Outdated Defense

[fvantagio]

I know a lot of people here have been complaining about the Tampa 2 scheme being outdated. Which i would agree on. However I would take it one step further and say the 4-3 and 3-4 schemes as a whole are outdated. Remember teams used to run a 5-2 until that got exposed. With the new freak TE's taking the league over, defenses have to do something to stop them. I think defenses will have to go to base nickle and dime packages. This will create another position almost, and that being the LB/DB hybrid players (Derrick Brooks type). Teams have gone to more nickle and dime packages but I think the Colts should be the first ones to go all in on it. Approach this off season to try and grab the guys needed to make it work, as well as bring in a defensive minded coach that could work out any wrinkles and create a playbook that would be much more complex then what is normally used. This defense gives you way more flexibility in the zones and coverages you can use because you have the extra DB. Its time we ditch the 1990's D, and bring in the new 2010's D. What yall think?

[shaunzo]

Its time we ditch the 1990's D, and bring in the new 2010's D. What yall think?

I say yes.

[21isSuperman]

So what do you suggest? If 5-2 is outdated, 4-3 is outdated and 3-4 is also outdated, does that mean we go to a 2-5 with 2 down linemen and 5 LBs? I don't think that'll work. Bigger offensive linemen will get to the second level and stuff our LBs, letting the offense get 5+ yards per carry.

I think the base cover 2 is outdated. However, I do like many things about it. It is based on speed, which I love. Teams have trouble against our defense in the red zone because our speedy front 7 can cover a lot of ground in very little time.

I say we go to the Tampa 2.0 (coined by me just now ). Tampa 2 shell, prevent the big play, keep speed a priority. However, our secondary is not very fast, so we would bring in a few speedsters in the secondary. Then bring in some bigger players to play DT and LB than the guys we have now, some taller CBs won't hurt, but aren't a priority. Have the CBs jam more and be more aggressive at the line of scrimmage (Revis style), their speed will help them catch up if the receiver beats them. Call more stunts and blitzes to confuse and overwhelm offensive linemen. Mix up the playbook with a few 3-4 package plays. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the Tampa 2.0, presented to you by 21isSuperman. Keep in mind, I'm nowhere near an NFL level defensive coordinator, so I'm sure there are tons of holes and problems with my scheme.

[fvantagio]

So what do you suggest? If 5-2 is outdated, 4-3 is outdated and 3-4 is also outdated, does that mean we go to a 2-5 with 2 down linemen and 5 LBs? I don't think that'll work. Bigger offensive linemen will get to the second level and stuff our LBs, letting the offense get 5+ yards per carry.

I think the base cover 2 is outdated. However, I do like many things about it. It is based on speed, which I love. Teams have trouble against our defense in the red zone because our speedy front 7 can cover a lot of ground in very little time.

I say we go to the Tampa 2.0 (coined by me just now ). Tampa 2 shell, prevent the big play, keep speed a priority. However, our secondary is not very fast, so we would bring in a few speedsters in the secondary. Then bring in some bigger players to play DT and LB than the guys we have now, some taller CBs won't hurt, but aren't a priority. Have the CBs jam more and be more aggressive at the line of scrimmage (Revis style), their speed will help them catch up if the receiver beats them. Call more stunts and blitzes to confuse and overwhelm offensive linemen. Mix up the playbook with a few 3-4 package plays. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the Tampa 2.0, presented to you by 21isSuperman. Keep in mind, I'm nowhere near an NFL level defensive coordinator, so I'm sure there are tons of holes and problems with my scheme.

No i say we got to a 4-2-5 type defense, or 3-3-5 or both. But the 5th DB being a hybrid type player. Or simply a big DB or athletic LB. but the LBs are getting exposed by these athletic TEs in todays NFL. And DBs are simply to small to cover them.

