I REALLY want to switch defensive philosophies next year

Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by BradMustersGhost, Oct 27, 2013.

  1. BradMustersGhost

    BradMustersGhost

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2013
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    195
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +211 / 1 / -0
    a different 4-3 philosophy, a 3-4, a 5-1-6, a 29-X-97, whatever. This is the perfect opportunity to make a clean break from Lovie and his cowardly Cover-2. It was fun watching Monte Kiffin's Cover-2 prevent fall apart in the final 49 seconds against the Lions. To me, Detroit's game-winning drive perfectly sums up the Cover-2. A skilled, intelligent, patient QB will ALWAYS kill the Cover-2 unless you have the freakin' Steel Curtain for a DL. Give me a defense with balls any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. I really hope we bury the craven Cover-2 with Lovie's old playbooks. Time to throw out the Cover-2 with the trash and adopt a high risk/high reward defense. Bring Buddy Ryan back.


    *****Since I realize some folks are gonna misinterpret my post, let me PLAINLY STATE that I am NOT blaming our defensive woes this year on the defensive philosophy. We just flat out suck on defense this year, because everyone is old, dead or injured. I have just been "over" the Cover-2 for some time now, and would like to see something different. Even when it was "working", it still gave up dink and dunk TD drives against elite QBs. Let's try something new.
  2. riczaj01

    riczaj01

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    19,128
    Likes Received:
    1,683
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,852 / 5 / -4
    I don't care if it's 4-3, 3-4, or whatever, but I wouldn't mind walking away from the cover 2 base. I understand the cover 2 has a place in every D, but at it's core you see the problem w/it. No front 4 pressure, no turn overs and you give up yards and scores, it becomes a bend and break D.

    I still like the idea of moving towards a 4-3, 3-4 hybrid that several teams are trying to run. Not sure it's possible in 1 year though. Next year it might be better to just go w/the 1 and run with it.
  3. Jimmors

    Jimmors The Rhymenoceros SuperFan

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2005
    Messages:
    28,530
    Likes Received:
    3,211
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +3,365 / 8 / -0
    Cover-2, Man, Zone, doesnt matter. Our defense is entirely based on getting QB pressure and shutting down the run up the middle with nothing but our front 4. If they fail, then it puts the pressure on our LBs to do that, which means they can not be in coverage, which in turn means our Corners and Safeties are now entirely responsible for coverage, and while you can (usually) trust in Tillman and Jennings, our Safeties are a problem (Conte in particular).

    This is what happens when your defense is entirely based around a very specific philosophy and comprised of players that only suit that philosophy...if they fail, even one part of the defense, it ripples across to the rest of the D.

    For the short term, tucker is going to have to change it up and use our LBs to blitz more. That is pretty much the only thing we can do to change it up for now...it has its risks, but we do not have any other option at this point.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. short faced bear

    short faced bear

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,127
    Likes Received:
    1,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,068 / 0 / -1
    I want the philosophy of FUNDAMENTALS.

    That is all
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Henry Burris

    Henry Burris

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    18,738
    Likes Received:
    1,823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,951 / 8 / -2
    Emery's said very publicly that we're not going to transition to a 3-4 next year, so scratch that idea. I'm in favor of getting rid of the cover 2, but I doubt it goes away, given that it's easier to fix a system predicated on a strong d-line, as there's fewer spots on the line that need fixed, than the rest of the defense.
  6. short faced bear

    short faced bear

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,127
    Likes Received:
    1,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,068 / 0 / -1
    I'm scared that now we're using old terminology so things would go smoothly. I shudder to think what happens when Tucker uses his own complex terms lol.
  7. Jimmors

    Jimmors The Rhymenoceros SuperFan

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2005
    Messages:
    28,530
    Likes Received:
    3,211
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +3,365 / 8 / -0
    Its not like the defense are all idiots or something. Besides, Tucker has only had a few months to set up his defense, he lost a couple of key pieces, and nobody could have predicted that Peppers would have fallen off so quickly, or that we would suffer from so many injuries. I have been highly critical of Tucker all year, but im willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and see if the defense does better under him next season before im willing to throw him under the bus.
    • Like Like x 2
  8. short faced bear

    short faced bear

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,127
    Likes Received:
    1,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,068 / 0 / -1
    PDQM

    -thank you
  9. Jimmors

    Jimmors The Rhymenoceros SuperFan

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2005
    Messages:
    28,530
    Likes Received:
    3,211
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +3,365 / 8 / -0
    Again...no idea what that means. So youre welcome i guess.
  10. DavidL

    DavidL SuperFan

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,630
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +475 / 2 / -3
    I saw an interview with Drew Brees. He said you can't play great Cover-2 unless you have a smart and athletic MLB. Now that Urlacher is gone,we don't have that. We also don't have safeties who can cover deep worth a damn. Nor do we have a pass rusher. I don't see how we can possibly fix all these things in 2014, unless our rookies develop fast.

    Don Schuler might be able to pull it off, but Mel Tucker ain't no Don Schuler.
  11. short faced bear

    short faced bear

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,127
    Likes Received:
    1,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,068 / 0 / -1
    I just don't see a emphasis on fundamentals from Tucker. Sure he's got injuries and is trying to make anything stick but with just basic things I can't endorse the guy. The D would still be porous but it would prevent the severe gashes.

    It's reminiscent of Martz. We all knew he wouldn't use the TE, made the QB take 7 step drops, and didn't allow audibles. Yet we just had to ride it out (until we got Tice) OUCH!
  12. mdbearz

    mdbearz

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +262 / 0 / -0
    The Defense reminds me of the year that R. Davis was our Starting WR. Or the Year after we traded Olsen and K.Davis was the #1 TE.

    It is simply not going to get better because we do not have the people to make it work.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. tey216

    tey216

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0
    I'm with the OP... Scrap the cover 2 defense. I have been over it sense the Super Bowl loss. Our corners are good enough to play man. To me cover 2 is way to basic. It takes no special scheme... Any DC can run it. Just drop everyone back into coverage? Really? And you payed how much for that wisdom...? The difference between a lovie run cover 2 (which I still didn't like) and a Tucker cover 2 is that these guys played harder under lovie on defense. They swarmed to the ball with a ferocity which helped made up for some of the gaping wholes a cover 2 defense has. But even with that it was still out dated.
    The problem is.. That a lot of our guys on D have played in this system most of their careers. So there may be some pushback... But please get rid of that pussy defense. I just look at the first quarter of the Giants game. Tucker blitzed Eli like crazy in the first half. Which was causing turn overs and pressure. The giants didn't start moving the ball until Tucker started dropping everyone back into coverage. Tucker has done an awful job. Never in my life have a seen a Bears defense this bad.

    I will go even one step further and say... If you told me I could have a Bears team that played good D under Lovie with a clunky offense... Vs a good offense with a clunky defense (Trestman) I would take the good defense. At least it kept us in games. Having a bad offense is frustrating indeed... But having a team gash you for yards at will and scores at will is demoralizing... The Bears are one really bad offensive performance away from getting completely blew out. I hope it doesn't but its possible to happen Monday night...
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2013

Share This Page