POOR DEFENSIVE GAME PLAN

[LUVTHESHOE]

Has anyone heard any reason either from coach( i use that term loosely) or polian on what

appeared to be one of the worst plans with absolutly zero adjustments. they were talking on

the opening drive show about how many short passes were completed and no changes. i think the guys name was ross, he said he had never seen anything like it. has anyone heard anybody from our staff explane the plan?

[dn4192]

Without all the information, it is kind of hard to know why we played the style we did. Since teams don't give out all the details of their schemes and game plans we will never know.

[Mouthfire]

The conservative scheme we played was probably the result of playing two rookies in the secondary.

[sixfive]

I believe the Cover two scheme has passed us by. We all know that the NFL is alway evolving, the Colts have to change with it. I'm not saying get rid of it totally but put some new package's in for certain situations. In the Buc's game there were 3rd and 15 and 17 when the "D" should have tighten up, but they did the opposite. That comes down to coaching, the Colts have players that can make plays but if they aren't in the right schemes those plays will never be made. It all starts with coaching, then the scheme that is the foundation. Go Colts.

[Jason_]

I believe the Cover two scheme has passed us by. We all know that the NFL is alway evolving, the Colts have to change with it. I'm not saying get rid of it totally but put some new package's in for certain situations. In the Buc's game there were 3rd and 15 and 17 when the "D" should have tighten up, but they did the opposite. That comes down to coaching, the Colts have players that can make plays but if they aren't in the right schemes those plays will never be made. It all starts with coaching, then the scheme that is the foundation. Go Colts.

The cover 2 can be a very effective defense...check the Bears. It's the Tampa 2 that's passed us by. Teams have figured out that the short/middle zone is always open vs the tampa 2 and they've been exploiting it all year.

[ruksak]

The cover 2 can be a very effective defense...check the Bears. It's the Tampa 2 that's passed us by. Teams have figured out that the short/middle zone is always open vs the tampa 2 and they've been exploiting it all year.

Crossing routes/HB dumps always destroy the Tampa 2. Better players might alleviate some of this, but the option underneath is a given.

You seem quite knowledgeable of schemes. In your opinion, do you feel it is incumbent upon Wheeler and Conner to read the crossing routes better than they have? Or perhaps dropping a D-lineman into the middle might create more congestion and help to remove this easy option in the intermediate zone?

[Jason_]

Crossing routes/HB dumps always destroy the Tampa 2. Better players might alleviate some of this, but the option underneath is a given.

You seem quite knowledgeable of schemes. In your opinion, do you feel it is incumbent upon Wheeler and Conner to read the crossing routes better than they have? Or perhaps dropping a D-lineman into the middle might create more congestion and help to remove this easy option in the intermediate zone?

In my opinion, the tampa 2 needs to simply be dropped. You need a very specialized set of LBs for the scheme to work. It asks the LBs to do a lot more in coverage than most LBs are capable of doing...which is why Dungy at one point was converting safeties to LBs (Cato June) to get the type of play he needed.

You could drop a DE or DT into the area that the MLB voided but then that takes away from the pass rush. Dropping any one DL into that zone is going to lead to either Freeney or Mathis (or both) being double teamed on virtually every play. IMO, they should simply switch to standard cover 2 as the base defense. Keep the MLB in the short/middle zone where he's supposed to be. As we all know, there are holes in every type of zone, the problem we're having is that the open holes for the tampa 2 are in such a short area that the QB can take a 1 or 3 step drop and get the ball out right away. At least keeping the MLB in his natural position would mean the zone holes would open up behind the LB level instead of in front. This would give the pass rush a little more time to get to the QB.

From the first 3 games that I've tracked (haven't rewatched the TB game yet) when the Colts run any version of the cover 2 instead of the tampa 2, the other team's offensive success is much more erratic. Through the first 3 games, the opposing QB's were 20/25 for 282 yards and a TD versus our tampa 2 coverage on 1st and 2nd downs and 2 of the incompletions were straight up drops by the Steelers WR's. That may not seem like a lot overall, but every one of those 20 completions either put the defense in 2nd and short or 3rd and short or converted a first down.

Against any other coverage besides tampa 2 on 1st and 2nd downs, opposing QB's are 31/45 for 312 yards with 1 TD and 3 INT. Granted the 69% completion percentage is still high but it's much better than the 80% vs. tampa 2. Plus, half of those 312 yards came in the Houston game where they killed us more with the roll-out by Schaub. So, even though the numbers aren't exactly stellar vs. other types of coverage, it doesn't mean a virtually guaranteed completion and sacks, INTs and fumbles have been far more likely than against the tampa 2 so far this season.

basically, the tampa 2 was designed as a way to run more of a prevent defense from a standard 4-3 set. It is the "bend but don't break" defense. They don't care how many yards they give up as long as they prevent TD's. So actually, people are speculating whether or not the "small but undersized" philosophy is what gets our players hurt so much....but it could be more due to the fact that the defense spends so much time on the field. The tampa 2 defense simply isn't built to get stops...it's built to stop the big play and preventing TD's. Like I said they don't care about giving up yardage as long as it doesn't turn into a lot of points. However, by not trying to get stops and by giving up all that yardage, you're keeping the defense on the field. the more they're on the field, getting tired, fatigued etc the more likely they're going to be to get hurt. Granted some things like Foster's ankle are anomalies but muscle pulls, tears things like that might be linked to the amount of time they spend on the field....and lack of any consistent offense has only made that worse. On the other hand, maybe they're totally unrelated. *shrug*

[bdogg]

In my opinion, the tampa 2 needs to simply be dropped. You need a very specialized set of LBs for the scheme to work. It asks the LBs to do a lot more in coverage than most LBs are capable of doing...which is why Dungy at one point was converting safeties to LBs (Cato June) to get the type of play he needed.

You could drop a DE or DT into the area that the MLB voided but then that takes away from the pass rush. Dropping any one DL into that zone is going to lead to either Freeney or Mathis (or both) being double teamed on virtually every play. IMO, they should simply switch to standard cover 2 as the base defense. Keep the MLB in the short/middle zone where he's supposed to be. As we all know, there are holes in every type of zone, the problem we're having is that the open holes for the tampa 2 are in such a short area that the QB can take a 1 or 3 step drop and get the ball out right away. At least keeping the MLB in his natural position would mean the zone holes would open up behind the LB level instead of in front. This would give the pass rush a little more time to get to the QB.

From the first 3 games that I've tracked (haven't rewatched the TB game yet) when the Colts run any version of the cover 2 instead of the tampa 2, the other team's offensive success is much more erratic. Through the first 3 games, the opposing QB's were 20/25 for 282 yards and a TD versus our tampa 2 coverage on 1st and 2nd downs and 2 of the incompletions were straight up drops by the Steelers WR's. That may not seem like a lot overall, but every one of those 20 completions either put the defense in 2nd and short or 3rd and short or converted a first down.

Against any other coverage besides tampa 2 on 1st and 2nd downs, opposing QB's are 31/45 for 312 yards with 1 TD and 3 INT. Granted the 69% completion percentage is still high but it's much better than the 80% vs. tampa 2. Plus, half of those 312 yards came in the Houston game where they killed us more with the roll-out by Schaub. So, even though the numbers aren't exactly stellar vs. other types of coverage, it doesn't mean a virtually guaranteed completion and sacks, INTs and fumbles have been far more likely than against the tampa 2 so far this season.

basically, the tampa 2 was designed as a way to run more of a prevent defense from a standard 4-3 set. It is the "bend but don't break" defense. They don't care how many yards they give up as long as they prevent TD's. So actually, people are speculating whether or not the "small but undersized" philosophy is what gets our players hurt so much....but it could be more due to the fact that the defense spends so much time on the field. The tampa 2 defense simply isn't built to get stops...it's built to stop the big play and preventing TD's. Like I said they don't care about giving up yardage as long as it doesn't turn into a lot of points. However, by not trying to get stops and by giving up all that yardage, you're keeping the defense on the field. the more they're on the field, getting tired, fatigued etc the more likely they're going to be to get hurt. Granted some things like Foster's ankle are anomalies but muscle pulls, tears things like that might be linked to the amount of time they spend on the field....and lack of any consistent offense has only made that worse. On the other hand, maybe they're totally unrelated. *shrug*

I wish our *real* defensive coordinator would pay as much attention as you. Can we nominate you as the new defensive coordinator? Sometimes I feel as if we are just being stubborn with our coaching style. Every other team makes adjustments at halftime, and we don't. If the button shocks the heck out of you the first three times you push it, why push it that fourth time? It was just frustrating to see that the only time our defense was playing to win was during TB's last drive of the game when we were actually trying to stop them. I'm tired of such inconsistency.

Great write-up though. I do wish our coaching staff would make the necessary changes to enable our defense to be productive. We have some of the best defensive players in the league and we run them around like hamsters rather than using them to their full potential. When Pat Angerer is up tight, he is a force to be reckoned with. When he is playing 20 yards back, he has to run up at least 10 yards before he can make the tackle.

[Superman]

From the first 3 games that I've tracked (haven't rewatched the TB game yet) when the Colts run any version of the cover 2 instead of the tampa 2, the other team's offensive success is much more erratic. Through the first 3 games, the opposing QB's were 20/25 for 282 yards and a TD versus our tampa 2 coverage on 1st and 2nd downs and 2 of the incompletions were straight up drops by the Steelers WR's. That may not seem like a lot overall, but every one of those 20 completions either put the defense in 2nd and short or 3rd and short or converted a first down.

These are good points, as is the rest of your post. The Tampa 2 is really a conservative Cover 3 defense, not a Cover 2, and when you play it with big cushions on the outside, it becomes a super-conservative Cover 3, almost a prevent, like you said. It's can be useful when your objective is to limit big gains, but if you make it your primary coverage, you're creating problems elsewhere on the field that can be exploited on early downs. To a certain extent, this is true about any defense, especially a zone defense, but even moreso with regard to the Tampa 2, given its conservative nature. And it's especially aggravating when it fails to limit big gains, which is the primary objective in the first place.

I don't think any defense should be used exclusively. The Jets are one of the most aggressive defenses in the NFL, but they play several variations of Cover 2 zone, including Tampa 2. They mix their coverages, though. They play tons of man, as much as anyone else in the league. They obviously blitz a lot, including some zero coverages. They played a lot of Cover 1 against us in the 2009 AFCCG to take away seam routes with an underneath hook zone, but Garcon was able to get past his man for big gains. Then they went back to Cover 2, and Collie got open down the seam. They were in Cover 2 on the last drive of the first half, where Collie caught two big passes up the middle, including the touchdown pass. Anyways, my point is that even an aggressive coordinator calls conservative coverages, and there's no reason it can't be true the other way around. If Coyer wants to be conservative (which he was NOT in Denver, so I don't understand what his mandate is at this point), that doesn't mean he has to be 100% conservative. And again, if he's going to be conservative, then we can't keep giving up 20+ and 40+ gains.

I wouldn't be complaining about this as much if we were among the league's best at containing plays for minimal yardage. Even under Meeks, we didn't give up big pass plays. We were the league's best against big passes in 2007 and 2008, despite other issues on defense. It irritates me to no end to see us run a defense that's designed to take away big yardage, at the cost of being more engaged underneath, and to still give up big yardage. It has to be one or the other. I'd prefer a more healthy mix of coverages, much like we showed against the Steelers. It cost us a couple big plays (the big Wallace catch was when they caught us without Freeney and Mathis on the field), but the defense was much better across the board.

[Coltsman1788]

In my opinion, the tampa 2 needs to simply be dropped. You need a very specialized set of LBs for the scheme to work. It asks the LBs to do a lot more in coverage than most LBs are capable of doing...which is why Dungy at one point was converting safeties to LBs (Cato June) to get the type of play he needed.

You could drop a DE or DT into the area that the MLB voided but then that takes away from the pass rush. Dropping any one DL into that zone is going to lead to either Freeney or Mathis (or both) being double teamed on virtually every play. IMO, they should simply switch to standard cover 2 as the base defense. Keep the MLB in the short/middle zone where he's supposed to be. As we all know, there are holes in every type of zone, the problem we're having is that the open holes for the tampa 2 are in such a short area that the QB can take a 1 or 3 step drop and get the ball out right away. At least keeping the MLB in his natural position would mean the zone holes would open up behind the LB level instead of in front. This would give the pass rush a little more time to get to the QB.

From the first 3 games that I've tracked (haven't rewatched the TB game yet) when the Colts run any version of the cover 2 instead of the tampa 2, the other team's offensive success is much more erratic. Through the first 3 games, the opposing QB's were 20/25 for 282 yards and a TD versus our tampa 2 coverage on 1st and 2nd downs and 2 of the incompletions were straight up drops by the Steelers WR's. That may not seem like a lot overall, but every one of those 20 completions either put the defense in 2nd and short or 3rd and short or converted a first down.

Against any other coverage besides tampa 2 on 1st and 2nd downs, opposing QB's are 31/45 for 312 yards with 1 TD and 3 INT. Granted the 69% completion percentage is still high but it's much better than the 80% vs. tampa 2. Plus, half of those 312 yards came in the Houston game where they killed us more with the roll-out by Schaub. So, even though the numbers aren't exactly stellar vs. other types of coverage, it doesn't mean a virtually guaranteed completion and sacks, INTs and fumbles have been far more likely than against the tampa 2 so far this season.

basically, the tampa 2 was designed as a way to run more of a prevent defense from a standard 4-3 set. It is the "bend but don't break" defense. They don't care how many yards they give up as long as they prevent TD's. So actually, people are speculating whether or not the "small but undersized" philosophy is what gets our players hurt so much....but it could be more due to the fact that the defense spends so much time on the field. The tampa 2 defense simply isn't built to get stops...it's built to stop the big play and preventing TD's. Like I said they don't care about giving up yardage as long as it doesn't turn into a lot of points. However, by not trying to get stops and by giving up all that yardage, you're keeping the defense on the field. the more they're on the field, getting tired, fatigued etc the more likely they're going to be to get hurt. Granted some things like Foster's ankle are anomalies but muscle pulls, tears things like that might be linked to the amount of time they spend on the field....and lack of any consistent offense has only made that worse. On the other hand, maybe they're totally unrelated. *shrug*

+1 very good post man.

I am at my wit's end watching the "Coyer Effect" take a hold on our defensive coverage.

[Andy]

The Colts' defensive schemes suck... Tampa 2 sucks and we play it too much. Need to play more Cover 3, or at least not let Angerer go 15 yards deep. Let him play in the area where he lines up.

[Superman]

The Colts' defensive schemes suck... Tampa 2 sucks and we play it too much. Need to play more Cover 3, or at least not let Angerer go 15 yards deep. Let him play in the area where he lines up.

We played a lot of Cover 3 in the 2006 playoffs, which allowed Bob Sanders to be closer to the line of scrimmage. But the only safety we have with the proven ability to play in the box like that is Bethea, and if we put him in the box, that means he's not in deep coverage, which jeopardizes us on the back end.

I think we need to play a variety of coverages, including Tampa 2 and all the rest of them. But as the situation calls for it, not as a base defense.

[MAC]

A steady group of four starting DBs would rack up 64 starts between them in a single year.

The Colts have nine DBs on their roster - with a combined 129 starts between them. And Bethea, Powers and Lacey account for 125 of those starts.

That's essentially Bethea, Powers, and than a gaping chasm of immaturity filled with a wide range of raw kids and backups. I'm sure they are playing a little bit more conservative than usual just in an effort to avoid getting toasted repeatedly.

Based on comments that Polian made recently, the implication is that the defense isn't getting to the ball carrier fast enough (nor I would add tackling well enough) on some of these short completions. One would hope that this will improve as the season goes on.

[OLD FAN MAN]

The Colts' defensive schemes suck... Tampa 2 sucks and we play it too much. Need to play more Cover 3, or at least not let Angerer go 15 yards deep. Let him play in the area where he lines up.

if we keep playing the cover 2 we will lead the nfl in tackles and give up the most yards,we need 3 and outs not leading the nfl in tackles

[everybodysgotone]

In my opinion, the tampa 2 needs to simply be dropped. You need a very specialized set of LBs for the scheme to work. It asks the LBs to do a lot more in coverage than most LBs are capable of doing...which is why Dungy at one point was converting safeties to LBs (Cato June) to get the type of play he needed.

You could drop a DE or DT into the area that the MLB voided but then that takes away from the pass rush. Dropping any one DL into that zone is going to lead to either Freeney or Mathis (or both) being double teamed on virtually every play. IMO, they should simply switch to standard cover 2 as the base defense. Keep the MLB in the short/middle zone where he's supposed to be. As we all know, there are holes in every type of zone, the problem we're having is that the open holes for the tampa 2 are in such a short area that the QB can take a 1 or 3 step drop and get the ball out right away. At least keeping the MLB in his natural position would mean the zone holes would open up behind the LB level instead of in front. This would give the pass rush a little more time to get to the QB.

From the first 3 games that I've tracked (haven't rewatched the TB game yet) when the Colts run any version of the cover 2 instead of the tampa 2, the other team's offensive success is much more erratic. Through the first 3 games, the opposing QB's were 20/25 for 282 yards and a TD versus our tampa 2 coverage on 1st and 2nd downs and 2 of the incompletions were straight up drops by the Steelers WR's. That may not seem like a lot overall, but every one of those 20 completions either put the defense in 2nd and short or 3rd and short or converted a first down.

Against any other coverage besides tampa 2 on 1st and 2nd downs, opposing QB's are 31/45 for 312 yards with 1 TD and 3 INT. Granted the 69% completion percentage is still high but it's much better than the 80% vs. tampa 2. Plus, half of those 312 yards came in the Houston game where they killed us more with the roll-out by Schaub. So, even though the numbers aren't exactly stellar vs. other types of coverage, it doesn't mean a virtually guaranteed completion and sacks, INTs and fumbles have been far more likely than against the tampa 2 so far this season.

basically, the tampa 2 was designed as a way to run more of a prevent defense from a standard 4-3 set. It is the "bend but don't break" defense. They don't care how many yards they give up as long as they prevent TD's. So actually, people are speculating whether or not the "small but undersized" philosophy is what gets our players hurt so much....but it could be more due to the fact that the defense spends so much time on the field. The tampa 2 defense simply isn't built to get stops...it's built to stop the big play and preventing TD's. Like I said they don't care about giving up yardage as long as it doesn't turn into a lot of points. However, by not trying to get stops and by giving up all that yardage, you're keeping the defense on the field. the more they're on the field, getting tired, fatigued etc the more likely they're going to be to get hurt. Granted some things like Foster's ankle are anomalies but muscle pulls, tears things like that might be linked to the amount of time they spend on the field....and lack of any consistent offense has only made that worse. On the other hand, maybe they're totally unrelated. *shrug*

Excellent post.

This should be pinned for reference for all those coming here believing speculation and questioning team decision making is nonsense. Much goes into what happens on the field. It's not a game of checkers.

[everybodysgotone]

These are good points, as is the rest of your post. The Tampa 2 is really a conservative Cover 3 defense, not a Cover 2, and when you play it with big cushions on the outside, it becomes a super-conservative Cover 3, almost a prevent, like you said. It's can be useful when your objective is to limit big gains, but if you make it your primary coverage, you're creating problems elsewhere on the field that can be exploited on early downs. To a certain extent, this is true about any defense, especially a zone defense, but even moreso with regard to the Tampa 2, given its conservative nature. And it's especially aggravating when it fails to limit big gains, which is the primary objective in the first place.

I don't think any defense should be used exclusively. The Jets are one of the most aggressive defenses in the NFL, but they play several variations of Cover 2 zone, including Tampa 2. They mix their coverages, though. They play tons of man, as much as anyone else in the league. They obviously blitz a lot, including some zero coverages. They played a lot of Cover 1 against us in the 2009 AFCCG to take away seam routes with an underneath hook zone, but Garcon was able to get past his man for big gains. Then they went back to Cover 2, and Collie got open down the seam. They were in Cover 2 on the last drive of the first half, where Collie caught two big passes up the middle, including the touchdown pass. Anyways, my point is that even an aggressive coordinator calls conservative coverages, and there's no reason it can't be true the other way around. If Coyer wants to be conservative (which he was NOT in Denver, so I don't understand what his mandate is at this point), that doesn't mean he has to be 100% conservative. And again, if he's going to be conservative, then we can't keep giving up 20+ and 40+ gains.

I wouldn't be complaining about this as much if we were among the league's best at containing plays for minimal yardage. Even under Meeks, we didn't give up big pass plays. We were the league's best against big passes in 2007 and 2008, despite other issues on defense. It irritates me to no end to see us run a defense that's designed to take away big yardage, at the cost of being more engaged underneath, and to still give up big yardage. It has to be one or the other. I'd prefer a more healthy mix of coverages, much like we showed against the Steelers. It cost us a couple big plays (the big Wallace catch was when they caught us without Freeney and Mathis on the field), but the defense was much better across the board.

Attach this, too.

Excellent write-ups. Among the best I've seen here. Thanks for taking the time.

[Smitto]

The conservative scheme we played was probably the result of playing two rookies in the secondary.

Thats not true, pat was talking about it in his interview and its basically because they would rather have them catch the ball infront of them than behind them... it wasnt because of rookies... idk how ppl would come up with that.

[Chef-Jayson]

I've never been a fan of the tampa 2. As far as zone defenses go...it appears to have too many weaknesses. Most of them glaringly obvious to any mediocre or better qb. I truely do not understand the idea behind leaving the middle of the field completely uncovered. Leaves open the short pass...with insane YAC potential. Also the run. Unless you have a good d-line to prevent the runners from breaking through...its bound to be good yardage. That is not the most aggrovating part of our defense recently though. Its the complete lack of caring from Coyer. I say lack of caring...because any DC that sees his defense allowing 3rd and 10+ conversions regularly...and still decides to put his LBs 20 yards off of scrimage, his CBs playing 15 yards off recievers, and his safeties in a deep zone, all the while making no real effort to do anything about it...to me clearly doesn't care. Football games by nature have an ebb and flow to them. Things change rapidly and the teams needs to change to match their opponents change. Id like to see an offense run the same stretch play or same deep pass for every offensive play the whole game like we do with the tampa 2. Sure maybe you'll complete a few passes and break a couple runs...but chances are...you're gonna lose. The solution to Mondays game was so easy my 16 year old brother knew it. Leave just 1 LB (preferably Angerer) in the middle and drop the other 2 back like the tampa 2 calls for (or just change the play calling?). Make them beat you deeper than 5-10 yards...which is what the tampa 2 is designed to prevent. How Coyer couldn't make the adjustment is beyond me.

[FRW]

Since we are low on DTs and relatively deep at LB especially if you moved Hughes to an LB position why not try moving to 3-4 style defense to play to our strengths?

[Jason_]

Since we are low on DTs and relatively deep at LB especially if you moved Hughes to an LB position why not try moving to 3-4 style defense to play to our strengths?

Just for starters....if we switched to a 3-4 then Freeney and Mathis would also have to switch to OLB. Switching to a 3-4 would not be playing to our strengths.

[OLD FAN MAN]

Just for starters....if we switched to a 3-4 then Freeney and Mathis would also have to switch to OLB. Switching to a 3-4 would not be playing to our strengths.

what strengths?? all i see is weaknesses

[Jason_]

what strengths?? all i see is weaknesses

The coaches see strengths in several areas and will make adjustments as needed.

[OLD FAN MAN]

The coaches see strengths in several areas and will make adjustments as needed.

you got me, i forgot about the coaches adjustments

[Jason_]

Based on comments that Polian made recently, the implication is that the defense isn't getting to the ball carrier fast enough (nor I would add tackling well enough) on some of these short completions. One would hope that this will improve as the season goes on.

I'm not sure what Polian expects of the pass rush. The completions we're getting burned on are screens and 3-5 yard short routes that only require a 1-3 step drop to be able to complete. Even considering how fast Freeney and Mathis are, they're not quick enough to get to the QB if he's only taking a 1-3 step drop on every play. If you keep the LBs in the middle of the field then those short passes aren't open most of the time. Therefore you have your receivers either run slightly deeper routs to get behind the LBs or run routes with double moves to get the LB going one way and then use the receiver's speed to cut back the other way. Either way, these plays take longer to develop so you're giving the pass rush more time to get to the QB.

That's essentially Bethea, Powers, and than a gaping chasm of immaturity filled with a wide range of raw kids and backups. I'm sure they are playing a little bit more conservative than usual just in an effort to avoid getting toasted repeatedly.

Others have said this too including reports of defensive players saying the same thing and I'm sure you're right and that this is the theory behind the soft coverage....my problem with this theory is, like above, when you drop the LBs back as deep as the Colts have been doing then you're opening up the short area of the field which gives the pass rush very little time to get to the QB. They're giving the CB's help with the outside receivers but you're using the guys who are supposed to be covering the TEs, RBs and slot WRs.

Also, the whole premise of the tampa 2 is to bend but don't break...give up yards but don't give up scores. They don't really care about letting the other team get to the 20 yard line but then tighten everything up and force a field goal at best. So if that's the case, then why not let the other team move a little quicker. The passes they're giving up are the very high percentage short passes that are getting 5-10 yards every time so they're dinking and dunking their way down the field taking a lot of time off the clock. I'd stick to normal cover 2, keep the LBs in the middle so if you're giving up completions, they're longer completions so the other team A) doesn't dominate time of possession like they've been doing and B) give your pass rush more time to get to the QB for a sack, or get pressure to force a bad throw. I'd rather get a push on the pocket and try to force the QB into a bad throw deeper down the field. However even if the pass rush never gets to the QB, the types of routes that are going to open up are much lower percentage passes. Plus the ball stays in the air longer giving the defense longer to react once the ball is in the air.

If I were the other team, I'd call a different type of screen pass every single time the LBs line up deep.

[MAC]

Others have said this too including reports of defensive players saying the same thing and I'm sure you're right and that this is the theory behind the soft coverage....my problem with this theory is, like above, when you drop the LBs back as deep as the Colts have been doing then you're opening up the short area of the field which gives the pass rush very little time to get to the QB. They're giving the CB's help with the outside receivers but you're using the guys who are supposed to be covering the TEs, RBs and slot WRs.

Also, the whole premise of the tampa 2 is to bend but don't break...give up yards but don't give up scores. They don't really care about letting the other team get to the 20 yard line but then tighten everything up and force a field goal at best. So if that's the case, then why not let the other team move a little quicker. The passes they're giving up are the very high percentage short passes that are getting 5-10 yards every time so they're dinking and dunking their way down the field taking a lot of time off the clock. I'd stick to normal cover 2, keep the LBs in the middle so if you're giving up completions, they're longer completions so the other team A) doesn't dominate time of possession like they've been doing and B) give your pass rush more time to get to the QB for a sack, or get pressure to force a bad throw. I'd rather get a push on the pocket and try to force the QB into a bad throw deeper down the field. However even if the pass rush never gets to the QB, the types of routes that are going to open up are much lower percentage passes. Plus the ball stays in the air longer giving the defense longer to react once the ball is in the air.

If I were the other team, I'd call a different type of screen pass every single time the LBs line up deep.

I won't pretend to be as knowledgeable about schemes as you are - I just try to apply common sense to what I read and hear. Your criticisms make sense. Polian was just emphasizing the other day (in his most recent Q&A on the Star) the vital importance to this defense of hurrying the QB. In that conversation he also emphasized the importance of the players coming up quickly and making the tackle. I think that the corollary to my previous comment is his implication - left unsaid - that the defense hasn't been doing a good enough job of that. My assumption is that this has a lot to do with the aforementioned youth. As they learn to recognize better they should react better. Do you really think that they can modify the scheme in mid-season to correct for the problem, or - considering the personnel - is it better to just try and get them to perform better under the current scheme? Personally I have no idea.

I also suspect given a choice between a long drive resulting in a field goal and a short drive resulting in a field goal, they might prefer the long drive. Sounds illogical, but the point is that they don't actually desire to give up ANY points, but the long drive gives you many more opportunities to get off the field. I don't think that you can approach it as if the goal is give up the points asap and get back on offense - at least not without PM. With him you're trading 3 for 7. This season you're too often trading 3 for 0, and then giving the other team another 3. The Colts have proven that they don't need to win the time of possession because (even with Painter) we can potentially score faster than most teams - but we can't give up the quick strike.

Regarding changing the scheme altogether, I will say that it does seem absurd to watch the MLB turn and sprint backwards on play after play. It seems like something that you might do out of necessity if you found yourself limited by a certain personnel group, but not something that you would plan to do intentionally. If the MLB is really functioning as a 3rd safety in certain situations, then why not play him as a safety in those situations to begin with. It's easier to come forward than to go backwards.

[Mouthfire]

There's nothing wrong with the Tampa 2. I just don't think we should be using it as our base defense. Our defense has stagnated to the point that they're expecting that underneath route to be open ALL THE **** TIME.

Solution: disguise the coverages a bit more. If the opposing team is looking to pass it underneath, use that to our advantage. The defense's problem isn't the Tampa 2, but that's they've become so predictable. That's a Coyer issue more than anything else.

