Football University - Cover Two Systems
A lot of folks know about the popular Cover Two system. At the same time, there is a lot of misunderstanding about this system.
Some common myths:
Cover Two is a formation.
Cover Two and Tampa Two are the same thing.
Cover Three is a system.
Two deep safeties is what a Cover Two is primarily known for.
The Cover Two is a 4-3 system.
Let's take a deeper look at the Cover Two and it's major variant, the Tampa Two. Knowing how these defenses are set up is key to game planning and game prep for the upcoming season.
See you below the fold!
The C2 is not a new system. It has been around for decades. In its inception, the C2 was a zone system that was a balanced defense against the run and pass.
The idea behind the C2 was to place the LBs in zones that divided the 2nd level of the field. The LBs could be of any type (fast/coverage or slow/big), but the OLBs were normaly faster than their MLB counterparts.
The MLB played close to scrimmage, while the OLBs could vary from playing inside the OTs to wider out.
The cornerbacks also played zone. They didn't have to be fast, but they had to be good at jamming receivers on the line and making either powerful hits for fumbles or sound tackles (depending on how much assistance is near the play).
With the receivers slowed by being jammed (especially under the older NFL rules), the LBs had more time to assist with tackles and to get into position for plays. The MLB was more focused on the run in his zone.
The safeties played in deep zone coverage, ensuring that no big plays got behind them.
The defensive line was standard for the time. The 2 DTs played a lot of 2 gap and the line was built to stop the run.
The original C2 was used to defuse timing offenses. As QBs became more adept at the deeper intricacies being brought to football, more and more offenses relied on finesse. Offenses started spreading the field, and the original defense player types in the NFL (geared towards stopping the run) were unable to keep up with the new emphasis on passing that began to take hold in the 1960's. Teams running the C2 used the system regardless of the formation on the field. It was run out of 4-3, 3-4, and the several nickle packages.
The C2 was one of many systems that was used to counter pass plays, but it was far from being a household term. In fact, most people can only name the C2 system if asked about defensive systems (though I'm sure that the MHR faithful can do better than that).
Then a funny thing happened in the march of football ideas...
Some nut case decided to develop the West Coast Offense.
The WCO ran over the NFL's best defenses for awhile. In Tampa Bay, Coaches Dungy, Lovie Smith, and Kiffen had had enough. They took the old C2 and modified it. The modification started in Tampa Bay, and the name Tampa 2 took hold.
In the T2 variant, several changes were made.
First, the MLB was required to play deeper, and to be a faster, coverage kind of LB.
Second, the defensive line was modified to be a platoon of 1-gap players. The sole job of the DL was now to get a pass rush, and to do it with little to no help from the LBs.
While the (West Coast Offense) short, high percentage passes to set up the run was killing other teams, "T2" defenses had LBs and CBs in place to make a hit almost everywhere on the field. Thus the T2 did the job it was designed to do; stop the WCO.
Does the T2 stack up well against other offenses? Well that depends. The rule of thumb in assesing match-ups is that "the team that masters their own system better is the better team". That being said, some systems trump (to some extent) other systems.
There are weaknesses in the T2.
A power running team can run up the gut and take advantage of the 1-gap line, the deep MLB, and the widened OLBs.
Passes to the seams are deadly too, and the natural allignment of TEs allow them to be a threat in that area. Deep passes down the sideline are also potential dangers.
The T2 is a bend-don't break system. The offense may score, but they will spend a lot of time trying to do it. With the high number of plays it takes to move the ball downthe field, the T2 coordinator is betting that the offense has more oppostunities to make a mistake (a fumble forced by the hard hitting zone players, or an interception). On the other hand, teams that like to "eat clock" love to face this kind of defense. It's all a matter of taste.
Who runs the system? Right now the T2 is run by INDY, CHI, MINN, and DET. KC used to run the scheme, but seems to be moving away from it. TB and BUF also ran the system for awhile, and seem to be moving in other directions.
