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

[Fdallas4Life12]

A good defensive coordinator will be able to mix it up and use the right coverage at the right time. There is no perfect coverage to shut down everything. Every coverage has holes (including man). The key is to be able to disguise the different coverages and make the Qb think you are in one coverage but be in another. just my 2 cents

[Hitman21ST]

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.

You might not see them "completely" open, but you don't need a five-yard cushion to be open. You just need one step on the DB. It's easier to get that one step in man-to-man, because the DB is always reacting to what the WR is doing.

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.

Not true. Out routes, out and ups, flys, posts, corners. All of those routes have the defender's back toward the quarterback. Even Revis has his back to the QB on more than just that one situation you mentioned.

[Diesel Hog]

A good defensive coordinator will be able to mix it up and use the right coverage at the right time. There is no perfect coverage to shut down everything. Every coverage has holes (including man). The key is to be able to disguise the different coverages and make the Qb think you are in one coverage but be in another. just my 2 cents

Yep. It's all about the hybrid nowadays...being able so switch it up from a base 34 to a 3-3-5 nickel package, or a 4-2-6 dime. Not only that, but like you said, switching from Cover 1, Cover 2, Cover 3, and Man coverage. It all has its purpose, and all is meant to disguise and throw off QB's / Centers identifying the Defense.

[dreamboater]

I didnt read this entire thread so I apologize is this was already mentioned. But....our best corner on the roster, Hall, failed in LA because they played tight bump and run coverage man on man. This is not something he is great at.

[zoony]

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

That's your way of dealing with being wrong, I get it. Way to avoid the other points too

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.

[megared]

Zone coverage backfires against smart NFL quarterbacks.

We don't have any of those 'smart' QBs in our division. So while we're modeling our defense against the chance Super Bowl encounter with Manning or Brady, we're getting gashed by above average QBs that know exactly how to exploit a man to man defense. Mike Vick would absolutely terrorize a man to man defense, twice a year. Eli Manning has enough depth at WR to really challenge our secondary. Romo sits to pee has enough complementary pieces to rip a man coverage to shreds also. That's not even including the fact that we don't have the personnel to run a it. We have 1, maybe 2 LBs that would be able to play man reliably, 1 SS that we don't want in coverage, as well as 1 question mark at CB. That isn't exactly the scenario where coaches put a bunch of trust into individuals to win their matchups.

Zone coverage results in too many bone-headed mistakes.

As do simple mistakes in man. You'd be in essence absolutely trusting that no one gets caught looking in the backfield, sucked in by the play action, pump fakes or double moves. At least in the zone, the majority of the time, there's someone there that can peel off of their man in the immediate vicinity. If we run man primarily, teams will put their best receivers into space, and we have to pray that one guy doesn't make a mistake, instead of 2 or 3.

Most of the 32 teams are primarily zone teams; playing mainly man coverage would be sound but different, and that's smart because opposing NFL offenses are primarily designed to beat zone coverage.

Bottom line: Man coverage would make life more difficult for the smart quarterbacks in the NFL, the kind the Skins would likely meet in the playoffs. We should plan to beat the best.

That's a broad generalization. We heard about how the Raiders and the Jets ran a lot of man to man. Well we can look at the level of talent they have in their secondary as a starting point. They both have what are considered lockdown CBs, and good coverage LBs, which are things we lack. It'll certainly be interesting to see how good the Raiders passing defense remains without a top flight CB.

On the other hand, good zone defenses like Pittsburgh and New England don't necessarily need the studs in their secondaries, because the principles of their zones cover for deficiencies. They go after players that are solid fits for their philosophies.

Another component that's being ignored is what the effect will be on the running game. Since we already had our issues there, and our front 7 by no means were getting the job done, I don't see how having our secondary guys more tentative would make us a better defense.

The answer is to mix defenses, matching to your personnel, circumstances, and opposition.

Now that we are finally acquiring the personnel to comply with the switch to the 3-4, it'd be ridiculous to keep adding stipulations without regards to the talent we currently have and their strengths.

[Oldfan]

You might not see them "completely" open, but you don't need a five-yard cushion to be open. You just need one step on the DB. It's easier to get that one step in man-to-man, because the DB is always reacting to what the WR is doing.

Not true. Out routes, out and ups, flys, posts, corners. All of those routes have the defender's back toward the quarterback. Even Revis has his back to the QB on more than just that one situation you mentioned

.

You seem to be assuming that the defender is beaten on all those patterns Otherwise, you are playing poor technique.

Darrel Green said he always tried to keep his man between him and the QB so he could see the pass in the air and his man peripherally. Doesn't that make sense to you?

---------- Post added June-3rd-2011 at 01:27 PM ----------

megared ~ We don't have any of those 'smart' QBs in our division. So while we're modeling our defense against the chance Super Bowl encounter with Manning or Brady, we're getting gashed by above average QBs that know exactly how to exploit a man to man defense.

Eli is certainly smart enough. Romo sits to pee is smart enough. It doesn't require genius. Did you read Matt Bowen's description of how it's done? Was there anything you didn't understand?

Average QBs may know how to go after man coverage, but if your man coverage is good enough, it won't be exploited by average QBs.

Mike Vick would absolutely terrorize a man to man defense, twice a year.

Mike Vick terrorized our zones last season.

Eli Manning has enough depth at WR to really challenge our secondary.

Romo sits to pee has enough complementary pieces to rip a man coverage to shreds also.

You're making a lot of claims with no reasons to support them.

As do simple mistakes in man.

Are you now claiming that DBs make the same amount of mistakes in man as they do in the more complex zones?

You'd be in essence absolutely trusting that no one gets caught looking in the backfield, sucked in by the play action, pump fakes or double moves.

Absurd. No one?

At least in the zone, the majority of the time, there's someone there that can peel off of their man in the immediate vicinity.

Didn't you know that good man technique teaches the DB to peel off his man and help out in the adjacent areas once the ball is in the air?

Did you know that match up zones, which add man principles to zones are in vogue?

[bikie]

the reason there are so many zone coverage schemes is due to the rules.... the 04 illegal contact emphasis pushed by the league all but ended man-to-man as a base scheme... the league wanted more scoring and more passing and they handicapped the DB's, most directly the ones that played man-to-man...

[RandyHolt]

I think deep down we all know, defenses need to change it up. Fact is, for having the elite cover corner Rogers was proclaimed to be, we didnt run enough man coverage. Do you remember him disrupting timing of receivers... ever? Last year we had him in the slot, and he seemed to be in tight man. Before that, he was 10 yds off every play any play, always. It was hard to watch. Even Rookie QB's had no problems with our pressureless defense. Stud QB's had a field day.

I think the key is determining the matchups. If a team has too many studs at wideout, you zone a lot and hold on. If they have one stud, tight man him all day with help over the top.

The skins treated every teams wideouts as studs. Breakdowns in zone coverage were inevitable. The hardest to watch, Carlos passing deSean onto Laron despite a huge cushion, and no one at all in his zone after dropping off. Our DC thinking Laron could handle desean coming at him at full speed, with a consistent feeble pass rush, nor even blitz attempts. It was all on Laron.

OP is right, we need man, but at the right times.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

the reason there are so many zone coverage schemes is due to the rules.... the 04 illegal contact emphasis pushed by the league all but ended man-to-man as a base scheme... the league wanted more scoring and more passing and they handicapped the DB's, most directly the ones that played man-to-man...

That's what I think.

Unless you have an exceptional cover guy (like a Revis) who can run and cover without actually bumping a receiver, man to man is almost impossible to run on a consistent basis under the current rules.

---------- Post added June-3rd-2011 at 12:56 PM ----------

I think deep down we all know, defenses need to change it up. Fact is, for having the elite cover corner Rogers was proclaimed to be, we didnt run enough man coverage. Do you remember him disrupting timing of receivers... ever? Last year we had him in the slot, and he seemed to be in tight man. Before that, he was 10 yds off every play any play, always. It was hard to watch. Even Rookie QB's had no problems with our pressureless defense. Stud QB's had a field day.

This is how nearly every team runs defense now. Steeler fans have been ****ing about Dick Lebeau's "cushions" for 7 years now. And that's a defense that has three Super Bowl appearances and 2 titles.

No on has been able to mug wide receivers at the line of scrimmage since Indy ****ed about it 8 or 9 years ago.

Nearly every NFL defense operates under the same philosophy now:

1. Kill the QB.

2. Don't give up big plays.

If you are facing a Manning, Brees, Brady or Rodgers, you do have the risk of giving up a bunch of 8 yard passing plays. But since there is no defense that stops everything, that's an acceptable risk.

The problem is that fans want a defense that gives up 0 yards.

[pjfootballer]

We have zone personnel. Our man corner is leaving in free agency. We have DeAngelo who is way better in a zone scheme. And we have Landry, who is built to play in a zone blitz scheme but could not cover an average receiver nor cover a deep half to save his life. Zone is right for us.

We have zone personell in the secondary, but with a team that plays alot more zone than man, you need strong pass rush. Something we've not had.

[Oldfan]

megared ~ That's a broad generalization. We heard about how the Raiders and the Jets ran a lot of man to man. Well we can look at the level of talent they have in their secondary as a starting point.

Is it a shocker that a team that plays pimarily press man coverage has more talent for playing that scheme than zone teams?

On the other hand, good zone defenses like Pittsburgh and New England don't necessarily need the studs in their secondaries, because the principles of their zones cover for deficiencies. They go after players that are solid fits for their philosophies.

The same thing can be done with man coverage. You don't need superstars at every position. Man coverage played right covers the eligible receivers better than zone. Start with that as a premise.

Another component that's being ignored is what the effect will be on the running game. Since we already had our issues there, and our front 7 by no means were getting the job done, I don't see how having our secondary guys more tentative would make us a better defense.

You need a reason to support your claim. Why are zone defenders more useful against the run? Corners have to support the run. Safeties have to support the run. What's different?

The answer is to mix defenses, matching to your personnel, circumstances, and opposition. Now that we are finally acquiring the personnel to comply with the switch to the 3-4, it'd be ridiculous to keep adding stipulations without regards to the talent we currently have and their strengths.

I can't agree with any of that. We have little in the way of talent for any scheme. Which you pick isn't going to fit anything. It's the perfect time to switch. It's not like the Super bowl hangs in the balance.

---------- Post added June-3rd-2011 at 02:07 PM ----------

the reason there are so many zone coverage schemes is due to the rules.... the 04 illegal contact emphasis pushed by the league all but ended man-to-man as a base scheme... the league wanted more scoring and more passing and they handicapped the DB's, most directly the ones that played man-to-man...

All that rule changes do is change the techniques. A good corner will find a better way to play within the rules and still get the upper hand.

[bikie]

All that rule changes do is change the techniques. A good corner will find a better way to play within the rules and still get the upper hand.

No, the rule change made it harder to use the necessary techniques required for that scheme. I love your threads, OF, but this is a non-issue. The rule changes were instituted (and then emphasized) to specifically prohibit man-to-man coverage as a base defense. It was successful and coaches adapted by finding other effective schemes. What the coaches didn't do was waste their time attempting to circumvent the rules with techniques that only a select few are capable of consistently executing. I respect you enough to leave it at that because I really believe this is a non-issue and will only dissolve into a debate on debating rather than football. Take care.

[Oldfan]

... The rule changes were instituted (and then emphasized) to specifically prohibit man-to-man coverage as a base defense....

The rule changes were put into effect to limit the bump-and-run techniques only.

Meanwhile, the rules on incidental contact are more lenient now than they were 30 years ago.

[pjfootballer]

Nearly every NFL defense operates under the same philosophy now:

1. Kill the QB.

2. Don't give up big plays.

If you are facing a Manning' date=' Brees, Brady or Rodgers, you do have the risk of giving up a bunch of 8 yard passing plays. But since there is no defense that stops everything, that's an acceptable risk.

The problem is that fans want a defense that gives up 0 yards.[/quote']

This I agree with. It's all about not giving up the big play. I just wish whether we are in man or zone, move up on the WR a little more. Instead of 7 yard cushions, make it 5. We get "slanted" to death with our zone defense. I've never seen a team give up so many slant catches in my life.

[RandyHolt]

This I agree with. It's all about not giving up the big play. I just wish whether we are in man or zone, move up on the WR a little more. Instead of 7 yard cushions, make it 5. We get "slanted" to death with our zone defense. I've never seen a team give up so many slant catches in my life.

I think Gregg went almost exclusively zone when we had been torched for big plays the year before. He went overkill. Madden and the boys were stunned how far we had our safety's down field. If it werent for foolish text happy Favre being a bonehead and throwing deep on it, you would have barely heard Taylor's name mentioned that year.

Indeed your right, we need to get closer. Dont have to jam 24/7, but we need to stop being so predictable in our coverage. Teams dont even need to audible on us. Our blitzes even in the 3-4 with Rak moved to LB, still ineffective. Our sack numbers, unimpressive. Hurries pressures, knockdowns, we must have been the armpit of the league. Fox's Under Pressure Stat. Where are those numbers, and was Haslett happy with them?

We flat out dont get to the QB. Zone with no pressure = predictable failure. And man, did we get torched last year.

[megared]

Eli is certainly smart enough. Romo sits to pee is smart enough. It doesn't require genius. Did you read Matt Bowen's description of how it's done? Was there anything you didn't understand?

Average QBs may know how to go after man coverage, but if your man coverage is good enough, it won't be exploited by average QBs.

If you're going to define most QBs as smart, then you really aren't making a definitive statement. I was speaking of the QBs that are known for using their higher level of intellect (relative to other NFL QBs) to exploit defenses, not merely occasionally beat them. And the only person in our division that you could say does that 'sometimes' is Romo sits to pee. Eli hasn't done it consistently, although he's played good at times. Vick played to that level this season, but he has to continue to do that to be categorized there.

No one is claiming that the zone is impossible to beat. But man doesn't give us a better defense in the short term, or long term, especially when you consider the personnel we currently have. And I can say the exact same thing:

"Average QBs may know how to go after zone coverage, but if your zone coverage is good enough, it won't be exploited by average QBs."

Why instead of making our current defense better, would we decide to change philosophies again? No defense that we run will be good if our attention span is 5 minutes, and we're expecting immediate results.

Mike Vick terrorized our zones last season.

And he terrorized every defense before he went into prison. And he terrorized most defenses this past season. We don't have the athletes on our defense to chase Vick. Especially not if we're relying on our D-line solely to provide pressure. At least by throwing zones at him, you can stop him from running and force him to beat you through the air. It just so happens he has gotten better at passing the ball.

You're making a lot of claims with no reasons to support them.

Dallas has traditionally had a very good passing attack. Hate to say it, but they have two good WRs and a good TE. We haven't even had to see how effective the Giants' passing attack is, because they can pound the ball down our throats.

Are you now claiming that DBs make the same amount of mistakes in man as they do in the more complex zones?

I think you're oversimplifying NFL defenses altogether. There's not an NFL coach that just turns his players loose the way you're making man to man sound. It wouldn't be sandlot football with guys magically becoming perfect on technique, play and route recognition.

You also didn't mention that it takes intelligent and savvy corners to be able to predict the routes they are defending. That isn't something to be taken lightly. Especially when every corner outside of our #1 is inexperienced.

Didn't you know that good man technique teaches the DB to peel off his man and help out in the adjacent areas once the ball is in the air?

In theory that would probably be standard for every defense. The difference with zone is that it's a lot harder for QB to get isolation matchups, which they can easily get in man.

Did you know that match up zones, which add man principles to zones are in vogue?

That wasn't what the purpose of this thread was. You implied that we should run more man coverage...not incorporate more man concepts into our zones. Your argument seems to consist of the fact that because most NFL teams run zones primarily, that we should run man...despite us not having the personnel to do so.

[Oldfan]

megared ~ If you're going to define most QBs as smart, then you really aren't making a definitive statement.

Read the OP again and apply a little common sense. "Smart QBs" means QBs smart enough to read zone coverages, which, as you can tell from the example, would be most QBsw in the league.

