Chalk Talk: Cover Three

[KDawg]

The question CB raised, and I follow up on is: Should it be a part of today's game?

Undoubtedly. No question. No hesitation. Yes.

[Oldfan]

This is a chess game, Oldfan. The OC can find creative ways to take back the man advantage but the DC can also find ways to foil the OC's plans.

How would the OC do that against man coverage? He could use a man to pick off a defender, but that's illegal. He runs the risk of a penalty.

I would say that zone-based defenses add a level of complexity and depth to the game that man coverage cannot. As such, I can't see why it shouldn't be part of today's game.

I've just given you two reasons.

That would also hurt Landry, who has never been a particularly stellar man cover safety.

As with any defender, it depends on who he has to cover. Playing man coverage, the DC makes that choice.

---------- Post added May-25th-2011 at 07:40 PM ----------

Undoubtedly. No question. No hesitation. Yes.

I'm still waiting for reasons to support that opinion.

[Enter Apotheosis]

How would the OC do that against man coverage? He could use a man to pick off a defender, but that's illegal. He runs the risk of a penalty.

A natural pick created by route combinations that cause congestion for defenders without intentionally running a man into them is not illegal and a well-coached team will not draw a flag there.

I've just given you two reasons.

They weren't very good reasons by my estimation.

As with any defender, it depends on who he has to cover. Playing man coverage, the DC makes that choice.

We've seen Landry struggle against all manner of receiving threat. Hell, Jason Witten has flat out burned him on a pattern despite LaRon being the supposedly superior athlete. You could stick him on a blocking TE or a FB but then you're just wasting his play-making ability.

[SpacePenguin]

A natural pick created by route combinations that cause congestion for defenders without intentionally running a man into them is not illegal and a well-coached team will not draw a flag there.

Actually, a lot of the more spread infuenced offenses do this regularly vs teams that like to run man. The Colts, Patriots, and Chiefs stand out.

That being said, I'm sure the Redskins would get flagged for it every time

[Oldfan]

A natural pick created by route combinations that cause congestion for defenders without intentionally running a man into them is not illegal and a well-coached team will not draw a flag there.

A well-coached defense won't let that happen. Whereas, it's easy for the OC to overload a zone.

They weren't very good reasons by my estimation.

We've seen Landry struggle against all manner of receiving threat. Hell, Jason Witten has flat out burned him on a pattern despite LaRon being the supposedly superior athlete. You could stick him on a blocking TE or a FB but then you're just wasting his play-making ability.

You're exaggerating. If he wasn't a decent cover guy, he would not have drawn the assignment to cover Witten in the first place.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

With absolutely no offence to anyone else, as there's some excellent posters out there who contribute some fantastic debate (not least the one above me); KD's Chalk Talk threads still stand as the best series of threads I've ever had the pleasure of coming across on here. Concise, informative and educational; and they always bring about excellent discussion. That's what I love about this game. No matter how much you think you know, you never can stop learning.

Sterling work Sir as always.

Hail.

[SilkyDiamonds]

Running zone allows for the use of less athletically gifted players to contribute. Also not every version of Cover 2 or Cover 3 are as they are diagramed here. There could be 2 safties covering 3rds and a corner in flat and a corner in 3rds (rolled zones). In todays NFL every split second a QB has to determine whether its a zone, what type of zone and how its being organized allows the pass rush the nth of an opportunity to either disrupt, sack or hurry a pass. Playing straight man with a nediocre pass rush allows a QB to immediately diagnose the D, and then puts him in looking for matchup advantage mode. In that mode a QB need not be as precise (not totally true as with back shoulder throws). The defender's back is to the QB and thus not able to determine ball placement. In zone a defender always has eyes to the QB and can determine the possible routes/combinations by how far the QB drops. I.E. if the QB drops 3 steps he's not throwing a 60yd bomb. Zone coverage also allows for many different types of blitz packages from many angles without weakening its internal structure. Double teams can still be done with zone. Man coverage has its place in the modern NFL no doubt, but Zone defense does as well even moreso. Man coverage dictates that u have superior matchups on at more positions than zone does. In a league where that's just not very feasible, Zone offers a solution. 22 pairs of eyes on the QB is a lot better than 8 pairs

[Enter Apotheosis]

A well-coached defense won't let that happen. Whereas, it's easy for the OC to overload a zone.

The defense can't prevent congestion once the receivers are past the point where contact can be made without drawing a foul, so it still can and will happen. Talent and discipline merely reduce the frequency at which a defense is beat, it will not stop them from being beat entirely.

You could argue that the defense can counter by disrupting the timing of the play by playing aggressively (bumping at the line, pressuring the QB, etc.) but this carries inherent risks and is not a countermeasure that is unique to man defense. You can do the same thing in a zone to prevent offenses from overloading one area of the field.

You're exaggerating. If he wasn't a decent cover guy, he would not have drawn the assignment to cover Witten in the first place.

Possibly. I just believe that Landry is a stronger player when he's near the LOS and doesn't have man responsibility.

[darrelgreenie]

Chalk Talk: Cover Three

The cover 3 generally has a single high safety covering the deep middle of the field. He's responsible from hash to hash (dependent on where the ball is, but we'll assume the ball is in the middle of the field for this)

Once again KDawg good thread and good OP good overview of the 3-4.

I wanted to mention a few things that popped into my head.

Just to pull up a few rough diagrams from one of my old threads for illustrative purposes...

3-4 Cover 3 Zone:

o Force a checkdown and tackle.

Cover 3 is safer coverage that can be very effective provided the front 4 can get a pass rush.

A good pass rush will limit the QBs ability to attack the downfield holes in the Cover 3 and force them to check into the flats which are also a weak spot but if the defenders rally to the ball and limit YAC its not a bad outcome.

o Disguise is key.

Cover 3 zone concepts/zone drops can be easily disguised.

The pass rushers and coverage assignments can be switched and flipped.

A QB may think a hot read is open based on a previous Cover 3 look but they could get the same look with completely different zone assignments.

Cover 3 itself looks just like its brother Cover 1 (man) the similarity adds the ability to disguise.

o Cover 3/1 allows the SS to play in or near the box.

This can help hide a limited coverage Safety (Horton) or can allows for an 8 man box for a Safety play stout against the run and blitz.

O Cover 3 allows CBs the flexibility to play press or off and allows CBs to jump routes if they're smart or if they're aggresive behind a good pass rush.

o Dick LeBeau often plays Cover 3 behind his pressure packages.

o Back when everyone thought LaRon sucked he was actually a very good Cover 3/Cover 1 FS; his troubles and the secondary as a unit came in Cover 2 zone (because they rarely played it and weren't good at it)

[The Tris]

We'd be erasing DeAngelo Hall's impact on the game. He failed when playing man in Oakland. He's a zone corner.

Borrowing from some take in the CB thread ( which may or may not have had something to do with the genesis of this thread? ), Asomugha is not at his best in either a cover two or three.

The ability to exploit match ups with Landry in the box has me also leaning with you that we should be showing lots of base cover 3 looks.

With Atogwe's range, we now have a true center field FS who can cover hash to hash.

And to bring it all together, if we are dead set on signing a big name FA CB, Jonathan Joseph has excelled in Cincy's defense since Zimmer started running and aggressive cover 3.

[Oldfan]

Silky says: Running zone allows for the use of less athletically gifted players to contribute.

I was waiting for someone to say this. This is the rationale I've heard most often used to support the use of zone over man coverage. In theory, if you take a guy who can't cover well, and put him in a zone, he can do the job. I don't think the theory holds water.

If the player is smart enough to master all his zone assignments, he's smart enough to learn to cover. Intelligence can offset physical disadvantages in coverage. [Fond memories of little Pat Fischer shutting down bigger, faster receivers ran through my mind as I wrote that]

The defender's back is to the QB and thus not able to determine ball placement.

That happens more to defenders who can't cover. Darrel Green said he always tried to keep his man between him and the QB, so he could see both most of the time.

Zone coverage also allows for many different types of blitz packages from many angles without weakening its internal structure. Double teams can still be done with zone

.

I don't see any special advantage either way on these points.

Man coverage dictates that u have superior matchups on at more positions than zone does.

You don't need superior matchups. The defender just has to be good enough to stay close to his man and be able to defend the less-than-perfect pass. There's no defense against the perfect pass.

But, the major issue with me is that, because of blown assignments, zone coverage is likely to fail disastrously more often than breakdowns in man coverage.

[Master Blaster]

Good thread here. Just wanted to add my $.02.

