TMQ: Bills Zone defense flawed

[Ed]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071120&sportCat=nfl&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab4pos1

Terrell Owens and Randy Moss just cleaned the clocks of the Washington Redskins and Buffalo Bills, catching four touchdown passes apiece Sunday. Here is a possible solution when dealing with guys like Owens and Moss: Cover them!

Man-on-man, that is. Perhaps manly-man-on-manly-man. For most of the two contests in which these gentlemen ran wild, the Washington and Buffalo defenses were in some version of Cover 2, meaning zone, meaning no one had the specific responsibility to stick with Owens or Moss. In a Cover 2, the cornerbacks watch the short zone for outs and curls and the safeties watch the deep zone. The Cover 2 is often effective. Its weakness is that no one is specifically assigned to the other team's best receiver. Just as, when splitting a large-group dinner check, each diner might find it convenient to assume the next person will take care of the tip, in a Cover 2, each defensive back might find it convenient to think, "The safety will get him." The result is letting the other team's best receiver fly down the field unguarded.

With Dallas leading 21-16 and the game tense, Owens ran an "up" against a Washington soft-zone look. Redskins cornerback Shawn Springs stood there and watched Owens fly past; Springs covered no one, and Owens caught a 52-yard touchdown, providing the game's winning margin. With New England leading 7-0 at Buffalo, Moss ran an "up" against a Bills soft-zone look. Buffalo cornerback Terrence McGee stood there and watched Moss fly past; McGee covered no one, and Moss caught a 43-yard touchdown, sparking what would become a rout by halftime. Randy Moss and Terrell Owens were not covered by anyone going deep. Moss' touchdown was especially ridiculous because the Bills rushed only two on that play. Nine defenders dropped into coverage, yet no one guarded Randy Moss going deep.

Nine guys available and no one guards the other team's best receiver: This sums up the it's-not-my-job flaw of the zone pass defense. And don't tell me the cornerback is supposed to let the receiver go deep so the corner can watch the flat. On both the touchdown passes cited above, there was no receiver in the flat. Both cornerbacks just stood there while the other team's star roared past them for a touchdown. Nor are these two plays exceptions. On several of the eight Moss/Owens scores Sunday, cornerbacks simply watched as these threats raced upfield, covered by no one. Andre Johnson of Houston also was covered by no one as he started upfield, against a soft zone, for what would become a 73-yard touchdown.

The soft zone works for disciplined teams such as Indianapolis, but for sketchy teams such as Washington and Buffalo, it seems to promote it's-not-my-job thinking. Hey, he wasn't my man! If the Cover 2 doesn't prevent deep strikes -- and that's supposed to be the big virtue of playing Cover 2 -- then what is being accomplished? Defensive coordinators, pick your best cornerback and tell him: Wherever Moss or Owens goes, you go. You're on him like glue, and it's your responsibility, no one else's. Challenge your best defender: That's the way to counter a great receiver. And before you say, "Man coverage can be burned deep," what exactly did we observe Owens and Moss doing to soft zones? Play man-to-man. It's manly!

[colin]

meh

washington was banged up, springs is dealing with his father's issues. the bills have tons of injuries on D and had a back up WR playing FS.

cover 2 can work, you just need some players

[YardRat]

I don't agree that the flaw is in the coverage scheme itself...The flaw is not getting pressure on the QB, which any zone defense depends on.

[djjimkelly]

the system sucks get over it. most cover 2 teams in this league man up alot anyway except us

[EDS]

the system sucks get over it. most cover 2 teams in this league man up alot anyway except us

Agreed.

[Akhippo]

The flaw is in technique. You have to bump and run with them, then turn them loose to the safeties. Then the corners stop and look into their zone for anybody coming across.
Not sit 7 yards back, watch the WR get up to full steam and run right past them. The WR will close on the safeties to quickly and will lead to what happened earlier.
The bump and run accompanied with a quick pass run leads to a quick throw which helps the secondary.

