Tampa 2

[BAT]

As the season draws near I think it's becoming more and more important that we all get on the same page in trying to understand the Tampa 2 defense. There still seems to be a great deal of confusion. I'm going to list some great articles and videos breaking down the defense.

Origin, Concept, Formations, Strengths, Weaknesses
http://theboysareback.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/grampa-two-defense-explaining-the-tampa-2-defensive-strategy/

Terminology, Techniques, Positions, and how it applies to Dallas
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1483322-dallas-cowboys-breaking-down-the-teams-transition-to-the-tampa-2-defense


Monte Kiffin giving a class on the Tampa 2
http://brophyfootball.blogspot.com/2013/02/monte-kiffin-3-deep-coverage.html

Brian Billick explains Tampa 2 and Cover 3
[youtube]2f_qFhT1m7o[/youtube]
[youtube]RUv_3SdfrJA[/youtube]


Brian Broaddus' breakdown of the Tampa 2
http://www.dallascowboys.com/multimedia/videos/Film-Room-Explaining-The-Tampa-2/b7254c4f-5ce6-491c-ae2b-ba04d39b6416

If you have anything to add, please do so.

Great links, would rep if I could.

 

[BAT]

Not sure why you'd be shocked. His 4-3 is generally attack the gap first step read the play on the run. It's not read and react. However, he's never done that every play and apparently his D is evolving like every O and D has to do. Almost every defense has 7-8 men in the box on first down and ten. Not always just generally. The differences in most defenses are not who has their hand on the ground but how they are playing the gaps and how they are reading the plays as well as how they are covering the pass. Most teams don't run a 4-3 or 3-4 exclusively just like they don't always have 4 DBs on the field all the time. When you start adding in situational players, stunts, blitzes, dropping linemen into coverage yada then you see that calling a defense a 4-3 is just a matter of convenience labeling. And every team uses the strengths of their personnel as wisely as they can. So that also dictates how they work the gaps and how which of course changes the way people label it. Of course their scheme affects what personnel they draft as well.

If this were true (that modern schemes are "evolving" to incorporate into one gelatinous blob of sameness) then Kiffin/Marinelli would have had no reason to think that Shariff Floyd was not a scheme fit.

Kiffin's philosophy and base defense (4-3 under) are not going to change. He has built his rep and career on it.

 

[Galian Beast]

Great links, would rep if I could.

Thanks. I'm not sure how it got merged into this thread, but as long as someone made use of it.

 

[Little Jr]

We will see who's guess is correct. Not all guesses are created equal.

Lmao. I never heard that before. True though.

 

[BAT]

Not to beat on a dead horse but if the Cowboys are really playing a hybrid D scheme then Ciskowski would not be differentiating the difference between 4-3 and 3-4 (or hybrid) players:

“I think in a lot of cases, it’s kind of like a bridge,” Ciskowski told the G-Bag Nation show on 105.3 The Fan [KRLD-FM]. “We bring the players to the bridge and the coaches have to take them across. The main thing is just to communicate exactly what the coach wants. There was a defensive tackle from Georgia, John Jenkins, who as a matter of fact, was drafted by New Orleans. If we were still in the 3-4, we would’ve liked him as a nose [tackle]. But now that we’ve transitioned back to a 4-3, he really doesn’t fit what we’re looking for. So a lot of it is about the new coach educating us on what he wants at each position and it’s our job to go out and find it.”

Maybe Ciskowski is not that credible either? I may have to text him and let him know that he is not conversant on the subject.

 

[jobberone]

I think I've looked at every single thing kiffin has said, and I don't think I've ever heard him mention anything specific about the scheme he's going to run. The only quote is that players should look at the seahawks (both to a db and to a dl). The seahawks run primarily a 4-3 under, but they run it with a lot of 2-gap principles since they have a lot of 3-4 personnel like red bryant at the 5-tech. Kiffin ran this scheme early in his career, but by the time he was in Tampa he ran almost exclusively 1-gap. I think all of our defensive lineman will be better one-gapping and getting up field, so I don't think we will have that many 3-4 principles like the seahawks do on their dline, but given that kiffin told hatcher to look at the seahawks...who knows.

I'd have to go back and look at everything but he mentioned a few things. But who knows. Everyone is running all kinds of variants but I think we'll see more of the basics of his brand of Tampa 2 than anything else. It doesn't matter to me what fronts he shows and I don't think he'll get away too far from grabbing the gaps with a one step attack and read nor the basics of his general philosophy in coverage and defense overall. No matter what they do on any one single play you're going to see an aggressive and fast defense with mostly cover 3 soft zones in general. I'm still trying to learn his different coverage packages.

Here are some of the links I've either looked at or look similar:

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2013...de-monte-kiffin-playbook-philosophies-tampa-2

http://www.gregorydoublewing.com/63_Defense_Tampa_Cover_2___Zone_Coverage_Conceptsx.pdf I think this is above but its a necessary read.

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2012/5/16/3024669/xs-and-os-lets-cover-the-basics-tampa-2 This has a good chart and decent basic read with the below:

When do you call it?
For teams who rely on this scheme, they feel comfortable calling it in almost any non short yardage situation. But you can almost guarantee, that on 3rd down and Mid to Long yardage you'll see Chicago and Minnesota in Tampa 2. The scheme allows them to put a top on the defense, prevent a big play, use their DLine to get pressure and force the ball out underneath, rally to the ball, and get off the field.


You'll also see it run regulary in the redzone by most NFL teams, again because when played properly it forces throws underneath where you can force your opponent to kick FG's, and you can win a lot of games holding the offense to FG's.


[youtube]2f_qFhT1m7o[/youtube] basics with some sides for exploration


http://www.scribd.com/doc/3111211/cover-2-dungy-tampa-bay-defense-install Detailed and complicated; nothing here but basic over/under 1/3/5 techniques and also coverages; a lot of offensive recognition as well


http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports...ng-the-patriots-defensive-front-mind-the-gap/ gap control determines front not who is lined up where and how


http://www.fieldgulls.com/2012/9/6/3297898/seahawks-defense-pete-carroll-gus-bradley a lot of the talk about some Seattle looks this year from Kiffin's D


http://www.fieldgulls.com/2012/3/12/2862318/the-seahawks-mario-williams-and-the-modern-hybrid-fronts Is it 3-4 or 4-3; more on variants of the 4-3 and 3-4 and what's what.


http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id...ck-vince-wilfork-new-england-patriots-defense More what's a 4-3 and a 3-4. There is a lot more out there but all these are easy to get to.

I don't think you're going to see Kiffin's D put in a box. I do think the general philosophy isn't going to change. Again I don't have any idea what other kind of gap control Kiffin is going to use and I don't know exactly how Seattle's D fits in to it all. All I know is Kiffin told several players to be studying Seattle's D. And Seattle runs different gap control than anyone here envisioned as a 4-3 and in fact is even different that most of your hybrid Ds around. Maybe it's more like NE. It certainly isn't Wade's D or Ryan's D 3-4. In fact Wade's gap control was more 4-3 than 3-4. But anyway I'll bet you're going to see more than just the basic 4-3 over/under D.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not to beat on a dead horse but if the Cowboys are really playing a hybrid D scheme then Ciskowski would not be differentiating the difference between 4-3 and 3-4 (or hybrid) players:



Maybe Ciskowski is not that credible either? I may have to text him and let him know that he is not conversant on the subject.

You have an incredible blindness to the concept of nuance.

 

[jobberone]

I don't have a pipeline to squat but I have played in a 4-3 (both over & under) schemes and coached 5-2 schemes (lots of similarities to the 3-4) at the high school level. So I am no expert but I at least can draw on personal experience to confirm what I actually see.

Just because a team 2 gaps does not mean it is a 3-4 front. You can 2 gap from a 4-3 under. And you can 1 gap from a 3-4. Just because the SAM becomes a pass rusher it does not mean they are playing a hybrid 4-3/3-4. The SAM is still responsible for outside leverage.

And both Carroll and Kiffin have stated that they do not play a 3-4 scheme.
Again I have never professed to be an expert, but dang it, this is football 101.

You're right. Playing 2 gaps doesn't make you a 3-4 and you can certainly play 2 gap control with a 0/1/3 technique in a 4-3 basic over/under. And that base is definitely going to have 2 5s, one 3 and one 1. Generally speaking the more players in 2 gap the more likely you are to have a 3-4.

The reason most teams are running a hybrid is they are just showing different fronts and gap control from down to down. NE does a lot of changing around because Wilfork can do so much as a 0, 1, and 3 playing one and two gap control and grabbing. Wade's D looked like a 3-4 with 3 down linemen and two up OLBs but Ware was essentially a 4-3 DE in an up stance and our DL didn't play much 2 gap at all or even a 1 gap hold but mostly a one gap attack. So basically Wade ran a 4-3. Ryan's D looked the same but he ran mostly a 3-4 with 2 gap responsibility just a tad different than prototypical with head in and out techniques after a read.

With Kiffin's D you might have them in a 4-3 over/under but on runs esp on long downs the CBs become DE/OLBs and play a 5 technique so you have a six man front. What do you call that? A 6-5?? Most teams are playing variants of whatever base/hybrid they consider themselves but in the end you have gaps to control and X number of guys up front and Y in the secondary. Every defense is going to change up their D according to down, distance, score, offense, time left, yada and most of them have all kinds of looks and schemes.

So I don't get hung up on the idea of a pure 4-3 or 3-4. They just mean so much from team to team and even down to down on the same team.

 

[jobberone]

If this were true (that modern schemes are "evolving" to incorporate into one gelatinous blob of sameness) then Kiffin/Marinelli would have had no reason to think that Shariff Floyd was not a scheme fit.

Kiffin's philosophy and base defense (4-3 under) are not going to change. He has built his rep and career on it.

It isn't Kiffin that is changing. It's the entire league and that shouldn't surprise anyone. That's always been the game for a long time. Yeah, Kiffin is going to attack gaps and his players are going to be different than say a pure 3-4's personnel. If you think that Kiffin is going to line up in a typical 4-3 over/under every play then this conversation was over before it even started.

But you're right in Kiffin's basic philosophy is not going to change.

 

[BAT]

You have an incredible blindness to the concept of nuance.

:laugh2: So now you want to talk about "nuance"? That's just double talk indicating you no longer have a horse in the race.

There is no shame in admitting you are wrong. I guess Jerry doesn't get "nuance" either, he seems to believe that the team is playing a 4-3 and no longer a 3-4 too.

Still think all opinions are the same? By all means, let's discuss nuance instead. :laugh1:

 

[jobberone]

:laugh2: So now you want to talk about "nuance"? That's just double talk indicating you no longer have a horse in the race.

There is no shame in admitting you are wrong. I guess Jerry doesn't get "nuance" either, he seems to believe that the team is playing a 4-3 and no longer a 3-4 too.

Still think all opinions are the same? By all means, let's discuss nuance instead. :laugh1:

I think if you read all the posts by everyone you'll see that we all agree the base D will be his 4-3 over/under. However, what you are doing is trying to win a debate and you have single mindedly focused on that one fact and you ARE missing the nuances of not just his defenses but most if not all defenses in the league. No one I know is running anything simple anymore. While Kiffin is noted for a Tampa 2 it's not just a 4-3 over/under one gap defense. If you look at the articles/links I posted you'll see that there are a lot of variations in his defense. Not only that but it's been pointed out that every defense in the NFL has multiple looks and packages/personnel depending on down and distance yada. This is not a simple subject as you can see by just a partial part of his college notebook.

You've made your entire argument based on one simplified label of his defense and totally ignored all the nuances of the modern NFL defense including his. If you think all he runs is a 4-3 over/under one gap grab defense be my guest. Go ahead with your silly emoticons and brushing people off as well as crass insults. You dug yourself a hole early on and instead of just saying I was speaking in generalities only you've stubbornly and obnoxiously clung to it. All you've done is show you'll go to those lengths to avoid an intelligent debate so you can prove your stance all the while giving most of us a good view of your childishness and mean spiritedness. If you're a football coach why not add to the debate. You brought up an excellent point about gap control in the 4-3 vs 3-4. Why not give us your knowledge instead of ridicule. I know I would listen to you.

And stop insulting over members please.

 

[BAT]

I think if you read all the posts by everyone you'll see that we all agree the base D will be his 4-3 over/under. However, what you are doing is trying to win a debate and you have single mindedly focused on that one fact and you ARE missing the nuances of not just his defenses but most if not all defenses in the league. No one I know is running anything simple anymore. While Kiffin is noted for a Tampa 2 it's not just a 4-3 over/under one gap defense. If you look at the articles/links I posted you'll see that there are a lot of variations in his defense. Not only that but it's been pointed out that every defense in the NFL has multiple looks and packages/personnel depending on down and distance yada. This is not a simple subject as you can see by just a partial part of his college notebook.

You've made your entire argument based on one simplified label of his defense and totally ignored all the nuances of the modern NFL defense including his. If you think all he runs is a 4-3 over/under one gap grab defense be my guest. Go ahead with your silly emoticons and brushing people off as well as crass insults. You dug yourself a hole early on and instead of just saying I was speaking in generalities only you've stubbornly and obnoxiously clung to it. All you've done is show you'll go to those lengths to avoid an intelligent debate so you can prove your stance all the while giving most of us a good view of your childishness and mean spiritedness. If you're a football coach why not add to the debate. You brought up an excellent point about gap control in the 4-3 vs 3-4. Why not give us your knowledge instead of ridicule. I know I would listen to you.

And stop insulting over members please.

Silly emoticons? I am using one of the tools that you have made available on this site you moderate. Are the emoticons only silly if I use them?

Are my insults any more "crass" than any other poster on this thread, or forum? It is interesting that you are allowed to call me "childish" and "mean spirited" yet I am the only one insulting members if I opine that certain arguments are ignorant. And unlike you, I did not address any poster specifically with that remark.

Again, getting back to point of the thread, it is my opinion that Kiffin does not run a hybrid defense. Just because a scheme may have elements of another scheme, it does not make that scheme a hybrid. There are only a few defenses run in the NFL that are true hybrids: Patriots, Ravens, Jets and now Saints

Most defenses are scheme specific and may have certain elements that another scheme is known to use, but that does not make it a hybrid. For example, just because Jim Johnson implemented zone blitzes in his 4-3 that does not mean it is a hybrid (utilizing zone blitz concepts popularized by LeBeau's 3-4). That is the nuance that I am trying to convey.

There are reasons why certain players are scheme fits while others are not. If what you believe is true (all modern D's are now hybrids) then there would be no need of players who fit certain schemes. And teams would stop characterizing their defensive schemes as 4-3, 3-4, hybrids, etc. As all D's would be hybrids. Clearly that is not the case. Otherwise Jerry Jones, Stephen Jones, Tom Ciskowski, Monte Kiffin et. al. would not be talking about the change from a 3-4 to a 4-3.

One poster even went to the trouble of providing links (and not articles written by fans) delineating between the various 4-3 and 3-4 schemes.

 

[CyberB0b]

Again, getting back to point of the thread, it is my opinion that Kiffin does not run a hybrid defense. Just because a scheme may have elements of another scheme, it does not make that scheme a hybrid. There are only a few defenses run in the NFL that are true hybrids: Patriots, Ravens, Jets and now Saints

Jobber, he is right. Monte Kiffin has never been known for running any type of hybrid defense. One of the things I am looking forward to is the simplicity of the scheme.

4-3 Under Front Tampa 2 Cover

That will be the base play, with some other type of coverages and blitzed called to keep the offense guessing. It should all look the same presnap.

 

[BAT]

Jobber, he is right. Monte Kiffin has never been known for running any type of hybrid defense. One of the things I am looking forward to is the simplicity of the scheme.

4-3 Under Front Tampa 2 Cover

That will be the base play, with some other type of coverages and blitzed called to keep the offense guessing. It should all look the same presnap.

Exactly. That is one of the foundations of Kiffin's scheme. They will run multiple plays out of the same look. Just because Kiffin has 3 DTs and 1 DE (e.g. Seattle) on the LOS does not make it a 3-4. Even if Kiffin blitzes (and every defensive scheme has at least a zone dog in it), it does not make it a 4-3 or 3-4 zone blitz.

Speed. Takeaways. Hitting. Are the other foundations. Here is a very good article on the subject:

http://********.com/5952195/how-the-hell-did-the-seahawks-build-an-elite-defense