Thread: WCO/Cover 2 needs to go

Originally Posted by kevoncox

I know we all give Marr a hard time but... he is correct in his assesnment of our defensive needs. Now he is wrong in saying that the front 4 should bare the blame instead of our pathetic safties/cbs but the lack of a true penetrating DT that can eat up blocks/space and allow KW to play his natural role is apperent. This weekend, I saw less of our traditional under scheme and alot more 3 - 3 looks with a Will or Sam covering containment. I think we have modified it a bit boys and the change from EJ Henderson is forcing the QBs to look elsewhere besides down the middle of the field that was always open.....

I disagree with that If you have said NT then sure, you can use them that way but you can also be very effective with DT's that are more agile, athletic and quicker. The Vikings have proven in the past that they can have a KADL either way. Point being-

1989 Vikings defensive line- 71 sacks. Who was their warpig? Thomas?He was the mold KW was cast in. Millard? Nope. High motor guy.

2009 Vikings DL-46 Sacks. Had PW as the War Pig and then Edwards, Williams and Allen.

Two very stout DL's that both worked but got after it in different ways.

The end point is you take your roster and you draw up the defense to suit your talent and what they do well. If you happen to have a Pat Williams on the roster then by all means use him to plug up the middle. But if you don't have him but you have Millard,Randle,Thomas on the roster you can still be elite as long as you use them right.

Originally Posted by Marrdro

Anyone beeeyyyyatching about the scheme today? Even ole Whinny got a gift INT thrown to him because the DL was getting after it.

Nope, they adjusted the scheme to have more man to man coverage & allowed "more ball hawking" like they said they were going to do over 1 week ago.

Anyone beeeyyyyatching about the DL this week? They're still bringing pressure like they have been all year, Even more so.

Originally Posted by Purple Floyd

Man, you need to get with the programs. That lack of information at your disposal could lead to faulty takes like the weakness of the defense being caused by the lack of a war pig.

+1

Check and mate!

Originally Posted by kevoncox

I know we all give Marr a hard time but... he is correct in his assesnment of our defensive needs. Now he is wrong in saying that the front 4 should bare the blame instead of our pathetic safties/cbs but the lack of a true penetrating DT that can eat up blocks/space and allow KW to play his natural role is apperent. This weekend, I saw less of our traditional under scheme and alot more 3 - 3 looks with a Will or Sam covering containment. I think we have modified it a bit boys and the change from EJ Henderson is forcing the QBs to look elsewhere besides down the middle of the field that was always open.....

I love the fast start but I am fearful of the last 8 games. Our Divisional games can decide if we are an 8 and 8 team or if me make it to a Superbowl. I wager we will be unbeatable at home. Only the GMen Scare me at this point.

I'm not solely blaming the DL....What I'm saying is that without the DLmens ability to get pressure alone (CONSISTENTLY), we have to send LB'rs and DB's. This weakens the overall scheme.

Not sure why thats so hard to get across.

Love your comment on Jasper. Do you see him (as well as the other LB'rs) lining up deeper or is it just me?

As to the fast start. Interesting.....Do you agree that the "kids" are playing better than the "Old" guys and all the easier games leading up to those harder games will pay big dividends later on when the "Kids" have to face better teams?

Originally Posted by Purple Floyd

I disagree with that If you have said NT then sure, you can use them that way but you can also be very effective with DT's that are more agile, athletic and quicker. The Vikings have proven in the past that they can have a KADL either way. Point being-

1989 Vikings defensive line- 71 sacks. Who was their warpig? Thomas?He was the mold KW was cast in. Millard? Nope. High motor guy.

2009 Vikings DL-46 Sacks. Had PW as the War Pig and then Edwards, Williams and Allen.

Two very stout DL's that both worked but got after it in different ways.

The end point is you take your roster and you draw up the defense to suit your talent and what they do well. If you happen to have a Pat Williams on the roster then by all means use him to plug up the middle. But if you don't have him but you have Millard,Randle,Thomas on the roster you can still be elite as long as you use them right.

