gobillsinytown Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Interesting discussion. But don't forget, the DT's dont' have to do it all against the run. The Cover 2 also calls for the MLB to be active in run support, yet fast enough to cover the middle. So in some ways I think the most pressure is on the MLB and the safeties to help out against the run as well. I'm no expert on this defense, but it seems like there's a very heavy reliance on chemistry between the players, particularly on the D linemen to be aggressive, yet maintaining their responsibilities. Am I right? Anyone have experience with this "D" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 The real question is do you have a system that you find guys who can play it....or do you take the guys you have an build a system around their strengths? I think Greggos biggest weakness is he has a system and forces players to play it.....I like Wade Phillips who takes the players he has and develops a system for them! yeah - as long as its a 3-4- he's real flexible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 You know it almost appeared the 3-4 was a dinosaur a few years ago. and now more teams are going back to it. Maybe it's easier to have 4 decent LB's than 4 solid DL's. If our defense depends on DT's as much as Chicago does theirs, well, you've gotta wonder when we're going to have 2 solid DT's to set up the rest of the D. Those DT's seem to be the foundation of the Tampa 2. And if you don't have them, everything else snowballs from there. The Cover 2 works, as evidenced by the Super Bowl teams, but is it a fit for every team and their personnel? I'd say adapt your players to a system and not vice-versa. We could spend years looking for 2 DT's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts