Tampa 2 no longer effective?

by VBJohnson on Jan 24, 2009 1:31 PM PST Comment 10 comments

What about this? From:

http://www.nfl.com/kickoff/story?id=09000d5d8020c007&template=with-video&confirm=true

So, the Tampa 2 scheme is getting ready for a big change in the NFL this season. One team that regularly gets described as a "Tampa 2" team hardly ever plays the coverage anymore. After I watch some of the late-season game tapes from 2006, I asked the coach what happened to his famous coverage. "Can't play it anymore," he said. "It lost its competitive edge from overuse."

Sounds to me like the Tampa 2 is being phased out around the league as a core defense.

A place to bury strangers.

0 recs | Comment 10 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

NFL.com is the last place I'd go for serious analysis.

by BrianL on Jan 24, 2009 2:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I saw a similar article in the NFP about this, I sense a meme forming

obviously you don’t want to use a crappy defense, but the upshot is that Tampa 2 style players will probably be undervalued now. Really interesting to see how the Hawks D reshapes itself now and in the draft.

by Will Kier on Jan 24, 2009 2:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd be interested in seeing if perhaps DVOA can back up what NFP suggests about the Tampa 2

I have no idea if that can be done, though.

by BrianL on Jan 24, 2009 2:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I read the same think and was trying to find it again...

by Misfit74 on Jan 24, 2009 9:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Can you demonstrate

what you are saying by providing an argument against the article? Pardon me for saying, buy your statement is a version of argument by authority or ad hominem., take your pick.

by VBJohnson on Jan 24, 2009 2:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

NFL.com is mostly fluff media that doesn't typically focus on serious analysis.

While not as bad as the MLB’s official site, it has the same problem. My problem is that it’s a league-owned site and doesn’t have a lot of incentive to be objective at all times.

Notice that I didn’t disagree with the idea that the Tampa 2 may no longer be effective. I simply don’t put a lot of weight into NFL.com articles.

by BrianL on Jan 24, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The article has reasonable sounding conjectures

to support it’s conclusion. If they are faulty or weak then you or someone else knowledgable should be able to tear it apart, so how much we trust or distrust the source doesn’t matter.

by VBJohnson on Jan 24, 2009 2:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, there is the issue that this article was posted over a year ago

and uses a single game as a large part of the argument. A more current article would be more helpful. Has the Tampa 2 been used less since this article was written? Has it really become less effective in that time?

This article poses an interesting question, but it doesn’t do much to prove or disprove that the Tampa 2 doesn’t work anymore.

by BrianL on Jan 24, 2009 3:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs