Bowen: Forget Rex, Bears' D was the problem

[RING4CHI]

Bowen: Forget Rex, Bears' D was the problem

November 11, 2008

BY MATT BOWEN


Lost in the critiquing of Rex Grossman is why the Bears’ defensive gameplan backfired against Kerry Collins and the Titans.

It was obvious that the Bears practiced and prepared to stop the running attack of LenDale White and Chris Johnson. They stacked the box, and even moved their linebackers up to almost the heels of the defensive line in their 7-man fronts. The final numbers were impressive for the Bears’ defense: 29 carries for 20 yards. The Bears stood their ground and challenged Titans Collins to beat them, which he did — badly.

How can a back-up quarterback come into Soldier Field and torch this defense through the air for four quarters? Well, if we go back to the way the Bears aligned their linebackers in their Tampa 2 look, it is obvious that Brian Urlacher and company couldn’t get to their drops fast enough, and were often pulled to the line of scrimmage due to Collins and his play-action attack.

In the Tampa 2 scheme, if the underneath defenders (especially the linebackers) can’t get to their zones, there are plenty — and I mean plenty — of holes to find throwing the football. Basically, it is a disaster for that scheme, because the safeties — Kevin Payne and Mike Brown — still play as the top of the defense. It is not their job to drive a 10-yard route, or to make a play on a 15-yard Dig Route (square in). This falls on the shoulders of the linebackers, who were either chasing after running backs who didn’t have the ball, or were late to get to their zones, allowing Collins to sit back and pick apart this defense.

The term “sit back” is becoming a weekly term for opposing quarterbacks, because the Bears’ front four can’t apply enough pressure, and when this happens, it doesn’t matter what your linebackers, safeties, corners, etc. do in Tampa 2. NFL quarterbacks are too good to give them time in the pocket. It didn’t matter if the Bears were playing Tampa 2 or Cover 3, or even Cover 4, because zones in the NFL are made to be beaten when the quarterback has all day to throw. Collins was sacked only one time in four quarters, and that’s just not good enough at this level.

But, let’s get off Tampa 2 for a minute, because as much as it is scrutinized in this city this season, the Bears were playing a form of man-to-man or some kind of 3-deep coverage on both of Collins’ touchdown passes. On the touchdown pass to tight end Bo Scaife, Collins looked off free safety Kevin Payne, and then came backside to hit Scaife on a skinny post with Charles Tillman playing outside leverage. Tillman had no chance on the play because Collins had the time to look backside to the second option of the route.

Take the second touchdown pass, with the Bears playing man-to-man in the red zone. Nathan Vasher aligned on the outside shoulder of Titans’ wide receiver Justin Gage and Collins threw a bullet to him on a slant route. Gage beat Vahser off the line of scrimmage, and Payne had no chance to make a play on the ball. On both plays the Bears got away from the Tampa 2, and they both resulted in points for the Titans.

Do you see where I am going here folks? In the National Football League, when you take something away, like the Bears did with the running game of the Titans, you have to make some plays in the passing game — sacks, interceptions, tipped passes, red zone stops, etc. I’ve been there on defenses that took away a certain receiver (such as a Randy Moss) and ended up getting whipped in other areas. Or a team that did everything to make Tiki Barber’s life miserable all Sunday long, only to watch Eli Manning tear us apart when I was playing in Washington. These players are too talented to give them a shot to beat you.

In saying that, you can gripe all you want about Grossman’s play, but he was sailing balls to the sideline because the Titan’s front four was getting enough push to alter the way he threw the football. How many times was he flushed out of the pocket? I would say enough, but this ballgame came down to the two defenses, and the Titans took advantage of the Bears’ game plan.

Tampa 2 or not, this team has plenty to work on before Aaron Rodgers and the Packers start chucking the ball downfield this Sunday.

[G08]

On the touchdown pass to tight end Bo Scaife, Collins looked off free safety Kevin Payne, and then came backside to hit Scaife on a skinny post with Charles Tillman playing outside leverage. Tillman had no chance on the play because Collins had the time to look backside to the second option of the route.

