tampa 2 vs cover 3

[aaron11]

a lot of people are saying we are going to a tampa 2, while some are saying cover 3.  im not sure which is true or if anyone really knows yet, but im about to argue we might have an easier time finding the important players for a cover 3

 

in a tampa 2 the will and mike are pretty important, especially the mike since they have to play the deep middle zone on passing plays.  we have no one that can do this, and they can be hard to find.  there are a few guys in the draft that could do it, but if we miss out on them and end up starting a late round rookie we might struggle to stop anyone unless they outplay expectations 

 

in a cover 3 the linebackers are not as important since the FS will play the deep middle zone, and they will have the help of the SS covering the second level and running game.  Here's where it gets interesting, hooker and geathers could be the perfect safety duo for the cover 3!  playing the deep middle zone would highlight hookers strengths and cover his weaknesses.  geathers could lurk on the second level while the linebackers take on blockers.

 

basically the cover 3 could take pressure off of linebackers we dont even have yet, while we do have the right safety duo for this defense.  they need to get healthy though. i could see green being decent at SS if geathers cant go 

 

[chad72]

Cato June, a former safety, was converted to a WILL and did OK, outside run D, of course. Telvin Smith of the Jags, he was considered too light for an LB, but he makes plays with his speed at the WILL position for their 4-3 and surprises with plays against the run.

 

I am sure we can convert one of our safeties to a WILL, if their athletic and coverage skills are up to snuff and they do not fit the safety position in our new D. Just a thought. It does not mean we do not need to draft an off ball coverage LB in the draft but while we are sorting through the pieces, it is just another thing to keep in mind. Another thought is to make Geathers play the hybrid safety ILB role like Deonne Buchannon does for the Cardinals, which might work better in the 4-3, IMO.

 

Money backers, they are called, here is a nice read:

 

https://www.sbnation.com/2016/8/31/12569558/moneybacker-nfl-linebackers-safeties-cardinals-deone-bucannon

 

[DaColts85]

We are not sure exactly what the overall scheme will be, but they have said it will not be a striaght Tampa 2 like Dungy.  I also see a lot of variation with our D just like a lot of others, so I would not be hung-up on any of this.

[Smonroe]

Let's face it, we don't have the D line really fits that scheme either.  At DT Anderson may be the only one on the roster that really can be that type of player.  Sheard will fit at DE, Hunt doesn't.  Autry should.

 

That's not to say we don't have players that we can put at those positions, just saying they don't fit what you'd want in that type of scheme. 

 

But it's early, we don't know what the rest of free agency is going to look like or how many spots will be filled with rookies.  We really don't even know what type of 4-3 they're going to run right now.

[That Guy]

49 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

Let's face it, we don't have the D line really fits that scheme either.  At DT Anderson may be the only one on the roster that really can be that type of player.  Sheard will fit at DE, Hunt doesn't.  Autry should.

I think Ridgeway should be an early contributor.  He could excel as a 43 DT.

 

2 hours ago, aaron11 said:

a lot of people are saying we are going to a tampa 2, while some are saying cover 3.  im not sure which is true or if anyone really knows yet, but im about to argue we might have an easier time finding the important players for a cover 3

 

in a tampa 2 the will and mike are pretty important, especially the mike since they have to play the deep middle zone on passing plays.  we have no one that can do this, and they can be hard to find.  there are a few guys in the draft that could do it, but if we miss out on them and end up starting a late round rookie we might struggle to stop anyone unless they outplay expectations 

 

in a cover 3 the linebackers are not as important since the FS will play the deep middle zone, and they will have the help of the SS covering the second level and running game.  Here's where it gets interesting, hooker and geathers could be the perfect safety duo for the cover 3!  playing the deep middle zone would highlight hookers strengths and cover his weaknesses.  geathers could lurk on the second level while the linebackers take on blockers.

 

basically the cover 3 could take pressure off of linebackers we dont even have yet, while we do have the right safety duo for this defense.  they need to get healthy though. i could see green being decent at SS if geathers cant go 

 

 

While I agree that the switch could take pressure off our linebackers, it's really just shifting it over to our corners (who would be responsible for the outside deep zones in the cover three).  I'm not sure if that's really going to be preferable because I think Wilson, Desir, and Hairston would all do better in the Tampa 2 system.  I think Geathers is a much better cover safety than a lot of people give him credit for, and Geathers and Hooker will make a great tandem in a Tampa 2.  We just need to draft ONE linebacker who can drop into a zone.

[Smonroe]

1 hour ago, That Guy said:

I think Ridgeway should be an early contributor.  He could excel as a 43 DT.

 

 

I’m not sure what you see in him to say that.  He’s not as quick as Hankins, definitely not as strong.  If Big Hank doesn’t fit the new scheme, how could Ridgeway?

[aaron11]

1 hour ago, That Guy said:

 

While I agree that the switch could take pressure off our linebackers, it's really just shifting it over to our corners (who would be responsible for the outside deep zones in the cover three).  I'm not sure if that's really going to be preferable because I think Wilson, Desir, and Hairston would all do better in the Tampa 2 system.  I think Geathers is a much better cover safety than a lot of people give him credit for, and Geathers and Hooker will make a great tandem in a Tampa 2.  We just need to draft ONE linebacker who can drop into a zone.

good points, i was assuming we need to draft both corners and line backers either way

 

i think it could be a little easier to find another corner for a cover 3 than it will be to find a mike and will for a tampa 2.  

[TYtheMan13]

Pick Shaquem Griffin with one of our 2nd rd picks or 3rd rd pick (If he drops that low..he's projected to go mid 2nd-3rd round)!! Great speed and instincts!! Amazing closing speed and NEVER quits!! Also has the speed to cover running backs and tight ends.. that would be a great addition to our linebacker group. Would instantly become our best linebacker (judging if we don't draft another linebacker higher).. just needs to add more muscle/ weight. The talent and tape don't lie!! And he's exactly what Ballard and Reich want in the new scheme. Fast, instinctive, and good hearted players that love the game and can hit!! If you dont believe me (or the experts who evaluate and talk about players for a living) then take a look for yourself on YouTube. Even the Ravens GM said himself that he has good tape.

[CozyColt]

11 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

I’m not sure what you see in him to say that.  He’s not as quick as Hankins, definitely not as strong.  If Big Hank doesn’t fit the new scheme, how could Ridgeway?

Ridgeway was one of the most explosive DT at the 16' combine. Hankins on the other Hand is very strong in his base and has good balance and agility for a big guy. When we picked Ridgeway I was surprised about the pick, because you normally look for the balance and agility in 2 gap DTs but he should fit our new D nicely.

 

[Peterk2011]

13 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

I’m not sure what you see in him to say that.  He’s not as quick as Hankins, definitely not as strong.  If Big Hank doesn’t fit the new scheme, how could Ridgeway?

 

Becasue he is better at rushing the passer than Hank. Hankins was a 2 gap run stopper for us (which he did remarkably good - he was the #1 graded run stopper according to pff). Ridgeway is a one gap guy who is better at rushing the passer. So does Autry.

 

I think this - and the fact that they still have Woods - was the main reason they released Hankins. Woods was almost as good of a 2 gap run stopper than Hankins was (top5 according to pff), but he did it for a fraction of Hankins's price. So they kept Woods for the short term. until the transition happens. I think Eberflus does not need these 330 pound 2 gaps space eaters in long term. He is looking for quicker (lighter), more agressive one gap tackles who are good at rushing the passer. Ridgeway is this kind of guy. Btw, Ballard mentioned his (Ridgeway's) name recently when talked about our future front. So I guess they indeed have plans for him (and Anderson).

[Smonroe]

@CozyColt and @Peterk2011  I hope you’re both right.  I just didn’t see that explosiveness from Ridgeway.  His job WAS to rush the passer, he ended up with one more sack than Hankins, whose main job was to stuff the run.  I know, more opportunities....

 

HR’s combine numbers in the 20 yard shuttle and the three cone drill were actually not as good as Hankins.  But thats water under the proverbial bridge. 

 

What I’d hate to see is a bunch of undersized DTs getting run over by guys like Fournette and Henry.  

[That Guy]

24 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

@CozyColt and @Peterk2011  I hope you’re both right.  I just didn’t see that explosiveness from Ridgeway.  His job WAS to rush the passer, he ended up with one more sack than Hankins, whose main job was to stuff the run.  I know, more opportunities....

 

HR’s combine numbers in the 20 yard shuttle and the three cone drill were actually not as good as Hankins.  But thats water under the proverbial bridge. 

 

What I’d hate to see is a bunch of undersized DTs getting run over by guys like Fournette and Henry.  

Ha!  So you're opposed to drafting Mata'afa and putting him in the Keyunta Dawson role we had with Polian?

[Smonroe]

22 minutes ago, That Guy said:

Ha!  So you're opposed to drafting Mata'afa and putting him in the Keyunta Dawson role we had with Polian?

 

Just think of the great view of the top of the stadium he’d have laying there on his back.  Right after those cleat marks went away. 

[Jason_]

15 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

I’m not sure what you see in him to say that.  He’s not as quick as Hankins, definitely not as strong.  If Big Hank doesn’t fit the new scheme, how could Ridgeway?

 

Seriously?  You think Hankins was quicker than Ridgeway?  I'd strongly disagree with that.  I also just took a look at their respective combine performances and Ridgeway tested far better athletically.  I do agree he's not as strong as Hank, but this defense will rely more on 3 tech penetrators than block consuming run stoppers.  

[Coffeedrinker]

6 hours ago, TYtheMan13 said:

Pick Shaquem Griffin with one of our 2nd rd picks or 3rd rd pick (If he drops that low..he's projected to go mid 2nd-3rd round)!! Great speed and instincts!! Amazing closing speed and NEVER quits!! Also has the speed to cover running backs and tight ends.. that would be a great addition to our linebacker group. Would instantly become our best linebacker (judging if we don't draft another linebacker higher).. just needs to add more muscle/ weight. The talent and tape don't lie!! And he's exactly what Ballard and Reich want in the new scheme. Fast, instinctive, and good hearted players that love the game and can hit!! If you dont believe me (or the experts who evaluate and talk about players for a living) then take a look for yourself on YouTube. Even the Ravens GM said himself that he has good tape.

Where are you reading he's a mid 2nd.  The sites I've looked at NFL.com has him as a 5th-6th rounder.  CBS has him as the 159th prospect which is 5th or 6th round.  MMQB has a summary of several views and most list him as a 4th-6th rounder.

 

I am not doubting you have seen that, I would just like your source (I'm always looking for more sources for football stuff)

[Smonroe]

5 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

Seriously?  You think Hankins was quicker than Ridgeway?  I'd strongly disagree with that.  I also just took a look at their respective combine performances and Ridgeway tested far better athletically.  I do agree he's not as strong as Hank, but this defense will rely more on 3 tech penetrators than block consuming run stoppers.  

 

Okay, you tell me the most important combine drills designed to show quickness/athleticism for DTs (and if you say the 40 yd dash, I'll lose all respect for you).

 

Then tell me which ones Ridgeway, at about 20lbs less than Hankins, tested 'far better' at.

 

You're on the clock...

[chad72]

This is why getting a few 3-technique UTs like Maurice Hurst (hoping he drops to top of 2nd), B.J.Hill of NC State etc. would bolster the interior pass rush and help with shooting gaps. It will probably be easier to draft for our new scheme because gap eating 2-gap run stuffers that are light on their feet are harder to find than 1-gap shooting disruptive UTs though both would have to play limited downs for a start in whatever schemes they fit. However, the scheme will be easier to understand for guys with just 1 gap to shoot through, if history is any indication.

[throwing BBZ]

6 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

Okay, you tell me the most important combine drills designed to show quickness/athleticism for DTs (and if you say the 40 yd dash, I'll lose all respect for you).

 

Then tell me which ones Ridgeway, at about 20lbs less than Hankins, tested 'far better' at.

 

You're on the clock...

 

 

 Hankins is slow and got fired because of it.

Ridgeway was getting snaps in passing situations for OBVIOUS reasons.
 I wouldn't think it possible there would be debate on this subject, so yes, this is telling.

