Tampa 2 defense

[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]

The problem with all these arguments on both sides is the assumption that a defense is going to run the same type of plays over and over again.

That just doesn't happen anymore, if ever. No team in the league is going to run zone exclusively, or man exclusively. That's the definition of insanity.

You can have trends, but even the trends are often times game specific. A defense can run mostly zone vs 1 team then mostly man vs another team.

That's why it's so difficult to label defensive schemes anymore. What's the difference btw a "4-3" and a "Tampa 2" ?

That statement itself is inaccurate, since Tampa 2 philosophy can be run out of multiple alignments, and 4-3 simply indicates a formation.

The lines are too blurred to have categories anymore. No one runs 3-4, no one runs 4-3, no one runs Tampa, no one runs zone blitz, no one runs 46, etc.

But every team runs concepts of all those philosophies. The difference being, depending on your coordinator and his background, you'll run more of some concepts vs the others.

But that's it. And that's what makes talking defensive football a difficult conversation at times. I want to make it black and white and talk scheme many times for simplicity sake, but I take away from the true complexity of it when I do that, and often times come off as inaccurate when I do.

We all do. And we're all guilty of it.

[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.

[Rosebud]

But which concepts are more prevalent and relied upon is a difference. Categories have just changed, it's not who runs a pure tampa 2 and who runs a zone blitzing 3-4, it's who's got more of what in the mix. Like Perry Fewell does a lot of things but he's a guy who likes to play more coverage with a single safety high who blitzes from wide, that doesn't mean he does it all the time but his balance falls more in that direction.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by Rosebud

But which concepts are more prevalent and relied upon is a difference. Categories have just changed, it's not who runs a pure tampa 2 and who runs a zone blitzing 3-4, it's who's got more of what in the mix. Like Perry Fewell does a lot of things but he's a guy who likes to play more coverage with a single safety high who blitzes from wide, that doesn't mean he does it all the time but his balance falls more in that direction.

And his tendencies changed as his players changed. When he had JWill and Kenny Phillips healthy, he used a lot of single high and he'd blitz and play more man coverage. Although he still used mostly Tampa concepts in his approach, he didn't rely on them exclusively.

When he didn't have them, he didn't trust his coverage on the back end and went full ****** with almost exclusive 4 man rush and Tampa coverage behind it.

So a lot of times, tendencies are dictated by the players on the field too.

[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.

[bigbluedefense]

Seattle's defense and scheme works because they have an all world secondary, and quite frankly, the entire defense is just loaded with talent. It's my favorite defense in the league. They're stacked. Those players would make any scheme look good.

And Earl Thomas is by far and away the best FS in the league and he allows them to get away with so much because of his ridiculous range.

[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.

[D-Unit]

Originally Posted by Big_Pete

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.

Also re-reminded me that Carroll came under Kiffin. Big fan of Carroll, but obviously it's a lot more than X's and O's.

[RagingColt]

A straight up base Tampa 2 D is dead in the NFL. All teams run some form of it though not necessarily with the same personal packages. As Killswitch noted earlier, it's a great way to wear down the defense and prevents your offense from getting on the field thus in course forcing your offense to play nearly perfect in order to win. That made it maddening to watch the Colts for so much of the Manning era as average to great QBs routinely sliced up our team so long as our ends were covered. QB never has to worry about rushers from the LB, CB or Safety positions in a pure Tampa 2. It was quite easy to prepare against offensively so long as you blocked the front four. It seems so dumb to have your MLB sprint backwards 5-10 yards on plays if a pass d is called only to watch the opposing team run the ball. In base form passes can be easily completed to slot receivers and TEs in front the linebackers and along the sidelines over the top of the CBs and safeties who are responsible for half of the back field on the defensive side.

I don't miss watching teams esp the Colts run it as their base D at all. It's ok for situations when there's under 2 mins to play and you're ahead by 10 or more. Otherwise, I think it's outlived its life as a base package to use.

[nepg]

Pure Tampa 2 is useless in today's NFL. Aspects of it are used by every team, though.

[RagingColt]

We'll see how relevant the Tamp 2 is as a base D if Kiffin runs it in Dallas.

http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/...dallas-cowboys

[y.f.s.]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

The problem with all these arguments on both sides is the assumption that a defense is going to run the same type of plays over and over again.

