Originally Posted by CIAFT
Good question, fred. However, I have to say the difference between the 3-4 and the Cover-2 is the same as the difference between an apple and an orange. We'll start with the 3-4. Haslett brings with him a hybrid system in the front 7 that will require the Rams to rearrange their box personnel, as we have seen in the past couple of weeks. The basic 4-3 that we see now requires 4 down lineman to handle most pass rushing assignments on passing downs and gap fills on running downs. What we will see in the 3-4 is the NT (be it Kennedy or whoever) filling a 2 gap assignment between the guards and the 2 DEs filling the gaps either outside the guards or tackles depending on LB assignment. At least one of the LBs will be rushing on most every down. This is the beauty of the 3-4, you give up solid gap assignments at the line, but you now have the element of surprise from within the LBs. At least one of them is "bringing it" to the QB or RB, but nobody knows which one.
Several personnel changes will need to happen, but the first two that must take place will be at NT and SOLB. If Kennedy is to take over, he better be hitting the weight room and St. Louis area buffets with fanatical passion. In the 3-4, the NT has to be a monster that eats up 2 O-linemen EVERY down. If the C or G alone can handle the NT, the 3-4 can be blown up. The second change has to come from the SOLB. Here's where the hottest term in football comes into play, the proverbial "tweener". The SOLB has to be able to rush the QB like a DE, but cover the TE like a traditional 4-3 SOLB. The best choice on the roster today is Chillar. He has good size and appears to be a solid tackler, but his pass rushing skills are untested at this point. Another option would be backing up Hargrove to the SOLB spot, but that could be like expecting a "C" average Algebra student to take over teaching a Calculus class. A little more DE development time may be needed for Hargrove.
Now, on to the Cover-2. The funny thing is, a lot of Rams fans link the Cover-2 with Lovie Smith. The truth is, Marmie ran the traditional "Bud Carson" style Cover-2 from the 70's. Lovie actually ran the Tampa-2, a variation of the popular Cover-2. First, let's discuss the Cover-2. Most NFL, NCAA, even high school teams, in the nation run some type of Cover-2. The basic formation is pretty simple; 2 deep zone safeties (hence the name) and 5 underneath coverages. The 5 underneath defenders consist of 2 corners covering the short and intermediate outs while the 3 LBs (notice the typical Cover-2 is run with a traditional 4-3) cover the 3/5ths of the interior short and intermediate zones. This is the base Cover-2 and requires "twin" cover safeties. We all remember Martz talking about Left and Right safties last year, don't we?
What Lovie ran here and now in Chicago (as well as his mentors, Dungy in Indy and Kiffen in Tampa) is called the Tampa-2. On the chalkboard, the Tampa-2 starts with the Cover-2, but then drops the MLB into deep cover to morph into a Cover-3, with underneath quarters (2 CBs and 2 OLBs each covering 1/4 of the short routes area). A popular blitz variation can be to blitz the SS while dropping the MLB to result in a blitz that gives a Cover-2 coverage. The Tampa-2, though, is more about energy level from the players than it is the chalkboard. The Tampa-2 relies on undersized, but fast and energetic wildmen. They don't have to be geniuses to play in a Tampa-2, but they do have to play with non-stop motors and hit harder than their size would assume. The Tampa-2 should have a SS that plays like a LB (ie. Lynch in the old Bucs, Arch in the '01-03 Rams, Sanders in Indy, Brown in Chicago), small linemen that are quick off the ball and hit gaps as fast as possible (Sapp & Rice with the old Bucs, Freeney & Simon in Indy, Brown & Harris in Chicago), and small LBs that run like safeties.
The 3 men that are true masters of the Tampa-2 (Dungy, Kiffen, Smith) have developed their respective teams into the best defensive units in football today. If done right, it can be a dominant defensive scheme.
