Chalk Talk: Cover Three

[darrelgreenie]

I understand that. What's your point?

Playing against a zone, a smart QB knows pre-snap where to go with the football

My point is that a QB only knows with certainity where to go with football pre-snap IF the defense is playing the same coverage snap after snap without disguise and without changing it up.

Not relevant. We're discussing the NFL which has smarter, better-trained QBs who do it as a full-time job.

It completely relevant because knowing where to go pre-snap isn't a major accomplishment.

They still have to (a) have guessed correctly and actually get the same look post snap as they saw pre-snap ( they still have to execute.

You mean like we discussed twice earlier?

I guess I have to explain the relevance here also.

You stated:

but the target is unpredictable since even the weakest DB in coverage will stay with his man most of the time

The target against man coverage is not unpredictable for the reason I layed out in the previous post QBs/OC will know/determine predict their targets either through isolation or through scheme.

I didn't read it the first time you posted it because you didn't tell me what I was supposed to be looking for. I've now read it and I don't understand why you posted it. Do you think it proved something relevant?

I've never heard of Lou Tepper, but I knew that some people believe that. I knew why they believe it. I told you earlier why I seriously doubt its truth. JTyler gave you the same reasons.

Really? You don't understand why I posted it?

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

I'm not 'claiming' it is a basic football truth it is in fact a basic football truth that you choose not to accept because it doesn't fit your opinion.

But, if a well respected college and NFL coach doesn't reinforce my 'claim' then I guess nothing will.

Man Coverage Disadvantages

Man coverage has its drawbacks. Although it usually permits fewer completions, longer gains often result. Interceptions are less likely. Man coverage is susceptible to isolation tactics by the offense, and blitz coverage is problematic..........[man defenses] usually have decidely fewer interceptions than zone clubs because their defenders are focused on receivers and not the ball.

http://books.google.com/books?id=3G-SXmmikMcC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=Lou+Tepper+man+to+man&source=bl&ots=nUKbKGEW_A&sig=F7WrHMQ2wnGZPb3U4cr7DFN8Ix0&hl=en&ei=C9jfTcnOMoHAgQeZ69z2Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Lou%20Tepper%20man%20to%20man&f=true

But hey, what does he know right?

He also explains other man weaknesses like: scrambling QBs, mixed up coverage assignements, and difficulty in disgiuse.

[Drew_Fl]

cool post. the cover 3 is definitely a nice defense that coaches can pull out of their bag to possibly get an easy turnover if the qb doesn't make the read.

[Oldfan]

DG ~ My point is that a QB only knows with certainity where to go with football pre-snap IF the defense is playing the same coverage snap after snap without disguise and without changing it up.

Not true. Read Matt Bowen's explanation of how easy it was for Peyton to know presnap where to go with the football.

It completely relevant because knowing where to go pre-snap isn't a major accomplishment.

They still have to (a) have guessed correctly and actually get the same look post snap as they saw pre-snap ( they still have to execute.

That might be a significant problem for a high school QB. It's not that difficult for a smart pro QB. Once again, read the Bowen explanation. It makes sense if you understand zone.

The target against man coverage is not unpredictable for the reason I layed out in the previous post QBs/OC will know/determine predict their targets either through isolation or through scheme.

False. The windows are predictably open if the zone is identified. But, against man coverage, there's no guarantee that your receiver with the best matchup will be open or that your attempt to pick off a defender will work. Man coverage doesn't offer predictable windows.

I'm not 'claiming' it is a basic football truth it is in fact a basic football truth that you choose not to accept because it doesn't fit your opinion. But, if a well respected college and NFL coach doesn't reinforce my 'claim' then I guess nothing will

.

Pure baloney.

You Googled for some support for your opinion and found Lou Tepper, who was just fired from his job at Indiana College in Indiana, Pennsylvania, a well-known football powerhouse. It's a "basic football truth" because Lou Tepper wrote it in his book. And, as we know, everything written in books should be accepted as fact . Moreover, coaches never disagree on basic football truths. Besides, you shouted the quote in a much bigger font, so it must be true.

[MartinC]

I will give you the biggest issue I have with pure man in the modern NFL - the matchup that offenses can get with TEs and backs against linebackers and safeties. Having a TE like Witten, Cooley etc isolated against LB/S is a win for the offense and a real match up headache.

That's why I think hybrid concepts are really the answer to this debate. If you have a Revis/Green/Sanders type corner match him up in man on their best receiver and maybe man on the outside on the other side as well but run zones alongside that so you are not asking your linebackers to run with a TE or back they simply can't cover on a consistent basis.

[Oldfan]

Martin writes: I will give you the biggest issue I have with pure man in the modern NFL - the matchup that offenses can get with TEs and backs against linebackers and safeties. Having a TE like Witten, Cooley etc isolated against LB/S is a win for the offense and a real match up headache.

I'll agree that most teams don't seem to have players who can match up with the best TEs in the NFL. When Sean Taylor was drafted, the speculation that made sense was that he was drafted to match up with Witten and Shockey. That idea was tried but abandoned. Maybe Sean didn't have the coverage skills. I don't know.

I can't think of a good, logical reason to explain why teams don't draft defenders who can cover tight ends. If you can find those guys to play offense you should be able to find their defensive counterparts.

However, Cooley makes his living finding the soft spots in zones. And I argue that he could do even better if he first bodied up on the smaller DB and then broke for the soft spot like basketball's low post move. As it is, if the QB is a bit tardy on the throw, the DB has a chance to break it up or intercept.

That's why I think hybrid concepts are really the answer to this debate. If you have a Revis/Green/Sanders type corner match him up in man on their best receiver and maybe man on the outside on the other side as well but run zones alongside that so you are not asking your linebackers to run with a TE or back they simply can't cover on a consistent basis.

Do you think finding a corner like Revis who can shutdown the league's best WRs is easier than finding a safety or LB who can shutdown the league's best TEs? Seems to me the problems are equally difficult.

In man coverage, the FS is your wildcard. Troy Polamalu could do what he does whether it's zone or man coverage. If the TE is tough to cover, the FS can double him now and then to give the QB pause before he throws.

Coaches in most sports tend to be control freaks. Zone gives DCs more control. I honestly think that's why it's popular.

[Diesel Hog]

I'll agree that most teams don't seem to have players who can match up with the best TEs in the NFL. When Sean Taylor was drafted, the speculation that made sense was that he was drafted to match up with Witten and Shockey. That idea was tried but abandoned. Maybe Sean didn't have the coverage skills. I don't know.

I can't think of a good, logical reason to explain why teams don't draft defenders who can cover tight ends. If you can find those guys to play offense you should be able to find their defensive counterparts.

However, Cooley makes his living finding the soft spots in zones. And I argue that he could do even better if he first bodied up on the smaller DB and then broke for the soft spot like basketball's low post move. As it is, if the QB is a bit tardy on the throw, the DB has a chance to break it up or intercept.

Do you think finding a corner like Revis who can shutdown the league's best WRs is easier than finding a safety or LB who can shutdown the league's best TEs? Seems to me the problems are equally difficult.

In man coverage, the FS is your wildcard. Troy Polamalu could do what he does whether it's zone or man coverage. If the TE is tough to cover, the FS can double him now and then to give the QB pause before he throws.

Coaches in most sports tend to be control freaks. Zone gives DCs more control. I honestly think that's why it's popular.

What about LB's like Von Miller? He's quick and agile, and seems like that type of player would match well against a TE. I have no idea though, but it's seems like a hard hitting and fast 220 pound LB would be able to handle covering a TE. Obviously V. Miller hasn't played in the NFL yet, but my point was guys similar to his style. I'd also think guys like Laron would match well against TEs, but again, I could be way off here (hence the reason I don't coach).

[TonyRomoProBowl]

Well, some people are actually much better in zone coverage. If you ask me, I'm more of a fan of zone. It helps guys out and doesn't leave anyone on an island. That said, if I had two shutdown corners and some decent coverage backers, I'd like man much more.

To be very vanilla, cover 2 is 2 deep safeties (strong safety, free safety) they play deep halves. Cover 3 has three deep guys (FS, Corner, Corner) playing thirds... Hence the "2" and "3" in the names of the coverages.

In cover 2, the corners will be playing the flats, in cover 3, they are bailing to deep thirds.

