PDA

View Full Version : Cover 2 in KC?


Ralphy Boy
12-26-2004, 06:35 PM
Before last week's game, on KCFX, I think it was Mitch H, said something to the effect that because of the new enforcement of the 5 yard rule, KC should consider employing the Cover 2 scheme, pointing to Tampa & their Cover 2 being the #1 rated D against the pass.

You can't argue with his statement and after hearing it I gave it some thought and it does appear that some changes have already been made, with possibly more to come. Benny Sapp has gotten more PT lately & McCleon is back to starting. Bartee seems to have lost quite a bit of his PT to Sapp, so his days appear numbered. Typically it's smaller CB's like McCleon & Sapp who excel in that type of scheme so their increased PT could be a signal of changes in the philosophy of our D.

Thoughts?

Some food for thought; I was looking at some stats and found this interesting, we have allowed a league high 4,221 yards passing this season for 281.4 yards, however we only allowed a 59.9 completion % which is good for the #13 ranking. Our passing yards allowed per attempt are 8.6 compared to the next closest, Oakland at 8.21.
I'm not an expert by an stretch and really don't know, but that sounds to me like our CB's haven't been getting the safety help they need deep. DV has pointed out in the past that we allow too many big plays, which we all say "No $h!t" to, but I think our #1 issue is safety.

FringeNC
12-26-2004, 06:41 PM
GR ran the cover-2. Indy, the D that we have shredded twice in the last year, runs the cover-2.

It's a scheme. It doesn't work miracles. We tried it with this group, and it failed.

Claynus
12-26-2004, 06:41 PM
Nein. The #1 issue is still corner. Yes the safeties haven't played well (TREAT OTHER PEOPLE THE WAY THAT YOU WANT TO BE TREATED). But the corners have been in man coverage and got roasted. That ain't the safeties problems.

If we can get a stud at LDE and Siavii can beat out Sims in training camp next year, a Cover 2 would work well (provided we ALSO get someone to play linebacker opposite Fujita). The main thing is getting a good pass rush from the front 4 in cover 2. It worked well in Tampa Bay because Simeon Rice and Warren Sapp were awesome.

Ralphy Boy
12-26-2004, 06:53 PM
Nein. The #1 issue is still corner. Yes the safeties haven't played well (TREAT OTHER PEOPLE THE WAY THAT YOU WANT TO BE TREATED). But the corners have been in man coverage and got roasted. That ain't the safeties problems.

If we can get a stud at LDE and Siavii can beat out Sims in training camp next year, a Cover 2 would work well (provided we ALSO get someone to play linebacker opposite Fujita). The main thing is getting a good pass rush from the front 4 in cover 2. It worked well in Tampa Bay because Simeon Rice and Warren Sapp were awesome.

Maybe we shouldn't be playing "man coverage" if our CB's aren't effective at it. Maybe if they had safety help, they wouldn't be getting roasted.

Regarding Tampa, Sapp isn't there this year and they as a team have only 5 more sacks than us. We are #7 in sacks on the season, Thanks Jared Allen.

Scary thought, I wonder how GR's scheme would have done THIS YEAR, given the new enforcement of the rule.

Rausch
12-26-2004, 06:59 PM
Maybe we shouldn't be playing "man coverage" if our CB's aren't effective at it. Maybe if they had safety help, they wouldn't be getting roasted.


Maybe if we got better corners, who CAN play man coverage we'll do fine.

DV got the players he wanted, to fit his offense, his way. Gun should do the same...

WilliamTheIrish
12-26-2004, 07:26 PM
Don't forget that Tampa has Derek Brooks. A LB that runs faster than any CB on our roster.

He gets into that underneath coverage pretty quick.

Chiefs Pantalones
12-26-2004, 07:45 PM
Maybe if we got better corners, who CAN play man coverage we'll do fine.

DV got the players he wanted, to fit his offense, his way. Gun should do the same...

:thumb: agree

Chief Faithful
12-27-2004, 08:17 AM
Don't forget that Tampa has Derek Brooks. A LB that runs faster than any CB on our roster.

