Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Are our CBs Cover 2 players?

34 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

I would have thought our CBs are more man to man CBs but I do think they fair better in the bump and run. Thoughts........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Do you have generously paid CBs in a cover 2 D? I thought that you could get them cheaper, so I am a touch confused at why we have signed up Gamble to a what should be a man coveage CB's contract...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Well seeing as how they have never played in a Cover 2 defense for their entire tenure in Carolina, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

we NEVER bump anyone at the line. ever. they're going to have to learn that if a Cover 2 scheme is going to be effective. Gamble can hang with receivers, but if Lucas comes up to the line to bump someone they'll probably run right past him.

all i know is that we got called for 1 pass interference call last year and that's just pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It is harder to play man to man that be a Cover 2 corner. Our guys will be able to adapt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

do you mean tampa 2 corners?

in that case lucas is. maybe marshall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Perhaps this is the wrong question.

They have similar philosophy's, so instead of assuming the DC will take over the defense, he will just be calling Fox's defense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I know it doesn't really pertain to this thread but when our defense was actually good a few years ago, was Fox more involved or less involved than he was this past season? It would be interesting to make a comparison instead of assuming Fox will make Meeks his other hand puppet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='bleys']Perhaps this is the wrong question.

They have similar philosophy's, so instead of assuming the DC will take over the defense, he will just be calling Fox's defense?[/quote]

The scheme probably won't be altered significantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='magnus']The scheme probably won't be altered significantly.[/quote]

It could be a combination of both...




We have no idea what it'll be, but I could see it being eerily similiar.

Then again, I could see variations...


None of us know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Definitely, no way to know for certain. My guess is we'll see some of the nosetackle/under tackle stuff from the Tampa 2 front, we'll stay one-gap, and we'll play zone.

Which I'm fine with. We started out a cover 2 shell team until we started working the cover 3 more in 03, and then after the pass interference changes after 2003 we were one of the teams (including most of the league) that abandoned the cover 2 and got real corners.

Actually, to be terribly specific, the Tampa 2 is a three deep coverage where the safeties are the sideline thirds, the MLB is a deep drop centerfield, and the corners play under with the two OLB. It's not a two deep at all. At least, that's the most common call from it. We've run a cover-3 shell with either one safety up or one corner playing under, so it's not terribly different, Fox just disguises coverages more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='uncfan888']we NEVER bump anyone at the line. ever. they're going to have to learn that if a Cover 2 scheme is going to be effective. Gamble can hang with receivers, but if Lucas comes up to the line to bump someone they'll probably run right past him.

all i know is that we got called for 1 pass interference call last year and that's just pathetic.[/quote]

hmmm... last i remeber, lucas was a stud when we played man and bump coverage. it was 1995, but still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='chris999']hmmm... last i remeber, lucas was a stud when we played man and bump coverage. it was 1995, but still.[/quote]



Wait, you're saying Lucas played for the Panthers in 1995?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='bleys']It could be a combination of both...




We have no idea what it'll be, but I could see it being eerily similiar.

Then again, I could see variations...


None of us know.[/quote]

I don't think that a coordinator runs a scheme that differs from what the head coach runs when they are both defensive guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I hope the Panthers are not thinking of playing Tampa 2 defense. Tampa 2 is terrible at stopping the run, especially teams that play-action pass. Also it's easier to complete short passes against Tampa 2, but harder to complete long passes.

I'll give you an example of how teams attack our Cover 2. Let's take Chis Harris for example. He has a zone to defend in the deep half of the field. So our oppontent will line up 2 WRs on his side of the field. The WR to the outside runs a go route and ends up on the far left side of Harris' zone. The WR on the inside runs an out route and ends up on the far right side of Harris' zone. Harris can't defend both WRs. Our Cover 2 is designed to make teams attack us deep. The idea being that our front 4 will kill the QB before the WRs get to our Safeties and soft spots. We just didn't have a good pass rush this year.

Tampa 2 is designed to take the pressure off the Safeties and force the opposing team the throw short. Tampa 2 is NOT good against the short pass or play action runs up the middle. But the Tampa 2 is much better against deep passes than Cover 2. If we play Tampa 2, then teams will attack Diggs by sending a TE and WR on quick slants into his zone. Or worse, the TE will run a short curl route right near Diggs, while a WR runs a slant route through his zone. NOT GOOD. If Diggs takes the TE, then the WR will burn the trailing CB alive. If Diggs takes the WR, then the TE will be wide open and they will 'dink and dunk' us all day. I don't like Tampa 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='pantherj']I hope the Panthers are not thinking of playing Tampa 2 defense. Tampa 2 is terrible at stopping the run, especially teams that play-action pass. Also it's easier to complete short passes against Tampa 2, but harder to complete long passes.

I'll give you an example of how teams attack our Cover 2. Let's take Chis Harris for example. He has a zone to defend in the deep half of the field. So our oppontent will line up 2 WRs on his side of the field. The WR to the outside runs a go route and ends up on the far left side of Harris' zone. The WR on the inside runs an out route and ends up on the far right side of Harris' zone. Harris can't defend both WRs. Our Cover 2 is designed to make teams attack us deep. The idea being that our front 4 will kill the QB before the WRs get to our Safeties and soft spots. We just didn't have a good pass rush this year.

Tampa 2 is designed to take the pressure off the Safeties and force the opposing team the throw short. Tampa 2 is NOT good against the short pass or play action runs up the middle. But the Tampa 2 is much better against deep passes than Cover 2. If we play Tampa 2, then teams will attack Diggs by sending a TE and WR on quick slants into his zone. Or worse, the TE will run a short curl route right near Diggs, while a WR runs a slant route through his zone. NOT GOOD. If Diggs takes the TE, then the WR will burn the trailing CB alive. If Diggs takes the WR, then the TE will be wide open and they will 'dink and dunk' us all day. I don't like Tampa 2.[/quote]

Execution is a lot different than theoretics. Theoretically you'd think Tampa-2 is bad against the Pass because the short pass is usually open, however, they're usually better against the Pass. Why? Because they don't run Tampa 2 coverage all the time. yes they run it the majority of the time, but that's the thing, Running a Tampa 2 tricks offenses into thinking they'll be in that coverage most of the time, so when you mix it up, it catches them off guard. Especially when you force teams to start showing a tendency. It usually pays off. People point out how the colts d was bad against the run, and how Tampa's run D collapsed. But those aren't always the cases, the players make a difference, Indy lacked a D-Tackle that year they traded for McFarland. When we ran over Tampa, Jovan Haye was out. Ideally, when Bob Sanders came back for Indy, it balanced out the lack of Interior help. Although we probably won't be a true Tampa-2 team, I think the package will still be there. Of course this is just pure speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Seamonk']Execution is a lot different than theoretics. Theoretically you'd think Tampa-2 is bad against the Pass because the short pass is usually open, however, they're usually better against the Pass. Why? Because they don't run Tampa 2 coverage all the time. yes they run it the majority of the time, but that's the thing, Running a Tampa 2 tricks offenses into thinking they'll be in that coverage most of the time, so when you mix it up, it catches them off guard. Especially when you force teams to start showing a tendency. It usually pays off. People point out how the colts d was bad against the run, and how Tampa's run D collapsed. But those aren't always the cases, the players make a difference, Indy lacked a D-Tackle that year they traded for McFarland. When we ran over Tampa, Jovan Haye was out. Ideally, when Bob Sanders came back for Indy, it balanced out the lack of Interior help. Although we probably won't be a true Tampa-2 team, I think the package will still be there. Of course this is just pure speculation.[/quote]


So Tampa-2 is good as a decoy? Ah yes Jovan Haye... now why does that name sound familiar? It was funny when the Bears were mugging to try and stop our running game. Even funnier when Tampa was obliterated. Now if you have the talent, yes Tampa-2 can be great. Like the 02' Bucs. Good Lord. Warren Sapp, Simeon Rice, John Lynch, those guys were outstanding and they made Tampa-2 work. When you have Sapp up the middle and Rice around the edge you can kick some ass. We've got Lewis... :( :nonod:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='pantherj']So Tampa-2 is good as a decoy? Ah yes Jovan Haye... now why does that name sound familiar? It was funny when the Bears were mugging to try and stop our running game. Even funnier when Tampa was obliterated. Now if you have the talent, yes Tampa-2 can be great. Like the 02' Bucs. Good Lord. Warren Sapp, Simeon Rice, John Lynch, those guys were outstanding and they made Tampa-2 work. When you have Sapp up the middle and Rice around the edge you can kick some ass. We've got Lewis... :( :nonod:[/quote]




A better Tampa 2 to describe is the Bears with Lovie Smith. Even if we go to a sole Tampa 2 and I dont think we will we have the line to do it cause basically Fox has loved the 2 deep coverage for a long time. Im not sure how it gonna work out but we have the players to do it. I would also like to say that zone is not always employed in the cover 2 or Tampa 2. It just lends its self to have 2 deep all the time to defend the deep ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Anyway, back to the original topic. Our CBs can be cover 2, they just need to learn the zone concepts better. I doubt we'll be Cover 2 or Tampa 2, it's already been announced by Hurney that we're to stick with 4-3 base defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='uncfan888']
all i know is that we got called for 1 pass interference call last year and that's just pathetic.[/quote]

No, we were called for three, only one was accepted. Even three is a very low number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Peppers90 NC']No, we were called for three, only one was accepted. Even three is a very low number.[/quote]

I'd like to see how many times our secondary had blown coverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

We play a lot of Cover 2 now, shouldn't be much of a change for anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Jackofalltrades']We play a lot of Cover 2 now, shouldn't be much of a change for anyone.[/quote]

That's what I thought, I thought we played a lot of cover 2 because I remember articles about it last year but I couldn't find the article that said it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='pantherj']I'd like to see how many times our secondary had blown coverage.[/quote]

We will never know that, unless you have access to coaches tape. We werent beat deep too many times this year, really a low number but blown coverages arent limited to deep plays. Other teams were able to have long drives to score on us which is the bend but dont break defense that gets worn out.

I think our corners could play cover two, but there are different variations with man under or different zones, not all press playing the flats. It refers to the safeties both playing deep. It was Dungy's scheme, not necessarily means Meeks will enforce it.

I think the question should be can the rest of the defense handle that scheme?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Marshall yes, Gamble yes, Lucas no. Tampa 2 doesn't require great speed, but it requires sound tackling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites