Can You Have a Dominant Cover 2?

[Teague31]

My big problem with the Cover 2 is that when it is at it's finest it is still a bend but don't break type defense. At least with the 3-4, it has a chance to be dominant if done correctly. I have never been impressed with any Cover 2 team I have watched- none seem to pressure the QB. Which of course means Rivera will fit right in .

 

[Rack]

The Bears play a lot of Cover 2. They were dominant this year.

The Bucs are a cover 2 team. They were dominant for a few years at about the time they won their Superbowl. Not so much now but that more due to a lack of player then cuz of the scheme itself.


The cover 2 itself isn't a "Bend but don't break" defense. It all depends on how the coordinator runs it.

Run it like Zimmer and you got a bend but don't break (if you're lucky) defense.

Run it like Monte Kiffin and you've got dominance (until your players get old).


The bucs had 43 sacks their superbowl year.

The bears had 40 sacks this year despite losing their best pass rushing DT (and one of the best in the NFL at getting to the QB).

 

[Chocolate Lab]

It's like people are expecting defenses to hold offenses to a shutout or a field goal per game, and that's simply not the reality in today's NFL with the rules so heavily favoring offenses.

 

[JohnsKey19]

Our safeties can't run. they dont change direction well and overall struggle at finding the ball and making a play while the ball is in the air. to play a lot of cover 2, you need safeties that can run, change direction and close quickly on the ball. Indy has that. Tampa in the heyday had that. we dont.

to answer the question, yes you can be dominant while playing cover 2. It all depends on the personnel trying to execute the scheme.

 

[Rack]

Our safeties can't run. they dont change direction well and overall struggle at finding the ball and making a play while the ball is in the air. to play a lot of cover 2, you need safeties that can run, change direction and close quickly on the ball. Indy has that. Tampa in the heyday had that. we dont.

to answer the question, yes you can be dominant while playing cover 2. It all depends on the personnel trying to execute the scheme.

I disagree. We have safeties good enough to play in a cover 2 (roy is more then good enough).

What you NEED is a good pass rush from your front 4 and a MBL/ILB that can get deep in coverage. THOSE are the things we are missing.

 

[Billy Bullocks]

Yes, you can. Look at Tampa Bay when they won their Super Bowl.

The bears have a strong pass rush, but it dissapeared last night. Mainly rushing 4 players works great if you have the front 4 to do so.

 

[Rack]

Yes, you can. Look at Tampa Bay when they won their Super Bowl.

The bears have a strong pass rush, but it dissapeared last night. Mainly rushing 4 players works great if you have the front 4 to do so.

I agree. But your DCoord also has to allow them to do so. Constantly making them engage, read, and react would slow their rush considerably.

 

[The Realist]

What would make no sense is paying top dollar and using high picks on CB's and S's in a cover 2 system

 

[Rack]

What would make no sense is paying top dollar and using high picks on CB's and S's in a cover 2 system

I agree with that.

If we played mainly a cover 2 zone (which we did NOT do this year) then Newman's talents would go to waste.

 

[smarta5150]

I agree with that.

If we played mainly a cover 2 zone (which we did NOT do this year) then Newman's talents would go to waste.

Seemed like it unfortunately.

Whoever takes the DC over I just hope he puts Newman on the #1 WR and lets him stick him the whole game.

 

[Rack]

Seemed like it unfortunately.

Whoever takes the DC over I just hope he puts Newman on the #1 WR and lets him stick him the whole game.

You can't do that all the time though. Your D would get way too predictable.


I actually think we did a nice mix of putting Newman on the best WR and just letting him stick at LCB this season. That wasn't the problem. The problem was not getting to the QB, and it has been for several years.

 

[smarta5150]

You can't do that all the time though. Your D would get way too predictable.


I actually think we did a nice mix of putting Newman on the best WR and just letting him stick at LCB this season. That wasn't the problem. The problem was not getting to the QB, and it has been for several years.

Pressure was easily the biggest problem.

I just cant help recall Newman covering TEs or RBs when the other team went twins left... maybe I am exaggerating, just overall frusterating on defense.

