Thread: Music to Marrdro's Ears (Twist in McShay's draft)

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093880

Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1093807

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093786

Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1093772

Marrdro.... I've seen enough dropped INTs by our awful secondary in the past 2-3 years to know that they are possible in this scheme.

Think back on those dropped balls. How many of them were by a DB standing alone in his zone, not even close to a WR?

I can think of 5 last year that were of that nature.

Who cares how the INTs were manufactured? Fact is, they were playing in the T2 and had the opportunities to have quite a bit of INTs. Doesn't matter what they were doing

Who cares? Comeon my friend, it is a direct point in the discussion.

If they were in "Blanket" coverage and missed them, it would be one thing, but if they were "Standing in a zone" (several were this year) it would be another.

No its not. The discussion is whether or not high INT numbers can be had in the T2 and there have been several posts of numbers of previous years that prove that they can be had. It doesn't matter how an INT happens, if we are in the T2 and are dropping INTs than it isn't a fault of the scheme, but rather our moron secondary.

Originally Posted by "jessejames09" #1093847

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093770

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1093764

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093697

Originally Posted by "jargomcfargo" #1093696

One thing I like about your analysis of Ray, it's not a popularity contest. Ray wont be noted as a fan favorite. But he can play.
He may not hold up but he's done a fine job so far.

Agree. I, like you, look at other things, especially when you talk LDE's, other than sacks to base my opinion of how well a cat plays.

Ray, IMHO, has played his ass off over there and hasn't beyyyatched a bit about that role (i.e Haynesworth).

Only knock I have on Ray is that he was roiding up. Again, I relate/attribute that to his frame really better being suited to the RDE role.

Others see his lack of sacks and say he sucks or doesn't play to their expectations.

Preaching to the choir here bro.. I've been looking for a pocket collapsing/penetrating DT for the last couple years.

I hear ya, got you on that spreadsheet. By the way, that spreadsheet isn't as full as the one were everyone keeps asking to upgrade CB's to fix things instead of fixing that which is really wrong.

I guess i am on the other spreadsheet then because even when we were getting pressure up the middle the WRs we faced were catching passes uncontested.

Lets not forget the premise behind what a CB is asked to do in the Cover 2......

Let the reciever catch the ball in front of him, close for the tackle, limit YAC.

They are not asked to go out and get INT's. Not part of the scheme.

BTW Quick Question:

How many INT's have we gotten out of the secondary in the past 5 years and is that number trending up or down?(Don't include any INT's from Sharper because we know he sucked )

Sharp was a prime example of what DB's are asked to do in the cover 2 scheme. He got very few and then, when he left he racked up a bunch.

Long story short, you want to see INT's by our DB's, you have to change the scheme.

Not true, at all. Tampa in 2002-2003, John Gruden challenged that Defence to score and they did. All the way to a Superbowl win.

Or how about the bears I'd say between 04 and 07 that was probably the most vaunted defence in the league at that point. And they forced turnovers, a lot of them.

Both played the cover 2. Our issues in the backfield are lack of depth at cb and talent at safety. Not scheme.

What was the front 4 doing on those teams. Take alook, they all have a heck of alot more production with respect to pressure from the front 4 that our defenses do.

Again, it comes back to how those INT's were manufactured and it had nothing to do with the DB's playing in a press/man coverage. They played off, stayed in their zones and picked balls off that were thrown poorly, tipped, batted etc because of the pressure provided by the front 4.

Here is a nice history lesson that kindof explains how we got to the Cover 2 or Tampa 2.

Those smaller, speedier linebackers would theoretically be protected by a couple of massive but still quick defensive tackles who were disruptive enough to keep the linebackers (and the MLB in particular) clean to stop the run and create negative plays. The edge rushing line and swarming Cover-2 shell was designed to create turnovers against the pass.

The last two sentences hold the key to Johnson’s philosophy. The aggressive nature of this 4-3 front might allow big plays at times, but the negative plays and turnovers gave the ball back to the offense quickly and with good field position if the defense itself didn’t score. It worked.

As Johnson’s scheme succeeded, he was able to recruit better and better athletes and eventually work his way to the N.F.L. As so often happens, copycat programs in college churned out players who fit the scheme of the day, and pro teams looking to piggyback on the success of Johnson’s Cowboys incorporated those players into the “Miami” scheme. The N.F.L. became a 4-3 league again.

The Miami 4-3 has holes. The smaller ends and OLBs can be exploited by a good rush offense. Overpursuit can be an issue. Zone coverage becomes a problem if you don’t have the athletes to rush the passer. As we’ll see with the Tampa-2 and the 3-4 in later installments, finding the right players to run such an aggressive scheme is difficult when everyone’s running the same defense and searching for the same type of player. Among other issues, those deficiencies partly account for why Johnson’s assistants never amounted to much as head coaches.

Still, the era of undersized defensive players succeeding in 4-3 fronts is still going strong and its legacy is directly traceable to the success of Jimmy Johnson and the ‘Miami’ 4-3.

Contemporary 4-3 fronts

Most 4-3 defenses today use either the read-and-react philosophy of the Landry flex or the read-on-the-run philosophy of an aggressive, downhill front like the Miami front (or a variation of Buddy Ryan’s aggressive 46 defense). Some may use a little of both depending on personnel. Almost all have playbooks that include over and under fronts.

But the evolution of the 4-3 didn’t stop with Jimmy Johnson’s aggressive use of undersized but quick talent. In the past decade, we saw the introduction and widespread use of a variation in coverage known as the Tampa-2 and a hybrid defense that combines both 3-4 and 4-3 concepts to highlight a roving pass rusher as the centerpiece of an aggressive front seven. In the next installment, we’ll look at those variations and wrap up our look at the 4-3 front.

Guide to N.F.L. Defenses, Part 2: Evolution of 4-3 Front

This defense is the definition of bend but not break, as it takes away the deep ball and forces teams to be patient as they work well from 20 yd line to 20 yard line but then struggle when the field shrinks as they near the red zone. The hope is that somewhere along the line the offense will make a mistake or the speedy defense will cause a turnover. 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.

Zone 101: The Difference Between Traditional Zone Defense and the Tampa 2


This one does a damn good job of showing what the DB's (and LB'rs) read based on the WR's routes/stems prior to their breaks.

Key note to notice, if you care to, is that all the DB's initial movement is away from from LOS with very little of that movement going towards the LOS. Again, the focus is to keep the WR infront of you (DB) with you (DB) between him (WR) and the goal line.

Note that Cover 2 is not Tampa 2, a Tampa 2 scheme is closer to Cover 3 zone.

Strengths of Cover 2 Zone:
Ability to jam outside receivers and direct them inwards (called funneling), disrupting their timing routes.
Coverage of the flat area. In Cover 3 usually a LB/SS has to get over to the flat, in C2, the Corner is already there. Ths helps take away "out" routes.
Better coverage of underneath zones, with 5 defenders. This can hold up the TE on his route and help on the weakside run containment.
Weaknesses of Cover 2 Zone:

Strongside Curl routes can pose issues for the Linebackers.
Run support off-tackle
Deep coverage in the very middle of the field and along the boundary.

Defensive Back Techniques: Cover 2 Pattern Read Examples


Long story short, the zone coverage scheme of the T2/C2 rely on pressure from the front 4 to cause mistakes. The DB's and LB's capitalize on those mistakes and that is were the turnovers come from , not from the DB providing a press/man coverage and picking the ball of.

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093881

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1093811

Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1093807

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093786

Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1093772

Marrdro.... I've seen enough dropped INTs by our awful secondary in the past 2-3 years to know that they are possible in this scheme.

Think back on those dropped balls. How many of them were by a DB standing alone in his zone, not even close to a WR?

I can think of 5 last year that were of that nature.

Who cares how the INTs were manufactured? Fact is, they were playing in the T2 and had the opportunities to have quite a bit of INTs. Doesn't matter what they were doing

From what I gather this is how things went down during those plays:

The CB is in great position

The QB makes a throw in the general direction

The CB starts towards the ball

A light bulb comes on in his head and he remembers that he is playing in the cover 2 so he isn't suppose to get INT's

He lets the ball sail harmlessly past him.

he goes to the sideline and chilly says: Good job- That is exactly the way we draw it up.

