Beerball Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Did the Bills play against any primarily 'cover/tampa/Kiffin 2' defenses this year? I know we faced a preponderance of 3-4 defenses and I know how we fared against them. Curious about the C2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fewell733 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Seattle. Kansas City. Jacksonville used to run something similar, but I don't know what they were doing this year with Greggo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Off the top of my head. We played against KC who ran a tampa 2 defense. That was their base defense. It's kind of a vague question though, as almost all teams play a cover 2 defense. It's simply a form of coverage. KC was the only team with that as their base defense though, that we played this year. Very few teams nowadays play a strict scheme 3-4,4-3, tampa 2 or otherwise. Even the Bills moved away from this. Teams like Baltimore/NE are perfect examples. While they run a base 3-4, it's pretty much interchangeable between that and the 4-3. Baltimore plays a lot of a 4-4 defense, where they use suggs as a d end. Ne uses a monster 4-3, with a dline of seymour/warren/wilfork/green. The better defenses around the league tend to have versatility between schemes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 Off the top of my head. We played against KC who ran a tampa 2 defense. That was their base defense. It's kind of a vague question though, as almost all teams play a cover 2 defense. It's simply a form of coverage. KC was the only team with that as their base defense though, that we played this year. Very few teams nowadays play a strict scheme 3-4,4-3, tampa 2 or otherwise. Even the Bills moved away from this. Teams like Baltimore/NE are perfect examples. While they run a base 3-4, it's pretty much interchangeable between that and the 4-3. Baltimore plays a lot of a 4-4 defense, where they use suggs as a d end. Ne uses a monster 4-3, with a dline of seymour/warren/wilfork/green. The better defenses around the league tend to have versatility between schemes. I know talent matters, so don't get me wrong. But, if the previous poster is correct and Seattle and possible Jacksonville run it as well is it telling that 3 of our wins came against that defense? Finally, the point I'm trying to get to with this thread is...if our offense is able to have success against the cover 2 shouldn't that indicate that we should move away from that package as our primary set on defense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fewell733 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I know talent matters, so don't get me wrong. But, if the previous poster is correct and Seattle and possible Jacksonville run it as well is it telling that 3 of our wins came against that defense? Finally, the point I'm trying to get to with this thread is...if our offense is able to have success against the cover 2 shouldn't that indicate that we should move away from that package as our primary set on defense? well it shows that we know that particular defense better since we play it ourselves. I think it just happened to be the case that the 3-4 teams we faced were better than the teams that play more of a 4-3 tampa-2. The previous year Miami and the Jets still played the 3-4 and we swept them both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I know talent matters, so don't get me wrong. But, if the previous poster is correct and Seattle and possible Jacksonville run it as well is it telling that 3 of our wins came against that defense? Finally, the point I'm trying to get to with this thread is...if our offense is able to have success against the cover 2 shouldn't that indicate that we should move away from that package as our primary set on defense? Not really. 2 of those 3 teams were 2 of the worst teams in the league. Personally though I'm not a fan of the tampa 2. I don't like conservative defenses. It's a defense that relies on everyone doing their correct job in a given zone, keeping everything in front relying on their front 4 to produce pressure. The problem with these defense. Is it's better suited to be paired with an explosive offense. Like they say the focus of the tampa 2 is when you have a lead to tee off on the quarterback. Take a team like the bears for example. A very good defense. A lot of good playmakers. The problem is a team like that, and the Bills will play a lot of low scoring games. Where the defense just can't afford to give up time consuming drives. They're vunerable to quick slants inbetween zones and a strong running game. I'm more of a fan of the Jim Johnson philosophy of defense. Play your gaps, and swarm to the ball, and force the offense into playing one half of the field on 3rd downs by completely shutting off the field of view with pressure from your dline,lb's, and db's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Finally, the point I'm trying to get to with this thread is...if our offense is able to have success against the cover 2 shouldn't that indicate that we should move away from that package as our primary set on defense? No, because that would hurt our offense's feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts