The myth of the Bills Cover-2

[Kelly the Dog]

Since it is brought up here so many times it needs its own thread. There should be a moratorium on saying anything resembling "CBs aren't as important in the Cover-2".

 

It comes from the idea that in a cover-2 a CB only covers one-quarter of the field. So he is equally important as any other member of the secondary. And he can be avoided if he is good.

 

The Bills don't play that Cover-2.

 

During the bye week, the Bills changed the defense and had Nate cover the other teams #1 receiver, no matter where he lined up. It improved the pass defense dramatically, and had as much effect on the team's upswing as the swapping of the OL. Up to that point, our pass defense was often getting shredded. After that point, as Lori aptly pointed out, the team had as many INTs as it did TDs against it. Nate and Schobel were easily the team's defensive MVPs.

 

So the idea that CBs are not as important in the Cover 2 because they only play one side and you can gameplan and avoid good corners is nonsense in this case and doesn't apply to the Bills.

 

Carry on.

[obie_wan]

Since it is brought up here so many times it needs its own thread. There should be a moratorium on saying anything resembling "CBs aren't as important in the Cover-2".

 

It comes from the idea that in a cover-2 a CB only covers one-quarter of the field. So he is equally important as any other member of the secondary. And he can be avoided if he is good.

 

The Bills don't play that Cover-2.

 

During the bye week, the Bills changed the defense and had Nate cover the other teams #1 receiver, no matter where he lined up. It improved the pass defense dramatically, and had as much effect on the team's upswing as the swapping of the OL. Up to that point, our pass defense was often getting shredded. After that point, as Lori aptly pointed out, the team had as many INTs as it did TDs against it. Nate and Schobel were easily the team's defensive MVPs.

 

So the idea that CBs are not as important in the Cover 2 because they only play one side and you can gameplan and avoid good corners is nonsense in this case and doesn't apply to the Bills.

 

Carry on.

 

Unless the Bills braintrust is committed to returning to play the cover-2 as it is designed to be played.

 

Maybe the shortcoming in the first half of last season was due to breaking in the 2 rookies safeties.

 

maybe the LBs sucked in pass coverage

 

maybe the DL wasn't up to speed with constantly attacking the backfield.

 

maybe they feel resouces would be better spent on the fromt 7 and not on the corners - just like Bill Parcells, especially in a defense designed to minimize the talent needed at CB.

[34-78-83]

Since it is brought up here so many times it needs its own thread. There should be a moratorium on saying anything resembling "CBs aren't as important in the Cover-2".

 

It comes from the idea that in a cover-2 a CB only covers one-quarter of the field. So he is equally important as any other member of the secondary. And he can be avoided if he is good.

 

The Bills don't play that Cover-2.

 

During the bye week, the Bills changed the defense and had Nate cover the other teams #1 receiver, no matter where he lined up. It improved the pass defense dramatically, and had as much effect on the team's upswing as the swapping of the OL. Up to that point, our pass defense was often getting shredded. After that point, as Lori aptly pointed out, the team had as many INTs as it did TDs against it. Nate and Schobel were easily the team's defensive MVPs.

 

So the idea that CBs are not as important in the Cover 2 because they only play one side and you can gameplan and avoid good corners is nonsense in this case and doesn't apply to the Bills.

 

Carry on.

 

Well described Mr. ! This should clear it up for everyone who didn't yet realize the mid-season change that the Bills implemented.

[Fewell733]

no matter what defense you're playing you need cornerbacks that can cover good receivers. The cover 2 defense offers help deep so it does diminish the value of the team to a guy that is a "lockdown" type corner like Champ Bailey who can single cover the length of the field against anyone. Clements thinks he's that guy and he'll probably be paid like it - I'm not so sure he really is that guy though.

Generally you're right I think though - you need good cornerbacks - but their skill set need not be the same as those "lock down" types - but more like Winfield, Ronde Barber, and Harper in Indy. Good instincts guys that are good tacklers but maybe not guys you want to always leave on an island.