That just doesn't happen anymore, if ever. No team in the league is going to run zone exclusively, or man exclusively. That's the definition of insanity.

You can have trends, but even the trends are often times game specific. A defense can run mostly zone vs 1 team then mostly man vs another team.

That's why it's so difficult to label defensive schemes anymore. What's the difference btw a "4-3" and a "Tampa 2" ?

That statement itself is inaccurate, since Tampa 2 philosophy can be run out of multiple alignments, and 4-3 simply indicates a formation.

The lines are too blurred to have categories anymore. No one runs 3-4, no one runs 4-3, no one runs Tampa, no one runs zone blitz, no one runs 46, etc.

But every team runs concepts of all those philosophies. The difference being, depending on your coordinator and his background, you'll run more of some concepts vs the others.

But that's it. And that's what makes talking defensive football a difficult conversation at times. I want to make it black and white and talk scheme many times for simplicity sake, but I take away from the true complexity of it when I do that, and often times come off as inaccurate when I do.

We all do. And we're all guilty of it.

Pretty much.

Almost everybody in the NFL is running a one-gap defense that bases out of an Under front. What makes the defenses truly different is how they:

a) react when a single-back goes in motion to empty the backfield
and
b) how they match the offense's substitution pattern

And that's basically it.

In regards to a) the true difference between 3-4 and 4-3 teams is how they treat that weakside edge player when the back motions out to Empty - do you warp the front (by walking that edge player out) or do you warp the coverage (by rolling)?

As far as b) goes, there's a couple different fields of thought. Teams like the Giants just base out of their nickel and rotate the DBs they want. The Texans play just their Base 3-4 Under and Dime. Green Bay runs Base 3-4 and their 2-4-5 nickel (which is really just a 4-2 Nickel with the edge guys standing up).

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that sans a few teams, everybody in the NFL is running the same **** on a macro level. There are a lot of micro differences (and those vary by opponent), but it's largely the same stuff. Kiffin's big revolution came in the 90s, when he figured out how to combine the 4-3 Under (or 5-2 Eagle depending on your terminology/philosophy) with the spill-and-kill concepts of Jimmy Johnson's Miami 4-3 Over. Now, teams had a way to deal with 1 and 2 back offenses without completely changing the structure of the D. This is what NFL teams are still doing. And it's pretty fitting that Kiffin's protege (Pete Carroll) is the one leading the charge for the "new" revolution: two-gap/one-gap combo defenses. The last few stragglers of true two-gap 3-4/5-2 Okie front are the Steelers and Chiefs. And you see the problems those teams have when they have to get out of their base D. They've got to sub everyone. There's not a lot of versatility on the interior.

FWIW, people worry about Monte's time at USC but I must have missed the memo where they had an awesome D talent-wise. Defense was pretty damn good at Tennessee. I think Dallas actually has a lot of good Monte talent. It's literally no different than what they were doing under Wade.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by y.f.s.

Pretty much.

Almost everybody in the NFL is running a one-gap defense that bases out of an Under front. What makes the defenses truly different is how they:

a) react when a single-back goes in motion to empty the backfield
and
b) how they match the offense's substitution pattern

And that's basically it.

In regards to a) the true difference between 3-4 and 4-3 teams is how they treat that weakside edge player when the back motions out to Empty - do you warp the front (by walking that edge player out) or do you warp the coverage (by rolling)?

As far as b) goes, there's a couple different fields of thought. Teams like the Giants just base out of their nickel and rotate the DBs they want. The Texans play just their Base 3-4 Under and Dime. Green Bay runs Base 3-4 and their 2-4-5 nickel (which is really just a 4-3 Nickel with the edge guys standing up).

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that sans a few teams, everybody in the NFL is running the same **** on a macro level. There are a lot of micro differences (and those vary by opponent), but it's largely the same stuff. Kiffin's big revolution came in the 90s, when he figured out how to combine the 4-3 Under (or 5-2 Eagle depending on your terminology/philosophy) with the spill-and-kill concepts of Jimmy Johnson's Miami 4-3 Over. Now, teams had a way to deal with 1 and 2 back offenses without completely changing the structure of the D. This is what NFL teams are still doing. And it's pretty fitting that Kiffin's protege (Pete Carroll) is the one leading the charge for the "new" revolution: two-gap/one-gap combo defenses. The last few stragglers of true two-gap 3-4/5-2 Okie front are the Steelers and Chiefs. And you see the problems those teams have when they have to get out of their base D. They've got to sub everyone. There's not a lot of versatility on the interior.

