Tampa Cover 2

[Dmcnabbrules]

I have heard a lot about the Tampa cover 2. Here is a good article explains it a little further. I wonder how our guys will adjust and who fits well.
http://www.bucsnation.com/2010/5/12/1466315/tampa-2-defense-explained

 

[retro44]

Do the Seahawks play a Tampa 2 ?

 

[PAcuse]

The core of Seattle’s defense is what is generally called a “4-3 Under’’ front, using four defensive linemen and three linebackers. Under means the four linemen are typically aligned away from the offense’s strong side (where the tight end lines up) with a linebacker stationed on the line of scrimmage on the strong side.

The secondary, meanwhile, relies heavily on what is called “Cover Three” or three-deep zone — three defensive backs splitting coverage into three sections.

Source: http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seahawks/defense-101-understanding-how-the-seahawks-play/

 

[sufandu]

I'm certainly not an expert, but it has always seemed to me that for a tampa 2 to be really good you have to have a dominant disruptive d-line, something we've rarely had. The teams that ran it that I'm most familiar with are the Tampa Bay teams in the article and the Dungy Indianapolis teams. Tampa Bay had Warren Sapp and the Indianapolis teams had Mathis and Freeney. And even with Mathis and Freeney those Indianapolis teams seemed to always be soft up the middle, relying on the offense to get a lead so that teams would have to throw to get back in it and allow Mathis/Freeney to pin their ears back. As excited as I am about having a hyper-aggressive offense, I'm disappointed that it sounds like we're going to sit back in a bend but don't break defense. The article mentions that there is room to get creative out of it. I hope we see some of that.

 

[TheCusian]

I'm certainly not an expert, but it has always seemed to me that for a tampa 2 to be really good you have to have a dominant disruptive d-line, something we've rarely had. The teams that ran it that I'm most familiar with are the Tampa Bay teams in the article and the Dungy Indianapolis teams. Tampa Bay had Warren Sapp and the Indianapolis teams had Mathis and Freeney. And even with Mathis and Freeney those Indianapolis teams seemed to always be soft up the middle, relying on the offense to get a lead so that teams would have to throw to get back in it and allow Mathis/Freeney to pin their ears back. As excited as I am about having a hyper-aggressive offense, I'm disappointed that it sounds like we're going to sit back in a bend but don't break defense. The article mentions that there is room to get creative out of it. I hope we see some of that.

It does bend - but BG had a metric ton of INT's too. You could make the case that it forces QB's into bad decisions and coverage sacks.

But it will be a mindset shift for sure.

 

[Crusty]

I'm certainly not an expert, but it has always seemed to me that for a tampa 2 to be really good you have to have a dominant disruptive d-line, something we've rarely had. The teams that ran it that I'm most familiar with are the Tampa Bay teams in the article and the Dungy Indianapolis teams. Tampa Bay had Warren Sapp and the Indianapolis teams had Mathis and Freeney. And even with Mathis and Freeney those Indianapolis teams seemed to always be soft up the middle, relying on the offense to get a lead so that teams would have to throw to get back in it and allow Mathis/Freeney to pin their ears back. As excited as I am about having a hyper-aggressive offense, I'm disappointed that it sounds like we're going to sit back in a bend but don't break defense. The article mentions that there is room to get creative out of it. I hope we see some of that.

One thing that is essential is a LB that can drop in coverage and cover the middle third of the field. Looks like Ruff will be the guy to do that, perhaps.

 

[retro44]

The core of Seattle’s defense is what is generally called a “4-3 Under’’ front, using four defensive linemen and three linebackers. Under means the four linemen are typically aligned away from the offense’s strong side (where the tight end lines up) with a linebacker stationed on the line of scrimmage on the strong side.

The secondary, meanwhile, relies heavily on what is called “Cover Three” or three-deep zone — three defensive backs splitting coverage into three sections.