In cover 2 and 3 the SAM, and WILL have hok to curl zones. In cover 3 they have curls to flats.

The MIKE has roughly the same responsibility.

In cover 2, the weakness is a bit deeper than that of the cover 3. The cover 3 can be exposed into the flats... In cover 2, the flats are covered well by the corners. So any combo route that sends a receiver to the flat with a curl or a deeper out behind it is very difficult to defend in the cover 2.

The deep seam in cover two is towards the middle of the safeties.

i am a fan of zone more then man in High school, because in HS you have a lot of QB that take off and run, in a man coverage, you run the risk of having you best and fastest athletes playing with their backs to the ball carrier (QB taking off and running). Coaching against Friendly years ago when Hayden (Browns) played QB.....was a great example of how you just cannot play an entire HS game in man coverage.....you just cant.... My defense is a base cover 3 and we run a lot of combo coverages, but in the base and in most coverage we are cover 3 and i really enjoyed your chalk talk post Kdawg........nice job man.

I am working on some zone blitzes to put in my playbook for this season and have been working on a 4-2-5 for the first time in my coaching career. i like it alot and we can be creative with it and we can be very "base" in it......This year is going to be a lot of fun for me.....

but in the past i have been a LB coach in a 4-3 a def cord in a 4-4 and i have my own playbook that i will break out when i get my own varsity team as a head coach which should come in less then 5 years. In that i have a couple 3-4 defenses that I fell in love with when i installed them with a freshman team. two 3-4 schemes with different looks. A Ravens and a Jets package. i also have a 5-2 defense that i am "working on"

When i do get my own team and I scratch the entire system and staff i will be looking for people like you to join me....Passionate and smart young football coaches that will help me win and get to the next level.....small college!!!

Kdawg....PM me .....where do you coach at and how long have you been coaching?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Kdawg....PM me .....where do you coach at and how long have you been coaching?

No, he's not interested in the Dallas job when Garret screws the pouch. Whatever the offer is.

Hail.

[TonyRomoProBowl]

No, he's not interested in the Dallas job when Garret screws the pouch. Whatever the offer is.

Hail.

hahaha. unreal......

but its baby steps. i am 40 and plan to work my way into a college position in less then 12 years, and after 10-12 in college, I would love to end my career as a 60-65 year old first year NFL coach....

But since that is a dream that has about a .00001% of reality to it, I will stick to trying to work my way up to a small div 3 college by the time i am 52 years old. thats doable......as far as with asking Kdawg, its strictly curiosity and curiosity only......

[SilkyDiamonds]

Here's another excellent article on the Cover 3 zone, that's more in-depth about the chameleon nature that top defensive minds have taken it to. This focuses on Nick Saban's approach and is extremely insightful.

http://brophyfootball.blogspot.com/2010/08/nick-saban-cover-3-adaptation-ripliz-to.html

A quote from Saban on how he came to concoct this version of Cover 3 (pattern matching):

From Coach Saban, himself

When you’re playing a passing team you always have a better chance with split-safeties, but with all this zone read / zone option stuff we see…all the spread stuff, sometimes you’ve got to be able to play middle-of-the-field coverage to get an extra guy in the box.

We got to the point where, this is the reason that we do this, when everybody started going spread we couldn’t play 3 deep zone. This started with the Cleveland Browns, I was the defensive coordinator in the early 90s and Pittsburgh would run 'Seattle' on us , four streaks. Then they would run two streaks and two out routes, what I call ‘pole’ route from 2x2. So we got to where could NOT play 3-deep zone because we rerouted the seams and played zone, and what I call “Country Cover 3” (drop to your spot reroute the seams, break on the ball). Well , when Marino is throwing it, that old break on the ball **** don’t work.

So because we could not defend this, we could not play 3 deep, so when you can’t play zone, what do you do next? You play Man (cover 1), but if their mens are better than your mens, you can’t play cover 1 .

We got to where we couldn’t run cover 1 - So now we can’t play an 8 man front.

