My Non-Professional Analysis Of Why The Tampa 2 Is Dead, And Should Be Put In A Box Forever.

[Xfiles]

Not going to be rant thread, or a 50 page over analysis. Full disclosure, I am just a fan, and not a professional:

Tampa 2 style of cover 2 defense is a system based on the philosophy that keeping everything in front of the DB's cuts down on big plays, and forces the offense to execute 12 play drives without error in order to score. "Bend but dont break." We have all heard that.

My problem with this system is that in today's NFL, the offenses, offensive personel, quarterbacks, and schemes are infinitely more capable of passing the ball 12-15 times under the shell for medium yardage without making a mistake. If the pass rush is nuetralized, the tampa 2 has ZERO chance of success.

On the other hand, if your pass rush is working even nominaly, then the offense will take advantage of the fact that you are dropping LB's deep into coverage, and your undersized, fast, defensive lineman have no chance to stop 5 offensive lineman, a TE, and a fullback at the point of attack. So essentially, its death by 5-7 yard increments, all the way down the field, and the clock gets eaten away along with the teams ability to have enough possesions to score enough.

Death by pass, Death by run, its all death just the same.

In summation, ANY defense that is based on the idea that giving up yardage in order to save yardage(assuming the tackle would even be made) is flawed, outdated, and frequently exposed by todays pass happy, and well executing offenses.

[Jaric]

Agree 100%.

It's a big part of why the defense wears out in the 2nd half, because they can't get off the field because they're playing prevent defense.

[GoGoColts]

The Woes of the Colts have more to do with having a defense where half the players are practice squad caliber.

[Xfiles]

The Woes of the Colts have more to do with having a defense where half the players are practice squad caliber.

That is certainly part of it as well, but the system itself is also flawed IMO.

[Rich Cannon]

Ive been preaching a similar belief since pre season on this forum. The ide of playing 5-10 yds off the line every play is foolish. I believe it has more to do with tampa 2 and less with the players

Here are my reasons why we should switch to a 4-3 asap

Reasons. - The way we play tampa 2 we normally only rush 4, relying on 4 down lineman to get pressure with 2 corners playing 7-10 yds off the line of scrimmage, with no pressure this scheme fails misserably. And if you have watched football or looked at the stats we are once again in the lower 3rd in the league in sacks because we rely on 4 down lineman 90 percent of the time to get pressure which is foolish. No pressure with corners 7-10 yds off the line and lb's in coverage 90 percent of the time = quick slants, ins, outs and any other medium route you can think of which have killed us the last 3 games in particular. Instead of helping Freeney/Mathis and company we simply fall back into ceverage every play The corners are out of the play before the ball is hiked its just plain old sad that this type of playcalling hasnt changes yet. You have to at least put your players in postion to make plays and our D coaching staff hasnt done that. You cant expect to stop Drew Bress on 1st n goal on the 10 yd line if your 7 yds off of Jimmy Graham, Coltson and Moore and not expect one of them not to catch a quick slant for a touchdown,

[jskinnz]

Every team in the league uses a form of the Tampa 2 or cover 2. Or certainly every 4-3 team at least. I don't believe that defense is dead at all. I think the Colts simply have a talent deficiency rather than a schematic issue. The Bears had a top defense last year playing mostly that scheme. The Jags were stout last night when they went with a rush 4 and drop 7 D.

The talent on the Colts simply is not what it used to be.

[mystrymaster]

Every team in the league uses a form of the Tampa 2 or cover 2. Or certainly every 4-3 team at least. I don't believe that defense is dead at all. I think the Colts simply have a talent deficiency rather than a schematic issue. The Bears had a top defense last year playing mostly that scheme. The Jags were stout last night when they went with a rush 4 and drop 7 D.

The talent on the Colts simply is not what it used to be.

Every team uses a form of it sometimes, not on every single play when it is getting abused over and over and over and over... repeat ad nauseum.

The major problem is quarterbacks and offensive coordinators and schemes are way to complicated and sophisticated to play the same defense every time and expect it to work more then maybe one third of the time.

Some of the best defenses in the NFL are the defenses that keep you guessing. We as an organization understand this on the offensive side of the ball but for some reason we feel that plain jane vanilla is the way to go on the defensive side.

[jskinnz]

Every team uses a form of it sometimes, not on every single play when it is getting abused over and over and over and over... repeat ad nauseum.

The major problem is quarterbacks and offensive coordinators and schemes are way to complicated and sophisticated to play the same defense every time and expect it to work more then maybe one third of the time.

Some of the best defenses in the NFL are the defenses that keep you guessing. We as an organization understand this on the offensive side of the ball but for some reason we feel that plain jane vanilla is the way to go on the defensive side.

It is a scheme that is designed to make long drives the norm and is theoretically capable of hiding weak links. Unfortunately for the Colts, there are too many weak links. They are clearly afraid of getting the young corners and safeties beat deep.

You get better personnel you can afford to take more risks but those risks would still be the norm rather than the exception. Tampa 2 can still be your base defense.

[Larry Horseman]

Instead of arguing whether or not it is the personnel or the Tampa 2 scheme (we don't always run the Tampa 2 btw...a lot of times we are playing Cover 2...as I understand the drop of the MLB is how one really tells the difference), I think the point is that the current players on our roster are not able to play the scheme Coyer and JC keep putting them in. Could they excel--or at least play better--in a different scheme? Perhaps. Is it the coaches fault we don't know whether of not this is the case? Absolutely. Point is, our current defensive personnel is not being put in a scheme that plays to their strengths and enables them to be more successful. Since the personnel and scheme don't match, then yes, it is time for the Colts to try something new.

