The Cover 2... Part Deux-- A Question

Anyone else notice that when opposing receivers catch passes against our D, they are usually WIDE open?

I know about the BEND, DON'T BREAK mentality, but... uh... offenses are picking us apart and scoring A LOT of points against us. More often than not, we are 5-10 yards away from an opposing receiver when he catches the ball. NOT GOOD.

Here's the question: Do we run the Cover-2 100% of the time? Or nearly that? I know Lovie is stubborn as hell about staying with the Cover-2. It's an old scheme that everyone knows how to pick apart.

When our offense can't put 38 points on the board against GB or a playoff team.... our porous D will be the end of us. I'm not a Defensive Coordinator, but why can't we mix in other schemes along with the Cover 2 in the same game?

I think that Lovie's stubbornness here will really cost this team in the playoffs (and maybe even against GB next week).

What do you guys think?

I already explained in another thread...the Cover-2 is fine, if certain conditions are met. Mostly getting pressure to the QB by using your front 4. You can recall previous games such as last week when the announcers were going on and on about how Bears were getting pressure with JUST our front 4. IF you do that, then it forces QBs to make poor throws and bad decisions, which is what we capitalize on in a Cover-2.

Unfortunately, NE and NYJ both have very good OLs and very precise QBs, so not only were we unable to put pressure on them, but we allowed their QBs to assess the situation and make the correct throws. For the most part anyway.

We just happen to have a poor matchup against NE and NYJ, but GB is different since their OL is no where near as good. Unfortunately we run into the other problem with Cover-2....mobile QBs. Since we are able to apply pressure with our front 4, it forces the QB out of the pocket, but Rodgers is just as dangerous on his feet as he is with his arm.

It's not that we were just playing cover 2, it's the fact that it's a loose zone. Period. We were in some cover 3 and mix yesterday as well. If you play zone, you'd better get to the QB.

It doesnt work against guys like Brady. They will takae what they give you and paper cut you down the field all day UNLESS you get pressure and dont give him any time. But it has to be serious pressure. Against average and above average qbs, it can work well.

I saw on that last pick, it was a cover 2 shell, cover 3 I believe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilM

Anyone else notice that when opposing receivers catch passes against our D, they are usually WIDE open?

I know about the BEND, DON'T BREAK mentality, but... uh... offenses are picking us apart and scoring A LOT of points against us. More often than not, we are 5-10 yards away from an opposing receiver when he catches the ball. NOT GOOD.

Here's the question: Do we run the Cover-2 100% of the time? Or nearly that? I know Lovie is stubborn as hell about staying with the Cover-2. It's an old scheme that everyone knows how to pick apart.

When our offense can't put 38 points on the board against GB or a playoff team.... our porous D will be the end of us. I'm not a Defensive Coordinator, but why can't we mix in other schemes along with the Cover 2 in the same game?

I think that Lovie's stubbornness here will really cost this team in the playoffs (and maybe even against GB next week).

What do you guys think?

---

Jimmors gave you a good explanation of what's going on. Lovies stubborness aside he wants defense to produce turnovers and that's what his defense is designed to do. The backs and linebackers typically play facing the QB and will try to jump routes for a pick when they can and when they can't they play to force fumbles after the catch. Peanut Tillman is as good as anyone in the league at doing that and so is Chris Harris.

Tell me, just how good did the Jets man on man coverage work yesterday? Sanchez may have burned us for a lot of yardage yesterday but it was the Bears who toasted the Jets corners with long TD catches! I'll give them all the yardage they want if I can stop the from getting into the endzone and force field goals and turnovers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimmors

the Cover-2 is fine, if certain conditions are met. Mostly getting pressure to the QB by using your front 4. You can recall previous games such as last week when the announcers were going on and on about how Bears were getting pressure with JUST our front 4. IF you do that, then it forces QBs to make poor throws and bad decisions, which is what we capitalize on in a Cover-2.

---

That.

I think it's time to start pulling a page out of the old Buddy Ryan book...blitzing six or seven guys occasionally wouldn't be bad. Of course, some of the time, we would drop back into zone coverage. But I think it might help with some of the better offensive lines in the league.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nerrad

I saw on that last pick, it was a cover 2 shell, cover 3 I believe

---

Are you talking about the Chris Harris pick? Please say youre not. That was a straight up Cover-2 set...Lach ran right up the middle in the safety zone, both Safeties split the field in half (not in 3rds with the CBs). This is what allowed Harris to cut inside of the pass for the int. So where are you getting this "cover 2 shell, cover 3" from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimmors

Are you talking about the Chris Harris pick? Please say youre not. That was a straight up Cover-2 set...Lach ran right up the middle in the safety zone, both Safeties split the field in half (not in 3rds with the CBs). This is what allowed Harris to cut inside of the pass for the int. So where are you getting this "cover 2 shell, cover 3" from?

---

I worded that wrong sorry, I MIGHT be getting 2 presnap formations confused, however i think it was designed to look like cover 3 presnap but was just pure cover 2. thats why i was laughing when Harris baited sanchez because its a simple look.

I havent rewatched the game yet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nerrad

I worded that wrong sorry, I MIGHT be getting 2 presnap formations confused, however i think it was designed to look like cover 3 presnap but was just pure cover 2. thats why i was laughing when Harris baited sanchez because its a simple look.

I havent rewatched the game yet

---

thats my point...they didnt disguise anything, they lined up in Cover-2, Lach immediately ran back up the middle in the secondary...no cover 3 looks at all.