enough to think we'll be getting better either.

There has to be some substance with Marvin leaving the issue teetering like that though.

You made my point for me. We were terrible in team sacks last year... so we're going to switch to a scheme that puts even more blockers on our ineffective DE's? We don't have the personnell for the 3-4. We only have 4 LB's worth putting on the field... simply not enough depth to pull of the 3-4. So the 4-3 scheme does fit our team.

If we draft Lawson, and Marvin says we're going to convert him to an OLB... then I'll agree we want to use the 3-4 more often. But Sam Adams hasn't played NT and S. Smith doesn't have the endurance to pull it off. Thornton and B. Robinson would be 3-4 DE's... and then we have too many DE's to play, and only one NT that gets tired too easily?

I disagree with your point that we haven't upgraded personnel enough. Sam Adams is an upgrade at our weakest position on defense... and suceeds in the 4-3, and we are also likely to address the D-Line in the draft. We can play the 3-4 here and there... but simply don't have the players to make it our base.

If we were to draft Lawson and make him an OLB, and have him on one side, and Pollack on the other, I'd agree that we'd get a better pass rush with that scheme then our current 4-3... but there still seem to be too many problems with that idea at this point. I'd prefer sticking with the 4-3, because I'm convinced it will be more effective with Adams taking on blockers.

[Kirkendall]

You made my point for me. We were terrible in team sacks last year... so we're going to switch to a scheme that puts even more blockers on our ineffective DE's? We don't have the personnell for the 3-4. We only have 4 LB's worth putting on the field... simply not enough depth to pull of the 3-4. So the 4-3 scheme does fit our team.

If we draft Lawson, and Marvin says we're going to convert him to an OLB... then I'll agree we want to use the 3-4 more often. But Sam Adams hasn't played NT and S. Smith doesn't have the endurance to pull it off. Thornton and B. Robinson would be 3-4 DE's... and then we have too many DE's to play, and only one NT that gets tired too easily?

I disagree with your point that we haven't upgraded personnel enough. Sam Adams is an upgrade at our weakest position on defense... and suceeds in the 4-3, and we are also likely to address the D-Line in the draft. We can play the 3-4 here and there... but simply don't have the players to make it our base.

If we were to draft Lawson and make him an OLB, and have him on one side, and Pollack on the other, I'd agree that we'd get a better pass rush with that scheme then our current 4-3... but there still seem to be too many problems with that idea at this point. I'd prefer sticking with the 4-3, because I'm convinced it will be more effective with Adams taking on blockers.

I didn't make any point for you. I simply said the 4-3, again, as status quo, would give you the same 28 sack result without significant upgrade in personnel against the pass. Who's the upgrade at defense that would upgrade the pass rush? Surely you don't believe Sam Adams will be in during passing downs or situations, do you? Even Adams said, "First and foremost, as a defensive tackle, I'm here to stop the run" because with all 16 games included, not picking and choosing which to include or remove from an argument, the Bengals were on the bottom half.

But like Marvin Lewis said in response to the base defense that will be used in 2006, “We’ll wait and see what happens after the draft.”

Again, I'm not suggesting we should go 4-3 or 3-4 base. But I'm not as convinced as you are that the team will stick with 4-3. I know Marvin isn't that forthcoming with his agenda, but he wouldn't leave the door that wide open for us to banter about. That would just be wrong.