Quarters Coverage vs. Cover 2

[Landlord]

Actually in quarters coverage the DBs don't often have over the top help like you do in cover 2. That is why we don't see our CBs play press because the staff doesn't have enough faith they can play on an island.

Yet they still put them on an island anyways, and according to the perspective of many, they make it a more difficult island.

A lot of people believe that single man coverage is way harder to do with a cushion because you're giving the offensive player all the freedom in the world to go anywhere from the get go.

 

[Mavric]

Actually in quarters coverage the DBs don't often have over the top help like you do in cover 2. That is why we don't see our CBs play press because the staff doesn't have enough faith they can play on an island.

Yet they still put them on an island anyways, and according to the perspective of many, they make it a more difficult island.

A lot of people believe that single man coverage is way harder to do with a cushion because you're giving the offensive player all the freedom in the world to go anywhere from the get go.

 

[caveman99]

Actually in quarters coverage the DBs don't often have over the top help like you do in cover 2. That is why we don't see our CBs play press because the staff doesn't have enough faith they can play on an island.

Yet they still put them on an island anyways, and according to the perspective of many, they make it a more difficult island.

A lot of people believe that single man coverage is way harder to do with a cushion because you're giving the offensive player all the freedom in the world to go anywhere from the get go.

I agree with that sentiment 100%, I was just trying to address the above misnomer about quarters vs cover 2.

 

[alwayshusking]

The game last night was two teams struggling with a similar coverage scheme. When MSU didn't get pressure they couldn't hold up in coverage, same with us.

To run this scheme you need NFL corners and a good pass rush.

 

[Tomhusker64]

The game last night was two teams struggling with a similar coverage scheme. When MSU didn't get pressure they couldn't hold up in coverage, same with us.

To run this scheme you need NFL corners and a good pass rush.

Sounds like a good selling point when recruiting top tier cb talent, huh? "play in this system in college and the NFL will notice!"

 

[Landlord]

Is there some kind of a defensive scheme that doesn't actually need good talent to be great at?

 

[Danny Bateman]

The game last night was two teams struggling with a similar coverage scheme. When MSU didn't get pressure they couldn't hold up in coverage, same with us.

To run this scheme you need NFL corners and a good pass rush.

So we didn't hold up all night?

We got 0 pressure on Cook last night. He carved us up for the most part, with some missed big throws and even a few genuinely well defensed passes mixed in.

That's mostly a reflection of the MSU offensive line. Our DL has been pretty good about getting pressure as the season has worn on. Their OL was legit.

 

[HuskerShark]

I thought the DBs played their best game of the year. Two things contributed to their lack of success that was out of their control:

1) Cook made some tremendous perfect throws and his receivers came down with them.

2) Absolutely no pass rush. Cook stood in the pocket as long as he wanted until someone came open. That's hard on DBs to cover that long.

 

[zoogs]

The game last night was two teams struggling with a similar coverage scheme. When MSU didn't get pressure they couldn't hold up in coverage, same with us.

To run this scheme you need NFL corners and a good pass rush.

So we didn't hold up all night?

We got 0 pressure on Cook last night. He carved us up for the most part, with some missed big throws and even a few genuinely well defensed passes mixed in.

That's mostly a reflection of the MSU offensive line. Our DL has been pretty good about getting pressure as the season has worn on. Their OL was legit.

We got very little pressure on Cook, and that's hard to overcome. However, Cook is also pretty darn good, and so are his receivers.

We did get pressure on the last play, and that won the game.

I guess that's what impresses me most about this team. This secondary has stunk it up on the field, but they don't quit competing. You see those DBs flying to the ball, contesting with receivers, playing with ferocity. It's not easy to overcome the weaknesses -- some of which comes from scheme, some of which comes from available talent -- but they're really getting after it.

What I'd like to see more is a defense that can maybe sustain good performance through the entire game. Ours has tended to wear down late in games all year. They did an OK job for a while, but Cook & MSU ran them ragged late in the 2nd half.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Is there some kind of a defensive scheme that doesn't actually need good talent to be great at?

apparently 408s scheme didnt need talent.
And neither did Osborne.

