Question about Cover 2 Scheme

[TheMan08]

Isn't it vital for this defense to be based around undersized defenders.

Isn't speed the key to the defense?

So why the constant complaining about Buffalo always getting undersized defenders? I could be wrong but isn't it more about the speed.

[Mahdi]

Isn't it vital for this defense to be based around undersized defenders.

Isn't speed the key to the defense?

So why the constant complaining about Buffalo always getting undersized defenders? I could be wrong but isn't it more about the speed.
Yes. This is all correct.

Some of us just cant seem to wrap our heads around that fact which leads to the complaining about our undersized yet faster players.

The problem with our defense has not been that we are undersized, its under-talented.

Maybin is a step in the right direction.

[OpIv37]

.

The problem with our defense has not been that we are undersized, its under-talented.



It's both.

They sacrifice size for speed, but the speed guys aren't good enough, so we get the worst of both worlds- the disadvantages of being undersized without the advantages of speed.

If we're gonna get guys who suck, they might as well be guys who are at least big enough for their positions.

I hate the Cover 2/Tampa 2 as a base D in general. It's too hard to staff personnel- wise and it requires a Brooks or Warren Sapp- type dominant defender to work properly.

[Mahdi]

It's both.

They sacrifice size for speed, but the speed guys aren't good enough, so we get the worst of both worlds- the disadvantages of being undersized without the advantages of speed.

If we're gonna get guys who suck, they might as well be guys who are at least big enough for their positions.

I hate the Cover 2/Tampa 2 as a base D in general. It's too hard to staff personnel- wise and it requires a Brooks or Warren Sapp- type dominant defender to work properly.
Well a 3-4 requires a Casey Hampton and James Harrison to work properly too, so what's yer point?

The problem is that we lack talent in crucial areas of the defense. RDE and LDE. And Im sure the Bills would love to see Spencer Johnson emerge as a penetrator next to Stroud or else upgrade that spot.

Other than that we are solid everywhere else.

[OpIv37]

Well a 3-4 requires a Casey Hampton and James Harrison to work properly too, so what's yer point?

The problem is that we lack talent in crucial areas of the defense. RDE and LDE. And Im sure the Bills would love to see Spencer Johnson emerge as a penetrator next to Stroud or else upgrade that spot.

Other than that we are solid everywhere else.

Disagree.

Outside of Stroud, our whole DL sucks. Our LB's are mediocre- Ellison sucks, Poz gets swallowed by blockers and plays out of position (should be OLB) and Mitchell is feast-or-famine. He either gets a huge play like an INT or does nothing. At S, Whitner is serviceable but the other S spot is a big question mark. And we have no depth. CB is really the only position on D that's actually set and appropriate for the system.

[Mahdi]

Disagree.

Outside of Stroud, our whole DL sucks. Our LB's are mediocre- Ellison sucks, Poz gets swallowed by blockers and plays out of position (should be OLB) and Mitchell is feast-or-famine. He either gets a huge play like an INT or does nothing. At S, Whitner is serviceable but the other S spot is a big question mark. And we have no depth. CB is really the only position on D that's actually set and appropriate for the system.
Well I already said that RDE and LDE as well as DT next to Stroud is questionable. So we do agree.

Our LBs are simply a by-product of weak DL play. Poz and Mitchell would be way more effective if our DL could do anything at all.

Whitner is a solid SS, tough to evaluate his skills with a weak DL.

IMO it all comes back to the DL. So if Schobel can come back to his 14.5 sack form and Maybin can deliver early we will see a much more effective Cover 2.

[OpIv37]

Well I already said that RDE and LDE as well as DT next to Stroud is questionable. So we do agree.

Our LBs are simply a by-product of weak DL play. Poz and Mitchell would be way more effective if our DL could do anything at all.

Whitner is a solid SS, tough to evaluate his skills with a weak DL.

IMO it all comes back to the DL. So if Schobel can come back to his 14.5 sack form and Maybin can deliver early we will see a much more effective Cover 2.

well I'll agree that the front 4 don't do the back 7 any favors. They may look better if they got the proper support from the front.

But at the same time, the DL is what it is. They have to learn how to make plays with a crappy DL because it isn't going to get any better anytime soon.

[TheMan08]

Saint Donteeeeeeee :)

[justasportsfan]

Isn't it vital for this defense to be based around undersized defenders.

Isn't speed the key to the defense?

So why the constant complaining about Buffalo always getting undersized defenders? I could be wrong but isn't it more about the speed.


Because the system sucks and our coaches don't know how to adjust the schemes on gameday?

[methos4ever]

It has been said ad nauseum by Dungy, Kiffin and the Tampa style proponents of the cover two one gap system that speed can be taken over size, but if there was someone who had both they would welcome him with open arms. Also, while size is sacrificed, they value power as the tipping point variable with the speed - focusing on their athletes being more conditioned (when in waves) to go all out and be effective, in concert with the backers and secondary. Team hitting is a must.

Some, like Teerlinck the Colts DL coach have an attitude of "stop the run on the way to the QB" which furthers the idea of get there quick enough and you'll blow whatever play (run/pass) up.

It isn't a zero-sum situation where they just want guys who weigh significantly less than their counterparts who can rush in a straight line fast.

I used to have links to provide to the lineman's guide for critics to be educated prior to bashing the system, but most of the sites stopped hosting them. If you really want one, however, pm me and I can see if I can scare one up for you.

If you think it sucks, take a look at teams like the Panthers, Seahawks, Falcons, Bucs, Miami (under Wannstedt), NYJ (Under Edwards), Bears, Packers prior to this year, Vikings....these teams have done it with undersized at all positions/some positions/a few.

[Mahdi]

Because the system sucks and our coaches don't know how to adjust the schemes on gameday?
System fine. DL sucks.

Other teams have proven system works.

[OpIv37]

It has been said ad nauseum by Dungy, Kiffin and the Tampa style proponents of the cover two one gap system that speed can be taken over size, but if there was someone who had both they would welcome him with open arms. Also, while size is sacrificed, they value power as the tipping point variable with the speed - focusing on their athletes being more conditioned (when in waves) to go all out and be effective, in concert with the backers and secondary. Team hitting is a must.

Some, like Teerlinck the Colts DL coach have an attitude of "stop the run on the way to the QB" which furthers the idea of get there quick enough and you'll blow whatever play (run/pass) up.

It isn't a zero-sum situation where they just want guys who weigh significantly less than their counterparts who can rush in a straight line fast.

I used to have links to provide to the lineman's guide for critics to be educated prior to bashing the system, but most of the sites stopped hosting them. If you really want one, however, pm me and I can see if I can scare one up for you.

If you think it sucks, take a look at teams like the Panthers, Seahawks, Falcons, Bucs, Miami (under Wannstedt), NYJ (Under Edwards), Bears, Packers prior to this year, Vikings....these teams have done it with undersized at all positions/some positions/a few.

The problem is the DL. DT's that are fast and not undersized are Warren Sapp and... Warren Sapp. You're pretty much always ceding size at the point of attack, which really sucks in short yardage situations and when the opposing O is trying to kill the clock.

[Mr. Pink]

Because the system sucks and our coaches don't know how to adjust the schemes on gameday?


Yes, terrible system, only turned the Steelers into a dynasty in the 70's.

[TigerJ]

The Cover 2 places a premium on speedy linebackers and linemen. No so much on speedy DBs. It doesn't specify that those speedy guys have to be small. The problem is that big speedy guys are few and far between. Occasionally you find a physical freak. Brian Urlacher is big and speedy. So is Mario Williams at DE. You don't find a Brian Urlacher type linebacker in every draft. If you can't find a guy who has all the measurables, then speed is more important than size. If Tinoisamoa is signed and comes in and plays at close to 240, that would be terrific. It would give the Bills a linebacking trio that has good size and at least adequate speed for a Cover 2 defense. Hopefully Tinoisamoa won't get pushed around quite as much as Ellison.

[Turbo.GUN.Hawk!]

Yes, terrible system, only turned the Steelers into a dynasty in the 70's. Yeah but in football the effectiveness of a system constantly changes. Today the 34 defense is having the greatest impact of all.

The Tampa-2 is difficult to adapt and even when it is succesfully adapted it is too soft. In the other hand the 34 is much more easier to run with average talent just as the Cardinals showed last postseason.
The Tampa-2 is too predictable and you really have to rely in true talent meanwhile in the 34 system you can confuse and overcome talent with good playcalling.

In the case of the Buffalo Bills we don't have a guy named Vanden Bosch, or Haynesworth, or Mathis, or Freeney, or Brock, or Sapp, or anything like that so it would be better just to make the transition like the Cardinals although I don't think we even have the pieces to make that transition (obviously considering Jauron is married with his Cover-2 scheme).

[justasportsfan]

Yes, terrible system, only turned the Steelers into a dynasty in the 70's.
It's not the 70's anymore and the Steelers didn't win the sb last year and the sb they won with Cowher with the cover 2. :rolleyes:

[methos4ever]

It's not the 70's anymore and the Steelers didn't win the sb last year and the sb they won with Cowher with the cover 2. :rolleyes:
Acutally, one of the key plays that won them the game (the pick by Harrison) was something that Tomlin (a Tampa 2 student) put in - having him drop in coverage instead of blitzing. In fact, Harrison complained all week that they had him dropping in coverage more than blitzing in their gameplan and people surmised that it was either a ruse or that he was putting the info out because he was being dumb.

And, with the drafting of Ziggy Hood, who will most likely be there for a while after Lebeau's eventual retirement, Tomlin's putting the pieces in place to have his system co-exist with the "Steeler Way".

[Turbo.GUN.Hawk!]

Acutally, one of the key plays that won them the game (the pick by Harrison) was something that Tomlin (a Tampa 2 student) put in - having him drop in coverage instead of blitzing. In fact, Harrison complained all week that they had him dropping in coverage more than blitzing in their gameplan and people surmised that it was either a ruse or that he was putting the info out because he was being dumb.

And, with the drafting of Ziggy Hood, who will most likely be there for a while after Lebeau's eventual retirement, Tomlin's putting the pieces in place to have his system co-exist with the "Steeler Way". BULLSHIIT!

First off, it's different to run a 34 defense and drop in coverage in some particular situations than to drop in coverage every single time. No matter how aggressive a defense is eventually that defense is always going to drop in coverage, but just sometimes. The difference and the reason why your argument is totally invalid is that the Tampa-2 philosophy is to always drop in coverage.
The Harrison pick happened in the last two minute drill of the first half so it was OBVIOUS the Steelers were playing conservative.

Second off, the Steelers offense won the Super Bowl, not their defense. Warner owned that game but Roesthlisberger was able to keep up.

Finally, there is no way Mike Tomlin is going to ever use his Tampa-2 scheme or anything similar in Pittsburgh, are you kidding me?

[justasportsfan]

Acutally, one of the key plays that won them the game (the pick by Harrison) was something that Tomlin (a Tampa 2 student) put in - having him drop in coverage instead of blitzing. In fact, Harrison complained all week that they had him dropping in coverage more than blitzing in their gameplan and people surmised that it was either a ruse or that he was putting the info out because he was being dumb.

And, with the drafting of Ziggy Hood, who will most likely be there for a while after Lebeau's eventual retirement, Tomlin's putting the pieces in place to have his system co-exist with the "Steeler Way".
that simply means they can adjust their schemes during gameday. Doesn't mean the cover 2 is the bulk or their bread and butter. The pats do that all the time too. THey run different schemes depending on the looks that the O gives them. But they run a 3-4 just like the steelers

Tell Dick Lebeau he runs a cover 2, he'll laugh at you.

[Mr. Pink]

Yeah but in football the effectiveness of a system constantly changes. Today the 34 defense is having the greatest impact of all.

The Tampa-2 is difficult to adapt and even when it is succesfully adapted it is too soft. In the other hand the 34 is much more easier to run with average talent just as the Cardinals showed last postseason.
The Tampa-2 is too predictable and you really have to rely in true talent meanwhile in the 34 system you can confuse and overcome talent with good playcalling.

In the case of the Buffalo Bills we don't have a guy named Vanden Bosch, or Haynesworth, or Mathis, or Freeney, or Brock, or Sapp, or anything like that so it would be better just to make the transition like the Cardinals although I don't think we even have the pieces to make that transition (obviously considering Jauron is married with his Cover-2 scheme).


:rofl:

The 3-4 you need true talent to run the system properly too.

A dominant NT, Ends who eat up blockers and OLB who can make plays and rush the passer.

If the 3-4 was that easy teams like the Browns wouldn't have one of the worst defenses in the league the past 4 years.

[Turbo.GUN.Hawk!]

The 3-4 you need true talent to run the system properly too.

A dominant NT, Ends who eat up blockers and OLB who can make plays and rush the passer.

If the 3-4 was that easy teams like the Browns wouldn't have one of the worst defenses in the league the past 4 years. Obviously not every team is going to succeed, but do you really consider Gabe Watson is a dominant nose tackle? Also I don't think Casey Hampton is tha shiit.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying you don't need talent to run a 34... but the whole idea of the 34 defense is too fool the quarterback with different type of blitzes from both the outside and the inside, the weakside and the strongside. You can always try to cover your lack of talent with a good playcalling in this system.

In the other hand the Tampa-2 is too predictable, the amount of times you blitz are limited and you basically try to get the quarterback with four guys every snap. There is not a surprise element, so of course you can succeed with this scheme if you have four guys that can constantly get the the quarterback like the Colts and the Titans, but if your front four is not that good and then you add the no surprise element what can you expect of it?

Peyton Manning has say it himself.

[Mr. Pink]

Obviously not every team is going to succeed, but do you really consider Gabe Watson is a dominant nose tackle? Also I don't think Casey Hampton is tha shiit.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying you don't need talent to run a 34... but the whole idea of the 34 defense is too fool the quarterback with different type of blitzes from both the outside and the inside, the weakside and the strongside. You can always try to cover your lack of talent with a good playcalling in this system.

In the other hand the Tampa-2 is too predictable, the amount of times you blitz are limited and you basically try to get the quarterback with four guys every snap. There is not a surprise element, so of course you can succeed with this scheme if you have four guys that can constantly get the the quarterback like the Colts, but if your front four is not that good and then you add the no surprise element what can you expect of it?

Peyton Manning has say it himself.

Yeah, in the Cover 2 you need at least one dominant end who can get after the QB. If you don't pressure the QB you're basically playing a prevent type defense so you don't get beat deep.

Meanwhile in a 3-4 if you can't get after the QB, you're more likely to give up those big plays.

[Turbo.GUN.Hawk!]

Yeah, in the Cover 2 you need at least one dominant end who can get after the QB. If you don't pressure the QB you're basically playing a prevent type defense so you don't get beat deep.

Meanwhile in a 3-4 if you can't get after the QB, you're more likely to give up those big plays. Actually you need two dominant ends, if you only have one the opposing team can double him and that's it.

You are wrong. If you play to "don't get beat deep" you are basically going to give away a lot of small-medium range passes who are going to consume the clock, physically consume your defense, you offense is going to get out of touch, and you are going to receive points anyway.

The best defense is too attack, both in the defense and offense. Sometimes with the proper talent in the d-line you can attack with four guys like Tennessee, and that is whole essence of the Tampa-2 scheme. But if you can't attack with four guys like Buffalo it doesn't make sense at all.

[Turbo.GUN.Hawk!]

And I would like to remark that I'm not proposing a change of system right now consiering we don't have the tools.

[Mr. Pink]

Thing is this...everyone is so down on our system and believes it doesn't work...

It has worked in the past and there is historical references that show it does work.

It just takes time to pick up the necessary pieces to allow the system to work and there's no quick fix to gain those pieces. It also doesn't help when you have poor talent evaluators who miss on some of those pieces.

There's no magical one defensive scheme that is better than all the rest, in fact the 3-4 is the most difficult system to properly fit with all the teams that run in and how few and far between dominant NTs are. Without the proper talent any scheme will fail and we are nowhere near having the proper talent right now to have a dominant defense.

[yordad]

You match scheme to players or players to scheme. If they match, it can work, no matter the scheme.

It doesn't work when you seemingly randomly grab players, and randomly pick a scheme.

Talent doesn't hurt either.

[Mr. Pink]

You match scheme to players or players to scheme. If they match, it can work, no matter the scheme.

It doesn't work when you seemingly randomly grab players, and randomly pick a scheme.

Talent doesn't hurt either.


No team does that though.

Coaches bring their style/scheme with them and then it's the FO's job to acquire the pieces to allow that scheme to flourish.

When you have poor talent evaluators you get teams like us, Cleveland, Detroit, Oakland.

When you have good talent evaluators you get teams like Baltimore, Pittsburgh, NYG, NE.

[yordad]

No team does that though.

Coaches bring their style/scheme with them and then it's the FO's job to acquire the pieces to allow that scheme to flourish.

When you have poor talent evaluators you get teams like us, Cleveland, Detroit, Oakland.

When you have good talent evaluators you get teams like Baltimore, Pittsburgh, NYG, NE.No team matches their players to their scheme? Ah, ok(?).

[Mr. Pink]

No team matches their players to their scheme? Ah, ok(?).


No, no team matches the scheme to the players.

They match the players to the scheme.

If your talent evaluators suck, you get what you have here...a weak defense.

That defense would be weak no matter what scheme we originally would have employed because the talent evaluators blow.

Difference is, under the scheme we have now, we limit big plays...other schemes don't do that when you make a mistake.

[yordad]

No, no team matches the scheme to the players.

They match the players to the scheme.

If your talent evaluators suck, you get what you have here...a weak defense.

That defense would be weak no matter what scheme we originally would have employed because the talent evaluators blow.

Difference is, under the scheme we have now, we limit big plays...other schemes don't do that when you make a mistake.Really? No team matches scheme to the players? Owners and GMs never let their players influence the type of coach they hire? If a team is set for a 3-4 and the coach retires, you don't think a GM will look for a 3-4 coach? If a run team aquires a top QB, you don't think they would begin to pass more? If a team that historically likes to throw deap losses its deap threats in the offseason, and aquires slower possession type receivers, you think they will contiune to bomb it long?

You don't think the game plan changes when the starting QB goes down? You don't think a defense can switch to zone after a rash of CB injuries?

Yeah, I disagree with you.

[theanswer74]

Our front 7 last year was around 5lbs less then the Steelers front 7. Not a whole lot.