PDA

View Full Version : Is the Cover 2 defense a complete sham?


Bowser
12-10-2006, 07:36 PM
I know it's easy to say not only yes, but hell yes, especially after two losses in a row. I'm asking this based on the three teams I can think of that run a Cover 2 as their bease defense - us, the Colts, and the Bucs. None of these teams are anything special on defense, and Indy got embarrassed by Jax running it for nearly 400 yards on them.

I hate it. I hate any kind of bend-but-don't-break zone defense that dictates your best players on D not matching up with the offense's best players. I know the theory is to give them whatever they want underneath and flow to the ball, but this type of defense just isn't working. This Cover 2, or Tampa 2, was made famous by a collection of very good athletes at the peaks of their careers - Sapp, Lynch, Brooks, Rice....

I think this defense is way overhyped, and should in no way ever be deployed as a base defense. Certain situations, maybe, but not a base defense.

I guess my question is - is the defensive scheme crap, or are they players executing it crap?

ChiefsfaninPA
12-10-2006, 07:37 PM
Cover 2 sucks unless every player on the field is of pro-bowl caliber.

milkman
12-10-2006, 07:38 PM
The Bears run a cover-2.

The Steelers of the 70's ran a cover-2.

To answer the question, it's the players.

Deberg_1990
12-10-2006, 07:38 PM
Dont the Bears run a Cover 2??

milkman
12-10-2006, 07:39 PM
Cover 2 sucks unless every player on the field is of pro-bowl caliber.

That's not true.

For it to be successful, you need DT's that can get a push in the middle, and a front 4 that can get pressure.

CoMoChief
12-10-2006, 07:40 PM
I think the system is good for not letting up the big play. Just because we run a cover 2 doesn't mean we can't blitz. We need to blitz LB's more and jam WR's at the line.

Overall we need to be more disciplined. It just really sucks when we ignored the defensive side of the ball for so long and now we are paying dearly for it.

milkman
12-10-2006, 07:41 PM
Someone in the chat today gave our defense the perfect name.

(tinyevel?)

Cover Who.

ChiefsfaninPA
12-10-2006, 07:41 PM
That's not true.

For it to be successful, you need DT's that can get a push in the middle, and a front 4 that can get pressure.


So basically you need good players like I said.

StcChief
12-10-2006, 07:41 PM
We don't have the players now.

That's how they plan on dumping our not up to it players.

Don't fit what we do.

Whatever it takes

Bowser
12-10-2006, 07:41 PM
Someone in the chat today gave our defense the perfect name.

(tinyevel?)

Cover Who.

Awesome!

:grr:

ClevelandChief
12-10-2006, 07:43 PM
No, the problem is that Wesley is a giant vagina who has no idea how to cover a zone. Knight knows his role but he's dirt slow. We need to get rid of some of the DV rejects and let Herm get some actual talent at safety.

tk13
12-10-2006, 07:43 PM
Don't forget the Bears run it, and they're a nightmare to play.

I think it's had a lot of success because it forces you to not make mistakes... and in today's watered down NFL, teams can't go the whole game without making mistakes. There aren't that many great QB's. And then you have DB's and LB's all in position to catch everything that's overthrown/thrown wide... sometimes I do think it is kind of the Martyball of defenses... at least for a lot of teams that run it, you're kind of waiting on someone else to screw up. Although the Bears are pretty aggressive out of it, they're very talented though, especially up front.

milkman
12-10-2006, 07:43 PM
So basically you need good players like I said.

No, that isn't what you said.

You don't need pro-bowl calibre players at every position.

FringeNC
12-10-2006, 07:44 PM
I think the cover-2 was designed to stop the West Coast offense, and it did a good job. Very few teams run the WCO anymore, though.

Dark Horse
12-10-2006, 07:44 PM
I'd be ecstatic if they could just cover one.

Bowser
12-10-2006, 07:44 PM
I think the cover-2 was designed to stop the West Coast offense, and it did a good job. Very few teams run the WCO anymore, though.

Heh. You may have a point.

morphius
12-10-2006, 07:44 PM
We are doing fairly well with it, other then one blown play. My biggest issue, and I harp on this all the time, is that we don't bump anyone with any consistency, which means we don't throw off the timing of any play, and it comes off as a looking prevent instead of aggressive.

Mr. Laz
12-10-2006, 07:47 PM
like almost all schemes.....


it depends on whether it fits the players and whether or not the coaches know how to teach it and use it.

