Chalk Talk: Cover Three

[The Tris]

A good exercise might be to list and categorize what coverage other NFL teams primarily run. Just a thought.

[KDawg]

A good exercise might be to list and categorize what coverage other NFL teams primarily run. Just a thought.

I'd LOVE to.

But I don't have tape on everyone to tell you.

I could make an educated guess based on base alignments, but it wouldn't be accurate

If you have a resource, let me know. I'd love to do just that. Man that would be fun!

[SilkyDiamonds]

What do Balt, Pitt, GB, NE, Phi, Chi, and the NYJ have in common?

#1 they are all playyoff teams

#2 they are all top defensive squads

#3 they are all predominantly zone teams

#4 they all have been able to get lesser secondary men to become assets instead liabilities

Ill say 3 of these teams have an elite corner (NYJ Revis, Phi Samuel, GB Woodson). Of those 3 Revis plays more man than all of them combined, he is superior instinctually and athlectically to almost any receiver he faces. Beyond that though it allows Rex Ryan to build complex zones around what Revis does. The Jets are able to nullify the best receiver on a team and now with his other 10 players he can concoct exotic ways to apply pressure 10 on 9 essentially through any combination of man/zone he wants.

Philly with Samuel uses their elite corner not to take away an elite WR but to create a deadzone/troublezone area to which they entice a passer to throw. (Something that essentially the Redskins try to do with Hall). Because of Samuels instinct, anticipatory skills, and plain daring boldness, he often makes opposing QB's pay dearly for trying to throw into a window that the defense created for the exact reason that they want the offense to throw there as they believe Samuels will make them pay. Samuels does get beat by jumping routes from time to time (sounds just like Hall huh?) But unless the QB is Jay Cutler, he is essentially taking away a portion of the field from the offense. Again allowing his defense to do creative things with the remaining 10 players and space on the field. 1 of Samuels's unique traits that make him elite is his ability to in essence cover multiple men in a zone at once.

GB uses Charles Woodson as a Joker, a wildcard. He will line up at Corner, Safety, Nickel or linebacker. Despite his advancing age he is still a physically gifted player. GB essentially runs the Pittsburgh scheme, as their DC help create and grow the zone blitz with LeBeau in Pitt (guess who else has a DC from that tree?). The sole intent of the Pittsburgh Zone Blitz scheme is to be able to apply pressure without giving up coverage, allowing players like Woodson, Polamalu to1 play blitz from the esge, the next handle a TE in the intermediate zone, the next take a Deep 3rd of the field, the next cover the flats, the next, blitz the middle and the next spy the QB. These players become wildcards and the defense does not lose its ability to defend the pass. They are scheme- diverse. Landry would be similar though his coverage instincts are far below Polomalu's & not on the same page as Woodson's. He'd be joker-lite lol. Making the offense account for his whereabouts on every play. As opposed to man where the offense could dictacte where he would be positioned due to his man responsibilities. Thus placing the advantage of dictating back to the defense.

Baltimore with Reed does almost the exact same things as the above teams. They use Reed to entice QB's to throw to a window they want you to, because they know their player will end up making it a deadzone, one which he will make u pay and oft times its 6pts. He's used in a joker role as well, u never know when he will rob the curl zone, the hook zone, the Flat zone or if he will blitz and where from. Balty does use Reed in deep Middle zone more often than anything though and that should be noted. Baltimore has been able to get away with having non elite corners since McCallister was good maybe 6 or 7 years ago because their defense and its zone doesn't demand a elite level corner to be menacing. Yes that the same defense Ryan runs in NY now WITH an Elite corner and we see the results, its even better.

New England and the Hooded genius absolutely LOVE zone, and for many of the same reasons of the above teams. 1 difference is the Hoodie doesn't use a secondary man as his so called joker. The Hoodie loves his linebackers the be the guys to fill most of those assignments. But the hoodies genius could been most when he had Triy Brown a WR play Corner for almost half a season AND win a SuperBowl. Brown wasn't playing man, Brown was playing zone. It allows the Hoodie to not have to spend dearly for secondary players, he essentially does what Pitt, Philly and Balt have been able to do. Draft corners play them until the end of their first contract, and replace, never having to pay that big free agent deal. (Ty Law?, Assante Samuel?). The Hoodie understands that through the use of zone he can limit the liability his player is responsible for. All these teams address what seems to be your major issue Oldfan blown assignments. They do it with excellent coaching. EVERY team on this list has an excellent coach or had (Philly) to drill the fundamentals and responsibilities of zone.

