PDA

View Full Version : Cover 2 the old Texans way


76Texan
05-18-2011, 11:18 PM
By pure chance, I pulled up an old NFL Matchup episode in which Ron Jaworski disected a game between the Vikings and the Packers.

In so many words, Jaworski said:
"The Vikings are a predominantly cover 2/tampa 2 team..."

(as the Texans were under Richard Smith, and less predominantly under Bush - however, less definitely did not mean more in this case, as the Texans were bad under any coverage under Bush.)

"that means 2-deep, 5-underneath... (or with a LB dropping back in the deep middle to help the safeties - tampa 2)... there are opportunities..."

He then went on to describe how the WR and the QB work to take advantage of the coverage.

... Rogers (QB) knows how to defeat the concept of spot drop in the tampa 2.

I thought I'd bring it up to point out why there were gaping holes between defenders, not just in the middle, but also along the side line behind the CBs.

76Texan
05-18-2011, 11:27 PM
The Houston Gamblers coaching staff was much less flattering.
(I believe Kevin Gilbride was with them at the time).

In their 1985 playbook, I found the following:

... It has never nor will never be regarded as a strong pass coverage because of the catastrophic deep zone problem. Majoring in this coverage has sent many a secondary coach to the psychiatric and convelescent home for old coaches at a youthful age...

(I'm not kidding. These were exact words. And there are more.)

Seriously, as in the case against Oakland they had primary concern of the deep zones... however, the safeties were so high on top that it was like playing against 9 men. Why they were never involved in making a play. Why we went up and down the field against that coverage like it was going against air...

Norg
05-19-2011, 12:12 AM
after re yatching some games last year how did guyz get so Open

Im talking the CB's and Safties were like 5 feet from the guys at many points during the games it was like Pitch and catch for the other team

at times we also had zero Pressure ON the Other teams QB like all of them they had time to sit in the pocket and ser vay the field our D was so sad last year Up front and in the back

TimeKiller
05-19-2011, 07:44 AM
The "Vanilla" zone. Pretty much requires that you have a nightmare coming on every play, like Dwight Freeney. Mario is and never was and never will be a Freeney-elite-level pass rusher. Not in the 4/3 and most likely not in the 3/4. If not the QB has time to pick apart wide zones. I'm not a big believer in zone coverages, I think man is more effective and more direct. Zones should be thrown in just to confuse and confound.

CloakNNNdagger
05-19-2011, 08:01 AM
This article brings in history with pretty decent explanation for why our recent past D scheme (besides the quality of coaching and players) failed to bring success.

West Coast offenses, Cover 2 fading away (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ys-dyingschemes090510)

Texan_Bill
05-19-2011, 09:08 AM
The Houston Gamblers coaching staff was much less flattering.
(I believe Kevin Gilbride was with them at the time).
In their 1985 playbook, I found the following:

... It has never nor will never be regarded as a strong pass coverage because of the catastrophic deep zone problem. Majoring in this coverage has sent many a secondary coach to the psychiatric and convelescent home for old coaches at a youthful age...

(I'm not kidding. These were exact words. And there are more.)

Seriously, as in the case against Oakland they had primary concern of the deep zones... however, the safeties were so high on top that it was like playing against 9 men. Why they were never involved in making a play. Why we went up and down the field against that coverage like it was going against air...

Nope, "Mouse" Davis was the offensive coordinator.

In '84 / '85 Gilbride was at a college and then went to the CFL.

dc_txtech
05-19-2011, 10:43 AM
Mario is and never was and never will be a Freeney-elite-level pass rusher.

You do realize Mario has more sacks than Freeney since entering the league?

76Texan
05-19-2011, 03:42 PM
This article brings in history with pretty decent explanation for why our recent past D scheme (besides the quality of coaching and players) failed to bring success.

West Coast offenses, Cover 2 fading away (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ys-dyingschemes090510)
I guess everything just move in a circle.
Thanks for the article.


Nope, "Mouse" Davis was the offensive coordinator.

In '84 / '85 Gilbride was at a college and then went to the CFL.

I believe Gilbride was Davis' protege.