Deberg_1990
12-10-2006, 07:48 PM
We are doing fairly well with it, other then one blown play. My biggest issue, and I harp on this all the time, is that we don't bump anyone with any consistency, which means we don't throw off the timing of any play, and it comes off as a looking prevent instead of aggressive.

Thats pretty much all we are doing is playing prevent. Teams just dink and dunk it all the way down the field on us and wait until they see Wesley blow coverage for a big play.

Simplex3
12-10-2006, 07:48 PM
There's nothing wrong with the cover 2. It's just like every other defensive scheme, if you don't have the players to run it you're going to look dumb.

Personally I hate coaches who say "this is the scheme we're going to run, players be damned." KC has two great man-to-man corners. With that, you play f**king man-to-man. We're weak at DT, so you blitz up the f**king middle and fake the blitz so that your DEs will see one-on-one blocking sometimes.

FringeNC
12-10-2006, 07:49 PM
We're weak at DT, so you blitz up the f**king middle and fake the blitz so that your DEs will see one-on-one blocking sometimes.

That's what I'd do if I were DC.

Bowser
12-10-2006, 07:51 PM
There's nothing wrong with the cover 2. It's just like every other defensive scheme, if you don't have the players to run it you're going to look dumb.

Personally I hate coaches who say "this is the scheme we're going to run, players be damned." KC has two great man-to-man corners. With that, you play f**king man-to-man. We're weak at DT, so you blitz up the f**king middle and fake the blitz so that your DEs will see one-on-one blocking sometimes.

Exactly!

Thank you for summing up what I'm trying to say here.

Mr. Laz
12-10-2006, 07:52 PM
We are doing fairly well with it, other then one blown play. My biggest issue, and I harp on this all the time, is that we don't bump anyone with any consistency, which means we don't throw off the timing of any play, and it comes off as a looking prevent instead of aggressive.

many times we get burnt right in the place where the cover 2 scheme has it's weakness.

1. down the sideline ... behind the corner/outside the safety.

for us this is amplified because of the limited range of our safeties.

2. short crossing patterns, putting receivers in zones covered by linebackers.

apparently our linebackers aren't told to match within their zones. It drives me nuts when the linebacker is just standing there 3 feet away while the receiver sits and makes the catch. :banghead:


you really do need to be strong at defensive tackle and strong at safety to run a good cover 2 imo.

banyon
12-10-2006, 07:53 PM
That's not true.

For it to be successful, you need DT's that can get a push in the middle, and a front 4 that can get pressure.

Yup. And when you have two doughnuts like we have in the middle, it pretty much makes the Cover 2 look awful.

htismaqe
12-10-2006, 08:16 PM
The cover 2 defense is most certainly NOT a sham. And it does NOT require a pro-bowler at every position.

People are confusing the Cover 2, which is a tried and true scheme, with Gunther's smoke and mirrors defense, which has never won anything of importance.

Bowser
12-10-2006, 08:18 PM
People are confusing the Cover 2, which is a tried and true scheme, with Gunther's smoke and mirrors defense, which has never won anything of importance.

So is it Gunther trying to be cute, or is he trying (and failing) to cover the shortcomings of his players?

morphius
12-10-2006, 08:20 PM
many times we get burnt right in the place where the cover 2 scheme has it's weakness.

1. down the sideline ... behind the corner/outside the safety.

for us this is amplified because of the limited range of our safeties.

2. short crossing patterns, putting receivers in zones covered by linebackers.

apparently our linebackers aren't told to match within their zones. It drives me nuts when the linebacker is just standing there 3 feet away while the receiver sits and makes the catch. :banghead:


you really do need to be strong at defensive tackle and strong at safety to run a good cover 2 imo.
It isn't as bad as what they did in the Grob system, in which I saw multiple players actually look at their feet to make sure they were in the right spot. But yeah, I think our inability to pick up the man in the zone is one of the reasons we have looked so pathetic on third an long.

htismaqe
12-10-2006, 08:27 PM
So is it Gunther trying to be cute, or is he trying (and failing) to cover the shortcomings of his players?

I personally have arrived at the opinion that Gunther's blitz scheme is designed to cover up the fact that he doesn't understand DB play. Bring everyone in hopes that the QB can't get the ball off, because the WR is gonna be WIDE open.

Count Alex's Losses
12-10-2006, 08:28 PM
There's nothing wrong with our scheme. Our defense was playing well today, our offense just put way too much pressure on them. They can't take that strain.

If we had this defense in 2005, we'd have been a playoff team and maybe better.