One interesting team is SD. They run a 1-gap version of the 3-4 (yes, there are 3-4 teams that are 1-gap and we'll cover this next week) that is very similar to a 3-4 T2 in execution, as does DAL. It is more correctly called the "Phillips System" (after Bum Phillips, father of former Denver HC and DEF coordinator Wade Phillips), and moving further from T2 every year with the emphasis now on man coverage CBs.
So if C2 is a system, is C3 a system? No. The alignment of two safeties deep in order to cover two deep zones is common in most systems. What is NOT common is to have three safeties on the field, or to have three players playing in deep zone. If such a thing happens, the formation may be called a "cover three". But Cover Two and Cover Three are different contexts all together. C2 is a system. C3 is a formation. In fact, C2 is the proper name for a system, but like many football terms it can be misleading. It has nothing to do in today's game with the fact that a team has two safeties deep.
The original C2 system still exists, but is rarely used for long by teams as it is sometimes a "transitional system". The T2 is the only surviving variant.
Some trivia:
So why is it called the "Cover Two"? Because in the early days of football there weren't two players playing in deep zones. At the time, the concept of multiple zones and players lining up more than a few yards from scrimmage was unheard of.
The C2 can lay claim to one enduring concept. Most teams in the NFL operate with two deep safeties, even if the rest of the system isn't in vogue.
The famous "Steel Curtain" was a cover two system (not a T2 at all). Dungy used the knowledge he gained from playing for the Steelers to turn the more balanced "Steel Curtain C2" into an entirely different, pass defense oriented, Tampa 2.
~~~~~~~~~~
Any questions on the C2, T2, or anything else related to systems or Xs and Os on the field? Drop a comment down below. There are a lot of members with a lot of knowledge on the site in many areas of football, ranging from Broncos history to salary cap rules. We're all here to help, and no question is too simple.
Have an idea for a future University article? Let me know. I've got quite a list already, and your idea would be a welcome addition.
Next week I'll be covering the three major systems being run in 3-4 formations in today's NFL.
Take Care!
6 recs |
46 comments
Comments
I always enjoy your posts
and this one was no different. I’m glad I already had the basic knowledge of cover two coming in so that I wasn’t thrown off by any of the “myths.” Studying football and playing some madden here and there always helps :)
by phantom818 on May 1, 2008 6:43 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the kind words
If I ever get a Madden game I’ll steer clear of the master!
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on May 1, 2008 8:00 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
What are the most difficult positions to stock?
I am guessing that acquiring (and keeping) two pass rushing DEs is the most difficult role to fill.
by Arctic Bronco on May 1, 2008 6:49 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
It's hard to tell.
To be truthful, that’s a question for an NFL draft expert, not a former HS defensive coordianator. I’ll bet we have members that can better answer your question than I.
I have some opinions though (not facts). I think that the true run stop DEs should be harder to find, since more and more systems emphasize the outside pass rush. Not knowing what a lot of colleges run, I wouldn’t know how many produce run stoppers.
When I wrote letters and played middleman for college scouts looking at our kids, I found that a lot of schools didn’t care so much about position “types”. They looked at film that we provided, and they looked at “combine like” numbers, but they didn’t care so much how we used a kid. We could have film and recruiting folders for each kid in our program, and a school might be interested in taking a guy we used on the DL for the OL, or the OL for a TE. They were far more interested in athleticism. THEY would determine where a kid ended up. (Sometimes you see this in the pros, as when a QB gets taken to be a WR or something).
So I can’t even tell you what “position types” colleges wanted from HS programs. They just wanted athletes that they could mold. As far as what the pros want from colleges, they look at much, much more. (We seemed to have the best record getting linemen from both sides of the ball, and LBs moved onto college teams).
Man coverage defenders are rarer than zone types. Giant 2 gap DTs (what we hear referred to as 3 technique players, but often incorrectly) are just rare physical specimens. LBs with the speed of DBs are rare (remember Wilson, DJ, and Gold when Gold was still good and WIlson was healthy?).
On offense, pocket passers with the situational awareness and intelligence to track a full field in seconds (Manning, Brady) are very rare. TEs that can catch and block AND excell at both are rare. WRs that can do four or more of the following are rare: catch difficult passes, after burner speed, run perfect routes, out muscle defenders, run block, stay out of trouble off the field or in the locker room.
Again, I’m just shooting from the hip. I have no facts in front of me.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on May 1, 2008 7:53 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just keep on posting, HT.
This old dog keeps on learning every time you do.
If this be Hell, let us make the most of it!
by Trinidad Jack on May 1, 2008 7:26 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Believe me,
I learn more at MHR than I share. This is a great site to pick up info about pro football (salary caps, drafts, etc), as well as anything current, past, or future for the Broncos.
Thanks for the encouragement counsel!
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on May 1, 2008 8:02 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you got me Jack
I’m tryin’ to keep up, but after the Hillis article and now this … I think I better just go have a beer and think about it.
Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of our own mind. - Emerson
by firstfan on May 1, 2008 8:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pour one for me.
Make it a Coors.
If this be Hell, let us make the most of it!
by Trinidad Jack on May 1, 2008 8:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, the taste of the Rocky Mountains
Or am i mistaking it with some other beer-commercial during the draft? The one with the mountains turning blue, when cold?
American commercials: Beer, Fastfood, Trucks… Hmmm….
/The great Dane - formerly known as Claaaaas!
by Claus Vestergaard on May 2, 2008 12:31 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope, you got it.
Coors started in Golden, CO., and they have the mountains that turn blue. Of course, now it seems you can’t walk a block in Colorado without finding a good microbrewery. And I’m okay with that!
~Uffdah
by Disco_Stu on May 2, 2008 8:25 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, it's all good mountain brew!
If this be Hell, let us make the most of it!
by Trinidad Jack on May 2, 2008 9:30 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
We have some fun commercials Claus...
...but you guys in Europe make better beer than we do (in my opinion).
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on May 2, 2008 9:33 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good stuff as always, HT
I am assuming you could play cover 2 in nickel and dime situations (I am specifically thinking about playing against a team like NE who have three or more receivers on the field most of the time, but for the most part they try to beat you with short passes).. I am also guessing that if you were to play cover two from a dime you would want to “invert” it and bring the safeties up where the OLB would be and drop the backup CB’s into the deep zones.
by MattR on May 1, 2008 7:52 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Remember that C2 (more likley T2 in today's game)...
is more of an approach to the defense, not so much a formation or alignment (though the simplest way to explain it is to show a chart as I do and explain what people usually do). There are many plays run out of a T2 system, and several formations.
In a dime, the MLB will zone deep, and the WRs may split the field in 1/3s with one WR playing man. They could also blitz the MLB and drop a CB into a center zone. There are many, many ways to go.
A key to helping the zones is to jam the WRs. Even in the dime, you might still keep the CBs up close to jack the WRs and buy the zoners all over the defense time (as well as time for the DL to break through).
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on May 1, 2008 7:58 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good reminder/clarification
Now a follow up (and I am gonna mangle some terminology but I hope you follow what I mean). Since the cover 2 is more of a philosophy than formation, would you say that a team should be classified as either “cover 2” or “not cover 2”? (and that for the most part this is not something that changes within a game) Using Denver as an example, they are not a cover 2 team. But there will be times during the year, that they will run a play that looks pretty much like the base cover 2 defense. You’ll hear the announcer say something like “there’s Denver dropping into the cover 2”. But that is not really the cover two, correct? It is just a defensive play call that is the same as the most common cover 2 defensive play (kinda like multiple offenses can have slants in the playbook even though they all are not “west coast offenses”)? An exception would be if a team completely switches strategy for a drive, quarter or game due to matchups, score, etc
Yes? No? Close?
by MattR on May 1, 2008 8:31 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very good questions there!
You are correct. Announcer’s say a lot of silly stuff. Some of it is pure ignorance, but to be fair, a lot of it is just oversimplification for the fans. They have little time to explain formations and adjustments as it is. More on that in a moment.
There are two extremes, and I dislike them both.
Some announcers like to show off. They throw around a lot of technical terms to impress people. I rarely hear something that I don’t understand, but it bothers me. The reason is that they are pompous and don’t care about the audience. But that also means (often times) that the announcer is covering up for a lack of knowledge. I’ve noticed that coaches and players who become announcers rarely show off. The show offs are typicaly the guys who don’t know what they are talking about (like the media types / former writers).
