Especially during the upcoming down time.    

And I love the idea of a football 101 series in the offseason, although I think with the combined knowledge of everyone at MHR we might be able to offer some more advanced courses :)

First, with apologies to my good friend MattR below, there are differences between the standard cover two and the Tampa 2.  The Tampa 2 is a varient of the cover two, and by far the most popular.  I'll cover this in a moment.

The first thing to remember is that the cover two is not a formation.  It is a system.  The cover two can be played out of both the 3-4 and the 4-3 formations.  There are formations with the word "cover" in them, such as cover 3.

The cover two had it's roots back in the 1970's Pittsburgh Steelers.  It was modified more recently by four coaches associated with the Tampa Bay Bucs (Dungy, Kiffin, Edwards, and Lovie Smith).  It was modified from the original cover two scheme to adapt to the the wildly successful "West Coast Offense" which was shredding defenses at the time.  The West Coast Offense (WCO) derived its strength from short low risk passes to multiple eligible receivers.

The original cover two (Steelers) featured two safeties in deep zone, an ILB or MLB in zone behind the d-line, and average CBs in zone near the line of scrimmage (in bump and run, then back into zone).  All of the players had to be heavy hitters.  The line did less pass rush and more run coverage.

The Tampa Two kept the safties in two deep zone, but placed the MLB (4-3) further back to protect the area between the safeties.  The OLBs now were less concerned with being run stoppers, and were fast guys zoned between the DEs and the sideline.  The d-line was also less run oriented, and focused on the pass rush.  Blitzes were de-emphasized.  The cover two was turned from a balanced "iron curtain" into a pass shutdown system.

The idea behind the cover two is to "not give up the big play.  The defense hopes to give up multiple short plays, burn the clock, and give the offense more chances to give up a turnover on an interception or fumble.  This approach to defense is called "bend, don't break".

Advantages include the ability to save money on elite CBs, since they are only playing zone.  Disadvantages include an open seam for passes (between the OLB and DE) where the TEs ussualy get good passes, and being vulnerable to misdirection runs and passes alike.

Teams running the system include KC, BUF, INDY, TB, CHI, and DET.  Perhaps MattR meant that the terms are used together (Tampa 2 and Cover 2) because we don't see the original cover two used much.  This is correct, but if we are going to be precise the Tampa 2 is a modern variation of an older system.  MattR makes an excellent point too: just because there are two deep safeties does NOT make a system a cover two.  Many American sports broadcasters also make the mistake of refering to two deep safeties as a cover two formation.  There is no "cover 2 foramtion".  The cover two is an approach to defense that happens to have two deep safeties, but other systems (and formations) feature 2 deep safeties as well.

Your Christmas wish will be granted.  I will be doing a column for MHR in the offseason about football strategy.  I will discuss formations, systems, play calling, and play creation.  I will cover history of strategic development, as well as modern applications.  I will always make myself available to answer any questions.

By the way, I love Denmark.  I dated a girl briefly in college named Wendela Haringhuizen (I'm sure I spelled that wrong).  I developed from this relationship a passion for all things Danish.  Please invite any of your friends who enjoy football to join us at MHR.  I would love to help any of our football friends in Denmark.

I hope I have answered your question.  I look forward to more.

Take care!

I have been discussing with Guru the concept of creating a "Football 101" column which would include an invitation for questions.  Your "Pandora's Box" is music to our ears!

The d-lineman in this system are lighter but faster than the linemen in a two gap system.  They use a lot more slants and are able to depend on the use of LBs to make up for their size disadvantage.  There is more blitzing, and the system can often be confused with the PITT system which depends heavily on blitzes.  In fact, the PITT system and the SD/DAL systems are borrowing a lot from each other.

The speed of the D-line also allows alot of zone blitzes, where the LBs blitz and some d-linemen drop back into zone.

The Phillips is more aggressive than the 3-4 run by other teams.  In comparison, the NE version is very conservative (bend don't break).  In fact, the system has its roots in the old 3-4 Orange Crush from the Broncos.  This is the reason that the NE d-line doesn't rack up a lot of sacks.  They occupy the o-line (as you point out).

I read the article you mentioned that quoted Sam Adams.  It confused me too.  The point of the DTs in the run-contain is to "lock and hold".  This is classic two gap.  But Adams stated that the "experts" don't know what they are talking about, because the run-contain is NOT a two gap.