[Superman]

Defenses evolve on a yearly basis, and sometimes faster than that. Teams use nickel packages more often than ever before. Our third linebacker comes off the field regularly, either for a nickelback or a nickel linebacker. I'm not sure what you're saying about Derrick Brooks; the man was pure linebacker.

The so-called 4-3 and 3-4 defenses only really describe the defensive front, and specifically they describe the number of linemen you're using. With all the hybrid packages and different personnel arrangements teams use on defense, it's already out of date to call any defense a 4-3 or a 3-4. And neither reference has anything to do with the coverage you're playing.

I'd love to be able to run a hybrid defense, but I also think there's a lot to say for simplicity. And because we have personnel that really wouldn't work in a three-down system (so-called 3-4), it's probably best for us to stay exclusively with our four-down front for time being. We can draft and develop a linebacker that's really good in coverage but isn't a liability in the box, and/or use a 4-2-5 look with three safeties instead of three corners, specifically against teams with good receiving tight ends. We do a lot of this stuff already (Sims is the nickel backer and is pretty good at it; we just run a foolish pass coverage scheme). Edit: Bethea is a good man cover guy, and could provide that tight end coverage; we could run three safeties, drop Bethea down in the box as a third linebacker, and there's your 4-2-5.

[fvantagio]

Defenses evolve on a yearly basis, and sometimes faster than that. Teams use nickel packages more often than ever before. Our third linebacker comes off the field regularly, either for a nickelback or a nickel linebacker. I'm not sure what you're saying about Derrick Brooks; the man was pure linebacker.

The so-called 4-3 and 3-4 defenses only really describe the defensive front, and specifically they describe the number of linemen you're using. With all the hybrid packages and different personnel arrangements teams use on defense, it's already out of date to call any defense a 4-3 or a 3-4. And neither reference has anything to do with the coverage you're playing.

I'd love to be able to run a hybrid defense, but I also think there's a lot to say for simplicity. And because we have personnel that really wouldn't work in a three-down system (so-called 3-4), it's probably best for us to stay exclusively with our four-down front for time being. We can draft and develop a linebacker that's really good in coverage but isn't a liability in the box, and/or use a 4-2-5 look with three safeties instead of three corners, specifically against teams with good receiving tight ends. We do a lot of this stuff already (Sims is the nickel backer and is pretty good at it; we just run a foolish pass coverage scheme). Edit: Bethea is a good man cover guy, and could provide that tight end coverage; we could run three safeties, drop Bethea down in the box as a third linebacker, and there's your 4-2-5.

Thats what i was saying, but it would be the base defense and not just on 3rd downs. I was thinking bringing a guy like Mark Barron in from the draft and he would become the 3rd safty so that would allow Bethea to play deep where he is best. Or Lavonte David who is a small LB but excellent at coverage, he could fit right in at that spot. Because that player would have to be able to impact both running plays as well as passing if he wants to be in there every down. And when i talked about Brooks it was simply from the standpoint that when he was coming out of college people debated whether he should bulk up for LB to slim down for safety. Turned out he was a HOF LB but that is besides the point. Simply looking at a player who can coverage as well as run support.

[Superman]

I say we go to the Tampa 2.0 (coined by me just now ). Tampa 2 shell, prevent the big play, keep speed a priority. However, our secondary is not very fast, so we would bring in a few speedsters in the secondary. Then bring in some bigger players to play DT and LB than the guys we have now, some taller CBs won't hurt, but aren't a priority. Have the CBs jam more and be more aggressive at the line of scrimmage (Revis style), their speed will help them catch up if the receiver beats them. Call more stunts and blitzes to confuse and overwhelm offensive linemen. Mix up the playbook with a few 3-4 package plays. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the Tampa 2.0, presented to you by 21isSuperman. Keep in mind, I'm nowhere near an NFL level defensive coordinator, so I'm sure there are tons of holes and problems with my scheme.

