Bears cover 2 means

[Lucky Luciano]

You can have man coverage, while also playing double coverage.

 

We had Tillman on Fitz in man coverage, but provided no help. That is putting a CB on an island w/ the WR. But you can also have a CB play man coverage, while ALSO adding support. You say that is double coverage, but the CB is still playing man.

 

no. if the CB is playing man-to-man coverage it is single coverage and the corner sinks or swims by his abilities to cover that receiver. if you don't believe me look it up.

 

in regards to peanut, he would be considered a good to very good #2 corner or an all pro caliber free safety in the real world but nothing more, mainly because of his lack of top speed and quickness. if you throw in a safety and/or LB to help him out it is double (triple) coverage or a zone coverage and so-on and so-forth.

 

 

this is why i want at least one excellent cover corner that can do this on the bears. it makes your defense exponentially better on so many levels.

 

[nfoligno]

Okay, difference in terminology. My point was simply that I liked that we were playing Tillman on Fitz, rather than in zone, but agree we should have sent help to that side of the field.

 

Question though. Is it "double coverage" if you are simply cheating your S to that side of the field to potentially help? That doesn't seem to be the same as double coverage, and thus Tillman would still be in single coverage or man.

 

With regard to the CB, I still do not totally agree. Sure, in an ideal world, I would have a couple all-pro CBs. But for me, it starts up front. I believe the pass rush affects coverage far more than I believe coverage affect pass rush.

 

If we had one elite CB, he may be able to take away one option (even their best option) but he is still only taking away one option. A QB still has plenty of options to look at. Take it one further step. Lets say we add an elite CB opposite Tillman, and further say Tillman proves to be a damn good #2. We take away two options, but guess what. A QB still has more options to look at, and if you are not putting pressure on that QB, he has time to read through those options.

 

On the other hand, put and elite pass rusher on the DL. Now you have a situation where the QB is forced to make quick decisions, and hurry throws. Add an 2nd pass rusher, and, well, you get my meaning.

 

If you have a good/great pass rush, you do far more to limit a QB than if you add good/great CB. Just as I believe the OL makes the RB more than the other way around, I believe the DL makes the secondary more than the other way around.

 

no. if the CB is playing man-to-man coverage it is single coverage and the corner sinks or swims by his abilities to cover that receiver. if you don't believe me look it up.

 

in regards to peanut, he would be considered a good to very good #2 corner or an all pro caliber free safety in the real world but nothing more, mainly because of his lack of top speed and quickness. if you throw in a safety and/or LB to help him out it is double (triple) coverage or a zone coverage and so-on and so-forth.

 

 

this is why i want at least one excellent cover corner that can do this on the bears. it makes your defense exponentially better on so many levels.

 

[NAMEDSONPAYTON2]

In all honesty, we can call it anything...whatever D Smith is running does not work.

Exactly,he's in control of the defense

[Lucky Luciano]

Question though. Is it "double coverage" if you are simply cheating your S to that side of the field to potentially help? That doesn't seem to be the same as double coverage, and thus Tillman would still be in single coverage or man.

 

look, the definition of a free safety basically boils down to him playing center field. he can move anywhere on the field he thinks the ball is going in pass defense and is the 'safety' valve on any run plays that get past the middle defenders, but... if his 'assignment' was to cover or help cover X cornerbacks receiver off the LOS for whatever reason, that is double coverage.

 

if a corner is designated in the scheme to play man coverage this free's up the free safety to make a decision as to where he believes he will do the most good whether it is helping out the #1 corner (yes, even your best cover corner) or the #2 corner by getting a read not only from the qb but by the formation or the personnel running it. this is where not only speed is a major plus but football inteligence is essential in making the right decision at the right time. so by having a cb able to supposedly cover man you usually help out the weak spot in your defense by doubling up your #2 corner or even helping out LB's or SS's covering TE's or slot receivers in the pattern.

 

this in essense helps you DL by GIVING them time to get to the qb not only in 4-6 step drops, but in quick 2-3 step drops, that normally your line hasn't got a chance in hell of getting to (this is just one reason we are not getting pressure on the qb), by covering these quick hit receivers.

