The Rev.Mattb74 ESQ. Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 I can't stand this cover-two defence. Atleast when Phillips and Williams coached the Bills the Defence was fun to watch. Now the crappy defence matches the crappy offense. I liked the 3-4 loved the 46, both of which this team would benefit moving to. If we went to a 3-4 Stroud could stay in the middle and Williams and Johnson could probably kick out to end, Denney seems to b a better fit for the 3-4 and we could dump Schobel and Kelsay. Even Mitchell and Poz would look better in a 3-4 moving Poz outside and making Mitchell an inside backer. Anything but this dreadful cover two. Even teams that have good talent and run it are not being successful with it anymore, Colts defence sucks this year, and the Bears defence was average at best. I am sure we will be the last team in the league to switch away from it realizing once again later then everyone else it is no longer effective.
K-9 Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 You're right. Williams and Johnson are prototypical DEs in the 3-4 alignment. It can't be long before someone punches your coaching ticket to the NFL! GO BILLS!!!
JimboHOF Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 I can't stand this cover-two defence. Atleast when Phillips and Williams coached the Bills the Defence was fun to watch. Now the crappy defence maches the crappy offence. I liked the 3-4 loved the 46, both of which this team would benefit moving to. If we went to a 3-4 Stroud could stay in the middle and Williams and Johnson could probably kick out to end, Denney seems to b a better fit for the 3-4 and we could dump Schobel and Kelsay. Even Mitchell and Poz would look better in a 3-4 moving Poz outside and making Mitchell an inside backer. Anything but this dreadful cover two. Even teams that have good talent and run it are not being successful with it anymore, Colts defence sucks this year, and the Bears defence was average at best. I am sure we will be the last team in the league to switch away from it realizing once again later then everyone else it is no longer effective. you realize that cover 2 has to do with pass coverage not the defensive alignment right? 3-4 defenses play cover 2!!! so do 4-6 defenses, and i dont think theres any team that play that. Cover 2 only means the safeties have the deep halves of the field with the LBs and CBs protecting underneath. And no our DE's are bad enough we dpont need them exposed in a 3-4 defense where theyd have to run around even more!
The Rev.Mattb74 ESQ. Posted January 7, 2009 Author Posted January 7, 2009 you realize that cover 2 has to do with pass coverage not the defensive alignment right? 3-4 defenses play cover 2!!! so do 4-6 defenses, and i dont think theres any team that play that. Cover 2 only means the safeties have the deep halves of the field with the LBs and CBs protecting underneath. And no our DE's are bad enough we dpont need them exposed in a 3-4 defense where theyd have to run around even more! My bad I meant the Tampa Two. Home with the kids today, and trying to post while making lunch, cleaning and taking down the rest of the decorations.
Magox Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 There is nothing wrong with the cover 2!! We just don't have the personel to get to the quarterback that the cover 2 requires. Look at Tampa Bay, they had Warren Sapp and Kevin Carter. The Colts had Freeny. Nuff said!!
2003Contenders Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 There is nothing wrong with the cover 2!! We just don't have the personel to get to the quarterback that the cover 2 requires. Look at Tampa Bay, they had Warren Sapp and Kevin Carter. The Colts had Freeny. Nuff said!! Agreed no defensive scheme will succeed if the front 7 can't get pressure on the QB.
The Rev.Mattb74 ESQ. Posted January 7, 2009 Author Posted January 7, 2009 There is nothing wrong with the cover 2!! We just don't have the personel to get to the quarterback that the cover 2 requires. Look at Tampa Bay, they had Warren Sapp and Kevin Carter. The Colts had Freeny. Nuff said!! I understand your point but disagree. Indy has Freeney, Sanders, even Mathis and they sucked Defensively this year. Yes Tampa made it work when they had Sapp and Carter but that was 5-10 years ago when it was real effective, I feel the league has caught up to it and it is no longer a good viable option. If Chicago cant make it work this past year with Urlacher and Harris what chance do we have.
bizell Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Indy allowed 18.6 ppg, good for 7th in the league. not too shabby.
JimboHOF Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 My bad I meant the Tampa Two. Home with the kids today, and trying to post while making lunch, cleaning and taking down the rest of the decorations. Well yes but tampa 2 just means a LB drops a little deeper to protect the soft spot underneath the safeties. Still not so much an alignment thing. THe bills biggest problem is personnel, not coaching or alignments. We dont have a good front 4, theyre pretty avg and in terms of pass rush theyre awful, the numbders dont lie.
KRC Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Well yes but tampa 2 just means a LB drops a little deeper to protect the soft spot underneath the safeties. Still not so much an alignment thing. THe bills biggest problem is personnel, not coaching or alignments. We dont have a good front 4, theyre pretty avg and in terms of pass rush theyre awful, the numbders dont lie. Exactly. The Tampa 2 pretty much looks like a cover 2 pre-snap and morphs into a cover 3 after the snap.
stuckincincy Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Manning's a great passer with a good supporting offensive cast. He has never to my knowledge taken a hit for his team.
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 I'm pretty sure you fellas know what he means. He's sick of the Cover 2 as our base defense. 3-4 teams use Cover 2 zones, yeah, but not as much as we do, and on the other hand blitz a lot more often than we do in most cases. What he's saying isn't so complicated.
Rubes Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Agreed no defensive scheme will succeed if the front 7 can't get pressure on the QB. We have a winner.
K-9 Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 My bad I meant the Tampa Two. Home with the kids today, and trying to post while making lunch, cleaning and taking down the rest of the decorations. Having been pressed into "Mr. Mom" status on far too many occassions to recall, I would like to officially offer a sincere apology for my sarcastic and snarky response. How ANYONE can discuss the intricacies of zone defenses when trying to juggle two kids is beyond me! I gotta give you MAJOR props just for merely attempting it. Hang in there! GO BILLS!!!
K-9 Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Exactly. The Tampa 2 pretty much looks like a cover 2 pre-snap and morphs into a cover 3 after the snap. That's a good way of boiling it down essentially. Again, as I'm sure you know, Cover-2 is a moot point if an offense lines up in a formation that forces you to play a different defense. That's why the Bills only use it about 25% of the time. GO BILLS!!!
Fewell733 Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Agreed no defensive scheme will succeed if the front 7 can't get pressure on the QB. totally agree. though in the tampa 2 it relies pretty much on just the front 4 for pressure - which I think makes it that much tougher to get to the qb in the modern NFL which favors offense so much.
The Rev.Mattb74 ESQ. Posted January 7, 2009 Author Posted January 7, 2009 Having been pressed into "Mr. Mom" status on far too many occassions to recall, I would like to officially offer a sincere apology for my sarcastic and snarky response. How ANYONE can discuss the intricacies of zone defenses when trying to juggle two kids is beyond me! I gotta give you MAJOR props just for merely attempting it. Hang in there! GO BILLS!!! It is ok, if I couldnt take sarcastic comments I wouldnt have been posting on here for the past few years. For the life of me I cant figure out how (granted I didnt watch the last four games- couldnt take it you know) the whole year it seemed we sent only four rushers. On the occasion they sent Mitchell up the middle he atleast caused a hurry sometimes a sack. The San Diego game aside(when they did a pretty good job on Gates-although I think that may have been more Whitner) watching him and Poz trying to cover downfield at times got painful and I feel that is somewhat why Whitners not making a bigger impact, because he was helping them cover up downfield instead of making more plays. Maybe just moving Whitner to free safety would free him up to do more, I dont know. In years past it seemed that even though the sucked there was always something to rest your hat on, not this year. We are alot closer to being the Lions then the Steelers or Patriots. Atleast the Lions are making changes even if they are just superfiscial.
The Rev.Mattb74 ESQ. Posted January 7, 2009 Author Posted January 7, 2009 I'm pretty sure you fellas know what he means. He's sick of the Cover 2 as our base defense. 3-4 teams use Cover 2 zones, yeah, but not as much as we do, and on the other hand blitz a lot more often than we do in most cases. What he's saying isn't so complicated. Exactly, thanks
Sisyphean Bills Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 The Tampa 2 certainly had more success when it was employed with a Who's Who Hall of Fame lineup like this: Greenwood, Greene, Homes, White, Ham, Lambert, Toews, Thomas, Blount, Shell, and Edwards or even a lineup like this: Spires, McFarland, Sapp, Rice, Singleton, Quarles, Brooks, Kelly, Barber, Lynch, Jackson. It doesn't look so hot when employed with guys like: DeVries, Darby, Redding, White, Sims, Lenon, Lewis, Fisher, Smith, Bodden, Bullocks.
bobobonators Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 I can't stand this cover-two defence. Atleast when Phillips and Williams coached the Bills the Defence was fun to watch. Now the crappy defence matches the crappy offense. I liked the 3-4 loved the 46, both of which this team would benefit moving to. If we went to a 3-4 Stroud could stay in the middle and Williams and Johnson could probably kick out to end, Denney seems to b a better fit for the 3-4 and we could dump Schobel and Kelsay. Even Mitchell and Poz would look better in a 3-4 moving Poz outside and making Mitchell an inside backer. Anything but this dreadful cover two. Even teams that have good talent and run it are not being successful with it anymore, Colts defence sucks this year, and the Bears defence was average at best. I am sure we will be the last team in the league to switch away from it realizing once again later then everyone else it is no longer effective. Stroud wouldn't really work in the 3-4, Denney would be horrible in ANY scheme as the starter. I would prefer the 3-4, but you need to realize that the roster is not in place for a 3-4. If we were to switch, you're looking at a couple of years of player overhaul to set up a solid defense. I'm willing to stay with the defense we run now. why ours is ineffective at times is soley due to the lack of pass rush. (IMO)
Recommended Posts