Help me lord......

How about reality......

a. The DB is standing/working in his zone watching the recievers get into their routes, paying close attention to the stem of that route to determine what zone they will go into when they come out of their breaks. Sometimes they are actually watching 2 and 3 recievers do this.

b. The QB makes a throw and it is tipped, batted, or just flat out right at the DB.

c. At the last instant the DB turns his head and whap, theres a ball coming at him and he drops it.

Or, we could go ahead and believe it works the way you just said it did.

I like my version much better.:P
:woohoo:

Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1093882

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093880

Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1093807

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093786

Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1093772

Marrdro.... I've seen enough dropped INTs by our awful secondary in the past 2-3 years to know that they are possible in this scheme.

Think back on those dropped balls. How many of them were by a DB standing alone in his zone, not even close to a WR?

I can think of 5 last year that were of that nature.

Who cares how the INTs were manufactured? Fact is, they were playing in the T2 and had the opportunities to have quite a bit of INTs. Doesn't matter what they were doing

Who cares? Comeon my friend, it is a direct point in the discussion.

If they were in "Blanket" coverage and missed them, it would be one thing, but if they were "Standing in a zone" (several were this year) it would be another.

No its not. The discussion is whether or not high INT numbers can be had in the T2 and there have been several posts of numbers of previous years that prove that they can be had. It doesn't matter how an INT happens, if we are in the T2 and are dropping INTs than it isn't a fault of the scheme, but rather our moron secondary.

+1

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093878

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1093803

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093784

Comeon, you have to look at how those INT's were manufactured. Trust me when I tell you this that the CB's were not up in a press look and picking the ball off. They were in either a quarters or halfs look with S help over the top in either a quarters or a cloud look.

Who gives a crap whether they were lined up toe to toe or standing on their head experimenting with one hand clapping. The point is we used the T2 scheme and had more INT's. Yes, I believe they were put in a better formation and i also believe they were just better pass defenders than we have now. That is my point. But to say we run the T2 and thus we will not get INT's is absolutely ludicrous.

Those INT's came from QB's running around for their life and making bad throws to DB's who weren't even close to recievers. In most cases it was because a certain MLB (the right player in the right position) tipped the ball and the DB was in the right place at the right time to catch it.

Really? That is how all of those INT's in all of those years were produced? That has to be the most amazing stat in NFL history.

My version is like this: we had better talent in the secondary and we had coaches that put them in a better position to be successful.....

Watch the Steelers play. They don't run a traditional cover 2, but they do run a "Zone Press" version of a 3-4. Their INT production comes from the same type of pressure and tipped balls, not from ball hawking shut down CBs my friend.

I understand that but could care less because we are not the steelers and are not running that defense. What I care about is we are getting less than 15 INT's a year on average and should be getting more like 25 on average.

If you don't understand that, then don't even bother to respond. :P

oops. Too late.:woohoo:

Agree with me or not, doesn't matter.

All one has to do is look at how the team employs their DB's and you will see, we just don't try to get INT's like a team that plays "man/press" coverage.

If you want to improve the percentage of INT's you have to change the scheme, and yes, the DB's being used to execute that scheme.

Well, if what you say is correct then I see no reason not to scrap the scheme because it's theory is flawed and it's results are suspect at best.

Originally Posted by "jargomcfargo" #1093852

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1093850

Originally Posted by "jessejames09" #1093847

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093770

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1093764

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093697

Originally Posted by "jargomcfargo" #1093696

One thing I like about your analysis of Ray, it's not a popularity contest. Ray wont be noted as a fan favorite. But he can play.
He may not hold up but he's done a fine job so far.

Agree. I, like you, look at other things, especially when you talk LDE's, other than sacks to base my opinion of how well a cat plays.

Ray, IMHO, has played his ass off over there and hasn't beyyyatched a bit about that role (i.e Haynesworth).

Only knock I have on Ray is that he was roiding up. Again, I relate/attribute that to his frame really better being suited to the RDE role.

Others see his lack of sacks and say he sucks or doesn't play to their expectations.

Preaching to the choir here bro.. I've been looking for a pocket collapsing/penetrating DT for the last couple years.

