Is the Tampa 2 "Tampa Gone" as the Bears's base defense?!

Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by 50YearFrustration, May 13, 2014.

  1. Chicago_66

    Chicago_66 Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Messages:
    877
    Likes Received:
    516
    Please Register or Log in to Remove this Advertisement!
    If I played Fantasy football I'd be drooling at the prospect of Martellus Bennett vs the Bucs.
     
  2. BSBEARS

    BSBEARS Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    Messages:
    4,667
    Likes Received:
    1,510
    Yeah, no shit
     
  3. Grizzblue

    Grizzblue Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    2,456
    Likes Received:
    684
    Tampa 2 has been pretty much broken down into making bad qbs look bad and good qbs look very good. The entire scouting report on our T2 is/should be do.not.throw.the.ball.to.the.defense.

    And good QBs (Rodgers) did a very good job at that and made our "great d" look very average. The front four pressure is key, but guys with great recognition and a quick release still did not have much problems. With our S's out of the broadcast camera and our CBs usually giving a decent cushion, the underneath routes usually are there even with a good surge up front. And now without a one of kind MLB (extremely talented converted DB) there is now gaping holes popping up in the 14-22 yard range.


    It's figured out. It's broke. Time to move on.
     
  4. soulman

    soulman Coordinator
    SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    9,167
    Likes Received:
    2,812
    There are a lot of different ways to play a two deep Safety coverage scheme and Lovie's was just one of them. Lovie's idea was to prevent the big play and always have his defensive backs looking in, keeping the ball in front of them and working for picks. You can play it with press coverage too he just didn't seem to like that as well. But I agree, it was predicated on forcing teams into longer drives and some mistakes along the way.

    I think we began playing far less of that two deep look as time went by because unless you have a LB who can cover him all it takes is a good TE working seam routes to tear it up and lately the TE has become king of receivers for many teams. Nothing works very well when you're without the talent needed to play it.

    I'm just glad were sticking with a 4-3 base defense. How Tucker and Hoke decide to run their coverage schemes doesn't worry me just as long as they can teach what they want done and have the personnel to run that scheme. Lovie and Gil Byrd used to coach the Safeties and last year we didn't have either of them doing that so let's hope whose ever in charge of that this year does a better job of it than they did last year.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Grizzblue

    Grizzblue Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    2,456
    Likes Received:
    684
    LOL I'm not advocating we play 0 coverage as a base, it very well may be a 2 deep base. But the "tampa 2 (or now loive 2)" has been on it's way out for some time. Time for some different looks/wrinkles.
     

Share This Page

  • About Us

    DaBears.com was founded in 1996. In 2005 it was created into a site for the fans of the Chicago Bears. We have become the biggest fan websites with over 10,000 members and climbing! We reformatted the site in 2013, to it's current layout. We are NOT Affiliated with the NFL, or Chicago Bears. We are a website of hardcore fans! Thanks for checking us out and come back often. We are the voice of Bears fans!
  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation

  • Buy us a Beer!

    The publisher works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best designs, and all the other bells and whistles. We have a pretty robust server, and more comes out of my pocket than you would imagine. Care to buy us a beer? We'd really appreciate it! After all, belonging to this is awesome, and it's free! I'm glad to foot the bill, but I do appreciate any help to keep the lights on. Become a Super Fan!