IDP 301 -- The Tampa-2 (1 Viewer)

[Jene Bramel]

IDP 301 – The Tampa-2: What does Cover-2 mean anyway?

Next up in our discussion of schemes is the Tampa-2 defense. The Tampa-2 is one of the hotter defensive trends over the past few seasons, rivaled only by the ongoing proliferation of the multiple front, hybrid 3-4 schemes that are also gaining favor. The Tampa-2 isn’t a particularly new idea, however. It’s a variation of a coverage scheme that has been around for decades – Cover-2.

As we did in the first thread in this series, it’s worth a quick look at a few different coverage definitions to underline exactly why the Tampa-2 is different.

Cover-0 – Man coverage without help.
Cover-1 – Man coverage with a free safety playing “centerfield”.
Cover-2 – Zone coverage with both safeties responsible for their deep half of the field. Often referred to as “Two Deep” coverage.
Cover-3 – Zone coverage with both corners and a safety responsible for a deep third of the field. Sometimes referred to as “Three Deep” coverage.
Cover-4 – Zone coverage with both corners and both safeties responsible for one quarter of the field. Usually referred to as “Quarters” coverage.

There are other coverage concepts (top and bottom, zone blitz, etc) that do not fit easily into the categories above, but we’ll keep the definitions brief for now and focus on the Cover-2. For those of you who like diagrams, here’s what the Cover-2 looks like visually.

Cover-2	 |								|								|	 |								|								|	 |			 SAFETY			 |			 SAFETY			 |	 |			DEEP HALF		   |			DEEP HALF		   |	 |								|								|	 |________________________________|________________________________|	 |			|			 |			|			 |		   |	 |			|			 |			|			 |		   |	 |   CORNER   |	 OLB	 |	 MLB	|	 OLB	 |   CORNER  |	 |			|			 |			|			 |		   |	 |			|			 |			|			 |		   |

Though it looks simple in that diagram, playing Cover-2 is not. The linebackers are usually assigned route responsibilities within their “zone” – i.e. an OLB is responsible for a given WR’s curl route. The corners must be aware of how many receivers are running routes to their side of the zone. While they’ll often pass a deep WR off to the deep coverage, there are situations where a corner remains responsible for the deep sideline.

Any of the budding coordinators among us should see a few major issues with this scheme.

Cover-2 Weaknesses	 |XXX						  XXX|XXX						  XXX|	 |XXX						  XXX|XXX						  XXX|	 |XXX		  SAFETY		  XXX|XXX		  SAFETY		  XXX|	 |XXX		 DEEP HALF		XXX|XXX		 DEEP HALF		XXX|	 |								|								|	 |________________________________|________________________________|	 |			|			 |			|			 |		   |	 |			|			 |			|			 |		   |	 |   CORNER   |	 OLB	 |	 MLB	|	 OLB	 |   CORNER  |	 |			|			 |			|			 |		   |	 |			|			 |			|			 |		   |

1. Cover-2 teams must have very talented safeties and a solid pass rush. Each safety has to be able to cover an entire half of the field. They need range, closing speed, tackling skill and enough run-pass recognition ability to not get fooled by play-action. It’s extremely difficult for one man to handle the deep middle and the deep sideline. An average safety behind a poor pass rush that gives the quarterback time to wait for the deep routes to develop is a recipe for disaster.

2. The Cover-2 can also be beaten by flooding one side of the zone with multiple receivers running routes on multiple levels. Force the safety, corner or outside linebacker to make decisions on which receiver to cover and another route is left open. That was made painfully clear to the Washington Redskins when the Cowboys used Terrell Owens, Patrick Crayton and Jason Witten to pressure one side of the Redskin Cover-2 with a combination of sideline, seam, out and deep middle routes.

3. Cover-2 teams, by definition, put only seven players in the box and are susceptible to the run. They hope to successfully take away the run without dropping a safety into the box. A team that wants to run Cover-2 because their corners struggle in man coverage but can’t stop the run with the front seven is in major trouble.

4. Cover-2 teams, by definition, can’t blitz a linebacker frequently. The linebackers and corners can take more underneath zone responsibility, but the pressure must come from the front four. As mentioned above, a Cover-2 that can’t generate pressure goes from a bend-but-don’t-break style of play to one that gives up big plays in bunches when the deep routes come open downfield.

With two tweaks to the Cover-2 schemes of the 1970s and some shrewd talent assessment, Tony Dungy and Monte Kiffin greatly increased the success rate of the Cover-2. The Tampa-2 was born.

Next up: The beginnings of the Tampa-2

 

[Rozelle]

 

[Warpig]

 

[Jene Bramel]

IDP 301 – What’s the Big Deal With the Tampa-2?

You can almost hear the discussion in the Vikings coaching rooms.