I hear ya, got you on that spreadsheet. By the way, that spreadsheet isn't as full as the one were everyone keeps asking to upgrade CB's to fix things instead of fixing that which is really wrong.

I guess i am on the other spreadsheet then because even when we were getting pressure up the middle the WRs we faced were catching passes uncontested.

Lets not forget the premise behind what a CB is asked to do in the Cover 2......

Let the reciever catch the ball in front of him, close for the tackle, limit YAC.

They are not asked to go out and get INT's. Not part of the scheme.

BTW Quick Question:

How many INT's have we gotten out of the secondary in the past 5 years and is that number trending up or down?(Don't include any INT's from Sharper because we know he sucked )

Sharp was a prime example of what DB's are asked to do in the cover 2 scheme. He got very few and then, when he left he racked up a bunch.

Long story short, you want to see INT's by our DB's, you have to change the scheme.

Not true, at all. Tampa in 2002-2003, John Gruden challenged that Defence to score and they did. All the way to a Superbowl win.

Or how about the bears I'd say between 04 and 07 that was probably the most vaunted defence in the league at that point. And they forced turnovers, a lot of them.

Both played the cover 2. Our issues in the backfield are lack of depth at cb and talent at safety. Not scheme.

You my friend are wise beyond your years. I just put put you in a new partition of my database.:laugh:

+1
That post says it all.

One thing the Bears do, and in fact what Bud Grant always taught, was going for the strip as well as interceptions. Grant placed a high premium on turnovers.

I haven't seen much of that in this team.

My theory is this scheme is based upon fear rather than aggression.
Fear of getting beat deep as the primary goal leads to passive play.

They don't need to change the scheme as much as the way they play it.

A scoring defense could go a long way toward helping an inexperienced QB.

Don't worry. Marr doesn't even believe what he is saying. He is just playing devils advocate in order to increase traffic on the site.

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093884

Originally Posted by "jessejames09" #1093847

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093770

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1093764

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093697

Originally Posted by "jargomcfargo" #1093696

One thing I like about your analysis of Ray, it's not a popularity contest. Ray wont be noted as a fan favorite. But he can play.
He may not hold up but he's done a fine job so far.

Agree. I, like you, look at other things, especially when you talk LDE's, other than sacks to base my opinion of how well a cat plays.

Ray, IMHO, has played his ass off over there and hasn't beyyyatched a bit about that role (i.e Haynesworth).

Only knock I have on Ray is that he was roiding up. Again, I relate/attribute that to his frame really better being suited to the RDE role.

Others see his lack of sacks and say he sucks or doesn't play to their expectations.

Preaching to the choir here bro.. I've been looking for a pocket collapsing/penetrating DT for the last couple years.

I hear ya, got you on that spreadsheet. By the way, that spreadsheet isn't as full as the one were everyone keeps asking to upgrade CB's to fix things instead of fixing that which is really wrong.

I guess i am on the other spreadsheet then because even when we were getting pressure up the middle the WRs we faced were catching passes uncontested.

Lets not forget the premise behind what a CB is asked to do in the Cover 2......

Let the reciever catch the ball in front of him, close for the tackle, limit YAC.

They are not asked to go out and get INT's. Not part of the scheme.

BTW Quick Question:

How many INT's have we gotten out of the secondary in the past 5 years and is that number trending up or down?(Don't include any INT's from Sharper because we know he sucked )

Sharp was a prime example of what DB's are asked to do in the cover 2 scheme. He got very few and then, when he left he racked up a bunch.

Long story short, you want to see INT's by our DB's, you have to change the scheme.

Not true, at all. Tampa in 2002-2003, John Gruden challenged that Defence to score and they did. All the way to a Superbowl win.

Or how about the bears I'd say between 04 and 07 that was probably the most vaunted defence in the league at that point. And they forced turnovers, a lot of them.

Both played the cover 2. Our issues in the backfield are lack of depth at cb and talent at safety. Not scheme.

What was the front 4 doing on those teams. Take alook, they all have a heck of alot more production with respect to pressure from the front 4 that our defenses do...

