Do You Think The Tampa 2 Is Old And Exploited?

[Superman]

You can play zone coverage (which is all the so-called Tampa 2 is) without being susceptible on the outside. All the moaning about how the defense is out of date and how our coaches are stupid betrays a lack of basic understanding of defense in general. The Bears run the same zone defense we run. The Vikings and Bucs run it. The Lions run it. Several other teams run variations of it. The base defense isn't the problem.

If you're complaining about the cushions on the outside, that's not a necessary feature of the defense, so it's not a reason to scrap the defense completely.

If you're complaining about the size of the corners, you're ignoring the fact that our corners aren't playing man coverage down the field and losing battles to bigger defenders. As a matter of fact, one of the basic tenets of the defense is that you don't give up big pass plays. That is, if you're playing where you're supposed to play.

I'm not a staunch supporter of the Tampa 2. I think it has its strengths and its weaknesses. But it's not like there's any defense that doesn't have it's strengths and weaknesses. Someone mentioned Sean Payton talking about zone buster plays. Everyone has plays designed to beat one defense or another. Everyone has zone beaters, blitz beaters, man beaters, etc. There is no perfect defense. And even when you run a defense perfectly, good offense always beats good defense. Look at what Peyton Manning does against Rex Ryan almost every time we face him.

People get on these kicks and pretend that they know just how to fix every problem, just because a particular play or scheme shows a flaw. These coaches -- even ours, who I'm not exactly thrilled with -- know vastly more about the principles of football than any of us do. They spend hours every day watching film and analyzing data. They get paid a lot of money to figure this stuff out. Think about that the next time you decide that the Tampa 2 is stupid.

[Moose Of Woe]

These coaches -- even ours, who I'm not exactly thrilled with -- know vastly more about the principles of football than any of us do. They spend hours every day watching film and analyzing data. They get paid a lot of money to figure this stuff out.

Yes, well, this bunch of guys with vast knowledge about the principles of football will probably have a 2-14 or 0-16 team. This leads one to believe they have no idea what in blazes they're doing.

It doesn't take hours upon hours of analyzing every single play. Simply watch what the Colts field every Sunday and it's painfully clear the D (and team as a whole) is awful.

Nobody on the forum may know how to make the Tampa 2 work, but neither do the people being paid to do so. Either get people who CAN make it work with a different coaching staff/up the talent on the field or flat out trash the system.

[Jason_]

You can play zone coverage (which is all the so-called Tampa 2 is) without being susceptible on the outside. All the moaning about how the defense is out of date and how our coaches are stupid betrays a lack of basic understanding of defense in general. The Bears run the same zone defense we run. The Vikings and Bucs run it. The Lions run it. Several other teams run variations of it. The base defense isn't the problem.

If you're complaining about the cushions on the outside, that's not a necessary feature of the defense, so it's not a reason to scrap the defense completely.

If you're complaining about the size of the corners, you're ignoring the fact that our corners aren't playing man coverage down the field and losing battles to bigger defenders. As a matter of fact, one of the basic tenets of the defense is that you don't give up big pass plays. That is, if you're playing where you're supposed to play.

My problem with it is they're using it in the wrong situations. One of the primary differences of the tampa 2 vs. standard cover 2 is the MLB dropping into deep zone instead of covering a short zone at the same level as the other LBs. Every time we do this on 1st and 2nd down, the other team's offense runs a short crossing or slant route in that hole where the MLB otherwise would be. On 3rd down and 10 or more this short pass is perfectly acceptable because you count on your players to come up and make the tackle before the first down is converted. However that 5-7 yard completion on 1st and 2nd down is killing our defense. McCoy was 8 of 8 for 68 yards in those situations. Those types of plays kept putting our defense in 2nd or 3rd and short. If they stop doing this on earlier downs then we have a better chance of keeping the defense in 3rd and long(er) and have a much better chance of stopping the conversion and getting off the field.

I'm not a staunch supporter of the Tampa 2. I think it has its strengths and its weaknesses. But it's not like there's any defense that doesn't have it's strengths and weaknesses. Someone mentioned Sean Payton talking about zone buster plays. Everyone has plays designed to beat one defense or another. Everyone has zone beaters, blitz beaters, man beaters, etc. There is no perfect defense. And even when you run a defense perfectly, good offense always beats good defense. Look at what Peyton Manning does against Rex Ryan almost every time we face him.

Agreed...every defense has its strengths and its weaknesses, just like every offense. And sure every offense has plays designed to beat the defense, but the defense all have plays to beat the offense as well. Essentially it all comes down to calling the right plays at the right times and who's players execute better. It's basically one of those "I know you know, and I know you know I know, and you know I know you know I know" and so on lol

[Balzer40]

People get on these kicks and pretend that they know just how to fix every problem, just because a particular play or scheme shows a flaw. These coaches -- even ours, who I'm not exactly thrilled with -- know vastly more about the principles of football than any of us do. They spend hours every day watching film and analyzing data. They get paid a lot of money to figure this stuff out. Think about that the next time you decide that the Tampa 2 is stupid.

You know, I see this argument used an awful lot here on this forum and it simply means NOTHING! There have been a ton of coaches in the NFL, college, or where ever that have not been particularly good at their jobs, thus, the reason why so many get fired. If every coach in the NFL was so brilliant and willing to make changes in scheme or philosophy, none of them would ever get fired.

[Moose Of Woe]

You know, I see this argument used an awful lot here on this forum and it simply means NOTHING! There have been a ton of coaches in the NFL, college, or where ever that have not been particularly good at their jobs, thus, the reason why so many get fired. If every coach in the NFL was so brilliant and willing to make changes in scheme or philosophy, none of them would ever get fired.

Seconded.

[Superman]

Yes, well, this bunch of guys with vast knowledge about the principles of football will probably have a 2-14 or 0-16 team. This leads one to believe they have no idea what in blazes they're doing.

It doesn't take hours upon hours of analyzing every single play. Simply watch what the Colts field every Sunday and it's painfully clear the D (and team as a whole) is awful.

Nobody on the forum may know how to make the Tampa 2 work, but neither do the people being paid to do so. Either get people who CAN make it work with a different coaching staff/up the talent on the field or flat out trash the system.

When you have a defense that holds a power running game in check, with the exception of one play, I tend to think the scheme isn't the problem. I have issues with some of the things we do within the scheme, and I'll second guess the coaching staff on those (like big cushions that lead to underneath passes). I'm just saying that pretending the scheme is the issue, and then saying the coaches are stupid for not changing the scheme, is ridiculous. The scheme isn't the issue. In the Houston game, the tackling was the issue, not the coaching. Against the Browns, the cushions were the issue. It's not the Tampa 2. Calling it old and exploited ignores the fact that some of the better defensive teams in the NFL run plenty of Tampa 2. Some of the more aggressive coordinators run plenty of Tampa 2. The Jets played variations of Tampa 2 and Man 2 against us last year, as a response to Manning torching their more aggressive defense the year before. The Tampa 2 works when it's used properly.

As to your comment that they'll probably coach a team with a dreadful record, well, that's cute and all, but the defense hasn't been the problem so far. We can identify things the defense must do better, especially given the circumstances, but the offense and the special teams coverage has been the main culprit. The turnovers and big returns have put the defense is terrible positions in two straight games.

I'll also mention that there are several good coaches who have had bad records from time to time. People keep crying for Jeff Fisher, and he had sub .500 teams several times in his career. So no, the fact that we don't look capable of winning very many games right now doesn't mean that the coaching staff has no idea what they're doing. And this is not a vote of confidence in this coaching staff.