At the website of the Gamblers, you can find playbooks by both of them.

I read that Gilbride talked to Davis (when he got the call from the CFL) to learn the run-and-shoot.

It looks like he expanded on it.

I'm thinking the Gamblers retained the rights to both playbooks.

The one I quoted from was Gilbride's.

76Texan
05-19-2011, 03:50 PM
The "Vanilla" zone. Pretty much requires that you have a nightmare coming on every play, like Dwight Freeney. Mario is and never was and never will be a Freeney-elite-level pass rusher. Not in the 4/3 and most likely not in the 3/4. If not the QB has time to pick apart wide zones. I'm not a big believer in zone coverages, I think man is more effective and more direct. Zones should be thrown in just to confuse and confound.

You do realize Mario has more sacks than Freeney since entering the league?

Mario was a monster at least through the early part of last season.
I think the injury affected his play some, surely near the time the Texans decided to shelve him for the year.

I agree with all the other things TK said.
What I see from Wade's scheme is a mix between man and pattern matching, sprinkled in with a few spot-drop zones here and there.

TimeKiller
05-19-2011, 07:28 PM
You do realize Mario has more sacks than Freeney since entering the league?

I certainly do. I didn't say Mario is bad, I said he's not Freeney. Stats say one thing, watching them play says another. Mario gets some sacks, he's gotten some bigtime sacks as well...but Freeney becomes a 1 man defense at his highest level. My opinion though, you don't have to agree.

Mario was a monster at least through the early part of last season.
I think the injury affected his play some, surely near the time the Texans decided to shelve him for the year.

I agree with all the other things TK said.
What I see from Wade's scheme is a mix between man and pattern matching, sprinkled in with a few spot-drop zones here and there.

What's pattern matching?

CloakNNNdagger
05-19-2011, 08:07 PM
What's pattern matching?

Bill Belichick and Nick Saban preached it.

A decent explanation (although on a HS level). http://runcodhit.blogspot.com/2010/03/pattern-reading-vs-spot-dropping.html

Corrosion
05-19-2011, 11:59 PM
Mario was a monster at least through the early part of last season.
I think the injury affected his play some, surely near the time the Texans decided to shelve him for the year.

I agree with all the other things TK said.
What I see from Wade's scheme is a mix between man and pattern matching, sprinkled in with a few spot-drop zones here and there.

Hopefully they wont be so predictable .... whenever the next season is.


Ive pointed out multiple times this past season that they constantly got beaten betwee nthe C and S .... They never made the adjustment from week 1 to week 17. Same shit , different opponent , you think after a couple times they would figure out they had to adjust ..... never happened.

DocBar
05-20-2011, 12:48 AM
You do realize Mario has more sacks than Freeney since entering the league?Define "monster". I don;t remember a single game last season that MW flat out took over and dominated. MW is very good. He just doesn't take over games like his original draft position suggests he should. Good pass rusher, very good against the run for a pass rusher, great at anything? Not so far. 10-12 sacks a year+good. 15+ a year in some seasons with the prerequisite 10-12 thrown in = great. A team drafting MW 10th overall has a winner. #1 overall, hmmmmmm. Maybe not so great. Definitatly better than VY or RB, but VY could be out of the league and we all know what RB has done. Sounds more like C+, D, D to me.

Corrosion
05-20-2011, 01:02 AM
Define "monster". I don;t remember a single game last season that MW flat out took over and dominated. MW is very good. He just doesn't take over games like his original draft position suggests he should. Good pass rusher, very good against the run for a pass rusher, great at anything? Not so far. 10-12 sacks a year+good. 15+ a year in some seasons with the prerequisite 10-12 thrown in = great. A team drafting MW 10th overall has a winner. #1 overall, hmmmmmm. Maybe not so great. Definitatly better than VY or RB, but VY could be out of the league and we all know what RB has done. Sounds more like C+, D, D to me.

In hindsight , who in that draft would you take ahead of MW ? :kitten:

AnthonyE
05-20-2011, 01:37 AM
Define "monster". I don;t remember a single game last season that MW flat out took over and dominated. MW is very good. He just doesn't take over games like his original draft position suggests he should. Good pass rusher, very good against the run for a pass rusher, great at anything? Not so far. 10-12 sacks a year+good. 15+ a year in some seasons with the prerequisite 10-12 thrown in = great. A team drafting MW 10th overall has a winner. #1 overall, hmmmmmm. Maybe not so great. Definitatly better than VY or RB, but VY could be out of the league and we all know what RB has done. Sounds more like C+, D, D to me.


What number one pick in the last 10 years could you say has been an A according to your specifications?


Courtney Brown, DE? Forgetable.
Michael Vick, QB? Convicted Felon + years of unpredictable football prior to this past year. Worth a number 1 pick? Meh.
David Carr, QB? Pfft. Yeah right.
Carson Palmer, QB? Prior to 2005, sure.
Eli Manning, QB? One decent year where he went to the super bowl. Average QB every other year.
Alex Smith, QB? Nah.
Mario Williams, DE? Arguably the best pick on this list.
JaMarcus Russell, QB? Complete bust.
Jake Long, OT? The only other person on this list that could give Mario a run for his money.
Matthew Stafford, QB? Has his ups and downs, but injury prone so far.
Sam Bradford, QB? We'll see.

The number one pick is a crapshoot. If you could only give 2 A or B's to the last 10 number 1 picks, Mario would be one of them.

Norg
05-20-2011, 03:27 AM
also who are thoes mario sacks aganist

Mario seems well hell the hole team seems to crumble on Big time Prime time games facing the elite teams of that year or just the year before

What were marios sacks on the 2 MNF games last year aganist the

Colts & Ravens ???

AnthonyE
05-20-2011, 04:08 AM
also who are thoes mario sacks aganist

Mario seems well hell the hole team seems to crumble on Big time Prime time games facing the elite teams of that year or just the year before

What were marios sacks on the 2 MNF games last year aganist the

Colts & Ravens ???

Well, he doesn't have an excuse for the Colts game, but for the Philly game he was certainly battling his sports hernia by that point. He was IR'd the following week. While I'd love it if mario was a bit more durable, but I know that an injury like that isn't too easy to play with.

If you're only checking out primetime game stats, why don't you look at pre 2010. He had a heck of a game the 2009 primetime game, and in 2007 and 2008 games he had two 3 sack games. He's almost just as dominant in primetime games as he's not.

I'm just arguing that Mario Williams was worth the number 1 pick. I think it's safe dude is pretty dang fantastic when he's not silently playing through an injury. The problem is that he's almost always playing through an injury.

Yeah, the dudes lazy. Yeah, in hindsight we could have gotten someone with a better drive. Could we have drafted someone with as much talent? Probably not. I hope Wade finds a way to light a fire under his butt and I also hope that he can find a way to stay healthy. If just one of those things comes true a lot of quarterbacks are going to be in the fetal position come 2011.

TimeKiller
05-20-2011, 07:41 AM
Bill Belichick and Nick Saban preached it.

A decent explanation (although on a HS level). http://runcodhit.blogspot.com/2010/03/pattern-reading-vs-spot-dropping.html

So....what I'm getting is spot dropping is more like a passive zone, waiting for the offense to dictate the play. Pattern reading is more aggressive zone that is really a man coverage that switches responsibilities based on what certain players on offense are doing?

76Texan
05-20-2011, 10:19 AM
So....what I'm getting is spot dropping is more like a passive zone, waiting for the offense to dictate the play. Pattern reading is more aggressive zone that is really a man coverage that switches responsibilities based on what certain players on offense are doing?

In a nutshell, that's pretty much it!

In spot drop, let's say a 2-deep, 5-underneath zone, you would have 7 static cones sitting there to read the QB's eyes and only break on the ball (supposedly).

Pattern-reading/man-matching is a zone that turns into man pretty quickly, depending on how the whole offensive pattern evolves.

DocBar
05-20-2011, 10:24 AM
In hindsight , who in that draft would you take ahead of MW ? :kitten:I honestly don't have an answer for that. The point I was trying to make is that MW isn't a consistent gamechanger. He flashes brilliance, but just doesn't seem to bring it every single play. Am I not paying close enough attention or missing something?

