Is the Cover 2 the best way to a Superbowl?

[Dan]

I think I asked this the other day, as part of another thread; and can't for the life of me remember the thread. So rather than check every post, I thought I'd re-ask with a little more behind it...

 

It seems like if I were a newly hired GM, one of the first things I'd think about is; How do we get to and win a Superbowl. It then follows, logically, that I would pull some statistics and determine what offensive and defensive systems were run by all Superbowl attendees (winners and losers) and then try to implement the most common style. Of course, I'd also look at other key elements, such as type of QB, Coach, draft histories, etc. And, again, try to mimic that most successful approach(es).

 

So, the other day, I asked... other than TB, has any other team got to the Superbowl running the Cover2?

 

Now I'm no GM, of course (and I'm not in any way second guessing Marv). So, rather than do all the tedious research and analysis, I'm taking the lazy route and asking TSW Braintrust. With all that in mind, I ask:

 

What has been the most successful offensive and defensive systems? In other words, what's the most common road to the Superbowl? And ultimately, are we on the right track.?

 

(To add my own opinion: I'm not yet sold on the Cover 2, never have been; and really have no idea what style of offense we're running or trying to run. However, for the first time in years, I do feel optimistic about our future.)

[MavBavButav]

I am a 5 time superbowl champ in my madden franchise and i use a combinatin of 3-4, 4-3, and 46. I also frequently use the cover 2 and also do a lot of cornerback blitzes. Sometimes i just let madden pick my play...i wonder if he would just let fairchild and perry do that...

 

I'm also big on goaline defense in obvious run situations. Unless you're playing good players, like my cousin, and they audible out of it. I'm sure we could pull that on Saban a few time before he gets the hang of it, being his first year of coaching and all. It took my cousin until madden 99 to figure it out. (we started in 94)

 

Now that we're on the topic, i mostly draft for speed. no lower than 95 for the most part. Like madden says, you can't teach it. If we can get everyone of our players to run with 95 speed (don't know what the 40 time equivalent is) minus offensive and defensive lineman, i think we'd be AWESOME!

 

Now that we're talking about speed. We should have Lee Evans line up at RB for like 3 or 4 games and test it out. I think he could outrun a lot of people on his way to like 200 yards per game.

 

I really think we should do at least 3 or 4 ALL OUT BLITZES a game. I wish they had them in madden. I'd choose them all the time.

 

Oh yeah. and safety blitzes. and corner blitzes.

 

By the way, who do you guys control on defense? I used to control the right defensive end. But now i've switched to the free safety. I think i just grew up wanting to control Bruce (since i'm always the bills) and it just became habit.

 

Oh yeah...the play "Post Corner" works EVERY TIME. It's been my go-to-play for years.

[BuffOrange]

I am a 5 time superbowl champ in my madden franchise and i use a combinatin of 3-4, 4-3, and 46.  I also frequently use the cover 2 and also do a lot of cornerback blitzes.  Sometimes i just let madden pick my play...i wonder if he would just let fairchild and perry do that...

 

I'm also big on goaline defense in obvious run situations.  Unless you're playing good players, like my cousin, and they audible out of it.  I'm sure we could pull that on Saban a few time before he gets the hang of it, being his first year of coaching and all.  It took my cousin until madden 99 to figure it out. (we started in 94)

 

Now that we're on the topic, i mostly draft for speed.  no lower than 95 for the most part.  Like madden says, you can't teach it.  If we can get everyone of our players to run with 95 speed (don't know what the 40 time equivalent is) minus offensive and defensive lineman, i think we'd be AWESOME!

 

Now that we're talking about speed.  We should have Lee Evans line up at RB for like 3 or 4 games and test it out.  I think he could outrun a lot of people on his way to like 200 yards per game.

 

I really think we should do at least 3 or 4 ALL OUT BLITZES a game.  I wish they had them in madden.  I'd choose them all the time.

 

Oh yeah.  and safety blitzes.  and corner blitzes.

 

By the way, who do you guys control on defense?  I used to control the right defensive end.  But now i've switched to the free safety.  I think i just grew up wanting to control Bruce (since i'm always the bills) and it just became habit.

 

Oh yeah...the play "Post Corner" works EVERY TIME.  It's been my go-to-play for years.

858249[/snapback]

 

I like controlling the safties myself.

[Dibs]

......It then follows, logically, that I would pull some statistics and determine what offensive and defensive systems were run by all Superbowl attendees (winners and losers) and then try to implement the most common style......

858236[/snapback]

Not exactly.

Logically you would ask to find which percent of O & D systems achieved Superbowl attendee status.

For simplicity, let's say there are 3 types of Defence. A, B & C. Over the last 10 years say....

Type A was used by 15 teams

Type B was used by 15 teams

Type C was used by 2 teams

In ten superbowls.....

Type A won 4

Type B won 5

Type C won 1

Which defence statistically is the most successful?

Type C is.

Even though type B won 50% of the Superbowls....only 33% of the teams employing that Defence won the superbowl in ten years.

50% of type C won in the ten year span.

The percentages are much greater when comparing each Defence to all the other Defences.

 

In real life terms.....the Cover 2 Defence(per capita) has had by far more success than any other Defensive scheme in the last decade. Only the Bucs, Bears & Colts have used it extensively with the Bucs winning the lot & the Bears now the #1 defence(& consistent QB play away from potentially winning this year). That's 2 great Defences formed out of 3.....rather than looking at the rest of the league of about 5 great defences out of 29.

 

It's simple mathematics......though it does not guarantee we will succeed(we could end up with the Colts D)....statistically, it shows a far greater chance of success(assuming the status quo).

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

It's simple mathematics......though it does not guarantee we will succeed(we could end up with the Colts D)....statistically, it shows a far greater chance of success(assuming the status quo).

858306[/snapback]

I'd say our odds go up because its Jauron and Fewell operating the defense, and they've had great success with it in the past already. If we give them time I believe they make this thing work.

[Dibs]

I'd say our odds go up because its Jauron and Fewell operating the defense, and they've had great success with it in the past already. If we give them time I believe they make this thing work.

858307[/snapback]

I also feel the Colts have too much of their $$$ tied up in the offence & not enough in the defence.....how many decent/good LBs have they let go in the last 6 years?....with another one(2?) next off-season....not to mention Tripplett. The Colts IMO have not committed to having a first class D & their cover 2 suffers because of it.

[Dan]

Not exactly.

Logically you would ask to find which percent of O & D systems achieved Superbowl attendee status.

For simplicity, let's say there are 3 types of Defence.  A, B & C.  Over the last 10 years say....

Type A was used by 15 teams

Type B was used by 15 teams

Type C was used by 2 teams

In ten superbowls.....

Type A won 4

Type B won 5

Type C won 1

Which defence statistically is the most successful?

Type C is. 

Even though type B won 50% of the Superbowls....only 33% of the teams employing that Defence won the superbowl in ten years.

50% of type C won in the ten year span.

The percentages are much greater when comparing each Defence to all the other Defences.

 

In real life terms.....the Cover 2 Defence(per capita) has had by far more success than any other Defensive scheme in the last decade.  Only the Bucs, Bears & Colts have used it extensively with the Bucs winning the lot & the Bears now the #1 defence(& consistent QB play away from potentially winning this year).  That's 2 great Defences formed out of 3.....rather than looking at the rest of the league of about 5 great defences out of 29.

 

It's simple mathematics......though it does not guarantee we will succeed(we could end up with the Colts D)....statistically, it shows a far greater chance of success(assuming the status quo).

858306[/snapback]

I'm not sure I can agree with you. In the above example, you determine that Defense C is the best choice because of the percentage that run it and won the Superbowl. However, it seems like the margin of error would be greater. Essentially, I'd see that as a hit or miss system.

 

I'd think that Defence A or B would be better because 9 of the last 10 SB winners ran either of those systems. So, do you run one of the systems that won 90% of the Superbowls or the one that was successful 10% of the time?

 

To look at it another way, if multiple teams have used system B and won the Superbowl, perhaps that's an easier system to run. Therefore, it leads to more successful teams. System C seems like you have to have just the right combination of people in place to get it to work, because only 1 team has made it work. Therefore, wouldn't you want a system that's easier to implement and more likely to show positive results?

 

I'd also add, though, that I think you have to look at a few other variables. How long have the teams been in the system? Were there extenuating circumstances like injured players? Things such as that, but I think that's a little much to consider for this discussion.

 

Regarding the 3 teams that run it now, I think we have to consider the Colts and Bears as being unsuccessful. Although they're winning a ton of games and do well each year, the primary goal (in this scenario) is to get in the Superbowl. So, perhaps the Cover 2 is a great system. But, there a basic design flaw that can be exploited by good teams, when it matters the most; hence, they never make the Superbowl.

 

It's kinda like Shotty in SD. He's a great coach, always has a good competitive team. But, how many Superbowls has he gotten to, let alone win? Based on that, I'm not sure I'd want him coaching the Bills because the goal is not to just be a good team - its to be a good Superbowl team (something Marty has never produced).

[Dibs]

I'm not sure I can agree with you. In the above example, you determine that Defense C is the best choice because of the percentage that run it and won the Superbowl.  However, it seems like the margin of error would be greater.  Essentially, I'd see that as a hit or miss system.