Dark Horse
12-10-2006, 08:29 PM
The real problem we're having with cover 2 is all the opposing offenses have more experience in beating cover 2 than we have in playing it. Fine football is like fine wine it takes time to develop. In the mean time it looks like our defense will be a lot like Mad Dog 20 20, nasty after taste and will leave you in a stupor.

htismaqe
12-10-2006, 08:30 PM
There's nothing wrong with our scheme. Our defense was playing well today, our offense just put way too much pressure on them. They can't take that strain.

If we had this defense in 2005, we'd have been a playoff team and maybe better.

The defense is better, but it's got plenty of room for improvement. To take that next step, we need a couple of DT's and a new coordinator...

Bowser
12-10-2006, 08:31 PM
There's nothing wrong with our scheme. Our defense was playing well today, our offense just put way too much pressure on them. They can't take that strain.

If we had this defense in 2005, we'd have been a playoff team and maybe better.

No doubt.

But if we're going to play that game, give me the '03 offense paired with the '97 defense.

Basileus777
12-10-2006, 08:32 PM
The Bears run a cover-2.

The Steelers of the 70's ran a cover-2.

To answer the question, it's the players.

The 70 Steelers didn't run the Tampa 2, which is really what this topic is about. The only real great defenses that have run the Tampa 2 are Tampa Bay and Chicago, and both defenses were loaded with great players and a had good coaching staffs.

milkman
12-10-2006, 08:34 PM
The 70 Steelers didn't run the Tampa 2, which is really what this topic is about. The only real great defenses that have run the Tampa 2 are Tampa Bay and Chicago, and both defenses were loaded with great players and a had good coaching staffs.

The Tampa 2 is just a variation of the cover 2.

htismaqe
12-10-2006, 08:35 PM
The 70 Steelers didn't run the Tampa 2, which is really what this topic is about. The only real great defenses that have run the Tampa 2 are Tampa Bay and Chicago, and both defenses were loaded with great players and a had good coaching staffs.

Chicago's defense really isn't loaded, especially with the injuries they've sustained this year. They have a stud LE, a stud DT, a stud MLB, but pretty fair DB's. Tampa really didn't have GREAT corners either.

That's my biggest problem. The good zone defenses of the last few years were strongest at DT and weakest at CB. We're EXACTLY OPPOSITE of that blueprint.

Basileus777
12-10-2006, 08:38 PM
The Tampa 2 is just a variation of the cover 2.

Yes, but that variation is significant. Most of the problems with the Tampa 2 stem from the scheme's reliance on undersized but fast players. The only team that uses the Tampa 2 that can stop the run is Minnesota, and thats because they have 2 big DTs.

Mr. Laz
12-10-2006, 08:38 PM
There's nothing wrong with our scheme. Our defense was playing well today, our offense just put way too much pressure on them. They can't take that strain.

If we had this defense in 2005, we'd have been a playoff team and maybe better.
our defense played well because the Ravens ran the ball so much


the passed the ball AT WILL ...


if we would of ever gotten a lead they would of pass the ball more and McNair would of ended up with 500 yards passing.

milkman
12-10-2006, 08:38 PM
And in reality, what the Chiefs are playing is closer to the original cover 2 than the Tampa 2.

The Tampa 2 is/was just a more aggresive in press coverage to counter the WC offense.

The Chiefs are playing their corners off the receivers.

Count Alex's Losses
12-10-2006, 08:42 PM
The defense is better, but it's got plenty of room for improvement. To take that next step, we need a couple of DT's and a new coordinator...

I absolutely agree. The lack of talent at DT is holding the unit back.

milkman
12-10-2006, 08:43 PM
I absolutely agree. The lack of talent at DT is holding the unit back.

We also need better safety play.

Count Alex's Losses
12-10-2006, 08:48 PM
We also need better safety play.

I bet we get it next year....FINALLY.

If we can nab a stud DT and our young safeties come through, we could potentially be very good on defense. An upgrade at weakside LB through FA would be a big boost, too. Heck, Griffin might be the guy for all we know.

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-10-2006, 09:09 PM
Chicago's defense really isn't loaded, especially with the injuries they've sustained this year. They have a stud LE, a stud DT, a stud MLB, but pretty fair DB's. Tampa really didn't have GREAT corners either.

That's my biggest problem. The good zone defenses of the last few years were strongest at DT and weakest at CB. We're EXACTLY OPPOSITE of that blueprint.

I know that I've decried this almost all year, but I'll say it again. This team is built for the kind of D that Gunther ran here in his first stint, you need to jam the hell out of the receivers at the line and blitz like a sumbitch. I know that *you* don't like that scheme, but it's what is best for this team considering the talent distribution.

Furthermore, I don't think that most people realize that A) The cover 2 wasn't invented until the 70's, and B) It wasn't designed to stop the WCO. The WCO wasn't even hardly used in this league until the early 1980's, which is after the invention of the cover 2. Now, the cover 2 may be a good defense to play against the WCO, but it was not designed to stop it--that's an anachronism.

The biggest problem with the Cover 2 is that it requires a great front four, great MLB play, and great safety play in order to run it effectively, and that is the hardest thing to get in today's NFL. It's a passive scheme that requires the player to do something great rather than the scheme working against the offense. If you have great players, then you can get away with it, but if you don't, you'll get nickel and dimed to death like we do.

Htis,

I've heard you say several times that you don't like the blitz b/c it's a smoke and mirrors d meant to disguise a lack of talent...well in the salary cap era, and more specifically this team in general, it's very very difficult to have talent at all the aforementioned positions and even harder to retain those players for a length of time.

We'd be much better off running the old Gunther scheme, not this neutered Cover 2 version. You couldn't design a worse version for this collection of talent. Hell, we'd almost be better off playing a f*cking 3-4 man than this shit.

Demonpenz
12-10-2006, 09:10 PM
what defense doesn't need pressure out of the Dline

shaneo69
12-10-2006, 09:13 PM
How many blown coverages have we seen this year when a CB releases a WR to the safeties when the WR runs more than 5-10 yards downfield?

Whatever happened to letting a CB cover the WR for the entire freaking route, no matter how deep he goes?

Count Alex's Losses
12-10-2006, 09:15 PM
How many blown coverages have we seen this year when a CB releases a WR to the safeties when the WR runs more than 5-10 yards downfield?

Whatever happened to letting a CB cover the WR for the entire freaking route, no matter how deep he goes?

That's the Cover 2. It works if you get a decent pass rush and the safety has an IQ higher than butter.

ChiefsCountry
12-10-2006, 09:15 PM
How many blown coverages have we seen this year when a CB releases a WR to the safeties when the WR runs more than 5-10 yards downfield?

Whatever happened to letting a CB cover the WR for the entire freaking route, no matter how deep he goes?

Thats called man to man defense, most teams now play zones.

Coach
12-10-2006, 09:16 PM
Thats called man to man defense, most teams now play zones.

Yeah, and our zones are really pretty good at letting WR's running wide open.

Count Alex's Losses
12-10-2006, 09:18 PM
I can't believe people are throwing the pass defense under the bus. At least we're not ****ing 30th for the 5th year in a row or whatever this year.

The real problem with this team has been the offense, all year long. They shit the bed in the opener. They shit the bed in Miami. They shit the bed today. That's three ****ing games where the defense played well enough to win. We could be 10 and ****ing 3 right now. GOD DAMMIT, WILLIE!!!!

Dark Horse
12-10-2006, 09:25 PM
They shit the bed in the opener. They shit the bed in Miami. They shit the bed today. That's three ****ing games where the defense played well enough to win. We could be 10 and ****ing 3 right now. GOD DAMMIT, WILLIE!!!!

Wow maybe their incontinence is bringing their overal self image down and the resulting lack of confidence is what is making them suck. :hmmm:

suds79
12-10-2006, 09:29 PM
How many blown coverages have we seen this year when a CB releases a WR to the safeties when the WR runs more than 5-10 yards downfield?

Whatever happened to letting a CB cover the WR for the entire freaking route, no matter how deep he goes?

So let me get this straight.

We should play more man to man defense because our Safties are not doing their job in covering their zones?

Well we're screwed then if players can't follow their assignment.

How about we get players who just do their job?

Count Alex's Losses
12-10-2006, 09:34 PM
Shit, how could I forget the Denver game? Another game in which our offense shit the bed.

We could be 11 and freaking 2 had the offense not blown it. 10, 6, 10 and 10 points. INEXCUSABLE.

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-10-2006, 09:40 PM
Shit, how could I forget the Denver game? Another game in which our offense shit the bed.

We could be 11 and freaking 2 had the offense not blown it. 10, 6, 10 and 10 points. INEXCUSABLE.