 

With regard to the CB, I still do not totally agree. Sure, in an ideal world, I would have a couple all-pro CBs. But for me, it starts up front. I believe the pass rush affects coverage far more than I believe coverage affect pass rush.

 

If we had one elite CB, he may be able to take away one option (even their best option) but he is still only taking away one option. A QB still has plenty of options to look at. Take it one further step. Lets say we add an elite CB opposite Tillman, and further say Tillman proves to be a damn good #2. We take away two options, but guess what. A QB still has more options to look at, and if you are not putting pressure on that QB, he has time to read through those options.

 

On the other hand, put and elite pass rusher on the DL. Now you have a situation where the QB is forced to make quick decisions, and hurry throws. Add an 2nd pass rusher, and, well, you get my meaning.

 

If you have a good/great pass rush, you do far more to limit a QB than if you add good/great CB. Just as I believe the OL makes the RB more than the other way around, I believe the DL makes the secondary more than the other way around.

 

let me start out by saying that i have NEVER stated a cover/shutdown cornerback would ever be preferred over a killer pass rushing defensive end. it just has not happened. in fact over many many years i have stated that a primo DE is the key to success in todays pass happy nfl and the most important player on your defense (which is why they are paid the most).

 

but with that said there is NO reason you can't have your primo DE and a good+ cover corner. before the nfl went zone crazy this was the case. now we see tweener corners starting in the league because we have these cover-whatever schemes that try to compensate for lack of talent because there are so many franchises in the nfl and not enough good talent to go around.

 

so when you GET the chance to pick one of these players up, if you have half a brain, you do it. let's face it, the best DE we have had since hampton/dent left was trace armstrong who that idiot wanny traded for a freaking punter. so that means we have had average to MAYBE good + defensive ends who would have been helped out immensley by picking up a very good cover corner like charles woodson!!!! instead we opted to go after zone type corners who do nearly nothing (and in our system DO absolutely nothing) that give our defensive linemen no help what-so-ever making a qb go through his reads and give them the time to even get to him.

 

and peanut? peanut was good at what he did years ago which was cover the big receivers in our division like moss as a corner. since that time the nfl has changed and we are still in the same mode as 8 years ago only the guy we got to cover these large type of receivers is now expected to cover the like likes of steve smith, fitz and an abundance of quick speedy receivers off the line!!

 

[madlithuanian]

Dang...not a great one since Trace. That saddens me...

 

but with that said there is NO reason you can't have your primo DE and a good+ cover corner. before the nfl went zone crazy this was the case. now we see tweener corners starting in the league because we have these cover-whatever schemes that try to compensate for lack of talent because there are so many franchises in the nfl and not enough good talent to go around.

 

so when you GET the chance to pick one of these players up, if you have half a brain, you do it. let's face it, the best DE we have had since hampton/dent left was trace armstrong who that idiot wanny traded for a freaking punter. so that means we have had average to MAYBE good + defensive ends who would have been helped out immensley by picking up a very good cover corner like charles woodson!!!! instead we opted to go after zone type corners who do nearly nothing (and in our system DO absolutely nothing) that give our defensive linemen no help what-so-ever making a qb go through his reads and give them the time to even get to him.

 

[nfoligno]

I essentially get what you are saying, but...

 

One. You said, "now we see tweener corners starting in the league because we have these cover-whatever schemes that try to compensate for lack of talent because there are so many franchises in the nfl and not enough good talent to go around"

 

I disagree this is why you have the scheme. I believe even you argued in the past that TBs CBs were solid. The cover two was a new scheme, and for that team, it worked. It was not a scheme created to compensate for a lack of talent, on the team or around the league. When you look beyond TB, I would still argue the same. Teams that employed the cover two did not do so because they couldn't get enough talent and had to. Quite the opposite. They were teams run by coaches who saw the system work, and work at a high level, in TB, and tried to do the same. They actually were drafting and signing players to fit that scheme. You and I both hate the scheme, but I simply disagree when you say the scheme was established to compensate for a lack of quality CBs, or any other position.

