Tampa 2, Cover 2; What do the Bears do?

[Pixote]

Hey, news is hard to come by this time of year for NFL fans. I found this article on a blog of a Bears fan and found it a bit interesting. It goes over how the cover 2 defense is suppose to work. Nothing earth shattering. Still found it one of the better descriptions on how our defense is suppose to work.

 

Tampa 2, Cover 2; What do the Bears do?

[bradjock]

Hey, news is hard to come by this time of year for NFL fans. I found this article on a blog of a Bears fan and found it a bit interesting. It goes over how the cover 2 defense is suppose to work. Nothing earth shattering. Still found it one of the better descriptions on how our defense is suppose to work.

 

Tampa 2, Cover 2; What do the Bears do?

 

Thanks for posting that Pix. I've read about the cover 2 a ton, but that's the best description I've ever read.

[Connorbear]

Thanks for posting that Pix. I've read about the cover 2 a ton, but that's the best description I've ever read.

Great article - thanks.

 

Peace

[nfoligno]

Nice write up. Nice discussion of the gaps. Couple little things.

 

One. The writer says it is a big pet peeve when someone says the DL is supposed to keep blockers off Urlacher. He goes own to discuss the difference between our cover two and, for example, our scheme when we had Washington and Traylor. I would point out that while the two systems are different, each are "supposed to" keep the MLB free, but each does so in a different manner. Lovie himself has talked about this when asked whether Urlacher would be better off in a system like the one w/ the big boy DTs. Lovie talked about how, in his system, Urlacher should be free too. His point was, if the system is working correct, your DL is getting penetration, and thus forcing double teams. When that happens, Urlacher is free. But then you have a year like last, when the DL does not penetrate, and an offense can single block the four DL. When this happens, bodies get to Urlacher.

 

So the point I would make, and the point Lovie made, is that even in a tampa 2, the MLB should be free, but only when it works correctly.

 

Two. Regarding the WLB role. I agree the WLB in our system is most likely to be freed up of blockers. At the same time, I think our system is tweaked from Tampas in that I think we have essentially swapped roles for the MLB and WLB in many ways. Normally, your MLB is your key against the run, and your WLB is your big play guy. That is how it was w/ Tamba as Brooks went after the QB and was the LB most often in the backfield. We do it a bit different though. Urlacher, far more often than Briggs, is the one attacking the QB.

 

Hey, news is hard to come by this time of year for NFL fans. I found this article on a blog of a Bears fan and found it a bit interesting. It goes over how the cover 2 defense is suppose to work. Nothing earth shattering. Still found it one of the better descriptions on how our defense is suppose to work.

 

Tampa 2, Cover 2; What do the Bears do?

 

[BearFan PHX]

Thanks for that article. It was nice to hear some details i didn't previously know.

 

I'd like to point out that while that is an excellent description of the Cover 2 (and cover 3) zone defense, that we only play zone 30% to 40% of the time. The label "Tampa Cover 2" has been loosely applied now to the entire one gap system. We run a "tampa 2" but that doesnt mean we're always in zone, it really just means that we run a one gap system, whatever the coverage behind it.

 

[nfoligno]

Disagree we play zone 30-40% of the time. Where did you get that figure anyway?

 

I believe you are going off when Lovie (or whoever it was) said we are in the cover two only 30-40% of the time, but we are not only in zone coverage when we are in the cover 2. The cover 2 is only one scheme which utilizes zone coverage. We might be in cover 1, and still playing zone. Or cover 3, and still in zone. We might be playing a nickel or dime package, and playing a zone coverage. Point is, we play zone coverage much more often than simply when we are in the pure cover two form, which I agree, our staff has said we run only 30-40% of the time.

 

IMHO, buy a considerable majority, we play zone coverage. I am not saying we don't ever plan man coverage, but I think it far more in the minority.

 

 

 

Thanks for that article. It was nice to hear some details i didn't previously know.

 

I'd like to point out that while that is an excellent description of the Cover 2 (and cover 3) zone defense, that we only play zone 30% to 40% of the time. The label "Tampa Cover 2" has been loosely applied now to the entire one gap system. We run a "tampa 2" but that doesnt mean we're always in zone, it really just means that we run a one gap system, whatever the coverage behind it.

 

[BearFan PHX]

Disagree we play zone 30-40% of the time. Where did you get that figure anyway?

 

I believe you are going off when Lovie (or whoever it was) said we are in the cover two only 30-40% of the time, but we are not only in zone coverage when we are in the cover 2. The cover 2 is only one scheme which utilizes zone coverage. We might be in cover 1, and still playing zone. Or cover 3, and still in zone. We might be playing a nickel or dime package, and playing a zone coverage. Point is, we play zone coverage much more often than simply when we are in the pure cover two form, which I agree, our staff has said we run only 30-40% of the time.

 

IMHO, buy a considerable majority, we play zone coverage. I am not saying we don't ever plan man coverage, but I think it far more in the minority.

 

I don't think that's true. I think they play man, and blitz too. But for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter - here's why:

 

If you're right, we still aren't playing 40%+ "cover 2," and my point was just that when they call us a "cover 2" defense, they don't really mean the coverage at all, the label really means one gappers on the DL.