The 1994 Browns went 13-5 , we lost to Steelers 3 times, lost 5 games total (twice in the regular season, once in the playoffs). We gave up the 5th fewest points in the history of the NFL, and lost to Steelers because we could not play 8-man fronts to stop the run because they would wear us out throwing it

We came up with this concept; how we can play cover 1 and cover 3 at the same time, so we can do both these things and one thing would complement the other. We came up with the concept “rip/liz match”.

And of course the obligatory diagrams :

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

......as far as with asking Kdawg, its strictly curiosity and curiosity only......

'K, but we're watching you. Keep it light. One of our best man's secrets are not for enemy eyes.

Hail.

[TonyRomoProBowl]

'K, but we're watching you. Keep it light. One of our best man's secrets are not for enemy eyes.

Hail.

LMAO..........you are funny man....its all good. Just a couple HS coaches talking coaching that is it....LMAO!

[MartinC]

Do you think finding a corner like Revis who can shutdown the league's best WRs is easier than finding a safety or LB who can shutdown the league's best TEs? Seems to me the problems are equally difficult.

I think finding quality man cover corners in the draft is just as hard as finding linebackers and safeties who can play man consistently against quality TEs and backs. I tend to agree that if you have the athletes man coverage combined with a good pass rush is the most effective pass defense but it seems that finding athletes who excel in man is getting harder. That's at least part of the reason for the growth in use of zone concepts.

My theory on why it's getting harder to find man cover defensive backs out of college is that with the number of College offenses which feature running QBs college defenses are more and more based on zone as its murder playing a running QB out of man. College DBs just don't play as much man as they used to is my theory with no evidence at all to back it up!

[Oldfan]

What about LB's like Von Miller? He's quick and agile, and seems like that type of player would match well against a TE. I have no idea though, but it's seems like a hard hitting and fast 220 pound LB would be able to handle covering a TE. Obviously V. Miller hasn't played in the NFL yet, but my point was guys similar to his style. I'd also think guys like Laron would match well against TEs, but again, I could be way off here (hence the reason I don't coach).

In theory, it should be easier to find a defender to cover a good TE than it is finding a good TE because the defender doesn't have to have great hands.

I think Landry has the physical tools to handle a TE in the NFL. But, I think good defense is more about intelligence and willingness to spend the time in preparation (London Fletcher). I don't really know enough about LaRon to judge him fairly on the mental side of the game, but I don't have him pegged as a bright player with a good work ethic.

[darrelgreenie]

Here's another excellent article on the Cover 3 zone, that's more in-depth about the chameleon nature that top defensive minds have taken it to. This focuses on Nick Saban's approach and is extremely insightful.

http://brophyfootball.blogspot.com/2010/08/nick-saban-cover-3-adaptation-ripliz-to.html

Great article silky.

It gives a glimpse of how intricate any zone can be and how difficult even without disguise it can be for a QB to get an accurate pre-snap reads that matches up to what they get post snap.

Saban's quote shows with the simple eloquence of an old coach as he explains one of the reason I've been trying to convey for why all man all the time won't work: all your defenders have to better in coverage then they're offensive counterparts or as he said:

You play Man (cover 1), but if their mens are better than your mens, you can’t play cover 1

[Oldfan]

I think finding quality man cover corners in the draft is just as hard as finding linebackers and safeties who can play man consistently against quality TEs and backs. I tend to agree that if you have the athletes man coverage combined with a good pass rush is the most effective pass defense but it seems that finding athletes who excel in man is getting harder. That's at least part of the reason for the growth in use of zone concepts.

We're going to disagree on this. You think the lack of good cover skills caused the proliferation of zone coverages. I think the proliferation of zone coverages has caused the lack of good cover skills.

In addition to his physical gifts, Champ Bailey is intelligent. He learned to cover. Someone taught him to cover. If you intend to play a smart man coverage in the NFL, start by drafting smart college kids and give them coaches who can teach them to cover.

My theory on why it's getting harder to find man cover defensive backs out of college is that with the number of College offenses which feature running QBs college defenses are more and more based on zone as its murder playing a running QB out of man. College DBs just don't play as much man as they used to is my theory with no evidence at all to back it up!

Can you elaborate? Why is a running QB more difficult to play with man coverage?

Edit: The usual answer to this question is that, all too often, defenders are running with their backs to the QB. My response is that, if that's happening often, it's a sign that your guys don't know how to cover. So, teach them to cover. I they can't learn, replace them.

[MartinC]

We're going to disagree on this. You think the lack of good cover skills caused the proliferation of zone coverages. I think the proliferation of zone coverages has caused the lack of good cover skills.

Actually I'm arguing, or at least suggesting, that the proliferation of zone coverages in College are reducing the supply of defensive backs with good man coverage skills. That then leads to, or at least reinforces the trend towards more zone coverage in the NFL.

Can you elaborate? Why is a running QB more difficult to play with man coverage?

Edit: The usual answer to this question is that, all too often, defenders are running with their backs to the QB. My response is that, if that's happening often, it's a sign that your guys don't know how to cover. So, teach them to cover. I they can't learn, replace them.

My answer is pretty much the ususal one then I don't care how good your corners are in coverage (I'm assuming you mean able to run with the receiver keeping him between him and the QB so he can watch both) if they are in man coverage by formation and by route selection I can open up half the field for my QB to run into with nothing between him and the end zone but a deep safety if he can get around the DE or OLB who is setting the edge.

[jtyler42]

Great article silky.

It gives a glimpse of how intricate any zone can be and how difficult even without disguise it can be for a QB to get an accurate pre-snap reads that matches up to what they get post snap.

Saban's quote shows with the simple eloquence of an old coach as he explains one of the reason I've been trying to convey for why all man all the time won't work: all your defenders have to better in coverage then they're offensive counterparts or as he said:

[/size]

Silky this was a great post!

DG you do realize that this pattern match/read type of zone D that Saban/Bellichek revolutionized is in fact man to man played with zone principles right? As Saban stated he was looking for a way to play Cover 1, and Cover 3 at the same time, and that is how they came up with this match-up principle...This is what i was getting at when i was asking in previous posts if players in zone still had to match-up like they do in zone. I think maybe we were talking about different things, I was talking about this tye of zone, and it seems you were talking about the "spot drop" type of zones...

Just to clear things up I'm not against zone D itself, but I do believe that the old "spot drop" type of zones wont/dont work against modern passing offenses...

KDawg maybe this would be a good direction to take the thread. Expounding on the differences between "spot drop" zones, and "pattern match/read" type zones.

[SilkyDiamonds]

Since Champ Bailey the NFL has unearthed almost yearly top cover corners from college

Darrelle Revis

Antonio Cromartie

Terrance Newman

Assante Samuel

Antoine Winfield

Dunta Robinson

Chris Gamble

Nmamdi Asomougha

Charles Woodson

Marcus Trufant

Dominique Rogers-Cromartie

Leon Hall

Jabari Greer

Cortland Finnegan

Quentin Jammer

Corey Webster

Nate Clements

I'm not gonna mention our own Corners but I believe they fit the bill as well, and I won't mention Patrick Peterson yet as he hasn't played a down but I believe he will fit the bill too.

That would mean over half the league would have at least 1 high level corner. Colleges are producing high level corners especially the SEC, the problem isschools are producing way more WR's. College teams are ruglarly placing 4 wr's on the field now, they are converting their most athletic players to WR's and DE's. Now u are seeing more 6'3" 220lb+ receivers with the athletic ability of smaller corners. Teams in college then combat their lack of pure physical riches at corner by playing more zones, it evens the playing field a bit. Teams in the SEC because it is such a talent rich area can move some the kids that would have been converted to WR's at other programs to CB. If u want a good corner with great athletic ability combined with great coaching andcover skills u go to the SEC. They may not end up as the best in the NFL but they will immediately and more often be tter. Ur rare specimen is just that, rare like Revis from Pitt, but if u want as close to known product u go SEC

[Oldfan]

Actually I'm arguing, or at least suggesting, that the proliferation of zone coverages in College are reducing the supply of defensive backs with good man coverage skills. That then leads to, or at least reinforces the trend towards more zone coverage in the NFL.

Oh, I dunno. Maybe it just means that NFL coaches would have a little more teaching to do.

My answer is pretty much the ususal one then I don't care how good your corners are in coverage (I'm assuming you mean able to run with the receiver keeping him between him and the QB so he can watch both) if they are in man coverage by formation and by route selection I can open up half the field for my QB to run into with nothing between him and the end zone but a deep safety if he can get around the DE or OLB who is setting the edge.

Let's start with this. A QB who can run is an effective weapon regardless of whether you are playing man or zone against him. Whether in man or zone, it would be wise to order your DE or OLB not to let him get to the outside. Forcing him to the inside, will bring help regardless of whether you're playing zone or man. In man coverage, against a good running QB, I think I'd have to use my wildcard, the free safety. I'd bring him up tighter to the LOS to key the QB. That weakens the defense against the deep pass. However if the QB can run well and and also throw the deep pass well, we're probably beaten whether we're in zone or man coverage anyway.

[darrelgreenie]

Silky this was a great post!

DG you do realize that this pattern match/read type of zone D that Saban/Bellichek revolutionized is in fact man to man played with zone principles right? As Saban stated he was looking for a way to play Cover 1, and Cover 3 at the same time, and that is how they came up with this match-up principle...This is what i was getting at when i was asking in previous posts if players in zone still had to match-up like they do in zone. I think maybe we were talking about different things,.

Slow down there friend.

Its not revolutionary.

NFL defenses(Saban was an NFL coach and coaches an NFL style defense) are very complex wether its man (e.g. bracket, banjo, man switches/pass off) or zone (pattern read, cloud, hybrid), team have various changes and tweaks and disguises.

(Let me just throw this out there the Bears Cover 2/Tampa 2 defense held the Packers below there scoring average so it not like zones can't match-up against the spread.)

Further at there core all zones to a certain extent are match-up zones.

Defenders play the receivers in their zone. (this is why a common strategy against zone defenses is to flood zones w/ multiple receivers in attempt to force the defender to choose)

I was talking about this tye of zone, and it seems you were talking about the "spot drop" type of zones...

It might seem that that way because you chose to believe that but that's not what I was saying in my response to you:

Oldfan is talking about playing straight man.

But, when I say heavy zone I don't mean lining up in the same zone snap after snap.

No.

You have to defend your zone area and read patterns.

Your not chasing a receiver the receiver is typically coming towards the defender.

[Oldfan]

...NFL defenses(Saban was an NFL coach and coaches an NFL style defense) are very complex wether its man (e.g. bracket, banjo, man switches/pass off) or zone (pattern read, cloud, hybrid), team have various changes and tweaks and disguises...

The crucial difference between man and zone is that against ANY zone, the OC dictates the matchup. In man coverage, the DC chooses.

[KDawg]

Spot drop zones are something you'll see HS' use more of.

Pattern read/match up zones are what most D1 and pro teams use.

I know for a fact Alabama runs a pattern read zone cover 3 base system.

[jtyler42]

Slow down there friend.

Its not revolutionary.

NFL defenses(Saban was an NFL coach and coaches an NFL style defense) are very complex wether its man (e.g. bracket, banjo, man switches/pass off) or zone (pattern read, cloud, hybrid), team have various changes and tweaks and disguises.

What do you mean slow down? You are increasingly becoming very sarcastic, or better yet a smart ass when you respond to me, and it's getting old DG...

First, I didn't call it "revolutionary", I said they "revolutionized" zone defense by developing the pattern matching concept. Two different meanings. Although, when Saban/Belichik introduced the pattern matching zone concept to the NFL it was revolutionary at THAT time. No?

(Let me just throw this out there the Bears Cover 2/Tampa 2 defense held the Packers below there scoring average so it not like zones can't match-up against the spread.)

I didn't say zones couldn't match up against the spread, in fact I didn't say anything at all about the spread. Besides why would I say that zones couldn't match the spread, when that is the reason Saban/Belichik developed this type of zone D. To be able to match-up with spread formations w/out going straight man, and also to be able to keep a safety down in the box, to stop the run. Remember, they were looking for a way to play cover 1, and cover 3, at the same time. What I did say is that "spot drop" style zone defense won't/doesn't work against modern passing offenses.

Further at there core all zones to a certain extent are match-up zones.

Defenders play the receivers in their zone. (this is why a common strategy against zone defenses is to flood zones w/ multiple receivers in attempt to force the defender to choose)

It might seem that that way because you chose to believe that but that's not what I was saying in my response to you:

No all zones aren't match-up zones. "Spot drop" zones don't match-up, they drop to a certain depth/landmark on the field and read the QB, and then are supposed to break on the ball when it's thrown. The "flood" strategy offenses use, is geared more for "spot drop" zone defenses, b/c the defenders are covering areas of the field, and not the actual receivers. Against a "pattern matching" zone D, the flood concept would be less effective b/c each defender matches up with an individual receiver after the final #1,#2, and #3 are determined to their side, by the type of release they take. I didn't choose to believe anything, I was taking how you were describing zone D and fitting it to the two styles, and spot dropping fits.

Spot drop zones are something you'll see HS' use more of.

Pattern read/match up zones are what most D1 and pro teams use.

I know for a fact Alabama runs a pattern read zone cover 3 base system.

Exactly right. I remember in the game-day chats we would be talking about the zone styles, as we would be watching our LB's/S's drop back and be guarding grass, while the receiver in their zone was catching a pass wide open, b/c they were just dropping to a spot and watching the QB lol.

[darrelgreenie]

What do you mean slow down? You are increasingly becoming very sarcastic, or better yet a smart ass when you respond to me, and it's getting old DG...

This is the type of back and forth I seek to avoid, after all I come here to talk about football not to bicker.

How posters engage each other is a two way street.

You choose to completely ignore some response posts, like the post with the link to Lou Teppers book where he explains the disadvantages of man defense.

In your last post you responed to my post toward Silky and asked me a leading rhetorical question, where I'm from that's not the fairest way to approach a topic/question.

So for you to get bent out of shape with me saying 'slow down' is a bit hypocritical; but to each there own.

Just because you view Saban's pattern read defense as something new doesn't mean its new to everyone and even prior to Silky posting Saban's article I posted this:

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.

And like I was saying in my last post this thread is merely a glimpse into both man and zone defense as there are variations and tweaks to both: wether its man (e.g. bracket, banjo, man switches/pass off) or zone (pattern read, cloud, hybrid), team have various changes and tweaks and disguises.

What's more is that your initial response to my post and entry into this thread was an interjection into a discussion I was having w/ Oldfan.

And it seemed as if you were (wrongly) using that post alone to piece together my thoughts on zone vs. man except in that post I was responded to Oldfan only about the drawbacks of all man all the time as he's suggested.

Although, when Saban/Belichik introduced the pattern matching zone concept to the NFL it was revolutionary at THAT time. No?

Disagree.

I didn't say zones couldn't match up against the spread, in fact I didn't say anything at all about the spread....What I did say is that "spot drop" style zone defense won't/doesn't work against modern passing offenses.

We'll you're right you didn't say 'spread' you said 'modern passing offenses'.

But, aren't the spreads concepts that the Packers use part of a modern passing offense?

And don't you consider Cover 2 to be "spot drop" zone?

My post was just pointing out that the Bears Cover 2 (however you define it) was very effective against the Packers offense (however you choose to define it).

No all zones aren't match-up zones. "Spot drop" zones don't match-up, they drop to a certain depth/landmark on the field and read the QB, and then are supposed to break on the ball when it's thrown.

I disagree.

NFL defense are very complex and even the most basic defensive zone call will have pattern read/recognition built in.

Against a "pattern matching" zone D, the flood concept would be less effective b/c each defender matches up with an individual receiver after the final #1,#2, and #3 are determined to their side, by the type of release they take.

Again disagree.

When a zone is flooded the defender out numbered regardless.

I didn't choose to believe anything, I was taking how you were describing zone D and fitting it to the two styles, and spot dropping fits.

Despite the fact that I actually mention pattern reading?

---------- Post added May-28th-2011 at 11:10 PM ----------

Someone from another forum has been posting some Redskins youtube cut-ups that I thought would provide some good fodder for discussion:

LhV1ZZSn4EM&NR

(he sometimes takes requests so let me know)

Edit: I saw a lot more Cover 2 then I remembered.

Here's some plays that have nothing to do w/ coverage just LaRon laying some wood

@ 2:29

@ 4:52

Then @ 6:55 a glimpse into next year's pass rushing DL?