Let's talk about the cover-2

[jason]

Regardless of how often the Bears run the cover-2, we can all agree that the cover-2 serves as their primary defense and the rest of the time it's just a variation or modification from the base. Having said that, it seems that every team in the NFL realizes the Bears are going to do the following most of the game:

 

1] Keep LBs near the LOS at the snap

2] Keep DBs 5yds off the WRs at the snap

3] Keep Safeties deep

 

That is a recipe for easy slants, curls, and square-ins. Those have burned the Bears for years. So, where is the change? What about the following wouldn't work from time to time?

 

1] Move the outside LBs laterally to step into the passing lane for the 3-step drop patterns (they're often back-peddling anyway)

2] Have the DBs actually press the WRs, jam them, and take away the inside route a few times

 

It is readily apparent that the offense has made some changes over the course of the year, but not so much for the defense. Why don't people expect more from the defense than simply playing better?

[DABEARSDABOMB]

I allow a defense that has played as one of the best in football to have 2 bad games in a season. You overreact to everything.

[balta1701-A]

I have a habit of being one of the defenders of the general scheme here...after all, you saw it work like clockwork against the Iggles and the Packers earlier this season. The idea that the Bears just got lucky somehow in those games was just silly if you watched them at all.

 

That said...the way the Bears play does have a weakness. If you're real good at a version of the west coast offense, using screens and the short, high-percentage passing game followed by a good number of YAC, you can really hurt the Bears D, and I don't know how they can win a Super Bowl until they can solve that riddle

[DABEARSDABOMB]

I have a habit of being one of the defenders of the general scheme here...after all, you saw it work like clockwork against the Iggles and the Packers earlier this season. The idea that the Bears just got lucky somehow in those games was just silly if you watched them at all.

 

That said...the way the Bears play does have a weakness. If you're real good at a version of the west coast offense, using screens and the short, high-percentage passing game followed by a good number of YAC, you can really hurt the Bears D, and I don't know how they can win a Super Bowl until they can solve that riddle

We state that, but in the year the Bears made the super bowl, the cover 2 defense did an excellent job against a nice New Orleans west coast attack led by Drew Brees.

[jason]

I allow a defense that has played as one of the best in football to have 2 bad games in a season. You overreact to everything.

 

This is not an overreaction. I've been shitting on the cover-2 for much longer than this season. I just think it's a passive, weak way to play that hopes for the opponents to screw up rather than forcing the opponents to screw up.

[jason]

We state that, but in the year the Bears made the super bowl, the cover 2 defense did an excellent job against a nice New Orleans west coast attack led by Drew Brees.

 

Convenient that you neglect to mention that it got completely destroyed in the Super Bowl by the same flaws mentioned.

[balta1701-A]

We state that, but in the year the Bears made the super bowl, the cover 2 defense did an excellent job against a nice New Orleans west coast attack led by Drew Brees.

A very good point...my question in response though was whether that NOLA team really was looking to go underneath, or whether they were going over the top for the kill? I feel like Brees was much better with the deep ball at that point, and it was more recently when he really got good at picking a team apart at both levels. Am I wrong with that?

[balta1701-A]

Convenient that you neglect to mention that it got completely destroyed in the Super Bowl by the same flaws mentioned.

I'm not sure that the "Cover 2" was really what lost in the Super Bowl though. That Super Bowl was lost when: the Bears couldn't stop the run, and the Bears D-Line couldn't get a finger on Manning. The Cover 2 sort of did its job there, it slowed down the deep passing game, but part of the scheme, the defensive front, got manhandled.

[azbearsfan]

I allow a defense that has played as one of the best in football to have 2 bad games in a season. You overreact to everything.

 

 

This,

 

before the Jets game the Bears defense was 3rd in points allowed.

 

All this is a poster who wants to run a 3-4 defense that blitzes all the time (even though before this year the Bears were at the top of the league the last two years in blitzes).

 

Again, labeling the cover-2 as passive is just not accurate, but its good to get message boarders in an uproar. The dline in the cover 2 is an attacking one, the should be getting in gaps and getting upfield as opposed to soaking up block. Dline more aggressive.

 

The LBer's. Man these dude flow and are as aggressive as they get. Sometimes too aggressive, as they are typically late to getting to their pass drops. (You can see that the OLB's were late getting to the slants especially last game).

 

Safeties are hella aggressive coming down on the run and hitting. Harris and Wright deliver some shots. Again I would say that they are too aggressive as they come down to early and give up deep balls (although this year there has been much less of that now that we finally have some athletes in Manning and Wright back there).