[EDS]

The flaw is in technique. You have to bump and run with them, then turn them loose to the safeties. Then the corners stop and look into their zone for anybody coming across.
Not sit 7 yards back, watch the WR get up to full steam and run right past them. The WR will close on the safeties to quickly and will lead to what happened earlier.
The bump and run accompanied with a quick pass run leads to a quick throw which helps the secondary.

The corners were playing ten yards off the line of scrimmage, they can't bump and run, which just shows how bad the scheme is.

[Wys Guy]

But Jauron was coach of the week!

Frankly I didn't see a whole lot of coverage on any receiver on Sunday nor in most prior weeks. Do Baltimore, Miami, and the Jets have good QBs or something.

Cincy did in Palmer, but then again, and amidst the complete absence of a running game, he had a good game against us.

[raphael120]

meh

washington was banged up, springs is dealing with his father's issues. the bills have tons of injuries on D and had a back up WR playing FS.

cover 2 can work, you just need some players


And JP doesn't suck, he just had a bad hair day Sunday, right?

Give me a break.

Doesn't take a genius D coordinator or a genius safety to know that you should cover the best WR in the league EVERY PLAY

[OpIv37]

I think the Cover 2 is deeply flawed because it requires damn near perfect personnel and we're nowhere close. But I really think that's beside the point.

What's even more frustrating is that our coaches never deviated from the scheme. I don't think we have anyone that can cover Moss one on one, but what's the harm in trying? What's the worst that can happen? 7 straight TDs? oh, wait....

[DynaPaul]

I've been saying forever that to beat these guys you have to jam them up ON THE LINE OF SCRIMMAGE. How do these coaches not see something so simple? The philosophy is freakin' easy: jam them up on the line and this gives them no opportunity to get a full charge up and run out there on the field. Let the weaker wide receivers get covered with the zone. If your corner is physical enough it'd be ideal to just knock the WR on his ass right on the line.

[colin]

you guys make me laugh.

look at the super bowl teams

rams -- cover 2
tampa -- cover 2
pats, pitts -- 3-4
indy -- cover 2
bears -- cover 2
seattle -- cover 2
carolina + philly -- 4-3s with a ton of money and talent on the front 4

lots of different ways to do it, with cover 2 being a fine option.

it doesn't mean we didn't scheme correctly every play, or that we have to be in zone all the time.

pretending that you know how the formations work and that a switch to a 3-4 is a good idea, even tho it will mean about 6 new starters on D just to put guys in spots is ******ed.

we got destroyed by the pats because we don't have the talent, pats didn't make the mistakes, and we played with no guts.

remember what that cover 2 d with the same lack luster squad and all the injuries did to cincy and dallas? miami has a decent O and we shut them down, and held the jests to 3 at NJ.

if you don't have lots of talent in the secondary big super good WRs are gonna run amok. washington had injuries and although talented the only safety they had who ever started was a rook against TO.

for all the goofs saying the cover 2 has a problem because it requires perfect personal, how has the jets or miami's 3-4 done this year? how about cincy's 4-3?

everyone needs players, don't be nuts

[jamze132]

A little man on man action never hurt anyone...

I have never been a fan of a zone defense to begin with. Everyone pick a man and stick with him. It also negates those pesky little screens and swing passes to the backs which almost always end up moving the chains.

[OpIv37]

you guys make me laugh.

look at the super bowl teams

rams -- cover 2
tampa -- cover 2
pats, pitts -- 3-4
indy -- cover 2
bears -- cover 2
seattle -- cover 2
carolina + philly -- 4-3s with a ton of money and talent on the front 4


Cover 2 teams:
Rams-2-8
Tampa- 6-4
Indy 8-2
Bears- 4-6
Seattle 6-4

Non-cover 2 teams
NE 10-0
Pitt 7-3
Carolina 4-6
Philly 5-5

You're not really making your case too well that the Cover 2 is better. When Tampa and Chicago went to the SB, they had the PERFECT personnel for the Cover 2. When Indy and St Louis did it, they had high powered offenses that forced other teams to pass into the strength of the D. Buffalo has neither of those things, so it's fitting a square peg to a round hole.