 

[hank2k]

My big problem with the Cover 2 is that when it is at it's finest it is still a bend but don't break type defense. At least with the 3-4, it has a chance to be dominant if done correctly. I have never been impressed with any Cover 2 team I have watched- none seem to pressure the QB. Which of course means Rivera will fit right in .

Most of the great defenses of all time were bend but dont break teams that seldom blitzed, and rushed mainly 4 guys .
Steelers of the 70's, Dallas Flex, Jimmys 4-3, San Francisco and Washington , Ravens , Parcells Giants, Patriots under Belichek, Tampa bay,etc.

The all out blitzers like Buddy Ryans Bears were the exception rather than the rule, a point that seems lost on many fans who complain about "passive" defenses. Manning and the Colts eat up teams that blitz (which is where he gets most of his big stat days)so the Beasr approach , like ours vs them was the correct one.
Manning would have torched the Bears secondary if theyd have manned up and come after him consistantly.

 

[theogt]

As others have pointed out, you can have a dominant Cover 2 if you have a dominant D-line. But that's true of just about any defense. The Bears defense whent to **** whenever their line went to ****. Personally I'd prefer a scheme that doesn't rely so much the talent of the front 4. A well run 3-4 can disguise some sore spots.

If I was going to pick a scheme that reflected the players on this defense, a Tampa 2 is about last on the list.

 

[Rack]

Pressure was easily the biggest problem.

I just cant help recall Newman covering TEs or RBs when the other team went twins left... maybe I am exaggerating, just overall frusterating on defense.

That's actually not a bad thing. If a team goes twins away from newman we can just flood that side of the field and let Newman take care of the TE on the other side. That's in our favor. That problems occur when 1 - or both - of those WRs runs a route that takes them all the way to the other side of the field, either a short route or deep route. Those routes take time. Against us, that's not a problem usually. If we had a pass rush, teams wouldn't be able to run those routes on us consistently.

 

[theogt]

Most of the great defenses of all time were bend but dont break teams that seldom blitzed, and rushed mainly 4 guys .
Steelers of the 70's, Dallas Flex, Jimmys 4-3, San Francisco and Washington , Ravens , Parcells Giants, Patriots under Belichek, Tampa bay,etc.

The all out blitzers like Buddy Ryans Bears were the exception rather than the rule, a point that seems lost on many fans who complain about "passive" defenses. Manning and the Colts eat up teams that blitz (which is where he gets most of his big stat days)so the Beasr approach , like ours vs them was the correct one.
Manning would have torched the Bears secondary if theyd have manned up and come after him consistantly.

I think you can pretty much take most of what's happened in the NFL beyond the past 10 years and completely throw it in the garbage because it's meaningless today.

 

[Rack]

A well run 3-4 can disguise some sore spots.

If I was going to pick a scheme that reflected the players on this defense, a Tampa 2 is about last on the list.

 

[The Realist]

I agree with that.

If we played mainly a cover 2 zone (which we did NOT do this year) then Newman's talents would go to waste.

Or how about our ILB's having deep middle coverage responsibilities.

Other thing I don't get is the Spears/Canty as 4-3 DT crew.

We saw them as nickel DT's when all they had to do was T-off on the QB.

Results?

 

[Rack]

Or how about our ILB's having deep middle coverage responsibilities.

Other thing I don't get is the Spears/Canty as 4-3 DT crew.

We saw them as nickel DT's when all they had to do was T-off on the QB.

Results?

 

[Bleu Star]

My big problem with the Cover 2 is that when it is at it's finest it is still a bend but don't break type defense. At least with the 3-4, it has a chance to be dominant if done correctly. I have never been impressed with any Cover 2 team I have watched- none seem to pressure the QB. Which of course means Rivera will fit right in .

I suppose you can since both defenses last night played the cover 2 and Indy did a bang up job holding Chicago in check. Granted, there is the Rex factor but I do recall Cedric Benson getting sent home packing after a couple of attempted carries that ended in disaster. Thomas Jones was Thomas Jones but he was also held in check.