Thread: Understanding the Vikings Tampa 2

Originally Posted by thorshammer

Don't like this defense ... We don't have the right people to run it well ....

I don't think we have the right people to run the C2 (Athletic MLB/1 tech at NT/UT) but we do to run the T2 (MLB who can drop straight back into the zone/DT that will garner Double Teams but not necessarily have to push/collapse the pocket).

Atleast that's what the article is telling me.

Before the article, I wanted a true 1 tech at NT and a MLB who could fly all over the field. Now, not so much, if the article is correct.

That's not to say, of course, that the system denies playmaking opportunities. Specifically, this system enables good safeties to make interceptions if they are particularly intuitive and enterprising. It simply does not encourage gambling from its cornerbacks, which can sometimes be an issue for players transitioning systems. It was no surprise, for example, that Nnamdi needed time in the switch from Oakland's Cover-1/Man-Free concepts to Philadelphia's zone/discipline system.

Also evident as a result of this philosophy is that you need corners who are sure tacklers. The Carson Cover-2 needed strong corners to manhandle the receivers and disrupt the run game from the outside, but the Tampa-2 system requires corners to be overall good tacklers, not just good hitters.

I think we've hashed through this a number of times on this site, but if we are continuing to stay with the Tampa 2, I think it's important to remember that the corners are not expected to be playmakers. They are asked to route the receiver inside, defend the outside intermediate zones keeping the receivers in front of them, and then react quickly to prevent YAC.

We have had corners that play this aspect pretty well including Winfield, Griffin and Cook. However, whenever the play goes between the corner and the safety we seem to really fall apart. Safeties are never there and the corners seem to have limited downfield range (especially Winfield and Griffin post ACL's).

If Cook shows that he can stay on the field and another CB like Carr or Robinson steps up, I would not be surprised if we don't start playing more man coverage from the outside corners. Especially when playing against a team with only 1-2 real receiving threats. Against a GB or NO where they seem to have a large amount of good receivers running routes on any given play, I think a disciplined zone defense is probably the better approach.

Originally Posted by tastywaves

I think we've hashed through this a number of times on this site, but if we are continuing to stay with the Tampa 2, I think it's important to remember that the corners are not expected to be playmakers. They are asked to route the receiver inside, defend the outside intermediate zones keeping the receivers in front of them, and then react quickly to prevent YAC.

We have had corners that play this aspect pretty well including Winfield, Griffin and Cook. However, whenever the play goes between the corner and the safety we seem to really fall apart. Safeties are never there and the corners seem to have limited downfield range (especially Winfield and Griffin post ACL's).

If Cook shows that he can stay on the field and another CB like Carr or Robinson steps up, I would not be surprised if we don't start playing more man coverage from the outside corners. Especially when playing against a team with only 1-2 real receiving threats. Against a GB or NO where they seem to have a large amount of good receivers running routes on any given play, I think a disciplined zone defense is probably the better approach.

What an excellent post. Of course it moved you no higher on the spreadsheets, your as high as you can go on all of them.

Two discussion points came up as I read it though.....

However, whenever the play goes between the corner and the safety we seem to really fall apart

To some extent I blame this on our DL. Immediate pressure by our front 4 would alleviate alot of this.

Additionally, because we use our LB'rs to help out our DL to get pressure, that opens a few lanes were the LB would normally be inline of that zone and would hinder the throw, forcing the QB to hesitate a bit.

Two things come from that.....A gives the DL more time and also allows S's to close on that gap were the handover is going to take place.

In short, show one chink in your armor (DL inability to get immediate pressure) and the rest of the scheme comes apart.

Originally Posted by Marrdro

What an excellent post. Of course it moved you no higher on the spreadsheets, your as high as you can go on all of them.

Two discussion points came up as I read it though.....


To some extent I blame this on our DL. Immediate pressure by our front 4 would alleviate alot of this.

Additionally, because we use our LB'rs to help out our DL to get pressure, that opens a few lanes were the LB would normally be inline of that zone and would hinder the throw, forcing the QB to hesitate a bit.

Two things come from that.....A gives the DL more time and also allows S's to close on that gap were the handover is going to take place.

In short, show one chink in your armor (DL inability to get immediate pressure) and the rest of the scheme comes apart.

Agree that one leads to more exposure in the other. That is, if the DL does not get pressure fast enough these routes will be more commonplace and the DB's will get beat more often. Doesn't really excuse the play of the DB's, but receivers and QB's are paid big money for a reason.

Originally Posted by tastywaves

Agree that one leads to more exposure in the other. That is, if the DL does not get pressure fast enough these routes will be more commonplace and the DB's will get beat more often. Doesn't really excuse the play of the DB's, but receivers and QB's are paid big money for a reason.

Agree, remember my thoughts going into last year, I really thought we would see the Vikes transition to a "Press man" look with our DB's based on the size as well as the lack of a true 0/1 tech at NT. I still think we are going to try to do that this year.

Again, my rationale for that assumption is the move of Guion to Phat Pats old spot, the size/speed of our S's and CB's (Cook is a big kid).

That kindof synch's up with your idea we would see more man this year.

I hope he's ready for the horrors that being a Bear brings.

Originally Posted by C Mac D

I hope he's ready for the horrors that being a Bear brings.

When was the last time I told you that you crack me up.

As you guys know, the Vikings have run a variation of the Cover-2--the Tampa-2-- for a good part of my adult life, and definitely since 2006, when Brad Childress was hired. When he was fired and Leslie Frazier went from Defensive Coordinator, to Interim Head Coach, to Head Coach, that same defense has stayed.
Before we go any farther, if you're not sure how a Tampa-2 defense is supposed to work, Arif has done a must read series on this defense. Start off by reading this, then go read this, before you go any further. If you can only read one, read the latter. But you're an underachiever if you do.

The two read this's are the first two articles....

With that said, the cause of the Vikings defensive troubles the last couple of seasons hasn't been due to a lack of aggression, it's been due to injuries and an overall lack of talent in the defensive backfield. I also think that this 'death knell' of the Tampa-2 is a bit premature. Whenever the NFL institutes a rules change, players adapt, and this won't be any different than any other situation.

Obviously he didn't bother to read his first two articles if he believes our issue solely lye with the secondary.

Is The Tampa-2 Going The Way Of The Wing T? - Daily Norseman