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:
    573
    Likes Received:
    323
    Ratings:
    +350 / 0 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    31ß
    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:
    1,389
    Likes Received:
    454
    Ratings:
    +590 / 3 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    454ß
    Yeah, no shit
  3. Grizzblue

    Grizzblue Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,874
    Likes Received:
    390
    Ratings:
    +439 / 1 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    42ß
    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 Pro-Bowler SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    4,296
    Likes Received:
    1,345
    Ratings:
    +1,668 / 2 / -2
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,126ß
    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:
    1,874
    Likes Received:
    390
    Ratings:
    +439 / 1 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    42ß
    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