Running a really good team that is predominantly zone doesn't happen overnight, it takes around 3yrs of stability at the coaching spots on D to establish, 2 or more secondary starters for 3 years in the scheme, and 3 years of replenishment through the draft to get a system in place. GB's system took around 2yrs and now its an elite system.

I didn't even mention Chicago, but the run basically the Tampa 2, and again the don't require elite defenders in the secondary because they aren't asking a guy to stay with an elite receiver.

Rather than be mutually exclusive a good zone team enhances its man coverage with its zone. Giving the offense a changeup like in baseball when a pitcher throws flames for 6 str8 pitches then a changeup can fool an opponent. They both have their places

[KDawg]

Outstanding post, Silky.

You're quickly becoming one of my favorite posters.

[The Tris]

I'd LOVE to.

But I don't have tape on everyone to tell you.

I could make an educated guess based on base alignments, but it wouldn't be accurate

If you have a resource, let me know. I'd love to do just that. Man that would be fun!

The only way I have been able to find out what a team currently runs is by googling each team with "defensive scheme" or "coverage scheme". From there you can get some videos, and usually it will pop up a beat writers article discussing what their team is running. (Which is how I determined that Cincy was using a Cover 3...) There's no short cut, and without an All-22 angle, tough to tell some times.

I'm happy to start if people want to contribute

Here's the NFC East:

Cowboys: Rob Ryan: 3-4, Press-Man Coverage

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d814dfe52/WK-14-Browns-Defensive-highlights

(Asomugha would be a great fit in Ryan's defense. I'd bet thats where he ends up).

Giants: Perry Fewell: 4-3, Tampa 2

http://www.bigblueview.com/2011/4/25/2088666/the-tampa-2-and-the-ny-giants

(Pretty epic breakdown of the Giants first year in the Tampa 2, with multiple videos of how it was exploited)

[darrelgreenie]

What do Balt, Pitt, GB, NE, Phi, Chi, and the NYJ have in common?

#1 they are all playyoff teams

#2 they are all top defensive squads

#3 they are all predominantly zone teams

#4 they all have been able to get lesser secondary men to become assets instead liabilities................Rather than be mutually exclusive a good zone team enhances its man coverage with its zone. Giving the offense a changeup like in baseball when a pitcher throws flames for 6 str8 pitches then a changeup can fool an opponent. They both have their places

Good post, I mentioned some of the points you mentioned but you added very good examples:

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

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)

Also wanted to add some more points:

o Zone defenses are focused more focused on pressure then coverage.

o Zone defenses generally create more INTs then man because the defenders see the ball more often; in man coverage the defender usually has his back to the QB and if they see the QB throw the ball they're usually all ready beat.

[Oldfan]

Silky says ~ What do Balt, Pitt, GB, NE, Phi, Chi, and the NYJ have in common?

#1 they are all playyoff teams

#2 they are all top defensive squads

#3 they are all predominantly zone teams

#4 they all have been able to get lesser secondary men to become assets instead liabilities

Do you think it's a good idea for Mike Shanahan to try to copy Pittsburgh's success with the 34? I don't. I think it's a dumb idea.

Do you think the fact that the top teams in the NFL are predominantly zone teams is a good reason for the Redskins to do it too? I don't. For me, it's another reason we should not be a zone team.

All the top teams in the league were running the football to achieve ball control when Bill Walsh did it with a combination of pass and run.

All the top teams in the league were running a two-back set when Gibbs went to the one back.

All the top teams in the league had their QB under center for 95% of their passing game when Tom Moore put Peyton in the Shotgun for half of his passes.

I want the Redskins to be innovative on offense and defense. "Innovative" to me means sound but different than the other 31 teams. I want our opponents to have to spend extra time preparing because we don't do things like everybody else.

Running a really good team that is predominantly zone doesn't happen overnight, it takes around 3yrs of stability at the coaching spots on D to establish, 2 or more secondary starters for 3 years in the scheme, and 3 years of replenishment through the draft to get a system in place. GB's system took around 2yrs and now its an elite system.