[Moose Of Woe]

When you have a defense that holds a power running game in check, with the exception of one play, I tend to think the scheme isn't the problem. I have issues with some of the things we do within the scheme, and I'll second guess the coaching staff on those (like big cushions that lead to underneath passes). I'm just saying that pretending the scheme is the issue, and then saying the coaches are stupid for not changing the scheme, is ridiculous. The scheme isn't the issue. In the Houston game, the tackling was the issue, not the coaching. Against the Browns, the cushions were the issue. It's not the Tampa 2. Calling it old and exploited ignores the fact that some of the better defensive teams in the NFL run plenty of Tampa 2. Some of the more aggressive coordinators run plenty of Tampa 2. The Jets played variations of Tampa 2 and Man 2 against us last year, as a response to Manning torching their more aggressive defense the year before. The Tampa 2 works when it's used properly.

As to your comment that they'll probably coach a team with a dreadful record, well, that's cute and all, but the defense hasn't been the problem so far. We can identify things the defense must do better, especially given the circumstances, but the offense and the special teams coverage has been the main culprit. The turnovers and big returns have put the defense is terrible positions in two straight games.

I'll also mention that there are several good coaches who have had bad records from time to time. People keep crying for Jeff Fisher, and he had sub .500 teams several times in his career. So no, the fact that we don't look capable of winning very many games right now doesn't mean that the coaching staff has no idea what they're doing. And this is not a vote of confidence in this coaching staff.

Fair points with the win/loss record. As for the tackling and cushions......

If it's the tackling - it's talent.

If it's the cushions - it's the coaching. Move the players up for crying out loud.

Quite frankly I think we're on the short end of the stick in both talent AND coaching. And by that, I mean I think we have a terrible combination of players and coaches overall with a few key players dragging a bunch of dead weight.

Again, if they can't get the scheme to work find talent and coaches who can. If not, trash the system. Or, ideally, both. I'd rather see a D designed to win games as opposed to not lose them/play with the lead.

[Superman]

You know, I see this argument used an awful lot here on this forum and it simply means NOTHING! There have been a ton of coaches in the NFL, college, or where ever that have not been particularly good at their jobs, thus, the reason why so many get fired. If every coach in the NFL was so brilliant and willing to make changes in scheme or philosophy, none of them would ever get fired.

Yet, there's several good coaches with good defenses that run the Tampa 2. My point is simply that saying "we run the Tampa 2 and don't have a good defense means that the Tampa 2 is the problem and anyone who doesn't get that is stupid and needs to be fired" ignores the basic fact that even the worst NFL coach knows more about defense than the most knowledgeable fan on this board. It also assumes that the Tampa 2 is somehow an entirely ineffective defense. It also ignores the fact that we don't run Tampa 2 exclusively. Of the three touchdowns we allowed yesterday, two of them didn't even come against the Tampa 2. Peyton Hillis wouldn't have scored that long touchdown if we were in zone coverage. So how can the zone coverage be the problem?

I believe you do what you do. That's why, everywhere he ever went, Bill Parcells installed the 3-4 defense. That includes a period of transition where you don't have the players you need to have. But Parcells was a 3-4 guy, even when he didn't have 3-4 personnel. You do what you do. If we're a Tampa 2 team, I'd prefer that we fix what's wrong with our Tampa 2, rather than dramatically changing our system, as if the scheme is the problem and another one is going to fix it.

I think we need better tacklers at linebacker, and I believe we need to stop giving so much cushion on the outside. Again, I'm not blindly supporting our coaching staff. I just don't think the scheme is the problem. I think there are other issues that can and should be fixed without trashing everything we've done for all these years on defense. If we decide to clear out the coaching staff this offseason and bring in a defensive coach who is going to change what we do defensively, then fine. But you don't change a team that's been built around one particular scheme just because you give up a play here and there. You play the scheme better.

