My Suggestion For Better Defensive Plays.....

[BCMak24]

STOP running that zone defense we're not built for that we're better at man coverage.....the zone we run we leave all types of wide open holes and another thing when powers was covering andre johnson he tried to bump him off his route smh....dude johnson is way better than you dont even try that just play a little off coverage and jump in front of his route if he cuts to the middle and pick him off but if I lived in indy I would suggest that to the defensive coordinator because we suck in zone coverage

[jskinnz]

STOP running that zone defense we're not built for that we're better at man coverage.....the zone we run we leave all types of wide open holes and another thing when powers was covering andre johnson he tried to bump him off his route smh....dude johnson is way better than you dont even try that just play a little off coverage and jump in front of his route if he cuts to the middle and pick him off but if I lived in indy I would suggest that to the defensive coordinator because we suck in zone coverage

Well there you go. Problem solved.

[ColtsLegacy]

STOP running that zone defense we're not built for that we're better at man coverage.....the zone we run we leave all types of wide open holes and another thing when powers was covering andre johnson he tried to bump him off his route smh....dude johnson is way better than you dont even try that just play a little off coverage and jump in front of his route if he cuts to the middle and pick him off but if I lived in indy I would suggest that to the defensive coordinator because we suck in zone coverage

I remember when I had my first beer.

[JoKeR]

Zone coverage isn't a problem but 10 yard cushions are. Are the Colts really going to stick with a scheme that's best suited when they have a lead?

[jskinnz]

I remember when I had my first beer.

Did you make more sense than that bunch of drivel?

[GwinnettColt]

Zone coverage isn't a problem but 10 yard cushions are. Are the Colts really going to stick with a scheme that's best suited when they have a lead?

Drives me crazy. I think they're expecting long routes but in many cases against Indy, WR's make 10-15 yards at a time to head down the field while eating up the clock. Couple that with not stopping the run and teams can dominate the clock and move the ball all quarter.

The D cannot get off the field and becomes less effective by the minute. If they can play at the line and stay with their man, they'll cover better.

[Malakai432]

Zone coverage isn't a problem but 10 yard cushions are. Are the Colts really going to stick with a scheme that's best suited when they have a lead?

Ugh I agree I can't stand those 10 yard coverages...

[byrddawg]

How much film did you watch this week to determine what our defensive scheme should be? How much time do you spend watching our individual talents are and how we best interact together on the field? Success of coverage is somewhat dictated by defensive line play. All of football is dependent on line play.

[jbaron04]

whta our defense is missing is tackles u have to be able to tackle or big plays

[Andy]

Here's my suggestion: USE LESS TAMPA 2, for crying out loud.

[Steagles]

Man D can only do so much. Sure we need to implement more man, but man isn't Jesus, you know. It isn't a miracle working set. We need to have a solid mix of D-looks to throw off the youngster McCoy.

[Albaby]

I say we give the LBs and CBs tasers! :whatever:

[OLD FAN MAN]

STOP running that zone defense we're not built for that we're better at man coverage.....the zone we run we leave all types of wide open holes and another thing when powers was covering andre johnson he tried to bump him off his route smh....dude johnson is way better than you dont even try that just play a little off coverage and jump in front of his route if he cuts to the middle and pick him off but if I lived in indy I would suggest that to the defensive coordinator because we suck in zone coverage

we are very good at letting them catch the ball then making the tackle, our cbs get a lot of tackles that way, they can lead the league in tackles

[Jason_]

I remember when I had my first beer.

Ahh yes, I think it was a Tuesday. :cloud9:

Here's my suggestion: USE LESS TAMPA 2, for crying out loud.

AGREED

[Jason_]

we are very good at letting them catch the ball then making the tackle, our cbs get a lot of tackles that way, they can lead the league in tackles

I'd kind of prefer we try to stop them from making the catch.

[OLD FAN MAN]

I'd kind of prefer we try to stop them from making the catch.

there you go !