What you are telling me is that the defense you are advocating is too complicated for today's NFL. Given the roster turnover and the high rate of injuries to DBs, you will never get close to 11 men on the field with three years experience in the scheme. Your rookies need much more time to make a contribution.

[darrelgreenie]

Oldfan-

Here my reasons against playing heavy man as opposed to heavy zone:

Man also creates fewer INTs then zone.

Running man requires top level coverage ability to be effective.

It means every memeber of the secondary and LBs corps must be able to match-up man-to-man every snap, then they must blanket their receiver to either force the QB to check down or make a difficult throw or be in position to break up the pass.

Without playing 2 deep safeties (Cover 2 man under) it means at least 1 receiver won't have deep help.

Playing heavy cover 1 or cover 0 is a danger proposition and cover 2 Man under limits the ability to play the run.

Man is also very suseptible to play action.

Man is very suseptible to pick plays/rub routes and drag routes.

Playing man snap after snap is predictable and will open the defense up to exploited.

[KDawg]

Oldfan-

Here my reasons against playing heavy man as opposed to heavy zone:

Man also creates fewer INTs then zone.

Running man requires top level coverage ability to be effective.

It means every memeber of the secondary and LBs corps must be able to match-up man-to-man every snap, then they must blanket their receiver to either force the QB to check down or make a difficult throw or be in position to break up the pass.

Without playing 2 deep safeties (Cover 2 man under) it means at least 1 receiver won't have deep help.

Playing heavy cover 1 or cover 0 is a danger proposition and cover 2 Man under limits the ability to play the run.

Man is also very suseptible to play action.

Man is very suseptible to pick plays/rub routes and drag routes.

Playing man snap after snap is predictable and will open the defense up to exploited.

This is the same thing I've been saying. Agreed.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Do you think it's a good idea for Mike Shanahan to try to copy Pittsburgh's success with the 34? I don't. I think it's a dumb idea.

Do you think the fact that the top teams in the NFL are predominantly zone teams is a good reason for the Redskins to do it too? I don't. For me, it's another reason we should not be a zone team.

All the top teams in the league were running the football to achieve ball control when Bill Walsh did it with a combination of pass and run.

All the top teams in the league were running a two-back set when Gibbs went to the one back.

All the top teams in the league had their QB under center for 95% of their passing game when Tom Moore put Peyton in the Shotgun for half of his passes.

I want the Redskins to be innovative on offense and defense. "Innovative" to me means sound but different than the other 31 teams. I want our opponents to have to spend extra time preparing because we don't do things like everybody else.

You're thinking in strokes that are perhaps a bit too broad. Simply going against the grain for the sake of being different is not a recipe for success nor is it an indicator of innovation. All of the guys you mentioned added their own wrinkles to pre-existing concepts and adapted their schemes to better suit the strength of their personnel. They did not completely re-invent the game or strive to be different for the sake of difference from the outset.

If you really wanted us to be innovative you wouldn't want to see any concepts thrown out altogether, you'd want to see them adapted and blended together into something slightly different.

[Oldfan]

DG writes ~ Oldfan- Here my reasons against playing heavy man as opposed to heavy zone:

Man also creates fewer INTs then zone.

This might be true if the DBs can't cover and don't have good ball skills. I wouldn't plan on having guys like that.

Running man requires top level coverage ability to be effective.

Obviously. So, you'd need to find good personnel and good coaches who can teach those skills.

It means every memeber of the secondary and LBs corps must be able to match-up man-to-man every snap, then they must blanket their receiver to either force the QB to check down or make a difficult throw or be in position to break up the pass.

Nah. You are exaggerating the degree of difficulty.

If the QB is lucky, he'll have three seconds to find the open man with his friends and foes flailing around the pocket. Then all he has to do is throw the pass accurately with near-perfect timing.

If the QB can read coverages. It's much easier to anticipate that your TE will be finding the soft spot in the zone, for example.

Without playing 2 deep safeties (Cover 2 man under) it means at least 1 receiver won't have deep help.

That's better than having the opponent's best receiver running free because someone missed their zone assignment.

Man is also very suseptible to play action. Man is very suseptible to pick plays/rub routes and drag routes.

Zones have soft spots to exploit.

Playing man snap after snap is predictable and will open the defense up to exploited.

The most predictable offense I've ever seen was Lombardi's Packer offense.

The most dominant offense I've ever seen was Lombardi's Packer offense.

The point: if you play your scheme well enough predictability doesn't matter.

Sonny Jurgensen said that Vince was the only coach he ever had who tried to simplify the game. All the others worked at making it more complex. Simplicity and repetition. Those were Lombardi's things.

When everybody else is going exotic with zone coverages, we should be playing man-to-man -- and playing it better than any team has in the history of the game. We'd be the only team doing it -- which would require OCs to play a different game when they play us.

---------- Post added May-26th-2011 at 06:30 PM ----------

You're thinking in strokes that are perhaps a bit too broad. Simply going against the grain for the sake of being different is not a recipe for success nor is it an indicator of innovation. All of the guys you mentioned added their own wrinkles to pre-existing concepts and adapted their schemes to better suit the strength of their personnel. They did not completely re-invent the game or strive to be different for the sake of difference from the outset.

You created a strawman here: "Simply going against the grain for the sake of being different is not a recipe for success nor is it an indicator of innovation." In the remarks you quoted I wrote: "Innovative" to me means sound but different than the other 31 teams.

[s0crates]

Obviously both man and zone have advantages and disadvantages. You folks have done a nice job hashing this out.

As such, I think it a bit foolish to advocate exclusively playing one type of coverage. You have to mix it up.

[darrelgreenie]

This might be true if the DBs can't cover and don't have good ball skills. I wouldn't plan on having guys like that.

No, its pretty much universally accepted that zone defenses are more conducive to INTs because the defenders get to see the ball.

Conversely man defenses are thought to produce more stops.

Obviously. So, you'd need to find good personnel and good coaches who can teach those skills.

This is gonna be the major difficulty it running heavy doses of man.

There simply aren't that many top level cover CBs and LBs.

Nah. You are exaggerating the degree of difficulty.

How so? In a strict man scheme everyone has to be able to cover or a team will find there best match-up and kill you with.

Wether its a WR, TE or RB the DBs and LBs better have some lock down coverage.

If the QB is lucky, he'll have three seconds to find the open man with his friends and foes flailing around the pocket. Then all he has to do is throw the pass accurately with near-perfect timing.

Short of having the best coverage defense in the league if offense know they're getting man with certainity they run plays that get open against man.

Without a change up to some zone you're making it easy on the QB/offense.

Zone defenses are better at dictating to the offense where the ball will go.

If the QB can read coverages. It's much easier to anticipate that your TE will be finding the soft spot in the zone, for example.

Yeah, but only if the QB knows exactly what look they're gonna get.

A key to the success of zones defenses is the deception and multiplicity.

What they show pre-snap isn't gonna be what they get post snap.

That's better than having the opponent's best receiver running free because someone missed their zone assignment.

You could do this for any defense.

'Well its better then the CBs not biting on doubles moves or its better then a DB getting beat deep on a vertical route'

When everybody else is going exotic with zone coverages, we should be playing man-to-man -- and playing it better than any team has in the history of the game. We'd be the only team doing it -- which would require OCs to play a different game when they play us.

The Raiders have been doing this for years they not only run a man heavy defense its a press man defense.

They have the one of the best CBs in the league.

But, while Nnamdi was shutting down Tana, Fred Davis was catching 2 TDs against their less capable man coverage LBs.

[Oldfan]

...As such, I think it a bit foolish to advocate exclusively playing one type of coverage. You have to mix it up.

Saying that "you have to mix it up" assumes that it is better to do A and B even if it means that you can't be as proficient as if you would be by concentrating on either A or B. I don't see how you can call it "foolish" that others would not make that assumption.

[s0crates]

Saying that "you have to mix it up" assumes that it is better to do A and B even if it means that you can't be as proficient as if you would be by concentrating on either A or B. I don't see how you can call it "foolish" that others would not make that assumption.

I think you misunderstand my assumption, which is fair because I did not make it clear. To be clear: I do not assume (A and is necessarily the case. I assume that inasmuch as different situations call for different strategies, you should employ different strategies. What I am saying is that if strategy A has one set of advantages and disadvantages, and strategy B has a different set of advantages and disadvantages, then we should utilize both strategies to best suit different situations.