Monte Kiffin had previously collaborated with Floyd Peters in Minnesota and helped make the “Under-Over” 4-3 a great success for Chris Doleman and Keith Millard. Tony Dungy was a Bud Carson Cover-2 disciple, and saw the successes of the Steel Curtain’s speedy linebackers, disruptive defensive line and physical corners firsthand as a defensive back for the Steel Curtain in the late 1970s. When Dennis Green brought them together in Minnesota in 1992, a new defensive philosophy was born.

Dungy knew that he needed to bring pressure from the front four to run an effective Cover-2. Kiffin had great success using the under front a few years back (see this post from the first thread for a discussion of the under front), with Millard and Doleman totaling nearly 40 sacks between them. Dungy watched Joe Greene destroy interior offensive lines. Pairing the under front with the Cover-2 made sense.

They knew that the downfield offenses of the day could put enormous pressure on the soft spots in the Cover-2 zone. But Dungy had the privilege of watching two enormously talented linebackers – Jack Ham and Jack Lambert – range all over the field in coverage and run support. Those two very likely provided the inspiration for the simple, but major tweak in the Cover-2 – sending the “Mike down the pipe.”

Tampa-2	 |																 |	 |						 |			   |					   |	 |		   SAFETY		|  “THE PIPE”   |	   SAFETY		  |	 |		 DEEP THIRD	  |	   ^	   |	 DEEP THIRD		|	 |						  \	  ^	  /						|	 |___________________________\	 ^	 /_________________________|	 |			 |			  \	^	/			|			 |	 |			 |			   \   ^   /			 |			 |	 |   CORNER	|	 OLB		  MLB	   OLB	  |	CORNER   |	 |			 |									 |			 |	 |			 |									 |			 |

Kiffin and Dungy schemed to drop their middle linebacker straight down the middle of the field (“the pipe”) to take away the soft zone in the deep middle of the field and allow the safeties to get to the deep sideline more easily. They dropped their corners off the line of scrimmage more than the usual Cover-2 alignment. That allowed them to disguise coverage, roll defenders to protect zones during the rare blitz and keep blockers off the corners on rush downs.

To pull it off, they needed players with very specific skill sets. They needed explosive edge rushers who could get to the quarterback, run defense was secondary. They needed a special MLB who was stout enough to play the usual run support role but athletic enough to drop in coverage and make plays. They needed a rangy WLB who could tackle and cover. And they needed safeties that could cover alongside corners that were best in zone coverage and not afraid to support the run.

Dungy and Kiffin worked on their new scheme in Minnesota, and parlayed their success into a head coaching/defensive coordinator partnership in Tampa Bay. There, the duo inherited Warren Sapp and Derrick Brooks, Hardy Nickerson and John Lynch, all very well suited for their new scheme. In subsequent seasons, they added Simeon Rice, Ronde Barber and Donnie Abraham. The rest is history – nine consecutive seasons finishing among the NFL’s top ten defenses, seven of them in the top five, a Super Bowl title in 2002 behind the league’s top ranked defense and a far-reaching web of assistant coaches successfully taking the scheme around the league. At last count, 25% of the teams in the NFL have head coaches or coordinators who can be directly traced to the Buccaneer defensive coaching staff of those years – IND, TB, CHI, DET, MIN, BUF, KC and PIT. Not all of those teams run the Tampa-2 exclusively, but that’s a coaching tree rivaling that of Bill Walsh or Bill Parcells.

Next Up: Why the WLB and corners are so productive in the Tampa-2

 

[Jene Bramel]

IDP 301 – Why The Tampa-2 WLB Can Be A Prolific Tackler

We hinted at system players in an earlier thread and specifically mentioned WLB Cato June. No one will argue that Derrick Brooks’ talent would have allowed him to succeed in any scheme as a WLB. There is, however, a major concern that a player like Lance Briggs may not be as great a success outside his Tampa-2 WLB in Chicago.

Let’s back up a minute, though. If you’ve been playing in an IDP league for any length of time, you probably know that a Tampa-2 WLB is a stud-in-the-making. The Indianapolis line of succession is impressive, from Mike Peterson to David Thornton to Cato June to Freddy Keiaho. Lance Briggs, Derrick Brooks and Ernie Sims fit the bill, too. What is it about the Tampa-2 that allows a guy like Cato June to become a more prolific tackler than AJ Hawk?

1. The ‘under’ front protects the WLB well.

Here’s the under front diagram from the first thread with the linebackers included.

“Under” Front				   				  TE	  T	   G	   C	   G	   T						DE			  NT		 UT	   DE	 				 SLB			  MLB		   WLB

If the nose tackle engages the center at all, the Will backer is free to flow to the ball after ensuring that his gap (the weak side C-G gap, or A gap) isn’t threatened. With the SLB and MLB dealing with potential blocks from the TE, FB and an OL, the WLB will be in position to make a lot of plays.

