Chicago's vaunted Cover 2 defense....

[OpIv37]

gave up 430 yards and 191 yards on the ground. Rhodes had his first 100 yard game since 2001. Chicago's D couldn't get off the field.

That's just sad. This is supposed to be our defensive prototype?

Yeah, I know, someone is going to say "But Indy also plays the cover 2!" Well, Indy gave up 5.8 yards per carry and they got away with it for the same reason they always get away with it: Their O kept their D off the field and gave them a lead for most of the the game, forcing Chicago to pass. If you can force Rex Grossman to pass, you will WIN. It's that simple.

The Cover 2 has been exposed. I really hate this D and I think implementing it in Buffalo is a mistake.

[OpIv37]

Re: Chicago's vaunted Cover 2 defense....

d'oh- wrong forum. Mods- please move.

[DynaPaul]

Re: Chicago's vaunted Cover 2 defense....

Bring back the 4 - 6!

[ParanoidAndroid]

Re: Chicago's vaunted Cover 2 defense....

I don't think the scheme was the problem. It looked to me like Indy's O-line took control and a normally sure-tackling defense let a lot slip by. Chicago had no offense in that game and never allowed the defense to catch their breath. Indy was a balanced team tonight. They stopped the run, ran it well and used an almost flawless short passing attack to keep the sticks moving. The defense did well in the first half for Chicago, minus the blown coverage (which was an execution problem, not a scheme problem).

[Ebenezer]

Re: Chicago's vaunted Cover 2 defense....

the Bears had an easy schedule this year (as did Indi) and have another one next year...they have a scrub for a QB and a shaky offense. 5 TOs? Nobody wins with numbers like that.

[LtFinFan66]

Re: Chicago's vaunted Cover 2 defense....

We heard you the first time Frank

[LifetimeBillsFan]

Re: Chicago's vaunted Cover 2 defense....

I keep trying to point out that the Tampa 2 defense is designed to stop scoring, not necessarily to prevent teams from gaining yardage. A Tampa 2 defense will surrender yards to generate turnovers and keep the offense out of the end zone.

Despite their offense and special teams turning the ball over 5 times, the Bears defense yielded just 22 points and generated 3 turnovers versus one of the best offenses in the NFL.

On their part, the Colts' defense gave up just 10 points and got 4 turnovers, even though their offense turned the ball over 3 times.

You can talk all you want about all of the yards that both sides gave up, but that's not a lot of scoring: 3 TDs--one on a totally blown coverage--and 4 FGs by the two teams combined. The Pats gave up more TDs and half that number of FGs just to Indy in the AFC Championship Game alone while getting just one turnover.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the most important stat in football is not yardage allowed, it is points allowed. And, the biggest predictor of points allowed is turnover margin. That's why points and turnovers are the two most important stats in football next to wins.

[ArcticWildMan]

Re: Chicago's vaunted Cover 2 defense....

Considering that Chicago lost their second best defensive player well before the playoffs, I wouldn't read too much into the so called shortcoming of the cover 2 defense played by the Bears.

Indy's offense is hard to stop no matter what defense you run and when you are missing an integral part of your defense it only makes it harder.

This game is hardly an indictment against the cover 2. If anything it just shows the importance of having the right players in the right positions.

If Chicago's defense was 100% healthy this might have been a totally different game.

Quit trying to find fault in a system when none is warranted.

[ricogarion]

Re: Chicago's vaunted Cover 2 defense....

Indy has a lot of weapons and pose a threat to anyone,Chicago was a great defense but really Indy had no problem executing its offense.Indy ran like 82 plays and had 37 minutes of possesion.They would have given any defense trouble irregardless of what "system" they employed.

[casdhf]

Re: Chicago's vaunted Cover 2 defense....

A cover 2 team won the super bowl .... a cover 2 team lost it. I think I'd take it.

[YardRat]

Re: Chicago's vaunted Cover 2 defense....

Easy schedules or not for the regular season, both teams had to get through the playoffs. And they did, running the T2 scheme.

[Ickybaluky]

Re: Chicago's vaunted Cover 2 defense....

They were missing their best DL in Tommie Harris and their best DB in Mike Brown. They were playing against one of the best offenses in the league. I think you should cut them some slack.

In a way, I think the rain hurt the Bears defense. Their DL couldn't use their speed advantage to get pressure on Manning, the footing was poor. That made it harder for them to rush the passer, which is what they needed to do to Manning.

That said, they didn't play great. I was surprised at the number of missed tackles Chicago had on defense. They were a good tackling team all year, but they didn't have their best game yesterday.

Congrats to Indy, though. They had a great year and deserved the trophy.

[Mitchy moo]

Re: Chicago's vaunted Cover 2 defense....

Easy schedules or not for the regular season, both teams had to get through the playoffs. And they did, running the T2 scheme.

Easier schedules = easier playoff appearances.

[jamze132]

Re: Chicago's vaunted Cover 2 defense....

The main reason the Bears lost is because they couldn't maintain any drives and their defense was on the field almost the entire game. They just wore down like any team would have. That was a huge factor in a lot of Buffalo's games, especially in 2005. Rex Grossman could have helped out a little more. But give credit to the Colts defense since they seemed to really turn it on when the post season started.

[YardRat]

Re: Chicago's vaunted Cover 2 defense....

The only stat that matters.....

"Indianapolis Colts, Super Bowl XLI Champions."