In the formation given (Pro Formation), the defensive call has to be 3/1. If Cover 2 was played, the D would be outnumbered in the running game. That rolled up SS is more for run support. If you know a pass play is going to be called, you do not run Cover 3 unless there is some pressure coming in front of it.

Also important to note is that a lot of teams run Mixed coverages. Easiest way to explain this is one or two defenders man-up, while the rest play zone.

[Oldfan]

...That rolled up SS is more for run support...

My impression has been that defenses use Cover Three primarily to get eight in the box to stop the run.

Also important to note is that a lot of teams run Mixed coverages. Easiest way to explain this is one or two defenders man-up, while the rest play zone.

How about reversing that?

Gregg Williams told us in an interview in this forum that he spends more time preparing for how to defend the NFL's great WRs than anything else. So, I've been thinking...

How about having two safeties playing the short zones where the corners now set up. Their first assignment would be to jam the WRs... everyone else plays Man.

[darrelgreenie]

^^Sounds like another LeBeau set except he brings the safeties up and the CBs play deep zone behind them,

inverted cover 2

[SilkyDiamonds]

I was waiting for someone to say this. This is the rationale I've heard most often used to support the use of zone over man coverage. In theory, if you take a guy who can't cover well, and put him in a zone, he can do the job. I don't think the theory holds water.

If the player is smart enough to master all his zone assignments, he's smart enough to learn to cover. Intelligence can offset physical disadvantages in coverage. [Fond memories of little Pat Fischer shutting down bigger, faster receivers ran through my mind as I wrote that]

That happens more to defenders who can't cover. Darrel Green said he always tried to keep his man between him and the QB, so he could see both most of the time.

.

I don't see any special advantage either way on these points.

You don't need superior matchups. The defender just has to be good enough to stay close to his man and be able to defend the less-than-perfect pass. There's no defense against the perfect pass.

But, the major issue with me is that, because of blown assignments, zone coverage is likely to fail disastrously more often than breakdowns in man coverage.

The special advantage is being able to drop a NT into a curl zone, Blitz a safety/Corner from an odd unaccounted for angle, replacing his responsibilities with another pleyr, thus adding to the recognition time of both QB and line, and every instant that a player must spend on diagnosing a play while his opponent is proceeding with his assignment is an advantage. In the NFL advantages are counted in very small windows, tenths of seconds, inches, tenths of a degree.

Blown assignments are indeed the weak link to a zone, but so is a blown coverage in man. In a zone a blown coverage still has 20 sets of eyes locating the ball, in man when a guy is beat there may not be anyone else within 20yds of the play.

Superior matchups may have been the wrong phrasing, but having an inferior matchup renders man extremely vulnerable. NFL offenses are extremely sophisticated and they will find a way to force your weakest man cover guy to cover 1 of their better WR, this is a huge disadvantage to the Defense. Being able to have ur 3rd corner protect an area limits the amount of damage that he can be responsible for, in man his liability is unlimited.

If every corner were Darrell Green or Pat Fisher u could go man a lot more, but they are not. Typically zone corners are better spatial thinkers, and man corners are more athletically gifted (not all the time).

Forcing a QB to throw into small windows and being very precise is advantageous to the defense as there are maybe 6 QB's in the league who can do it consistently enough to make you pay. The first defense any rookie QB will see is a zone and he'll see tons of it, becuz it makes him have extra layers of thinking, not just reacting. It takes an NFL QB around 4-6yrs to get to a point where he can read and diagnose zones quick enough to be proficient (there are exceptions, and those guys are truly special QB's). Throwing into zone coverage is an anticipatory function I.e. the QB is throwing to where a man WILL be open. That is a very difficult concept for a young QB to get a grip on becuz he's usually coming from a place where his WR's were superior athletically or the scheme superior schematically that people were open by yards, where in the NFL they may only be open by a foot.

In the end there needs to be more than 1 arrow in a coordinators quiver, man has its place, zone has its and a combo does as well. But lining up 3 or 4 corners man to man every play againts NFL WR's every play is asking to be beat down. There are just more good receivers in the NFL than there are good corners. Essentially the corner position starts with athletic ability, but the upper echelon covermen have gone beyond and have reached a cerebral level. Zone in its essence allows for much more flexibilty, and a diverseness in which to attack the offense. Again every tenth of a second a QB must diagnose what is occuring, even presnap is a tenth of a second in which the defense is proceeding towards its goals. 22 eyeballs looking at the QB is preferable to 8 eyeballs

[Darth Tater]

Further, almost ANYTIME you here people talking about double or triple coverage, you can be certain that the defense in some sort of zone.