2. Ballcarriers are “spilled” toward the WLB.

Dungy and Kiffin’s philosophy, maybe moreso than others, preaches a turn back or spilling concept in run support. That is, a defender taking on a block knows where his most likely help and turns or spills the ballcarrier in that direction. Since the WLB is often free in an under front, he’s frequently the teammate to whom the running back gets sent.

3. The WLB has more coverage opportunity.

Traditional 4-3 schemes leave most of the man coverage responsibilities to the SLB. The WLB needs to watch certain routes on early downs and will frequently defend a screen pass, but doesn’t usually make bunches of tackles or on-ball plays in coverage. With the underneath zone responsibility, including some of the area vacated by the MLB that drops toward the deep middle, the WLB in a Tampa-2 4-3 gets more coverage opportunities.

So, what of Lance Briggs? Is he a “system” player? More Mike Peterson or Cato June? Could he succeed as a MLB or non-Tampa-2 WLB?

I don’t think there’s any question he can. Briggs has (what has become) average size for a MLB/WLB in today’s NFL at 6’1”, 238 lbs. He has proven himself more than capable in coverage and is a solid tackler. He’s forced seven fumbles in three seasons, another indication that he has the strength needed to survive in a less protected role. Had he not landed in a “Tampa-2” system, we may not have even entertained the discussion this offseason. Considering that Lovie Smith may have run less Tampa-2 than any other “Tampa-2” coach over the past two seasons, it may be a non-issue anyway. I think his owners should remain confident that they’ll be getting at least LB2 production from Briggs should he play MLB somewhere in 2008. The statistical outlook might not be so rosy should he play outside linebacker in a different system.

Your mileage, of course, may vary.

Next up: Tying up the loose end about Tampa-2 corners.

 

[Redwes25]

Thanks Jene. These are great threads

 

[Warpig]

Thanks Jene. These are great threads

Helping me to understand a lot more about football...not just FF either.The effort is much appreciated Jene!

 

[FUBAR]

 

[Jene Bramel]

IDP 301 – The Tampa-2/Cover-2 CB: A Different Breed

The long list includes Ronde Barber, Charles Tillman, Nick Harper, Cedric Griffin and Kelvin Hayden, among others. It also includes Nate Clements and Antoine Winfield (at times). All are cornerbacks who have been very productive in Tampa-2 schemes. Some are Pro Bowl caliber talent; others not so much. Those in IDP leagues are probably more aware of how many tackles these guys make, but for those who don’t follow the defensive side closely, consider the following:

Over the past three seasons, cornerbacks have made 70 or more solo tackles 28 times. Over 28% of those “seasons” have been turned in by players on teams that use primarily Tampa-2 coverage. The top tackling corner in 2007, and, in fact, the top tackling defensive back, was a Tampa-2 CB. The #1 and #2 overall tacklers at CB in 2006 were Tampa-2 cornerbacks. And the #2 and #3 overall tacklers at CB in 2005 were Tampa-2 cornerbacks. You’ll get no argument from me that some of that is sampling bias. Tampa-2 teams prefer physical and willing tacklers. Since those are the most successful run support cornerbacks, it shouldn’t be surprising to find them atop the rank lists. But consistently rivaling some of the better strong safeties in the league with 80+ solo tackle seasons (five Tampa-2 CBs in the past three seasons, compared to two from the non-Tampa-2 crowd)? I’d argue the scheme plays a role.

1. The turn and spill concept also benefits the cornerback.

In much the same way as it helps the WLB, the corners are often the “help” when the front seven can’t make the tackle. The playside corner gets the bulk of the business – often the strong side corner – but both corners get increases in run support opportunity.

2. Tampa-2 corners play off the ball further than their traditional Cover-2 colleagues.

The extra yard or two difference may make a difference in avoiding blocks. That distance, plus the slightly larger underneath zone responsibility, certainly allows plenty of opportunity to make tackles on receivers that catch the ball “underneath” the coverage.

Without an extensive review of game data, it would be hard to tell whether the extra run support opportunity or higher likelihood of allowing short receptions accounts for the bump in tackle numbers. It’s probably either or both, depending on the skill set of the corner in question. Regardless of the reason, IDP owners should be targeting willing run supporters with opportunity. It should come as no surprise that guys like Kelvin Hayden and Cedric Griffin were in the top third of tackling corners. Watch out for guys like Marcus McCauley and Daymeion Hughes – should they get starting jobs, both are likely to be solid bets to finish with 70+ solos.

That’s a wrap on the Tampa-2. We’ll be moving on to a discussion of the 3-4 defense and its variations sometime next week.

 

[carlos1984]

 

[JoeSteeler]

 

[gump]

Jene - I'm curious...do you have a source for this Tampa-2 history you can link?

Thanks!

 

[Jene Bramel]

Jene - I'm curious...do you have a source for this Tampa-2 history you can link?Thanks!

