Gotta admit, coaches are hitting the portal

[phatcat_rivals223240]

See Lou story about Ryan Johnson and tweet.



Sort of "under the radar" and maybe not enough star-level players, but they are making moves. Notwithstanding the sh1tshow of 2021, I do still have some residual trust in the staff's ability to identify non QB talent, so I'm feeling a little better.

None of this turns JON into a genius, but it's what they had to do, and they are doing it

 

[Sheffielder]

I don't think they have any choice BUT to hit the portal. It's the new normal and a full tilt change in recruiting and development strategy across the sport.

 

[Eurocat]

This is probably killing the internet sites that follow High School recruiting.

Why go "whoopee" that you got some five star from a Texas powerhouse when it's possible he'll be unhappy with season and leave after a year or two?

Got a great class? Yawn. Who'd you get on the portal?

 

[Hungry Jack]

We have found some very good players via the portal. In this rebuilding year (yes, it is) with a change to a 3-down linemen defensive scheme, we have a significant roster mismatch of players to scheme on the defensive line. So getting a nose and 2 and 4/5 -technique DEs is a good response, even if it is mostly a band-aid. Our LB corps is also hamstrung by a scheme mismatch, limited development due to several multi-year starters (the Irish Law firm), and injuries.

It is going to be a rough year on defense, but we should look forward to seeing the young LBs develop (Gallagher, Mueller, Uihlein, among others), and hopefully growth of guys like Hubbard, Story, Firestone (maybe), etc.

 

[TheC]

We have found some very good players via the portal. In this rebuilding year (yes, it is) with a change to a 3-down linemen defensive scheme, we have a significant roster mismatch of players to scheme on the defensive line. So getting a nose and 2 and 4/5 -technique DEs is a good response, even if it is mostly a band-aid. Our LB corps is also hamstrung by a scheme mismatch, limited development due to several multi-year starters (the Irish Law firm), and injuries.

It is going to be a rough year on defense, but we should look forward to seeing the young LBs develop (Gallagher, Mueller, Uihlein, among others), and hopefully growth of guys like Hubbard, Story, Firestone (maybe), etc.

Maybe after a couple of years, we'll grow to love JON and his new defense. Crazier things have happened. I can't tell you how much Bengal fans hated Zac Taylor during his first two years as coach of the Bengals. They all thought he was way in over his head and was a terrible hire. In year 3, however, well...... let's just say minds have been dramatically changed.

 

[Hungry Jack]

Maybe after a couple of years, we'll grow to love JON and his new defense. Crazier things have happened. I can't tell you how much Bengal fans hated Zac Taylor during his first two years as coach of the Bengals. They all thought he was way in over his head and was a terrible hire. In year 3, however, well...... let's just say minds have been dramatically changed.

Many, many programs run a variation involving 3 down linemen, be it a 3-4, a 3-3-5 stack or 4-2-5 (the 4th guy is more a standup LB type, IIRC). Apparently it is tougher to recruit for a 4-3, though I cannot explain why. I am in no position to judge Fitz for this scheme choice, but everything I read and hear is that the new scheme is better suited to stop RPO schemes and spread formations. I can live with that.

It will take 3 or 4 years to fully implement this. The portal should help, but the impact of the scheme change on our recruiting is significant. We have a lot of guys on the roster not suited for the new scheme, at least in the front 7-8.

 

[bringbacktherantboard]

Many, many programs run a variation involving 3 down linemen, be it a 3-4, a 3-3-5 stack or 4-2-5 (the 4th guy is more a standup LB type, IIRC). Apparently it is tougher to recruit for a 4-3, though I cannot explain why.

It seemed to me we were able to recruit well enough for Hank's scheme.

If we were already recruiting well enough for the scheme, why change the scheme?

 

[phatcat_rivals223240]

It seemed to me we were able to recruit well enough for Hank's scheme.

If we were already recruiting well enough for the scheme, why change the scheme?

JON is guilty until proven innocent. Fitz guilty of aiding and abetting a known failure.

 

[Catreporter]

Bengals defense vs. Mahomes in the second half rushed three, got decent pressure, and yet kept in their lanes and on their feet to prevent him from scrambling, and eight men in coverage had him perplexed trying to find open receivers. With more and more going to spread offenses with mobile qbs, will this become the new trend?

 

[TheC]

Bengals defense vs. Mahomes in the second half rushed three, got decent pressure, and yet kept in their lanes and on their feet to prevent him from scrambling, and eight men in coverage had him perplexed trying to find open receivers. With more and more going to spread offenses with mobile qbs, will this become the new trend?

Bengals going to Super Bowls.... that's the new trend, baby!

 

[Hungry Jack]

It seemed to me we were able to recruit well enough for Hank's scheme.

If we were already recruiting well enough for the scheme, why change the scheme?

I can only surmise Fitz's thinking on this, but here goes:
1) Hank was retiring
2) RPO was propagating, and running QBs were giving Fitz fits
3) Relatively easier to recruit smaller, faster guys than athletic DTs and DEs (hard to pressure the QB in a 4-3 without an exceptional front 4 and/or blitz)
4) Fitz was bored

I am not convinced we were recruiting very well for a 4-3. Our pass rush always ranked near the bottom in terms of pressures and sacks. We relied mainly on zone coverages, avoiding big plays, and opponent mistakes over long drives to keep teams out of the end zone. It worked well enough until you played a team like OSU.

 

[KramerCat91]

Lawry and Lancaster are playing for Green Bay, which runs a 3-4, so maybe running a 3-4 makes sense for us, but I always heard that getting a good NT was difficult.

 

[ThatadultfromHolland]

Lawry and Lancaster are playing for Green Bay, which runs a 3-4, so maybe running a 3-4 makes sense for us, but I always heard that getting a good NT was difficult.

I’m no great football mind but I think Lancaster woulda been a pretty darn good NT for NU.

 

[Sheffielder]

It seemed to me we were able to recruit well enough for Hank's scheme.

If we were already recruiting well enough for the scheme, why change the scheme?

I often wonder this (as a total know-nothing fan)...why would you ever alter your foundational schemes - which are generating consistent success - if you don't have the personnel for it. Is your new coach THAT great to risk it all? Why would you not find a DC who can slide right into the current setup? Even if it takes two years to fully transition...that's a lifetime in college sports and one year away from getting fired at most places.

 

[stpaulcat]

We have found some very good players via the portal. In this rebuilding year (yes, it is) with a change to a 3-down linemen defensive scheme, we have a significant roster mismatch of players to scheme on the defensive line. So getting a nose and 2 and 4/5 -technique DEs is a good response, even if it is mostly a band-aid. Our LB corps is also hamstrung by a scheme mismatch, limited development due to several multi-year starters (the Irish Law firm), and injuries.

It is going to be a rough year on defense, but we should look forward to seeing the young LBs develop (Gallagher, Mueller, Uihlein, among others), and hopefully growth of guys like Hubbard, Story, Firestone (maybe), etc.

I thought the three down lineman scheme utilized so much earlier on by Hank (the one Wrassler claims he convinced Hank not to use so much) in which QB's were allowed to run around in the backfield forever to complete a long pass or scramble up the middle for a first down was a thing of the past for those very reasons? Is this a regression?

 

[corbi2961]

I thought the three down lineman scheme utilized so much earlier on by Hank (the one Wrassler claims he convinced Hank not to use so much) in which QB's were allowed to run around in the backfield forever to complete a long pass or scramble up the middle for a first down was a thing of the past for those very reasons? Is this a regression?

3 down lineman in a 3-4 or 3-3-5 does not always equate to just three pass rushers.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

I thought the three down lineman scheme utilized so much earlier on by Hank (the one Wrassler claims he convinced Hank not to use so much) in which QB's were allowed to run around in the backfield forever to complete a long pass or scramble up the middle for a first down was a thing of the past for those very reasons? Is this a regression?

A 4-3 team going to a 3 man rush drop 8 prevent is very, very, very different from the "mystery fourth rusher" standard down tactics of a typical 3 man front base team. Very, very very different.

Also, did anybody around here actually LIKE it when NU would go to their awful 8 man prevent defenses? God I always hated that.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

I can only surmise Fitz's thinking on this, but here goes:
1) Hank was retiring
2) RPO was propagating, and running QBs were giving Fitz fits
3) Relatively easier to recruit smaller, faster guys than athletic DTs and DEs (hard to pressure the QB in a 4-3 without an exceptional front 4 and/or blitz)
4) Fitz was bored

I am not convinced we were recruiting very well for a 4-3. Our pass rush always ranked near the bottom in terms of pressures and sacks. We relied mainly on zone coverages, avoiding big plays, and opponent mistakes over long drives to keep teams out of the end zone. It worked well enough until you played a team like OSU.

I like this post, and also the previous post you had, HJ. I think you did a decent job listing some of the reasons he may have switched over. I will say I don't agree with you on LBS: at least a couple of the LB positions in a 3-4 are very similar to the typical LB needs in a 4-3, so I don't think we have a huge mismatch there. I also am not convinced we have a mismatch any more on our D Line with the possible exception of nose guard, which is why we hit the portal. As others pointed out, if anything, our more successful DEs tended to be weaker in the rush and end up in the league better suited for a 3-4 role anyway.

Beyond this, I agree with others who don't 100% understand why Fitz decided to make the change in the first place. I don't think we'll ever know. I personally really enjoy the 3-4 quite a bit and do think it can be shrewd to use it as a system that allows you to target a little bit different type of guy, which is maybe a good niche for NU. It probably is a good fit in modern football. Maybe we think we can have a better time recruiting lots of LB and large DB type guys than we've had recruiting elite traditional edge rushers. Maybe Fitz just got sold by JON on it. So I like a lot about a 3-4 switch, but it's also hard to argue we hadn't established a brand and a culture of success in the 4-3, which speaks against a change.

Either way, whether it was the right direction to go in the first place or not, I am happy that they seem to be actually implementing it this year, because what we saw last year was just so frustrating and confusing. Bringing in a 3-4 guy and running mostly the old schemes was just mind boggling to me, so I'm happy to see how we're looking to innovate based on the hire we made.

 

[stpaulcat]

A 4-3 team going to a 3 man rush drop 8 prevent is very, very, very different from the "mystery fourth rusher" standard down tactics of a typical 3 man front base team. Very, very very different.

Also, did anybody around here actually LIKE it when BU would go to their awful 8 man prevent defenses? God I always hated that.

BU?

 

[stpaulcat]

I like this post, and also the previous post you had, HJ. I think you did a decent job listing some of the reasons he may have switched over. I will say I don't agree with you on LBS: at least a couple of the LB positions in a 3-4 are very similar to the typical LB needs in a 4-3, so I don't think we have a huge mismatch there. I also am not convinced we have a mismatch any more on our D Line with the possible exception of nose guard, which is why we hit the portal. As others pointed out, if anything, our more successful DEs tended to be weaker in the rush and end up in the league better suited for a 3-4 role anyway.

Beyond this, I agree with others who don't 100% understand why Fitz decided to make the change in the first place. I don't think we'll ever know. I personally really enjoy the 3-4 quite a bit and do think it can be shrewd to use it as a system that allows you to target a little bit different type of guy, which is maybe a good niche for NU. It probably is a good fit in modern football. Maybe we think we can have a better time recruiting lots of LB and large DB type guys than we've had recruiting elite traditional edge rushers. Maybe Fitz just got sold by JON on it. So I like a lot about a 3-4 switch, but it's also hard to argue we hadn't established a brand and a culture of success in the 4-3, which speaks against a change.

Either way, whether it was the right direction to go in the first place or not, I am happy that they seem to be actually implementing it this year, because what we saw last year was just so frustrating and confusing. Bringing in a 3-4 guy and running mostly the old schemes was just mind boggling to me, so I'm happy to see how we're looking to innovate based on the hire we made.

If and only if JON is actually a competent defenseive coach and knows how to deploy his personnel effectively in his 3-4 scheme. Isn't a defense a three legged stool--scheme, personnel and coaching? One leg collapses and the stool collapses. Last year, we had a one legged stool, and I'm not sure which leg it was, but I believe, while others disagree, it was personnel. Either that or we had a no-legged stool.

 

[The Purple Knight]

Maybe after a couple of years, we'll grow to love JON and his new defense. Crazier things have happened. I can't tell you how much Bengal fans hated Zac Taylor during his first two years as coach of the Bengals. They all thought he was way in over his head and was a terrible hire. In year 3, however, well...... let's just say minds have been dramatically changed.

It’s all because of one person, Joe Burrow. Can the Cats find a Joe Burrow ?

 

[Hungry Jack]

I like this post, and also the previous post you had, HJ. I think you did a decent job listing some of the reasons he may have switched over. I will say I don't agree with you on LBS: at least a couple of the LB positions in a 3-4 are very similar to the typical LB needs in a 4-3, so I don't think we have a huge mismatch there. I also am not convinced we have a mismatch any more on our D Line with the possible exception of nose guard, which is why we hit the portal. As others pointed out, if anything, our more successful DEs tended to be weaker in the rush and end up in the league better suited for a 3-4 role anyway.

Beyond this, I agree with others who don't 100% understand why Fitz decided to make the change in the first place. I don't think we'll ever know. I personally really enjoy the 3-4 quite a bit and do think it can be shrewd to use it as a system that allows you to target a little bit different type of guy, which is maybe a good niche for NU. It probably is a good fit in modern football. Maybe we think we can have a better time recruiting lots of LB and large DB type guys than we've had recruiting elite traditional edge rushers. Maybe Fitz just got sold by JON on it. So I like a lot about a 3-4 switch, but it's also hard to argue we hadn't established a brand and a culture of success in the 4-3, which speaks against a change.

Either way, whether it was the right direction to go in the first place or not, I am happy that they seem to be actually implementing it this year, because what we saw last year was just so frustrating and confusing. Bringing in a 3-4 guy and running mostly the old schemes was just mind boggling to me, so I'm happy to see how we're looking to innovate based on the hire we made.

Yeah, I was probably a bit harsh on the LBs. It’s not clear who the rush/joker LB would be, nor who would be the star/river role in the 4-2-5.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

BU?

NU. I should stop posting on my phone.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

Yeah, I was probably a bit harsh on the LBs. It’s not clear who the rush/joker LB would be, nor who would be the star/river role in the 4-2-5.

The star player would more likely come from the DB room and the rush backer and/or bandit standup end is just as likely a guy like Adebawore (or Saka, etc). Adebawore is tailor made for that type of role. So if it’s a 3-3-5 star, a 4-2-5 Star/Bandit, or a 3-4 with a Jack LB type, we’re only looking at 2 traditional LBs out of that room, really.

Makes a few of our power sized LBs we’ve recruited over the last couple of years especially attractive. A little extra heft on a MLB in a 3-4 isn’t the worst thing.

 

[Alaskawildkat]

I don't think they have any choice BUT to hit the portal. It's the new normal and a full tilt change in recruiting and development strategy across the sport.

An argument could be made that the portal today is what the JUCO route was yesterday, although on steroids.

 

[Alaskawildkat]

Bengals going to Super Bowls.... that's the new trend, baby!

Have the Bengals fans picked up up yet the karma of today as the Chinese New Years heralding the Year of the Tiger?

Somehow I suspect putting a Tiger in the same cage as a Ram might favor the striped one as well.

FWIW Jimmy Fallon's "Puppy Race" yesterday was won by the Bengal gear wearing canine.

 

[Hungry Jack]

The star player would more likely come from the DB room and the rush backer and/or bandit standup end is just as likely a guy like Adebawore (or Saka, etc). Adebawore is tailor made for that type of role. So if it’s a 3-3-5 star, a 4-2-5 Star/Bandit, or a 3-4 with a Jack LB type, we’re only looking at 2 traditional LBs out of that room, really.

Makes a few of our power sized LBs we’ve recruited over the last couple of years especially attractive. A little extra heft on a MLB in a 3-4 isn’t the worst thing.

I don’t think we have a LB over 220 lbs with Coleman moving to DE.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

I don’t think we have a LB over 220 lbs with Coleman moving to DE.

I can’t get NU Sports to load on my phone now, but we do have several younger guys right at that 215-220 range who you’d expect to be in the weight and strength gaining phase of their playing careers.

 

[phatcat_rivals223240]

A 4-3 team going to a 3 man rush drop 8 prevent is very, very, very different from the "mystery fourth rusher" standard down tactics of a typical 3 man front base team. Very, very very different.

Also, did anybody around here actually LIKE it when NU would go to their awful 8 man prevent defenses? God I always hated that.

There was always a great wailing and gnashing of teeth when Hank would deploy the 3 man rush.

I am suspect of anything involving JON until proven otherwise. At least we are getting some guys

 

[Rebel II1]

There was always a great wailing and gnashing of teeth when Hank would deploy the 3 man rush.

I am suspect of anything involving JON until proven otherwise. At least we are getting some guys

Defense is easy, when you have speed and talent. We are getting closer.

 

[Hungry Jack]

There was always a great wailing and gnashing of teeth when Hank would deploy the 3 man rush.

I am suspect of anything involving JON until proven otherwise. At least we are getting some guys

A 3-4 or 3-3-5 is not the same as a 3 man rush. Not even close. Get a handle on it.

 

[Hungry Jack]

I can’t get NU Sports to load on my phone now, but we do have several younger guys right at that 215-220 range who you’d expect to be in the weight and strength gaining phase of their playing careers.

We will see weights posted in spring, right? Metz, Uhlein, and Mueller are all listed around 215. Xander is 6’3”, so he might be the heaviest, but he’s also the quickest, IMO.

Coleman looked like a thumper at 240, but apparently he does not have the agility to play LB.

of course, everything is in flux until we know how much Ifeadi weighs.

 

[phatcat_rivals223240]

A 3-4 or 3-3-5 is not the same as a 3 man rush. Not even close. Get a handle on it.

I know the difference. I was responding to this statement: "Also, did anybody around here actually LIKE it when NU would go to their awful 8 man prevent defenses? God I always hated that."

 

[mountaindrew]

Coleman looked like a thumper at 240, but apparently he does not have the agility to play LB.

of course, everything is in flux until we know how much Ifeadi weighs.

Also Ben Johnson. He should be pretty big and strong by now.

 

[stpaulcat]

There was always a great wailing and gnashing of teeth when Hank would deploy the 3 man rush.

I am suspect of anything involving JON until proven otherwise. At least we are getting some guys

Exactly, and more often than not there was a big play for a first down or an explosion play when he deployed the 3 man rush. That's what makes me skeptical of this move.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

Exactly, and more often than not there was a big play for a first down or an explosion play when he deployed the 3 man rush. That's what makes me skeptical of this move.

Again, there is zero schematic connection whatsoever between a 4-down lineman team rushing 3 and dropping 8 and a typical 3-4 or 3-3-5 scheme. If you like pass rush and aggression, you should be delighted by a switch, because that's what 3 down schemes are all about.

 

[KramerCat91]

Exactly, and more often than not there was a big play for a first down or an explosion play when he deployed the 3 man rush. That's what makes me skeptical of this move.

The 3 man rush before the Sky Team was disastrous. When the Sky Team was tightly covering the receivers, then the 3 man rush worked although I still had to hold my breath and pray when I saw it.

 

[Hungry Jack]

The Bengals might be the only team I have seen successfully deploy a 3 man rush. It was out of necessity because of Tyreek “The Freak” Hill and the matchup issues of Jason Kelce. Mahomes played along. Helps that the Bengals have a pair of very good safeties.

 

[TheC]

The Bengals might be the only team I have seen successfully deploy a 3 man rush. It was out of necessity because of Tyreek “The Freak” Hill and the matchup issues of Jason Kelce. Mahomes played along. Helps that the Bengals have a pair of very good safeties.

But really what they were doing was having Hubbard stay back as a spy on Mahomes. Once he thought it appropriate, he would come rushing in. He caused havoc at the end of regulation doing that. It was cool to root for the defense causing havoc for a change. Even during NU's great defensive years, I would never categorize them as havoc-inducing. They were more bend, but don't break.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

The Bengals might be the only team I have seen successfully deploy a 3 man rush. It was out of necessity because of Tyreek “The Freak” Hill and the matchup issues of Jason Kelce. Mahomes played along. Helps that the Bengals have a pair of very good safeties.

The 3 man rush was also a popular anti-Manning defense for years. Better to die slowly than die fast. With the addition of the spy rush to keep Mahomes contained, it was a fairly similar look, and it did seem to frustrate the Chiefs.

So there is some history of use there, but it's very, very limited.