PDA

View Full Version : Giants' Cover 2 defense has become the "cover who" defense



RoanokeFan
10-06-2012, 01:57 PM
http://www.giants101.com/2012/10/06/...r-who-defense/ (http://www.giants101.com/2012/10/06/new-york-giants-cover-2-defense-has-become-the-cover-who-defense/)

Excerpt: "Recent babble about the New York (http://www.giants101.com/tag/new-york/) Giants defense has been about the front four or injuries. What about the overloaded strength they had going into training camp – the linebacker corps and the secondary?

Unfortunately, much of the pressure and accountability is (and looks to remain) on the secondary. Cover 2 defense is the New York (http://www.giants101.com/tag/new-york/) Giants’ base D, sort of. The two safeties are primarily responsible for the two deep zones, but with Perry Fewell (http://www.giants101.com/tag/perry-fewell/), S Antrel Rolle (http://www.giants101.com/tag/antrel-rolle/) is legitimately all over the place (when he’s not playing nickel). The idea behind the Cover 2 (Tampa-2) is to diminish need for defenders back deep to stop the long pass threat – leaving more of them there to play closer to the line of scrimmage. This provides faster run support and help with the short/dump-off passes and timed routes. However, this is what the Giants are getting punched in the mouth with, consequently letting them get burned on the deep pass." Read more...

Breezely
10-06-2012, 02:12 PM
I believe injuries are partly to blame. Also, the defensive line was stating that offenses game planning includes quick release passes. The Giants' pass defense is giving up an average of 254 yards a game.

jomo
10-06-2012, 03:06 PM
It's not the scheme it's more the players or more to the point, the revolving door and..........lack of pass rush.

gumby74
10-06-2012, 03:07 PM
Let's see. Here's a revolutionary thought .. If you don't have the players... DON'T RUN THE SCHEME!

jomo
10-06-2012, 03:12 PM
Let's see. Here's a revolutionary thought .. If you don't have the players... DON'T RUN THE SCHEME!Well, I would say that the scheme should be designed around our personnel not around what a DC believes in. The scheme (inclusive of blitz packages etc) does need to reflect the realities on the ground.

RoanokeFan
10-06-2012, 04:05 PM
It's not the scheme it's more the players or more to the point, the revolving door and..........lack of pass rush.

This part of the puzzle just mystifies me. Tuck, Osi, JPP all healthy and yet...

Buddy333
10-06-2012, 04:09 PM
This part of the puzzle just mystifies me. Tuck, Osi, JPP all healthy and yet...As of now it SEEMS like Osi is done. Tuck actually is not playing that bad. I've been watching him and he is playing well against the run. Getting to the passer is another thing, but teams know what the Giants like to do. Do you think the other teams might be planning all weeks, and all off season, on how to beat that rush? I mean the Eagles have the best pass rush in foot all and they didn't have a sack the other night. They also allowed Eli to throw for over 300 yards

BeatYale
10-06-2012, 04:27 PM
Well according to Osi it's the coverage. He's saying something similar to what Tuck said in 2009, teams are getting rid of the ball quickly and/or max protecting to deal with our pass rush.

If playing bump-and-run and blitzing is the simple answer, why isn't PF doing it? Is there that much concern on his part that we may give up a big play for a TD? We definitely need a change on defense.

JesseJames
10-06-2012, 05:02 PM
Well according to Osi it's the coverage. He's saying something similar to what Tuck said in 2009, teams are getting rid of the ball quickly and/or max protecting to deal with our pass rush.

If playing bump-and-run and blitzing is the simple answer, why isn't PF doing it? Is there that much concern on his part that we may give up a big play for a TD? We definitely need a change on defense.

I don't see whats the big deal with changing things up on defense and playing more, a lot more,bump and run and thereby throwing receivers and the QB off their timing, I read somewhere this week that the players themselves want to start jamming receivers at the LOS

RoanokeFan
10-06-2012, 05:10 PM
It's now being reported Sash will not play by Jenny Vrentas (sp). On phone can't provide link.

CowboysSuck
10-06-2012, 06:30 PM
In perspective, last game we gave up less than 20 points i think it was. A defense that can hold any team to under 20 should equate to a very successful team.

Its our offense that has failed to put up points consistently (except for Carolina) that is really hurting us. Badly.

slipknottin
10-06-2012, 07:04 PM
injuries make them more of a cover 2 team, they were really more of a cover 1/cover 3 team when they have all their DBs healthy.

After KP went down they reverted to more Cover 2.

jomo
10-06-2012, 09:27 PM
injuries make them more of a cover 2 team, they were really more of a cover 1/cover 3 team when they have all their DBs healthy.

After KP went down they reverted to more Cover 2. Which is to say, I hope our coaches are making scheme decisions based on personel.

Rat_bastich
10-07-2012, 06:28 AM
It's now being reported Sash will not play by Jenny Vrentas (sp). On phone can't provide link.

Probably a day late and dollar short:

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/giants/post/_/id/18014/giants-wont-sash-vs-browns

My thinking on this is that the Giants want to see what they have in their back up to the back up safeties before they make a decision. We'll probably see a dose of Will Hill too. That way, come Monday when TC and crew need to make a decision on who to get rid of to make room for Sash it could be a safety for safety deal.

Rat_bastich
10-07-2012, 06:31 AM
Which is to say, I hope our coaches are making scheme decisions based on personel.

It sucks not being able to get pressure because coverage lacks and not being able to maintain coverage because pressure lacks. We are in a catch 22 defense apparently.

Redeyejedi
10-07-2012, 08:35 AM
This part of the puzzle just mystifies me. Tuck, Osi, JPP all healthy and yet... Tuck's fire is gone. Osi should be playing for his money surprised how ineffective he has been

Toadofsteel
10-07-2012, 09:07 AM
In perspective, last game we gave up less than 20 points i think it was. A defense that can hold any team to under 20 should equate to a very successful team.

Its our offense that has failed to put up points consistently (except for Carolina) that is really hurting us. Badly.

That pick in the end zone really hurt us. 300 yards out of Eli and only 17 points to show for it...

RoanokeFan
10-07-2012, 09:50 AM
That pick in the end zone really hurt us. 300 yards out of Eli and only 17 points to show for it....

Had that not happened, we'd like have won. I'm not laying it at Eli's feet as there were enough mistakes all around. But that play and the ill-placed pass to Barden not happened......

brad
10-07-2012, 10:40 AM
In perspective, last game we gave up less than 20 points i think it was. A defense that can hold any team to under 20 should equate to a very successful team.

Its our offense that has failed to put up points consistently (except for Carolina) that is really hurting us. Badly.

Exactly!

The defense hasn't been anything to brag about, but they played well enough to win against the Eagles, even with all the injuries. The offense on the other hand, did not. putting up yards is great, but if the yards don't translate into touchdowns, it doesn't accomplish much. We have seen too many games already this year where the offense doesn't wake up until the second half, you aren't going to win many games when you spot your opponent 30 minutes.