05-04-2011, 04:38 PM #1
The Difference Between Traditional Zone and the T2
I've posted a couple of these before.
The key to the Tampa 2 is speed in the back seven as the DB's and LB's have lots of ground to cover. Teams also have to be able to both create pressure with only their front four and be able to stop the run with just their front seven.It goes to show how dominate the front four has been in not just putting pressure on the QB and stopping the run, but in keeping blockers off the smallish linebackers..
In a true Cover 2, defensive linemen provide all the pressure. Blitzing should be unnecessary. Defensive lineman line up in gaps to slow the run, and make it more difficult for holes to open up. If the front 4 play their gaps correctly, they'll clog up the running lanes and force the running backs to run outside, where the corners, linebackers, and safeties (the overall speed of the team) can all help.There are a few weaknesses to the Cover 2. All zone coverage has holes in it, and teams that run the Cover 2 are heavily exposed to deep post patterns, seam routes, medium range hooks, flooding the zone. Because of how much ground the safety has to cover, deep passes can easily overload his zone. A common play that teams run to stop it is a quick fly or out to the far sides. Once the receiver breaks the zone where the corner plays, he'll be in a soft zone. Realistically, it's about 8 yards for him to run, while the safety might have to cover 20 yards to run over there and provide help over the top. Its also a mismatch as most safeties in the NFL can not cover a receiver effectively
The Tampa 2 is a coverage scheme out of the 4-3 that was pioneered by (now Indianapolis head coach) Tony Dungy. Its emphasis is on speed and a quick pass-rush. While the normal Cover 2 has each Linebacker or Cornerback covering about 1/5th the width of the safeties, who each cover half, the Tampa 2 pulls the middle linebacker into deep zone coverage as well, similiar to a Cover 3. What this does is allows the safeties to have to cover less ground, so they can cover the traditional soft zone past the corners more effectively. Since the middle linebacker drops into coverage to watch the center of the field, the four men underneath each cover about 25% the width of the field each. Speed at linebacker is so important here because they need to cover more ground than linebackers are normally used to covering.
What generally hurts Dungy's system is its emphasis on speed. Faster is always better because his system is based entirely around the pass. The speed works well for passing and outside runs where the linebackers and corners can quickly converge on the runner. However, the Tampa 2 suffers from power runners. Big, bruising running backs can normally run over the smaller linebackers and a lot of times won't be stopped until they reach the safety. A good running game cheats the safety out of the coverage he wants to run and makes him hesitate since he has to watch the run. When play-action passes can get involved and the safety has to respect the team's running game, a lot of times it can spell a long completion or a touchdown.
Compound that indecisiveness with added responsibility that comes with having to use your LB'rs to get pressure when your front 4 can't get it on their own.
Guest Column: The Cover 2 Explained
Bleeds article he posted in another thread.
Anyway, hope this helps as we start to discuss the belief that our DB's suck cause they don't get enough INT's.Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.
05-04-2011, 04:56 PM #2
Re: The Difference Between Traditional Zone and the T2Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096275
Tackling, Angles, sticking in their zone (kinda important for a zone team), winning one on one matchups,(yes, those still happen even though you play zone) CATCHING interceptions, knocking balls down, forcing fumbles, forcing turnovers, playing man coverage, disguising coverage, closing on the ball.
Our corners are inexperienced with the exception of Winfield. Our safeties are scared to hit with the exception of Abdullah.
We don't have much speed in the secondary, and we don't have much size for when it comes to winning those jump balls or getting that reach in the endzone (believe me, allowing the catch and making the tackle in the endzone doesn't help in the slightest)
While our defense isn't design to shut teams down and take stud receivers out of the game, it's supposed to force turnovers, and be generally effective. It didn't become so well known for producing very mediocre teams.
05-04-2011, 05:05 PM #3
Re: The Difference Between Traditional Zone and the T2
Just to clarify, I'm not saying what you posted has nothing to do with that, I'm saying INT's alone are not why they suck.
05-04-2011, 05:21 PM #4
Re: The Difference Between Traditional Zone and the T2Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096279
It all starts up front.
Can't get pressure with them alone and you send a LB to help, you extend their zone.
They (the front 4) blow a play/miss a tackle when our S's are covering another area/zone, the area they are now asked to cover is extended, which in turn results in poor angles. Add to the the issues related to a LB blitzing from the outside into that A or B gap and they run to the C gap (DE taken wide) and now the S has to cover even more ground at an even worse angle.
Look, I agree we need improvement at the S position, atleast one of them. What I don't agree with you on is that our S's are solely to blame for that perception.
Again, this scheme is predicated on winning with the front 4. If your not doing that we are in a hell of a mess, especially in the secondary.Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.
05-04-2011, 05:22 PM #5
Re: The Difference Between Traditional Zone and the T2Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096280Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.
05-04-2011, 05:29 PM #6
Re: The Difference Between Traditional Zone and the T2Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096282
So what more do you want? We got pressure, but still couldn't stop the pass. THis season we struggled at pressure, still couldn't stop the pass. DL needs to step it up, yes, but so does our secondary.
05-04-2011, 05:33 PM #7
Re: The Difference Between Traditional Zone and the T2Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096286
Truth of the matter is, the first 2/3rds (estimate based on my memory) of the season our DL was pretty much a non factor both against the run and against the pass.
Our DL didn't wake up until late in the season. Until that happened, a bunch of the load was carried by those DB's you are hacking on.Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.
05-04-2011, 05:42 PM #8
Re: The Difference Between Traditional Zone and the T2Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096288
Week 2: 2 sacks, two picks, Stafford, 152 yards 2TD, 2 int
Week 3: 1 sack, one pick, Hill 195 yards, 2 Td 1 int
Week 4: 8 sack, one pick, Rodgers 384 yards, 2td 1 int
Wek 5: 1 sack, one pick, Bulger, 100%, 88 yards, td, Boller 209 yards, 1int
Week 6: 3 sacks, Flacco, 386 yards, 2TD
I can go on. There wasn't much load being carried, even when the defense got to the QB.
05-04-2011, 06:07 PM #9
Re: The Difference Between Traditional Zone and the T2Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096289
JA and Ray accounted for 19 of our sacks. They got them on the following weeks
JA wk 2/1, 9/2.5, 10/2, 11-14/1 each week, 16/1, 17/1
Ray wk 5/1.5, 9/2, 11/2, 15/1, 16/1, 17/.5
Pretty shitty if you ask me.Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.
05-04-2011, 06:14 PM #10
Re: The Difference Between Traditional Zone and the T2Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096292
Your expectations are so unrealistically lofty it's rediculous. in 2009, our line played some very good ball. They had poor games, yes. All teams have poor games. I don't know what more you want. We had 48 sacks.
This year the #1 team had 48, in 08 it was 59, but that was an outrageous year, next best ws 51 then 48, 07 was 53, 06 was 61, 60 then 47.
Point is our totals ranked pretty well vs. leading teams from other years. We didn't have a record-setting year, but we had a very good year.
But you'll probably dismiss it, anything to take the blame of your boys in the backfield.
By Garland Greene in forum College BallReplies: 2Last Post: 06-24-2009, 10:49 AM
By BadlandsVikings in forum The ClubhouseReplies: 0Last Post: 11-11-2007, 09:46 PM
By in forum Vikings Fan ForumReplies: 2Last Post: 09-07-2007, 12:25 PM
By LosAngelis in forum Vikings Fan ForumReplies: 6Last Post: 12-23-2004, 12:31 PM
By purplehorn in forum The ClubhouseReplies: 3Last Post: 09-14-2004, 06:26 PM