Not as many as you think. The bolded portion is really a crucial component of a successful two-deep coverage, but we've decided to scrap it for some odd reason. You don't even need to use different personnel; you can just play your corners closer to the line of scrimmage, have them use their hands more actively in the first five yards (we give an eight yard cushion every down, meaning there's zero bumping on the outside receivers, ever), and redirect the receivers. This allows your defensive line to get more pressure on the quarterback, and it allows your deep cover men to read the routes and react faster once the ball is thrown.

Kelvin Hayden and Marlin Jackson ran this very well in 2007. We added some blitz looks, some man and some bump and run in 2009, which helped us beat the Patriots on 3rd and 4th down. Then we scrapped all the close bumps in the Super Bowl, and they've never come back. It makes zero sense to me.

[Superman]

Thats what i was saying, but it would be the base defense and not just on 3rd downs. I was thinking bringing a guy like Mark Barron in from the draft and he would become the 3rd safty so that would allow Bethea to play deep where he is best. Or Lavonte David who is a small LB but excellent at coverage, he could fit right in at that spot. Because that player would have to be able to impact both running plays as well as passing if he wants to be in there every down. And when i talked about Brooks it was simply from the standpoint that when he was coming out of college people debated whether he should bulk up for LB to slim down for safety. Turned out he was a HOF LB but that is besides the point. Simply looking at a player who can coverage as well as run support.

I don't think anyone runs a true "base defense" anymore. Teams run nickel a lot more often. I don't know how you define "base defense," but there's so much substituting and *-for-tat going on every down that it doesn't really matter. If you use three linebackers 40% of your defensive snaps, but you go nickel 35% of the time, what's your "base defense"?

Problem with running a 4-2-5 with a third safety instead of a nickel backer is that the third safety is invariably going to be weaker against the run, and with quarterbacks having much more authority to change plays at the line, your run defense would be exposed. Especially if that's your counter to a good tight end, because that tight end is a hybrid lineman, just like that safety is a hybrid linebacker.

And if the team has two good tight ends, they could run a two-tight set, but with an audible it's suddenly a 3-1-1, or even a 4-0-1. Manning would keep defenses on the field for an entire drive, and whatever personnel you have on the field is what you roll with. But if we have Dallas Clark on the field, we can put him in the slot as another receiver, or we can line him up at tight end.

That's the nature of NFL football these days. There's always an answer to whatever you come up with. The very best teams aren't the ones with the most inventive schemes. They're the ones that execute the best. Our offense is incredibly simple, if you really break it down. What always made us good was the precision with which it was run.

[Ramblinwreck7]

The Tampa 2 is not outdated. If we had Marlin Jackson, Kelvin Hayden, and Bob Sanders, then we would have an excellent zone coverage secondary, probably one of the top secondaries in the NFL.

The Chicago Bears use the Tampa 2 as their main defense and they have one of the best defenses in the NFL. It all depends on the coaching.

And by the way, the 5-2 is not outdated either. Look no further than the Houston Texans. Their OLB's don't drop into coverage very often in the games I've seen. Wade Philips himself called it a 3-4 that was basically a 5-2.

No defensive scheme is outdated. You just have to have excellent coaches to coach that defensive scheme to work.

[Happy2BeHere]

I say we go with that 9-9-9 plan...oh wait, that wasn't a football plan, and the guy who engineered it isn't even backing it anymore....my bad cappy'

[Superman]

The Tampa 2 is not outdated. If we had Marlin Jackson, Kelvin Hayden, and Bob Sanders, then we would have an excellent zone coverage secondary, probably one of the top secondaries in the NFL.

We'd have a much better pass defense if we just stopped playing 8 yards back every down.

[Ramblinwreck7]

We'd have a much better pass defense if we just stopped playing 8 yards back every down.

That's not the Tampa 2 though, that's how are coaches coach the Tampa 2. You can have a Tampa 2 defense with press coverage while jamming the receivers at the line if you want or you can give the receivers around 4 yards and shove them off of their routes. Like I said, it all depends on the coaching. No defensive system is outdated.

[amazingcolts]

I say we go to a defense that will best suit our defense to be better then they have been. I also agree we need to bring in a defenisve minded coach and some better CB's. Maybe this will help take pressure off of Peyton, or whoever the starting QB is next year!

[nitecrawler]

The Colts do not use an out-dated defense, it's a defense used by most teams; it's just that most teams use the "prevent" defense at the end of games while the Colts use it for the whole game.

[Jason_]

The Tampa 2 is not outdated. If we had Marlin Jackson, Kelvin Hayden, and Bob Sanders, then we would have an excellent zone coverage secondary, probably one of the top secondaries in the NFL.

The Chicago Bears use the Tampa 2 as their main defense and they have one of the best defenses in the NFL. It all depends on the coaching.

And by the way, the 5-2 is not outdated either. Look no further than the Houston Texans. Their OLB's don't drop into coverage very often in the games I've seen. Wade Philips himself called it a 3-4 that was basically a 5-2.

No defensive scheme is outdated. You just have to have excellent coaches to coach that defensive scheme to work.

The Bears don't use the Tampa 2 as their base defense. Their base defense is the Cover 2 but they, like many teams, employ tampa 2 coverage in specific situations...primarily 3rd and long yardage but sometimes on other downs with long yardage.

The term Tampa 2 gets used and misused a lot. Tampa 2 specifically refers to the coverage scheme that takes a cover 2 look but drops the MLB into deep zone coverage with the safeties. I don't believe this coverage scheme was ever meant to be used as a base defense but rather as a situational coverage. Now there is more that Dungy and Kiffin adjusted on their defense such as the way they line up defensive linemen and try to force the play towards the direction of the weakside to allow the WLB to make a play but they didn't do that only when running the tampa 2 coverage scheme.

I would love to see a chart that breaks down the number of times when a team runs tampa 2 coverage because I truly believe the Colts would be at the top and there would be a huge gap between them and whoever is at #2. The chart in a recent game showed the Colts run tampa 2 coverage on over 50% of defensive plays whereas I would guess for most teams it's closer to 10-20% at the most because again, imo it is more of a situational pass coverage. Some teams have been using tampa 2 coverage but with Nickel personnel which, imo, makes even more sense. Saw the Jags do this a few weeks back in the Baltimore game I think. The tampa 2 coverage asks a lot more of your LBs (primarily the MLB) in coverage than most LBs are capable of so you really have to have a special set of players at LB to make it work.

[Jason_]

So what do you suggest? If 5-2 is outdated, 4-3 is outdated and 3-4 is also outdated, does that mean we go to a 2-5 with 2 down linemen and 5 LBs? I don't think that'll work. Bigger offensive linemen will get to the second level and stuff our LBs, letting the offense get 5+ yards per carry.

A lot of coordinators use various defensive fronts including a 1-5-5, 2-4-5, 3-3-5 etc. I definitely wouldn't switch to a 1 or 2 down lineman scheme as a base defense but using those types of plays to mix things up can be really effective, though more so on passing downs than running imo. Rob Ryan does this a lot....I would say that his base defense is a 3-4 but he runs several variations that include a 1, 2, 3 or 4 man front. But like you said this couldn't really be used as a base defense because it could hurt in run defense unless you have several James Harrison or Demarcus Ware type of LBs who can fight off of blocks even from bigger offensive linemen.

[oldunclemark]

I know a lot of people here have been complaining about the Tampa 2 scheme being outdated. Which i would agree on. However I would take it one step further and say the 4-3 and 3-4 schemes as a whole are outdated. Remember teams used to run a 5-2 until that got exposed. With the new freak TE's taking the league over, defenses have to do something to stop them. I think defenses will have to go to base nickle and dime packages. This will create another position almost, and that being the LB/DB hybrid players (Derrick Brooks type). Teams have gone to more nickle and dime packages but I think the Colts should be the first ones to go all in on it. Approach this off season to try and grab the guys needed to make it work, as well as bring in a defensive minded coach that could work out any wrinkles and create a playbook that would be much more complex then what is normally used. This defense gives you way more flexibility in the zones and coverages you can use because you have the extra DB. Its time we ditch the 1990's D, and bring in the new 2010's D. What yall think?

Denver is blowing up this theory..

With a marginally talented QB,.they are running basic high school offenses that work against NFL rosters designed to stop the pass...But Denver is probably a fluke...that will soon be exposed

Going along with your theory...a lot of high schools use a 3-5-3 that can, with the same base formation, have eight in the box or eight in coverage...

the oustide linebackers have to be either psuedo -DBs or pass rush specialists but its very difficult to account for..8 on every run

[BmoreColt]

It really depends on the defensive coordinator, and the magic they can work, with the personnel that they have to work with. Green Bay runs out of Nickel defense as their base, because corners and linebackers are their strength. They use two defensive linemen, four linebackers, and three corners, two safeties. This works because of the athleticism of their linebackers, and more importantly of Charles Woodson who plays the Nickel corner, because he can blitz, shutdown cover, and run support! The guy can do it all! The Colts imo would be better served to use a 5-2 front which is the Hybrid 3-4 known as the 4-3 Under. This is the nickel defense of the 4-3, there are two middle linebackers on the field, and the SAM linebacker is on the LOS either blitzing or dropping into coverage. How the Colts could make this work would be to draft another ILB, I.E. Manti Te'o and a freak athlete SAM linebacker.. I.E. Burfict, who is capable of doing it all, run support, coverage, blitzing... that player could also be substituted with Wheeler who has potential as a stand up pass rusher to disguise what they are doing... Combine this defense with more of a Chicago 4-3 Cover Two, and the Colts could have that ability to shut people out. Its more about having great coaching and personnel, and the wrinkles in any defensive scheme make the scheme effective!

[oldunclemark]

It really depends on the defensive coordinator, and the magic they can work, with the personnel that they have to work with. Green Bay runs out of Nickel defense as their base, because corners and linebackers are their strength. They use two defensive linemen, four linebackers, and three corners, two safeties. This works because of the athleticism of their linebackers, and more importantly of Charles Woodson who plays the Nickel corner, because he can blitz, shutdown cover, and run support! The guy can do it all! The Colts imo would be better served to use a 5-2 front which is the Hybrid 3-4 known as the 4-3 Under. This is the nickel defense of the 4-3, there are two middle linebackers on the field, and the SAM linebacker is on the LOS either blitzing or dropping into coverage. How the Colts could make this work would be to draft another ILB, I.E. Manti Te'o and a freak athlete SAM linebacker.. I.E. Burfict, who is capable of doing it all, run support, coverage, blitzing... that player could also be substituted with Wheeler who has potential as a stand up pass rusher to disguise what they are doing... Combine this defense with more of a Chicago 4-3 Cover Two, and the Colts could have that ability to shut people out. Its more about having great coaching and personnel, and the wrinkles in any defensive scheme make the scheme effective!

I have noticed that Green Bay plays a freak defense..and not much is said about it because of Rodgers..

they believe..like the Colts and Pats..If you want to run the ball all day against our undersized fronts...go ahead..

But once we get it.we're scoring quickly and then see how much you want to run..

[Superman]

That's not the Tampa 2 though, that's how are coaches coach the Tampa 2. You can have a Tampa 2 defense with press coverage while jamming the receivers at the line if you want or you can give the receivers around 4 yards and shove them off of their routes. Like I said, it all depends on the coaching. No defensive system is outdated.

That's the way we've always run the Tampa 2, up until the Super Bowl of 2009. I don't know what made anyone think that playing so far off was a good idea, and I don't know what made anyone think that we should continue doing it after it's been shredded by every quarterback in the NFL over the past two years. We've allowed the highest percentage of completions in the NFL the past two years. Why is it that no one can see that what we're doing isn't working well?

[No 1 Manning Fan]

I know a lot of people here have been complaining about the Tampa 2 scheme being outdated. Which i would agree on. However I would take it one step further and say the 4-3 and 3-4 schemes as a whole are outdated. Remember teams used to run a 5-2 until that got exposed. With the new freak TE's taking the league over, defenses have to do something to stop them. I think defenses will have to go to base nickle and dime packages. This will create another position almost, and that being the LB/DB hybrid players (Derrick Brooks type). Teams have gone to more nickle and dime packages but I think the Colts should be the first ones to go all in on it. Approach this off season to try and grab the guys needed to make it work, as well as bring in a defensive minded coach that could work out any wrinkles and create a playbook that would be much more complex then what is normally used. This defense gives you way more flexibility in the zones and coverages you can use because you have the extra DB. Its time we ditch the 1990's D, and bring in the new 2010's D. What yall think?

Somewhat agree. If you go nickel and dime all the way, get ready for the running backs to break some all time records in a hurry. I think we and every team in the league need to get used to the idea of constantly rotating defensive schemes. Confuse the offense and make them feel uncomfortable.

[unitaswestand]

The Tampa 2 is not outdated. If we had Marlin Jackson, Kelvin Hayden, and Bob Sanders, then we would have an excellent zone coverage secondary, probably one of the top secondaries in the NFL.

The Chicago Bears use the Tampa 2 as their main defense and they have one of the best defenses in the NFL. It all depends on the coaching.

And by the way, the 5-2 is not outdated either. Look no further than the Houston Texans. Their OLB's don't drop into coverage very often in the games I've seen. Wade Philips himself called it a 3-4 that was basically a 5-2.

No defensive scheme is outdated. You just have to have excellent coaches to coach that defensive scheme to work.

But isn't it fair to say the Colt defense has never been very good, other then the playoff run to win the SB? So for five games they were pretty good. Other then that, this dink and dunk stuff has gone on against us since Dungy became coach. Jackson and Hayden really made it no better. We just outscored everyone and then Freeney and Mathis pinned their ears backed and attacked.

I personally would like to see the Tampa-2 only run in obvious passing situations, and have the MLB play the run more on at least 1st down.

[Superman]

But isn't it fair to say the Colt defense has never been very good, other then the playoff run to win the SB? So for five games they were pretty good. Other then that, this dink and dunk stuff has gone on against us since Dungy became coach. Jackson and Hayden really made it no better. We just outscored everyone and then Freeney and Mathis pinned their ears backed and attacked.

I personally would like to see the Tampa-2 only run in obvious passing situations, and have the MLB play the run more on at least 1st down.

We weren't running Tampa 2 every down. Also, the defense was good in both 2005 and 2007.

[No 1 Manning Fan]

That's not the Tampa 2 though, that's how are coaches coach the Tampa 2. You can have a Tampa 2 defense with press coverage while jamming the receivers at the line if you want or you can give the receivers around 4 yards and shove them off of their routes. Like I said, it all depends on the coaching. No defensive system is outdated.

Even if it is coache and played to perfection, you can't play the run te same scheme all of the time. We've gotten stale. We have two schemes, Cover 2 and Tampa 2. Smart teams know what we do and exploit it. on top of that, we don't even run our schemes logically. We drop back in Tampa 2 far too often, leaving far too much space for mid range passes. It drives me absolutely crazy!

[Ramblinwreck7]

Even if it is coache and played to perfection, you can't play the run te same scheme all of the time. We've gotten stale. We have two schemes, Cover 2 and Tampa 2. Smart teams know what we do and exploit it. on top of that, we don't even run our schemes logically. We drop back in Tampa 2 far too often, leaving far too much space for mid range passes. It drives me absolutely crazy!

I don't want us to use Tampa 2 all the time either. My point was that no defensive scheme is outdated. It just has to be run correctly.