Source: http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seahawks/defense-101-understanding-how-the-seahawks-play/

The only reason why I asked was that Tiki Barber and his co-host just the other day were talking about how Seattle ran the Tampa 2 and I guess they did a few years ago.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/176651-the-anatomy-of-a-tampa-2-defense

 

[007]

One thing that is essential is a LB that can drop in coverage and cover the middle third of the field. Looks like Ruff will be the guy to do that, perhaps.

The Mike in a base cover 2 is one of the most demanding positions of any scheme. Who knows if Ruff will be able to run with inside vertical coverage. I would guess, no matter who the Mike is next season, we will see situational/3rd down substitutions to coverage SS types at the MIke, and concede interior rushing yardage in an attempt to get the D off the field.

 

[Crusty]

The Mike in a base cover 2 is one of the most demanding positions of any scheme. Who knows if Ruff will be able to run with inside vertical coverage. I would guess, no matter who the Mike is next season, we will see situational/3rd down substitutions to coverage SS types at the MIke, and concede interior rushing yardage in an attempt to get the D off the field.

He is big and very fast so I figure he is the leading candidate. I think we will be playing 4-2-5 against spread teams.

 

[sufandu]

One thing that is essential is a LB that can drop in coverage and cover the middle third of the field. Looks like Ruff will be the guy to do that, perhaps.

A concern of mine is that we'll be too conservative rushing 4 guys most of the time and never get pressure on the quarterback. I with we could keep our aggressive style defense to go with our new aggressive offense.

 

[Ottoble]

A concern of mine is that we'll be too conservative rushing 4 guys most of the time and never get pressure on the quarterback. I with we could keep our aggressive style defense to go with our new aggressive offense.

I think its a conditioning thing aggressive D runs a ton of energy, if you play fast on O your D needs to be able to sustain. Tampa 2 you rush 4 or 5 normally sometimes 6 and everyone else hangs back in zone keeping everything in front of you, expending less energy but allowing your opponent to make mistakes because they have to run and properly execute so many more short plays to move the ball.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

I think its a conditioning thing aggressive D runs a ton of energy, if you play fast on O your D needs to be able to sustain. Tampa 2 you rush 4 or 5 normally sometimes 6 and everyone else hangs back in zone keeping everything in front of you, expending less energy but allowing your opponent to make mistakes because they have to run and properly execute so many more short plays to move the ball.

It makes a lot of sense really.

 

[jgeorge322]

I'm certainly not an expert, but it has always seemed to me that for a tampa 2 to be really good you have to have a dominant disruptive d-line, something we've rarely had. The teams that ran it that I'm most familiar with are the Tampa Bay teams in the article and the Dungy Indianapolis teams. Tampa Bay had Warren Sapp and the Indianapolis teams had Mathis and Freeney. And even with Mathis and Freeney those Indianapolis teams seemed to always be soft up the middle, relying on the offense to get a lead so that teams would have to throw to get back in it and allow Mathis/Freeney to pin their ears back. As excited as I am about having a hyper-aggressive offense, I'm disappointed that it sounds like we're going to sit back in a bend but don't break defense. The article mentions that there is room to get creative out of it. I hope we see some of that.

The way bullough called the plays this yeae, you could argue we were soft as well. The only time he ever got aggressive (only corner blitz i can recall all year) was second half versus clemson. I thibk bullough was a huge downgrade playing calls from scott and was very surprised how conservative we became this year while teams simply shredded us.

 

[RF2044]

"While they may not blow anyone away in yards allowed in a T2, touchdown rates, turnover rates and 3rd down stops are overwhelmingly in favor of this defense."


THAT would be a welcome change. 3rd and long has been our achilles heel for a LONG time.

 

[MSOrange]

"While they may not blow anyone away in yards allowed in a T2, touchdown rates, turnover rates and 3rd down stops are overwhelmingly in favor of this defense."


THAT would be a welcome change. 3rd and long has been our achilles heel for a LONG time.

So true. It's almost gotten to the point where I feel better about a 3rd and 2 or 3 than a 3rd and 12.