Tampa 2 defense

[D-Unit]

Is it still successful in today's NFL or not? Discuss.

[Denver Bronco56]

Obviously its not as effective as the 2002 Bucs, but that being said if you have the right type of defenders that are capable of playing the scheme it can def. present problems for the opposing offense.

[regoob2]

Of course. Almost every team runs it. Some more then others obviously.

[D-Unit]

Originally Posted by regoob2

Of course. Almost every team runs it. Some more then others obviously.

You can practically say that about every type of defense. Facets of it exist, but how many use it as their base defense? Why or why not?

[Iamcanadian]

The Giants used the Cover 2 in winning both their SB's, of course, it has evolved just like every other defense and is mixed in with elements that are not Cover 2. However, it is still the best option to stop the great QB's from completely going wild.
It has its weaknesses but what defense doesn't but if you have the right personnel, it can be very effective in pass defense with its 2 deep Safeties.
DC's are creative today, they have to be, so they mix in elements of other defenses to fool the QB's but in essence, the Cover 2 is still a very effective defense against a strong passing attack.

[Monomach]

Originally Posted by Iamcanadian

The Giants used the Cover 2 in winning both their SB's, of course, it has evolved just like every other defense and is mixed in with elements that are not Cover 2. However, it is still the best option to stop the great QB's from completely going wild.
It has its weaknesses but what defense doesn't but if you have the right personnel, it can be very effective in pass defense with its 2 deep Safeties.
DC's are creative today, they have to be, so they mix in elements of other defenses to fool the QB's but in essence, the Cover 2 is still a very effective defense against a strong passing attack.

They used cover 2 plays (and not all that many of them, actually...They played 1 safety and 3-4 corners on over two-thirds of their snaps and man on some of their 2 safety sets), not a cover 2 or tampa 2 defense. Perry Fewell plays way more 1 safety backfields than anything else according to the actual snap breakdown. I absolutely schooled you in this the other day. I guess you didn't learn. Running zone coverage does not make you a cover 2 base. Running 2 safeties sometimes does not make you a cover 2 base. Even running both on a majority of snaps wouldn't make you a tampa 2 base, which is what this thread is about.

Both Tampa 2 and Cover 2 as base are just about the worst options to stop good passing attacks. Good quarterbacks tear them apart easily. I have no idea why you would want your team to run them a lot against good offenses. That's just silly.

Basically, you're wrong about almost everything. Go read the explanations posted by many of us instead of ignoring them. I guess this isn't your first go-around on this topic judging by the multiple rep comments specifically saying so that I got after explaining it all to you before.

[Iamcanadian]

Originally Posted by Monomach

They used cover 2 plays (and not all that many of them, actually...They played 1 safety and 3-4 corners on over two-thirds of their snaps and man on some of their 2 safety sets), not a cover 2 or tampa 2 defense. Perry Fewell plays way more 1 safety backfields than anything else according to the actual snap breakdown. I absolutely schooled you in this the other day. I guess you didn't learn. Running zone coverage does not make you a cover 2 base. Running 2 safeties sometimes does not make you a cover 2 base. Even running both on a majority of snaps wouldn't make you a tampa 2 base, which is what this thread is about.

Both Tampa 2 and Cover 2 as base are just about the worst options to stop good passing attacks. Good quarterbacks tear them apart easily. I have no idea why you would want your team to run them a lot against good offenses. That's just silly.

Basically, you're wrong about almost everything. Go read the explanations posted by many of us instead of ignoring them. I guess this isn't your first go-around on this topic judging by the multiple rep comments specifically saying so that I got after explaining it all to you before.

Funny, the announcers of the SB commented clearly that the Giants ran a Cover 2 to stop their opponents passing attack at least for that game. Lovie Smith still uses the Cover 2 with lots of variations(they mix in man to man occassionally to confuse their opponents) and his defense in Chicago was one of the best this year. Minny uses a Cover 2 scheme with variations(they mix in man to man to confuse their opponents just like man to man defenses mix in zone to confuse their opponents) and their defense was one of the best this last season.
Why don't you do some research before trying to pass yourself off as some great defensive mind. If you bothered to do your homework, you wouldn't come out with egg on your face.

[Monomach]

Originally Posted by Iamcanadian

Funny, the announcers of the SB commented clearly that the Giants ran a Cover 2 to stop their opponents passing attack at least for that game. Lovie Smith still uses the Cover 2 with lot of variations and his defense in Chicago was one of the best this year. Minny uses a Cover 2 scheme with variations and their defense was one of the best this last season.
Why don't you do some research before trying to pass yourself off as some great defensive mind. If you bothered to do ypour homework, you wouldn't come out with egg on your face.