 

Two. You argue that zone cover corners do not help our pass rush. I would argue it is more about the system (as run in Chicago) than it is the CBs specifically. Go back and consider any CBs since Lovie joined the team. They have all played well off the LOS. It didn't matter whether that CB had exceptional height or speed. It didn't matter if that CB was considered capable of man coverage. Heck, it didn't matter if that CB was squared off against the slowest WR in the league. Simply put, our defense puts the CB far off the LOS. IMHO, that has nothing to do w/ the individual CBs we have seen in Chicago, and everything to do w/ the system/scheme our coaches employ.

 

So on one hand, I agree w/ you very much and have argued the same for years now. It disgusts me when I watch our CBs lining up 10 yards (or more) from the LOS. It makes life easy on the QB and nearly impossible for the DL to pressure the QB. Heck, even Alex Brown made a comment as to such last year when he talked about how no one can pressure the QB when he is able to get rid of it so quickly. (I would argue a DL can pressure the QB on even a 3 step drop if that QB was behind our OL, but that is another discussion).

 

On the other hand, I disagree w/ the belief that our issue here is the CB, rather than the scheme. You mention Charles Woodson. I agree w/o question he is a hell of a lot better than the CBs we currently have, and regardless of scheme, would benefit the team. At the same time, it is also my opinion that if we did have Woodson, we would see him suddenly playing 10 yards off the LOS, thus negating so much of what he could potentially offer.

 

So for some time you have argued we should go after a stud or upper tier CB. I understand fully your argument, but still believe that a stud CB would be wasted on our team. If you have a Woodson (to stick w/ the same example) and then play him (a) far off the LOS and ( in zone coverage, would you not agree we would be wasting his talents. I assume you would argue that our staff would not do that, but I see no reason to believe such. I am not saying we have had a Woodson on the team, but when have we even allowed a CB to try and play to that level? I mean for heavens sake. Our CBs were lined up 10 yards back when facing M.Muhammad. They were lined up deep when facing Wade. IMHO, neither the talent of our CBs, nor the talent of the opposing WRs, has altered how our coaches line up our secondary.

 

As soon as Lovie is gone, and that is beginning to look sooner rather than later, I will jump onto the bandwagon w/ you to better our CB unit. Until then, I just feel it would be a waste, and we need to focus on the trenches. Adding a stud, shut down CB under Lovie Smith would be equal to adding a Dwight Freeney w/ Greg Blache running the defense. If Blache had Freeney, he would tell Freeney to play the run first, maintain his gap, and if he can do so under control, rush the passer. Similar, under Lovie, if we added Woodson, Lovie would tell him to drop back, keep everything in front of him, and make the tackle after the catch, rather than telling Woodson to mix it up and prevent the catch from happening in the first place.

 

look, the definition of a free safety basically boils down to him playing center field. he can move anywhere on the field he thinks the ball is going in pass defense and is the 'safety' valve on any run plays that get past the middle defenders, but... if his 'assignment' was to cover or help cover X cornerbacks receiver off the LOS for whatever reason, that is double coverage.

 

if a corner is designated in the scheme to play man coverage this free's up the free safety to make a decision as to where he believes he will do the most good whether it is helping out the #1 corner (yes, even your best cover corner) or the #2 corner by getting a read not only from the qb but by the formation or the personnel running it. this is where not only speed is a major plus but football inteligence is essential in making the right decision at the right time. so by having a cb able to supposedly cover man you usually help out the weak spot in your defense by doubling up your #2 corner or even helping out LB's or SS's covering TE's or slot receivers in the pattern.

 

this in essense helps you DL by GIVING them time to get to the qb not only in 4-6 step drops, but in quick 2-3 step drops, that normally your line hasn't got a chance in hell of getting to (this is just one reason we are not getting pressure on the qb), by covering these quick hit receivers.

 

 

 

let me start out by saying that i have NEVER stated a cover/shutdown cornerback would ever be preferred over a killer pass rushing defensive end. it just has not happened. in fact over many many years i have stated that a primo DE is the key to success in todays pass happy nfl and the most important player on your defense (which is why they are paid the most).

 

but with that said there is NO reason you can't have your primo DE and a good+ cover corner. before the nfl went zone crazy this was the case. now we see tweener corners starting in the league because we have these cover-whatever schemes that try to compensate for lack of talent because there are so many franchises in the nfl and not enough good talent to go around.

 

so when you GET the chance to pick one of these players up, if you have half a brain, you do it. let's face it, the best DE we have had since hampton/dent left was trace armstrong who that idiot wanny traded for a freaking punter. so that means we have had average to MAYBE good + defensive ends who would have been helped out immensley by picking up a very good cover corner like charles woodson!!!! instead we opted to go after zone type corners who do nearly nothing (and in our system DO absolutely nothing) that give our defensive linemen no help what-so-ever making a qb go through his reads and give them the time to even get to him.

 

and peanut? peanut was good at what he did years ago which was cover the big receivers in our division like moss as a corner. since that time the nfl has changed and we are still in the same mode as 8 years ago only the guy we got to cover these large type of receivers is now expected to cover the like likes of steve smith, fitz and an abundance of quick speedy receivers off the line!!

 

[Lucky Luciano]

One. You said, "now we see tweener corners starting in the league because we have these cover-whatever schemes that try to compensate for lack of talent because there are so many franchises in the nfl and not enough good talent to go around"

 

I disagree this is why you have the scheme. I believe even you argued in the past that TBs CBs were solid. The cover two was a new scheme, and for that team, it worked.

 

for crying out loud i was making a generalization with that statement to give you ONE idea as to why this type of defense is utilized in todays nfl. yes, there are exceptions to nearly EVERY rule but generally if you don't have enough quality players in the league with the physical skills to run a man-to-man defense you design your system to use the players that are available to you. and just to set the record straight... the cover 2 defense DOES use other coverages more than half the time and some BEING man coverage.

 

It was not a scheme created to compensate for a lack of talent, on the team or around the league. When you look beyond TB, I would still argue the same. Teams that employed the cover two did not do so because they couldn't get enough talent and had to. Quite the opposite. They were teams run by coaches who saw the system work, and work at a high level, in TB, and tried to do the same. They actually were drafting and signing players to fit that scheme. You and I both hate the scheme, but I simply disagree when you say the scheme was established to compensate for a lack of quality CBs, or any other position.

 

the "scheme" was created by bud carson when he was with the steelers in the 70's. it was brought back to life to counter the west coast offense of the 49ers of the 80's and 90's. but as a 'general' rule you can put players in your system at this point that are not fast enough or quick enough or big enough to play strickly man coverage. and why is that...

 

there are about SIX new franchises in the nfl today. that means there are over 300 top players off the market compared to what was available in the draft after the merger. why do you think the draft went from 9+ rounds to what we have today? the top positions like qb, cb, de, and good tackles on both sides of the ball are the ones that suffered the most in quality but it trickled down to every position.

 

you said teams were "actually drafting and signing players to fit that scheme". you don't think teams would draft players with the talent of dion sanders type of players if they were available to them in the draft? or run schemes differently if they could find players like ronnie lott, asomugha, bailey, or rolle? they draft and pickup free agent zone type players because that is what is available for the most part and what they can afford.

 

Two. You argue that zone cover corners do not help our pass rush. I would argue it is more about the system (as run in Chicago) than it is the CBs specifically. Go back and consider any CBs since Lovie joined the team. They have all played well off the LOS. It didn't matter whether that CB had exceptional height or speed. It didn't matter if that CB was considered capable of man coverage. Heck, it didn't matter if that CB was squared off against the slowest WR in the league. Simply put, our defense puts the CB far off the LOS. IMHO, that has nothing to do w/ the individual CBs we have seen in Chicago, and everything to do w/ the system/scheme our coaches employ.

 

tell me then... which cornerbacks are YOU talking about that can/could have actually played man-to-man coverage you have seen in chicago since lovie has been here. which ones had the skill, size and speed and were capable of playing man coverage?