[BCMak24]

Zone coverage isn't a problem but 10 yard cushions are. Are the Colts really going to stick with a scheme that's best suited when they have a lead?

That's the main problem with this zone everytime they play it they play 10 yards off like wth? man coverage would be better tell the cb's to tighen up the coverage plus they leave the middle of the field open on 3rd downs most of the time which is bad smh they need to tighten up period

[BCMak24]

How much film did you watch this week to determine what our defensive scheme should be? How much time do you spend watching our individual talents are and how we best interact together on the field? Success of coverage is somewhat dictated by defensive line play. All of football is dependent on line play.

This just didnt start happening, this has been a problem for a while even we were in the lead I still didnt like that type of coverage but hopefully they will make adjustments very soon

[Moose Of Woe]

Here's my suggestion: USE LESS TAMPA 2, for crying out loud.

Or if you're going to use it, get quality personnel who can EXECUTE the scheme.

The Bears can play it consistently well.

[a06cc]

Rush 5 guys by putting Jerry Hughes in as a LB'er. Rush him off the edge or up the middle.

[Jason_]

STOP running that zone defense we're not built for that we're better at man coverage.....the zone we run we leave all types of wide open holes and another thing when powers was covering andre johnson he tried to bump him off his route smh....dude johnson is way better than you dont even try that just play a little off coverage and jump in front of his route if he cuts to the middle and pick him off but if I lived in indy I would suggest that to the defensive coordinator because we suck in zone coverage

Dude...just...no. The reason IMO we don't play man any more than we do, and also the reason we don't blitz very often, is because we are weak at CB. I'm fine with Powers but I wouldn't want Lacey playing man on any team's #2 WR unless he shows something in practice that would make the coaches think he can do it. IMO, an elite CB in next year's draft would help us in all kinds of ways. It would upgrade our secondary and would also allow the defense to take more risks.

Or if you're going to use it, get quality personnel who can EXECUTE the scheme.

The Bears can play it consistently well.

I could be wrong but I think the Bears run a more standard Cover 2 and not the Tampa 2. Up until recently I didn't really understand the difference between the cover 2 and tampa 2 so I started doing some research. From what I've read, the changes Dungy made to the cover 2 in order to create the tampa 2 are the locations where the DL lines up against the offense and the play of th eMLB. The DL lines up more on the weak side in order to try to create a mismatch for your strongest pass rusher (hence why Freeney lines up so wide on the weak side). The biggest difference regarding the LB is that typically the MLB drops back 5-10 yards from where he starts so he winds up in deep coverage with the safeties so it essentially turns the coverage into a 3 deep shell to prevent the deep pass. This is why we give up so many short to intermediate passes across the middle. This is why you'll often see Brackett and Angerer (when he lines up at MLB) backpedalling as soon as the ball is snapped. I would like to see the Tampa 2 only used on very long yardage situations but at the same time, they could also just bring in a nickel package on those plays.

[Moose Of Woe]

Dude...just...no. The reason IMO we don't play man any more than we do, and also the reason we don't blitz very often, is because we are weak at CB. I'm fine with Powers but I wouldn't want Lacey playing man on any team's #2 WR unless he shows something in practice that would make the coaches think he can do it. IMO, an elite CB in next year's draft would help us in all kinds of ways. It would upgrade our secondary and would also allow the defense to take more risks.

I could be wrong but I think the Bears run a more standard Cover 2 and not the Tampa 2. Up until recently I didn't really understand the difference between the cover 2 and tampa 2 so I started doing some research. From what I've read, the changes Dungy made to the cover 2 in order to create the tampa 2 are the locations where the DL lines up against the offense and the play of th eMLB. The DL lines up more on the weak side in order to try to create a mismatch for your strongest pass rusher (hence why Freeney lines up so wide on the weak side). The biggest difference regarding the LB is that typically the MLB drops back 5-10 yards from where he starts so he winds up in deep coverage with the safeties so it essentially turns the coverage into a 3 deep shell to prevent the deep pass. This is why we give up so many short to intermediate passes across the middle. This is why you'll often see Brackett and Angerer (when he lines up at MLB) backpedalling as soon as the ball is snapped. I would like to see the Tampa 2 only used on very long yardage situations but at the same time, they could also just bring in a nickel package on those plays.

All good points..... and yes I was mistaken in that the Bears use Cover 2 as opposed to Tampa 2.

As you suggest, I certainly wouldn't mind using a Tampa 2 setup on third and long. (Although we tend to get beat consistently on third and long anyway but I digress) Using Tampa 2 and giving up 5-10 yards a chunk plus having an atrocious line for run stopping on every. single. down. is just a recipe for disaster.

It works if you gain a substantial lead and want to make them pass long constantly to catch up, sure. The problem is we don't consistently build leads like we did around 2003-2005. We haven't for years! Since the O-line/run game vanished we've become one dimensional on offense with a QB running for his life every snap.

Our offense has diminished. (Now moreso than ever) We have no special teams unit worth fielding...and our D can't stop anything.

The solution is either change the D to a rough, tough unit that can WIN YOU GAMES our flat out FIX THE FRICKIN' OFFENSIVE LINE AND GET A RUN GAME BACK SO WE CAN BUILD LEADS!Sorry I had to get that out of my system.

Or, ideally, fix the offensive line AND get a D that doesn't need to rely on a lead/long passing situations to thrive. Put in a D that can thrive against the run, the pass, short yardage, long yardage, WHATEVER and is actually balanced/can win games for you ALONG with the offense. You know...what do they call that? Oh right..A COMPLETE TEAM!

*** Bonus points if special teams gets a makeover to something not out of high school football.***

[BCMak24]

Dude...just...no. The reason IMO we don't play man any more than we do, and also the reason we don't blitz very often, is because we are weak at CB. I'm fine with Powers but I wouldn't want Lacey playing man on any team's #2 WR unless he shows something in practice that would make the coaches think he can do it. IMO, an elite CB in next year's draft would help us in all kinds of ways. It would upgrade our secondary and would also allow the defense to take more risks.

I could be wrong but I think the Bears run a more standard Cover 2 and not the Tampa 2. Up until recently I didn't really understand the difference between the cover 2 and tampa 2 so I started doing some research. From what I've read, the changes Dungy made to the cover 2 in order to create the tampa 2 are the locations where the DL lines up against the offense and the play of th eMLB. The DL lines up more on the weak side in order to try to create a mismatch for your strongest pass rusher (hence why Freeney lines up so wide on the weak side). The biggest difference regarding the LB is that typically the MLB drops back 5-10 yards from where he starts so he winds up in deep coverage with the safeties so it essentially turns the coverage into a 3 deep shell to prevent the deep pass. This is why we give up so many short to intermediate passes across the middle. This is why you'll often see Brackett and Angerer (when he lines up at MLB) backpedalling as soon as the ball is snapped. I would like to see the Tampa 2 only used on very long yardage situations but at the same time, they could also just bring in a nickel package on those plays.

and what you think we would do better in zone coverage with the cb's we have now? you have to have very good cb's to pull off a good zone coverage we cant do that we would do better with man coverage especially against the short passes that's why we're getting beat just about every other play because they play off way too far

[Jason_]

All good points..... and yes I was mistaken in that the Bears use Cover 2 as opposed to Tampa 2.

As you suggest, I certainly wouldn't mind using a Tampa 2 setup on third and long. (Although we tend to get beat consistently on third and long anyway but I digress) Using Tampa 2 and giving up 5-10 yards a chunk plus having an atrocious line for run stopping on every. single. down. is just a recipe for disaster.