[Jason_]

Polian was just emphasizing the other day (in his most recent Q&A on the Star) the vital importance to this defense of hurrying the QB. In that conversation he also emphasized the importance of the players coming up quickly and making the tackle. I think that the corollary to my previous comment is his implication - left unsaid - that the defense hasn't been doing a good enough job of that.

These are 2 things that are emphasized with the tampa 2...quick pressure and quick read and react to make the play. But Polian/Caldwell/Coyer etc have all GOT to realize that the Colts are getting killed with those short 1-5 yard completions that are being turned into 5-10+ yard gains because of YAC. If we line up the LBs 10-15 yards off the LOS then there's no way for them to react quickly enough to come up and make a stop for a short gain on a 1-5 yard completion. Plus being so far back allows the other team to move players in position to setup blocks on the LBS. If the LBs were kept at the LB level (via cover 2 instead of tampa 2), then those 1-5 yard completions can be kept to short gains by quick reaction from the LBs.

I also suspect given a choice between a long drive resulting in a field goal and a short drive resulting in a field goal, they might prefer the long drive. Sounds illogical, but the point is that they don't actually desire to give up ANY points, but the long drive gives you many more opportunities to get off the field. I don't think that you can approach it as if the goal is give up the points asap and get back on offense - at least not without PM. With him you're trading 3 for 7. This season you're too often trading 3 for 0, and then giving the other team another 3. The Colts have proven that they don't need to win the time of possession because (even with Painter) we can potentially score faster than most teams - but we can't give up the quick strike.

You're right about this....that part of my post was more a rant than anything. The colts have never cared about time of possession in the past, or 3rd down conversions or yardage given up. I have to wonder though, if perhaps the multitude of defensive injuries we typically face may be more due to the fact that we always come out so far behind in time of possession. People keep looking for a reason why our defensive players are injured so often...not just this year but years past as well. More often than not people attribute it to being undersized which is a valid point. However, I'm beginning to wonder if it has just as much to do with how much our defense is on the field. Do teams who lead the league in 3rd down conversion defense suffer as many injuries on defense as we do? I honestly have no idea.

Regarding changing the scheme altogether, I will say that it does seem absurd to watch the MLB turn and sprint backwards on play after play. It seems like something that you might do out of necessity if you found yourself limited by a certain personnel group, but not something that you would plan to do intentionally. If the MLB is really functioning as a 3rd safety in certain situations, then why not play him as a safety in those situations to begin with. It's easier to come forward than to go backwards.

A lot of people are calling for an overhaul of the scheme...however I'm not. Just simply stop using tampa 2 in anything but very long yardage situations, if at all. The cover 2 defense (as long as you're not too predictable, but that's true of any scheme) is and can be very effective and we have the personnel to run it...because we do run it quite a bit. I've never really been able to figure out though why Dungy and Kiffin wanted to run the MLB back into deep coverage. I've never been able to figure this out. If you want someone back there playing as a 3rd safety then, why not just use a 3rd safety? Or a Nickel CB? If you want a 3 deep shell then just use a more standard cover 3. All they're doing is putting guys in positions they're not used to being in so it takes a very specialized set of players that you're not going to find very often.

Also Mac, I hope my this post and my last don't come off the wrong way...I'm not trying to argue with you. I think you're right on about why the colts are doing what they're doing. I just don't get what the logic is behind the coaches decisions to do these things.

One more point to add...I think the comments made by Polian show, to me at least, that he's not as influential in the day to day running of the team as a lot of people suggest he is. It sounds to me like he's passing along things that have been told to him by the coaches and not things he's seen and studied for himself. I really don't think that as long as he's been in the league and as much as he's seen over the years that he could expect the pass rush to get to the passer consistently when the passer is only taking a 1-3 step drop, or the LBs to make a play on a 1-5 yard completion when they're 10-15 yards downfield.

There's nothing wrong with the Tampa 2. I just don't think we should be using it as our base defense. Our defense has stagnated to the point that they're expecting that underneath route to be open ALL THE **** TIME.

Solution: disguise the coverages a bit more. If the opposing team is looking to pass it underneath, use that to our advantage. The defense's problem isn't the Tampa 2, but that's they've become so predictable. That's a Coyer issue more than anything else.

I very much disagree. I could maybe see using the tampa 2 on 3rd and longs but that's it. It's essentially a prevent defense and should be used as such, imo. I can't think of any valid reason to run tampa 2 coverage on 1st or 2nd downs unless it's for 15 yard or more to get the first down but even then there is just as valid an argument for not using it in that situation as there is to use it.

[plshlp18]

The two-deep scheme was certainly exploited by Tampa Bay, but it was a dropped interception in the end zone that led to a touchdown and Dwight Freeney lining up offsides that gave Tampa the points they needed to win. I'll give the defensive coaches a pass on this one and differ to the players' lack of execution. It's always one or the other though.