[Oldfan]

^^Sounds like another LeBeau set except he brings the safeties up and the CBs play deep zone behind them,

inverted cover 2

Does Le Beau have the safeties jam the WRs?

[Oldfan]

Silky: The special advantage is being able to drop a NT into a curl zone, Blitz a safety/Corner from an odd unaccounted for angle, replacing his responsibilities with another pleyr, thus adding to the recognition time of both QB and line, and every instant that a player must spend on diagnosing a play while his opponent is proceeding with his assignment is an advantage. In the NFL advantages are counted in very small windows, tenths of seconds, inches, tenths of a degree.

You seem to be overlooking the possibility of a player's assignment being changed whether he's playing zone or man-to-man. It makes no difference.

Blown assignments are indeed the weak link to a zone, but so is a blown coverage in man.

The weakness of zone is that there are more blown assignments.

In a zone a blown coverage still has 20 sets of eyes locating the ball, in man when a guy is beat there may not be anyone else within 20yds of the play.

Zone produces more blown assignments, thus more receivers running completely open.

As for keeping eyes on the ball. Aren't you overrating this angle? Seems to me the only way to keep your eyes on the QB on the receiver at the same time is to position yourself to watch one peripherally. The OC will try to get the defender's back turned whether in zone or man.

Superior matchups may have been the wrong phrasing, but having an inferior matchup renders man extremely vulnerable. NFL offenses are extremely sophisticated and they will find a way to force your weakest man cover guy to cover 1 of their better WR, this is a huge disadvantage to the Defense.

How does the OC force the defense into unwanted matchups in man coverage? I think you just pinpointed another weakness of zone.

If every corner were Darrell Green or Pat Fisher u could go man a lot more, but they are not. Typically zone corners are better spatial thinkers, and man corners are more athletically gifted (not all the time).

I know that what you are saying is generally believed. As I implied earlier, I think it's a myth.

Forcing a QB to throw into small windows and being very precise is advantageous to the defense as there are maybe 6 QB's in the league who can do it consistently enough to make you pay.

There are "soft spots" in zones even when played perfectly. There are no soft spots in man coverage when played perfectly. So, where does this idea of zone "forcing the QB to throw into smaller windows" come from?

In the end there needs to be more than 1 arrow in a coordinators quiver, man has its place, zone has its and a combo does as well. But lining up 3 or 4 corners man to man every play againts NFL WR's every play is asking to be beat down. There are just more good receivers in the NFL than there are good corners. Essentially the corner position starts with athletic ability, but the upper echelon covermen have gone beyond and have reached a cerebral level. Zone in its essence allows for much more flexibilty, and a diverseness in which to attack the offense. Again every tenth of a second a QB must diagnose what is occuring, even presnap is a tenth of a second in which the defense is proceeding towards its goals. 22 eyeballs looking at the QB is preferable to 8 eyeballs.

I have already conceded in a previous post that fooling QBs is the chief advantage of zone. But that complexity is a double-edged sword resulting in more blown assignments on defense.

The only coaching I've done was at the youth level where I tried to create schemes on offense and defense that looked complicated to the opponent but were actually simple for my players to learn. Seems to me that that objective makes sense at all levels of the sport.

One or two "wildcard" defenders on defense can make life difficult for the OC. Polamalu is used that way. There's no telling where he's going to be. That idea is just as useful in man coverage.

[KDawg]

How would the OC do that against man coverage? He could use a man to pick off a defender, but that's illegal. He runs the risk of a penalty.

If his receiving corps knows good route running, you can take advantage of man situations in a variety of ways... Overselling a route is one popular way. You're also neglecting the fact that in man coverage, not all match ups are the same. Andre Johnson versus a 5'10" corner isn't a good one versus one match up for that corner at all. And if the catch is made, that receiver is often isolated as other receivers are running routes away from that match up. Leaving that corner on an island is dangerous and a great way to get destroyed.

Zone coverage, there, though... That allows for multiple defenders to be in the area. If one defender gets beat underneath, there's generally a couple more who can at the very least make a tackle to prevent a huge play. This is an advantage of the zone scheme.

That said, man has its place in the game. And combo coverages (man/zone) are great as well. Those are the coverages that make it more difficult for a quarterback to read the coverage presnap/post snap.

In high school football, if you look at the defense pre snap it's not difficult to see where guys are going to drop. If there's a single high safety they're either in cover 0, 1 or 3 95% (note: 95% is a made up number. Truth is I have no idea about the percentage. But seeing disguised coverages is rare) of the time. If there's two high safeties they're generally in man, 2 or 4.

Once the ball is snapped its ridiculously easy to see what coverage they are the majority of the time.

In college and the NFL, it becomes a lot more complex. Disguising coverages is one of the only ways to not let a guy like Peyton Manning beat you. If you're in man all day, you're going to get abused by crossing routes. A drag across the field is one of the hardest routes to cover if you don't get a jam. That horizontal step that the offense gets is a huge advantage. They have a head start on acceleration and direction. And if you go for the jam and fail, you could get beat deep for six fairly easily or nickle and dimed all the way down the field.

Despite your hypothesis that zone allows for many for coverage mistakes, I disagree. While they both have the same amount of potential for mistakes, zone has a safeguard in that there are others around. Straight man doesn't have any safeguards... Once you're beat, you're in trouble. Now, if we start talking about a 2-under scheme, you start to see why the mix is better.

For those unaware, 2 under is where the safeties split to their halves and play zone, but all of the underneath coverage is man. It's a sweet scheme.

Also keep in mind that the iteration of cover 3 I gave in the OP is just the vanilla version. There's bump versions and many different varieties that I may even get into later in this thread

I'm still waiting for reasons to support that opinion.

See above

With absolutely no offence to anyone else, as there's some excellent posters out there who contribute some fantastic debate (not least the one above me); KD's Chalk Talk threads still stand as the best series of threads I've ever had the pleasure of coming across on here. Concise, informative and educational; and they always bring about excellent discussion. That's what I love about this game. No matter how much you think you know, you never can stop learning.

Hell, I know a lot about the game... And I know for a fact Joe Gibbs has forgotten more about the game than I ever knew

Thanks for the kudos. These threads are great because it seems to bring out some of my favorite posters... Tris, OF, dg, yourself and Master Blaster and Silky have done a phenomenal job... Amongst others. This is what all coversations should be like

Only in a perfect world, I guess.

Borrowing from some take in the CB thread ( which may or may not have had something to do with the genesis of this thread? ), Asomugha is not at his best in either a cover two or three.

Uhm, it kind of was inspired by that, I guess. But really, I like to inform people of schemes. But I guess that thread did plant the idea in my head, yeah. Too many people have no idea what/why you can't just mix and match secondary players on a whim

The ability to exploit match ups with Landry in the box has me also leaning with you that we should be showing lots of base cover 3 looks.

Absolutely. Landry is a monster in the box... That's his strong point. Hall is a monster in zone... That's his strong point.

With Atogwe's range, we now have a true center field FS who can cover hash to hash.

Regardless of how I feel about the move from a rebuild (read: youth) perspective, this is dead on. Atogwe can roam and play that hash to hash zone well... And once the ball is thrown he may be able to undercut a route in one of the traditional corners 3 zones.

And to bring it all together, if we are dead set on signing a big name FA CB, Jonathan Joseph has excelled in Cincy's defense since Zimmer started running and aggressive cover 3.

Agreed.

In the formation given (Pro Formation), the defensive call has to be 3/1. If Cover 2 was played, the D would be outnumbered in the running game. That rolled up SS is more for run support. If you know a pass play is going to be called, you do not run Cover 3 unless there is some pressure coming in front of it.

And coincidentally, this is why you see a lot more teams playing a 3-4 as well. Extra run support. And I'd agree with the latter as well. Cover 3 is easy to beat if the QB gets time. You want him to be forced to make a decision. Bring heat. But then again, as a defensive coach (I've been both an OC and a DC) I bring heat on nearly 100% of plays called. And it's always someone different. Maybe later in the thread I'll go over my favorite cover 3 blitz

Also important to note is that a lot of teams run Mixed coverages. Easiest way to explain this is one or two defenders man-up, while the rest play zone.