To put it in logical terms:

Assume: In situation X, strategy A is better, whereas in situation Y, strategy B is better.

Therefore: In a particular situation X, you must choose (A or , and should choose A.

And, In a particular situation Y, you must choose (A or , and should choose B.

Therefore: If situation X and situation Y both occur, then an overall strategy using both (A and is advisable.

What I think is foolish is saying that either (X or Y) will not occur. Coaches match strategy with strategy. If you run the same kind of coverage all the time, the opposing coach will take advantage of it (as the situation warrants), and you will get burned. The converse is also true, you can take advantage of the opposing coach by matching their strategy with an appropriate strategy, as per the situation.

[Oldfan]

DG writes: No, its pretty much universally accepted that zone defenses are more conducive to INTs because the defenders get to see the ball

.

Your belief is based on the Bandwagon Bias then?

This is gonna be the major difficulty it running heavy doses of man.

There simply aren't that many top level cover CBs and LBs.

Wouldn't there be more if more teams were spending more time coaching it?

How so? In a strict man scheme everyone has to be able to cover or a team will find there best match-up and kill you with.

I countered that you were exaggerating, so you counter my counter with more exaggeration.

Short of having the best coverage defense in the league if offense know they're getting man with certainity they run plays that get open against man.

Obviously. However, if a team would concentrate on playing man, while most of the NFL is still primarily zone, it shouldn't be hard to have the best coverage team in the NFL.

Without a change up to some zone you're making it easy on the QB/offense. Zone defenses are better at dictating to the offense where the ball will go.

All defenses have advantages and disadvantages. Listing them individually as debate points gets a little silly.

The Raiders have been doing this for years they not only run a man heavy defense its a press man defense. They have the one of the best CBs in the league. But, while Nnamdi was shutting down Tana, Fred Davis was catching 2 TDs against their less capable man coverage LBs.

So, to counter this evidence, must I offer an example of a zone defense being abused?

[SilkyDiamonds]

The last primarily Man to man Defense to win the Super Bowl?

Green Bay Packers 1996

Correction that is WRONG! Fritz Shurmur was a strong believer in zone. We may have to go back to our own Redskins of 1991 as the last predominately man coverage defense to win the Super Bowl.

[Darth Tater]

I've been watching the Redskins since 1971 and we've ALWAYS played mixed coverages. I know for a FACT we played a hell of a lot of c-2 shells in the 80s (usually but not limited to a c-2 with some sort of man).

[SilkyDiamonds]

Oldfan in essence it sounds like ur saying if a pitcher concentrates on his amazing fastball and only uses it it he would be successful, because he never worries about, a breaking ball, a changeup or a diff fastball. Just concentrate on 1 pitch and he'll be unstopable?

That works in high school, middle school, grade school, hell u may get away with it in college. As a professional having 1 trick in ur bag no matter how much its practiced means ur out the league in 3 years.

Best pitcher I've ever seen Mariano Rivera has basically 2 pitches, fastball and a cut fastball. They work because one's effectiveness enhances the other. A leap of logic on ur reasoning would stand that if a team just concentrated on running and never messed around with that newfangled passing thing, they could be successful just running every play. In theory maybe, but its much like Ron Paul and his views, in theory they work we'll, in practice not so much.

Its been said and the more it is said the more determined u are to show that ur way is right, but running 1 type of defense solely, no matter how well played. Is disadvantageous. Sun Tsu once said in The Art of War, beating your opponent without fighting is the greatest of all victories, and the disguise is one a generals greatest weapons. Far be it from me to go against one of the greatest military minds of all of humantime. Maybe u feel greater in ur expertise in how to defeat an enemy than Sun Tsu, or Bill Bellicheck, or Rex Ryan, or Dom Capers etc. Man to man has its place I agree not doubt about it. But any team that exclusively uses man to man will ultimately be unsuccessful. Football is chess not checkers.

[Oldfan]

I think you misunderstand my assumption, which is fair because I did not make it clear. To be clear: I do not assume (A and is necessarily the case. I assume that inasmuch as different situations call for different strategies, you should employ different strategies. What I am saying is that if strategy A has one set of advantages and disadvantages, and strategy B has a different set of advantages and disadvantages, then we should utilize both strategies to best suit different situations.

To put it in logical terms:

Assume: In situation X, strategy A is better, whereas in situation Y, strategy B is better.

Therefore: In a particular situation X, you must choose (A or , and should choose A.

And, In a particular situation Y, you must choose (A or , and should choose B.

Therefore: If situation X and situation Y both occur, then an overall strategy using both (A and is advisable.

What I think is foolish is saying that either (X or Y) will not occur. Coaches match strategy with strategy. If you run the same kind of coverage all the time, the opposing coach will take advantage of it (as the situation warrants), and you will get burned. The converse is also true, you can take advantage of the opposing coach by matching their strategy with an appropriate strategy, as per the situation.

Your premise here is that NFL offensive coordinators use tactics X or Y which must be defended. That isn't generally true. The prevailing offensive strategy is to "take what the defense gives." So, OCs have a plan to attack zones and another to attack man-to-man.

[s0crates]

Your premise here is that NFL offensive coordinators use tactics X or Y which must be defended. That isn't generally true. The prevailing offensive strategy is to "take what the defense gives." So, OCs have a plan to attack zones and another to attack man-to-man.

In truth, my premise is an oversimplification to make my point clear. There are actually many more situations than just two (X or Y), and many more strategic responses to those situations than just two (A or .

In the situation you present, where the offense is "taking what the defense gives," the strategic response might be to disguise your coverages. A coach might try to catch the offense off guard by showing one defense, then switching to another. You still have to mix it up in this case.

However, I would not say that taking what the defense gives is "the prevailing offensive strategy" anyway. Some teams still try to establish the run, while others set up the run with the pass. Some teams utilize their short passing game as a substitute for a running game, while others try to set up the big play with play-action. I could go on, but you get my point. It is not the case that all offensive coordinators use the same tactics.

[darrelgreenie]

Your belief is based on the Bandwagon Bias then?

Just because you refer to basic football truth as 'bandwagon bias' doesn't make it less true.

Read any football book or ask any coach which wether zone or man coverages are more conducive to INTs.

It gets hard to have a discussion when you can't make simple concessions.

Wouldn't there be more if more teams were spending more time coaching it?

If being a great coverage DB or LB was only a function of coaching sure.

But, being an elite man coverage defender is more a question of physical skillset then a question of coaching.

(Also, most defenders would rather play zone because they don't let getting beat and if you play man its pretty much accepted that you're gonna get beat some).

I countered that you were exaggerating, so you counter my counter with more exaggeration.

You have to prove its an exxageration, just disagreeing or believe I'm exxagerating doesn't make it so.

Obviously. However, if a team would concentrate on playing man, while most of the NFL is still primarily zone, it shouldn't be hard to have the best coverage team in the NFL.

See above

All defenses have advantages and disadvantages. Listing them individually as debate points gets a little silly.

Its relevant when you're saying that a playing one defense in particular is better then every defense.

So, to counter this evidence, must I offer an example of a zone defense being abused?

I never said zones don't have soft spots, it would change my point in any way.

I gave that example because its speaks to the point I was making before: every defender would have to be an great in coverage for an all man all the time defense to work or else they can be lit up by a below average team that has a favorable match-up.

[fnkdctr(007)]

Here is the thing. You can even use hybrid man zone schemes to maximize personell strengths. I think that cover one, two and three ll have different strengths. The blitz and cover one and three are more vulnerable to screens and flat passes to fast backs. The cover two has gaps in the seems. Man coverage is vulnerable to post routes and drags but these plays also can exploit small windows in zones throwing between defenders which is why defensive players that can carry coverage through their zone is so valuable but can be exploited by flooding. However, a well coached d responds to flood plays while covering their responsibilities. Its all a complicated game of cat and mouse. The DCoordinator tries to put his players in the best position to make plays. Thats why tendencies and strengths are so important when you call a defensive game and why bend but don't break has become fashionable. Baiting offensive coordinators is key. When you gamble and what you show determines your success..........and the players toooo don't forget talent wins as long as it executes and has discipline.

:dallasuck

[jtyler42]

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

Why against a 2x2 four receiver set would you still have your base D on the field? Of course playing man versus a four receiver set with your BASE D is going to get burned.

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.