Take the second touchdown pass, with the Bears playing man-to-man in the red zone. Nathan Vasher aligned on the outside shoulder of Titans’ wide receiver Justin Gage and Collins threw a bullet to him on a slant route. Gage beat Vahser off the line of scrimmage, and Payne had no chance to make a play on the ball. On both plays the Bears got away from the Tampa 2, and they both resulted in points for the Titans.

Thank you!

[Pagan]

I think it's easy to say that the problem is purely Rex's fault- or the defense's fault. The truth is its a multi-failure. Rex, defense and ST's blocking. Add in a few coaching blunders and you have the right mixture for a loss. The fact that the Bears lost by only one TD should tell us all that these problems cant be overcome and to get off of the ledge.

pagan

[IE]

From Dr. Z's power rankings:

14 Last Week: 10
Chicago Bears (5-4)
Do they ever blitz? Or throw some exotic coverage scheme into the mix? I'm so tired of watching these guys play hard and go down because they were so predictable.

[UOK]

From Dr. Z's power rankings:

We blitz all the damn time. But the blitzes never get through...or anything else for that matter. We've got to rank in the bottom of the league in terms of sacks, forced fumbles, and interceptions. Our defense has created virtually zero turnovers this season and put no pressure on the QB whatsoever.

[IE]

We blitz all the damn time. But the blitzes never get through...or anything else for that matter. We've got to rank in the bottom of the league in terms of sacks, forced fumbles, and interceptions. Our defense has created virtually zero turnovers this season and put no pressure on the QB whatsoever.

I guess I don't count the times when #54 and #55 are basically playing the DLine & just rushing. Not really the kind of "suprise attack" that I think of when I think "blitz".

[DaDitka]

I guess I don't count the times when #54 and #55 are basically playing the DLine & just rushing. Not really the kind of "suprise attack" that I think of when I think "blitz".

Well anytime we bring more than 4 pass rushers, it's a 'blitz', but teams are keying on Brian and Lance in those situations (and we all know how much Brian struggles at getting off a block).

We need to bring the safeties more and I don’t remember the last time we had a good corner blitz.

I’ve mentioned previously about dropping some of our linemen into coverage and blitz more out of the back seven, but after re-watching the game and seeing O-Gun just standing there in no mans’ land looking lost and disinterested I know understand why we don’t do that more.

[swami]

I'm no Cover 2 expert, but shouldn't the CBs be playing with inside leverage? I would think that given help over the top from safeties, you would want your CBs to play with inside leverage to funnel the WR towards the sideline. An intermediate to deep sideline route with a safety coming over the top is a much more difficult throw than a slant or in.

If I'm the Bears, I want my CBs pushing the WRs towards the sideline and forcing a more difficult throw for the QB. Giving NFL WRs easy catches and a bunch of space over the middle of the field isn't a recipe for success. That would mean inside leverage.

[IE]

Well anytime we bring more than 4 pass rushers, it's a 'blitz', but teams are keying on Brian and Lance in those situations (and we all know how much Brian struggles at getting off a block).

We need to bring the safeties more and I don’t remember the last time we had a good corner blitz.

I’ve mentioned previously about dropping some of our linemen into coverage and blitz more out of the back seven, but after re-watching the game and seeing O-Gun just standing there in no mans’ land looking lost and disinterested I know understand why we don’t do that more.

Yeah ... that's what I was getting at, really. I know "technically" you are blitzing any time you bring more than your front linemen. But to me it doesn't seem nearly as good an opportunity if you're telegraphing it. Some good zone blitzing with the CBs or safeties would seem a lot more useful to me than having Url at the line every time... I mean, that is too easy to prepare for when it becomes a habit(e.g. if Url comes in we do X and if he drops back we do Y).