 

The biggest complaint from everybody that I hear in the CB's cushion. I agree. However, as you watched Tim Jennings get beat like a drum and we know that Tillman still gets beat even when giving the cushion, they dont have the ability to bump and cover. They just dont, so why the hell would we have them do that when in the cover 2. (In fact, after watching Jennings get beat off the line multiple times I suggested we need a big, fast corner in the draft who could play better man to man and was scoffed because they would be wasted in the cover 2, ridiculous)

 

So really the only part of the damn defense that is passive is the CB cushion in cover 2.

 

Now, another problem is that most believe we are in cover 2 all the time. Not true. And we are not in other coverages 1 out of 100 times or whatever exaggerations people will say. So just stop with that.

 

All in all, the defense we run is not just sitting around waiting for the offense to make a mistake, and anyone who would have you believe this is wrong. They are trying to be fast, fly around, and CREATE the turnovers. Get that. Not WAIT, CREATE.

 

Now, that being said, does the defense have weak spots, yes. But here is the thing, EVERY DEFENSE DOES. Every single defensive scheme can be beat. The difference is who you have playing in the defense. You have great players your defense will be great. Everyone goes back to the 85 Bears defense. That defense wasn't so much scheme as they pretty much had a Pro Bowl level player at every position. I've said for years that its not so much the x's and o's, but its the Jimmys and Joes.

 

 

Sorry this was so long, but that stuff just irritates me sometimes. I think the real problem people have is with Lovie which is fine, but with 11 wins I think props are in order.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Convenient that you neglect to mention that it got completely destroyed in the Super Bowl by the same flaws mentioned.

Not really. We lost in the super bowl because the Colts ran down our throats. Manning was mediocre in the super bowl and it was a joke he won the MVP.

[adam]

The conditions were so bad against NE that there was no way a scheme like the Cover-2 was going to be effective. The Patriots offensive scheme+field conditions were the perfect storm against the Cover-2. The Bears were ill-prepared and got teabagged in the first half. At least they outscored them in the 2nd half

[DABEARSDABOMB]

The conditions were so bad against NE that there was no way a scheme like the Cover-2 was going to be effective. The Patriots offensive scheme+field conditions were the perfect storm against the Cover-2. The Bears were ill-prepared and got teabagged in the first half. At least they outscored them in the 2nd half

The nice thing is our defense improved in the 2nd half. Still had some breakdowns though. But I fully believe the field conditions seriously prevented our pass rush from getting the push necessary in that New England game.

[jason]

This,

 

before the Jets game the Bears defense was 3rd in points allowed.

 

All this is a poster who wants to run a 3-4 defense that blitzes all the time (even though before this year the Bears were at the top of the league the last two years in blitzes).

 

Incorrect. I like the scheme, and have called for it in the past, but the Bears no longer have the talent for it. Aside from that, the top of the league blitzing stat is garbage and you know it. I'd like to see the methodology in that "study" before quoting it. But what's funny is, if, in fact, the Bears were near the top of the league in blitz percentage, then that should be a black mark so dark that everyone associated with coaching the defense should be fired. It would mean the Bears are the least successful blitzing team in history, because they almost never get to the QB when they blitz.

 

Again, labeling the cover-2 as passive is just not accurate, but its good to get message boarders in an uproar. The dline in the cover 2 is an attacking one, the should be getting in gaps and getting upfield as opposed to soaking up block. Dline more aggressive.

 

The flaw in this point is the word "should." When the dont' do this, and they haven't for the majority of the time Lovie has been in Chicago, then something should change. More aggressive in theory, but that's about it.

 

The LBer's. Man these dude flow and are as aggressive as they get. Sometimes too aggressive, as they are typically late to getting to their pass drops. (You can see that the OLB's were late getting to the slants especially last game).

 

So aggressive is watching Urlacher and Briggs fake towards the line every other snap and then immediately begin back-peddaling? Because they do that quite often in this defense. And, BTW, the MLB is responsible for deep middle in the cover-2, which is hardly an aggressive approach towards using one of the fastest MLBs in NFL history.

 

Safeties are hella aggressive coming down on the run and hitting. Harris and Wright deliver some shots. Again I would say that they are too aggressive as they come down to early and give up deep balls (although this year there has been much less of that now that we finally have some athletes in Manning and Wright back there).

 

This, we can agree on. They are aggressive. It's just unfortunate that they seem to get burned relatively frequently because of their aggressiveness (see: Holmes last game, Wayne Super Bowl, etc.).

 

The biggest complaint from everybody that I hear in the CB's cushion. I agree. However, as you watched Tim Jennings get beat like a drum and we know that Tillman still gets beat even when giving the cushion, they dont have the ability to bump and cover. They just dont, so why the hell would we have them do that when in the cover 2. (In fact, after watching Jennings get beat off the line multiple times I suggested we need a big, fast corner in the draft who could play better man to man and was scoffed because they would be wasted in the cover 2, ridiculous)

 

So really the only part of the damn defense that is passive is the CB cushion in cover 2.

 

Well, at least you understand that part of it. That's a positive. CB cushions are too easy for the WR to bust through. The problem here is with your logic. When something is wrong you don't always have to can it and immediately play to a player's weakness (i.e. Jennings). A good coach puts that player in a better position - for instance, in front of and INSIDE of the WR. You have the CB jump the middle, messing up the timing of the WR, and forcing him to go up the sideline. At that point you hope to have a safety there (if they're doing their jobs).

 

 

Now, another problem is that most believe we are in cover 2 all the time. Not true. And we are not in other coverages 1 out of 100 times or whatever exaggerations people will say. So just stop with that.

 

All in all, the defense we run is not just sitting around waiting for the offense to make a mistake, and anyone who would have you believe this is wrong. They are trying to be fast, fly around, and CREATE the turnovers. Get that. Not WAIT, CREATE.

 

Now, that being said, does the defense have weak spots, yes. But here is the thing, EVERY DEFENSE DOES. Every single defensive scheme can be beat. The difference is who you have playing in the defense. You have great players your defense will be great. Everyone goes back to the 85 Bears defense. That defense wasn't so much scheme as they pretty much had a Pro Bowl level player at every position. I've said for years that its not so much the x's and o's, but its the Jimmys and Joes.

 

Sorry this was so long, but that stuff just irritates me sometimes. I think the real problem people have is with Lovie which is fine, but with 11 wins I think props are in order.

 

I'm glad it irritates you, because your approach irritates me. How anyone could think this is an attacking style of defense is beyond me. It just tells me you truly don't understand the purpose of the defense the Bears run the majority of the time. They run variations of the Tampa-2 and the Cover-2, which are not exactly the same thing. But like it or not, that's what they run the majority of the time. There is no doubt they are trying to create turnovers; it's ridiculous to argue otherwise. The gap in your thinking is the sequence. Most of the time it's:

1] Stop opponent from long gains

2] Stop opponent from short gains, if possible

3] If opponent gets short gain, attempt to force turnover

4] If turnover is unsuccessful, make tackle

 

It's great in theory, but it so often just skips straight to #3 that it's often infuriating to watch. Having a defense that can't be broken down like that, one that forces the opponent to guess on offense, is a much preferred approach in my opinion. Simply conceding the short gains is something of which I'm not a fan.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Uhmmm. I thought a large part of why the Bears lost the Super Bowl was because they didn't score enough points. Which you can't do if you turnover the ball...Grossman. The D didnt fail in so much as the team (O and D) failed to work together as a whole. Turning the ball over to a team run by someone like Manning will not work 9 times out 10.

 

And Jason I'm sorry but this "Cover 2" is in fact a very aggressive scheme. As the earlier poster mentioned sometimes too aggressive and why at times you'll find a Corner or Safety on single coverage because the Dline or LBs were busy with initial pursuit and out of position for support. The 3-4 (as pointed out) and even the vaunted '46' had it's weaknesses too. They all do.

 

The fact is that the way the Cover 2 works is that the initial rush is suppossed to trump any gain by either stopping the run early (which they had been doing the majority of the time) or rush the passer to either force a turnover, make a short dumpoff that gains little or nothing or try the lower percentage long pass. Hence why the coverage at that point is minimal because the completion rate for the long ball is minimal and affords the coverage extra time to get in position,.. Ergo Harris and his late game INT.

 

So going back to the original thought that the D is not aggressive check this out. Review tape or even during the upcoming Packer game and during each tackle, when the D is on the field, count how many players are in the tackle or the vicinity. It's usually 11. If thats not aggressive I'm not sure your definition.

[jason]

Uhmmm. I thought a large part of why the Bears lost the Super Bowl was because they didn't score enough points. Which you can't do if you turnover the ball...Grossman. The D didnt fail in so much as the team (O and D) failed to work together as a whole. Turning the ball over to a team run by someone like Manning will not work 9 times out 10.

 

And Jason I'm sorry but this "Cover 2" is in fact a very aggressive scheme. As the earlier poster mentioned sometimes too aggressive and why at times you'll find a Corner or Safety on single coverage because the Dline or LBs were busy with initial pursuit and out of position for support. The 3-4 (as pointed out) and even the vaunted '46' had it's weaknesses too. They all do.

 

The fact is that the way the Cover 2 works is that the initial rush is suppossed to trump any gain by either stopping the run early (which they had been doing the majority of the time) or rush the passer to either force a turnover, make a short dumpoff that gains little or nothing or try the lower percentage long pass. Hence why the coverage at that point is minimal because the completion rate for the long ball is minimal and affords the coverage extra time to get in position,.. Ergo Harris and his late game INT.

 

So going back to the original thought that the D is not aggressive check this out. Review tape or even during the upcoming Packer game and during each tackle, when the D is on the field, count how many players are in the tackle or the vicinity. It's usually 11. If thats not aggressive I'm not sure your definition.