It works if you gain a substantial lead and want to make them pass long constantly to catch up, sure. The problem is we don't consistently build leads like we did around 2003-2005. We haven't for years! Since the O-line/run game vanished we've become one dimensional on offense with a QB running for his life every snap.

Our offense has diminished. (Now moreso than ever) We have no special teams unit worth fielding...and our D can't stop anything.

The solution is either change the D to a rough, tough unit that can WIN YOU GAMES our flat out FIX THE FRICKIN' OFFENSIVE LINE AND GET A RUN GAME BACK SO WE CAN BUILD LEADS!Sorry I had to get that out of my system.

Or, ideally, fix the offensive line AND get a D that doesn't need to rely on a lead/long passing situations to thrive. Put in a D that can thrive against the run, the pass, short yardage, long yardage, WHATEVER and is actually balanced/can win games for you ALONG with the offense. You know...what do they call that? Oh right..A COMPLETE TEAM! Bonus points of special teams gets a makeover to something not out of high school football.

I agree with you about improving both the defense and the oline. The thing is they definitely are working on it and unfortunately it's not going to happen over night. Since Caldwell and Coyer took over they have been systematically replacing most of the undersized players that Dungy always kept. Our LBs now have decent size and our DT's are getting much bigger. The DE's we brought in through FA (Brayton and Anderson) are bigger than the DT's we had under Dungy (minus Simon and Booger). I really hope one of these guys (preferably Anderson) can have a breakout year and prove to be at least a suitable starter.

Our biggest current problems on defense as I see it are:

1: DLine - We have entirely different DL packages depending on the situation. On passing downs they bring in Freeney, Mathis, Nevis and Foster. On running downs they bring in Anderson, Brayton, Johnson and Moala. This is a great idea in theory but it didn't take long for Houston to figure that out. That's why, imo, Freeney and Mathis wound up in on so many running plays, because Schaub checked to run almost every time he saw them in the game. I'm going to make a bold and very unpopular prediction for this year and I really hope I'm wrong, but I don't think Freeney and Mathis either one reach double digit sacks this year...in fact I wouldn't be surprised if they don't even combine for 10 sacks. Our offense is going to improve, of that I'm sure, but I don't know that they can ever be explosive enough to build up a lead and put the other team in a come from behind situation where they have to pass and can't check out of it. As we continue to try to get bigger and stronger, I think we're going to have to wind up parting ways with at least one of the 2 if not both. We need to find guys that are above average to good in both pass rushing and stopping the run instead of having guys that excel at one but can't do the other. It simply telegraphs our defense and gives the advantage to the opposing offense. I think if Freeney and Mathis were capable of getting better at stopping the run then it would have happened by now. I have no idea if either Anderson or Brayton could be taught how to be better pass rushers.

Another thing that has been discussed in many threads is that we also need help at NT. I'm still not entirely clear on the difference between a nose tackle and an under tackle but many have said that Antonio Johnson is the only true NT we have on the roster.

2: LB's - The tampa 2 scheme dropping the MLB into deep zone coverage...already been discussed. I would also like to see Brackett replaced with a more well rounded MLB. Angerer may be able to develop into that at some point but the jury is still out on that. He's done very well for us so far that's for sure, but not sure he can become an elite MLB.

3: CB - I'm pretty sure most would agree we also need to upgrade the CB position. IMO if we can add a #1 CB and move Powers to #2 then keep the best between Tryon, Rucker and Lacey for depth and nickel packages. Bringing in a CB who can play both zone and press man coverage would give us more freedom to blitz and also change up our coverage and play man more often. I would also love for that CB to be a little bigger than the ones we've had in the past. A 6'1 or 6'2 CB would be incredibly helpful considering we play Andre Johnson twice a year and there are several CB prospects for the 2012 draft that fit that mold.