I cobbled it together from a bunch of different resources. Most of those I've saved to my own files, but I should be able to find links to most I think. Is there anything in particular you're interested in?

 

[gump]

Jene - I'm curious...do you have a source for this Tampa-2 history you can link?Thanks!

I cobbled it together from a bunch of different resources. Most of those I've saved to my own files, but I should be able to find links to most I think. Is there anything in particular you're interested in?

I was having a conversation with someone about it's origin...and using your summary to describe how Dungy and Monte combined the old Pitt Cover 2 and the "over-under" Kiffin was using to create the Tampa 2.His point was that Pitt actually ran the Tampa 2 as well with Lambert as the Mike in the Pipe...just didn't differentiate it from the Cover 2.

 

[Jene Bramel]

Jene - I'm curious...do you have a source for this Tampa-2 history you can link?

Thanks!

I cobbled it together from a bunch of different resources. Most of those I've saved to my own files, but I should be able to find links to most I think. Is there anything in particular you're interested in?

I was having a conversation with someone about it's origin...and using your summary to describe how Dungy and Monte combined the old Pitt Cover 2 and the "over-under" Kiffin was using to create the Tampa 2.His point was that Pitt actually ran the Tampa 2 as well with Lambert as the Mike in the Pipe...just didn't differentiate it from the Cover 2.

He's right.This excerpt...

They knew that the downfield offenses of the day could put enormous pressure on the soft spots in the Cover-2 zone. But Dungy had the privilege of watching two enormously talented linebackers – Jack Ham and Jack Lambert – range all over the field in coverage and run support. Those two very likely provided the inspiration for the simple, but major tweak in the Cover-2 – sending the “Mike down the pipe.”

...doesn't read as carefully as it should.Carson was actually using his MLB in deep zone coverage before Lambert came to Pittsburgh. I don't know if the Steelers dropped Lambert off into the deep zone on every play (I tend to think they didn't) or as often as Dungy would drop his MLB, but Carson can be probably be credited with that particular innovation within the Cover-2.

And Carson did a lot of stunting with his front four. Probably some 1-technique/3-technique things. I'm not sure they used many true under fronts, however, as much as they challenged the center with stunts and twists. When I think of the Tampa-2, however, I tend to think of the Cover-2, the deep middle, the physical corners and the underfront. A lot of that was Carson, but I think there were enough tweaks from the Dungy-Kiffin brain trust to separate it as its own thing.

Here's a great article from Tim Layden that was published in SI a few years ago detailing some of the Cover-2 concepts used by Bud Carson.

Didn't get to it this offseason, but I think it'd be fun to detail some of the old school defenses (the flex, the Steel Curtain, Orange Crush, Killer "B"s) and position groups (Fearsome Foursome) to see how things have changed over time.

 

[gump]

Jene - I'm curious...do you have a source for this Tampa-2 history you can link?

Thanks!

I cobbled it together from a bunch of different resources. Most of those I've saved to my own files, but I should be able to find links to most I think. Is there anything in particular you're interested in?

I was having a conversation with someone about it's origin...and using your summary to describe how Dungy and Monte combined the old Pitt Cover 2 and the "over-under" Kiffin was using to create the Tampa 2.His point was that Pitt actually ran the Tampa 2 as well with Lambert as the Mike in the Pipe...just didn't differentiate it from the Cover 2.

He's right.This excerpt...

They knew that the downfield offenses of the day could put enormous pressure on the soft spots in the Cover-2 zone. But Dungy had the privilege of watching two enormously talented linebackers – Jack Ham and Jack Lambert – range all over the field in coverage and run support. Those two very likely provided the inspiration for the simple, but major tweak in the Cover-2 – sending the “Mike down the pipe.”

...doesn't read as carefully as it should.Carson was actually using his MLB in deep zone coverage before Lambert came to Pittsburgh. I don't know if the Steelers dropped Lambert off into the deep zone on every play (I tend to think they didn't) or as often as Dungy would drop his MLB, but Carson can be probably be credited with that particular innovation within the Cover-2.

And Carson did a lot of stunting with his front four. Probably some 1-technique/3-technique things. I'm not sure they used many true under fronts, however, as much as they challenged the center with stunts and twists. When I think of the Tampa-2, however, I tend to think of the Cover-2, the deep middle, the physical corners and the underfront. A lot of that was Carson, but I think there were enough tweaks from the Dungy-Kiffin brain trust to separate it as its own thing.

Here's a great article from Tim Layden that was published in SI a few years ago detailing some of the Cover-2 concepts used by Bud Carson.

Didn't get to it this offseason, but I think it'd be fun to detail some of the old school defenses (the flex, the Steel Curtain, Orange Crush, Killer "B"s) and position groups (Fearsome Foursome) to see how things have changed over time.

Great article...and add'l detail Jene.