[aaron11]

8 minutes ago, chad72 said:

This is why getting a few 3-technique UTs like Maurice Hurst (hoping he drops to top of 2nd), B.J.Hill of NC State etc. would bolster the interior pass rush and help with shooting gaps. It will probably be easier to draft for our new scheme because gap eating 2-gap run stuffers that are light on their feet are harder to find than 1-gap shooting disruptive UTs though both would have to play limited downs for a start in whatever schemes they fit. However, the scheme will be easier to understand for guys with just 1 gap to shoot through, if history is any indication.

i didnt mention dline because they are important for any defense, and with hankins gone we need to find a good player there regardless of scheme.  they may be easier to find now

 

im mostly worried about finding linebackers, since they are key to a tampa 2, while cover 3 is more about the secondary and we have a better start there.  geathers would play a similar role to the money backer in a cover 3 but i would leave him at the SS spot still. that way he could have the true line backers take on blocks, while he comes in behind them and cleans up  

 

 

[Jason_]

27 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

Okay, you tell me the most important combine drills designed to show quickness/athleticism for DTs (and if you say the 40 yd dash, I'll lose all respect for you).

 

Then tell me which ones Ridgeway, at about 20lbs less than Hankins, tested 'far better' at.

 

You're on the clock...

 

I compared every drill they had stats for.  Feel free to check it out yourself.  A quick google search will get you all the info you need.  Now you're back on the clock.

[Smonroe]

15 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

I compared every drill they had stats for.  Feel free to check it out yourself.  A quick google search will get you all the info you need.  Now you're back on the clock.

 

Okay, DT drills:

 

20 yard shuttle?  Hankins. 

3 cone drill?  Hankins.  

 

You cant seriously be talking about their 40 times, right?

 

Remember, you’re the one saying Ridgeway tested out far better athletically.  I’m just asking you to explain.  

 

 

[Jason_]

6 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

Okay, DT drills:

 

20 yard shuttle?  Hankins. 

3 cone drill?  Hankins.  

 

You cant seriously be talking about their 40 times, right?

 

Remember, you’re the one saying Ridgeway tested out far better athletically.  I’m just asking you to explain.  

 

 

 

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/news/nfl-combine-drills-schedule-40-yard-dash-bench-press-3-cone-shuttle-vertical-broad-jump/1k0jmk286inlh1dtelmjqzd7mj

Quote

 

NFL Combine: Vertical jump
While the actual results of vertical jumps shows how high players can leap, that’s really only valuable for wide receivers and their jump-ball ability. The vertical, however, is perhaps the best test of raw explosiveness at the Combine.

For offensive and defensive linemen, the vertical can show knee bend and stand-still power generation. For pass-rushers and running backs, explosiveness is of the utmost importance, and the vertical (along with the broad jump) can be the best indicator of that initial burst. The two jumps arguably are the most important parts of the Combine for running backs and pass-rushers.

 

Quote

 

NFL Combine: Broad Jump
Along with the vertical, the broad jump is a great indicator of explosiveness and lower-body strength. Starting from a standing position, players can only swing their arms to generate force from a flat-footed position.

In addition to showing raw explosiveness, this drill displays a prospect's hip flexibility and balance. The ability to generate power from the lower half and through the hips is crucial for offensive linemen (especially centers) and defensive linemen because it shows they can get ample hip flexion and rise from their stance with force.

Additionally — and this is true of all prospects — the landing of the broad jump requires body control and balance, giving prospects who can explode from a stand-still with control a distinct advantage.

 

 

 

I'm not going to quote the rest of the article, but if you continue reading, you'll see that the 3 cone and shuttle drills are most important for offensive skill players and DBs.  So now, let me reverse the question on you, which drills do or did YOU think were best for measuring a DL's ability to rush the passer?

 

oh:

Ridgeway 32" vertical vs. 26" for Hankins

Ridgeway 113" broad jump vs. 104" for Hankins

 

So no, I was most definitely not looking at just the 40 time.

[chad72]

Here, let me make it easy for @Smonroe and @J@son so that I can have my popcorn ready.  

 

The floor is yours, gentlemen, just facilitating. 

 

Johnathan Hankins NFL Combine Scores

DT [] Ohio State [] Big Ten Conference [] Division I-FBS

Player Info

First Name:Johnathan

Last Name:Hankins

Nickname:

Position:DT

College:Ohio State

Draft Class:2013

Draft Age:21.0

Player Dimensions

Height:74.88 inches

Weight:320 pounds

BMI:41.09

Arm Length:33.08 inches

Hand Size:9.50 inches

Front Shoulder:(N/A) inches

Back Shoulder:(N/A) inches

Measurables

40 Yard Dash:5.31 seconds

40 Yard (MPH):15.41 (MPH)

20 Yard Dash:3.10 seconds

10 Yard Dash:1.85 seconds

Bench Press:(N/A) reps (225 lb)

Wonderlic:(N/A) (0-50)

QB Ball Velocity:(N/A) (MPH)

Vertical Leap:26.0 inches

Broad Jump:104 inches

20 Yd Shuttle:4.61 seconds

Shuttle Split:(N/A) seconds

Three Cone:7.59 seconds

60 Yd Shuttle:(N/A) seconds

Four Square:(N/A) seconds

 

 

Hassan Ridgeway NFL Combine Scores

DT [] Texas [] Big 12 Conference [] Division I-FBS

Player Info

First Name:Hassan

Last Name:Ridgeway

Nickname:

Position:DT

College:Texas

Draft Class:2016

Draft Age:21.5

Player Dimensions

Height:75.38 inches

Weight:303 pounds

BMI:38.39

Arm Length:33.00 inches

Hand Size:9.38 inches

Front Shoulder:(N/A) inches

Back Shoulder:(N/A) inches

Measurables

40 Yard Dash:5.02 seconds

40 Yard (MPH):16.3 (MPH)

20 Yard Dash:2.88 seconds

10 Yard Dash:1.71 seconds

Bench Press:24 reps (225 lb)

Wonderlic:(N/A) (0-50)

QB Ball Velocity:(N/A) (MPH)

Vertical Leap:32.0 inches

Broad Jump:113 inches

20 Yd Shuttle:4.82 seconds

Shuttle Split:(N/A) seconds

Three Cone:8.28 seconds

60 Yd Shuttle:(N/A) seconds

Four Square:(N/A) seconds

[Smonroe]

7 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/news/nfl-combine-drills-schedule-40-yard-dash-bench-press-3-cone-shuttle-vertical-broad-jump/1k0jmk286inlh1dtelmjqzd7mj

 

 

I'm not going to quote the rest of the article, but if you continue reading, you'll see that the 3 cone and shuttle drills are most important for offensive skill players and DBs.  So now, let me reverse the question on you, which drills do or did YOU think were best for measuring a DL's ability to rush the passer?

 

oh:

Ridgeway 32" vertical vs. 26" for Hankins

Ridgeway 113" broad jump vs. 104" for Hankins

 

So no, I was most definitely not looking at just the 40 time.

 

Good article.  I think how a guy plays football is the most important thing to look at first.  

 

I respect that opinion of the jumps but I still think drills that show how they move is most important.  So the short move drills are the best indicators for DTs, as far as metrics IMO. 

 

Obviously, we’ve had teams draft guys way too high just because of metrics, like jumping out of a pool. Then they find out the guy can’t play football.  

 

Let me ask you something, do you honestly think Ridgeway is a better football player than Hankins in any scheme?   

[The Peytonator]

30 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/news/nfl-combine-drills-schedule-40-yard-dash-bench-press-3-cone-shuttle-vertical-broad-jump/1k0jmk286inlh1dtelmjqzd7mj

 

 

I'm not going to quote the rest of the article, but if you continue reading, you'll see that the 3 cone and shuttle drills are most important for offensive skill players and DBs.  So now, let me reverse the question on you, which drills do or did YOU think were best for measuring a DL's ability to rush the passer?

 

oh:

Ridgeway 32" vertical vs. 26" for Hankins

Ridgeway 113" broad jump vs. 104" for Hankins

 

So no, I was most definitely not looking at just the 40 time.

 

8 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

Good article.  I think how a guy plays football is the most important thing to look at first.  

 

I respect that opinion of the jumps but I still think drills that show how they move is most important.  So the short move drills are the best indicators for DTs, as far as metrics IMO. 

 

Obviously, we’ve had teams draft guys way too high just because of metrics, like jumping out of a pool. Then they find out the guy can’t play football.  

 

Let me ask you something, do you honestly think Ridgeway is a better football player than Hankins in any scheme?   

 

Not to get in the middle of your debate, but I think you guys are both right to a degree. Hankins is by far the better player, and I disagree very much with Ballard cutting him. He would fit in the new scheme better than Al Woods and he wasn’t so expensive that he should have been cut. However Ridgeway is the quicker player off the snap. It’s why he was kind of a third down specialist, although I don’t think he was tremendously effective at it. 