So you first go out and find players, then develop your defense? WOW.

By the way, Thomas played the UT. So did Newton. Just because they didn't dump the scale at the weight your thinking doesn't mean they couldn't play the position.

Originally Posted by singersp

Nope, they adjusted the scheme to have more man to man coverage & allowed "more ball hawking" like they said they were going to do over 1 week ago.

Anyone beeeyyyyatching about the DL this week? They're still bringing pressure like they have been all year, Even more so.

Wait a minute. Before you said they didn't play man. Now your saying they did?

What makes you say that, because the CB's were tight up to the line? What were the S's doing? Up in the box or back in their zones?

Just because they are up tight doesn't mean they aren't in zone. Heck, the C2 actually has the CB's play tight and push receivers to the LB'rs inside.

Originally Posted by Marrdro

So you first go out and find players, then develop your defense? WOW.

Your point is what? Isn't that what Childress did with Jackson?

Actually my point was we have a first year DC and he has to coach the guys he was given every DC is going to do things different than the last one and different than they guy who will replace him some day. To think he can start out on day 1 with every player having the skill set he wants is ludicrous. You have to take the talent you have on the roster and make the defense work with them.

By the way, Thomas played the UT. So did Newton. Just because they didn't dump the scale at the weight your thinking doesn't mean they couldn't play the position.

Now you are getting confusing. A Nose Tackle plays a 0-1 tech from what I know and and under tackle plays a 3 tech on either the strong side or the weak side depending on if they are playing an over or under alignment. So are you looking for a nose tackle to line up right over the center and either take him straight up or shadow the strong side gap or are you looking for an undertackle that lines up outside the guard? Or are you talking about one guy who can play all of those spots from straight up over the center to the Guards outside shoulder?

And by the way, if you read that post again I made the case that we can have a great defense no matter where we play our Tackles if we do it right and my examples were of a range of different tackles that were all effective at what they did.

Originally Posted by Marrdro

Wait a minute. Before you said they didn't play man. Now your saying they did?

What makes you say that, because the CB's were tight up to the line? What were the S's doing? Up in the box or back in their zones?

Just because they are up tight doesn't mean they aren't in zone. Heck, the C2 actually has the CB's play tight and push receivers to the LB'rs inside.

Earlier in the year they weren't playing a lot of man to man. The last few weeks they've been playing more man to man & it's shown with balls being batted away, passes not being caught & interception/near interception plays being made.

When the CB are near their receiver & stick with him thru his routes, I call that man to man, which is far different than 5 to 10 yard cushions we've seen a lot of where they give up the short pass, tackle them & keep them from getting the big play.

If you're trying to tell me that when a CB stays up tight to the receiver that's still C2 zone defense & not man to man, then what in the hell do you call man to man,,,giving piggy-back rides?

Well that depends on the route but you can press and still be in zone if you hand the WR off to another defender after they get to a certain point on the field. In man they would lock onto the WR for their whole route. Conversely you could be in man coverage and still give a ten yard cushion if that is what the coaches called for,

Originally Posted by singersp

Earlier in the year they weren't playing a lot of man to man. The last few weeks they've been playing more man to man & it's shown with balls being batted away, passes not being caught & interception/near interception plays being made.

When the CB are near their receiver & stick with him thru his routes, I call that man to man, which is far different than 5 to 10 yard cushions we've seen a lot of where they give up the short pass, tackle them & keep them from getting the big play.

If you're trying to tell me that when a CB stays up tight to the receiver that's still C2 zone defense & not man to man, then what in the hell do you call man to man,,,giving piggy-back rides?

If they are up on the line, it can be zone, if they run with him in their zone it is still zone, if they hand him off and stay in their zone its cover 1, 2, 3. If they run with him out of their zone and stay with him through his whole route (and don't get help from the S) its man to man.

Again, you have to watch not only what the S does but what the CB does when he gets to the edge of his zone.