Yup. I'd say simplest way to explain that is 2-Under, though... With all due respect

Further, almost ANYTIME you here people talking about double or triple coverage, you can be certain that the defense in some sort of zone.

Eh. yes and no. Sometimes you'll double a guy in man, sometimes in a mixed coverage and sometimes in zone. There really is no rule as far as this goes.

Note to all: Thank you for making this thread freakin' awesome. The OP is meh, the rest is great. Kudos

[Oldfan]

KDawg,

You pitted Andre Johnson against a five-ten corner to show an obvious matchup disadvantage. But, if you're in man coverage, and you don't have a shutdown corner, then you double Andre Johnson. Moreover, the player assigned to double him is less likely to miss his assignment playing man full time than a corner like Philip Buchanon was when his zone responsibility required covering Johnson against the Texans this past season.

I concede that disguising coverage has some advantage in the NFL. However, it seems obvious to me that coaching one bright QB to read coverages wouldn't be nearly as difficult as teaching 11 to disguise them.

Your position that both zone and man have the same potential for mistakes doesn't make sense to me. You're basically saying that there's no price to be paid for complexity. You know that isn't true.

As for safeguards, you still have the free safety when playing man coverage. If the FS bites on a double-move, he's cooked whether his unit is playing zone or man.

In basketball, a well-played man-to-man should be difficult to tell from a well-played zone. I think that same idea applies to football. I watch Champ Bailey every chance I get. Once the QB releases, he will come off his man to defend the adjacent areas. That's the way coaches should teach man coverage, IMO.

[jtyler42]

Great thread as always KD!

We'd be erasing DeAngelo Hall's impact on the game. He failed when playing man in Oakland. He's a zone corner.

Hall is not necessarily a zone CB, he's just not a press man CB...Hall excells at playing "off" coverage, whether man or zone, b/c it allows him to "clue" the WR/QB and jump routes...His problem in Oakland was they are a 95% man, press team...

For those that think Nnamdhi can't play zone defense, where are you getting that from? His size, speed/agility, football IQ, and ball skills would suggest otherwise IMO...

While i don't question the zone D's place in todays football, b/c it does belong. I do agree with Oldfan that man D is my preferred D, and that it is tougher to beat than zone...

When a D plays zone, the offense can easily dictate/manifest to the D the favorable match-ups that it wants to create, ie: a WR on a LB, or a WR on a safety etc, by formation variation, motion, and route combos. Also against a straight zone the D will almost always flood a particular area of said zone, leaving players on the backside covering air while the O has a numbers advantage on the other side.

With man you eliminate all of that, except the formation/motion aspect. Also with man the D has the numbers advantage; if you rush 3, you have an 8 to 5 advantage, if you rush 4 it's a 7 to 5 advantage, both in favor of the defense. Another plus to man is that it forces the QB to make stick throws. In zone the QB has pockets, or windows in the zone to throw into. Against man he doesn't b/c every eligible reciever is covered, plus you have 2, or 3, extra defenders to roam the field.

This is just my take!

[KDawg]

KDawg,

You pitted Andre Johnson against a five-ten corner to show an obvious matchup disadvantage. But, if you're in man coverage, and you don't have a shutdown corner, then you double Andre Johnson.

And against a 2x2 four receiver set, you now put a linebacker on a slot receiver, probably to both sides of the field, rather than just one. Bad move. Or you put the FS over the top on Andre and leave the SS in man versus one of the slot guys. You now have a LB on a slot receiver to the backside with no help over the top. Great way to get burned

I concede that disguising coverage has some advantage in the NFL. However, it seems obvious to me that coaching one, bright QB to read coverages wouldn't be nearly as difficult as teaching 11 to disguise them.

Teaching a QB to read a coverage, no matter their intellect, with pressure coming and people moving is harder than you believe it to be. Teaching a coverage to a defense is far easier than teaching a guy to learn the offensive plays, all of them, learn the coverages, all of them and deliver a ball to the right location. Guys that can do that at quarterback are extremely rare. It's why finding a good quarterback is one of the hardest things to do in football.

Your position that both zone and man have the same potential for mistakes doesn't make sense to me. You're basically saying that there's no price to be paid for complexity. You know that isn't true.

That's not what I'm assuming. That's what you took, but you'd be wrong. What I am saying is that while there is a price for complexity, there is also a price for leaving a man on an island. One misstep costs you more in a man coverage than it does in zone.

As for safeguards, you still have the free safety when playing man coverage. If the FS bites on a double-move, he's cooked whether his unit is playing zone or man.

Unless he's doubling. Or if they go more than one guy vertical. Or run a post/fade route combo. Or we have a blitz on.

In basketball, a well-played man-to-man should be difficult to tell from a well-played zone. I think that same idea applies to football. I watch Champ Bailey every chance I get. Once the QB releases, he will come off his man to defend the adjacent areas. That's the way coaches should teach man coverage, IMO.

That has a lot to do with athleticism and not teaching. You can't teach a guy to be more athletic.

---------- Post added May-26th-2011 at 08:56 AM ----------

Hall is not necessarily a zone CB, he's just not a press man CB...Hall excells at playing "off" coverage, whether man or zone, b/c it allows him to "clue" the WR/QB and jump routes...His problem in Oakland was they are a 95% man, press team...

I'd agree with this assessment. But, he's also not great in man, having seen him in it from time to time the last few years scares me

For those that think Nnamdhi can't play zone defense, where are you getting that from? His size, speed/agility, football IQ, and ball skills would suggest otherwise IMO...

It's not that he can't... It's that he's so good in bump man coverage it would be a waste to have him play zone.

While i don't question the zone D's place in todays football, b/c it does belong. I do agree with Oldfan that man D is my preferred D, and that it is tougher to beat than zone...

And it's my position that a single misstep costs more in man than it does zone. So while learning a zone scheme may be more complex, there is more room for fatal error with man than zone. If I had a team full of studs that could do everything amazing, I'd also lean more towards man than zone. But that's never the case.

When a D plays zone, the offense can easily dictate/manifest to the D the favorable match-ups that it wants to create, ie: a WR on a LB, or a WR on a safety etc, by formation variation, motion, and route combos. Also against a straight zone the D will almost always flood a particular area of said zone, leaving players on the backside covering air while the O has a numbers advantage on the other side.

An offense with one good receiver can do the same against man. Furthermore, no one should ever be standing on the backside of the field all alone. Once a flood occurs, all defenders should roll coverage to the flood side.

With man you eliminate all of that, except the formation/motion aspect. Also with man the D has the numbers advantage; if you rush 3, you have an 8 to 5 advantage, if you rush 4 it's a 7 to 5 advantage, both in favor of the defense. Another plus to man is that it forces the QB to make stick throws. In zone the QB has pockets, or windows in the zone to throw into. Against man he doesn't b/c every eligible reciever is covered, plus you have 2, or 3, extra defenders to roam the field.

And by not having all eyes on the QB, it opens up the delay run game or quarterback run aspect.

This is why neither coverage is better than the other. There are too many ways to defeat both iterations. Man and zone.

[The Tris]

For those that think Nnamdhi can't play zone defense, where are you getting that from? His size, speed/agility, football IQ, and ball skills would suggest otherwise IMO...

No one said he couldn't play in zone. Just that zone is not his highest and best use. It is stupid to pay a player $15MM+ to play in a scheme where he is not at his highest and best use.

[Oldfan]

KDawg writes: That [Champ coming off his man to defend adjacent areas] has a lot to do with athleticism and not teaching. You can't teach a guy to be more athletic.

I don't agree that it's about athleticism. It's about anticipation. Any bright player can do it with training.

This is why neither coverage is better than the other. There are too many ways to defeat both iterations. Man and zone.

Just like you can rebuild and win now at the same time, but you can't do either really well -- you can play both zone and man defenses, but you can't do either really well. Your personnel should be chosen and trained for one strategy or the other.

[KDawg]

I don't agree that it's about athleticism. It's about anticipation. Any bright player can do it with training.

I think we'd both be wrong to discount the other side. Yes, it's about anticipation... But you have to be able to get there as well. That's athleticism.

Just like you can rebuild and win now at the same time, but you can't do either really well -- you can play both zone and man defenses, but you can't do either really well. Your personnel should be chosen and trained for one strategy or the other.

Can't disagree more here. I agree with the rebuild/win now mantra, sure. But not the zone or man one. I think you're asking to lose by sticking to one or the other. It's too easy to pick either or apart. The more you keep an offense guessing, the better off you are.