Why we might be going 3-4...

[TJJackson]

Sadly, Joe Pong can no longer give you the evidence.....as the coin he flipped to make his decision was spent that same afternoon on a newspaper.

Joe Pong can make decisions?

[agreen_112]

We'll see in training camp. I think we're switching, but wouldn't be dissappointed if we stay 4-3.

[HoosierCat]

We'll see in training camp. I think we're switching, but wouldn't be dissappointed if we stay 4-3.

Like Hair said, either works as long as a team commits to it. Personally, I think the Bengals are being totally honest when they say it depends on the draft and FA. Right now, the Bengals don't have anyone on the roster who is such a 4-3 stud that we'd lose anything by switching. And everyone you look at could fit in either scheme.

If we get into FA and Justin and Landon don't get the big paydays they think they'll get and end up back in Cincy, don't expect any changes. If OTOH they leave and the Bengals successfully chase down Calvin Pace, now the proverbial shoe is headed for the other foot. (As a side note, Curnutte suggested in a piece today that they might be interested in UFA NT Tim Anderson, who was with Zimmer in Atlanta, if they are going 3-4.)

Ditto the draft. Derrick Harvey or in the unlikely event he falls, Dorsey, are 4-3 candidates at 9. Gholsten is a 3-4 guy all the way. Balmer or Ellis (another unlikely to be there guy) could go either way.

[JoePong]

We'll see in training camp. I think we're switching, but wouldn't be dissappointed if we stay 4-3.

Like Hair said, either works as long as a team commits to it. Personally, I think the Bengals are being totally honest when they say it depends on the draft and FA. Right now, the Bengals don't have anyone on the roster who is such a 4-3 stud that we'd lose anything by switching. And everyone you look at could fit in either scheme.

If we get into FA and Justin and Landon don't get the big paydays they think they'll get and end up back in Cincy, don't expect any changes. If OTOH they leave and the Bengals successfully chase down Calvin Pace, now the proverbial shoe is headed for the other foot. (As a side note, Curnutte suggested in a piece today that they might be interested in UFA NT Tim Anderson, who was with Zimmer in Atlanta, if they are going 3-4.)

Ditto the draft. Derrick Harvey or in the unlikely event he falls, Dorsey, are 4-3 candidates at 9. Gholsten is a 3-4 guy all the way. Balmer or Ellis (another unlikely to be there guy) could go either way.

Calvin Pace has never played in a 3-4. He finally had some degree of success as on outside linebacker in a 4-3 last season after failing as a DE. I'm not sure how signing a 4-3 OLB means we're switching to a 3-4. And I disagree that Gholsten is a 3-4 guy "all the way." He may be able to make the switch, but his best fit would be as a 4-3 DE. As for a NT, we'd better find someone better than Tim Anderson. the whole thing would make no sense.

[HoosierCat]

Calvin Pace has never played in a 3-4. He finally had some degree of success as on outside linebacker in a 4-3 last season after failing as a DE.

Really? You might mention that to some folks, like for example CBS Sportsline...

Cardinals DL-turned-LB Calvin Pace ended 2007 with 98 total tackles, 6.5 sacks, an interception and six passes defensed -- all career-highs. Pace had previously played as a defensive end but was moved to linebacker in the Cardinals' new 3-4 scheme and obviously thrived. He is scheduled to be an unrestricted free agent this offseason.

And Lenny over at espn.com, too...

A first-round choice (18th overall) in 2003, Pace has just 38 starts in five seasons. But thanks to a perfect storm of circumstances in 2007, scouts finally saw his productive side.

Having played end in a 4-3 front and also some strongside linebacker in that alignment in 2006, Pace was moved to linebacker full time last season when the Cardinals -- who had converted to a 3-4 defense -- lost pass-rushers Chike Okeafor and Bert Berry to injuries. Starting all 16 games for the first time since his rookie season, Pace posted 98 tackles and 6½ sacks, with one interception, six passes defensed, a forced fumble and two recoveries.

And I disagree that Gholsten is a 3-4 guy "all the way." He may be able to make the switch, but his best fit would be as a 4-3 DE.

A 260 lb. guy's "best fit" is a 4-3 DE?

[HairOnFire]

Calvin Pace has never played in a 3-4. He finally had some degree of success as on outside linebacker in a 4-3 last season after failing as a DE.

Really? You might mention that to some folks, like for example CBS Sportsline...

Cardinals DL-turned-LB Calvin Pace ended 2007 with 98 total tackles, 6.5 sacks, an interception and six passes defensed -- all career-highs. Pace had previously played as a defensive end but was moved to linebacker in the Cardinals' new 3-4 scheme and obviously thrived. He is scheduled to be an unrestricted free agent this offseason.

And Lenny over at espn.com, too...

A first-round choice (18th overall) in 2003, Pace has just 38 starts in five seasons. But thanks to a perfect storm of circumstances in 2007, scouts finally saw his productive side.

Having played end in a 4-3 front and also some strongside linebacker in that alignment in 2006, Pace was moved to linebacker full time last season when the Cardinals -- who had converted to a 3-4 defense -- lost pass-rushers Chike Okeafor and Bert Berry to injuries. Starting all 16 games for the first time since his rookie season, Pace posted 98 tackles and 6½ sacks, with one interception, six passes defensed, a forced fumble and two recoveries.

And from the fine folks at PFW, who described Calvin Pace as "a key core player", and then added....

"The 3-4 has become the Cardinals primary scheme, but liberal usage or 4-3 and nickle sets keeps opposing offenses guessing."

[HoosierCat]

And from the fine folks at PFW, who described Calvin Pace as "a key core player", and then added....

"The 3-4 has become the Cardinals primary scheme, but liberal usage or 4-3 and nickle sets keeps opposing offenses guessing."

...which in turn sounds a lot like the philosophy Zimmer wants to bring to the Bengals.

[DesperateDerelict]

If we are going to a 3 - 4, as appears by our unloading of L.Johnson and retention of Fanene, is it because the 3 - 4 is so terrific??

Consider: Of the 8 teams drafting ahead of us, 5 (#2 Rams, #3 Fel-c-ons, #6 J-E-T-S, #7 Niners, & #8 Rat-birds) are 3 - 4 teams. The others running the 3 - 4 had some defensive problems as well (notably Browns, Squeelers, Pats). You obviously need the big NT and DE's AND superlative play by your big LB's to execute the 3 - 4 effectively.

There are very few NT's in the draft, and none worthwhile in free agency. So, do we draft an NT (too) early and rely on a rookie to anchor our line, or do we admit that we made a mistake with Fanene and L. Johnson and retain a 4 - 3?

Just askin.....

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Apparently the irony of your statements falling into the exact "me-too" party-line trap you claim to hate is fully lost on you.

My apologies to the Mods, I knew the slightest criticism of conservatism would rattle the ditto-heads' cages. No, DC I don't fall into a party line. I'm not even clear on what the Democrats party line is, but I am pretty well versed in the Republican party line.

I'm not a Republican, and I don't care what their spiel is, but if you think that either party has a monopoly on oft-repeated, tired rhetoric (like the 'ditto-head' meme, which ironically MAKES one a ditto-head by repeating), then you're soft-brained in the extreme. Certainly if you're going to criticize one group, it should be with reference to the alternative. So if you're nailing the Republican agenda without examining the Democrat one (as you claim), then you haven't done your homework and your point is moot.

Now, again, this is a Bengals board, not a damned politics board, which is the general crap that many people (me anyway) are trying to get away from. So unless Barack Obama or John McCain can run a 4.4 40, then I don't really care.

[HairOnFire]

While we're hopelessly off-topic.....

I've heard John McCain is so old he not only has a Pee-Buddy installed in each of his cars, and in every room of his home, but also installed one in his master bathroom in the space BETWEEN the bathroom sink and the toilet.

[HoosierCat]

If we are going to a 3 - 4, as appears by our unloading of L.Johnson and retention of Fanene, is it because the 3 - 4 is so terrific??

Well, backing up to the 20,000-foot level, I would say the strongest long-term argument for the 3-4 is that, as so many articles during the combine pointed out, the college ranks are churning out fewer and fewer guys suited to end in the 4-3. Combine that with, as Hair mentioned, the general lack of quality pass rushers overall, and it becomes both increasingly more difficult and increasingly more expensive to build a quality 4-3 line.

You obviously need the big NT and DE's AND superlative play by your big LB's to execute the 3 - 4 effectively.

So? You need pressure from the front four and supurlative play from your LBs to execute the 4-3 effectively. And we haven't got any of that now, nor any immediate promise of it.

There are very few NT's in the draft, and none worthwhile in free agency. So, do we draft an NT (too) early and rely on a rookie to anchor our line, or do we admit that we made a mistake with Fanene and L. Johnson and retain a 4 - 3?

Even if we "admit a mistake" you can expect not one rook NT but at least one rook DT and one rook DE on a 4-3. The whole Fear surrounding the NT baffles me. It's like arguing we can't replace this crappy broken down car we've had for five years because we can't afford a Mercedes.

[HoosierCat]

Just as a follow-up to the Calvin Pace discussion, that quote from Lenny I pulled earlier comes from his FA preview today. Here's his take on what it will cost to actually land him:

The team that lands Pace -- whose representatives have had several negotiation sessions with Arizona officials anxious to retain him -- may have to offer a contract worth $6 million per year with guarantees of $12-$15 million. Last year in free agency, two-time Pro Bowl linebacker Adalius Thomas left Baltimore to sign a five-year, $35.04 million deal with New England that guaranteed him $20 million.

That's a lot, but if the Bengals are serious about a 3-4 switch, I think ya gotta do it.

Full article here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...&id=3268771

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

While we're hopelessly off-topic.....

I've heard John McCain is so old he not only has a Pee-Buddy installed in each of his cars, and in every room of his home, but also installed one in his master bathroom in the space BETWEEN the bathroom sink and the toilet.

What's a Pee-Buddy? Is that like a fancy version of the old "empty gatorade bottle on a road trip"?

For what it's worth, though, John McCain probably has a master bedroom the size of my house.

[JoePong]

Up until last season, Pace was considered just as much a bust as Reinard Wilson. And living in Phoenix, I see a whole bunch of Cardinals games, and they sure seemed to play a lot more 4-3 than 3-4...and that was when Pace was most effective. And all the depth charts I see - including NFL.com have the cardinals listed as a 4-3.

[HoosierCat]

Up until last season, Pace was considered just as much a bust as Reinard Wilson. And living in Phoenix, I see a whole bunch of Cardinals games, and they sure seemed to play a lot more 4-3 than 3-4...and that was when Pace was most effective. And all the depth charts I see - including NFL.com have the cardinals listed as a 4-3.

You mean all the depth charts like this one from the Cards' official site?

http://www.azcardinals.com/gameday/depth_chart.php

Not too many 4-3's that list a nose and under tackle...they just generally go with DT. But of course you'd have to understand what an under is...

[JoePong]

Up until last season, Pace was considered just as much a bust as Reinard Wilson. And living in Phoenix, I see a whole bunch of Cardinals games, and they sure seemed to play a lot more 4-3 than 3-4...and that was when Pace was most effective. And all the depth charts I see - including NFL.com have the cardinals listed as a 4-3.

You mean all the depth charts like this one from the Cards' official site?

http://www.azcardinals.com/gameday/depth_chart.php

Not too many 4-3's that list a nose and under tackle...they just generally go with DT. But of course you'd have to understand what an under is...

Actually, yes there are. The cardinals have been doing that for the last few years - back to when Dennis Green was the coach and they ran a straight 4-3. Darnell Dockett was considered the UT and the other defensive tackle was considered the nose. (Dockett was listed as the UT in Dennis Green's 4-3 defense). You got it backwards - in order to have two tackles, you gotta be running a 4-3. If you are running a 3-4, you have one nose tackle and two DEs, not one NT, one under tackle, and two DEs.

[JoePong]

And I just checked the wesite you linked. It does indeed have Dockett and Gabe Watson listed as the starting DTs, with Antonio Smith and Tafoya as the DEs - with the 3 starting LBs being Pace and dansby at OLB with Hayes at MLB. That would be a 4-3 my friend.

[HoosierCat]

Actually, yes there are. The cardinals have been doing that for the last few years - back to when Dennis Green was the coach and they ran a straight 4-3. Darnell Dockett was considered the UT and the other defensive tackle was considered the nose. (Dockett was listed as the UT in Dennis Green's 4-3 defense). You got it backwards - in order to have two tackles, you gotta be running a 4-3. If you are running a 3-4, you have one nose tackle and two DEs, not one NT, one under tackle, and two DEs.

It's a hybrid -- the over/under is predecessor to the 3-4 (I think Bill Walsh called it a "shifting 4-3" or something like that) -- but the point is the option to play the UT as DT or ILB. Dockery makes a damn big ILB but you have to work with what you have, eh?

The bottom line is that when taken out of the strict 4-3, Pace excelled. What does that tell you about the system in which he belongs? Now, admittedly, the Bengals might bring in a guy like Pace and stuff him in a system he failed in -- after all, this is an organization that's made bad personnel decisions an art form -- but somehow I'm betting against that in this case. Assuming, of course, they meet what looks like a premium price for Pace.

And I just checked the wesite you linked. It does indeed have Dockett and Gabe Watson listed as the starting DTs

Uh, blinky, that's an "N" not a "D" in front of Watson. But thanks for actually checking a link...clearly research isn't your thing...

[JoePong]

Up until last season, Pace was considered just as much a bust as Reinard Wilson. And living in Phoenix, I see a whole bunch of Cardinals games, and they sure seemed to play a lot more 4-3 than 3-4...and that was when Pace was most effective. And all the depth charts I see - including NFL.com have the cardinals listed as a 4-3.

You mean all the depth charts like this one from the Cards' official site?

http://www.azcardinals.com/gameday/depth_chart.php

Not too many 4-3's that list a nose and under tackle...they just generally go with DT. But of course you'd have to understand what an under is...

Actually, yes there are. The cardinals have been doing that for the last few years - back to when Dennis Green was the coach and they ran a straight 4-3. Darnell Dockett was considered the UT and the other defensive tackle was considered the nose.

I gues you didn't read my post very well.

But just for your information, if you hae a nose tackle and an under tackle, that makes two defensive tackles.

By your logic, offensive lines don't really start 2 offensive tackles - they have on left tackle and one right tackle. They don'thave on O in front of their name. Dude, a right tackle and a left tackle are both considered offensive tackles just like a nose tackle and an under tackle are both considered defensive tackles.

[HoosierCat]

I gues you didn't read my post very well.

No, Joe, I read your post. And you are wrong. BTW, still waiting for your "evidence."

[JoePong]

I gues you didn't read my post very well.

No, Joe, I read your post. And you are wrong. BTW, still waiting for your "evidence."

There is no evidence. That is my whole point.

[HoosierCat]

People who believe we are switching have an over-active imagination, in my opinion, and have not looked at the evidence objectively.

There is no evidence.

Well, I'm glad we got that cleared up.

[TJJackson]

and that my friends is one more reason why we call the man "JoeWrong"