You're an idiot. Our offense wasn't going to succeed in Denver or Miami because our coaching staff isn't good enough to make adjustments. They aren't, and they never will be. That's on the coaches, not the players. If our defense could have held the #31 offense to 27 points or less we would have won in Cleveland too. We've also neutered our offense all year precisely because there is no faith in the defense.

I realize that you "write" for a barely visible publication, but it still floors me that someone with your qualifications and 'talent' is allowed any such position.

Get a f*cking clue. Your homerism is inimical to an ability to intelligently analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the team.

jidar
12-10-2006, 09:44 PM
You're an idiot.


he's right and you're the idiot. 10 points doesn't ****ing win a ball game, and the defense has been much much better this year. The stats will back both of those statements up.

Now here is the part where you claim the stats lie because teams just weren't doing X thing or other to exploit our obviously bad defense.
go ahead.

tk13
12-10-2006, 09:47 PM
The offense sure didn't help, but at the same time.... the defense, in their house, backs against the wall, playoffs on the line... allowed a NINE minute TD drive to kill the clock and our season. It's a group effort.

Count Alex's Losses
12-10-2006, 09:47 PM
You're an idiot.

No, I'm not. There is no excuse for pathetic offensive performances like those I mentioned. Go **** yourself. The offense has cost us more than the defense this year. END OF STORY.

Dark Horse
12-10-2006, 09:47 PM
I don't think either the O or D have a right to point fingers they have both had let downs this year.

Count Alex's Losses
12-10-2006, 09:49 PM
I realize that you "write" for a barely visible publication, but it still floors me that someone with your qualifications and 'talent' is allowed any such position.


You're a complete dick. You know almost NOTHING about the situation. Since I started working for Warpaint the quality of the publication and content has improved remarkably. We've received numerous comments from people that used to think it sucked horribly. One of those former bashers now WRITES for us.

To top it off, I've received compliments from Chiefs players. Shove that up your ass, prick.

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-10-2006, 10:00 PM
To top it off, I've received compliments from Chiefs players. Shove that up your ass, prick.

Most people don't complain about a blowjob, even if they are getting it from a toothless woman.

Count Alex's Losses
12-10-2006, 10:03 PM
Most people don't complain about a blowjob, even if they are getting it from a toothless woman.

Again, you are completely clueless about the situation. Continue talking out your ass. You're a hateful prick. I weep for the students you "teach."

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-10-2006, 10:16 PM
he's right and you're the idiot. 10 points doesn't ****ing win a ball game, and the defense has been much much better this year. The stats will back both of those statements up.

Now here is the part where you claim the stats lie because teams just weren't doing X thing or other to exploit our obviously bad defense.
go ahead.

What a complete joke. Look at the offenses we've played this year. Compare it agains the O's we played last year. Take that gun from your anally raped cat and turn it on yourself.

Oakland 32 in O
Cleveland 31 before we bumped them up to 29
SF 26
AZ 27
Baltimore 23
Denver 22 *2
Seattle 21
SD 5
Cincy 8
StL 10
Pitt 6
Miami 16


Average Offensive Rank of those teams=19

Last year we played:

Giants 4
Denver 5*2
Cinci 6
NE 7
SD 10*2
Wash 11
Dallas 13
Miami 14
Philly 19
NYJ 31
HOU 30
Buff 28
Oak 20*2

Average offensive rank 14.56

We had a tougher schedule last year, particularly for our defense. The 'improvement' is highly overrated.

Valiant
12-10-2006, 10:18 PM
The Bears run a cover-2.

The Steelers of the 70's ran a cover-2.

To answer the question, it's the players.


You have to get good pressure from your front four to make coverage 2 work like its suppose too...

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-10-2006, 10:18 PM
Again, you are completely clueless about the situation. Continue talking out your ass. You're a hateful prick. I weep for the students you "teach."

Post 60, really out of my ass....

milkman
12-10-2006, 10:20 PM
You have to get good pressure from your front four to make coverage 2 work like its suppose too...

I think I heard that somewhere.

Valiant
12-10-2006, 10:24 PM
No, I'm not. There is no excuse for pathetic offensive performances like those I mentioned. Go **** yourself. The offense has cost us more than the defense this year. END OF STORY.


The problem with the defense this year though is if a team wants to put us away they have been able to do it... Either through bad scheming, stupid penalties or just marching on us...

Teams still for the most part march on us at will.. All the time on the road and then also at home... How often do you sit back and think '**** they can't stop them..'

This defense is way better then last year in spurts, but the offense has fallen way off also..