76Texan
05-20-2011, 10:39 AM
Hopefully they wont be so predictable .... whenever the next season is.


Ive pointed out multiple times this past season that they constantly got beaten between the C and S .... They never made the adjustment from week 1 to week 17. Same shit , different opponent , you think after a couple times they would figure out they had to adjust ..... never happened.

They tried to adjust, but the safeties just weren't quick enough.
The pass rush was inconsistent. Veteran LBs didn't play up to par. Inexperienced CBs got exposed from time to time.

Bush kept throwing out different schemes and nothing stuck.
They got beat in zero coverage, cover 1, cover 2, cover 3, cover 4, cover 8.

On top of that the shuffle technique hurt the young CB at times.

It would have been better for them to keep it simple and stay more with the old cover 2 like they did in the first Colts game, but played more aggressive man-under.
Give the young guys some time to hone their skills and then expand the playbook slowly.
Let the whole defense get on the same page so the secondary knows what to expect in different pressure packages against different offenses.

Instead, the coaches tried to get to the last chapter to soon.
Even with all the injuries.

76Texan
05-20-2011, 10:50 AM
I honestly don't have an answer for that. The point I was trying to make is that MW isn't a consistent gamechanger. He flashes brilliance, but just doesn't seem to bring it every single play. Am I not paying close enough attention or missing something?

I think the losses just make you frustrate more easily, that's all.
Smith's role was quite simple: move forward, attack one gap.
So it looks like he was more aggressive.
But the opponent's running game worked better on Smith's side.

Mario was asked to do much more.
Overall, he was able to control his side quite well in the run game.
He got to the QB or close to him many many more times; you can't just look at the sack number.

CloakNNNdagger
05-20-2011, 11:05 AM
They tried to adjust, but the safeties just weren't quick enough.
The pass rush was inconsistent. Veteran LBs didn't play up to par. Inexperienced CBs got exposed from time to time.

Bush kept throwing out different schemes and nothing stuck.
They got beat in zero coverage, cover 1, cover 2, cover 3, cover 4, cover 8.

On top of that the shuffle technique hurt the young CB at times.

It would have been better for them to keep it simple and stay more with the old cover 2 like they did in the first Colts game, but played more aggressive man-under.
Give the young guys some time to hone their skills and then expand the playbook slowly.
Let the whole defense get on the same page so the secondary knows what to expect in different pressure packages against different offenses.

Instead, the coaches tried to get to the last chapter to soon.
Even with all the injuries.


Agreed. The recipe was thrown out there for all the would-be players to see. How many peanut butter cookies turned out OK?
http://donniesblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/complicated1.gif?w=510&h=309

DocBar
05-20-2011, 11:49 AM
I think the losses just make you frustrate more easily, that's all.
Smith's role was quite simple: move forward, attack one gap.
So it looks like he was more aggressive.
But the opponent's running game worked better on Smith's side.

Mario was asked to do much more.
Overall, he was able to control his side quite well in the run game.
He got to the QB or close to him many many more times; you can't just look at the sack number.Near misses on sacks are great IF they mess up the QB's timing. That didn't happen nearly often enough. Anyway, I'm fluctuating between psycho optimistic and psycho cynical right now. There are no OTA's or mini camps to give me a direction to go.
MW has 48 sacks in 4 yrs. That's 9.6 a season, on average. Good numbers, but a sack+ a year behind the likes of Reggie White and Bruce Smith.

Brandon420tx
05-20-2011, 12:24 PM
I'm not a big advocate on sacks. However, In the last 4 seasons Mario has 43.5 Sacks. Which amounts to 10.875 sacks a season. His rookie season, in which he had 4.5 sacks, was not included in that calculation.

However, as I said, I am not a big advocate of sacks. But I will agree, that the difference was almost noticeable last year of the amount of pressure mario put on QB's early in the season and as the season went on (and his injury flared up). You asked for a game where Mario consistently harassed a QB and put them on the turf, then I suggest you rewatch game 1 last season. Sure it was our only highlight game, but Mario got to play king of the mountain with FOREHEAD on numerous occassions that game.