[Ozymandius]

I agree with you that Clements was as important as anyone on the team last year. I'm frustrated that the Bills, by not franchising Clements, are apparently opting to go back to the true Cover-2 that they had to dump midway through last season to improve the defense. I just hope they follow through and don't take half-measures. If they're going back to a true Cover-2, then they need to improve the passrush. Use that #1 pick on a lineman, not a corner. Otherwise, they'll be undermining their own plan and evaluation. If CB is not important enough to franchise Clements, then it's also not important enough to waste a #12 overall draft pick on, and this is before even considering the lackluster crop of CBs this year at the top.

[Mikie2times]

Since it is brought up here so many times it needs its own thread. There should be a moratorium on saying anything resembling "CBs aren't as important in the Cover-2".

 

It comes from the idea that in a cover-2 a CB only covers one-quarter of the field. So he is equally important as any other member of the secondary. And he can be avoided if he is good.

 

The Bills don't play that Cover-2.

 

During the bye week, the Bills changed the defense and had Nate cover the other teams #1 receiver, no matter where he lined up. It improved the pass defense dramatically, and had as much effect on the team's upswing as the swapping of the OL. Up to that point, our pass defense was often getting shredded. After that point, as Lori aptly pointed out, the team had as many INTs as it did TDs against it. Nate and Schobel were easily the team's defensive MVPs.

 

So the idea that CBs are not as important in the Cover 2 because they only play one side and you can gameplan and avoid good corners is nonsense in this case and doesn't apply to the Bills.

 

Carry on.

I'll agree with you

 

I've been saying the same thing for a while. Coverage wise we dumped the cover 2 at the midway point. With the way McGee played zone we needed to. To say I'm concerned about next year’s strategy would be understatement.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

I'll agree with you

 

I've been saying the same thing for a while. Coverage wise we dumped the cover 2 at the midway point. With the way McGee played zone we needed to. To say I'm concerned about next year’s strategy would be understatement.

It all lies in the pass rush. Get a real pass rushing DE on the left side, get John McCargo back, get Kyle Williams closer to his potential, get a real nosetackle to replace Tim Anderson in the rotation...and the Tampa 2 will work, making Nate Clements quite expendable.

 

Its not that you can have "bad" corners...its just that guys like Nate Clements who can cover top tier recievers 1-on-1 are less valuable to us, for the reason that they're rarely asked to do so. You can get by with slightly bigger, slightly slower, smart, good-tackling cornerbacks. Youboty may be a fit.

[Mikie2times]

It all lies in the pass rush. Get a real pass rushing DE on the left side, get John McCargo back, get Kyle Williams closer to his potential, get a real nosetackle to replace Tim Anderson in the rotation...and the Tampa 2 will work, making Nate Clements quite expendable.

 

Its not that you can have "bad" corners...its just that guys like Nate Clements who can cover top tier recievers 1-on-1 are less valuable to us, for the reason that they're rarely asked to do so. You can get by with slightly bigger, slightly slower, smart, good-tackling cornerbacks. Youboty may be a fit.

I don't disagree but did you see McGee play zone last year? The man was picked on more then a thong.

[gobillsinytown]

I think the mid season adjustment shows good flexibility on the part of the coaching staff, in that they're willing to modify the scheme to fit the particular abilities of their players.

One thing that's been forgotten in this discussion: The linebackers need to be able to cover in this defense as well, particularly the

MLB. I think the decision on Nate is purely financial, and it makes sense. If Nate's going to be the top FA this year, he's going to get a lot of $$ from some owner who doesn't know any better. Not that Nate's a bad corner, but I don't think he's another Champ Bailey. Until they work out the specifics of revenue sharing (if they ever do), Ralph's going to stick with "cash to the cap". I think it can be done. Aquiring FA's for the sake of it doesn't work. Here in Youngstown, OH there is constant talk about how all of the Browns' big name aquisitions have been busts. They always stimulate a lot of excitement during the off-season but don't translate to success on the field. They seem to sacrifice other aspects of their organization for big-splash FA's. Recently it was discovered that their medical facilities were infected with some type of staph bacteria. There's also been a lot of criticism of the strength and conditioning people. Every year they seem to lose a lot of players to injury in training camp, and some think it's because of improper hydration and stretching before practice, or a bad playing surface. It may or may not be true, but the Browns are a prime example of poor free agent spending.

