Its actually not a bad idea. But I always thought Tillman might work better as a free safety more than a strong safety. This suggestion might be a bit ahead of its time. Could be wrong.

I think the depth is adequate without him and I think Tillman is still needed at CB.

Tom S.

_________________
http://blog.chicagobearsfanforum.com

I wouldn't be surprised to see a few things happen in all this:


1) This is Mike Brown's last season as a Bear. With the durability questions surrounding him and the drafting of Danieal Manning this year, I think the stage is set for Brown to leave Chicago after this season. Sure he's an All Pro caliber safety when he's on the field, but he's missed 18 games the last two seasons and possibly more this year.

2) Ricky Manning Jr. will be starting at CB early this season. I don't think they ponied up the cash because they were happy with everything and just wanted a 3rd corner. Tillman has shown flaws in his game lately and will need to be replaced soon.

3) Michael Haynes opening his mouth will speed his trip out of town. If you didn't hear, this morning on MNMS he basically said Lovie didnt like him since the first game and when they got Wale - it was a sign of things to come. Of course MH doesn't want to admit that he's not a good pass rusher or run defender at the league level.

I have an idea that both Tillman and Manning have thier roles to play this year at CB. Tillman will be matched up with bigger WR while Manning will get the Steve Smith types.

That's just a guess. The CBs aren't even switching sides in the preseason so if they are going to be more flexible, they aren't showing it. But it seems like the logical thing to do to me.

Tom S.

_________________
http://blog.chicagobearsfanforum.com

In the Cover 2 system, I believe both safeties are essentially interchangeable, and the traditional models of “free” and “strong” are not very critical. The 2 safeties split the deep zone in half, with each guy responsible for his portion. The front 7 play a gap scheme while the corners seal off the outside.

That's true. But I don't think the Bears play it straight up that way. At least not all the time. For instance, they moved Brown from FS to SS two(?) years ago because they felt he was more suited to the role.

Tom S.

_________________
http://blog.chicagobearsfanforum.com

I am no defensive coordinator but given those assignments, why would you even bother to have safeties on third and long. Two extra corners should be better than two safeties when a team is going to pass.

You take Hillenmeyer’s ass out and bring in the extra corner.

Did some digging and found a pretty good explanation of it on ESPN.com

Here’s the link:

http://espn.go.com/ncf/columns/davie/1437187.html

I think that may have had more to do with them not resigning Tony Parrish and the uncomfortable realization that Mike Green was a piece of garbage. When healthy, Brown is pretty damn solid playing either role.

Tillman should be used against bigger WR's and not small quicker ones.

He played his best games versus Moss and other taller WR's and his worst against 5'8" Quicker Steve Smith

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

FWIW here's an article from today's Trib that addresses the issue:

--------
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com ... columnists

Traditionally, the strong safety plays to the tight end side of the field closer to the line of scrimmage—"in the box"—and is a more physical run-stopper. The free safety is faster and has better ball skills. The two positions are becoming more interchangeable but hardly could become any more important.

(cut)

Cover-2 is simply one particular pass defense, not descriptive of the overall defensive philosophy, which Smith describes as "eight men up gap defense." It puts a double burden on safeties.

In the Cover-2 pass defense, the safeties split the field and back up the cornerbacks. On early downs, Cover-2 is rarely the defense of choice. On early downs, one safety plays up to help stop the run because the defensive linemen are penetrating gaps, concentrating more on disrupting lanes and rushing the passer than on stopping the run. The strong safety, then, becomes the fourth linebacker.

With the strong safety up, the free safety must play the deep middle, which is where Manning's speed is designed to catch up with the likes of Carolina's Steve Smith.

----------------------

So there is a difference here. With Tillman's speed and athleticism, I believe he might be a better FS whereas the better strong safeties will be the bigger hitters that play stout run defense. An Pierson says, the SS has to be ready to become almost like a fourth LB.

Tom S.

_________________
http://blog.chicagobearsfanforum.com

It is a good article. I've seen it before. But it isn't exactly the way the Bears play it. For instance, they try to push WRs to the inside not the outside.

It also isn't nearly as comprehensive as it could be in terms of how teams attack it, particularly against the Bears. Attacking that dead spot beyong the CBs along the sideline is a major issue, though. That's how Steve Smith beat it.