 

I think you and I don't disagree on the definition of the word aggressive, but we do disagree on what constitutes it within a play. The pursuit aspect of it is hustle, but I'm not talking about that. If you want to call that aggressiveness, then fine, we'll call it that. But in my opinion, that is post-play aggressiveness, really hustle (which is why they get judged by Marinelli on their "loaf" plays)...which is clearly not pre-play aggressiveness by design. I'm talking about initial charge, intial action, not reaction.

 

Again, what do they do BEFORE the play to force the opponents' hand? Not much, really. And, as I mentioned, having a MLB back-peddle on the snap is not aggressive.

 

As for the Harris INT, that was more than system design. That was also Jet desperation, where they were forced to throw into the very strength of the defense (i.e. a safety sitting there and watching the QB's eyes, but ensuring nothing gets behind him).

 

What we will agree on is that all systems and schemes have weaknesses. But the 3-4 is and 4-6 are typically MUCH more aggressive than the cover-2 the Bears run.

[jason]

BTW - THIS is what I'm talking about:

 

Urlacher being not so aggressive

 

Happens far too often for my liking when you got a MLB with his talent/skill.

[balta1701-A]

In the aftermath of the Bears allowing 34 points and 269 passing yards in their victory over the Jets on Sunday, many fingers were pointed at the Cover-2 defense.

 

It's true the Bears gave up some yardage playing Cover-2, including Mark Sanchez's 23-yard touchdown pass to Santonio Holmes. But the Bears played more safety up and Cover-1 than they have most of the season.

 

A review of the tape shows the Bears were playing something other than a true two-deep alignment on 54 percent of the Jets' snaps. They played a lot of single safety high, and the Jets completed many passes on slant routes against that alignment.

 

In the fourth quarter, the Bears used even less Cover-2 than the rest of the game, appearing to call for it on only six plays. One of the plays was Chris Harris' victory-sealing interception.

Link

[Lucky Luciano]

All this is a poster who wants to run a 3-4 defense that blitzes all the time (even though before this year the Bears were at the top of the league the last two years in blitzes).

 

i do agree that the bears have blitzed a lot. the problem with that is the way we structured our blitzes was/is? poorly schemed by our defensive coaches. example... the linebacker blitz where our MLB is up on the OL prior to the snap is a great example of poor coaching. in fact it has taken marinelli this season to even realize it was an ignorant call that was beaten to death for THREE previous years without success and he even continues to do it to this day occasionally.

 

they virtually neutralized a pro-bowl caliber MLB in all aspects of his play by moving him up to the LOS and trying to blitz him through the center of the line at the snap where he gets virtually swallowed up in the wash of the OL and DL, OR backpeddling him out of this tired look to cover a deep zone which made him moving BACKWARDS instead of forward at the snap of the ball.

 

we rarely blitzed our corners or safeties which actually did have some success although the problem with this was our DB's are so poor or poorly coached they couldn't cover their own a&&'s with both hands. so i think it doesn't really tell a story about our blitzing unless you factor in it's successes and failures.

 

Again, labeling the cover-2 as passive is just not accurate, but its good to get message boarders in an uproar. The dline in the cover 2 is an attacking one, the should be getting in gaps and getting upfield as opposed to soaking up block. Dline more aggressive.

 

The LBer's. Man these dude flow and are as aggressive as they get. Sometimes too aggressive, as they are typically late to getting to their pass drops. (You can see that the OLB's were late getting to the slants especially last game).

 

Safeties are hella aggressive coming down on the run and hitting. Harris and Wright deliver some shots. Again I would say that they are too aggressive as they come down to early and give up deep balls (although this year there has been much less of that now that we finally have some athletes in Manning and Wright back there).

 

The biggest complaint from everybody that I hear in the CB's cushion. I agree. However, as you watched Tim Jennings get beat like a drum and we know that Tillman still gets beat even when giving the cushion, they dont have the ability to bump and cover. They just dont, so why the hell would we have them do that when in the cover 2. (In fact, after watching Jennings get beat off the line multiple times I suggested we need a big, fast corner in the draft who could play better man to man and was scoffed because they would be wasted in the cover 2, ridiculous)

 

So really the only part of the damn defense that is passive is the CB cushion in cover 2.

 

1. what we are playing is not per se' the "cover 2" as it was designed to work. this is some bastardized variation of it that lovie has incorporated either through ignorance or lack of personnel to run it correctly (in which case it needs to be adjusted to work with the players you have or else just &hit canned and move on to another scheme.). what lovie runs, and maybe the cover 2 in general, is a prevent defense that works under strict enforcement at certain times/instances in a game.

 

2. because of scheme our LBer's in many instances have been neutralized in pass protection where their jobs in a true cover 2 is 'usually' to cover against slants or medium deep zones up the middle while shoring up run defense. in other words the receivers/TE's being passed 'supposedly according to the definition of the cover 2', over by our corners into these middle zones is nearly non-existent.