[GoColts8818]

The two-deep scheme was certainly exploited by Tampa Bay, but it was a dropped interception in the end zone that led to a touchdown and Dwight Freeney lining up offsides that gave Tampa the points they needed to win. I'll give the defensive coaches a pass on this one and differ to the players' lack of execution. It's always one or the other though.

I agree with you infact I agree with you I posted much of what you said right after the game and I was ripped a new one for it. Just to back up your point Angerer was on the radio earlier this week and said the 4 to 5 yard check downs wasn't was causing them to get beat, he said it was the other mistakes that was causing the problem. I'll agree all day watching the same play over and over is very frustrating but if the Colts make the pick in the endzone and score we go up 17-0 at that point against a very young Bucs team and we had just stopped their only good drive of the game. You might have seen the Bucs crumble a little bit under the pressure at that point. Coulda, woulda, shoulda though, as they said on the broadcast at the time of the dropped INT that's the difference between good and bad football teams, good teams make that play. That was the turning point in the game.

Tampa 2 works if you make the plays which means you have to make the INTs when they are there and you have to tackle the guy as soon as he catches the ball. Too many times this season we've seen the first Colt make a hit only to let the guy get away and have Angerer or Conner come in and finish the guy off after he gets an extra five to 10 yards. That's the real problem, our tackling has been poor as a whole. I am sure in some way you can put that on coaches but to me that's letting the players off the hook. It tells me the coaches called the right play and the guys on the field just didn't make the play.

With that said though, if the guys we have aren't good enough to play Tampa 2 you have to adjust and I will put that on Coyer. This has been the same problem for four weeks now and the Colts aren't adjusting. I know in the Bucs game they were handcuffed because of all the injuries and were limited on what they could do (again JMV said on the radio he talked to a Colts defender this week and he said Coyer had them in the Tampa 2 so much because it's the base defense they didn't trust the young guys on the outside to be alone in man coverage out of fear of getting beat deep) so I can agree to give him a pass there but the others they should have tweeked the game plan some.

I think people also have to give the Bucs a little credit here too. They recongized we were hurting for personal and knew we were limited on what we could do, they knew when they wanted to throw we were pretty much stuck in Tampa 2 so they attacked the holes in it. They also knew we were down to one DT and even with two good DTs we aren't the best at stopping the run up the gut so they rammed it down our throat till finally they broke a long one. That's good coaching on their part more than it is anything we did wrong.

[CanuckColtsFan]

I would like to see some more blitzes. That's it that's all. I like the tampa two but we need some slot corner blitzes out of the dime package with a bit of rolling coverage. Not often but just enough to make people question certain looks.

Edited October 9, 2011 by CanuckColtsFan

[GoColts8818]

I would like to see some more blitzes. That's it that's all. I like the tampa two but we need some slot corner blitzes out of the dime package with a bit of rolling coverage. Not often but just enough to make people question certain looks.

We saw those blitzs in the Steelers game when we had more healthy people. Heck they tried them a lot towards the end of the Bucs game to try to stop the run they just weren't getting home. With that said though that is just looking at two games and I would agree as a whole Coyer has not used the blitz enough since he's been here. With that said I've seen several games where people said oh we should have blitzed and we did the guys just didn't make it threw the line.

[MAC]

I have to wonder though, if perhaps the multitude of defensive injuries we typically face may be more due to the fact that we always come out so far behind in time of possession. People keep looking for a reason why our defensive players are injured so often...not just this year but years past as well. More often than not people attribute it to being undersized which is a valid point. However, I'm beginning to wonder if it has just as much to do with how much our defense is on the field. Do teams who lead the league in 3rd down conversion defense suffer as many injuries on defense as we do? I honestly have no idea.

I saw someone commenting on this recently - perhaps it was you - and it's an extremely logical explanation. Someone with too much time on their hands could actually turn that into a math exercise.

Also Mac, I hope my this post and my last don't come off the wrong way...I'm not trying to argue with you. I think you're right on about why the colts are doing what they're doing. I just don't get what the logic is behind the coaches decisions to do these things.

No worries. I flounder (and I'm realizing repeat myself) in these types of conversations because I don't know enough Xs and Os, but I have no problem with anything you said. Feel free to argue (or not) and rant to your hearts content.

One more point to add...I think the comments made by Polian show, to me at least, that he's not as influential in the day to day running of the team as a lot of people suggest he is. It sounds to me like he's passing along things that have been told to him by the coaches and not things he's seen and studied for himself. I really don't think that as long as he's been in the league and as much as he's seen over the years that he could expect the pass rush to get to the passer consistently when the passer is only taking a 1-3 step drop, or the LBs to make a play on a 1-5 yard completion when they're 10-15 yards downfield.

Interesting. I don't think that he is a micro-controller either - everyone has their own job to do - but I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't at least be brought up to speed properly and giving his input at some point. Perhaps it's the timing. I remember from the last interview he said something about the injured players not even having been seen by a doctor yet at that point. Now that I think about it, if they didn't even know that yet, it was probably way too early for anyone to be fully informed about the details of the prior game. The coaches might still be in their jammies at that hour for all we know.