He gets into that underneath coverage pretty quick.

Excellent point, the cover 2 does require above average speed and skill at MLB. Mitchell has the speed, but not the skill. Maz has the skill, but not the speed.

Second, the Chiefs need better performance at safety, corner, and pass rush to be effective at cover 2. Cover 2 is a defense that is good if the talent is top notch. If not it is a defense prone to give up big plays. Bottom line, the Chiefs do not have enough talent on defense to play cover 2.

Personally, I really like what Gun is accomplishing on defense. It has been slow, but they are getting better every week. Even Mitchell is improving. Give Gun more time and he will improve the defense. Forget the Cover 2 crap, which was a mainstay of the Robinson debacle.

Mr. Laz
12-27-2004, 10:27 AM
Robinson tried to run zone coverage almost his entire time here. It failed miserably.



either nobody knows how to teach zone techniques or our players just suck.


Warfield is definately not a zone type guy

Calcountry
12-27-2004, 10:50 AM
Before last week's game, on KCFX, I think it was Mitch H, said something to the effect that because of the new enforcement of the 5 yard rule, KC should consider employing the Cover 2 scheme, pointing to Tampa & their Cover 2 being the #1 rated D against the pass.

You can't argue with his statement and after hearing it I gave it some thought and it does appear that some changes have already been made, with possibly more to come. Benny Sapp has gotten more PT lately & McCleon is back to starting. Bartee seems to have lost quite a bit of his PT to Sapp, so his days appear numbered. Typically it's smaller CB's like McCleon & Sapp who excel in that type of scheme so their increased PT could be a signal of changes in the philosophy of our D.

Thoughts?

Some food for thought; I was looking at some stats and found this interesting, we have allowed a league high 4,221 yards passing this season for 281.4 yards, however we only allowed a 59.9 completion % which is good for the #13 ranking. Our passing yards allowed per attempt are 8.6 compared to the next closest, Oakland at 8.21.
I'm not an expert by an stretch and really don't know, but that sounds to me like our CB's haven't been getting the safety help they need deep. DV has pointed out in the past that we allow too many big plays, which we all say "No $h!t" to, but I think our #1 issue is safety.
I agree, on at least one of the plays v the Raiders, the camera caught just how far out of position our safety was. Funny, I don't even know the foos name.

htismaqe
12-27-2004, 10:50 AM
6 in one, one-half dozen in the other...

Cover 2 works just fine, if you have the personnel for it.

Man or cover-1 works just fine, if you have the personnel for it.

The problem is that we don't have the personnel for EITHER. Our safeties suck and can't play cover 2. Our cornerbacks suck and can't play man.

Besides, who cares who ranks #1 against the pass? The only thing that matters is where you rank against the run.

Mr. Laz
12-27-2004, 10:57 AM
Besides, who cares who ranks #1 against the pass? The only thing that matters is where you rank against the run.

i hope that's sarcasm...

Chief Faithful
12-27-2004, 11:00 AM
6 in one, one-half dozen in the other...

Cover 2 works just fine, if you have the personnel for it.

Man or cover-1 works just fine, if you have the personnel for it.

The problem is that we don't have the personnel for EITHER. Our safeties suck and can't play cover 2. Our cornerbacks suck and can't play man.

Besides, who cares who ranks #1 against the pass? The only thing that matters is where you rank against the run.

Agreed. Any way you dice it the Chiefs need help in the secondary more than any positions.

Calcountry
12-27-2004, 11:05 AM
Maybe if we got better corners, who CAN play man coverage we'll do fine.

DV got the players he wanted, to fit his offense, his way. Gun should do the same...
Now if Al Saunders can just stop making stupid calls at critical times.

Was I the only one that thought we should have ran the ball with 2:40 to go and it 3rd and 4???

No, we pass, and Trent fumbles.

Chief Faithful
12-27-2004, 11:18 AM
Now if Al Saunders can just stop making stupid calls at critical times.

