View Full Version : Is it time to switch to the tampa 2?

Big D
12-16-2007, 02:25 PM
with how unimpressive this defense looked, if lebeau does retire do you all think we should switch to the tampa 2?

12-16-2007, 03:43 PM
At this point we do not have the personell for this change and it could be a few years before we are able to build the Tampa 2 defense.

12-16-2007, 03:45 PM
with how unimpressive this defense looked, if lebeau does retire do you all think we should switch to the tampa 2?

We need a line that gets pressure. We have not done a good job of getting pressure. I'd agree with you if I thought it would actually fix the problem.

I would entertain a mixture though...

12-16-2007, 04:20 PM
Man did we Miss Arrrrrrrooooooonnnnnn Smith

Sith Lord
12-16-2007, 05:15 PM

12-16-2007, 06:26 PM
Its time for the safeties to not let a receiver get behind them.

tony hipchest
12-16-2007, 06:29 PM
no. while the 3-4 has staying power, the tampa 2 may have run its course. ironically, it was dungy who showed the formula to beat it every time in the super bowl last year.

12-16-2007, 07:25 PM
We don't have the personell to run the Tampa 2 defense.

We would need to get bigger defensive ends that pressure the QB, and I don't think we have the safties at the moment to play that style.

12-16-2007, 11:26 PM
It might not necessarily be time to switch to Tampa 2, but LeBeau and the D need to rethink some of their schemes.

Specifically, the "Eleven Angry Men" package the Steelers' D use on third and long situations needs to be reevaluated. As this site notes (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2007/11/02/ramblings/too-deep-zone/5700/) (third item), that formation is vulnerable to run plays. But that's supposed to be okay, since we only use this on obvious passing situations (third and long).

Not this game. I remember several instances where we got the Jags into 3rd and long but allowed them to convert with a running play against the "11 Angry Men".

After the first time in which the Jags converted against this scheme, I thought LeBeau would throw a new wrinkle to it, but alas. Later in the game, Jacksonville again faced third and long, and the Steelers again lined up in the 11 Angry formation (1 down lineman). Again the Jags were not afraid to run the ball, and they again converted.

It would have been nice to see what would have happened if the Steelers had instead only initially line up in the "11 Angry" formation, enticed the Jags to switch to a running play, and then shift to a standard 7 or 8 in the box before the snap to shut down the run.

This would have been analogous to a poker situation in which your opponent is overly aggressive and bluffs too much. When you have a big hand, it's good to occasionally feign weakness and induce him to bluff at you. When Mr. Aggressive fires his bluffs at you, you surprise him at showdown with a monster hand that will win an even bigger pot. Good way to mix up your game and exploit this type of opponent's mistakes and playing tendencies. Then in future hands in which you are actually weak, he won't be so aggressive in trying to steal the pot from you.

So in those subsequent 3rd and longs, the Steelers should have initially lined up in the "11 Angry" scheme, which is vulnerable to a run. This would entice the overly aggressive Del Rio and the Jags to run the ball at them. But this time, it is a fake 11 Angry and the Jags' run attempt gets stuffed.

Then if, later in the game, the Jags faced third and long, and the Steelers lined up with the "11 Angry" look, the Jags won't be so bold in trying to run against it.

With the Jaguars continually converting those 3rd and longs, I'm surprised the Steelers couldn't make some kind of adjustment.

12-16-2007, 11:57 PM
Yes, we don't have the personnel to run the ?Tampa Two.? Also, like every other scheme, the ?Tama Two? has its weaknesses. I have seen too many ?Tampa Two? defenses get manhandled by a physical running game. It happened to Chicago last year. I have seen it happen to the Colts in the past. Even the namesake of the Tampa Two defense, the Buccaneers were gouged a number of times by strong physical running games (the Bus did it to them a couple of times). I know we got manhandled today by the Jags, but this of course, is not the norm.

When it comes down to it, every scheme has its strengths and weaknesses; it's a matter of execution. I just like the flexibility of the 3-4.

steeler dude
12-17-2007, 12:09 AM
:banging:how come all of the sudden we are talking about switching to the tampa 2 ? the steelers are still gonna be a top 5 defense in the league ! what i see is not the defensive schemes we run its the none agrressive play /arm tackeling and little coverage on long ball by the safeties. until that gets fixed it dosent matter what defense we run imo ! we just need to win 1 game:dang::helmet:

12-17-2007, 09:45 PM
with how unimpressive this defense looked, if lebeau does retire do you all think we should switch to the tampa 2?

The way our defense have been struggling, I would be open to any new scheme. Our DLinemen keep getting manhandles in the front. They do ok against mediocre to average teams. But when they face good OLs like Pats and Jags, they falter.

12-17-2007, 09:46 PM
Steelers don't need to change the defense. They need pressure from the outside LBs. They haven't had a sack in 3 weeks.

12-17-2007, 10:01 PM
Steelers don't need to change the defense. They need pressure from the outside LBs. They haven't had a sack in 3 weeks.

With the exception of J. Harrison, our LBs performance has been less than inspiring. They are not just getting the job done. If the LB corps fail in a 3-4 defense, it's a disaster.

12-17-2007, 10:58 PM
If Tomlin switches the team to a Tampa2 defense, you're going to see a slow progression over a couple of years.

However, I doubt we fully abandon the 3-4 defense.

Look at the Pats this year...The announcers were saying they have played a 4-3 cover 2 most of the year....however to play the Steelers, they switched to the 3-4.

That's how we're going to be...versatile enough to do whatever we want.

Rhee Rhee
12-18-2007, 02:34 AM
no.. simple as that... tampa two needs VERYVERYVERY athletic OLBs and DE's... no offense but i wouldn't compare clark haggans with a lance briggs