IMO the Chiefs need to interview a new DC that will fit our needs and bring Al Saunders (cause Washington will can him)or somebody that will focus more on play action off of LJ's running... Ala the Ravens O this season but with a way better running game and better TE...

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-10-2006, 10:24 PM
Again, you are completely clueless about the situation. Continue talking out your ass. You're a hateful prick. I weep for the students you "teach."

You'd weep even more if you saw the overwhelmingly positive evaluations I've received from those students.

I'm sorry, I just don't have any respect for someone who writes about a team for a "living" when *living* in his mother's basement and parsing the opinions of others from a message board to make up his journalism.

Valiant
12-10-2006, 10:26 PM
I think I heard that somewhere.


It is possible as I did not read the whole thread.. But whoever said is a genius...

tk13
12-10-2006, 10:30 PM
I do think our defense is better. I just can't forgive them for the Cleveland game though. Our offense was destroyed by injuries for a large part of the year... we finally get healthy, and they blow a 14 point lead in the 4th quarter to a very bad team. That's the single most unforgivable thing that's happened to this team by far.

Count Alex's Losses
12-10-2006, 10:31 PM
You'd weep even more if you saw the overwhelmingly positive evaluations I've received from those students.

I'm sorry, I just don't have any respect for someone who writes about a team for a "living" when *living* in his mother's basement and parsing the opinions of others from a message board to make up his journalism.

Again, you're clueless. You know jack shit about my life and you're a hateful prick. Shove it up your ass.

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-10-2006, 10:37 PM
Again, you're clueless. You know jack shit about my life and you're a hateful prick. Shove it up your ass.

I know you're

A) Older than me
B) Still living at home
C) A virgin
D) Obsessed with backup QBs and mannish-looking country pop singers
E) A former Jehovah's witness

I know more than you may think.... :harumph:

Count Alex's Losses
12-10-2006, 10:41 PM
What you think you know is irrelevant. I'll kindly ask for a truce because I'm tired of this shit. Put me on ignore if you must, but I'm tired of your hate-filled approach to posting on Chiefsplanet.

siberian khatru
12-10-2006, 10:43 PM
I do think our defense is better. I just can't forgive them for the Cleveland game though. Our offense was destroyed by injuries for a large part of the year... we finally get healthy, and they blow a 14 point lead in the 4th quarter to a very bad team. That's the single most unforgivable thing that's happened to this team by far.

It cut our hearts out. None of those other games, whether you blame the O or the D, did that. Cleveland just extinguished the flame.

Demonpenz
12-10-2006, 10:46 PM
what defense doesn't need pressure from the front 4 is there a football somewhere that says hey our defense doesn't need pressure from the front 4.

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-10-2006, 10:49 PM
What you think you know is irrelevant. I'll kindly ask for a truce because I'm tired of this shit. Put me on ignore if you must, but I'm tired of your hate-filled approach to posting on Chiefsplanet.

I'll give you a truce, but I would like you to acknowledge the fact that the D isn't any better (as the stats prove) in the other thread.

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-10-2006, 10:50 PM
what defense doesn't need pressure from the front 4 is there a football somewhere that says hey our defense doesn't need pressure from the front 4.

I'm gonna go with a 3-4, Alex.

Demonpenz
12-10-2006, 10:54 PM
I'm gonna go with a 3-4, Alex.

what i said front FOUR not three

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-10-2006, 10:56 PM
what i said front FOUR not three

Yeah...exactly my point :evil:

Count Alex's Losses
12-10-2006, 10:57 PM
I'll give you a truce, but I would like you to acknowledge the fact that the D isn't any better (as the stats prove) in the other thread.

Absolutely not. Those stats don't prove anything. We're going to finish with a top 10 scoring defense. How can you not be ecstatic over that given the last five years?

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-10-2006, 11:17 PM
Absolutely not. Those stats don't prove anything. We're going to finish with a top 10 scoring defense. How can you not be ecstatic over that given the last five years?

Because our defense isn't any better. If the stats don't prove anything, then why are you trying to back your argument up with stats?

We give up the same number of points, and more yards per attempt. Our D is not any better...it's not.

Count Alex's Losses
12-10-2006, 11:18 PM
We give up the same number of points, and more yards per attempt. .

NO WE DO NOT.

We had a TOP TEN scoring defense before the Baltimore game.

THE OFFENSE IS THE REASON WE ARE 7-6.