[stitches]

Tampa 2 is a disguised cover 3. On passing downs the mike drops into deep middle coverage, while on run downs the mike stays around the line of scrimmage and tries to plug holes and tackle the runner. The difference is the deep boundary thirds in one of them are covered by the cornerbacks while in the other one they are covered by the safeties. 

Cover 3:

 

Tampa 2:

 

Here's more info on them:

 

https://www.bigblueview.com/2016/6/28/12024310/ny-giants-football-coverage-cover-2-cover-3-tampa-2-safeties-cornerbacks

 

https://www.bucsnation.com/2010/5/12/1466315/tampa-2-defense-explained

 

[aaron11]

5 minutes ago, stitches said:

Tampa 2 is a disguised cover 3. On passing downs the mike drops into deep middle coverage, while on run downs the mike stays around the line of scrimmage and tries to plug holes and tackle the runner. The difference is the deep backfield in one of them is covered by the cornerbacks while in the other one it's by the safeties. 

 

 

good picture.  i know they are similar, what im worried about is finding that mike that can cover the deep middle zone and play the run

 

i think hooker would be perfect for that in a cover 3.  im used to seeing the SS and rcb switch spots from that image, but that is not a big deal 

[stitches]

3 hours ago, Smonroe said:

@CozyColt and @Peterk2011  I hope you’re both right.  I just didn’t see that explosiveness from Ridgeway.  His job WAS to rush the passer, he ended up with one more sack than Hankins, whose main job was to stuff the run.  I know, more opportunities....

 

HR’s combine numbers in the 20 yard shuttle and the three cone drill were actually not as good as Hankins.  But thats water under the proverbial bridge. 

 

What I’d hate to see is a bunch of undersized DTs getting run over by guys like Fournette and Henry.  

 

Ridgeway only played in 17% of the snaps and had 3 sacks last year. Hankins played in 64% of the snaps and had 2 sacks. This means Hankins played close to 4 times the snaps Ridgeway played and had fewer sacks. 

 

This is not apples to apples comparison - for example, Hankins probably played on a lot of running downs while Ridgeway probably played predominantly on passing downs, but still ... Ridgeway's production is good for the limited snaps he got. 

[stitches]

6 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

good picture.  i know they are similar, what im worried about is finding that mike that can cover the deep middle zone

 

i think hooker would be perfect for that in a cover 3.  im used to seeing the SS and rcb switch spots from that image, but that is not a big deal 

This is why Tremaine Edmunds should absolutely be on our radar for #6(or Vander Esch if we trade down). The mike linebacker is arguably the most important position in tampa 2 and he is one of the very few players that are big, physical and athletic enough to do both - drop into coverage and play the run in a physical manner without worrying he will be blown off by blocks. 

 

About your Hooker comment - keep in mind teams are playing fewer and fewer snaps in their base defense(which would be Tampa 2 for us) and we will probably be disguising different coverages and I wouldn't be surprised if we still played Cover 3 some substantial % of snaps with Hooker being in his element as a center-fielder. 

[Jason_]

41 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

Good article.  I think how a guy plays football is the most important thing to look at first.  

 

I respect that opinion of the jumps but I still think drills that show how they move is most important.  So the short move drills are the best indicators for DTs, as far as metrics IMO. 

 

Obviously, we’ve had teams draft guys way too high just because of metrics, like jumping out of a pool. Then they find out the guy can’t play football.  

 

 

 

I mean...that's a personal opinion, but the professionals seem to disagree.  Especially if you're looking for pass rush out of your interior DL which I think is going to be the most important factor they're going to look at for our new defense.

 

Quote

Let me ask you something, do you honestly think Ridgeway is a better football player than Hankins in any scheme?   

 

Yes I honestly think that Ridgeway is a better player for certain specific schemes than Hankins is. Hankins may be the better overall player at this point, but if he's not the best scheme fit then that doesn't really matter.  

[chad72]

43 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

good picture.  i know they are similar, what im worried about is finding that mike that can cover the deep middle zone and play the run

 

i think hooker would be perfect for that in a cover 3.  im used to seeing the SS and rcb switch spots from that image, but that is not a big deal 

 

That would be like a Rodney Harrison hoodwinking Peyton by playing CB and letting Ty Law play safety, which they did do in that 2003 AFCCG where Peyton threw 4 picks.

[Smonroe]

27 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

I mean...that's a personal opinion, but the professionals seem to disagree.  Especially if you're looking for pass rush out of your interior DL which I think is going to be the most important factor they're going to look at for our new defense.

 

 

Yes I honestly think that Ridgeway is a better player for certain specific schemes than Hankins is. Hankins may be the better overall player at this point, but if he's not the best scheme fit then that doesn't really matter.  

 

I had to laugh at how far off track we took this thread.  

 

I sincerely hope you’re right about Ridgeway, and I have to get over them releasing arguably one of our best defensive players.  We actually had a decent run defense and with improvement at the ILBs, could have been a pretty good D all around.  Now we’re going in a completely different direction and I need to get my head around it. 

 

My concern is, with facing the big RBs in our division, is that new scheme featuring those DTs going to work.  We face three athletic QBs who won’t have much problem evading them either.  We want those QBs in 3rd and 8, not 2nd and 2.

 

If I'm gameplanning against that D and I have Fournette/Henry/Foreman in my backfield, I know how I’m negating those smaller DTs.  I know we play teams outside of our division, but we have to win there first.  

 

So, how about those DBs in the 4-3!

 

 

[chad72]

12 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

I had to laugh at how far off track we took this thread.  

 

 

It is all good. Hey, at least you didn't go on for 3 pages back and forth about it, so that is much appreciated here.  

[Jason_]

26 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

 

My concern is, with facing the big RBs in our division, is that new scheme featuring those DTs going to work.  We face three athletic QBs who won’t have much problem evading them either.  We want those QBs in 3rd and 8, not 2nd and 2.

 

 

I definitely feel you on this. That's what I always hated about dungy's defense with the vikings and the colts. And that's also why I'm hoping the colt defense will look more like Seattle's than a pure Tampa 2.  

[TYtheMan13]

5 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Where are you reading he's a mid 2nd.  The sites I've looked at NFL.com has him as a 5th-6th rounder.  CBS has him as the 159th prospect which is 5th or 6th round.  MMQB has a summary of several views and most list him as a 4th-6th rounder.

 

I am not doubting you have seen that, I would just like your source (I'm always looking for more sources for football stuff)

 here's a couple videos that I've seen. Yea I've seen those predictions as well. I was just stating the best case scenarios for him that I've seen. Either way he's seen as a steal no matter what round. Me personally if he's there in the 3rd, and as a team you feel good about him, then you take him. He's produced and earned defensive player of the yr for their conference. If not for his one hand he's a 1st rd pick. But like you've said, i seen some articles saying he's a late 2nd day, early 3rd day draft pick (late 3rd, early 4th rd). For the Colts i think he'd be a great addition (although I'm just a fan not a actual scout or anything).The best i heard were stated in these videos i linked. Btw in the 2nd video (around the 2:15 mark) its stated he predicts him to go in the 3rd round..Enjoy

[rock8591]

Broad Jump from a stopped position = most useless metric ever.

[Peterk2011]

On 30.3.2018 at 7:19 PM, Smonroe said:

My concern is, with facing the big RBs in our division, is that new scheme featuring those DTs going to work.  We face three athletic QBs who won’t have much problem evading them either.  We want those QBs in 3rd and 8, not 2nd and 2.

If I'm gameplanning against that D and I have Fournette/Henry/Foreman in my backfield, I know how I’m negating those smaller DTs.  I know we play teams outside of our division, but we have to win there first.  

 

One (of the many) way is assigning gap responsibilities between the tackles pre-snap. Each defensive player is responsible for one gap between the tackles, which is possible to hold for smaller people, and also reduces response time, because there will be no hesitation on which gap to hold. By design this will give up the outside for the rush, so you will need good run blocking DE-s, speedy LB-s who can get outside quickly, and good tackling corners so they can help stopping the run on the outside as well. 

 

The Colts do not have all pieces yet, no matter what kind of 4-3 they will implement, so obviously it's unrealistic to expect from this defense to work like a swiss clock. It will be a rollercoaster in the beginning. However, if the young core we alterady have (the whole young secondary, Ridgeway, Anderson, Basham, etc.) can stay healthy and improve, and Ballard can add 2-3 good pieces this year, then I think we are not that far either.