1) Announcers say that Tim Tebow is a good QB. Can't be trusted. I only have the snap breakdowns for the full season, not for one playoff game, but I can tell you that Tom Brady was not shut down. 276 yards and more TDs than INTs, and a 91.1 rating is a quality start for a passer. For perspective, extrapolate that to a 16 game season...4400 yards, 32 TDs, 16 INTs. LOL "shut down."
2) The Bears do not run a Tampa 2 or Cover 2 base defense or anything that even remotely resembles it. The last time they did was the 2009 season. Last season, the Bears ran a crapload of MAN coverage (about half and half with zone! Not "occasionally"). They had one safety deep and one cnear to the box more than they did two deep. The Bears run a standard 4-3 defense now.
3) Same deal for the Vikes. They run more cover 2 as a play than the Bears, but still definitely not even remotely enough for their defense to be labelled as a Cover 2 base. It's just a 4-3 defense.

Wanna try again?

[Brothgar]

For some reason I don't see Monte returning to the T-2 thus far he has talked to teams with 3-4 defenses. I can't see Dallas moving to the T-2 the corners would be fine but the entire D-Line/LB corps would have to be changed.

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by Brothgar

For some reason I don't see Monte returning to the T-2 thus far he has talked to teams with 3-4 defenses. I can't see Dallas moving to the T-2 the corners would be fine but the entire D-Line/LB corps would have to be changed.

If Dallas switched to 4-3 they could let Spencer walk while cutting Jay Ratliff and Marcus Spears and end up with this:


Carter - Lee - Draft/FA

Ware - Hatcher - Lissemore - Crawford


They have to make major moves to get under the cap but combine the above with cutting Free, extending Romo (his cap hit will hurt otherwise), restructuring Carr and Ware, and a few other minor moves they could end up with almost 20 million in cap space for the draft/FA.

I'm beginning to wonder if the switch is more for financial reasons and less for application with our standing roster.

[bigbluedefense]

Tampa 2 the play is run by every team in the league.

Tampa 2 as a pure scheme is no longer in existence. Teams who build their philosophy around Tampa 2 concepts exist but there are so many variations of it that we can't bracket it into a singular category.

The Tampa 2 philosophy has seen such a transformation that you can't really define it anymore. Many teams who look like 3-4 teams superficially are actually Tampa 2 teams conceptually.

Basically, the line has been blurred so much that you can't define schemes anymore, it really depends on the coordinator's personal style.

For your case, Kiffin is a pure Tampa 2 guy who will run a lot of traditional Tampa concepts. It can work, but like any scheme you need the right players to make it work.

Lovie Smith probably runs the closest thing to what Kiffin wants to do.

[regoob2]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Tampa 2 the play is run by every team in the league.

Tampa 2 as a pure scheme is no longer in existence. Teams who build their philosophy around Tampa 2 concepts exist but there are so many variations of it that we can't bracket it into a singular category.

The Tampa 2 philosophy has seen such a transformation that you can't really define it anymore. Many teams who look like 3-4 teams superficially are actually Tampa 2 teams conceptually.

Basically, the line has been blurred so much that you can't define schemes anymore, it really depends on the coordinator's personal style.

For your case, Kiffin is a pure Tampa 2 guy who will run a lot of traditional Tampa concepts. It can work, but like any scheme you need the right players to make it work.

Lovie Smith probably runs the closest thing to what Kiffin wants to do.

Lovie and the Bears didn't run much tampa 2. More cover 3 and man.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by regoob2

Lovie and the Bears didn't run much tampa 2. More cover 3 and man.

I know. You did use a lot of Tampa vs GB though.

I'm moreso comparing how Kiffin will use a lot of the same concepts that Lovie uses from a pass rushing standpoint.

When we evaluate defense, there's 2 things we need to look at:

1. Coverage
2. Pass rush

They're exclusive components for the most part. A 3-4 DC can use a lot of the same coverage concepts as a Tampa 2 guy yet a completely different pass rush philosophy.

And vice versa.

Kiffin will use a lot of the same pass rush concepts that Lovie uses.

[D-Unit]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Tampa 2 the play is run by every team in the league.

Tampa 2 as a pure scheme is no longer in existence. Teams who build their philosophy around Tampa 2 concepts exist but there are so many variations of it that we can't bracket it into a singular category.

The Tampa 2 philosophy has seen such a transformation that you can't really define it anymore. Many teams who look like 3-4 teams superficially are actually Tampa 2 teams conceptually.

