BillsVet Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 The Cover 2 is Buffalo's base defense, though not on every down and most around here understand that. What ought to worry Bills fans is the team yesterday could not execute the necessary elements of their base defense. Pressure on the QB is more important in a C2/T2 defense from the DL than in any other defense. With 3 LB's dropping into short zone coverage, that's all there is to make the passer uncomfortable. Any decent C2 defense must has bonafide pass rushers. Indy with Freeney, Chicago with Alex Brown, and Tampa Bay years ago with Simeon Rice et al. CB's in a C2 scheme must take responsibility in their zone. A C2 CB doesn't have to feature the pure speed like a man to man corner, but area quickness in a zone is paramount. They'll play off the LOS about 5-8 yards, and as in the Dallas game last year, yielded too much to a fine QB with excellent targets. Nothing changed from the first to fourth quarter there. Lastly, a C2 scheme is beaten when it gives up too many yards on the ground. The running game is the secret to beating a C2 defense. Arizona didn't destroy them, but meshed an effective ground game with a potent short passing game. The idea is to force teams to throw into the teeth of a zone. Yesterday, the zone was soft and the results were poor. I didn't expect Fewell to completely re-do his plan in the course of a quarter, half, or at the half. I did expect some tweaks, which didn't seem to occur. IMO, Fewell's had some huge lapses since becoming DC. I hope this is game was the exception and not the rule for his defense.
BillsVet Posted October 7, 2008 Author Posted October 7, 2008 I thought we were running a Cover 0? That's what it seemed like.
Captain Hindsight Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Actually the cover 2 is designed not to give up the big play and since the cards longest play was 18 yards it worked quite well
BillsVet Posted October 7, 2008 Author Posted October 7, 2008 Actually the cover 2 is designed not to give up the big play and since the cards longest play was 18 yards it worked quite well Arizona did everything they had to do in order to defeat the C2, and Buffalo had no answer. The goal is to win the game with a good defense. They lost the game. If that's an effective C2, then why do teams run the C2 to begin with? I can't help but recall the Indy-Buffalo game back in 2006. That day, the Bills defense played their safeties deep (both Simpson and Whitner were rookies) and Manning was forced underneath. He was accurate enough to make it hurt all day. In an all-too similar display, Peyton Manning didn't make the big pass, but completed 27 of 39 for 236 yards. Dominic Rhodes and Joseph Addai ran for a combined 148 yards, and the Bills lone score was a McGee INT return. The Cover 2 has weaknesses, which good offensive personnel can exploit. The other game in which the C2 worked was the 1999 NFC Title game, where St. Louis' high powered offense was extremely frustrated by Tony Dungy's T2 scheme. I'm sure Kurt Warner remembers all too well what the downside to a properly executed T2. That day, STL managed only 11 points after averaging nearly 33 ppg in the regular season. You've got to have the right personnel to run the C2. Excellent DE's. Quick DT's who can hold up at the LOS. CB's who have excellent short area quickness in a zone, and LB's who are able to to go into a zone and fast enough to move to the LOS on running plays. I dare say the Bills have many of those players. They're not playing well, at least on the whole. Part of it is coaches, part poor on-field play.
Sisyphean Bills Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Actually the cover 2 is designed not to give up the big play and since the cards longest play was 18 yards it worked quite well Are you being serious? The goal of any defense is to stop the opponent from scoring and get the ball back to the offense. A defense that let's an offense methodically matriculate the ball down the field for scores time and time again is actually the worst defense of all. It lets the opponent score and run huge chunks of time off the clock giving the team no chance at victory. By never taking any chances, the defense plays with one arm behind its own back and discards even the potential to make game changing defensive plays. Like an ostrich sticking its head in a hole hoping the bad thing goes away.
Sisyphean Bills Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Arizona did everything they had to do in order to defeat the C2, and Buffalo had no answer. The goal is to win the game with a good defense. They lost the game. If that's an effective C2, then why do teams run the C2 to begin with? I can't help but recall the Indy-Buffalo game back in 2006. That day, the Bills defense played their safeties deep (both Simpson and Whitner were rookies) and Manning was forced underneath. He was accurate enough to make it hurt all day. In an all-too similar display, Peyton Manning didn't make the big pass, but completed 27 of 39 for 236 yards. Dominic Rhodes and Joseph Addai ran for a combined 148 yards, and the Bills lone score was a McGee INT return. The Cover 2 has weaknesses, which good offensive personnel can exploit. The other game in which the C2 worked was the 1999 NFC Title game, where St. Louis' high powered offense was extremely frustrated by Tony Dungy's T2 scheme. I'm sure Kurt Warner remembers all too well what the downside to a properly executed T2. That day, STL managed only 11 points after averaging nearly 33 ppg in the regular season. You've got to have the right personnel to run the C2. Excellent DE's. Quick DT's who can hold up at the LOS. CB's who have excellent short area quickness in a zone, and LB's who are able to to go into a zone and fast enough to move to the LOS on running plays. I dare say the Bills have many of those players. They're not playing well, at least on the whole. Part of it is coaches, part poor on-field play. The Cover-2 is a very vanilla defense. It's a good defense to run when you jump out to a big lead or the other team's offense is fairly prone to self-inflicted hose-ups. If you are ahead, forcing the other team to march the length of the field slowly works to your advantage -- the clock runs fast and the game stays close or you can hang on. However, when the other team's offense has its A-game going, sitting in a vanilla defense is to their advantage. They can dictate run and pass at will, keep your defense on the field, burn the clock, and keep piling up points all while the Cover-2 is helpless to help itself.
Captain Hindsight Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Are you being serious? The goal of any defense is to stop the opponent from scoring and get the ball back to the offense. A defense that let's an offense methodically matriculate the ball down the field for scores time and time again is actually the worst defense of all. It lets the opponent score and run huge chunks of time off the clock giving the team no chance at victory. By never taking any chances, the defense plays with one arm behind its back own back and discards even the potential to make game changing defensive plays. Like an ostrich sticking its head in a hole hoping the bad thing goes away. No i wasnt sorry i thought the sarcasm would be picked up there
BADOLBILZ Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Actually the cover 2 is designed not to give up the big play and since the cards longest play was 18 yards it worked quite well Not give up the big play AND force teams to make mistakes. The Bills didn't force sh*t on the Cardinals.
JimmyPage Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 The Bills don't have a pass rush. To me it's just that simple. They needed a corner blitz or two during the game. Roll the dice, because otherwise Warner picks them apart anyways.
BillsVet Posted October 7, 2008 Author Posted October 7, 2008 We're back at the "good teams make fewer, if any mistakes" discussion. C2 defenses must force turnovers, and the Bills didn't do that either yesterday. Funny how Buffalo has a problem when playing good to excellent teams. The C2 matches DJ's personality to a T. He does not like being forced to take even calculated risks, and when confronted with a huge problem such as an opponent clicking on offense, hesitates to change. For a guy who's supposed to be a defensive minded coach, this year they acquired the players who'd make the defense better. The problems which weren't affecting the outcome of games in the first 4 games finally hurt them big time this past week. Time to go back to the drawing board and there's a reason the front office hasn't given him an extension. Brad Childress reminds me of DJ. Very methodical, resistant to change, and ultimately makes poor gameday decisions because he tries to be perfect. He can't process what's happening quick enough because he's too busy over-thinking things. BTW Sis Bills-nice Levy reference earlier.
Flbillsfan#1 Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 We're back at the "good teams make fewer, if any mistakes" discussion. C2 defenses must force turnovers, and the Bills didn't do that either yesterday. Funny how Buffalo has a problem when playing good to excellent teams. The C2 matches DJ's personality to a T. He does not like being forced to take even calculated risks, and when confronted with a huge problem such as an opponent clicking on offense, hesitates to change. For a guy who's supposed to be a defensive minded coach, this year they acquired the players who'd make the defense better. The problems which weren't affecting the outcome of games in the first 4 games finally hurt them big time this past week. Time to go back to the drawing board and there's a reason the front office hasn't given him an extension. Brad Childress reminds me of DJ. Very methodical, resistant to change, and ultimately makes poor gameday decisions because he tries to be perfect. He can't process what's happening quick enough because he's too busy over-thinking things. BTW Sis Bills-nice Levy reference earlier. Very good assessment of the cover 2 in your posts. The Bucs not only expect turnovers, but they expect their defense to SCORE TD's with the turnovers.
San-O Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Actually the cover 2 is designed not to give up the big play and since the cards longest play was 18 yards it worked quite well Yeah, that whole 41 point thing seemed to work out quite well also.
marauderswr80 Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 I hate the cover 2 D. Its a defense where you play not to lose. Play to win......cover 2 stinks.
Dan Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 What I want to know is where were all the blitzes? Several time during the Rams game, Poz was turned lose and got to the QB. Greer's interception was largely due to Poz being in Green's face. Ashton and Whitner have both effectively got to the QB coming off the corner. But, where was all that yesterday? They just sat back and watched Warner and his receivers run passing drills all day. Just pathetic, no matter what defense you call it. I get the feeling, based on the way they played and on player comments, that the Bills expected the Cards to play a deep passing game. So they tried to keep everything in front of them. But, you would think at some point they would have adjusted to all the short stuff and at least tried to stop it. My concern: after 4 games does the league have enough film and now know exactly how to beat our offense and defense.
DonInBuffalo Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Part of the problem was injuries. With McGee out and Simpson hurt on the first series of the game, Fewell decided to take a relatively conservative approach, hoping players would make enough key plays in critical situations (such as 3rd down) to get the defense off the field. Of course, that didn't happen. We basically saw last year's defensive game plan.
Pyrite Gal Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 The Bills don't have a pass rush.To me it's just that simple. They needed a corner blitz or two during the game. Roll the dice, because otherwise Warner picks them apart anyways. Bingo we have a winner here. The game was decided not by McGee (and then even Simpson) going down. There was simply a lack of pressure, sacks and most of all turnovers which come from the pressure. This was a team AZ which has tons of fumbles and INTs by Warner under pressure from the Jets. This lack of pressure was the story of this game.
BillsVet Posted October 7, 2008 Author Posted October 7, 2008 Part of the problem was injuries. With McGee out and Simpson hurt on the first series of the game, Fewell decided to take a relatively conservative approach, hoping players would make enough key plays in critical situations (such as 3rd down) to get the defense off the field. Of course, that didn't happen. We basically saw last year's defensive game plan. If Fewell cannot trust his guys by this point, there is something seriously wrong between the coaches and players. The Bills aren't being forced to start green rookies, but veterans. You could say that in 06 or even 07. This year, I would hope they've moved beyond that scenario where it's protection of young players.
Paup 1995MVP Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 It doesn't really matter what scheme we are playing on defense, Cover 2, Bears 46-Greg Williams favorite, Zone, Man to Man, 34, or 43. You need the horses up front to run any defense successfully. An our D line is still average at best. We dominated against Seattle, but since than the pass rush has been sporadic to garbage. Stroud has been DECENT against the run, but has not consistently dominated since the Seattle game. Kyle Williams goes full speed on every play, but is not a stud-sort of in the Kelly Gregg, Sam Rayburn mold. Spencer Johnson has made a few plays, but is not dominant at all. And our fourth DT McCargo has done nothing when allowed on the field. Our ends are the same. Copeland Bryan is way too small. (Why is he on the team?) Ryan Denny seems to play better inside, has a high motor, but is not a difference maker, Schobel is overrated and just dissappears way too much. Kelsay I think has been our best D lineman against the run and can really move, gives everything on every play, but is not a freak athletically. There you have it. A mediocre to decent D line on a GREAT day, but nowhere near good enough to lead our team to dominate against any team with an above average offense. By far the best athletes on our defense with the most upside are POZ, Whitner, Simpson and Yabouty. Hopefully McKelvin gets there soon. Kawika can play strong at times, and Mcghee is good when healthy, but other than Poz who looks like a real stud in the front seven? Our team's strength is its special teams and offensive weapons. Lynch, Fred Jackson and Evans are studs. Hardy will be excellent and Parrish and Reed are very good NFL players. Obviously, the key to our team is Trent Edwards. IF he can get and stay healthy, we are a VERY GOOD team. He is already a top ten QB is this league. Eventually, he will be top five. (Thats right I said it) As bad as our D played, if Trent does not go down early on Sunday, we still would have had a chance to win in the fourth quarter. He is that good. But the O line which seems to have regressed from last year has to get better. Fowler and Butler are NOT NFL caliber players, it is as simple as that. And Peters and Walker have just not played very well so far. I see a much more determined team in 12 days against San Diego. The Bills know that they are not good enough to just show up and win. But pray big time that JP is not playing. He still does not have what it takes to consistently make plays for an entire NFL game to beat a decent opponent.
Recommended Posts