 

Until then .... lets try to enjoy the ride ... I guess.  

 

On 30.3.2018 at 6:06 PM, stitches said:

Tampa 2 is a disguised cover 3. On passing downs the mike drops into deep middle coverage, while on run downs the mike stays around the line of scrimmage and tries to plug holes and tackle the runner. The difference is the deep boundary thirds in one of them are covered by the cornerbacks while in the other one they are covered by the safeties. 

 

These "base" defenses are almost rarities nowadays (25-30% of the snaps). Most snaps played in sub packages (usually the slot CB replaces a LB, but there are other alternatives like using 3 safeties, etc.). This changes who will drop in coverage and who isn't, etc. So, an elite MLB is not any more as important as it was in for example Dungy's classic tampa 2 (then, Gary Brackett was the MLB and was on the field almost 100% of the snaps and indeed dropped in coverage in passing plays).

[ColtsBlueFL]

On 3/29/2018 at 3:28 PM, DaColts85 said:

We are not sure exactly what the overall scheme will be, but they have said it will not be a striaght Tampa 2 like Dungy.  I also see a lot of variation with our D just like a lot of others, so I would not be hung-up on any of this.

 

There is rarely a 'base' defense anymore.  With the proliferation of 11 personnel (and now 12 personnel) offensive sets, defenses are running sub packages very often,  What kind of sub packages might we run? Marinelli ran these in Dallas-

 

Base – two safeties, and two cornerbacks
Nickel – two safeties, three cornerbacks
Small Nickel – one safety, four cornerbacks
Big Nickel – three safeties, two cornerbacks
3-3 Nickel – three DL, three linebackers, two safeties, three cornerbacks.
Dime – two safeties, four cornerbacks.
Big Dime – three safeties, three cornerbacks.
3-2 Big Dime (Deacon) – three DL, two LB, three safeties, three CB.
Huge Dime – four safeties, two cornerbacks.
3-2 Huge Dime – three DL, two linebackers, four safeties, two cornerbacks.

 

with Eberflus.  What and who depends upon the the team being played and down/distance.  Much of it zone.  The 3-3 nickel was worst with 100% completion rate and huge yards / play.  But the Cowboys were in Nickel most of the time (63% completion rate) and very often in Deacon (3 - 2 Big Dime, with 45% completion rate).

 

So while we may install a Base Cover/Tampa 2 type D, it won't be played like that as often as people might believe.

 

{EDIT Note- data through first 7 games 2017, passing situations only}

 

[DaColts85]

22 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

There is rarely a 'base' defense anymore.  With the proliferation of 11 personnel (and now 12 personnel) offensive sets, defenses are running sub packages very often,  What kind of sub packages might we run? Marinelli ran these in Dallas-

 

Base – two safeties, and two cornerbacks
Nickel – two safeties, three cornerbacks
Small Nickel – one safety, four cornerbacks
Big Nickel – three safeties, two cornerbacks
3-3 Nickel – three DL, three linebackers, two safeties, three cornerbacks.
Dime – two safeties, four cornerbacks.
Big Dime – three safeties, three cornerbacks.
3-2 Big Dime (Deacon) – three DL, two LB, three safeties, three CB.
Huge Dime – four safeties, two cornerbacks.
3-2 Huge Dime – three DL, two linebackers, four safeties, two cornerbacks.

 

with Eberflus.  What and who depends upon the the team being played and down/distance.  Much of it zone.  The 3-3 nickel was worst with 100% completion rate and huge yards / play.  But the Cowboys were in Nickel most of the time (63% completion rate) and very often in Deacon (3 - 2 Big Dime, with 45% completion rate).

 

So while we may install a Base Cover/Tampa 2 type D, it won't be played like that as often as people might believe.

 

{EDIT Note- data through first 7 games 2017, passing situations only}

 

I mean as a base we will be in the 4-3, but as you mentioned we will be showing multiple faces and some will show variations.  This is what I hope for as well.  Plan for the team you are playing and quit the one defense fits all method we did under the last coaching regime (for the most part).  I see us playing based on players on the roster.  Nickel will be common just because the NFL is a passing league.  Big Nickel might be something we see often if, and a big IF, TJ Green shows some worth.  Will be an interesting year though.