Basically, the line has been blurred so much that you can't define schemes anymore, it really depends on the coordinator's personal style.

For your case, Kiffin is a pure Tampa 2 guy who will run a lot of traditional Tampa concepts. It can work, but like any scheme you need the right players to make it work.

Lovie Smith probably runs the closest thing to what Kiffin wants to do.

BBD gem. The fact that it's so dispersed and watered down has me worried that in it's pure form, it's not a good defense for today's NFL. I was kind of hoping this discussion would turn to talk about why that came to be.

[killxswitch]

Originally Posted by D-Unit

BBD gem. The fact that it's so dispersed and watered down has me worried that in it's pure form, it's not a good defense for today's NFL. I was kind of hoping this discussion would turn to talk about why that came to be.

See the 2009 Super Bowl for a reason why no one runs it as a base D anymore. Great (or even just good) QBs will rape it, running teams will wear it down. It is easy to find holes in the zone coverage and keep moving the chains. The result is long-ass drives that tire the defense out (which means more injuries, especially if they're undersized fast players) and gives your teams' offense few opportunities to score. It makes sense to use some of the concepts of it, but unless you have the talent to really run it effectively (which means stud DL so you can rush 4 only, stud MLB, super-athletic WLB, disciplined SLB that can cover and set the edge, durable and tough corners that can make plays on the ball and support run D, an enforcer at SS, and a ball-hawking FS), you'll get picked apart or run into the ground.

There was a stupid theory out there that the Colts ran the Tampa 2 because it was an easy plug-and-play defense, and the Colts didn't have the money for a more exotic defense. Well that is crap. If anything you need more top-end defensive players for it to be effective. As evidenced by all the great players on those old Bucs teams.

[D-Unit]

Originally Posted by killxswitch

See the 2009 Super Bowl for a reason why no one runs it as a base D anymore. Great (or even just good) QBs will rape it, running teams will wear it down. It is easy to find holes in the zone coverage and keep moving the chains. The result is long-ass drives that tire the defense out (which means more injuries, especially if they're undersized fast players) and gives your teams' offense few opportunities to score. It makes sense to use some of the concepts of it, but unless you have the talent to really run it effectively (which means stud DL so you can rush 4 only, stud MLB, super-athletic WLB, disciplined SLB that can cover and set the edge, durable and tough corners that can make plays on the ball and support run D, an enforcer at SS, and a ball-hawking FS), you'll get picked apart or run into the ground.

There was a stupid theory out there that the Colts ran the Tampa 2 because it was an easy plug-and-play defense, and the Colts didn't have the money for a more exotic defense. Well that is crap. If anything you need more top-end defensive players for it to be effective. As evidenced by all the great players on those old Bucs teams.

Great post. Thanks for the explanation.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by D-Unit

BBD gem. The fact that it's so dispersed and watered down has me worried that in it's pure form, it's not a good defense for today's NFL. I was kind of hoping this discussion would turn to talk about why that came to be.

Simple. Quarterbacks will kill you if you run the same concepts over and over again. You have to disguise your coverages, and become multiple front.

The passing game has evolved so much over the past 10 years that schemes really no longer exist. Everyone runs everything now bc they have no choice, they have to run everything. Confusion and disguise is the name of the game.

How you confuse and disguise depends on what background your coordinator learned his craft under.

Now teams confuse and disguise in different ways. A Rex Ryan keeps his coverages simple but uses complex blitz and alignment packages to confuse your protection. So he's an aggressive DC who disguises the pass rush as his bread and butter.

A Bill Bellichick is a guy who confuses and disguises through coverage and alignment. His pass rush concepts are relatively simple but he'll use a variety of fronts and formations and alignments to sell you 1 coverage then go into another coverage to confuse quarterbacks.

But the genius of Bellichick is he also uses multiple alignments that confuses the protections bc it's multi gap and varies depending on situations.

Then you have guys are simple alignment and pass rush but uses coverage alignments and disguises to confuse quarterbacks. These are typically your Tampa guys.

But all coordinators of different schemes leave open the possibilities of doing everything bc they have to be multiple to defend the complicated passing attacks of today's league.

[The Alex]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

For your case, Kiffin is a pure Tampa 2 guy who will run a lot of traditional Tampa concepts. It can work, but like any scheme you need the right players to make it work.

Do you think if Kiffin goes to a team with 3-4 personnel that he's going to force it to a 4-3 Tampa 2 or try to run it in a 3-4?

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by The Alex

Do you think if Kiffin goes to a team with 3-4 personnel that he's going to force it to a 4-3 Tampa 2 or try to run it in a 3-4?

Gotta ask Kiffin. He can run his scheme out of a 4-3 or a 3-4. Dallas has the personnel to run a lot of those coverage shells in either scheme.

Maybe he wants to stay multiple front and use both concepts to confuse teams? Who knows.

Or maybe he wants to just stick with 4-3 alignments (better term is 4 man fronts) to help streamline gap responsibilities. Often times you want to simplify the alignments so you don't overload the brains of these players. That's when gaps get missed, and communication breakdowns occur, when you overload their brains.

We won't know until he does it, but he has the capability to do many things with this defense, he's not bound by anything. It's a versatile defense by makeup.

[Big_Pete]

Originally Posted by The Alex

Do you think if Kiffin goes to a team with 3-4 personnel that he's going to force it to a 4-3 Tampa 2 or try to run it in a 3-4?

My money is on a system like the Seahawks

[D-Unit]

Originally Posted by Big_Pete

My money is on a system like the Seahawks

If Kiffin is the hire in Dallas, I can only pray that is the direction.

I really liked that read Big_Pete! I learned some cool things about what they do.

[Big_Pete]

Originally Posted by D-Unit

If Kiffin is the hire in Dallas, I can only pray that is the direction.

I really liked that read Big_Pete! I learned some cool things about what they do.

I learned quite a bit as well, it was a great find. If you go to the link there is images of the various lineups to help demonstrate how it works.

I knew Seattle played good fundamental defense, I didn't realise the subtle inclusion of 3-4 elements we part of it, but it makes sense thinking about it.

It seems like the most logical sense for the defensive overhaul that Dallas is doing and a good fit with your playing roster.

[Iamcanadian]

Originally Posted by D-Unit

If Kiffin is the hire in Dallas, I can only pray that is the direction.

I really liked that read Big_Pete! I learned some cool things about what they do.

You really think a coach in his 70's is going to drift away from the defense he used for years at Tennessee. No doubt he use as his base, a hybrid Cover 2/Tampa 2 with eliments from a basic 4-3 and some eliments of a 3-4. Teams have come to adjust to the QB they are facing, using a lot of Cover eliments if they face a great QB and swithing it around quite a bit when facing an average QB no matter what their base defense is.

[bigbluedefense]

D, this is what you need to take out of this scheme change:

1. You're switching to a 4-3 alignment.
2. You're gonna play more zone defense.


That's all you need to concern yourself with. Everything else is trivial.

The 4-3 alignment doesn't mean anything. You guys never run 2 gap concepts anyway. So a 4-3 alignment is simply making Ware play with his hand in the dirt, that's pretty much it. No difference at all. And your base LE will be a pass rusher instead of a base run defender.

Maybe your defense will get smaller and faster as a philosophical change bc of the alignment but that's about it.

And in terms of coverage, it's all the same ****. You'll run more zone to get more turnovers, that's the only difference. You'll blitz less.

But all these changes I'm mentioning aren't exclusive to a Tampa 2 defense. It's just the philosophy of your coordinator. Those changes could have happened with a 3-4 guy anyway. It's all the same ****.

The changes you'll notice are less blitzing and less man coverage. You'll still blitz and play man, just not as much. And you won't drop your pass rushers in coverage or disguise overloads the same way.

It's complicated, we can talk about this for hours, but without a chalk board we're all just wasting our time.

The main thing for you to take home is you'll blitz less and play more zone. That's it.

[D-Unit]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

D, this is what you need to take out of this scheme change:

1. You're switching to a 4-3 alignment.
2. You're gonna play more zone defense.


That's all you need to concern yourself with. Everything else is trivial.

The 4-3 alignment doesn't mean anything. You guys never run 2 gap concepts anyway. So a 4-3 alignment is simply making Ware play with his hand in the dirt, that's pretty much it. No difference at all. And your base LE will be a pass rusher instead of a base run defender.

Maybe your defense will get smaller and faster as a philosophical change bc of the alignment but that's about it.

And in terms of coverage, it's all the same ****. You'll run more zone to get more turnovers, that's the only difference. You'll blitz less.

But all these changes I'm mentioning aren't exclusive to a Tampa 2 defense. It's just the philosophy of your coordinator. Those changes could have happened with a 3-4 guy anyway. It's all the same ****.

The changes you'll notice are less blitzing and less man coverage. You'll still blitz and play man, just not as much. And you won't drop your pass rushers in coverage or disguise overloads the same way.

It's complicated, we can talk about this for hours, but without a chalk board we're all just wasting our time.

The main thing for you to take home is you'll blitz less and play more zone. That's it.

Ugh... I hate that. lol.

Love your responses man. Love it.