RedThat
12-11-2006, 12:18 AM
I know it's easy to say not only yes, but hell yes, especially after two losses in a row. I'm asking this based on the three teams I can think of that run a Cover 2 as their bease defense - us, the Colts, and the Bucs. None of these teams are anything special on defense, and Indy got embarrassed by Jax running it for nearly 400 yards on them.

I hate it. I hate any kind of bend-but-don't-break zone defense that dictates your best players on D not matching up with the offense's best players. I know the theory is to give them whatever they want underneath and flow to the ball, but this type of defense just isn't working. This Cover 2, or Tampa 2, was made famous by a collection of very good athletes at the peaks of their careers - Sapp, Lynch, Brooks, Rice....

I think this defense is way overhyped, and should in no way ever be deployed as a base defense. Certain situations, maybe, but not a base defense.

I guess my question is - is the defensive scheme crap, or are they players executing it crap?

I don't think bad of the scheme. I just think it shouldn't be our main defense to run. Ummm, I don't think we have the personnel to run a cover 2. Tampa excelled in that scheme because the defensive line was REALLY dominating. I don't think we have the defensive line to run a cover 2. I like the scheme depending on what situation your involved in a game. If your destroying a team late in a game, and don't want to give them the big plays. That is a good time to use a cover 2 defense.

What bothers me as a Chief fan, is seeing the Chiefs investing soooo much money in Law and Surtain, and yet we're playing them off the WR's? Constantly playing in a soft zone, and not utilizing their talents covering WR's.

I just hate it when I see Gunther constantly use it in a game when it is clear it's not working. We're giving offenses room underneath, and their taking advantage of it. So why not mix it? try to blitz? Play man to man?
If the front four isn't getting pressure, you have to get it somewhere?
Use your corners to cover, your paying them a gazzilion dollars, why not use them? And blitz, blitz. But we dont see it. It just not smart to stick to scheme that isnt working, but we see Gunther do it all the time.

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-11-2006, 12:24 AM
NO WE DO NOT.

We had a TOP TEN scoring defense before the Baltimore game.

THE OFFENSE IS THE REASON WE ARE 7-6.

We gave up .4 points more today than we had before

2005 D 20.3 PPG
2006 D 19.6 PPG (through 12)

el borracho
12-11-2006, 12:24 AM
Probably already been said but it bears repeating... you can't run any defense effectively if you cannot get pressure with your front four. We need new defensive tackles.

Raiderhader
12-11-2006, 12:49 AM
No doubt.

But if we're going to play that game, give me the '03 offense paired with the '97 defense.



With the '69 coaching staff.

Raiderhader
12-11-2006, 01:00 AM
I do think our defense is better. I just can't forgive them for the Cleveland game though. Our offense was destroyed by injuries for a large part of the year... we finally get healthy, and they blow a 14 point lead in the 4th quarter to a very bad team. That's the single most unforgivable thing that's happened to this team by far.


It's strange, but that game almost hurts more than last year's Philly game. It has me almost to the point of not caring any more, and that is not something I thought I'd ever say (of course I know better, I was still at the bar early this morning to I could get the big screen and sound, and I'll still be in front of the tv next week cheering and cussing).

What I don't understand is some throwing the O under the bus for the way the season has gone. As you point out, they have over-come A LOT this year. And let's not forget how many times the D has f#cked the offense over the past several years. I mean shit, how are you going to go and get pissed off at the offense? For single game scenarios like yesterday's game sure, but the entire season? That is just plain stupid. The D actually deserves any let downs the O hands it (not that I actually want that to happen). The O has every right to go to the D and say, How the f#ck does it feel?".

RedThat
12-11-2006, 01:03 AM
Chicago's defense really isn't loaded, especially with the injuries they've sustained this year. They have a stud LE, a stud DT, a stud MLB, but pretty fair DB's. Tampa really didn't have GREAT corners either.

That's my biggest problem. The good zone defenses of the last few years were strongest at DT and weakest at CB. We're EXACTLY OPPOSITE of that blueprint.

Tell me about it. You express a good point.

TinyEvel
12-11-2006, 01:15 AM
Someone in the chat today gave our defense the perfect name.

(tinyevel?)

Cover Who.

Yes, me. thanks for the credit, Milkman.

I've been calling it that personally for a while, but found it ultimately, tragically appropriate afte rthe 89-yd TD reception.

And I agree that it relies on every player being awesome. When do you EVER get that? Unless you build up to it over several years (See Baltimore) I'm bummed that we have all those years and all that money in our DBs and we STILL get smoked on the pass all the time. :banghead:

Valiant
12-11-2006, 01:37 AM
what defense doesn't need pressure from the front 4 is there a football somewhere that says hey our defense doesn't need pressure from the front 4.