Appreciate all the effort and the lengthiness of that post. But around here is where I would cut you off, if we were speaking face to face, to say:

Exactly! With player that can run the scheme it's a great defence for forcing interceptions, imo one of the best.

Who cares if we don't get to see a Darelle Revis type guy shutting down a side of the field. Or that we don't have a Darren, Cant Tackle, Sharper running amok at FS. Turnovers are turnovers.

Problem for us right now is we don't have the players to run the scheme properly, or any scheme imo.. Depth at CB, a starting safety and a solid DT are all priorities, and that's if we can coax Ray into coming back.

Personally i think were gonna see a bit more in the turn over Diff but also see big plays happen a bit more in the Frazier/Pagac defense
A good example was the eagles game we had great pressure and it effected vick right from the start.

Overall the best Defense we played for the season

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1093944

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093881

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1093811

Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1093807

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093786

Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1093772

Marrdro.... I've seen enough dropped INTs by our awful secondary in the past 2-3 years to know that they are possible in this scheme.

Think back on those dropped balls. How many of them were by a DB standing alone in his zone, not even close to a WR?

I can think of 5 last year that were of that nature.

Who cares how the INTs were manufactured? Fact is, they were playing in the T2 and had the opportunities to have quite a bit of INTs. Doesn't matter what they were doing

From what I gather this is how things went down during those plays:

The CB is in great position

The QB makes a throw in the general direction

The CB starts towards the ball

A light bulb comes on in his head and he remembers that he is playing in the cover 2 so he isn't suppose to get INT's

He lets the ball sail harmlessly past him.

he goes to the sideline and chilly says: Good job- That is exactly the way we draw it up.

Help me lord......

How about reality......

a. The DB is standing/working in his zone watching the recievers get into their routes, paying close attention to the stem of that route to determine what zone they will go into when they come out of their breaks. Sometimes they are actually watching 2 and 3 recievers do this.

b. The QB makes a throw and it is tipped, batted, or just flat out right at the DB.

c. At the last instant the DB turns his head and whap, theres a ball coming at him and he drops it.

Or, we could go ahead and believe it works the way you just said it did.

I like my version much better.:P
:woohoo:

You crack me up. :laugh:

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1093946

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093878

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1093803

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093784

Comeon, you have to look at how those INT's were manufactured. Trust me when I tell you this that the CB's were not up in a press look and picking the ball off. They were in either a quarters or halfs look with S help over the top in either a quarters or a cloud look.

Who gives a crap whether they were lined up toe to toe or standing on their head experimenting with one hand clapping. The point is we used the T2 scheme and had more INT's. Yes, I believe they were put in a better formation and i also believe they were just better pass defenders than we have now. That is my point. But to say we run the T2 and thus we will not get INT's is absolutely ludicrous.

Those INT's came from QB's running around for their life and making bad throws to DB's who weren't even close to recievers. In most cases it was because a certain MLB (the right player in the right position) tipped the ball and the DB was in the right place at the right time to catch it.

Really? That is how all of those INT's in all of those years were produced? That has to be the most amazing stat in NFL history.

My version is like this: we had better talent in the secondary and we had coaches that put them in a better position to be successful.....

Watch the Steelers play. They don't run a traditional cover 2, but they do run a "Zone Press" version of a 3-4. Their INT production comes from the same type of pressure and tipped balls, not from ball hawking shut down CBs my friend.

I understand that but could care less because we are not the steelers and are not running that defense. What I care about is we are getting less than 15 INT's a year on average and should be getting more like 25 on average.

If you don't understand that, then don't even bother to respond. :P

oops. Too late.:woohoo:

Agree with me or not, doesn't matter.

All one has to do is look at how the team employs their DB's and you will see, we just don't try to get INT's like a team that plays "man/press" coverage.

If you want to improve the percentage of INT's you have to change the scheme, and yes, the DB's being used to execute that scheme.

Well, if what you say is correct then I see no reason not to scrap the scheme because it's theory is flawed and it's results are suspect at best.

I agree. The day and age of the cover 2 and T-2 are dead. Thats why you see alot more teams using something called a "Zone Press" type of look.

Although they are still working it out of a 3-4 defense, I think that Pitts is the best at it right now.