 

3. our safeties are either playing so deep they are virtually out of the immediate play (and reacting) or making poor decisions on what their responsibility actually is. not to mention the fact that over the last 5+ years we have put players out of position to even give them a chance to succeed. case in point... chris harris. this is NOT a free safety but at best a strong safety. yet we continuously hear from our coaching staff that ALL safeties are interchangeable, which is pure nonsense, and see players that are considered strong safeties because of their lack of cover skills or speed put in positions to fail. it has happened time and again throughout lovies tenure.

 

4. our CB situation... i agree with your statements that our corners are lacking in talent and it hampers their abilities to play bump and run. what this does NOT excuse is that in lovie's scheme our CB's have virtually played so soft over the last umpteen years it is impossible for the rest of our players to do their jobs without him finding a solution to this problem.

 

time and again i have seen our corners lined up 5+ yards off the LOS and then BACKPEDDLING even further at the snap, yards beyond the first down marker. this is where good qb's will eat you alive taking the 5 yard curl in the flats or the slants across the middle where the zone is virtually free from defenders as our LB's and corners are out of the play. in this system ALL wide receivers have a completely unimpeded, untouched route from the snap of the ball. it's like practice for these qb's. that is the reason we have made mediocre qb's look like joe montana and have career passing days against us and good ones look like HOF players.

 

in fact it took lovie virtually 6 years to even bring our corners up to the LOS to play tight, as they occasionally have, over this season and last (since marinelli arrived). and even then they don't jam the WR to disrupt the timing of the route. do they even practice bump and run in camp? if so i have never heard of it (although if i am wrong please let anyone attending camp to set the record straight).

 

CB quality, we are in total agreement on this subject ... getting back to the tired old chestnut of peanut. i can't emphasize strongly enough how peanut should have been moved to free safety at LEAST 4 years ago. instead of actually bringing in CB's like woodson or offering the guy in oakland good contracts to come here as we desperately need/needed a cover corner. but because 'supposedly' the cover 2 doesn't need them, us not bringing one in is ludicrous, and if any wanted to compare us to the tampa 2 system just look at barber who was a pro-bowl quality corner that could cover man when needed.

 

Now, another problem is that most believe we are in cover 2 all the time. Not true. And we are not in other coverages 1 out of 100 times or whatever exaggerations people will say. So just stop with that.

 

All in all, the defense we run is not just sitting around waiting for the offense to make a mistake, and anyone who would have you believe this is wrong. They are trying to be fast, fly around, and CREATE the turnovers. Get that. Not WAIT, CREATE.

 

agree, we are probably running the cover 2 around 1/3 of the time. but... we are still incorporating the essential weakness of a poorly orchestrated cover 2 by playing our corners extremely soft whether they play man coverage or not.

 

Now, that being said, does the defense have weak spots, yes. But here is the thing, EVERY DEFENSE DOES. Every single defensive scheme can be beat. The difference is who you have playing in the defense. You have great players your defense will be great. Everyone goes back to the 85 Bears defense. That defense wasn't so much scheme as they pretty much had a Pro Bowl level player at every position. I've said for years that its not so much the x's and o's, but its the Jimmys and Joes.

 

every defense does not incorporate a scheme that virtually gives every team an unimpeded route by it's wide receivers on every down for 5+ yards per play. every defense does not incorporate a scheme that has no options if it's front 4 are getting no pressure on an opposing qb to make the scheme even function.

 

let's face it...how can it NOT be x's and o's or not placing the personnel we have in a position to win when we have 2 probable HOF defensive players on this defense along with another continual pro-bowler? we virtually have the best DE playing today and the best LBing corp in football. and yet they can't come up with a change in scheme to compensate when an opponent neutralizes a portion of this defense?

[azbearsfan]

Incorrect. I like the scheme, and have called for it in the past, but the Bears no longer have the talent for it. Aside from that, the top of the league blitzing stat is garbage and you know it. I'd like to see the methodology in that "study" before quoting it. But what's funny is, if, in fact, the Bears were near the top of the league in blitz percentage, then that should be a black mark so dark that everyone associated with coaching the defense should be fired. It would mean the Bears are the least successful blitzing team in history, because they almost never get to the QB when they blitz.

 

The only part that is flawed is your logic.

 

The two years prior to this one the Bears were tops in the league in blitzing, ie. aggressive which you say they are not.

 

 

 

The flaw in this point is the word "should." When the dont' do this, and they haven't for the majority of the time Lovie has been in Chicago, then something should change. More aggressive in theory, but that's about it.