Rolls eyes.

 

[Count 'Bility]

The game last night was two teams struggling with a similar coverage scheme. When MSU didn't get pressure they couldn't hold up in coverage, same with us. To run this scheme you need NFL corners and a good pass rush.

So we didn't hold up all night?We got 0 pressure on Cook last night. He carved us up for the most part, with some missed big throws and even a few genuinely well defensed passes mixed in.That's mostly a reflection of the MSU offensive line. Our DL has been pretty good about getting pressure as the season has worn on. Their OL was legit.

We got very little pressure on Cook, and that's hard to overcome. However, Cook is also pretty darn good, and so are his receivers.We did get pressure on the last play, and that won the game.I guess that's what impresses me most about this team. This secondary has stunk it up on the field, but they don't quit competing. You see those DBs flying to the ball, contesting with receivers, playing with ferocity. It's not easy to overcome the weaknesses -- some of which comes from scheme, some of which comes from available talent -- but they're really getting after it.What I'd like to see more is a defense that can maybe sustain good performance through the entire game. Ours has tended to wear down late in games all year. They did an OK job for a while, but Cook & MSU ran them ragged late in the 2nd half.

there was improvement and confidence from them guys last night. There were guys jumping routes and breaking on balls like we hadnt seen yet this year. Cooks a damn good qb. When you play a good qb, hes gonna get his. Thats football. But we also stopped the run again pretty well. They had a couple large chink plays that skewed the overall ypc avg but overall, run defense stout again.

 

[Mavric]

The game last night was two teams struggling with a similar coverage scheme. When MSU didn't get pressure they couldn't hold up in coverage, same with us. To run this scheme you need NFL corners and a good pass rush.

So we didn't hold up all night?We got 0 pressure on Cook last night. He carved us up for the most part, with some missed big throws and even a few genuinely well defensed passes mixed in.That's mostly a reflection of the MSU offensive line. Our DL has been pretty good about getting pressure as the season has worn on. Their OL was legit.

We got very little pressure on Cook, and that's hard to overcome. However, Cook is also pretty darn good, and so are his receivers.We did get pressure on the last play, and that won the game.I guess that's what impresses me most about this team. This secondary has stunk it up on the field, but they don't quit competing. You see those DBs flying to the ball, contesting with receivers, playing with ferocity. It's not easy to overcome the weaknesses -- some of which comes from scheme, some of which comes from available talent -- but they're really getting after it.What I'd like to see more is a defense that can maybe sustain good performance through the entire game. Ours has tended to wear down late in games all year. They did an OK job for a while, but Cook & MSU ran them ragged late in the 2nd half.

there was improvement and confidence from them guys last night. There were guys jumping routes and breaking on balls like we hadnt seen yet this year. Cooks a damn good qb. When you play a good qb, hes gonna get his. Thats football. But we also stopped the run again pretty well. They had a couple large chink plays that skewed the overall ypc avg but overall, run defense stout again.

Not sure which plays you're talking about specifically but it's quite possible that the reason we were able to do a lot more of this is because we ran a lot more Cover 2 than we have all year.

 

[zoogs]

Yep! IIRC, they had two 40+ yard runs. That's very, very bad obviously. But for much of the game, there was not much doing.

For all the talent criticism, let's remember that the current assembly of DT talent and depth is something we might not see again for years. There is good and bad. Bo could recruit and close, but managing across the whole roster was where things got a little dicey.

It's hard to field a good defense without some serious talent at every level to work with. Sometimes it's a matter of players hitting their stride. It's also fair to argue that if the coaches would be willing to do a few things differently - like mixing up coverages as they did last night - maybe you'd have better results.

Regarding DBs jumping routes, I don't know if scheme was the case there, but this was NOT the first game this year I have seen the DBs play like that. They've been burned, yes, and often. But they do not get their heads down and they bring the fight. That's what I love about them.