Tom S.

_________________
http://blog.chicagobearsfanforum.com

That playoff loss was a coaching failure, plain and simple. People can rip Tillman all they want, but the bottom line is that Lovie & Rivera put him in a position to fail, and they also failed to adapt to the situation. Peanut had no business on Smith. Scheme had nothing to do with it. They could have been in a 3-4 and Tillman would have fallen down every time he tried to keep step with Smith.

That's only partly true. The cover-2 is designed to stop big plays from happening. Its basically a bend but don't break defense. So you are rght in that it was clearly the correct scheme to run if you have the correct personnel. You are also correct that Tillman wasn't built to cover Steve Smith and that was also a part of the problem (hence the signing of Manning in the offseason). But neither of those was my point.

Carolina attacked the scheme in a classic way. Have your reciver break to the outside as quickly as possible and run straight up the field. It then becomes a race between the ball and the safety over the top trying desperately to get to the sideline. That's how Smith beat them for two TDs.

Tillman's failure on the big play that he gave up was in not bumping Smith to the inside and delaying him at the line to give the safety time to get there. Thompson's failure was the same. Had they done so, the plays in question wouldn't have worked. But its tough to do, particularly when you're a big CB against a quick WR. The plain fact is that Smith attacked the weak area of the defense in the way that many teams try to do it in order to get the opportunity to score. That was my point.

Tom S.

_________________
http://blog.chicagobearsfanforum.com

Tom, I understand how the scheme works. And of course all teams running the cover 2 are running a slightly tweaked version of it. It would show an immense lack of creativitiy if all of these squads were doing an exact replica of Monte Kiffin’s playbook. You also have mentioned that we got off topic, that my point and your point are not addressing the same issue. I think they are. You say Steve Smith exposed the weakness of the cover 2. I say Peanut had no business covering Smith, and that’s why they got beat. Here’s where the two arguments intersect, though. Smith beat our safety because Peanut’s slow ass fell down at the line of scrimmage. Even if he hadn’t made the tackle, had Tillman at least made the slightlest play on the ball carrier, it may have been sufficient enough to allow time for the safety to cut the play off at the sideline. Probably would have still resulted in a 15-20 yard gain for Carolina, but Smith would not have run free all the way to the house. The fact that Tillman fell down right out of the gate allowed Smith to turn straight up field and turn the play into a foot race that no safety in the NFL would win. That’s why I say the scheme wasn’t the issue, it was a poor matchup call by Lovie & Rivera. Peanut’s inability to hang with Smith even 2 seconds after the snap resulted in our safety having absolutely no chance at making a play.

No scheme, offensive or defensive, is unbeatable. The Colts offense can be stopped. The Bears defense can be scored upon. This is what coaches get paid for, making adjustments, showing the ability to adapt and evolve. Both the Bears’ players and coaches looked very naïve that day, and it was frustrating to watch. And it was damn cold at Soldier Field that day, too.

Thought you were a season ticket holder, Coach? Or was that Dolphin?

No kidding? Man that's tough. This is really BS. I assume the $200 at least goes toward the price if the tickets but they still get all the interest.

What a freakin' scam. I'm bitter and I'm not even involved.

Tom S.

_________________
http://blog.chicagobearsfanforum.com

I grew up in Northern Indiana. When the Colts moved to Indy, my dad sent a request for season tix and a check. He got his check and a letter back from them denying his request because he lived in "Bear country."

At least he got his check back...bastards.

_________________

Spinnin' Bucket - What would your game plan have been for Smith in the Carolina game? I agree Tillman was a poor matchup but who would have done a better job?

If I remember right Seattle put him in double coverage and held him to 5 catches for about 30 yards. I don't recall who was on him. Do you think Seattle's success was due to a better match up or the fact that he was in double coverage?

I would have used Vasher. Not suggesting he would have shut Smith down, but he wouldn’t have gotten blown away off the snap either. If you recall, Smith had a nice game against the Bears the day they smacked Carolina in the regular season. He just didn’t find the endzone. I give their O-line and coaching staff credit for making the necessary adjustments. The protection was better, and Delhomme got rid of the ball much quicker.

...And he had all day to look for his targets because the Bears brought no pass rush to the party.