Count me as one of those "experts" who doesn't get it either.  I can only guess that there is a subtlety in how the DTs lock up their assignments that varies slightly from a traditional 2 gap that I am unaware of.  It is just as likely that Adams was just mad at the reporter(s) and toyed with them.  If the run contain is locking up the o-line with DTs running some kind of weird gap technique I would join you in being facinated with learning more about it.

I liked Coyer, but his weakness (in my opinion) was making adjustments.  It showed in that game.

1. Re-build the run-contain for next year?

That's the million dollar question.  Bates is a great coach with a great system that has proved itself in MIA and GB.  On the other hand, he inherited a defense that fell apart the second half of '06 (from Coyer) and continued to fail in '07.  There are several ways this could go, and I'm not sure what will happen.  The possibilities are:

• We keep Bates and he keeps trying to implement his system.  As you mention, with smaller tackles this may indicate that this won't happen.
• We keep Bates but change to a different system.  There is a misunderstanding amongst fans that a coordinator only runs a particular system.  Good coordinators (and Bates is one of them) are able to not only to run different systems, but create new systems.  A run contain CAN be run with a full penatrating line, but then adjustments have to be made to other positions.
• We drop Bates.  I doubt this will happen.  The players quoted on the record seem to indicate that the defensive issues were player issues, not coaching.

2. Was Adams dropped because of him, or because of a system change?

I was a fan of Adams coming in.  So it pains me to say it, but Adams wasn't performing.  He was getting pushed back and to the side by younger and more athletic linemen, and was unable to lock and hold.  When the system changed he had the chance to be a penetrator, but didn't do so well in that role either.

3. Is Thomas a run-contain tackle?

What you are asking is, can he lock and hold?  The classic profile of a lock and hold DT has two parts.  The DT is big, and he has excellent balance.  This is not always the case, because somtimes a DT has unusual strength to account for smaller size.  Either way, he must be able to keep his feet under him while he dances with one or two big o-linemen.

I believe that Thomas can play either role (hold or penetrate).  If he couldn't, he probably wouldn't still be on the team (Mike has been slashing players left and right).  I think we'll get a better idea of Thomas going into his next year, and I think he should get that chance.  Worth noting too is that McKinley survived cuts as well.

4. Who else will we get (at DT)?

I would be shocked if we don't shoot for DTs high or mid draft.  If an outstanding DT becomes available in FA or trade that could be a possibility.  I seriously doubt that Haynesworth will get a look given his past behavior.  Guys like Amir and Styg are much more on top of personel moves, while I focus more on onfield systems and playcalling.  Stick around, because your question on this will be addressed a LOT at MHR in the next few weeks.

5. Will we do any better next year?

I believe we will, whether we use run-contain or not.  We have an offseason to build, and plenty of time for the coaching staff to evaluate what needs to be done to fix our problems on defense.  I doubt we will go from near last to first in run defense, but I think we will improve to at least midrange in the NFL (in rush defense).  That's still not great, but it's good improvement.  Bates will almost certainly tweak the system, or move to something else.  That's the sign of a good coach.  Coyer was a sharp guy, but couldn't make in game or mid-season adjustments.  Bates hasn't impressed anyone yet, but he HAS shown a willingness to adjust when his way isn't working.  I admire that.

I also think that the pass defense will soar.  With the return of Jarvis Moss from IR playing DE with Doom, and with the depth at DE, AND with Hamza at SAF now (and a probable pick-up of another SAF in the offseason), I can't see how we don't improve.  Add in improvements to our DT corps and the pass defense should rank near the top.

The run defense needs a LOT of work.  DTs (at LEAST one, but really two), LB (again, at LEAST one but really two), and SAF (one).  I think the Broncos will go all out for fixing the defense.  We have an agressive general manager in Sundquist, and Shanahan and Bates know that the defense is the only thing stopping us from going all the way.  I expect some good drafting, and some pleasant surprises in terms of at least one trade and a couple of FA signings.

To sum it up, I believe we will be competitive next year with SD for the division playoff spot.

I see SD playing at the the same level next year as they played the second half of this season.  They'll be very good.

I see KC in decline, but rebuilding.

I see oak improving, passing KC, and perhaps in the running for a wc.

I see DEN having a record simular to SD next year, but not matching well against them in terms of head to head play.

So the bottom line to my long winded answer is that Denver will improve next year.  We'll have to see by how much.