DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Cover 2 Defense

j/c..........kinda/sorta. I'm going to try and address a couple of questions that were asked and some ground that was covered. I addressed some of this earlier in the thread, but it didn't draw much interest at the time.

One thing that is a fact is that Wilks played more zone coverage than any other DC in the league when he was at Carolina.

A second fact is that he did not lead the league in either Cover 2, Cover 3, Cover 4, or Cover 6.

That leads me to believe he mixed up his zone coverages.

Regarding his personnel.........Norman is a very good corner and was highly regarded. The second corner was not all that.

I believe Wilks followed Rivera around in all but one year until he got the HC gig in the desert. Rivera is another zone guy and that should not be dismissed.

Our current talent suggests that we play more Cover 1, Cover 0, and Cover 3. The latter is the only zone coverage of the three.

I have no idea what Wilks will do and I don't think anyone else does, either.

I have only one strong statement...........I hope we don't play much Cover 2. That particular coverage does not ask its corners to trail WRs all that much and instead asks them to be strong tacklers in the running game.

Myles from the left, Vernon from the right

Flood the short middle, keep one guy deep, 3 CBs in a man/zone thing, hope the rush is effective.

I thought you made a good post. You tried to steer clear of overstating anything.

After reading your post I realize that what I wrote could be taken to mean he plays cover 3 at the exclusion of other schemes. That wasn't my intention. I base what I've said about Wilks on articles I've read that give the impression that cover 3 is his go-to zone coverage. Mainly I wanted to explain how or why a "zone" DC would want his corners to have man coverage skills. Anyway, good post.

I also assume(d) that the zone that Wilks statistically-favored is the Patter Match Cover 3 on which you shared a video. Let's say that that is true for a minute....

When stats are being kept, if the flow of the play calls primarily for man coverage out of the patter match cover 3, was that statistically counted as a man/base or zone scheme?

I'm still curious how the patter match cover 3 works/doesn't-work with a 3rd CB or S in the mix over a 3rd LB. Additionally, what does the 3rd CB or S do to the Cover 0,1,2,3,6 plan? (Disclaimer: I'm tossing out those cover #s like I know what the heck I'm talking about....when I mostly do not.)

No guard, I didn't take it that way. I just thought you posted an article that gave us more information. It was good stuff because it was educational.

The coverage responsibilities don't change when moving out of your base defense. You just have more DBs in there in place of the LBers. They are still responsible for the same zone coverage areas, regardless of which particular zone coverage it is.

One more thing... I may have misinterpreted something, but your "base" defense refers to terms like 4-3, 3-4, 5-2, 46, etc. You can play either man or zone coverage in all of those base defenses. Your coverage choice is not directly tied to your alignment. That's a very simplistic explanation because certain alignments against certain offensive formations and the use of motion can change things a bit.

One thing that might help people understand and/or recognize coverages is to go back in this thread and look again at the numbering system and my brief description of each coverage. It's pretty easy to see why it's called Cover 2, or Cover 3, of Cover 4. Even Cover 6 is pretty easy because you can do the math to see it is a combination of two other coverages. It's the same for the Man defenses. Cover 1 is where everyone but your FS is responsible for a man. That S provides help where needed. Guys like Ed Reed and Weddle were masters of diagnosing offensive formations and tendencies. Cover 0 is simple, too. Every person in coverage has a man. Very dangerous.

Anyway, I think if you want to look at the coverage responsibilities, it's pretty easy to understand and even identify what coverages are being employed. It's simple math.

Ok and thanks for the response. That makes sense. I'll get a little more detailed question next. In theory, a 3rd CB or S should be better in coverage than a 3rd LB...in my mind, that would lend itself to a more man-coverage scheme...and maybe a perfect fit for the Pattern Match Cover 3.



Thanks again. Let's say we have a 4-3 base...but show a 3-4 look to mix it up...is that a potential 'giveaway' as to what cover scheme we would use? I'll way over-simplify here but...with 4 LBs wouldn't a zone coverage scheme be 'better' if your LBs aren't that good in coverage? I'd also like to learn more about what the motion does to the coverage. I know we've run a lot of motion to try to get the defense to commit/show their coverage. But if that's all it takes, why not run motion on every play?



My problem here is that I cannot always - or even frequently - tell what the responsibilities really are. Twenty years of watching the Browns has done that to me (blown coverages and all that). That and the disguising of coverages makes it difficult for me to 'see' it. It's a little better being AT the game because I can watch/see the DBs better than I can on TV. I can 'see' it after the fact on replays and such...but not live very often unless it's very obvious - like in Cover 0 & 1 and sometimes cover 2 - but I get lost easily when the zone concepts have variations built into them. Also, it's hard for me to 'see' when the S or LB is responsible for certain coverages...I know there is a lot of 'if this, than that' in coverage responsibilities...but I struggle with that as well (at least at full speed).



