a Great Read for All Fans who to learn X and 0 in Football


It US Based but will Still Give some great info Still.

On a Side note:
I Was talking to Charlie today After Pratice
We talked About Defence that Winnpeg was using.

I thought I heard 900 CHML The Say Winnpeg was in a Cover 2.

[b]Info on the Cover 2
Cover 2

In traditional Cover 2 schemes the free safety (FS) and strong safety (SS) have deep responsibilities, each guarding half of the field. The NFL's Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Indianapolis Colts, Chicago Bears, and Detroit Lions run a variant of this defense called the Tampa 2.

Cover 2 can be run from any seven-man defensive fronts such as the 3-4 and the 4-3. (It is difficult to implement Cover 2 from an eight-in-the-box front, because the strong safety or someone replacing him is usually the eighth man. Various "underneath" coverage played by cornerbacks and linebackers may also be implemented. For example, Cover 2 Man means 2 safeties have deep responsibility while the cornerbacks and linebackers follow their offensive assignment in one-on-one coverage. The NFL's San Diego Chargers inherited a base Cover 2 Man 3-4 from Wade Phillips. Cover 2 can also be paired with underneath zone schemes: Cover 2 Zone refers to 2 safeties with deep responsibility but now the CBs and LBs drop back into specific coverage zones where they defend passes only in their assigned area.

Teams that play Cover 2 shells usually ascribe to the "bend-but-don't-break" philosophy, preferring to keep offensive players in front of them for short gains while limiting long passes. This is in stark contrast to a more aggressive Cover 1 type scheme which leaves the offensive team's wide receivers in single man-to-man coverage with only one deep helper. By splitting the deep field between two defenders, the defense can drastically reduce the number of long gains.

The main weakness of the Cover 2 shell occurs in the middle of the field between the safeties. The safeties attempt to gain width upon the snap of the ball to cover any long passes to quick wide receivers down the sideline. This movement creates a natural hole between the safeties that can be attacked. By sending a receiver (usually a tight end) into the hole, the offense forces the safety to make a decision: play the vulnerable hole in the middle of the field or help out on the wide receiver. The quarterback reads the safety's decision and decides on the best matchup (i.e. which mismatch is better--TE vs S or WR vs CB).[/b]

He Told me it was more Man to Man & Cover 4

Cover 4 :
[b]Cover 4

Cover 4 refers to 4 deep defenders each guarding one-fourth of the deep zone. Cover 4 schemes are usually used to defend against deep passes. (See Prevent defense).

The most basic Cover 4 scheme involves 2 CBs and 2 safeties. Upon snap, the CBs work for depth, backpedaling into their assigned zone. Both safeties backpedal towards their assigned zone.

As with other coverage shells, Cover 4 is paired with underneath man or zone coverage in its most basic form.

The main weakness of Cover 4 shells is the retreating defensive backs. Since the DBs are working for depth, short pass routes underneath can isolate them on a wide receiver near the sideline with little help.

Will after being Taken to School
I Decided to RefreshMy Info on Defences..
this what I found..

its accurate enough for the NFL and NCAA, but with the extra man on the feild in the CFL it changes quite a bit.

Indeed. Cover 3s and 4s are more prevalent in Canada and disguised coverages with the rover are the bane of many NFL-trained QBs (Ferragamo perhaps being the most famous example).

Oski Wee Wee,

it occurs to me that a cover two type defense with the safety as a variable peice would be quite pain in the ass-ish for US trained QBs.

I would love to Find Somthing that more CFL Based.

If you have an athletic burner-type receiver like Troy Polamalu, you can do a ton of that kind of things like that. He is capable of covering as a disguised NB, blitzing from the edge, lining up in the box...it can be a factor in 3-4 defences with similarly athletic LBs who can drop deep enough as the safety involved flies around creating havoc.

Some 4-3 teams have athletic LBs who can play those kinds of switches, but they are less common.

Oski Wee Wee,

Russ, would that be the 'tweener-type LB's that we have been saddled with over the past few years? IIRC, most of them were converted FS from the states...

Chris Shelling, perfect example.

Sudsy converted him into an OLB -- he had a couple of excellent years, IMHO, but eventually his body broke down and he became less effective. He was 190 pounds.

Zambiasi, by contrast, was in the 210-215 lb. range during his heyday and had a more typically compact linebacker frame to him. Ben was lights out as an OLB but somehow made the transition to MLB and survived and thrived. Amazing.

You really need a Tiggle or Barrin Simpson type (230-240 lbs. or so) to have the ideal run-stopper and coverage guy in the middle.

Against a Charles Roberts, you need to have that kind of MLB who can bring the hammer but still have the agility and acceleration to cope with the kind of speed the generally smaller halfbacks in the CFL bring.

Tweeners are not my preference as starting LBs, but with the right personnel mix, you might take a flyer on one.

What I like about the current crop of Cat LBs is that they are more in the size and weight ranges that I consider optimal to compete in the CFL.

Oski Wee Wee,