 

I'd think that Defence A or B would be better because 9 of the last 10 SB winners ran either of those systems.  So, do you run one of the systems that won 90% of the Superbowls or the one that was successful 10% of the time?.....

858358[/snapback]

Mathematically you are incorrect in the way you are looking at the numbers here.

To perhaps show you more clearly I will just use numbers....not football.

System 1 is used by 90 teams

System 2 is used by 10 teams

In a ten year span(with 1 winner a year) you would expect....all things being equal that system 2 teams should have only 1 winner. If they ended with 3 winners, that would show that even though there were less wins(7 wins by system 1 teams)....system 2 would be a more successful system since 30% of their teams won as opposed to 8% of system 1 teams.

You are basically saying that since 7 of 10 were won by system 1 then it must be a better system. That mentality is wrong since 9 of 10 teams actually use system 1.

Do you understand the maths here? Teams that employ the Cover 2 defence have had a far, far, far greater statistical success over any other form of defensive system in recent times.

 

In regards to the Bear & Colts.....Colts are unsuccessful because their cover 2 defence sux.....Bears are successful since their cover 2 defence is the best defence in the league & if not for Grossmans collapse, they were easy favourites for this years superbowl.

 

Again.....2 of the 3 teams that have extensively used the cover 2 defence in the last decade have achieved DOMINATING defences. 1 of them won it.....1 of them still might....the 3rd might as well but is a failure re: the cover 2. Of the other 29 defences, only 5(ish) have achieved a DOMINATING defence.

That is.....

67% of cover 2 teams achieving DOMINATING defences

17% of other defences achieving DOMINATING defences.

[Dan]

Mathematically you are incorrect in the way you are looking at the numbers here.

To perhaps show you more clearly I will just use numbers....not football.

System 1 is used by 90 teams

System 2 is used by 10 teams

In a ten year span(with 1 winner a year) you would expect....all things being equal that system 2 teams should have only 1 winner.  If they ended with 3 winners, that would show that even though there were less wins(7 wins by system 1 teams)....system 2 would be a more successful system since 30% of their teams won as opposed to 8% of system 1 teams.

You are basically saying that since 7 of 10 were won by system 1 then it must be a better system.  That mentality is wrong since 9 of 10 teams actually use system 1.

Do you understand the maths here?  Teams that employ the Cover 2 defence have had a far, far, far greater statistical success over any other form of defensive system in recent times.

 

In regards to the Bear & Colts.....Colts are unsuccessful because their cover 2 defence sux.....Bears are successful since their cover 2 defence is the best defence in the league & if not for Grossmans collapse, they were easy favourites for this years superbowl.

 

Again.....2 of the 3 teams that have extensively used the cover 2 defence in the last decade have achieved DOMINATING defences.  1 of them won it.....1 of them still might....the 3rd might as well but is a failure re: the cover 2.  Of the other 29 defences, only 5(ish) have achieved a DOMINATING defence.

That is.....

67% of cover 2 teams achieving DOMINATING defences

17% of other defences achieving DOMINATING defences.

858371[/snapback]

I see your point and what you're saying. Me, not being a math wiz, I have to think a little and see how it settles in my simplistic brain.

 

On the surface, I want to agree with your math. However, there's something that's telling me we're missing something.

[JAMIEBUF12]

i don't think any defense is the best way to the superbowl.i prefer the 3-4 defense,but a 4-3 or 3-4 or cover 2 can all work if you have the right players playing in it.also it helps if the teams you are playing that season have the proper offense that you are attacking them with your defense.when tampa beat the raiders with the cover 2 the deck of cards were stacked.the cover 2 was built to stop a west coast type offense.that is what the raiders were playing with that year.it also helped that coach chucky was the raider head coach a year earlier.i know chucky is a offensive coach,but he still knew that team inside out to beat it.when the bears won with the 46 defense they were just nutty dominate,but had they played the "fish" that season in the superbowl they coulda been beat.the fish were the only team to beat them that season.well i hope we beat a west coast type team in the superbowl in the next few seasons being that is our base defense lol.go bills!

[Tasker]

The #1 thing we are missing is personnel.

 

I like Kyle Williams as a backup or in a rotation, but he isn't a stud, and I think that is a position we need to have a stud playing. We also have some learning from the linebackers, who are talented, but also dealt with the whole Spikes situation (hopefully over by training camp and back to the old TKO? Or broken for good?). Clearly our run defense is failing and a major concern. Will a healthy McCargo a healthier Spikes, and the whole team having a year of experience with the system help? Yes. But we might have to make some other personnel adjustments.

 

I'm hopeful about McCargo who the team thought very highly of, but I think one key is having one of the best football players on our team line up at DT next to Larry, and that hasn't been the case with Tim Anderson and Kyle Williams to this point. I think the system is definitely good enough to win championships, but it depends on the talent.

 

Right now Indy is struggling a lot against the run too, and we should probably take a look at what is working for the Bears and not for Indy to better understand it, because it's difficult to look at your own team and a team in the first year of a system and be objective enough.

[Dibs]

I see your point and what you're saying.  Me, not being a math wiz, I have to think a little and see how it settles in my simplistic brain. 

 

On the surface, I want to agree with your math.  However, there's something that's telling me we're missing something.

858376[/snapback]

Oh...I agree with the trepidation on your part. With such a small number of teams employing the cover 2, it would be easy for one teams success to give a totally misleading result. Basically the sample group is nowhere near large enough.

The encouraging thing is that there has been two successes which cuts down the chances of 'the single fluke'.

Also.....even if 90% of teams had success doing something.....we could always end up in the 10% that didn't.

 

I get the impression that since the cover 2 has a different philosophy to the traditional wide body in the middle....safety as your least useful position....it is hard to simply trust something new/different. Truth be told I don't trust it at all.....I don't assume it will fail either though. I figure that it has worked....and worked well....and worked well for our coaches before....so they have my patients for a few more seasons to see if we can succeed with it. If not.....I'm also hopeful the Offence is going to be star-studded(go JP...go Evens) enough...with superb special teams play......that it won't make too much difference.

[Coach Tuesday]

The problem ain't the scheme. We don't have the DTs to play ANY scheme. Period.

[Dibs]

The problem ain't the scheme.  We don't have the DTs to play ANY scheme.  Period.

858448[/snapback]

That's seems to be the instant mantra around here but I just don't buy it(though it may be the case). We rotate our DTs constantly therefore needing 4 solid DTs.

We have Tripplett....who seems to be coming on strong in the last 4 games or so.

We have Williams....who seems to be showing he can be the solid #2 guy & hopefully will be better with another year of adding some bulk & experience.

We have McCargo....who was 1st round talent who got injured. We simply cannot discard him, therefore cannot look to replace him until he shows things one way or the other.

That leaves Anderson.....who should be replaced.

That means 1 replacement will be needed in the off-season....with maybe some practice squad 'potential' added. That 1 replacement has to be a top player mind you but I cannot fathom us getting 2 top replacements next year at the DT position.

[silvermike]

The problem with the math is that we don't know whether cover 2 is successful, in and of itself, or if say, cover 2 was an effective way of using great talent. The Bears and the Bucs unquestionably had great talent. The Bills don't.

 

Compare it to the 46 defense. Roughly speaking, it's been used three times: the 85 Bears, the 00 Titans, and the 01 Bills. 2/3 teams in the Super Bowl - pretty good, right? The problem is that it requires profound talent to work properly. When we ran it, it was horrible. It has specific flaws that were exploited against the Bills, and faded when we ran a more conservative, 4-3 defense in 2003.

 

It's far too early to say anything useful about the Cover 2's success rates right now. We do know that it is effective with great personnel, and even though the Colts are struggling now, they had some decent years with it with relatively marginal talent. Their current defense is a failure because they have virtually no good players on defense besides Dwight Freeney. Like anything else, it's a case-by-case basis.

[Tasker]

That's seems to be the instant mantra around here but I just don't buy it(though it may be the case).  We rotate our DTs constantly therefore needing 4 solid DTs.

We have Tripplett....who seems to be coming on strong in the last 4 games or so.

We have Williams....who seems to be showing he can be the solid #2 guy & hopefully will be better with another year of adding some bulk & experience.

We have McCargo....who was 1st round talent who got injured.  We simply cannot discard him, therefore cannot look to replace him until he shows things one way or the other.

That leaves Anderson.....who should be replaced. 

That means 1 replacement will be needed in the off-season....with maybe some practice squad 'potential' added.  That 1 replacement has to be a top player mind you but I cannot fathom us getting 2 top replacements next year at the DT position.

858460[/snapback]

 

Tripplett...solid veteran

 

Williams...enjoyable spark, but hasn't really shown the ability to be an above average football player and is currently not doing a terrific job. Solid rotational backup maybe, but not an impact player

 

McCargo...absent and unknown, but I'm putting high expectations for him to be an impact player, otherwise he was picked too high

 

Anderson...not an impact player, and I will be kind and not elaborate.

 

Hargrove...not his position, but he has been fun on passing downs. I'd rather see him at end more next season where he belongs.

 

So we need a rotation of four, and we have 1 good and 1 backup and one not so great. Seems pretty clear this is a talent gap. Getting McCargo back at full strength and Kyle with a year's experience is good, but Anderson needs to be replaced, potentially with a high impact / high resource player. So in the end I agree that we only need 1 addition with a healthy McCargo, but that addition has to be a very good player, not just a plug in.