Zone defense at its peak relied more on the illusion of pressure... of course they also got pressure off of it...

When our guys line up the offense usually knows what to do to avoid them and then burn them, or eat out the clock for 9 mins..

Valiant
12-11-2006, 01:39 AM
Probably already been said but it bears repeating... you can't run any defense effectively if you cannot get pressure with your front four. We need new defensive tackles.


We barely get pressure when blitzing also..

Fruit Ninja
12-11-2006, 02:41 AM
If we had Decent DT's our D would be great. They are whats holding everything back. You can leave them 1 on 1 and they never get a push. Leaving the 2 outside guys Allen and Hali double teamed. that lets the QB have all day to throw to pick and choose. I think our secondary has done a damn fine job except for a few mental breakdowns.


I dont think guntharr is the problems, he's just trying to keep the Offense in the game with what he has working for him.

We lost to much firepower on offense.

Fruit Ninja
12-11-2006, 02:44 AM
We barely get pressure when blitzing also..
well w hen you leave 6 guys in to block and blitz say a linebacker. Your never going to create pressure that way. Only if you have the Talent. Tamba fell of the damn face of the earth so has Allen.

Demonpenz
12-11-2006, 02:53 AM
tamba is banged up he looks slow and timid out there. Hopefully he comes back healthy next year.

cookster50
12-11-2006, 06:55 AM
What bothers me as a Chief fan, is seeing the Chiefs investing soooo much money in Law and Surtain, and yet we're playing them off the WR's? Constantly playing in a soft zone, and not utilizing their talents covering WR's.



Agreed

Bowser
12-11-2006, 10:25 AM
Well, it sounds lke the consensus is that the scheme is fine and the players are garbage. Sounds like the same thing we've been saying the last several years.

I think in the next couple of seasons, we'll see a suprising turnaround in production on D. Allen and Hali are going to be bookends, DJ is going to be better each year, and our young safeties have shown a ton of promise. We just need to get over being snakebit at defensive tackle.

htismaqe
12-11-2006, 10:50 AM
I know that I've decried this almost all year, but I'll say it again. This team is built for the kind of D that Gunther ran here in his first stint, you need to jam the hell out of the receivers at the line and blitz like a sumbitch. I know that *you* don't like that scheme, but it's what is best for this team considering the talent distribution.

Furthermore, I don't think that most people realize that A) The cover 2 wasn't invented until the 70's, and B) It wasn't designed to stop the WCO. The WCO wasn't even hardly used in this league until the early 1980's, which is after the invention of the cover 2. Now, the cover 2 may be a good defense to play against the WCO, but it was not designed to stop it--that's an anachronism.

The biggest problem with the Cover 2 is that it requires a great front four, great MLB play, and great safety play in order to run it effectively, and that is the hardest thing to get in today's NFL. It's a passive scheme that requires the player to do something great rather than the scheme working against the offense. If you have great players, then you can get away with it, but if you don't, you'll get nickel and dimed to death like we do.

Htis,

I've heard you say several times that you don't like the blitz b/c it's a smoke and mirrors d meant to disguise a lack of talent...well in the salary cap era, and more specifically this team in general, it's very very difficult to have talent at all the aforementioned positions and even harder to retain those players for a length of time.

We'd be much better off running the old Gunther scheme, not this neutered Cover 2 version. You couldn't design a worse version for this collection of talent. Hell, we'd almost be better off playing a f*cking 3-4 man than this shit.

The idea that running zone defense requires gobs of talent is really a myth. Zone defense is about assignments. To run the zone effectively, all you need is guys with BRAINS and DISCIPLINE. All guys have to do is STAY HOME and the defense will work.

I realize that Gun's blitz scheme would work better with this collection of players. However, given that this season is over, I'd prefer to see them play the pure Cover 2, with the young players like Page and Pollard, with the intention of GETTING RID of the current collection of players AND their coach after the season.

Calcountry
12-11-2006, 12:22 PM
There's nothing wrong with the cover 2. It's just like every other defensive scheme, if you don't have the players to run it you're going to look dumb.

Personally I hate coaches who say "this is the scheme we're going to run, players be damned." KC has two great man-to-man corners. With that, you play f**king man-to-man. We're weak at DT, so you blitz up the f**king middle and fake the blitz so that your DEs will see one-on-one blocking sometimes.THat, is just too complicated for Gunther.