[Superman]

My problem with it is they're using it in the wrong situations. One of the primary differences of the tampa 2 vs. standard cover 2 is the MLB dropping into deep zone instead of covering a short zone at the same level as the other LBs. Every time we do this on 1st and 2nd down, the other team's offense runs a short crossing or slant route in that hole where the MLB otherwise would be. On 3rd down and 10 or more this short pass is perfectly acceptable because you count on your players to come up and make the tackle before the first down is converted. However that 5-7 yard completion on 1st and 2nd down is killing our defense. McCoy was 8 of 8 for 68 yards in those situations. Those types of plays kept putting our defense in 2nd or 3rd and short. If they stop doing this on earlier downs then we have a better chance of keeping the defense in 3rd and long(er) and have a much better chance of stopping the conversion and getting off the field.

See, that's what I'm saying. We don't drop the linebacker deep everytime, and all those short completions coming across the middle aren't the fault of the MLB. Many of them Sunday were because the outside linebacker and the corner played off, the qb and receiver connected in that soft spot to the outside and underneath, and then ran for more yardage. It's a typical zone beater, but it only works if you play off on the outside. The problem isn't the Tampa 2, it's the playing off.

As I mentioned, we don't play Tampa 2 exclusively in any situation.

Agreed...every defense has its strengths and its weaknesses, just like every offense. And sure every offense has plays designed to beat the defense, but the defense all have plays to beat the offense as well. Essentially it all comes down to calling the right plays at the right times and who's players execute better. It's basically one of those "I know you know, and I know you know I know, and you know I know you know I know" and so on lol

Yup. I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with what we're doing scheme-wise, I just don't think the wholesale bashing of the Tampa 2 is relevant. We do a lot of things within our Tampa 2 base that lend to success and/or failure, situationally. A wholesale dismissal of the scheme because you think big cushions are a necessary component of the defense betrays a lack of understanding. That's what I'm saying.

[Superman]

Fair points with the win/loss record. As for the tackling and cushions......

If it's the tackling - it's talent.

If it's the cushions - it's the coaching. Move the players up for crying out loud.

Quite frankly I think we're on the short end of the stick in both talent AND coaching. And by that, I mean I think we have a terrible combination of players and coaches overall with a few key players dragging a bunch of dead weight.

I agree, to an extent. But I believe that for the players we have on defense, the scheme we run is our best bet. Maybe if Kevin Thomas and Chris Rucker pan out as cover corners, they along with Powers will allow us run more man coverage on the outside. But we're talking about a minor adjustment. We don't have the defensive front to run a three-down defense. We don't have the linebackers to blitz the middle regularly. We have linemen that excel playing gap control defense. And the linemen have played well this season in the first two games. It's been the linebackers that have been problematic, and they played much better Sunday.

In the secondary, I believe it's a scheme issue. Stop playing back so far on the outside, at least as much as we've been doing it. The cushions take our pass rushers out of the game because they allow the receivers to get open quickly. And our pass rush is the best part of our defense. We're neutering ourselves defensively, and dying a slow death. But even with that, the defense hasn't been that bad. They've been put in bad situations, and the tackling hasn't been that great, but it's not as bad as people make it out to be.

But yes, it's a combination of coaching and talent. Which is why I don't believe the answer lies simply in getting rid of Caldwell and Coyer.

Again, if they can't get the scheme to work find talent and coaches who can. If not, trash the system. Or, ideally, both. I'd rather see a D designed to win games as opposed to not lose them/play with the lead.

Every defense needs a pass rush, which is what we have that makes people say we're designed to play with a lead. But I think we can tweak our scheme to take away the short throws, engage our pass rush more effectively, and get off the field on 3rd down a little bit more frequently. We did in 2009, with virtually the same players. We did in 2007. We don't have to make drastic changes. I don't mind changing coaches, as long as we actually get better. It does get on my nerves when people suggest that simply scrapping the zone defense will fix all our problems.

[Jason_]

See, that's what I'm saying. We don't drop the linebacker deep everytime, and all those short completions coming across the middle aren't the fault of the MLB. Many of them Sunday were because the outside linebacker and the corner played off, the qb and receiver connected in that soft spot to the outside and underneath, and then ran for more yardage. It's a typical zone beater, but it only works if you play off on the outside. The problem isn't the Tampa 2, it's the playing off.

As I mentioned, we don't play Tampa 2 exclusively in any situation.

I think this is a simple misunderstanding. I didn't mean that the defense was playing tampa 2 every play...I meant that every time they did run the tampa 2 on a 1st or 2nd down situation they got beat underneath for an average of over 8 yards per completion. They only dropped the MLB deep in zone on 8 plays that wound up being pass...but on those 8 plays Colt McCoy completed 8/8 passing for 68 yards. On 1st and 2nd down plays where the MLB did not drop into deep zone, McCoy completed 9/15 passes for 74 yards (only 4.9 yards per attempt as opposed to 8.5 with the MLB deep). The TD pass did come on a play where the MLB did not drop deep but if I remember right they played in 2 deep zone and I'm thinking at least one of the LB's came on a blitz. McCoy avoided a sack, scrambled and that's when he was able to get the ball way for the TD.

The tampa 2 was effective when they used it on 3rd downs. There were 3 third down plays where the colts played tampa 2 and McCoy completed 1/3 passes for only 8 yards and I am pretty sure the colts prevented the first down. So basically, I'm saying those 8 plays on 1st and 2nd downs where they did play tampa 2 need to disappear. It would take an extreme situation caused by sack and/or penalty to wind up in a 1st or 2nd down where tampa 2 would be called for. In my opinion anyway.

[Superman]

I think this is a simple misunderstanding. I didn't mean that the defense was playing tampa 2 every play...I meant that every time they did run the tampa 2 on a 1st or 2nd down situation they got beat underneath for an average of over 8 yards per completion. They only dropped the MLB deep in zone on 8 plays that wound up being pass...but on those 8 plays Colt McCoy completed 8/8 passing for 68 yards. On 1st and 2nd down plays where the MLB did not drop into deep zone, McCoy completed 9/15 passes for 74 yards (only 4.9 yards per attempt as opposed to 8.5 with the MLB deep). The TD pass did come on a play where the MLB did not drop deep but if I remember right they played in 2 deep zone and I'm thinking at least one of the LB's came on a blitz. McCoy avoided a sack, scrambled and that's when he was able to get the ball way for the TD.

The tampa 2 was effective when they used it on 3rd downs. There were 3 third down plays where the colts played tampa 2 and McCoy completed 1/3 passes for only 8 yards and I am pretty sure the colts prevented the first down. So basically, I'm saying those 8 plays on 1st and 2nd downs where they did play tampa 2 need to disappear. It would take an extreme situation caused by sack and/or penalty to wind up in a 1st or 2nd down where tampa 2 would be called for. In my opinion anyway.

I'm saying I don't think the problem was that the MLB dropped deep on those plays. I could say that on those 8 plays I held my breath, and that's why the Browns completed so many passes, but that's probably just a coincidence. In my opinion, what the Browns did on those plays more than go over the middle was hit the soft spot in between the corner and the outside linebacker. Maybe you paid more attention to the results on those plays than I did. I just noticed the zone beaters on the outside more than across the middle this week, and I think it's due to the cushions more than the MLB dropping deep.

[Jason_]

I'm saying I don't think the problem was that the MLB dropped deep on those plays. I could say that on those 8 plays I held my breath, and that's why the Browns completed so many passes, but that's probably just a coincidence. In my opinion, what the Browns did on those plays more than go over the middle was hit the soft spot in between the corner and the outside linebacker. Maybe you paid more attention to the results on those plays than I did. I just noticed the zone beaters on the outside more than across the middle this week, and I think it's due to the cushions more than the MLB dropping deep.

I'm sure it was that the browns were exploiting both areas and you simply noticed it more in one area while I noticed it more in another. They obviously need to address both issues or our guys are going to keep winding up in 3rd and shorts.

[wercolts]

It's the LB's , CB's and the play calling, not the scheme. They don't press enough and miss on some blitz opportunities.