[LynchMob23]

And keep in mind that most Cover-2 teams with the exception of Tampa Bay and Indy use the Cover 2 only 30-40% at the time. So, whether we retain Nate or not, the Tampa 2 won't be played exclusively; that will just be where we hang our hat scheme-wise.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

I don't disagree but did you see McGee play zone last year? The man was picked on more then a thong.

 

He was also picked on a lot in man coverage--i.e., getting fades lofted over his head in the endzone.

 

McGee is my current favorite Bill--but he had a rough first half of the season last year.

[DrDawkinstein]

ive never bought into this whole "you dont need good players at certain positions because of the scheme" BS. i understand that its not smart to invest heavily in players that are at the less-needed spots. But i will never buy into "we will be better with less talent on the field".

 

what happens when Fewell takes a different coaching job next year and we bring in a new DC with his own scheme, or go back to Jauron's scheme? and we have AVERAGE corners since we were so sure we would never need good ones.

 

all we need is for Fewell to leave and all of a sudden, letting Nate walk looks like a Pat Williams type move.

[Dr. Trooth]

cb, de, lb... whatever position, are always important. It's the type of defense you play that dictates what attributes you require at each position. 3-4, 4-3, flex, 2-deep, read & react, attack, zone blitz all have little nuances that require a different skill set. A player like Shawn Merriman may not be as effective in a 4-3 read & react type defense as he would be in a 3-4 attacking defense. And, I thought nate Clements played better a couple of years ago when they playyed the SS in the box than he did this season... another reason why he became expendable... perhaps his skills are not best matched up with Fewell's defensivve philosophy.

[billybob]

I think the mid season adjustment shows good flexibility on the part of the coaching staff, in that they're willing to modify the scheme to fit the particular abilities of their players.

One thing that's been forgotten in this discussion: The linebackers need to be able to cover in this defense as well, particularly the

MLB. I think the decision on Nate is purely financial, and it makes sense. If Nate's going to be the top FA this year, he's going to get a lot of $$ from some owner who doesn't know any better. Not that Nate's a bad corner, but I don't think he's another Champ Bailey. Until they work out the specifics of revenue sharing (if they ever do), Ralph's going to stick with "cash to the cap". I think it can be done. Aquiring FA's for the sake of it doesn't work. Here in Youngstown, OH there is constant talk about how all of the Browns' big name aquisitions have been busts. They always stimulate a lot of excitement during the off-season but don't translate to success on the field. They seem to sacrifice other aspects of their organization for big-splash FA's. Recently it was discovered that their medical facilities were infected with some type of staph bacteria. There's also been a lot of criticism of the strength and conditioning people. Every year they seem to lose a lot of players to injury in training camp, and some think it's because of improper hydration and stretching before practice, or a bad playing surface. It may or may not be true, but the Browns are a prime example of poor free agent spending.

Forget about FAs the Browns are just cursed- look at some of their drafts if they didn't have bad luck they'd have no luck.

[BillsVet]

Sports Illustrated had an excellent article about the Cover 2 back in November. Within the article, the writer identified the Bears as probably running it 40-50 percent of the time. It's very flexible and requires certain personnel to make it as efficient as possible. Here is another separate article I found to be helpful:

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writ....two/index.html

 

 

I just find it strange that the Tampa 2 demands physical corners. We have one in Buffalo, but will he be around in Year 2 of the Jauron era? We'll have to wait until at least 2 March when FA begins.

[Nanker]

The need for talent is the myth the NFL doesn't want you to know about.

All you need is 11 players on the field for every play.

Find 'em somewhere and put them out there.

Coaching is overrated too.