I do agree with a lot of what the OP says about our defensive philosophy. I've been saying for a long while that NFL offenses have mastered the short slants, outs, etc. that both negate the pass rush and will always be open due to playing so far off the ball on the outside.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Larry Horseman

[jskinnz]

Instead of arguing whether or not it is the personnel or the Tampa 2 scheme (we don't always run the Tampa 2 btw...a lot of times we are playing Cover 2...as I understand the drop of the MLB is how one really tells the difference), I think the point is that the current players on our roster are not able to play the scheme Coyer and JC keep putting them in. Could they excel--or at least play better--in a different scheme? Perhaps. Is it the coaches fault we don't know whether of not this is the case? Absolutely. Point is, our current defensive personnel is not being put in a scheme that plays to their strengths and enables them to be more successful. Since the personnel and scheme don't match, then yes, it is time for the Colts to try something new.

I do agree with a lot of what the OP says about our defensive philosophy. I've been saying for a long while that NFL offenses have mastered the short slants, outs, etc. that both negate the pass rush and will always be open due to playing so far off the ball on the outside.

Cover 2 is as simple of defensive philosophy as you can have and Caldwell, Lefeged, Johnson, Lacey, Rucker & Thomas to an extent have proven incapable of playing well in that scheme. If they lack the talent to play cover 2 well, then they certainly lack the ability play other schemes very well.

[Larry Horseman]

Cover 2 is as simple of defensive philosophy as you can have and Caldwell, Lefeged, Johnson, Lacey, Rucker & Thomas to an extent have proven incapable of playing well in that scheme. If they lack the talent to play cover 2 well, then they certainly lack the ability play other schemes very well.

I understand the simplicity of Cover 2. However, there are many variations of the Cover 2. For example, Cover 2 zone, Cover 2 man, Cover 2 man under, Tampa 2...the list could go on, but you probably know this already. I also understand that we run other defenses besides the Cover 2; it's just our base defense. I'm not claiming to be an expert, like a lot of posters do on this forum; all I'm saying is that from my basic football knowledge, our talent (or lack there of) is not being meshed with our defensive schemes. In all reality, it's probably the perfect storm of roster issues and poor coaching that is resulting in this mess...the former can not really be fixed immediately, but the latter sure can. There's no reason, except for poor game planning, this team should have a worse record than 3-4. Cleveland, TB, and KC (probably Cincy as well) were all winnable games with the talent on our roster.

[coltfaninnewyork]

Not going to be rant thread, or a 50 page over analysis. Full disclosure, I am just a fan, and not a professional:

Tampa 2 style of cover 2 defense is a system based on the philosophy that keeping everything in front of the DB's cuts down on big plays, and forces the offense to execute 12 play drives without error in order to score. "Bend but dont break." We have all heard that.

My problem with this system is that in today's NFL, the offenses, offensive personel, quarterbacks, and schemes are infinitely more capable of passing the ball 12-15 times under the shell for medium yardage without making a mistake. If the pass rush is nuetralized, the tampa 2 has ZERO chance of success.

On the other hand, if your pass rush is working even nominaly, then the offense will take advantage of the fact that you are dropping LB's deep into coverage, and your undersized, fast, defensive lineman have no chance to stop 5 offensive lineman, a TE, and a fullback at the point of attack. So essentially, its death by 5-7 yard increments, all the way down the field, and the clock gets eaten away along with the teams ability to have enough possesions to score enough.

Death by pass, Death by run, its all death just the same.

In summation, ANY defense that is based on the idea that giving up yardage in order to save yardage(assuming the tackle would even be made) is flawed, outdated, and frequently exposed by todays pass happy, and well executing offenses.

Agree,look at the texans they changed to a 3-4 with no offseason and are doing quite well.That was a terrible d last year,so with a new scheme and a good coordinator we to can improve.

[Andy]

The Tampa 2 has been dead for years. Teams have been beating it since since the year after our SB year. It's very beatable for pass heavy teams. It's a terrible scheme, and this year it's really standing out, and in a bad way. I say this every week in the chat... it has to go and I agree with this article.

[Rich Cannon]

Every team in the league uses a form of the Tampa 2 or cover 2. Or certainly every 4-3 team at least. I don't believe that defense is dead at all. I think the Colts simply have a talent deficiency rather than a schematic issue. The Bears had a top defense last year playing mostly that scheme. The Jags were stout last night when they went with a rush 4 and drop 7 D.

The talent on the Colts simply is not what it used to be.

very true, but its when you are using it, we use it on 90 percent of defensive plays, theres no reason on 3 and 2 for you to play 7 yards off of the opposing teams WR's thats crazy, quick slant 1st down its annoying to watch. The bears and giants mix much more man coverage into there cover 2 scheme and dont play 7 -10 yds off in critical sitation on 3rd and mid. And simply relying on 4 down rushers 80 percent of the time is why we are in the lower 3rd of the league in sacks. And without Manning to give us the lead on most occasions, those pressures Freeney/Mathis once created are negated by quick slants etc because teams no longer have to take shots down the field (IE. 7 step drops from the qb mean most patterns are vertically down the field) vs us because we dont have the lead in most games as we once did IMO

Edited October 26, 2011 by Rich Cannon