And anyway, even if the D isn't fundamentally flawed, it wasn't working against NE. Yet, our coaches kept trying it. Again and again. And they got 7 TD's out of it. They should have at least tried something different, but they didn't- they kept doing the same thing and expecting different results. That's the definition of insanity.

[colin]

you really don't know what you are talking about OPV.

our coaches tried a bunch of different things against NE. none of it worked.

obviously a different preperation would have been better (like against dallas when the D nearly won the game all by themselves) but it's not like you can change everything once the game starts.

and if you look at the teams above you'll notice the deciding factor in the better teams is solid QB play. they run different O's as well. are you gonna pretend you are a super expert and you know what os should be run, or which one's are flawed.

we don't have much talent, and our injuries have killed us.


your silly perfect argument can be used for the 3-4 as well.

3-4 teams to win superbowl in the past 10 years:

pats
Pitts

and the bills went 0-4 in the super bowl with a 3-4

SCRAP TEH 3-4 YOU NEEDZ TEH PERFECT PERSONALZ!!

[OpIv37]

you really don't know what you are talking about OPV.

our coaches tried a bunch of different things against NE. none of it worked.

obviously a different preperation would have been better (like against dallas when the D nearly won the game all by themselves) but it's not like you can change everything once the game starts.

and if you look at the teams above you'll notice the deciding factor in the better teams is solid QB play. they run different O's as well. are you gonna pretend you are a super expert and you know what os should be run, or which one's are flawed.

we don't have much talent, and our injuries have killed us.


your silly perfect argument can be used for the 3-4 as well.

3-4 teams to win superbowl in the past 10 years:

pats
Pitts

and the bills went 0-4 in the super bowl with a 3-4

SCRAP TEH 3-4 YOU NEEDZ TEH PERFECT PERSONALZ!!

How many games did we win during those 3-4 years? A whole lot more than we're winning now. This D can't even get us into the playoffs, and you're complaining about one that got us to 4 straight Super Bowls? There's a huge logical fallacy there.

It sure didn't look like our coaches tried different things when NE's receivers and TE's ran through our zone D like they were inanimate plastic cones on a practice field for 7 straight drives.

The fact is that some D's are easier to staff than others. The cover 2 is particularly hard to staff, but much better for Ralph's bottom line because it doesn't require top shelf corners, who are the most expensive players. We don't have a Freeney or a Mathis or a Sanders or an Urlacher or a Tank Johnson or a Warren Sapp.

Until we do, expect the same results we've been getting out of this D. We're still at least 3 Pro Bowl players away and it doesn't look like we're going to get them anytime soon.

BTW, remember the Wade Phillips years, where we were one of the top flight D's in the league without a single Pro Bowl player in the 4-3? You'll NEVER see that with the cover 2- I guarantee it.

[EDS]

you really don't know what you are talking about OPV.

our coaches tried a bunch of different things against NE. none of it worked.

obviously a different preperation would have been better (like against dallas when the D nearly won the game all by themselves) but it's not like you can change everything once the game starts.

and if you look at the teams above you'll notice the deciding factor in the better teams is solid QB play. they run different O's as well. are you gonna pretend you are a super expert and you know what os should be run, or which one's are flawed.

we don't have much talent, and our injuries have killed us.


your silly perfect argument can be used for the 3-4 as well.

3-4 teams to win superbowl in the past 10 years:

pats
Pitts

and the bills went 0-4 in the super bowl with a 3-4

SCRAP TEH 3-4 YOU NEEDZ TEH PERFECT PERSONALZ!!

The problem is the Bills defense still needs a Warren Sapp, Derrick Brooks and Ronde Barber.

The Bills made zero adjustments against NE. They continued to play off the ball and in a soft zone.

[colin]

wrong.

the appeal to many teams about the tampa 2 (and of course its derivations) is that youth speed and depth are good enough for most positions.

without having man to man on most snaps you don't need as great of corners.

you don't need a true NT who are expensive and also fat so they can't play all snaps and have *ahem* motivation problems from time to time.

while you need good edge pass rushers, fast LBs, and safeties who can cover many feel that those guys are cheaper and easier to find. the thing is there is always fast young guys in the nfl, they come out of school every year. that's the appeal of the cover 2.

talking about perfect personal is nuts. tampa might have had some super players all over the place on D, but the colts and chicago have a few super stars and then just decent players.

NE and pitts have the real super star Ds, and NE has fallen off but their O and special teams are good enough so that it doesn't matter.

NE have high first rounders at EVERY POSITION ON THE LINE. they have a high first round safety, franchise corner, 2 huge FA pick ups at LB (thomas and rosey colvin) and pro bowlers bruschi and vrabel at LB.

indy lost plenty of starters from last year's d and went from bottom of the pack to the top. the rams ditched a bunch of starters and went from bottom to top as well.

any decent scheme can work, but the coaches and players need to work together and get it right, and you need talent.

the bills have far and away the best results with the least talent on D in the nfl. carolina has one guy hurt and falls 15 places on D, and has never been dominant like their SB year even tho they still have peppers and guys like that.

[OpIv37]

the bills have far and away the best results with the least talent on D in the nfl. carolina has one guy hurt and falls 15 places on D, and has never been dominant like their SB year even tho they still have peppers and guys like that.


And those results are allowing 7 TD's to NE, a D that's only shut down one good offense and consistently gives up 7 minute drives..... people on this site fail to understand that "good despite the circumstances" is not the same as "good".

As far as Peppers and Carolina, just look at what happens with the Colts' D without Bob Sanders. That same problem applies to the cover 2.

And your comment about the NT's not finishing games is ridiculous because we run a DT rotation as it is, and even our expensive DT's can't finish a game. There were times when Ryan Neill was playing DE on critical 4th quarter drives.

And if it's so easy to staff the Cover 2, why did we throw so much money at Kelsay instead of just replacing him?

[TigerJ]

I'm some team hs tried to us a man for man defense against Randy Moss and the Patriots this season. How did they fare? Uh yeah, they lost. Nobody has solved the Patriots yet this season, nor is anyone likely to in the remainder of the season. There are times when I wish Buffalo would use some man for man coverage, but I'm not kidding myself. It doesn't matter whether Randy Moss has three touchdown passes or four. It still likely adds up to a one sided loss to these guys. The only real way to even the odds against the Patriots is to get better players, and that is a gradual process. We can also hope some of the Patriot players will get greedy when their contracts expire and jump ship for the lucrative offers they get to play elsewhere. One of the problems this season is that several free agents signed with NE at less than market rates for he chance to win a championship. Then you have players like Moss who have all kinds of talent but only use it when they feel like it. Randy signed a big contract with Oakland, but because Oakland was a bad team he didn't feel like working very hard. That drove his market value down, but since New England has become a juggernaut and Brady is throwing the ball in his direction a lot, Randy is playing up to his unstoppable ability. I will bet that when Randy's current contract expires, some other fool team will give him a big money deal. That will be a bad team. Moss will collect a big paycheck and sit on the bench and sulk. That's the kind of player he is.

[Kerr]

The scheme does work, but it required a good pass rush, which our team is seriously missing. In that instance, it would have been the coaches responsibility to go back to the drawing board and implement more man to man, bump coverage, etc because of the lack of pass rush. These coaches are just too proud to give up on their scheme that they sacrifice success over pride. What they could have done was start using more cover 2 once they saw the pass rush being more effective. This is why Brady picked them apart. The strength of this defense is the secondary right now, not the defensive line.

[Elminster]

I wouldn't point fingers at the scheme, but rather at the coaches who run it as a "safe" defense, when it is primarily designed to be an attacking defense. If you play zones safe, you'll get burned.