 

So on one hand, I agree w/ you very much and have argued the same for years now. It disgusts me when I watch our CBs lining up 10 yards (or more) from the LOS. It makes life easy on the QB and nearly impossible for the DL to pressure the QB. Heck, even Alex Brown made a comment as to such last year when he talked about how no one can pressure the QB when he is able to get rid of it so quickly. (I would argue a DL can pressure the QB on even a 3 step drop if that QB was behind our OL, but that is another discussion).

 

i WILL agree that no matter the talent we have or don't have, playing corners THAT far off the LOS is atrocious and a huge mistake. THIS i believe is on lovie and his scheme.

 

On the other hand, I disagree w/ the belief that our issue here is the CB, rather than the scheme. You mention Charles Woodson. I agree w/o question he is a hell of a lot better than the CBs we currently have, and regardless of scheme, would benefit the team. At the same time, it is also my opinion that if we did have Woodson, we would see him suddenly playing 10 yards off the LOS, thus negating so much of what he could potentially offer.

 

i argue and HAVE been arguing that 'our' cover 2 corners do not help our pass rush and the reason being is that they can't play bump and run tight up to the LOS with ANY consistancy!! i contend that the reason they play off the LOS (again i don't think they should play as FAR as they do) is because they get beat when they play up. i can't believe anyone would think lovie smith, no matter how much they didn't like his defensive scheme, would purposely play corners that can play bump and run tight coverage and run the cover 2 like it is supposed to be run on paper that far off the LOS. it would be a testament to idocy if he played woodson caliber players back that far for no reason!!

 

if he did/does he should have been fired long ago.

 

[nfoligno]

you said teams were "actually drafting and signing players to fit that scheme". you don't think teams would draft players with the talent of dion sanders type of players if they were available to them in the draft? or run schemes differently if they could find players like ronnie lott, asomugha, bailey, or rolle? they draft and pickup free agent zone type players because that is what is available for the most part and what they can afford.

 

It happens all the time. I am more on your side. If there is a player you can draft who may not fit your system, but is the sort who you change your scheme to fit, then grab him. But all the team you see teams pass on a player who is not an ideal fit for their system, while drafting at times lesser player who are better fits. Understand, I disagree with this, but too often coaches are set in their system, and draft players to fit their system, rather than fit the system around the talent of their players.

 

tell me then... which cornerbacks are YOU talking about that can/could have actually played man-to-man coverage you have seen in chicago since lovie has been here. which ones had the skill, size and speed and were capable of playing man coverage?

 

First, understand, I am not saying we have had a Champ Bailey on the team. We have not had a stud, shut down CB. At the same time, when you look around the league, I think there are many CBs who play man who are not amazing shut down corners.

 

Second, I would say it is hard to say what CBs we have had "would" be good in this regard as it is something we do not really practice or work on. Thus, when a player like Tillman does move up and try to play press coverage, he as often as not looks silly doing so. But the question I would ask is, might he look a bit better if we actually practices press coverage? If we tried to develop a player such a way, might they not be better than we most often see? We at times have seen our CBs move up and get killed, but my argument is, what do you expect when you have a player do something you just do not practice and work on much.

 

Third, what CBs could have played man coverage? Frankly, I would say most of our CBs could have. No, that doesn't mean they might not get beat, but I disagree w/ the idea they could not do so. I am sure many remember the playoff game against Carolina when Tillman played Steve Smith in man coverage, and was destroyed. Many would point to that as proof he can't play man coverage. I would argue that Steve Smith has made many elite CBs look silly. Some WRs you simply can not play man. Watch defenses play Az, and how they cover Fitzgerald, for example. Even if you have Champ Bailey, you often double team Fitz because he is simply that good.

 

On the other hand, look at when we played Carolina last year. Our CB was opposite Muhammad. I think you would agree Moose is no speed demon. Yet we played him way off the LOS. I know our CBs lack elite speed, but are they really so slow they have to fear getting beat deep by Moose? That is a big point of mine. We have not had a CB that could play on an island against elite WRs. At the same time, I would argue every week we face far lesser WRs, and our CBs (lacking in speed as they may) could be capable of playing man. Seriously. We faced Minny and our CB lining up opposite Bobby Wade gave him so much cushion you would think we were facing Steve Smith. Are you really telling me our CBs are so slow they can't press Bobby freaking Wade?

 

No, to me it is far less about the talent of our CB than you would argue. While there are WRs in the league that would make our CBs look silly if we tried to play man coverage, the majority of WRs we face are simply less, and such that I just do not understand why our CBs, talent challenged as some would argue, couldn't press.

 

I'll go back to the NO playoff game during our SB run. Vasher and Tillman were our starting CBs. Colston and Henderson were NO's starting WRs. Few would have thought our CBs capable of playing man coverage against those two, but guess what? That is exactly what we did, and with good results.

 

You argue we simply have not had CBs talented enough to play man. I argue we simply have not tried. Tillman can not play man against Fitz, Steve Smith, or many others, but that doesn't mean he couldn't ever play man. You just do not face those elite WRs every week, and few teams have more than one WR you could not play man against.

 

i argue and HAVE been arguing that 'our' cover 2 corners do not help our pass rush and the reason being is that they can't play bump and run tight up to the LOS with ANY consistancy!! i contend that the reason they play off the LOS (again i don't think they should play as FAR as they do) is because they get beat when they play up.

 

But if press coverage is something we very rarely even try, how can the CBs ever look consistent? Remeber when Benson was here. Everyone said he couldnt' block to save his life, thus he was pulled on 3rd downs and kept out of blocking situations. Once he arrived in Cincy, he was not held back, and has developed into a very good blocking RB. Point is, if you don't allow players to do something, how are they ever going to develop or improve in that area?

 

You say they get beat when they play up, but when does that happen? Further, are you telling me our corners are so incapable of playing press that they can't even press the Bobby Wade's of the league?

 

i can't believe anyone would think lovie smith, no matter how much they didn't like his defensive scheme, would purposely play corners that can play bump and run tight coverage and run the cover 2 like it is supposed to be run on paper that far off the LOS. it would be a testament to idocy if he played woodson caliber players back that far for no reason!!

 

You say CBs are supposed to play tight in the cover 2. While I am not arguing this point necessarily, what makes you think Lovie agrees? Think about this. If Lovie's system called for a CB that could play press coverage, don't you think we would have at least tried to draft/find one by now? I would argue (a) that in Lovie's scheme, whatever you want to call it, the DB is supposed to play off the LOS. In fact, I will point out that many times Lovie has said a key element of his scheme is keeping everything in front. LBs and DBs are supposed to always keep their man in front of them. The whole idea of playing press counters that as it would require a DB to play even w/ the WR, rather than keeping the WR in front of him. ( When have you seen Lovie alter his philosophy? While I agree it is mind boggling when we are facing slow, weaker WRs, and yet play them the exact same as if we were lined up opposite Steve Smith, but that is just what we have done. It just doesn't matter what the caliber of player we are facing, we run our scheme the same. By that same line of thinking, I would argue that it doesn't matter what the talent of the CB we had was. He would be asked to do the same thing as seen as being part of the system.

 

To further that last point, I would bring up another general example. Numerous times over the last number of years, we have seen our starting CBs go down with injury. When replaced, the new CB was asked to do the same thing as the former starter. There was never a consideration to talent level. If we inserted a guy fresh off the street, we would ask him to cover as if Tillman were still in the game.

 

Final point, specific to a CB on our team. You asked what DB we have had could play man. I would argue Bowman could, and actually, I think he might be better in a man coverage than in a zone. Bowman played man in college. He has size and speed to match w/ most WRs. Not only did he play man in college, but he also played press coverage. Yes, college isn't the pros, but the point is Bowman (a current starter) has the potential to play man press coverage, but not only are we not playing him that way, we are not even attempting to develop that aspect of his game.

 

if he did/does he should have been fired long ago.

 

On this point, we agree