Why I Think the Skins Would Do Better Playing Mainly Man Coverage on Defense

[Hitman21ST]

Looks like we pretty much disagree on everything.

You say you disagree with the premise that the chief rationale for zone coverages is that they deceive QBs, but then your rebuttal begins with your perceptions of Pittsburgh's 3-4 defense. Since teams use zone coverages regardless of theirront seven alignments, how can their chief rationale be connected to the 3-4?

I'll grant that it is generally believed that zone coverages allow for more INTs, but I think that's a myth. I think there are four main factors influencing the number of INTs credited to a defense:

1)A smart, ball-hawking safety like Ed Reed who could do his thing playing zone or in man coverage;

2) A team with a good offense that can build leads; I've read that QBs throw more than half their INTs when trying to come from behind;

3) An aggressive DC, who wants to create turnovers by jumping routes, etc;

4) A strong pass rush.

I pretty much agree with that whole list, but you could use those exact same reasons for choosing zone over man. That being said, I also read your OP, and am about 50-50 on it. Good quarterbacks will find a way to pick apart any defense, no matter man or zone. In man coverage, all the QB needs to do is find the mismatch (slot on a linebacker, a "lesser" corner on a "greater" receiver, etc). Once he finds that mismatch, he exploits it all day. In a zone, it's easier to mask those mismatches. You give your defense a better chance to make up for those mismatches in zone coverage.

As for your points, the ballhawk free safety excels in both man and zone. Generally, the ballhawk will be playing over the top as a centerfielder, and less in man coverage, which gives him a better chance for INTs. The offense building a lead always helps, as does a strong pass rush. It is possible to jump routes and such in man coverage, however, it's easier to jump routes in zone. The defender's eyes are watching the quarterback, so they have a better idea of when and where he's going to throw. In man coverage, if you're overly aggressive and trying to jump the routes, the offense runs a double move and the defender is toast. If you argue a cover 2 shell, that would still be the zone guy getting the pick ;-) . I definitely see your points, but I don't think that they benefit man more than zone.

[Oldfan]

AKM311 --Man can only work well if your front four is getting consistent pressure and can stop the run.

That has been the problem with many teams in the NFL, which is why many use zone. The zone blitz scheme is being used more often because d-line pressure is minimal for many teams. They need the extra pressure.

You think it isn't possible to disguise a blitz with man coverage behind it?

Because in man, the CBs back is towards the QB, while in zone, the CBs are facing the QB. They have a better chance to react to the QB vs trying to stop a WR when the WR knows the route and the CB does not.

I linked Matt Bowen's article on man coverage. I suggest you read it. You seem to think man coverage is far more difficult than it really is.

[Zazzaro703]

I completely agree with Oldfan. Get our damn guys on the line of scrimmage jamming WRs at the line and playing man. It disrupts timing and it can be mental too. If you are owning a WR on the line of scrimmage all game it can get to them because they are only human.

[Oldfan]

Silky, your debating style seems to be to Google up some crap, throw it against the wall, and hope some of it sticks.

You Googled back to 2005 and found articles on three games in which Peyton was described as being confused by coverages.

If I had claimed that smart QBs are NEVER confused by coverages, you would have proved me wrong. But I didn't say that, so your effort proved nothing relevant to the argument I made in the OP.

Then you offer an article about Oakland's man coverage which begins...

Nnamdi Asomugha said, “I think we’ve always fared pretty well against the pass just because of our style of play, it’s kind of like hit or miss and we’ve been able to hit more times than we’ve missed. With our trouble in the past stopping the run, the pass has really been our strength.”

But Nnamdi's opinion is trumped by Jerry McDonald writing for ContraCostaTimes.com who begins with a concession:

While it’s true the Raiders aren’t giving up a ton of yards against the pass _ at 196.1 yards per game the only teams only San Diego and New Orleans are giving up less...

So, blogger Jerry McDonald ignores the stats and Nnamdi's opinion to make his case against Oakland's pass defense -- and this is the best you could do?

---------- Post added June-3rd-2011 at 12:22 AM ----------

KDawg -- This is not a well thought out statement. In the NFL, there is a salary cap. You can't change entire defenses and still field a roster. In order to be effective, we'd have to move Hall, if we went to a full man defense. That would cost us quite a bit of cash.

You're reaching to find excuses. We installed the 34 last season and didn't have any trouble fielding a team. Who cares if Hall is better suited to zone? Do you think it's going to cost us a trip to the Super Bowl?

I can't fathom how you believe they'd [those you listed] be good in zone. Almost none of the personnel fits a pure man system.

I don't really know half those guys you listed would fit and neither do you. Barnes looks like he could cover. Landry ought to be better at covering TEs than he is at his zone assignments. I noticed that he was assigned to man up on Witten, so he can't be all that bad.

But motions dictate defenses. If I motion a slot guy and you bring the man on him with the motion, you've opened a huge hole in the defense.

Huge hole? You mean like a big area of turf with no defender parked in it?

There are a couple of ways to handle covering the motion man. It might involve a switch. It might not. It's not a biggie either way.

Want to dictate a match up? Motion him to a 2 receiver side, creating a trips formation

.

It's easier for OCs to dictate match ups to defenses in zone. Do you deny that?

You still haven't countered the three major factors I argued in the OP.

---------- Post added June-3rd-2011 at 12:43 AM ----------

I pretty much agree with that whole list, but you could use those exact same reasons for choosing zone over man.

That list was not for the purpose of picking one over the other. It was about INTs in general.

...In man coverage, all the QB needs to do is find the mismatch (slot on a linebacker, a "lesser" corner on a "greater" receiver, etc). Once he finds that mismatch, he exploits it all day.

The advantage of man coverage is that the DC can dictate more matchup better than he can in zone.

In a zone, it's easier to mask those mismatches. You give your defense a better chance to make up for those mismatches in zone coverage.

That's absolutely not true. The OC can, for example, send a TE into a smaller DB's zone and exploit the mismatch.

I

t is possible to jump routes and such in man coverage, however, it's easier to jump routes in zone. The defender's eyes are watching the quarterback, so they have a better idea of when and where he's going to throw.

With good man coverage, DBs are tighter on receivers. They are not giving up areas of the field as zone coverages do.

[Oldfan]

if you want to talk probability, let's talk about the probability of acquiring two CBs with the ability to play as shutdown corners.

Why would you need two shutdown corners? Are there opponents with two #1 WRs, both of whom would require double-teamed if you don't have a shutdown guy?

It should be easier to find DBs than WRs because the DBs don't have to have great hands.

[Dirt]

Nice post. Very intriguing.

Bottom line, it seems, is firing Jim Haslett if this sort of philosophy would ever happen. I don't know for sure, but it would seem zone 'tricky' plays are the way to get the turnovers that Haslett talks about. I didn't like it last year, and this is just another reason to hate on it like I do, and a good one. I think his plan is too complicated, as you were saying. In a perfect world, maybe his scheme would be great; unstoppable. But with all things in life, I go with the 'simplify' philosophy. Rather than taking a bad team, and giving them a use-able, simple but effective defense... It's Jim Haslett's mad scientist 'perfect, turnover machine' defense. DHalls plays were great, yea, but in the scope of a whole season, they were inconsistent. They happen to every team, 'any given sunday'. I would rather see the team doing these great defensive plays 'on purpose', with a confident, consistent scheme, and you've got me convinced heavy man coverage is a great way to do that.

Hell, I almost forgot, all last season, I was screaming for the CBs to just freakin move a little closer to the receiver pre-snap. They were giving receivers all the freedom in the world. And sure enough, week after week, I would watch that free-as-a-bird receiver catch a slant or something for a first down. Particularly vs Sam Bradford and the Rams. The rookie ate it up like it was no big deal. It's embarrassing. Let's a least have a scheme that has little chance to embarrass ourselves. For ****s sake.

---------- Post added June-3rd-2011 at 01:51 AM ----------

And to be fair, I should include that Haslett's scheme counts on pressuring the QB into making bad throws. With a guy like Rak, and Kerrigan coming aboard, I can at least see why you would want to stick with that philosophy. So, it would seem, Haslett wants his CBs and safetys in a zone position to catch the errant throw. If true, that would mean you're just gambling with those safetys and CBs, hoping for an errant throw. Giving a wide right receiver 5 or more yards, to Haslett, seems like a great way to pick of a slant route. Problem is, it never happened, and it's pretty easy for the opposing QB to figure out what he's trying to do.

Ironically, Haslett's 'deceptive' zone scheme is very predictable, and again, even the rookie Bradford was able to figure it out. Quickly.

I think you can use Rak and the rest of the pass rush just as effectively when playing close man on the WRs. Then: you're not giving up these wide open passing lanes.. the one's he WANTS so that he can have DHall run in a grab what the QB thought was a sure catch. Screw that. It just doesn't happen often enough. Having the WRs with cornerbacks stuck on them like glue would only give Rak more time to work.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Maybe my memory's failing me, but I don't remember too many instances of Gregg playing his corners off. His D's normally play physical bump and run. Heck, 9 times out of 10 he was all out freaking blitzing so everyone was up close to the LOS.

Blache on the other hand .....

Hail.

Williams' defense changed a bit over the course of his tenure here. He earned much of his reputation amongst Skins fans as an aggressive, blitz-heavy playcaller from the 2004 season and it carried over quite a bit into 2005, IIRC. Beyond that, however, he eased off substantially on the blitzing and the defense began a transition more towards what we had with Blache at the helm. Anecdotally, I'd say that the 2006 version of his defense featured more of a read-and-react, Cover 2/Tampa 2 feel to it while the 2007 version utilized more Cover 1/Cover 3 with Sean Taylor playing deep centerfield.

My memory may not be perfect and I may have misconceptions about what Williams was doing from year to year... but I know for certain that frustrations on ES about the cushion our corners give date back to the 2006 season. Obviously, by the time he made his way to New Orleans he had shifted gears back to an attacking philosophy more reminiscent of his early years in DC.

[Hitman21ST]

That list was not for the purpose of picking one over the other. It was about INTs in general.

Right, I was really just typing that to keep my thought process going forward.

The advantage of man coverage is that the DC can dictate more matchup better than he can in zone.

Fair point, but offenses can counter that with a bunch formation (3 receivers stacked or in close proximity to each other pre-snap), motion, or an array of other methods. Also, no matter how much the DC dictates who's covering who, eventually you'll have a safety or linebacker covering a receiver, and 95% of the time, the receiver gets the better of that matchup.

That's absolutely not true. The OC can, for example, send a TE into a smaller DB's zone and exploit the mismatch.

A small DB, reading the QB's eyes and throwing motion, can get position on the larger TE. At the very least, he can get a hand on the ball and swat it away.

With good man coverage, DBs are tighter on receivers. They are not giving up areas of the field as zone coverages do.

They are, however, more prone to double moves, and even in good man coverage, generally the DB is trailing the receiver. In zone, you can more often than not get a favorable angle on the ball to get an interception.

I'm not trying to say zone defenses are the end all, be all of coverages, but I think you're selling them short. Both have strengths and weaknesses, but, in my experience, a zone defense will generate more turnovers than a man-to-man.

[KDawg]

OF,

I respect you, but, at this point you and I are disagreeing on opinion. That won't change. I respectfully bow out of the conversation.

[NewCliche21]

When you use your CBs to contain runs inside, unless you got CBs who recognize things fast, you have to place the CB with the angles to handle their pass responsibilities without sacrificing their run responsibilities. Also, if your pass rush holds the lanes, you get to have guys in place to stop most of the underneath stuff that wants YAC while not risking the long play.

What confuses me is that our corners didn't really change from '04 to '07. It was Springs and Rogers for the entirety. Rogers's strength is his tackling ability. I'm wondering if having the worst strong safety of all-time ever in the history of the universe in its entirety effed us up for 2006 in terms of the corners playing off. I have the feeling that I was confused as to the cushion in 2005, too, but it's been a while.

Williams' defense changed a bit over the course of his tenure here. He earned much of his reputation amongst Skins fans as an aggressive, blitz-heavy playcaller from the 2004 season and it carried over quite a bit into 2005, IIRC. Beyond that, however, he eased off substantially on the blitzing and the defense began a transition more towards what we had with Blache at the helm. Anecdotally, I'd say that the 2006 version of his defense featured more of a read-and-react, Cover 2/Tampa 2 feel to it while the 2007 version utilized more Cover 1/Cover 3 with Sean Taylor playing deep centerfield.

My memory may not be perfect and I may have misconceptions about what Williams was doing from year to year... but I know for certain that frustrations on ES about the cushion our corners give date back to the 2006 season. Obviously, by the time he made his way to New Orleans he had shifted gears back to an attacking philosophy more reminiscent of his early years in DC.

That's how I remember it, too. Clark and Sean deep, and then they tried it with the aforementioned "safety" and it failed miserably, so Sean took the angel position.

Man, 2006 was the year of awful changes. Saunders, Arch, ew.

[Oldfan]

Dirt writes ~ Nice post. Very intriguing.

Thank you. Glad you liked it.

Fans seem to be almost unanimous in hating the cushion that Skins' corners have been giving opponents. I think Enter Apotheosis is right in saying that Gregg Wiliams began the "tradition" here. It's almost as though they're playing a Prevent defense of their very own.

I can't make sense of it. Given the arm strength of NFL QBs, and the size of the WRs, the last thing I'd want to do is to routinely give them a free pass to the flat.

[NewCliche21]

Thank you. Glad you liked it.

Fans seem to be almost unanimous in hating the cushion that Skins' corners have been giving opponents. I think Enter Apotheosis is right in saying that Gregg Wiliams began the "tradition" here. It's almost as though they're playing a Prevent defense of their very own.

I can't make sense of it. Given the arm strength of NFL QBs, and the size of the WRs, the last thing I'd want to do is to routinely give them a free pass the the flat.

I really would like to see a good explanation for this.

[Oldfan]

Fair point, but offenses can counter that with a bunch formation (3 receivers stacked or in close proximity to each other pre-snap), motion, or an array of other methods. Also, no matter how much the DC dictates who's covering who, eventually you'll have a safety or linebacker covering a receiver, and 95% of the time, the receiver gets the better of that matchup.

A small DB, reading the QB's eyes and throwing motion, can get position on the larger TE. At the very least, he can get a hand on the ball and swat it away.

They are, however, more prone to double moves, and even in good man coverage, generally the DB is trailing the receiver. In zone, you can more often than not get a favorable angle on the ball to get an interception.

We have very different perceptions of what's happening on the field, so it's difficult to find agreement.

Whether it's zone or man, a defender can't just watch the QB's eyes. He has to try to position himself to watch both receiver and QB with one of the other in his periphery. That's not always possible.

It's true that defenders end up with their backs to the QB more often in man coverage. I think that's because of poor cover skills not a basic flaw in the scheme.

Cooley has made a living finding soft spots in zones. I think he could do even better if he first went straight at the smaller DB, bodied up (like a low post move in basketball) and then broke for the open area. That play would be unstoppable with just one zone defender.

---------- Post added June-3rd-2011 at 07:39 AM ----------

The Washington Post Sports section ran a piece on Jose Bautista, a journeyman baseball player who suddenly last season became the game's best hitter. The magical transformation was simply explained: Jose had a new batting stroke.

As Champ Bailey said in the video clip I linked, "technique is critical" in playing the cornerback position. I think football scouts tend to judge college defensive backs as though what they see is entirely inherited ability or the lack of it when much of what they see is due to good techniques or the lack of it.

I don't believe them when they say that so-and-so will make a cover two corner, but lacks the talent for man coverage. I think it's bull. I don't think they can know that.

This seems like an obvious statement to me: If a team concentrates on teaching man coverage techniques, and spends all its practice time in repetition of those techniques, its players will greatly improve in the skill.

[bedlamVR]

I think there is a good case for a mixture of both on all plays . You simply cannot expect to play cover 0 all day and never get burnt - It all depends on your personell, the guys you are going against and the situation on the field .

Man coverage is best if you have a front 4 that can bring the pressure - most CBs can match up in man for 3-5 seconds but when you start giving the QB longer than that the best get burnt .

In more flexible blitz zone scheme you can buy the DL a little more time and try to use defensive miss direction to confuse the QB but the zone will have holes and one player out of sync, in the wrong place or thinking he had different zone responsibilities and there are parking lots of space for recievers to make the catch and pick up yards .

The thing is on any given play except in specific circumstances there is a mixture of zone and man .

The mixture is dependent on what you think the offense is going to do and where they are on the field and the packages they deploy ..

You might play more man coverage in running situations as it allows you to be more creative with the other defenders in run support - In zones defenders can get strung out and offenses will try and hit the seams in the zone on a run or issolate the smaller DBS on outside runs .

Equally if you want to take away the pass you don't want their top guy going up one on one on your DB - so you give support by maybe matching up man coverage with zones cheated over to the player giving you the problems -

The other point is personell - Most defenders can play in zone or in man coverage . It is as OF says a matter of coaching - but then there is an advantage for specific players in specific schemes . If you want a good man CB - and you are going to line him up on the line of scrimage to jam his man off the line then you need a physical guy who is big and strong and preferably tall with good mid/long range athletisim - someone who can use his physicallity to knock WR off their routes and use their bodies to at the very least bat the ball away and have enough about him to compete for jump balls . - They also need to be fast - but not necessary quick - to be able to go stride for stride downfield with their WRs.

A good fit would be a Nate Clements who was totally out of sorts in the 9ers mostly zone scheme .

A bad fit for man cover would be a 5-9 170lbs Justin Tyron who excells in a mostly cover 2 scheme because he fits most of what you want in a zone defender - he is quick - can close well - shows good instincts and when making a play on the ball plays bigger than he actually is . A zone player needs above average recognition skills and needs to be able to move fluidly and quickly to where the play is occuring .

What i think is interesting is we played an odd kind of cover 0/cover 1 under williams - He would have ST as the deep safety and have the DBs eg Springs/Rogers play man on the outside . However insted of playing tight man we got into the habbit of playing the DBS WAY off the lline to try and prevent the WRs beating their guys deap . But we never seemed to get out of that mindset .

---------- Post added June-3rd-2011 at 12:55 PM ----------

I don't believe them when they say that so-and-so will make a cover two corner, but lacks the talent for man coverage. I think it's bull. I don't think they can know that.

I think you can say that about absolutly any position on the football field . You can only really make a judgment on what you have seen on tape in game situations etc. Just because some one has never really played a position in a specific way or been tought a specific way then there is no telling if they will be good at something until you get them on the field .

You also cannot overcome physical limitations with technique . You can to a degree but no amount of technique is going to allow you to match say a 5-9 Tyron to a 6-4 Randy Moss - could you imagine trying to get Tyron to jam Randy at the line - it is just essentially yelling to the QB throw to me -

You also deminish the skills of an excellent zone playersd by rigid;y trying to get them to play in man cover all the time . One type of player is not inferior to another they are just different they have different skills sets which are ultimatly generally linked to phyisical attributes ...

[Oldfan]

bedlamVR ~ I think there is a good case for a mixture of both on all plays . You simply cannot expect to play cover 0 all day and never get burnt - It all depends on your personell, the guys you are going against and the situation on the field .

Why would a team stay in one man coverage all day? I advocate staying primarily in man coverage, but not in just one of its many versions.

Man coverage is best if you have a front 4 that can bring the pressure - most CBs can match up in man for 3-5 seconds but when you start giving the QB longer than that the best get burnt .

You say that as though zone coverages are not usually shredded when QBs get that much time. Three seconds is too much time in the pro game.

[Drew_Fl]

Good Post. I'm definitely all for more man to man coverage. However, not the kind that Phillip Buchannon plays on Derek Hagan

[The Tris]

Why would you need two shutdown corners? Are there opponents with two #1 WRs, both of whom would require double-teamed if you don't have a shutdown guy?

It should be easier to find DBs than WRs because the DBs don't have to have great hands.

In our own division, we would have to man up with the tandems of Jackson/Maclin, Austin/Bryant, and Nicks/Smith or Mannignham. I'm not comfortable having any of them on an island with a non shutdown corner.

Fans seem to be almost unanimous in hating the cushion that Skins' corners have been giving opponents.

it is possible to play zone without 7 yard cushions. The chargers are a great example of this.

It seems you are advocating a change in coverge scheme in order to treat the symptoms (the cushion) and not the problem (subpart defensive coaching).

[Oldfan]

Vilandil says ~ Sorry, I had to step out, I didn't mean to abandon the discussion.

That's okay. I missed this post earlier, so the response was delayed.

