GumboBC

This conversation makes me think about a question that was brought up last year. The question being........Which is more important -- The players or the scheme?

I\'ve always said the players are more important than the scheme. Now, for those of you that think the scheme is more important, then you should feel pretty good about our cornerbacks.

A cover 2 or cover 3 scheme can ceratainly help mask some weaknesses at CB. But, it also takes away from other areas of the defense. That\'s why the players are more important than ANY scheme.

With that said, we are going to have to rely on our pass rush from our front 4 and play some cover 2 or cover 3 defense. Hey, it can be very effective with the players we have. But, if that pass rush doesn\'t get there or we can\'t stop the run then we\'re screwed. And Mike McKenzie isn\'t going to change that.

lumm0x

You\'re trying to start trouble again.....

GumboBC

Me? Nah........ lol......Not looking for trouble lummOx.

Actually, this conversation about our CB\'s did make me think about the conversation we had a while back. But, it wasn\'t just you saying schemes are more important than players. It was quite a few saying the same thing if I remember correctly.

And I must admit I\'ve done a lot of reading on defensive schemes since that conversation and I do place MORE value in schemes than what I did at that time. But I still think players are more important.

The schemes I\'ve been studying the most are the cover 2 and cover 3. Those cover schemes intrigue me because it makes up for a lack of true play-makers at cornerback and at the same time it minimizes the support you have to take away from the run game as compared to some other defensive schemes.

I think when you get right down to it, there aren\'t very many different defensive schemes. There are just variations of the same ones. And different ways of disquising them.

This \"cornerback\" subject has been analyzed from every different angle and the only conclusion I can come up with is we\'re going to have to rely on a combination of scheme and pass rush to be a truly effective defense.

Now admit players are more important, damn it...LMAO. J/K

Seriously though. If there\'s anything you would like to add about what defensive scheme you think would be more effective I would like to hear your opinion on the subject.

Peace lummOx.

JKool

(1) Perhaps we\'re just using different vocabulary, but our cover 2 was primarily a run defense (with either both Ss back or an S and a CB)?

(2) There is some sense in which I agree with you, Billy, and another I don\'t. When you have moderate to weak players, scheme is everything. When you have strong players, then the scheme is less important - UNLESS your D-coordinator has gamble schemes available because the players are so good. In this second case, the greatness of the players is augmented greatly by the scheme. Thus, as usual, it depends.

I hope that was coherent; I\'m feeling pretty tired.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

pakowitz

well go to bed.


i have to disagree wit u there danno. id have to say that champ bailey and charles woodson when healthy are the only shutdown corners. but i agree with you about the other guys being good man to man guys.

i agree with this statement completely

GumboBC

JKool -- If you examiine your statement carefully, I think you will see that you proved my point that players are ALWAYS more important than the sheme.

You said that when you have weak players that the scheme is everything. Well, that is true. But, if you have weak players then those weak players dictate the scheme you must use.

If you had great players then you could use the same scheme you used with the weak players and it would be more effective. Also, you could use many more schemes that you wouldn\'t be able to use with the weak players.

So, you tell me which is more important. Players or schemes? Schemes are schemes. Players dictate the schemes.....

GumboBC

Here\'s a very good article that explains the cover 2 defense and how to beat it. Personally, I think this is the best defense that suits our players.



Terminology
Why is it called Cover 2
When deciding the terminology of calling coverages, the number of deep zone pass defenders that are deployed will normally determine what a defensive coach calls a defense. In Cover 2 for example, there are two deep safeties that divide the field into halves. If the secondary played Cover 3, three deep defenders would divide the deep responsibility on the field into thirds. If they played Cover 4, four deep defenders divide the deep zone into fourths.

Obviously, different teams use different terminology, but the most commonly used is simply identifying how many deep zone defenders are used.

What is Cover 2?
The base Cover 2 is a zone defense where every defender is responsible for an area of the field and not a specific man. The field is divided into five underneath zones and two deep zones. The two corners and three linebackers play the underneath fifths, and the two safeties play the deep halves. In the diagram below you can see the field divided into underneath fifths and deep halves.

Cover 2: How is it played?
In Cover 2, it is obvious that the safeties have a tremendous burden and a lot of field to cover. They must get help from the underneath coverage to keep receivers from outnumbering them in the deep zones. There are two critical techniques that can help the safeties. First, the corners must collide with the receivers and flatten out their routes to keep them from running outside freely, which would stretch the safeties. If the wide receivers release unmolested, it is almost impossible for the safeties to get enough width quickly enough to defend the deep pass. The corners are responsible for their outside fifths, which is a shallow area, but they must sink with the receiver until another receiver threatens their zone.

For the rest of this article:

http://espn.go.com/ncf/columns/davie/1437187.html

Edit: Here\'s the statement that best sums up the cover 2 defense for me:

Conclusion
Cover two is an effective coverage because you can assign five defenders to play the underneath zones. This makes the offense have to execute at an extremely high level to be effective. The defense is not allowing much space or easy throws. The vulnerability of cover two is that you only have two deep defenders. Obviously, that leaves a large area for the safeties to cover. To help the deep defenders, the underneath zone players must pattern read the routes of the offensive players to take the pressure off the safeties. The key to cover two, or any zone coverage, is getting a great pass rush with your four rushers. No zone coverage can hold up against a good passing football team if you don\'t pressure the quarterback.








[Edited on 21/6/2004 by GumboBC]

St.Shrume

GumboBC, man, your arguement is hard to disagree with. And yes, i think you\'re right, players are more important than scheme, since scheme is dictated by the players you have. But in the NFL (of all sports), players are just ahead of scheme, and not by much, in importance. In other sports, i think your arguement would be stronger.

Why? Because in the NFL instinct and talent can only give you a shot at starting. I don\'t care if you are a Michael Vick. If you don\'t understand schemes, if you can\'t plan correctly for a play, no matter how good you are, you will get beat. As much as there is all the hype about Vick (and heck, i think he IS a phenom) I cannot see him do what he did his first year again, unless he starts to understand NFL schemes better. He surprised the NFL the first full year he played (like A.B. did). In the NFL people learn real quick and adapt. You can\'t just say \"Go long\" and try and out run teams year in year out.

American Football, of all sports, is very scheme driven, because plays start from set pieces. It is not a free flowing game, where individual inginuity, talent and experience mean everything. In football, the players are dependent on scheme, the plays are run dependent on scheme.

I do not think it is a coincidence that the Broncos continuously have great RB\'s, the Rams great QB\'s or that the Eagles and Bucs have solid defenses almost year in and year out. If they can get players to understand their schemes, and spend time in their system, they almost always succeed. That is scheme being better than player\'s talent. Sure the players they have are solid, but they are not the Randy Moss\'es of the world.

In the past few years, the teams that won Superbowls have been scheme teams, not megastar teams. The Pats (twice), the Bucs and Ravens. Sure they have talent, but no one I would consider Superstars. Buc\'s D comes the closest with Sapp, Brooks and Lynch, but we\'\'ll see how all 3 play now that 2 are on different teams. I bet they shined due to the scheme.

If players were truly that much more important than scheme, then the Redskins should have won the last 3 Super bowls. Every year they get more and more talent, and look just as crappy. Why? They keep changing coaches (i.e. schemes) and think the players\' talent will make up for all this. Survey says....\"Wrong!\"

Wish the Saints were coming up here to play again, that\'s the only time i get to see my beloved Black and Gold these days.

Cheers

GumboBC

St.Shrume --

That was very well thought out, St. Shrume. Good job.

But, I think I place more importance on players over schemes than you do.

If you look at any successful scheme or defense for that matter, it\'s successful because of the talent moreso than the scheme. It\'s just that the scheme plays to strengths of the defense (or to the talent) and it masks the weak areas.

Take the Bucs defense. The cover 2 plays to the strength of the front 4 and their pass rush. Without that great pass rush from the front 4, then that defense wouldn\'t work. At least it wouldn\'t work nearly as well.

Then you have teams where the secondary is stronger than the front 4. Like the Redskins you mentioned. They weren\'t a succesful defense because it\'s harder to come up with an effective defensive scheme when you can\'t stop the run or rush the passer. It\'s not the scheme that\'s the problem in Washington. It\'s the lack of talent on the defensive line.

I\'m sure teams wish it were as simple as just using the correct scheme to turn their team around. But, I think if you ask any coach they will tell you that the players are more important than any scheme.

FrenzyFan

Nice summary, Gumbo. The problem has never been about \"what scheme should we run?\" The problem is \"what scheme can we run?\"

The whole problem with our \"serviceable\" corners is that it limits what we can do on defense. Offensive Coordinators spend all day looking at where they think your defense is going to be in a given situation. They plan their game accordingly. Our lack of \"quality depth\" at CB puts us in predictable situations. Being predictable makes us exploitable; an inexcusable condition considering how much cap room we had during the off-season.

With just one corner who can man-up with another team\'s number 1 WR and hold him in check, we would have so many other options on defense. You can then play to your strengths rather than being stuck in cover 2 all day long because that\'s your only prayer of stopping the bad guys\' passing game.

Too many people look at our team and evaluate it in a vacuum - and it\'s easy to get excited about one\'s team when you do that. We have some pretty glaring weaknesses at the moment. My hope is that Brown will emerge as a corner, Watson is good enough to win the starting job, and Sullivan becomes something other than a waste of a round 1. That\'s a lot of hopes....

\"The AB brand of TP will hurt your O-ring.\" - BlackandBlue

http://www.darrylbercegeay.com/wsmith1.jpg