Zone versus Man Coverage

[CrypticVillain]

I been thinking about this for a long time. It started with the Texans game when Andre Johnson scored that touchdown over Doughty late in the game. Then the following weeks my interests grew when Sam Bradford and the no name Rams receivers, the Eagles, and Packers destroyed us underneath.

Then came Sunday, Peyton just dissected our defense the whole game until this one particular drive.

PlayAction said the following in this thread about potential free agent moves next year:

I don't know about Buchanon - I think he's played much better man-to-man than zone and Haslett seems to like zone.

The particular drive I was talking about was the drive late in the 4th quarter when the Colts went three and out. We switched to man to man and Phillip Buchanan looked like a different DB out there.

I say that to say it is obvious that this secondary has players who are better suited to play man to man. I have saw Deangelo Hall and Carlos Rogers shut a WR down when playing man to man. It can be done. I know that people would then probably worry about the deep pass, but if we just leave a safety back there and generate enough pressure from the front seven, the turnovers will still come.

Don't get me wrong, the zone scheme does has it's advantages, but with the secondary we have, man to man should be our primary coverage.

Thoughts? Criticisms?

[Morneblade]

I'd love to see us play bump and run man to man defense. I think our corners are better suited for it.

[mossomo]

Manning and Bradford both picked the seams of the zone apart.

[gutlead74]

I would like to see more man free as well, however you must mix coverages. If we would have played man all night vs manning they would have scored 50. The trick is to make one look like the other and be diverse enough in mixing to where the other team can't predict and dictate which zone is being run or if man is coming.

[CrypticVillain]

Manning and Bradford both picked the seams of the zone apart.

Yeah I get that. The season being, we were running it too much. I almost cried during that Rams game when I could see that the WR was going to run a slant or a drag route and that they would get a first down off of it. Like I said the zone is good, but you keep running and the QB will eventually start to destroy it.

I would like to see more man free as well, however you must mix coverages. If we would have played man all night vs manning they would have scored 50. The trick is to make one look like the other and be diverse enough in mixing to where the other team can't predict and dictate which zone is being run or if man is coming.

Yeah, that is what I am trying to say.

[Botched]

I'd also like to see more man to man. Or at least less gaping holes in our zone D. It's frustrating to watch a receiver make a catch with no defenders within 8 yards.

[Maximus71]

It looked like on the last defensive series during the Colts game we played Man coverage and guess what... 3 and out!

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

It looked like on the last defensive series during the Colts game we played Man coverage and guess what... 3 and out!

I saw that too. Who knows what the Colts would have done if we did Man throughout the game though. They were expecting Zone on that last series and the sudden switch to Man caught them off guard.

[Dirt]

Andre Johnson's a beast, who's catching that vs just about anybody, the Rams don't seem all that no-name this year, and Peyton does that to everyone as well.

I will agree that Buchanon looked a lot better in that series, but I look at it this way: Our defense is aiming to be versatile. 3-4 in some situations, 4-3 in others...zone when necessary and man-to-man when necessary. It proved to be useful, although we have the colts to thank for going 3 passes. They were outcoached in that series.

In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. They'll put guys in man when they see fit, and otherwise, our defense has had us IN every game vs top 5 offenses. I think in time, possibly later this year, more likely next year with new personnel...this D WILL be versatile, and solid.

[Dirt]

I saw that too. Who knows what the Colts would have done if we did Man throughout the game though. They were expecting Zone on that last series and the sudden switch to Man caught them off guard.

Manning would have just picked us apart a different way.

[Dallascrushers]

yea those 3 downs late in the 4th were the best 3 plays or DBs made the entire year....shut them down .....was extremely impressed (Buchanon's play was sick on Wayne...whoa perfect timing getting the hand in there..right with him)

[nightbird]

I wouldn't overreact to one sequence.

For one thing, the players are saying we are generating more turnovers because we're playing more zone.

In zone, it's all in front of you, and guys can read the QB and break off in front of routes easier than in man, when you're trailing your guy.

Secondly, Carlos is much more of a zone guy. Was the same way at Auburn.

Same with our safeties. Kareem moore patrolling a deep zone, with laron responsible for a short middle zone.

They are suited to that stuff where they read the play and use their instincts to fly around and wreak havoc.

Then there are the linebackers. Do you want Orakpo and Lorenzo covering tight ends all the way down the field?

London is not a guy well-suited to it either because tight ends have such a big height advantage.

The bottom line is I think it's important to mix it up, keep the offense guessing as to what you're doing. We may have caught the Colts off-guard finally manning up at the very end.

But really, I do not believe for a second that we would have been any better having our corners and linebackers just trying to cover Wayne, Collie, Clark etc man-to-man all night.

[fullnelson9999]

Yeah playing some man would be nice, but you can't judge that completely on that last 3 and out. I'm sure that it caught the Colt's a little off guard.

The corners are definitely suited to play in man coverage though. That's obvious.

[ChampSkinsFanatic]

The particular drive I was talking about was the drive late in the 4th quarter when the Colts went three and out. We switched to man to man and Phillip Buchanan looked like a different DB out there.

Buchanon says he was very familiar with Reggie Wayne because of the U. Man and Zone both have their weaknesses and advantages but it seems like Haslett is always playing zone. So thats why you have a play where Andre Johnson is all alone with Reed Doughty and scores a TD.

[CrypticVillain]

I wouldn't overreact to one sequence.

For one thing, the players are saying we are generating more turnovers because we're playing more zone.

In zone, it's all in front of you, and guys can read the QB and break off in front of routes easier than in man, when you're trailing your guy.

Secondly, Carlos is much more of a zone guy. Was the same way at Auburn.

Same with our safeties. Kareem moore patrolling a deep zone, with laron responsible for a short middle zone.

They are suited to that stuff where they read the play and use their instincts to fly around and wreak havoc.

Then there are the linebackers. Do you want Orakpo and Lorenzo covering tight ends all the way down the field?

London is not a guy well-suited to it either because tight ends have such a big height advantage.

The bottom line is I think it's important to mix it up, keep the offense guessing as to what you're doing. We may have caught the Colts off-guard finally manning up at the very end.

But really, I do not believe for a second that we would have been any better having our corners and linebackers just trying to cover Wayne, Collie, Clark etc man-to-man all night.

I am not saying we should do it for the whole game, I am saying that man to man should be our primary method of coverage. You can't run the same defense all the time, I get that. But I want to see more of that bump and run coverage we used to run in 05 mixed with the zone now and then. I do agree that Carlos might be the only one who plays better in zone then in man. But he proved in that game against Dallas in 08 that he can line up one on one with the best of them too.

[MartinC]

I tend to agree our corners are better in man, the problem is we don't have the linebackers ton play man. You put any of them in man coverage and they get eaten alive by just about any TE or HB in the NFL. My theory is we are playing more zone to help cover for weakness in our linebacker coverage.