Well when the players aren't able to do their jobs it is the players not the schemes, chief

 

So aggressive is watching Urlacher and Briggs fake towards the line every other snap and then immediately begin back-peddaling? Because they do that quite often in this defense. And, BTW, the MLB is responsible for deep middle in the cover-2, which is hardly an aggressive approach towards using one of the fastest MLBs in NFL history.

Really? I see the LBer's hitting running backs at or around the line of scrimmage all the damn time. And Urlacher is a perfect LB for getting to the deep middle as he is the fastest linebacker in NFL history, duh.

 

 

This, we can agree on. They are aggressive. It's just unfortunate that they seem to get burned relatively frequently because of their aggressiveness (see: Holmes last game, Wayne Super Bowl, etc.).

 

What? Wait? So are they passive or aggressive? Make up your damn mind.

 

 

Well, at least you understand that part of it. That's a positive. CB cushions are too easy for the WR to bust through. The problem here is with your logic. When something is wrong you don't always have to can it and immediately play to a player's weakness (i.e. Jennings). A good coach puts that player in a better position - for instance, in front of and INSIDE of the WR. You have the CB jump the middle, messing up the timing of the WR, and forcing him to go up the sideline. At that point you hope to have a safety there (if they're doing their jobs).

 

The CB has to be able to read what is going on to his side, can't do it if he is sitting inside, unless you want a receiver Running up the sideline untouched. My preference for getting a better corner is when we aren't in cover 2 they would have a better shot at playing man.

 

 

I'm glad it irritates you, because your approach irritates me. How anyone could think this is an attacking style of defense is beyond me. It just tells me you truly don't understand the purpose of the defense the Bears run the majority of the time. They run variations of the Tampa-2 and the Cover-2, which are not exactly the same thing. But like it or not, that's what they run the majority of the time. There is no doubt they are trying to create turnovers; it's ridiculous to argue otherwise. The gap in your thinking is the sequence. Most of the time it's:

1] Stop opponent from long gains

2] Stop opponent from short gains, if possible

3] If opponent gets short gain, attempt to force turnover

4] If turnover is unsuccessful, make tackle

 

It's great in theory, but it so often just skips straight to #3 that it's often infuriating to watch. Having a defense that can't be broken down like that, one that forces the opponent to guess on offense, is a much preferred approach in my opinion. Simply conceding the short gains is something of which I'm not a fan.

 

And the fact that you sit around for weeks on end waiting for the defense to have a bad game so you can puff your chest and scream about how you been "saying it for years" tells me you have a drama issue, as in you love to create it. I dont know what poster said it but you overexaggerate everything.

Hey Bud, I understand the purpose of the defense just fine. The bottom line is your are wrong when you label it as passive. Sorry, but thems the facts.

 

And I like the subtle way you change from "they are waiting around for teams to make mistakes" to "of course they are trying to create turnovers", nice.

 

Again no defense is perfect or everyone would be running the same one.

 

This year the Bears defense has been pretty frikin good.

 

Anyways I'm done arguing with you. You are not going to change your views and I'm not going to change mine.

 

I will ask however that you cut out the drama and chest puffing and actually enjoy the season. Your act is wearing thin and its not just on me.

 

Good day.

[azbearsfan]

i do agree that the bears have blitzed a lot. the problem with that is the way we structured our blitzes was/is? poorly schemed by our defensive coaches. example... the linebacker blitz where our MLB is up on the OL prior to the snap is a great example of poor coaching. in fact it has taken marinelli this season to even realize it was an ignorant call that was beaten to death for THREE previous years without success and he even continues to do it to this day occasionally.

 

they virtually neutralized a pro-bowl caliber MLB in all aspects of his play by moving him up to the LOS and trying to blitz him through the center of the line at the snap where he gets virtually swallowed up in the wash of the OL and DL, OR backpeddling him out of this tired look to cover a deep zone which made him moving BACKWARDS instead of forward at the snap of the ball.

 

we rarely blitzed our corners or safeties which actually did have some success although the problem with this was our DB's are so poor or poorly coached they couldn't cover their own a&&'s with both hands. so i think it doesn't really tell a story about our blitzing unless you factor in it's successes and failures.

 

 

 

1. what we are playing is not per se' the "cover 2" as it was designed to work. this is some bastardized variation of it that lovie has incorporated either through ignorance or lack of personnel to run it correctly (in which case it needs to be adjusted to work with the players you have or else just &hit canned and move on to another scheme.). what lovie runs, and maybe the cover 2 in general, is a prevent defense that works under strict enforcement at certain times/instances in a game.

 

2. because of scheme our LBer's in many instances have been neutralized in pass protection where their jobs in a true cover 2 is 'usually' to cover against slants or medium deep zones up the middle while shoring up run defense. in other words the receivers/TE's being passed 'supposedly according to the definition of the cover 2', over by our corners into these middle zones is nearly non-existent.