The other guys that irk me are the fluff guys that don’t even discuss the game. I’m not even going to mention the MNF ESPN crew.
When you hear an announcer say the team is dropping back into a cover 2 he probably isn’t being correct. Watch how often teams don’t have two deep SAFs. It’s very rare. Also, how does the announcer know that the LBs are about to play zones, or that the CBs are going to zone (not every bump and run turns into a zone; it’s probably about 60/40). What they should say (but it would sound darned stupid) is “Look, the team is dropping into a 4-3”.
I would like to see more technical talk, but without the terminology that would turn off most fans.
Here’s my examples of good, bad, and ugly for the same play…
Fluff – “So Mrs. Favre, tell us again about how you met Brett.”
Pompous and full of crap – “Well Joe, I’ll just bet that three technique tackle is itching to spring his under tackle for another shot at the QB. The WILL isn’t pulling the tackles wide enough for the monster from the Free that’s jimmied in over the last two trap blocks, so I doubt we get get more Jills on the snap”.
Standard – “Looks like the defense is dropping into cover 2”
My preference – “Joe, It’s a passing down. The Broncos may try to use DRob to draw double coverage on the line so that Thomas can sneak in. He’s been close already. DJ hasn’t been blitzing much this game, and that hasn’t helped Lynch on those last two blitzes from safety. San Diego’s been doing a good job moving over another offensive lineman to help block those blitzes, so maybe our rush needs to get sacks from the inside of the line with the two tackles. Here comes the play…”
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on May 1, 2008 9:11 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great Post
Very nicely explained HT. So well, the average national NFL writer could understand it. It’s especially useful to remember, as you pointed out, that a C2 look can really be run out of any formation, with any defensive personnel grouping. The readers of MHR are lucky to have such coherent and well-informed technical football writing.
"I wouldn't ever set out to hurt anyone deliberately unless it was, you know, important --like a league game or something." DICK BUTKUS
by Ted Bartlett on May 1, 2008 8:09 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I think that I've met my match.
Not to start a group hug or anything, but you’ve done an amazing job yourself on technical writing, and breaking it down for fans without a strong background. In fact, I believe you have the highest “recommend” count to date in the “recommended box”.
I’m just in good company friend! I enjoy your work here a lot, and get a lot from it.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on May 1, 2008 8:19 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Really know your stuff
Great Post on this great site. I am really glad I found this place. HT you are special.
by Mike Clark on May 1, 2008 9:04 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
We're all special here Mike.
We’re the ones the site is for. We’re the ones that the team plays for. We are the fans!
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on May 1, 2008 9:13 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really enjoyed the read..
I have a feeling I will know what I am looking at when I watch Bronco games next season thanks to you. It also pains me to recall the Broncos missing so many gap assignments last year when I barely knew what a gap assignment was. I just knew they were missing holes, two guys going into the same gap, ect. I only learned later through your MHR U that what was happening were huge blown gap assignments…so thank you for that too. ;)
by Tim Lynch on May 1, 2008 10:07 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
The wonderul thing....
The more you get in depth with the game, the more you will start to see and the more you will understand. The game will stop being entertainment and become a science. Shortly after that it becomes an art form.
When I was still a middle school coach I was asked to watch a high school game to scout for the high school we fed into (and where I later ended up as a coordinator). I remember the first moment that football became an art. I was more knowledgable about football than I ever had been before, but wasn’t watching much pro football because of my busy schedule. So knowing my own level of ball (middle school) inside and out I went to the high school game.
I remember getting teary eyed because what I was seeing on the field was so beautiful. The execution, the intricacy of the plays, the adjustments. It stopped being a game or a sport and just become a painting in motion.
I developed such a passion for the game that I could watch tapes of our team losing a game and still marveling over the beauty of how an opposing team did something so flawlessly. When I moved on to the high school level (I went straight to the defensive coord position), I learned so much more. Then my schedual changed a bit and I was able to watch the pros and a little college again. Then I really appreciated what I was watching. Of course, even now I don’t now everything. But what little of the game one learns at the HS coaching level makes the pro level so much more artistic. That’s what I want to help members see by sharing what I can. I’m thrilled that you learned a little something and was able to apply it to games you had seen.
Just as you can watch the game and see the gaps open and close and watch players adjust in real time, wait until the following season when you’ve learned even more, and the game becomes a complicated dance where you can see “traps within traps within traps” opening and closing, and the best and the greatest players defying the greatest inventions of coaches who spent weeks to create what happens in the blink of an eye.
Or hell, you can just grab a beer and some buffalo wings and a few friends and forget the teary eyed crap. It’s a great time either way!
: )
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on May 1, 2008 11:18 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
I am definitely not gonna get this out well
I am tired and should go to bed but you brought up a point I want to comment on before I forget so bear with me. I think that seeing the art within the sport is what separates the casual from the educated fan. I am not using casual in a negative way or to refer to their love of the team or the extent to which they root and follow the team. I mean it to describe the understanding of the intricacies of the game. The casual fan understands and enjoys the game, but they don’t see the LB’s reaction to a WR in motion and know what’s coming next. The educated fan sees the field as a fluid canvas and is able to see more than the immediate area around the ball. (These are all generalizations of course, but I hope you get the drift)
The reason I bring this up is that I think that it is hard for the educated fan to get a full appreciation of the art of the game when watching on television. It has gotten better with High Definition and widescreen, but (especially in football) there is no better way to see all the action, and therefore the full masterpiece, than to be at the game. I’m gonna speculate that 20 years ago when ticket prices were a bit more manageable and the “average joe” was more likely to fill the stadium, the ratio of educated to causal fans in the stands was much higher. And I wonder how that changing dynamic is gonna affect the future of the NFL (and other leagues) as fewer of the next generation are able to appreciate the full beauty in person. OTOH, HDTV and other technologies are getting better and bringing fans closer to the action than ever before. Hopefully, the networks will start providing an optional wider camera angle that shows all 22 players on the field. (There is really no reason they can’t do it now).
Don’t really have a conclusion and I am starting to see double so I’ll just end my ramblings abruptly :)
by MattR on May 1, 2008 11:45 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent point!
My biggest grudge is that the views the cameras give us are focused on where the ball is. You almost never (for example) see the safeties at the snap of the ball. It’s a crime that camera crews don’t back off a bit.
When we get together some day I’m buying you a drink just for bringing up my pet peeve with televised games. The booth crews do a pretty bad job for the most part, but I can zone them out. But the camera angles and zooms are horrible. I rarely get to see a pro game in person, and when it does happen it’s always a treat to watch the whole product at once. It’s the best way to watch the game. It’s a shame it’s become so expensive.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on May 1, 2008 11:57 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Me have the technology to multicast
Ideally, I’d love to see a second channel devoted solely to a high angle shot from the press box (or maybe just replays after every play). Especially on an HD channel (like maybe ESPN and ESPN2). Or even make it pay per view/on demand initially to see if folks like it. I know I would pay a few extra bucks to have that option.
I know this can be done. Before I moved apartments, I had Cablevision (which owns MSG, the Knicks and Rangers). They offered an MSG on demand channel for free that allowed you to pick between three or four stationary cameras in real time during home games. It was not perfect since there was a bit of a lag to switch cameras which presents a real problem in a high paced game like hockey. But that would be less of an issue in football with its bursts of action and this was also more than five years ago so I assume our technology has advanced a bit.
by MattR on May 2, 2008 10:55 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, the C3
Now, I’ll freely admit that I played mostly flag football, with a year of freshman football thrown in (then I went music full time.) That freshman year, the defense (it was all base…we didn’t change anything really) was as such:
The Free Safety dropped back to cover the deep middle third, while both corners (already 10-15 yard off the LoS) dropped back to cover the other two deep thirds. The Strong Safety was used to cover the TE, but was mostly up to stop the run. At the time, I wasn’t exactly a student of the game (I loved to return kicks…that was about it.) Obviously, this wasn’t a complex defense…but how does that fit in with the C3 as more of a formation rather than a style. I love the info…I just want more! :o)
~Uffdah
by Disco_Stu on May 1, 2008 10:37 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I would need to know more.