Was I the only one that thought we should have ran the ball with 2:40 to go and it 3rd and 4???

No, we pass, and Trent fumbles.

No, your not alone, but that is what you get with an agressive offensive minded team. We have seen many successful pass plays in critical positions with Trent at the helm so I'm not going to question the play calling. Al Saunders has proved to be outstanding.

I don't miss the days of 3 yards and a cloud of dust with Jimmy Raye.

Hoover
12-27-2004, 11:24 AM
Nein. The #1 issue is still corner. Yes the safeties haven't played well (TREAT OTHER PEOPLE THE WAY THAT YOU WANT TO BE TREATED). But the corners have been in man coverage and got roasted. That ain't the safeties problems.

If we can get a stud at LDE and Siavii can beat out Sims in training camp next year, a Cover 2 would work well (provided we ALSO get someone to play linebacker opposite Fujita). The main thing is getting a good pass rush from the front 4 in cover 2. It worked well in Tampa Bay because Simeon Rice and Warren Sapp were awesome.
Why do people want Sims to fail?

Hell I want to see Jr. beat out Dalton. Sims and Jr. are big young DT's I want to see them suceed. Sims shows flashes, I think it would help our DT's if we had better DEs and MLB play.

bricks
12-27-2004, 12:20 PM
Why do people want Sims to fail?

Hell I want to see Jr. beat out Dalton. Sims and Jr. are big young DT's I want to see them suceed. Sims shows flashes, I think it would help our DT's if we had better DEs and MLB play.

:rolleyes: dude, the guy sucks period. He and hicks are the weakpoints in our D-line. Siavii has much more potential then Sims.

htismaqe
12-27-2004, 01:41 PM
i hope that's sarcasm...

Nope, I'm 100% serious.

2003
Patriots - 17th against the pass, 4th against the run
Panthers - 10th against the pass, 11th against the run

2002
Raiders - 25th against the pass, 3rd against the run
Buccaneers - 1st against the pass, 6th against the run

2001
Patriots - 22nd against the pass, 19th against the run
Rams - 10th against the pass, 3rd against the run

2000
Ravens - 7th against the pass, 1st against the run
Giants - 17th against the pass, 3rd against the run

1999
Titans - 26th against the pass, 10th against the run
Rams - 24th against the pass, 1st against the run

1998
Broncos - 28th against the pass, 3rd against the run
Falcons - 23rd against the pass, 2nd against the run

1997
Broncos - 5th against the pass, 16th against the run
Packers - 7th against the pass, 20th against the run

1996
Patriots - 29th against the pass, 6th against the run
Packers - 1st against the pass, 4th against the run

1995
Steelers - 7th against the pass, 2nd against the run
Cowboys - 6th against the pass, 16th against the run

1994
Chargers - 24th against the pass, 5th against the run
49ers - 19th against the pass, 2nd against the run

These numbers speak for themselves. Does this mean we should neglect the pass defense completely? Absolutely not. But the quest for the "shutdown corner" should be tempered with the facts.

We need a secondary that can get turnovers - that's one thing that all of the above teams had in common. Almost all of the teams above were in the top 10 in INT's.

HC_Chief
12-27-2004, 01:44 PM
Cover-2 can't make up for horrible linebackers.

Speaking of which, anyone else notice the 3-4 utilized versus the faid in the GOALLINE situation? I was saying WTF?!?! after that one. How in the hell can you not put more 'beef' on the line that close to the goal? Why in the hell would you want to add ANOTHER crappy LB to the package? It makes no sense to me.

Logical
12-27-2004, 01:47 PM
:rolleyes: dude, the guy sucks period. He and hicks are the weakpoints in our D-line. Siavii has much more potential then Sims.ROFLROFLROFL

Mr. Laz
12-27-2004, 02:56 PM
Nope, I'm 100% serious.