 

3. our safeties are either playing so deep they are virtually out of the immediate play (and reacting) or making poor decisions on what their responsibility actually is. not to mention the fact that over the last 5+ years we have put players out of position to even give them a chance to succeed. case in point... chris harris. this is NOT a free safety but at best a strong safety. yet we continuously hear from our coaching staff that ALL safeties are interchangeable, which is pure nonsense, and see players that are considered strong safeties because of their lack of cover skills or speed put in positions to fail. it has happened time and again throughout lovies tenure.

 

4. our CB situation... i agree with your statements that our corners are lacking in talent and it hampers their abilities to play bump and run. what this does NOT excuse is that in lovie's scheme our CB's have virtually played so soft over the last umpteen years it is impossible for the rest of our players to do their jobs without him finding a solution to this problem.

 

time and again i have seen our corners lined up 5+ yards off the LOS and then BACKPEDDLING even further at the snap, yards beyond the first down marker. this is where good qb's will eat you alive taking the 5 yard curl in the flats or the slants across the middle where the zone is virtually free from defenders as our LB's and corners are out of the play. in this system ALL wide receivers have a completely unimpeded, untouched route from the snap of the ball. it's like practice for these qb's. that is the reason we have made mediocre qb's look like joe montana and have career passing days against us and good ones look like HOF players.

 

in fact it took lovie virtually 6 years to even bring our corners up to the LOS to play tight, as they occasionally have, over this season and last (since marinelli arrived). and even then they don't jam the WR to disrupt the timing of the route. do they even practice bump and run in camp? if so i have never heard of it (although if i am wrong please let anyone attending camp to set the record straight).

 

CB quality, we are in total agreement on this subject ... getting back to the tired old chestnut of peanut. i can't emphasize strongly enough how peanut should have been moved to free safety at LEAST 4 years ago. instead of actually bringing in CB's like woodson or offering the guy in oakland good contracts to come here as we desperately need/needed a cover corner. but because 'supposedly' the cover 2 doesn't need them, us not bringing one in is ludicrous, and if any wanted to compare us to the tampa 2 system just look at barber who was a pro-bowl quality corner that could cover man when needed.

 

 

 

agree, we are probably running the cover 2 around 1/3 of the time. but... we are still incorporating the essential weakness of a poorly orchestrated cover 2 by playing our corners extremely soft whether they play man coverage or not.

 

 

 

every defense does not incorporate a scheme that virtually gives every team an unimpeded route by it's wide receivers on every down for 5+ yards per play. every defense does not incorporate a scheme that has no options if it's front 4 are getting no pressure on an opposing qb to make the scheme even function.

 

let's face it...how can it NOT be x's and o's or not placing the personnel we have in a position to win when we have 2 probable HOF defensive players on this defense along with another continual pro-bowler? we virtually have the best DE playing today and the best LBing corp in football. and yet they can't come up with a change in scheme to compensate when an opponent neutralizes a portion of this defense?

 

 

How many wins do the Bears have this year?

[Lucky Luciano]

How many wins do the Bears have this year?

 

and this has what to do with the discussion of the cover 2?

 

then by all means if only wins constitutes the validity of a defensive scheme we should be running the same one the patriots are running, right? don't they have one of the best winning records in the 21st century?

[jason]

Link

 

First of all, what a dumbass article. They think they're defending the cover-2, but they're actually speaking out against it.

 

It's true the Bears gave up some yardage playing Cover-2, including Mark Sanchez's 23-yard touchdown pass to Santonio Holmes. But the Bears played more safety up and Cover-1 than they have most of the season. A review of the tape shows the Bears were playing something other than a true two-deep alignment on 54 percent of the Jets' snaps. They played a lot of single safety high, and the Jets completed many passes on slant routes against that alignment.

 

So, one could infer from the article that the Bears played the cover-2 on 46% of the plays. That's still quite a bit. But this is where it gets ignorant:

 

In the fourth quarter, the Bears used even less Cover-2 than the rest of the game, appearing to call for it on only six plays. One of the plays was Chris Harris' victory-sealing interception.

 

Oh, you mean the quarter in which the Bears allowed the Jets to only a single FG? A FG that was the direct result of the defense played in the third quarter (because it came immediately after the quarter change)? The quarter in which they only gave up 47 yards total in 18 plays (not counting kicks)? So, out of those 18 plays there "appeared" to be the cover-2 only 6 times. Take away the interception play, which was a given, and you have 5 cover-2 plays in 17 plays. Keep in mind, 47 yards given up that quarter.

 

I believe there were 52 non-kicking plays in the other three quarters for a total of 70 plays. If the cover-2 was run 6 times in the fourth quarter (35%), the percentage of times it was run in the rest of the game would be nearly 62%. By the numbers:

QTRs 1-3: 52 plays, 32 Cover-2 alignments, 61.5%

QTR 4: 17 plays, 6 Cover-2 alignments, 35%

Game: 70 plays, 38 Cover-2 alignments, 54%

 

I don't have the game film, but I'm willing to bet the drive that ended the first quarter and the majority of the second quarter were heavy in the cover-2.

