Time to change up the defense

[Bears4Ever_34]

We need to scratch the cover 2. It's no longer an unknown defense because everybody knows about it now. Every single time we were in it, McNabb was gashing us for big yardage and so was Griese last week. I hate the cover 2, I think it's worthless at this point.. John Madden even said something about it yesterday, he thought they should scratch the cover 2 and the Orton bootleg. Thoughts, opinions?

[nfoligno]

By and large, I think you are preaching to the choir around here. I don't think many here are big fans of the cover two. I think Az would argue the system is not so much the issue so much as execution of it, but I am not sure he would be against scrapping the cover two either.

 

I have my own opinion of the cover two in general, but regardless, I just don't think we are in a position to play it. Lovie has said plenty often that, in order for the cover two to work, you need your front four to be capable of rushing the passer. Our front four, whether due to scheme or simply due to execution, are not getting it done. Rarely does our DL pressure the passer. Most pressure, what little there is, comes off the blitz. So if we are incapable of getting done that which the cover two relies on, then I think we need to consider changes.

 

But here is the problem. What experience does our staff have in defenses other than the cover two. Lovie worked in the cover two at TB, and then ran it in Stl, before bringing it here. Babich? When has he worked in a system other than the cover 2? I doubt you will have many aruge w/ you about scrapping the cover two, but the question is, what system is our coaching staff knowledgable in other than the cover two.

 

W/ regard to Orton on the bootleg, I have no issue w/ it at all. It is a way of buying time against a pass rush our OL was incapable of stopping. It isn't something I want to see often, but I see no reason we scrap it all together.

 

We need to scratch the cover 2. It's no longer an unknown defense because everybody knows about it now. Every single time we were in it, McNabb was gashing us for big yardage and so was Griese last week. I hate the cover 2, I think it's worthless at this point.. John Madden even said something about it yesterday, he thought they should scratch the cover 2 and the Orton bootleg. Thoughts, opinions?

[Pixote]

We need to scratch the cover 2. It's no longer an unknown defense because everybody knows about it now. Every single time we were in it, McNabb was gashing us for big yardage and so was Griese last week. I hate the cover 2, I think it's worthless at this point.. John Madden even said something about it yesterday, he thought they should scratch the cover 2 and the Orton bootleg. Thoughts, opinions?

 

 

I think you will find if you review the progress of the defense over the past 2 years we are using the cover 2 less and less as time goes by. It is not any longer our primary coverage IMO. Correct me if I am wrong. (I am sure you will, LOL)

[madlithuanian]

I totally remember hearing Madden say the Bers need to ditch the cover 2...

 

I fully agree.

 

We need to scratch the cover 2. It's no longer an unknown defense because everybody knows about it now. Every single time we were in it, McNabb was gashing us for big yardage and so was Griese last week. I hate the cover 2, I think it's worthless at this point.. John Madden even said something about it yesterday, he thought they should scratch the cover 2 and the Orton bootleg. Thoughts, opinions?

[nfoligno]

After either the Carolina, or the TB game, there was a stat which said we ran the cover two only 40% of the time.

 

W/ that said, I think the issue more surrounds our continuing to run aspects of the cover two, or at least as it is known w/ Lovie. We may not have two deep safeties, and thus are not playing the cover two, but other aspects of the system are still there.

 

We still see our DBs playing off the LOS, and often by as much as 7 or 8 yards. From there, our DBs can not touch the WR as it would be beyond the 5 yard cushion area. And they are very exposed to quick hitch and/or slant routes.

 

We still see the defense playing zone coverage. Zone coverage can be effective when you have a solid pass rush, and can even offer more turnover potential, but w/o a pass rush, it is easier to find holes in the zone.

 

We still rush the pass the same way. We run our DEs to the outside nearly 100% of the time. Wale doesn't have the speed anymore, and is more often simply stopped. Brown hits the edge w/ more speed, but the LT just pushes him far wide, and away from the QB.

 

So technically speaking, we may not often run the cover two, as we often move a safety up, but we continue to run many of the aspects of the cover two, and IMHO, it is those aspects of the cover two that are the problem far more than the schems name sake (where the safeties lineup).

 

I think you will find if you review the progress of the defense over the past 2 years we are using the cover 2 less and less as time goes by. It is not any longer our primary coverage IMO. Correct me if I am wrong. (I am sure you will, LOL)

[jason]

After either the Carolina, or the TB game, there was a stat which said we ran the cover two only 40% of the time.

 

W/ that said, I think the issue more surrounds our continuing to run aspects of the cover two, or at least as it is known w/ Lovie. We may not have two deep safeties, and thus are not playing the cover two, but other aspects of the system are still there.

 

We still see our DBs playing off the LOS, and often by as much as 7 or 8 yards. From there, our DBs can not touch the WR as it would be beyond the 5 yard cushion area. And they are very exposed to quick hitch and/or slant routes.

 

We still see the defense playing zone coverage. Zone coverage can be effective when you have a solid pass rush, and can even offer more turnover potential, but w/o a pass rush, it is easier to find holes in the zone.

 

We still rush the pass the same way. We run our DEs to the outside nearly 100% of the time. Wale doesn't have the speed anymore, and is more often simply stopped. Brown hits the edge w/ more speed, but the LT just pushes him far wide, and away from the QB.

 

So technically speaking, we may not often run the cover two, as we often move a safety up, but we continue to run many of the aspects of the cover two, and IMHO, it is those aspects of the cover two that are the problem far more than the schems name sake (where the safeties lineup).

 

DING DING DING! We have a winner!

[azbearsfan]

We need to scratch the cover 2. It's no longer an unknown defense because everybody knows about it now. Every single time we were in it, McNabb was gashing us for big yardage and so was Griese last week. I hate the cover 2, I think it's worthless at this point.. John Madden even said something about it yesterday, he thought they should scratch the cover 2 and the Orton bootleg. Thoughts, opinions?

 

 

To what exactly?

 

Look man, no defense unknown. The reason these guys are giving up yardage is the individual efforts not the cover 2. Like that TD to Jackson, thats Mike Brown getting beat not the system.

 

I think nfo is right that you dont change to a defense where the coaches are not familiar with. Thats a recipe for disaster.

 

And if you bring different coaches with a different scheme at the end of the year, then you probably have to change players to fit the new scheme.

 

And actually, if Madden says something we should probably do the opposite. That guy is as senile as they get.

 

Tampa is sitting at 3-1 with a top defense and they are actually in the cover 2 more than us.

 

Maybe we need more cover 2.....

[madlithuanian]

Good post nfo!

 

I really saw the DB's laying off the LOS to a point of ridiculousness! Our DB's can lay some wood, so why not bump more often?

 

After either the Carolina, or the TB game, there was a stat which said we ran the cover two only 40% of the time.

 

W/ that said, I think the issue more surrounds our continuing to run aspects of the cover two, or at least as it is known w/ Lovie. We may not have two deep safeties, and thus are not playing the cover two, but other aspects of the system are still there.

 

We still see our DBs playing off the LOS, and often by as much as 7 or 8 yards. From there, our DBs can not touch the WR as it would be beyond the 5 yard cushion area. And they are very exposed to quick hitch and/or slant routes.

 

We still see the defense playing zone coverage. Zone coverage can be effective when you have a solid pass rush, and can even offer more turnover potential, but w/o a pass rush, it is easier to find holes in the zone.

 

We still rush the pass the same way. We run our DEs to the outside nearly 100% of the time. Wale doesn't have the speed anymore, and is more often simply stopped. Brown hits the edge w/ more speed, but the LT just pushes him far wide, and away from the QB.

 

So technically speaking, we may not often run the cover two, as we often move a safety up, but we continue to run many of the aspects of the cover two, and IMHO, it is those aspects of the cover two that are the problem far more than the schems name sake (where the safeties lineup).

[Zod]

The Bears aren't a strict cover two team anymore. Have seen the amount of zone and fire dog blitzes the Bears run? They are using their team speed to press the line yet still dropping back into coverage.

 

As for the problem with the d-line; this is a one gap scheme, the Bears have speed rushers on the edge, they are very one dimensional in the pass rush moves they can do. What do you want them to do? They can't bull rush, they can't rip back to the inside but they can attack the edge. The Bears don't have any push up the middle because Tommie is out. The good news is that the DT are able to hold the middle and are providing good defense against the run.

 

 

The Bears aren't a strictly a cover 2 team anymore.

[nfoligno]

I really saw the DB's laying off the LOS to a point of ridiculousness! Our DB's can lay some wood, so why not bump more often?

 

Your asking the wrong person, as I have no idea why we don't. If I see tillman matched up against someone like Steve Smith, I can better understand. I might still disagree, but I understand. But when I see our DBs show so much respect for the likes of Moose, Mark Clayton, Antonio Bryant, etc., I just don't get it.

[nfoligno]

Look man, no defense unknown.

 

Agreed that all systems are basically known, but I would say playcalls w/in a system can generate the same sort of confusion Zod (or whoever it was) is seeking.

 

The reason these guys are giving up yardage is the individual efforts not the cover 2. Like that TD to Jackson, thats Mike Brown getting beat not the system.

 

We have gone back and forth enough on this I think. I agree execution is a big part, but also think system (whether you want to say cover two or whatever the name is) is a factor. If our system dictates that our DBs play soft coverage, and a team is beating us w/ quick slants, than I think the system is in fact hurting us.

 

I think nfo is right that you dont change to a defense where the coaches are not familiar with. Thats a recipe for disaster.

 

I have cut, paste, and saved this comment. Expect me to use this early and often in the future

 

And if you bring different coaches with a different scheme at the end of the year, then you probably have to change players to fit the new scheme.

 

Maybe. I would say it depends on the new scheme, and how different it is from ours. I have heard of the cover two, the Lovie two, the Tampa two. They all stem from the same scheme, but are different. If we go away from the Lovie two, and move to a scheme like Dungy's (very similar to ours, yet different) than I doubt you need much change. Frankly, when I look at our personnel, I am not sure how many we would need to change if we simply ran a very generic 4-3.

 

And actually, if Madden says something we should probably do the opposite. That guy is as senile as they get.

 

He has his senior moments, and his love for Farve is way over the top, but I would not write automatically write off what a HOF coach says so easily.

 

Tampa is sitting at 3-1 with a top defense and they are actually in the cover 2 more than us.

 

Maybe we need more cover 2.....

 

As said above, they run a scheme similar, but I would not agree our schemes are identical.

[madlithuanian]

We're definitley on the same page here...

[sprout]

We need to scratch the cover 2. It's no longer an unknown defense because everybody knows about it now. Every single time we were in it, McNabb was gashing us for big yardage and so was Griese last week. I hate the cover 2, I think it's worthless at this point.. John Madden even said something about it yesterday, he thought they should scratch the cover 2 and the Orton bootleg. Thoughts, opinions?

 

I agree, but if Madden says they have to go, then maybe we should keep them! He's an idiot.