I agree that teaching a QB to read coverage is a very hard thing to do, but it isn't any harder than teaching a defender/defense to play a zone scheme. Motion, formation and formation strength, receivers release etc, are all factors in how a zone is played. For example you may come out in a cover 3 versus a 2x2 set, then they motion to a 3x1 trips set. In my experience we would check to another type of zone...So you have to have 11 players at all times that know the rules for that particular zone, and what you check to with motion, or formation change...

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.

I don't agree. A mis-step in any D will cost you equally...

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.

Why would it be a waste if he can do both equally well? We don't exclusively run zone, we do run man, we don't press b/c the corners we had other than Rogers simply weren't good at it, not b/c we scheme not to press.

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.

An offense with one good receiver can do the same against zone. It works both ways, a well schemed passing attack, can single out individual players in a zone, and attack them. Hence the football term "putting the _____ in a bind" (fill in the blank with, S, CB, or LB, etc)...In a zone you have to cover the territory/pattern read you are assigned or the D won't work, if the players on the backside of the D drift towards the flood side, the routes on the backside open up.

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.

I will give you the QB run aspect, but as far as draws, screens, or delayed runs are concerned, playing zone is worse in those instances b/c the defenders in the back 7 will typically take a step or two into their zone drops before reading run, allowing the LoS to be moved on the defensive side of the ball. Whereas with man the person guarding the RB can attack the run b/c he goes where his man goes.

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.

We don't play exclusively a zone defense, we play a lot of man as well, and when we play man I don't think that our DB's don't play press b/c of scheme, they don't press b/c they aren't good at it...Nnamdi could still press here, AND utilize his instincts, and ball skills in our zone schemes as well...

Oldfan-

Here my reasons against playing heavy man as opposed to heavy zone:

Man also creates fewer INTs then zone.

I've heard this said, but I'm not sure if it's really true. Can this actually be proven or do you or whomever this line of thought is attributed to have proof?

Running man requires top level coverage ability to be effective.

So does running an effective zone D. The Redskins D is evidence to this fact.

It means every memeber of the secondary and LBs corps must be able to match-up man-to-man every snap, then they must blanket their receiver to either force the QB to check down or make a difficult throw or be in position to break up the pass.

Does zone not require the same things? Even within a zone D you still have to be able to match-up with who you are defending. You still have to blanket the receiver in your zone, if you don't it's an easy throw for the QB, as you will be in position to break up the pass, or make the QB check down...

Without playing 2 deep safeties (Cover 2 man under) it means at least 1 receiver won't have deep help.

That's no different than in a zone D...For instance in a cover 3 zone D, if the CB gets beat on a go route, he doesn't have deep help. In a cover 4 zone, it's the same thing (ex: the NO game from 09' where we kept getting beat deep in zone D)...

Playing heavy cover 1 or cover 0 is a danger proposition and cover 2 Man under limits the ability to play the run.

Yes cover 1, and cover 0 are dangerous propositions, if you can't get any pressure. On the flip side, zone blitzes can be just as dangerous if the pressure doesn't get there (ex: GB picking apart PITT's zone blitz in the SB for large gains and touchdowns)...2 man under/zone doesn't necessarily limit playing the run, it didn't stop Bob Sanders, or John Lynch from being great run defenders.

Man is also very suseptible to play action.

Man is very suseptible to pick plays/rub routes and drag routes.

Playing man snap after snap is predictable and will open the defense up to exploited.

All can be said for zone defense. Neither defense is better or worse for any of the situations you've named.

No, its pretty much universally accepted that zone defenses are more conducive to INTs because the defenders get to see the ball. Conversely man defenses are thought to produce more stops.

I just don't agree with this premise. If you play with proper technique in man coverage you will see the ball, and the QB, and IMO be in better position to pick off a pass than if you were in zone b/c you are closer to the receiver.

This is gonna be the major difficulty it running heavy doses of man.

There simply aren't that many top level cover CBs and LBs.

Just as there aren't that many exceptional zone CB's, and LB's...You make it sound as if you can just plug anybody in and be able to play an effective zone D...like it doesn't require top level talent as well.

How so? In a strict man scheme everyone has to be able to cover or a team will find there best match-up and kill you with. Whether its a WR, TE or RB the DBs and LBs better have some lock down coverage.

The same can be said for zone. Passing offenses in todays football are designed to attack specific players/areas of the field against zone defenses. It's just as easy to scheme ways to get people open versus a zone D, as it is against man.