4: Safeties - Our safeties are good but can they be great? Bethea certainly can but is Bullitt the one we really want as the other starter? Hopefully he can be and even if not I'm not sure this is an immediate need. I know in some of the discussions about the 2012 draft I've mentioned picking up a SS to replace Bullitt because there are definitely going to be a few really good ones. But the more I've thought about it I think CB and NT should take priority and honestly I think I'd upgrade the LB core even more before trying to bring in another elite safety.

We don't need elite players at every position...that's not even possible due to the salary cap so there are going to be some positions where we simply need solid players and not elite playmakers.

[Jason_]

and what you think we would do better in zone coverage with the cb's we have now? you have to have very good cb's to pull off a good zone coverage we cant do that we would do better with man coverage especially against the short passes that's why we're getting beat just about every other play because they play off way too far

Do you really think the CB's playing so far off the ball is because it's what they want to do and not because they're lining up where the coaches are telling them to? Lacey lines up 5-10 yards off the LOS practically every play. If he wasn't supposed to be doing this I would think it would have been addressed after the first couple of times he did it. If not then perhaps all the claims that our coaches suck may be true but I find this incredibly hard to believe.

[BCMak24]

Do you really think the CB's playing so far off the ball is because it's what they want to do and not because they're lining up where the coaches are telling them to? Lacey lines up 5-10 yards off the LOS practically every play. If he wasn't supposed to be doing this I would think it would have been addressed after the first couple of times he did it. If not then perhaps all the claims that our coaches suck may be true but I find this incredibly hard to believe.

ok but after awhile keep giving up 10 yard plays dont you think the coaches would make the adjustment of tighten the coverage up? lacey knows he will get burned, powers can hold his own but after while when something doesnt work changes should be made so the players need to make a change themselves

[John Waylon]

I remember when I had my first beer.

But I bet you didn't follow it up with a rage post afterwards did you?

If only everyone else had that kind of self control....

[Jason_]

ok but after awhile keep giving up 10 yard plays dont you think the coaches would make the adjustment of tighten the coverage up? lacey knows he will get burned, powers can hold his own but after while when something doesnt work changes should be made so the players need to make a change themselves

I do agree with you that one would think the coaches would make adjustments and stop having Lacey play off so much. However the one argument I could see for them continuing to do so even though he keeps getting beat would be that they feel he simply doesn't have the talent to play in any type of press coverage. The coaches being forced to keep him lined up off the LOS due to lack of natural ability makes more sense to me than they just don't tell him to stop doing it. Whatever way you choose to look at it though, it all points back to the fact we need an upgrade at the CB position.

But I bet you didn't follow it up with a rage post afterwards did you?

If only everyone else had that kind of self control....

L-O-L.....a "rage post"...that's awesome. Kudos to you sir, and kudos again.

[ColtsLover4ever]

Here's my suggestion: USE LESS TAMPA 2, for crying out loud.

Your suggestion is duly noted. I'm sure the coaches will consider your advice.

[OLD FAN MAN]

Here's my suggestion: USE LESS TAMPA 2, for crying out loud.

we didnt use the tampa 2 sunday, we used the "HELTER SKELTER" defense, in which defenders run helter skelter with no effect on opposing offenses

[Blue Horseshoe]

Step 1 - Get a real Nose Tackle

[Jason_]

Step 1 - Get a real Nose Tackle

I'd agree with that and this guy is, as of now, the top ranked NT coming out next year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN727EY-2bI

[Portage Coltfans]

my suggestion is better:

stop drafting turds like jerry hughes and donald brown.

It would have been sweet to have a nice big first round talent DT or a shut down CB. or how about a paul Polsunzy type linebacker in the mix. ( he was a 2nd round pick)

Good thing we wasted a 1st round draft pick on RB, the easiest position to fill.

Good thing we wasted a pick on jerry Hughes for DE, with x2 probowlers and a ton of FA options for backups.

[megalug]

Need to do a lot of things differently. Tackle, Pressure on the QB, tighter coverage on the outside ( not 10 yards off). Many things need to improve.

