Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

good fox sports article on cover 2


scpanther22

Recommended Posts

yea it would, as long as the players don't let the soft spots get exploited.

yea the 2 weak points of the cover 2 is covering TEs and a power running game...tampa now has the TE and ATL has the power run game..lol

but a lot of what i have read sounds like we have the right people to make this a very good def..i will enjoy seeing the type of players we will draft.

the only thing i dont like is the small linemen...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yea the 2 weak points of the cover 2 is covering TEs and a power running game...tampa now has the TE and ATL has the power run game..lol

but a lot of what i have read sounds like we have the right people to make this a very good def..i will enjoy seeing the type of players we will draft.

the only thing i dont like is the small linemen...

Small linemen isn't an essential in the Cover 2. That's just the way the Colts ran it for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Important.

Also can be fairly effective against a pass heavy offense like the Saints.

Good article and I agree with your point Mr. Scot. My concern about the Tampa 2 was pointed out at the end of the write-up. Since the Tampa 2 is design to stop the pass, it is particulary vulnerable against a power running game (as we demonstrated in our 2nd matchup against the Bucs).

If Meeks is allowed to run a true Tampa 2 coverage scheme in Carolina (and I have no problem with this defensive philosophy), where will this leave us in the run game with a defensive line that's in flux? The Falcons and Bucs both employ power runnning schemes. Since the scheme relies more on speed, what can be done to ensure that we our strong in our run and pass D?

I think you may have answered my question in your reply to scpanthers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small linemen isn't an essential in the Cover 2. That's just the way the Colts ran it for a while.

This is true. Bill Polian seem to elude to this in the Gaston Gazette's article when Meeks was hired. He had a lot of good things to say about Meeks as a coach and a person, but more to the point, he indicated that Meeks was limited by the personnel they had. I'm sure he was referring to their defensive line, among other things. They had a very strong pass D, but their run D was suspect. If we can acquire size and athleticism on the DL, to complement the coverage scheme, our D will be tough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cover 2, tampa 2, 2x2, or whatever 2

it masks a weak pass rush.

with the personnel that the panthers have right now, the line can focus on the run, while the secondary can contain the pass..and even buy time for the line to rush the passer.

hello johnson and taylor. this is just what the doctor ordered.

my only knock on taylor is he was hurt a lot for a backup...i think he will still be a backup next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personnel dictates how the scheme is run. While we will certainly acquire new guys, too many of the remaining guys are too large to run the 'undersized' variant of the Cover 2 effectively.

For that reason, I don't see us going 'Tampa 2'.

The Herald is reporting that it will be a tampa 2 variant. That's from Beason himself. Said he would need the mental reps from Practice and Pre-season because of the increased responsibilities that he has in the new tampa 2 defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...