I'm no Cover 2 expert, but shouldn't the CBs be playing with inside leverage? I would think that given help over the top from safeties, you would want your CBs to play with inside leverage to funnel the WR towards the sideline. An intermediate to deep sideline route with a safety coming over the top is a much more difficult throw than a slant or in.

If I'm the Bears, I want my CBs pushing the WRs towards the sideline and forcing a more difficult throw for the QB. Giving NFL WRs easy catches and a bunch of space over the middle of the field isn't a recipe for success. That would mean inside leverage.

I've been hearing people saying that this week on the radio a lot (that the CBs aren't doing their job - that they should be driving the receiver toward the sidelines), but that is the exact opposite of my understanding of the basics of the T2 for CBs. I've always thought & read that in the T2 the CBs are supposed to jam the WR and then force them inside, handing them off into the safety's zone or toward the mid-deep middle where the MLB should be lurking. My understanding is that the CBs are not supposed to let the WRs by them & down the sidelines. That also brings to mind that having #54 too close to the line is a big part of the reason the other teams are getting 10-15 yards in the middle. That is the MLB's zone in the T2! I think the success with the slants is because of what Babich is doing with the LBs near the line.

[swami]

The safeties are splitting the field in half, but I always thought the Cover 2 "handoff" between the CB and the safety was supposed to happen near the sideline. The safeties' natural momentum is taking them that way. Plus, if the CBs funnel their man inside, he has space and is in a good position to catch the ball. The MLB vacates the middle of the field and the OLBs are in a backpedal, thus, a WR running across the middle will have his body positioned to make the catch.

If you force them to the outside, the QB has to put the ball in a small window over the CB but under the safety and has to get just the right amount of air on the pass to avoid getting his WR killed. It just seems like you're forcing a much tougher throw when you play inside leverage.

I think both techniques can be used. People always talk about the main weaknesses of a cover 2 being the middle of the field (by TEs) and the intermediate sideline route. I think you can try to limit one by playing inside/outside technique, but it seems like it would be hard to eliminate both. If that's the case, though, I'd prefer to eliminate the short passes over the middle.

[gaba]

I'd prefer to just eliminate the Tampa2.

[DaDitka]

IE is right; The Cover Two is designed to funnel the Wide outs to the inside. Sure there are some soft spots and you can get a pretty easy gain, but if a wide out beats the CB to the outside it's probably 6 pts.

It really is as easy as they fact that we are not getting pressure causes everything...

#1. Urlacher - The lack of pressure from the front four has killed him in three different ways. The mug look is making it easier for WRs in the slot or TE to get behind him. Instead of double or tripling Tommie, opponents are having a much easier time getting a blocker on Brian, and finally one of the most frustrating parts is the quarterback having all day back there allows the receivers to stretch the field more creating more gaps by forcing Brian to drop deeper and creating more separation between the corners and safeties.

#2. That final point on Brian was also my second point overall. You’re putting everyone in unwinnable situations because they have too much field to cover. I was watching Playbook the other day and they were breaking this down and arguing Graham Vs Vasher. They said Graham’s high tackle total is primarily padded by tackles on receiver he run a ten to twelve yard rout right under him and then he tackles them after a decent gain. The reason Vasher’s stats aren’t as good is because he’s trying to jump the ball too often and the receiver ends up getting another 5 to 7 yards before Payne brings them down.

#3. It is the ONLY difference between 06 and 08. The cover two has always been a bend but don’t break defense, the difference is it has always relied on the defense making the “Big Play” before the opponent crosses the goal line. Especially when the field shortens and the ‘zone’ gets tighter. Think back to how many time the D use to create a turnover in the red zone or at least hold the opponent to a field goal attempt (which we also lead the league in blocks of).

Sure the D-Line isn’t playing good enough to run the cover 2 right now, but with HH and Vasher’s liability in coverage and Manning, Payne, and Roach’s growing pains, along with Browns lack of speed we don’t have the personal to completely abandon it. We’ve already reduced the percentage of time we run it, but you’ve seen how we’ve generally preformed on first and second down out of it only to give up a third and long when we shift back into it on third down.