 

Now I THINK I remember Lovie saying 30 to 40 % ZONE, but if you are right, then I would love to see the link, and would be very grateful to learn something! I'll try to look for it too.

[nfoligno]

Let me start by agreeing w/ you on one point. Here is something Lovie said which backs up your argument that our scheme is more based on the gap rather than coverage.

 

"Added Smith: "It's like the teams that are from that system only play cover-two every down, and that's the furthest thing from the truth. Cover-two is just a base part of what we do. Every defense for the most part is pretty much the same. It's gap-control defense.""

 

As for the other part, here is something I found in an old discussion of mine,

 

""Pressure on the quarterback," said Urlacher, adding that it's a misconception that Tampa Two teams always play cover-two defense (putting two safeties deep to thwart downfield passes). "Yeah, we don't do that. We play more man-to-man (coverage) and cover-three this year and blitz so much more. We probably play cover-two about 25 to 30 percent "

 

Yes, he mentions playing more man-to-man (which I never disputed) but also points to cover-three as something we run, and distinctive from cover two.

 

I would agree we played more man last year than in the past. At the same time, I think we play a majority of zone coverage, and mix it up w/ man.

 

 

 

I don't think that's true. I think they play man, and blitz too. But for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter - here's why:

 

If you're right, we still aren't playing 40%+ "cover 2," and my point was just that when they call us a "cover 2" defense, they don't really mean the coverage at all, the label really means one gappers on the DL.

 

Now I THINK I remember Lovie saying 30 to 40 % ZONE, but if you are right, then I would love to see the link, and would be very grateful to learn something! I'll try to look for it too.

 

[BearFan PHX]

Let me start by agreeing w/ you on one point. Here is something Lovie said which backs up your argument that our scheme is more based on the gap rather than coverage.

 

"Added Smith: "It's like the teams that are from that system only play cover-two every down, and that's the furthest thing from the truth. Cover-two is just a base part of what we do. Every defense for the most part is pretty much the same. It's gap-control defense.""

 

As for the other part, here is something I found in an old discussion of mine,

 

""Pressure on the quarterback," said Urlacher, adding that it's a misconception that Tampa Two teams always play cover-two defense (putting two safeties deep to thwart downfield passes). "Yeah, we don't do that. We play more man-to-man (coverage) and cover-three this year and blitz so much more. We probably play cover-two about 25 to 30 percent "

 

Yes, he mentions playing more man-to-man (which I never disputed) but also points to cover-three as something we run, and distinctive from cover two.

 

I would agree we played more man last year than in the past. At the same time, I think we play a majority of zone coverage, and mix it up w/ man.

 

Thanks! Nice job with the internet sleuthing!

[lemonej]

I would even generalize the cover 2 a little more by saying that the Bears play a 4-3 one gap defense which wasn't much different from what Wannnstedt was trying to install here because his philosophy was for his D-line to get penetration also he just didn't have guys like Russell Maryland and Leon Lett here to execute his scheme perfectly. We had a guy like Jim Flanigan who was undersized excell at DT under Wannie but his success was based on his quickness off the ball which was one of the same things that was said about William Perry who played the same position at over 300 pounds.The last 4 coaching staffs have played a version of the 4-3 here with mixed results with 2 of the staffs preferring big D-lines and the other 2 preferring smaller quicker D-linemen. The only difference has been the coverage. Lovie's version of this defense has played more zone than the other three staffs. Ryan liked to gamble and play mostly man as did Tobin who liked a zone blitzing scheme we all remember those Vestee Jackson blitzes off the corner. Wannie liked man coverage as did Blache and Jauron. The other difference was how the DT's lined up. Whether they were over the center or between the guard and tackle. The original version of this Cover 2 defense was played with both the tackles angled toward the center a signature of Bud Carson who used the alignment again with the New York Jets with Gastineu and Klecko on his line. All these different versions have evolved from the original form that was developed by Tom Landry when he was the DC for the New York Giants back before he became the Cowboys coach. This basically was a mano y mano formation with a big nasty MLB in the middle. Carson and the Steelers tweeked more by utilizing smaller quick LBs that were just as tough.

 

With all this being said I will always be a 4-3 guy because no matter how teams align themselves there are usually atleast 4 guys coming on mostly every down.

[Mongo3451]

With all this being said I will always be a 4-3 guy because no matter how teams align themselves there are usually atleast 4 guys coming on mostly every down.

Me too. However, I would find it intriguing to play a little 3-4. If you look at our depth at LB and the flexibility at on DL we may be able to throw some surprise looks at people. It would be particularly effective against the AP and the Queens.

[Pixote]

Me too. However, I would find it intriguing to play a little 3-4. If you look at our depth at LB and the flexibility at on DL we may be able to throw some surprise looks at people. It would be particularly effective against the AP and the Queens.

 

I agree, keep it as much under wraps as possible in the preseason, and then surprise a few with an occassional 3-4. That would totally be cool. Might force a few time outs by the offense, ;-)