I think keeping track of the receivers is easier in zone because the defenders don't turn their back on the defense.

All strategies have advantages and disadvantages. The three advantages I argued in the OP were major factors, IMO. So far, posters have not mounted a serious rebuttal on those points.

I agree that the safety used to scissor or to double is the solution. However, once again that implies that the front four generate pressure.

You can rush five and still have a FS, though (5 + 5 = 10). If rushing five doesn't produce enough pressure, it's not going to matter much whether you're playing man or zone.

I do think that man is more vulnerable if the QB has time because in order to beat the zone it requires that BOTH QB and WR make the right read

.

My argument is that the smart QBs, the kind you will meet in the playoffs, will hook up on those throws more often than not because they often can isolate their options pre-snap. That makes it easier than finding the open receiver against man coverage more often than not (probability).

Think about that prospect for a moment. Even if you have Nmamdi or Revis, only one of them can cover Roddy White. The other guy covers Julio. That's a touchdown waiting to happen.

Julio is better than either? How do we know that? He could be a bust.

---------- Post added June-3rd-2011 at 09:12 AM ----------

In our own division, we would have to man up with the tandems of Jackson/Maclin, Austin/Bryant, and Nicks/Smith or Mannignham. I'm not comfortable having any of them on an island with a non shutdown corner.

I think you are overrating that group.

it is possible to play zone without 7 yard cushions. The chargers are a great example of this.

It seems you are advocating a change in coverge scheme in order to treat the symptoms (the cushion) and not the problem (subpart defensive coaching).

The cushion wasn't even part of my argument. I mentioned it only because several other posters commented on it first.

[zoony]

We played almost exclusive man coverage under Gregg Williams. It's why we never got INT's.

The greatest defenses of the modern era all played a base zone D. The smart D's mix it up.

Also, with QB's becoming increasingly mobile, a base zone is a must against many teams.

..

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Unless you have Darrel Revis at corner, playing a lot of man to man in the modern NFL means big plays and a ton of pass interference penalties.

[Oldfan]

We played almost exclusive man coverage under Gregg Williams.

Not so. Blache played more man than Williams. We didn't get INTs from either because they were both playing bend-don't break.

[Chump Bailey]

We played almost exclusive man coverage under Gregg Williams. It's why we never got INT's.

Z, I really think that was more of a result of lacking a pass rush more than anything else. If GW had AH, Rak, Carter and Jarmon to work with, it likely would have been a very different outcome with regard to INT's. I completely agree with OF.

[zoony]

Not so. Blache played more man than Williams. We didn't get INTs from either because they were both playing bend-don't break.

You are 100% incorrect. INT's happen much more prolifically when you play zone. You can read and react on the ball. When you are playing man your back is to the QB.

This is football 101 Oldfan. Ask any JV coach. I have no interest in arguing that the sky is blue.

[Chump Bailey]

We didn't get INTs from either because they were both playing bend-don't break.

That too...

[Oldfan]

Unless you have Darrel Revis at corner' date=' playing a lot of man to man in the modern NFL means big plays and a ton of pass interference penalties.[/quote']If you play man primarily, you'll get better at it. And you won't see a lot of great receivers running completely open because someone blew a coverage.

---------- Post added June-3rd-2011 at 09:29 AM ----------

You are 100% incorrect. INT's happen much more prolifically when you play zone. You can read and react on the ball. When you are playing man your back is to the QB.

If you are good at coverage, there's only one situation where you'd intentionally put your back to the QB. And then you have the WR squeezed against the sideline.

This is football 101 Oldfan. Ask any JV coach. I have no interest in arguing that the sky is blue.

Who gives a crap about your drive-by opinion? There are posters engaging in civil debate here.

---------- Post added June-3rd-2011 at 10:10 AM ----------

Interesting tidbit on this topic...

QB Jay Cutler said the key to beating the Packers' defense Sunday likely will be how well his wide receivers handle bump-and-run coverage. The Packers challenged the Bears' receivers at the line in Week 17, and Cutler said the timing of the passing game was thrown off by their inability to escape jams quickly enough to beat the blitz. It hadn't been a real problem in earlier games and receivers, in fact, did an excellent job of it against a Jets team that lives by the blitz and uses man-to-man coverage extensively. ...