Unfortunately the math is the only part I 'get'...at least until I need a second hand of fingers anyway. It seems to me that there is a fair amount of other jargon that is required to understand before one gets to the math.

I've learned/realized that while we play a 4-3 'base' and might deploy different nickel packages more than we play base, none of that necessarily dictates the coverage we may deploy. I think my next area to better-understand is what coverage are we most-likely to use in the base or nickel.

Good stuff...for me anyway. Thanks.

As a general rule, just remember the number after "cover" usually refers to the number of deep defenders, almost always defensive backs (combination of safeties+corners).

Cover 0 - 0 safeties deep, very aggressive D. Usually means 6 rushers and 5 defenders in man

Cover 1 - 1 safety deep, somewhat aggressive D. Usually means 5 rushers and 5 defenders in man though sometimes there are wrinkles, for example having a QB spy instead of a 5th rusher.

Cover 2 - 2 safeties deep, usually refers to a zone where the outside corners play the flat and sometimes bump the receiver, which can mess up the offense's timing and route combinations. This was the base defense of the Tony Dungy tree, with some variations (for example the middle linebacker dropping deep to cover seam routes.)

Also you can play man with 2 safeties deep, though it would usually be called something like man up, 2 deep. It wouldn't often be called cover 2 but sometimes it is anyway. It's a safe defense but often easy to march down the field against. You might hear something like "taking what the defense gives you" against a defense like this as it's hard to throw over the top of this type of coverage.

Cover 3 - 3 DBs covering thirds of the field (deep safety plus outside corners), almost always refers to zone (for example, 4 rushers, 4 underneath defenders). Like above, you can also play man up, 3 deep-- a VERY safe defense you might use near the end of the half, where a full-blown prevent defense would be inappropriate (perhaps because ceding big yardage might lead to a FG or whatever.)

Cover 4 - 4 DBs with deep responsibilities, split in quarters. Another very safe defense.

Cover 6 - Confusingly, 3 DBs with deep responsibilities. Mix of Cover 4 and Cover 2-- Often played Cover 4 on the wide side of the field and Cover 2 on the short side of the field.

As far as personnel.. defense is largely reactionary. You have to match up to the offense's personnel... not just in theory (e.g. going to nickel against 1 back/1 tight end/3 receivers) but also in practice. Can your linebackers actually hold their own against that tight end and back in man coverage, even if they're split out wide? What about when the OC uses a clever scheme+motion combination and that linebacker is now matched up on a speedy receiver? Probably not... better have a call to get back into cover 3 or whatever.

Not to be argumentative, but that is not really true. For example, Cover 3 doesn't have 3 safeties deep. The field is split into thirds. The corners have the outside segments of the field. There is typically one deep safety who provides over the top help/support and a safety who plays closer to the LOS and is asked to cover the short to short-intermediate middle of the field or the flats.

Think geography rather than number of safeties.

No you're right, I definitely mis-typed that. It basically refers to the number of deep safeties in cover 0, cover 1, and cover 2, but most certainly not in cover 3/cover 4 where the corners have the outside segments of the field, basically the deep responsibility there. I edited my post to make this more accurate.

Someone posted this link quite a while ago, (and if I could remember who, I would credit them, but I cannot) and I thought it might fit here. (and please forgive me if it has been posted on this thread, and I just missed it)

Football 101: Coverage Shells - The Phinsider
https://www.thephinsider.com/2014/8/15/6000113/football-101-coverage-shells

Here is a look at the QB's reads against the various zones. (a look from the other side of the LOS)

Same site, but kind of interesting.

Football 101: How a quarterback ‘reads’ a defense (aka Defensive coverage schemes) - The Phinsider
https://www.thephinsider.com/2016/6/27/1...reads-a-defense

I guess anything is possible. But, I don't think drafting Ward and Greedy suggest that playing Cover 2 (Zone) scheme is imminent.
Those guys are man corners, good man corners.
One of the benefits of playing Tampa-2 is your corners don't need to be great in man coverage. They need to be able to press at the LOS and support the run and have good zone awareness.

If the team plays Tampa-2 I don't think its because of Ward/Greedy.

If you want to use scheme to capitalize on Ward and Greedy's skills Cover-1 and Press Man w/o Safety helps seems to make more sense based on their specific skills.

Some great post guys! Thank you to all of you who were kind enough to participate in the discussion =)