You don’t have to answer all of these questions, just the ones you know.
First, in the program you were in, was this freshman flag or freshman regular football?
And by freshman, are you talking about college? If so, was it against other schools (team) or club? Was it standard 11 v 11 ball (eleven men on both sides)?
Do you know what the responsibilities of the defensive line were? What did the DTs do (primarily)? (I don’t need to know how they lined up).
How many LBs did your team run on most plays? Do you know if they played man, zone or contain? Would you say they blitzed often? If so, can you describe one or two blitz plays?
How often (if ever) did your CBs play man? If (when) they played man, do you remember if they played under or over their coverage (in front or behind the WR they targeted).
My biggest passion in football is systems, historical and present. Anything you can remember or that you know would be helpful. I’d love to help you figure out what your team was doing!
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on May 1, 2008 11:30 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Answers
This was 11-man football in high school (not flag…that was earlier.) Not sure what the DTs responsibilities were, but we played a 4-3, and most of it was zone. CBs were not used in man; they dropped back immediately to play zone on the outside deep thirds of the field (FS had zone in the middle deep third.)
~Uffdah
by Disco_Stu on May 2, 2008 8:31 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Several ideas come to mind
Oddly, a lot may depend on the size of your school.
Depending on school size (and thus the talent pool from your school and the competitors from other schools) there are different possibilities.
Some smaller HS programs don’t even run a second CB because the opposing offenses are so unlikely to find either a quality QB or two WRs, and in such a case they run 1 CB and oftentimes a 4-4 formation. You can run many of the same systems out of a 4-4 that you run in other systems. But your school had 2 CBs on the field, and it sounds like you played one side of the ball and didn’t have to play offense as well.
It sounds to me like your program goes in one of two ways. Either the pass plays were enough of a threat to merit 2 deep CBs (perhaps you were in a group of programs that believed in multiple WR threats, such as one of the spread systems or run and gun / run and shoot systems), or the team faced programs that were well stocked and funded and had to play a prevent type of system.
In the first case, your team was running a 4-3, not a Cover-3. The point is that your CBs started by playing “off” and then moved back to deep zone. It sounds like they had some responsibility to read for the run, using the off covereage to prevent run blocks. Since they didn’t start 3-deep they were not aligned in cover-3 for the purpose of labeling their formation. It sounds like you team might have being running a “soft zone / look” or “soft zone / prevent” system.
In the second instance (still 4-3), there are times when programs compete with other schools that have the same number of students, but one or more programs are underfunded or don’t have access to better coaching or training because of funding issues. Your program may have been making the best of a situation they were in, and using the “soft zone / prevent” system to try to prevent big plays while putting the team’s hopes with the offense. I could be totaly off here. It is possible that (depending on what the D line was doing) that your OLBs were actualy playing contain (which looks a lot like zone). I also wonder if some kids had to play both sides of the ball (though you didn’t mention that).
Whatever the system, it sounds like pass threats in your area were a severe threat (more so than in many HS programs). It also sounds like the defensive coordinator was focused on two things: Keeping the defense as simple as possible and giving up short yards to prevent big plays. The offenses in your area must have been brutal!
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on May 2, 2008 9:31 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Offenses weren't too bad
It was a smaller school, and the freshman team at that…so talent was exactly overflowing. The system, it would seem, was designed to compensate for fewer players/lower talent by playing a prevent defense. LBs and SS played short zones, and the FS and CBs stayed back to prevent the big play. It wasn’t complex in the least, but I was so unaware of systems at the time, it’s kinda fun to fill in gaps.
But something else clicked: the difference in a Cover 3 vs. the CBs starting up, but backpedaling to the deep outside thirds. I wasn’t making the connection that the Cover 3 STARTS with players in the deep thirds, rather than backing up into the zones, but ready to support the run if needed. Would I be correct in assuming that this is why the Tampa 2 is still a variant of the C2, and not a C3: the MIKE begins just a bit deeper than usual, but then has the responsibility for a deeper zone (rather than starting back with the safeties?)
Thanks for this series, HT! I look forward to them!
~Uffdah
by Disco_Stu on May 2, 2008 10:04 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good thinking and correct!
A true cover-3 has three players in deep coverage (usually DBs). The T2 has a MLB playing back and responsible for a deep”er” zone, but he isn’t lined up far enough back to be in a true C3 (remember, he still has to run up for run support – the system places a lot of emphasis on having players swarm the ball).
The T2 system is a variant of the C2 system (and entirely unrelated to the C3 formation) for two reasons:
1. T2 is a C2 except that the DL plays one gap pass rush instead of plugging the line in 2 gap, AND the MLB is further removed from scrimmage and must be fast (he can be either MLB type in a C2)
2. C2 is the parent system, whereas C3 is an unrelated formation.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on May 2, 2008 10:20 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also...
...take a look at my diagram for this story. I’m not a great artist, and the distances are far from perfect, but look at the alignment of the MLB comparable to the positioning of the SAFs. He shouldn’t be even close to being as far back as the safeties are. Note too that his zone doesn’t go as far back (you can run forwards much faster than backpeddling, an important issue for safeties as well as volleyball – which I didn’t coach but still enjoyed playing in a city league).
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on May 2, 2008 10:26 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
omg, espn
i fully agree with the espn fluff statement. who can forget “brett favre night at mile high” last year, it was like we weren’t even playing. they are just out to win espy’s and promote themselves to the point of distraction. golf updates during gametime! golf! the score tracker eating up the bottom part of my screen, celebrities at the game being interviewed, promoting their abc lineup while we miss the play,... it’s unwatchable. i remember me and my dad used to watch baseball games w/howard cosell, with the sound turned off. what a relief! i also remember an nfl game where they had no announcers, as an experiment, just the pa announcer at the game, and the field was still miked. beautiful. i think a good announcer can add much to the experience(madden), but there are only a few. the audience the nfl is pursuing isn’t you, it is women and “fringe” males, interested in golf, tennis,... and loaded with money to buy those box seats no real football fan can afford. hockey is the same now, and the lame rule changes every year provide the proof. they know we’re going to watch, so they are targeting the non-fan now. turn the audio off. i predict celebrity announcers are in our near future. ok, i’m done ranting
by davecheffy on May 1, 2008 10:59 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I'll never forget two things from tha GB game.
1. Mrs. Favre showed a lot of class. She saw a play starting and she would stop in mid sentence so the announcers could do their job. Instead, the announcers just kept talking and talking while the camera crew kept missing plays. I don’t blame Mrs. Favre one bit.
2. I’ll never forget the cheesy poem that they recorded Mrs. Favre reading. (“Cheesy”, for Cheeseheads that is). They played it twice. It ended with “My Brett, our Favre”.
I was scaring my family. “My butt! Your Favre! Where’s my fricken game!” My wife was shocked, but my daughter was rolling on the floor laughing and my friends (Packers fans) where just as annoyed as I was by missing the game because of the ESPN Fluff Team.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on May 1, 2008 11:38 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't even want to tell ya
what i was doing toward the end of that game but your comment “I was scaring my family” rang true. Even though I don’t grasp all of everything yet, I am getting closer and I really appreciate the MHR Football University.
I would love to see all 22 men at once, but the media has to sell the sizzle and that is the QB and WR with an occasional RB.
Another in a series of great posts. Thanks again.
Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of our own mind. - Emerson
by firstfan on May 2, 2008 12:19 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the kind words First.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on May 2, 2008 12:21 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
What i love the most
... is that the commentsection is just as educating/entertaining as the articles!
/The great Dane - formerly known as Claaaaas!
by Claus Vestergaard on May 2, 2008 12:33 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes!
This always seems to be the case.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on May 2, 2008 9:32 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Buffalo and the Tampa 2
Great post. I’m a Bills fan and noticed your statement that Buffalo is moving away from the Tampa 2. Buffalo Rumblings has been a very active blog as always but I haven’t seen anything indicating this to be the case (although more than one Bills fan has stated there displike of the Tampa 2).