Short of having the best coverage defense in the league if offense know they're getting man with certainity they run plays that get open against man. Without a change up to some zone you're making it easy on the QB/offense.

Zone defenses are better at dictating to the offense where the ball will go.

Lol, again the same can be said for zone. If the QB knows they are getting zone with certainty, they run plays that get open against zone. Without a change up to some man you're making it easy on the QB/offense. What's the difference, it's the same thing both ways? How can a zone D dictate where the ball will go? In zone, not only are you further away from the receivers you are covering, but you're waiting to see what type of routes, and releases the offense takes to determine how/who/what area you will cover on that particular play (which is highly re-active), and also every zone coverage has seams, and windows that can be exploited b/c as a defender you are responsible for an area and not just one man.

You could do this for any defense.

'Well its better then the CBs not biting on doubles moves or its better then a DB getting beat deep on a vertical route'

You're right you can do it for any defense b/c CB's bite on double moves while playing zone D, and get beat deep on vertical routes while playing zone D...

The Raiders have been doing this for years they not only run a man heavy defense its a press man defense.

They have the one of the best CBs in the league. But, while Nnamdi was shutting down Tana, Fred Davis was catching 2 TDs against their less capable man coverage LBs.

I don't get what your point is here. Are you implying that if they played zone D, Fred Davis wouldn't have scored? TD's are scored against any, and every defense.

[Oldfan]

s0crates ~ In truth, my premise is an oversimplification to make my point clear. There are actually many more situations than just two (X or Y), and many more strategic responses to those situations than just two (A or .

Zone or man-to-man. That's a choice of A or B, or A and B, when defending the passing game. Both strategies are flexible enough to adjust to what offenses offer.

In the situation you present, where the offense is "taking what the defense gives," the strategic response might be to disguise your coverages. A coach might try to catch the offense off guard by showing one defense, then switching to another. You still have to mix it up in this case.

By concentrating all its efforts on man-to-man, and not splitting it between two strategies, a team might obviously play man coverage better than anyone else in the NFL. If that effort is good enough, it won't matter if it is predictable.

However, I would not say that taking what the defense gives is "the prevailing offensive strategy" anyway. Some teams still try to establish the run, while others set up the run with the pass. Some teams utilize their short passing game as a substitute for a running game, while others try to set up the big play with play-action. I could go on, but you get my point. It is not the case that all offensive coordinators use the same tactics.

The word "prevailing" means that the tactic is widespread. It doesn't imply that "all offensive coordinators use the same tactics."

---------- Post added May-27th-2011 at 04:10 AM ----------

DG writes: Just because you refer to basic football truth as 'bandwagon bias' doesn't make it less true.

Just because you claim it's a "basic football truth" doesn't make it so.

It gets hard to have a discussion when you can't make simple concessions.

Your claim is a common logical fallacy. If you expect your debate opponent to accept those, you are going to be disappointed often. Here's the fallacy I refer to as Bandwagon Bias in more formal terms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

If being a great coverage DB or LB was only a function of coaching sure.

Coaching doesn't have to be the only factor. Coaching doesn't even have to be the most important factor. To improve the player's coverage skills, it only has to be a significant factor.

(Also, most defenders would rather play zone because they don't let getting beat and if you play man its pretty much accepted that you're gonna get beat some).

Is this another "basic football truth?" I can't believe that DBs, if surveyed, would say they don't like the challenge of man-to-man.

You have to prove its an exxageration, just disagreeing or believe I'm exxagerating doesn't make it so.

Where did you get that idea? It makes no sense at all. It's even funny.

I gave that example because its speaks to the point I was making before: every defender would have to be an great in coverage for an all man all the time defense to work or else they can be lit up by a below average team that has a favorable match-up.

Every defender would have to be great only if every receiver is great -- which we know isn't true. In man coverage, I can assign my best defender to cover their best receiver. I'd rather not have Philip Buchannon covering Andre Johnson. And, I'd rather not have a big TE bodying up on my much smaller defender.

Zone is more deceptive than man. Thus, it's more effective with young QBs and dumb QBs. That advantage is more than offset by vulnerable softspots in the zone and its weakness in allowing the OC chances to manipulate and exploit matchup advantages with a bright, experienced QB.