[jason]

The only part that is flawed is your logic.

The two years prior to this one the Bears were tops in the league in blitzing, ie. aggressive which you say they are not.

Well when the players aren't able to do their jobs it is the players not the schemes, chief

 

Once again, spare me. Your subtle "chief" at the end is clearly your substitution to get me riled up. Won't work. The "blitz percentage" is a horseshit stat. They must be counting presnap alignment, because there is no way the Bears are one of the most blitzing teams in the league. And like I said, if they are (which they aren't), then it's an indication that the coaching is even more horrible than ever discussed because of the lack of success. As for the last sentence, the players are far from perfect. I know this.

 

Really? I see the LBer's hitting running backs at or around the line of scrimmage all the damn time. And Urlacher is a perfect LB for getting to the deep middle as he is the fastest linebacker in NFL history, duh.

 

Yes, really. Urlacher and Briggs are constantly at the line, then constantly backing out on the snap. Url may be perfect for the deep middle in the cover-2 (i.e. speed), but the scheme - as Lucky eluded to - underutilizes him with a bogus blitz threat and then a back-peddle and leads to more sacrifices in the short passing game. It's just the fact that he's so fast that allows him to have the impact that he does in the defense.

 

What? Wait? So are they passive or aggressive? Make up your damn mind.

 

Either try to quote in context, or stop being ignorant. One of the two. Scroll up with your little mouse finger and realize I was speaking specifically about the safeties.

 

The CB has to be able to read what is going on to his side, can't do it if he is sitting inside, unless you want a receiver Running up the sideline untouched. My preference for getting a better corner is when we aren't in cover 2 they would have a better shot at playing man.

 

And the fact that you sit around for weeks on end waiting for the defense to have a bad game so you can puff your chest and scream about how you been "saying it for years" tells me you have a drama issue, as in you love to create it. I dont know what poster said it but you overexaggerate everything.

Hey Bud, I understand the purpose of the defense just fine. The bottom line is your are wrong when you label it as passive. Sorry, but thems the facts.

 

And I like the subtle way you change from "they are waiting around for teams to make mistakes" to "of course they are trying to create turnovers", nice.

 

Again no defense is perfect or everyone would be running the same one.

 

I prefer the cover corner too, but those guys don't grow on trees. Just because a DB gives outside position doesn't mean the WR is going to run down the sideline unimpeded and free. Please rewatch the last Jets play from Sunday to realize how it can work if the WR is sent up the sideline (despite the fact that the CB got burned off the line on that play).

 

You should know by now that I don't say this stuff after just one game. Honestly, I had a higher opinion of you than that. We've had discussions/debates like this many times before. It's not just this game; it's been quite some time. For the record, it was DBDB who said it.

 

The last part I'll have to break it down for you in baby steps. All defenses want to create turnovers. Got that? Too deep for you? If not, we'll continue. To create these turnovers, defenses often try step in front of passes or get there when the other team gets the ball. The Bears sometimes do this. More often than not, however, the Bears approach is to allow the opponent to get minimal gains and then attempt the strip. You must have noticed this, or at least heard about it, because the announcers mention it every game. The problem is, they often concede the minimal gain in hopes of getting the strip (i.e. passive vs. aggressive). Or maybe you haven't noticed scrubs have continually put up career passing days against the Bears during Lovie's tenure. Just in case you want to check, this is reflected in the fact that the great Bears defense is in the bottom half of the league when it comes to TOP (i.e. passive vs. aggressive). The only other good teams in the bottom half? The Patriots and the Colts. And we both know they're in there for a completely different reason. Furthermore, if you look at the passing defense stats, you'd realize the Bears are in the bottom half of the league in that as well. But the telling stat is that they only give up 6.5 yards per completion, less than all but one other team in the bottom half. Stick with me now, because this math gets hard. That means the Bears give up a bunch of short passes, over and over and over, what I've been calling a slow bleed. And who'da thunk it?! They've given up the 5th most completions in the NFL (i.e. passive vs. aggressive).

 

This year the Bears defense has been pretty frikin good.

Anyways I'm done arguing with you. You are not going to change your views and I'm not going to change mine.

I will ask however that you cut out the drama and chest puffing and actually enjoy the season. Your act is wearing thin and its not just on me.

Good day.

 

-Agreed. Better than most expected.

-Agreed. It's just like a political debate. Not much will change.

-Disagree. If you don't want to read it, don't. This is a message board for differing opinions. Mine differs from yours. BTW, I love how you call my posts "drama and chest puffing." I assume it's not when you post rebuttal after rebuttal? Pot, meet kettle.

-Bear Down.