So I’m just wondering how you came to this conclusion? Thanks!
by Zumone on May 2, 2008 11:42 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, wrong reply button!
I responded to you down below. The comment title is, “There have been some grumblings about changes… “
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on May 2, 2008 9:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Welcome Zumone,
I’m not the one to respond to this question. There are so many people on this site who understand all this a lot better than I do. I’m just concerned because I’ve noticed that when a thread gets this long that interest starts to lag and people don’t return so they might not notice your question. I don’t know if this is the best way to get your question answered but may I sugeest that you ask the same question again very early in some fresher posting. I’m not sure it has to even be germaine to the topic being discussed. I think that way you’ll get some attention.
By the way, I visited your site just before and after the game between our two teams last year and found everyone there to be friendly, knowlegdable and helpful. I want to thank them and you for that. Good luck next year. The Bills are always one of those teams I root for… ...as long as they aren’t playing the Broncos that is. ;)
P.S. Whoops.
Just as I’m typing this I notice that Hoosierteacher is doing just what I thought wasn’t going to happen. As best this ignorant wretch can tell that guy is one sharpe fellow.
Once again, good luck in ‘08. I died a little when your Bills lost those Super Bowls too and I sure hope you get another chance real soon.
If this be Hell, let us make the most of it!
by Trinidad Jack on May 2, 2008 9:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
No ignorant wretches here my friend!
No one that’s gone through L1, 2 and 3 can reasonably be called ignorant. Wretch? Not in your case, but there are some fun lawyer jokes out there!
I always scan stories still on the front page. For some rare cases I’ll check the second page. I have my fanposts set so that I can keep up with about 20 to 25 posts.
I also get a lot of e-mail from folks (not really from MHR, but from other SBN sites and a few that link from other sites that put up MHR articles). I try to respond to every one of them. If I miss something it’s probably been off the front page for awhile.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on May 2, 2008 11:01 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
There have been some grumblings about changes...
Dan Leberfeld (who covers the AFC East) was on SIrius NFL Radio not too long ago and said that Ralph Wilson is not happy with the system and wants bigger players in the front 7. The signings of Marcus Stroud and Kawika Mitchell would seem to verify the movement away from a T2 in that respect.
Back in 2006 I read this story (it took me awhile to find it again). Knowing the bad rush defense the team was having for a couple of years, I started to follow the Bills from a scheme standpoint (football systems are a kind of hobby with me, especially historical ones). Even the 2006 article was wishy washy on the team being “all in”.
With the recent report by Leberfeld, the track record of the program, and the recent signings, I think the Bills are signaling a transition out of the Tampa system. I could be wrong, but watch the defensive line this year, then watch for major personnel changes over the next two years.
It’s my opinion, but it sure looks like a transistion to me.
Best of luck to you and the Bills. As an AFC fan it killed me to watch the Bills lose the multiple SBs awhile back. I hope you guys get one soon if it isn’t at Denver’s expense. I’m also glad Everett is doing better than expected. All of Broncoland wishes him the absolute best.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on May 2, 2008 9:14 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks!
I created a fan post with your response at Buffalo Rumblings. I’m not sure if this will generate any discussion, but feel free to jump in if you would like to comment. Thanks again!
Best of luck to you and Denver as well.
by Zumone on May 3, 2008 7:54 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks Zumone
I’ll stop in when I can.
Pass on that I haven’t seen a negative word about the Bills or their fans from the Broncos faithful. We saw a miserable string of Super Bowl loses ourselves, so we have a lot in common. The Everett thing hit the Broncos fans pretty hard too. You guys slow down the Patriots, we’ll slow down the Chargers, and then we can get together for a Hell of an AFC Championship game. Deal?
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on May 3, 2008 8:34 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
that would be something
If this be Hell, let us make the most of it!
by Trinidad Jack on May 3, 2008 3:55 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 






