[Balzer40]

1: DLine - We have entirely different DL packages depending on the situation. On passing downs they bring in Freeney, Mathis, Nevis and Foster. On running downs they bring in Anderson, Brayton, Johnson and Moala. This is a great idea in theory but it didn't take long for Houston to figure that out. That's why, imo, Freeney and Mathis wound up in on so many running plays, because Schaub checked to run almost every time he saw them in the game. I'm going to make a bold and very unpopular prediction for this year and I really hope I'm wrong, but I don't think Freeney and Mathis either one reach double digit sacks this year...in fact I wouldn't be surprised if they don't even combine for 10 sacks. Our offense is going to improve, of that I'm sure, but I don't know that they can ever be explosive enough to build up a lead and put the other team in a come from behind situation where they have to pass and can't check out of it. As we continue to try to get bigger and stronger, I think we're going to have to wind up parting ways with at least one of the 2 if not both. We need to find guys that are above average to good in both pass rushing and stopping the run instead of having guys that excel at one but can't do the other. It simply telegraphs our defense and gives the advantage to the opposing offense. I think if Freeney and Mathis were capable of getting better at stopping the run then it would have happened by now. I have no idea if either Anderson or Brayton could be taught how to be better pass rushers.

Another thing that has been discussed in many threads is that we also need help at NT. I'm still not entirely clear on the difference between a nose tackle and an under tackle but many have said that Antonio Johnson is the only true NT we have on the roster.

This is exactly the problem I see with the defense this yr., in fact, I mentioned it in another thread a week or so ago. We are completely predictable this yr. on defense. To a certain extent we always were, but this yr. we are just giving an automatic tipoff as to what were doing with our personel substitutions.

My simple explanation as the distinction between a NT and an UT would be that the NT needs to be bigger, stronger, and stouter at the point of attack, idealy one that could occupy 2 blockers. The UT needs to be quicker, agile, and a good penetrator. Im sure there is more to it than that but thats just a simple explanation IMO.

[Jason_]

my suggestion is better:

stop drafting turds like jerry hughes and donald brown.

It would have been sweet to have a nice big first round talent DT or a shut down CB. or how about a paul Polsunzy type linebacker in the mix. ( he was a 2nd round pick)

Good thing we wasted a 1st round draft pick on RB, the easiest position to fill.

Good thing we wasted a pick on jerry Hughes for DE, with x2 probowlers and a ton of FA options for backups.

I agree..DE was not the position of need for us imo. I'd have much rather seen a DT or CB as well. The only good thing I felt about the drafting of Hughes was that they actually used a first round pick on a defensive player. That told me they were making even more of a commitment to upgrade the defense. Prior to that we hadn't used a first round pick on a defensive player since '05 when they drafted Marlin Jackson. I think the general consensus is the Hughes pick was in response to (and probably an over reaction) Freeney's injury the season before and wondering if he'd be back to 100% coupled with the fact that this is Mathis' contract year.

[BCMak24]

But I bet you didn't follow it up with a rage post afterwards did you?

If only everyone else had that kind of self control....

where's the rage?

[Jason_]

This is exactly the problem I see with the defense this yr., in fact, I mentioned it in another thread a week or so ago. We are completely predictable this yr. on defense. To a certain extent we always were, but this yr. we are just giving an automatic tipoff as to what were doing with our personel substitutions.

My simple explanation as the distinction between a NT and an UT would be that the NT needs to be bigger, stronger, and stouter at the point of attack, idealy one that could occupy 2 blockers. The UT needs to be quicker, agile, and a good penetrator. Im sure there is more to it than that but thats just a simple explanation IMO.

That's along the lines that I was thinking so it seems I was on the right track. Thanks for confirming. If anyone can go into even further depth I'd appreciate it. Otherwise I'll hit up google and see what I can find sometime in the coming week. Also if anyone could chime in on the differences in responsibility, if there are any, between a 3-4 NT and a 4-3 NT I'd love to hear this as well.