FWIW, people worry about Monte's time at USC but I must have missed the memo where they had an awesome D talent-wise. Defense was pretty damn good at Tennessee. I think Dallas actually has a lot of good Monte talent. It's literally no different than what they were doing under Wade.

Don't ever leave me <3

I think the combination gap revolution has been around before Carrol. I know Fewell has been doing it ever since he became a DC. He has his DTs 2 gap while everyone else 1 gaps. Belichick employs varying gap strategies.

Carrol's brilliance to me is how he defends the strong side run game.

[asdf1223]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Seattle's defense and scheme works because they have an all world secondary, and quite frankly, the entire defense is just loaded with talent. It's my favorite defense in the league. They're stacked. Those players would make any scheme look good.

And Earl Thomas is by far and away the best FS in the league and he allows them to get away with so much because of his ridiculous range.

Dallas has as much talent as Seattle does on defense. They do need a safety with range. But if they want to run Seattle's scheme they pretty much have all the other pieces. Demarcus Ware as the LEO/Elephant role is frightening.

[WCH]

Originally Posted by y.f.s.

Green Bay runs Base 3-4 and their 2-4-5 nickel (which is really just a 4-2 Nickel with the edge guys standing up).

Not enough people realize this about the Packers. This is a major reason that it didn't matter that Nick Perry didn't "project well" to OLB.

[Monomach]

Originally Posted by asdf1223

Dallas has as much talent as Seattle does on defense. They do need a safety with range. But if they want to run Seattle's scheme they pretty much have all the other pieces. Demarcus Ware as the LEO/Elephant role is frightening.

The differences in the secondary go a little beyond one safety...

[asdf1223]

Originally Posted by Monomach

The differences in the secondary go a little beyond one safety...

Hawks are more talented sure. But Carr and Claiborne are good enough to run that scheme at a very high level. And Dallas has a better pass rush and LBs.

[bigbluedefense]

Dallas's DL and safeties can't sniff Seattles. It's not even close. LB core and CBs are close enough, but Seattle has the best safety duo in the league and a sick DL.

[TitanHope]

I thought Monte Kiffin was pretty good in Tennessee. Especially when you compare him to the two DC's after him, Justin Wilcox and Sal Sunseri. I thought Wilcox was completely average, and Sunseri's defense was bad on biblical scale. Although, I guess Kiffin had more to work with, but I find he still utilized his talent the best.

The MIKE coverage in a Tampa 2 would be interesting in a 3-4 front. Either ILB could drop deep into coverage, leaving the other LB to be responsible for another action, whether it's intermediate zone coverage, flat zone coverage, or a blitz (loljk). If the QB doesn't designate the correct MIKE LB, then it could create an issue. Not a major issue, but for me it's still neat to think about.

[asdf1223]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Dallas's DL and safeties can't sniff Seattles. It's not even close. LB core and CBs are close enough, but Seattle has the best safety duo in the league and a sick DL.

Every Seahawks fan wants them to draft a 3-tech DT or sign Randy Starks becuase they feel dont get pressure at all sometimes. They have a slightly average/above average DL that looks much better because they aggressively substitute. They never put Irvin in run situations or Red Bryant/Alan Branch in pass situations. They dont have a pass rusher of Ware's caliber which is really important when you want rush 4 alone.

[Iamcanadian]

Originally Posted by nepg

Pure Tampa 2 is useless in today's NFL. Aspects of it are used by every team, though.

I think you could say that about any defense, the pure 3-4 is practically useless, ditto for the pure 4-3.
Baltimore used a lot of Cover 2 yesterday and San Fran also used a lot of Cover 2. Of course, they are all hybrid defenses today no matter what you call them with elements of all 3 mixed together. Nevertheless, when a team is playing a great QB, they often go to the Cover 2 to limit the deep ball.

[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.

[ph90702]

Forget about what scheme Kiffin is going to run. He couldn't even stop Notre Dame's offense.