These numbers speak for themselves. Does this mean we should neglect the pass defense completely? Absolutely not. But the quest for the "shutdown corner" should be tempered with the facts
always fighting the secondary, aren't ya

pretty soon you'll be back to saying they "our secondary is fine, if we'd just improve our pass rush"

:shake:

all those "facts" you list dont necessarily mean what you think they mean.

just like our run defense ranking is decent ... why run the ball when our pass defense sucks so bad?

team like the patriot get a lead and then the other team has to pass the ball.(i believe the patriots lead the league in scoring in their first drive)


that effects the pass defense numbers but doesn't mean that the pass defense isn't any good.



but we've gone through all this before ...



agree to disagree



imo our defense won't be solid until our secondary is good ... but of course the Vermeil seems to agree with you.


so i dont imagine our defense will stop sucking until Vermeil leaves.

htismaqe
12-27-2004, 03:15 PM
always fighting the secondary, aren't ya

pretty soon you'll be back to saying they "our secondary is fine, if we'd just improve our pass rush"

:shake:

all those "facts" you list dont necessarily mean what you think they mean.

just like our run defense ranking is decent ... why run the ball when our pass defense sucks so bad?

team like the patriot get a lead and then the other team has to pass the ball.(i believe the patriots lead the league in scoring in their first drive)


that effects the pass defense numbers but doesn't mean that the pass defense isn't any good.



but we've gone through all this before ...



agree to disagree



imo our defense won't be solid until our secondary is good ... but of course the Vermeil seems to agree with you.


so i dont imagine our defense will stop sucking until Vermeil leaves.

"Fighting" for the secondary? I think you must have missed the hundred or so times when I said our CB's AND Safeties suck...

A "good" secondary isn't what you think it is. You've seen how "good" Denver's Superstar secondary is when there's no pass rush. Champ --> Chump.

I'm saying that if it comes down to reaching for a corner or drafting an OLB or DE, I'd take the OLB/DE. I think shutdown CB's are overrated, that much is true. But I firmly believe a team needs adequate CB's (aka Ricky Manning in Carolina) and this team has NONE.

Calcountry
12-27-2004, 03:54 PM
No, your not alone, but that is what you get with an agressive offensive minded team. We have seen many successful pass plays in critical positions with Trent at the helm so I'm not going to question the play calling. Al Saunders has proved to be outstanding.

I don't miss the days of 3 yards and a cloud of dust with Jimmy Raye.
Yes, but the Raiders figured us to be that way. A draw play, which LJ runs well because it is slow developing, would have been the right call there, I don't give a damn if it is Air Coryell calling the plays.

The point is to win the game. We cannot expect Dante to bail us out every fuggin time.

WTF, we are only 6-8 in a meaningless game, lets be agressive.

Ralphy Boy
12-27-2004, 05:31 PM
Why do people want Sims to fail?

Hell I want to see Jr. beat out Dalton. Sims and Jr. are big young DT's I want to see them suceed. Sims shows flashes, I think it would help our DT's if we had better DEs and MLB play.

Which brings the questions from the Sims/Peppers debate prior to the 2002 draft full circle. It is clear that Sims benefited far greater from Peppers presence than the other way around. Back prior to the draft, there was some debate amongst the "draft experts" that Sims made Peppers look better.

The debate was obviously enough to elevate Sims' draft status.

Not saying that Sims is a bust, he obviously could do better, maybe even very well, with a strong pass rusher on the same line.

Regarding the whole Cover 2/Man Coverage debate, why not, and maybe we do, play both. Warfield isn't bad IMO in man coverage, but he's the only one. How we could fall as far in one year in the giveaway/takeaway area is beyond me.
In the "take-away" column we have 11 INT's and 7 Fumbles this year compared to last years 25 INT's and 12 Fumbles.
In the "Give-Away" column we have 12 INT's and 9 Fumbles this year compared to last years 12 INT's and 6 Fumbles.

We led the league last year at +19 and now we are -3.

We obviously had the right players to get the INT's last year and to fall this far in one year can't be anything other than scheme. Granted Woods got hurt and wasn't having the same kind of year but still.

Changes have to be made in the scheme, it isn't just the players.