I was speaking of the QBs that are known for using their higher level of intellect (relative to other NFL QBs) to exploit defenses, not merely occasionally beat them

.

It doesn't a a higher level of intellect to read zone coverages.

And the only person in our division that you could say does that 'sometimes' is Romo sits to pee. Eli hasn't done it consistently, although he's played good at times. Vick played to that level this season, but he has to continue to do that to be categorized there.

You seem to be confusing the reading of zone coverages with overall QB play.

No one is claiming that the zone is impossible to beat.

I know that.

But man doesn't give us a better defense in the short term, or long term, especially when you consider the personnel we currently have.

I think it does, and I'm not concerned in the least about how well it suits the below average personnel we now have.

Why instead of making our current defense better, would we decide to change philosophies again?

I gave my reasons in the OP.

At least by throwing zones at him, you can stop him from running and force him to beat you through the air. It just so happens he has gotten better at passing the ball

.

When you make a claim like this, you should supply a reason without being asked for one. Why do you think that zone coverage would work better against Mike Vick's running?

megared ~ Dallas has traditionally had a very good passing attack. Hate to say it, but they have two good WRs and a good TE. We haven't even had to see how effective the Giants' passing attack is, because they can pound the ball down our throats.

So, what has this to do with zone versus man coverage?

I think you're oversimplifying NFL defenses altogether. There's not an NFL coach that just turns his players loose the way you're making man to man sound. It wouldn't be sandlot football with guys magically becoming perfect on technique, play and route recognition.

I'm not oversimplifying anything. If you think I am, then quote me. What did I say to prompt your comment?

You also didn't mention that it takes intelligent and savvy corners to be able to predict the routes they are defending. That isn't something to be taken lightly.

If I forgot to say it, then I'll set that straight now. Intelligence is definitely a major factor in running a good man coverage defense because the deception in man coverage comes from the players not from the orders of coaches.

In theory that would probably be standard for every defense. The difference with zone is that it's a lot harder for QB to get isolation matchups, which they can easily get in man.

Just the opposite is true. Against man coverage, receivers don't get to pick which defender will cover them. Against zone, they can choose the zone, and consequently choose who will cover them.

That wasn't what the purpose of this thread was. You implied that we should run more man coverage...not incorporate more man concepts into our zones.

I was just enlightening you. You didn't seem to be aware that man coverage defenders can help out in adjacent areas, so I figured you wouldn't know about match up zones either.

[RandyHolt]

The only time Blache ran man was down in Dallas. A smashing success. Tight man on Romo sits to pee's security blanket, Whitten. The game with the Horton INT. I have no idea why we didnt man up on the QB's fav after that. Blache game planned for one game his entire tenure as our DC.

[megared]

Is it a shocker that a team that plays pimarily press man coverage has more talent for playing that scheme than zone teams?

Point being they have a top flight CB that requires absolutely no safety help in locking down a #1 receiver. This frees up a defender to blitz or provide help elsewhere. In the Jets case they have a darn good front seven also, which allowed them to be effective against the run. The Raiders not so much, which was why they were terrible against the run.

This is before even mentioning the lack of interceptions, where both Oakland and NY only had 12 each.

The same thing can be done with man coverage. You don't need superstars at every position. Man coverage played right covers the eligible receivers better than zone. Start with that as a premise.

You need a reason to support your claim. Why are zone defenders more useful against the run? Corners have to support the run. Safeties have to support the run. What's different?

The difference is we have an over reliance on our secondary to support the run because our front 7 is weak. And our defense currently allows them to peer in the backfield. The Jets didn't have any problem relying on their front 7. Oakland was terrible against the run.

I can't agree with any of that. We have little in the way of talent for any scheme. Which you pick isn't going to fit anything. It's the perfect time to switch. It's not like the Super bowl hangs in the balance.

Hall is certainly a zone CB. Orakpo and Kerrigan almost dictate that we run a zone of some sort. And Landry is certainly not a man defender. Those four are realistically untouchable on our defense moving forward.

[Oldfan]

.

megared ~ Point being they have a top flight CB that requires absolutely no safety help in locking down a #1 receiver.

So? Are you saying that a team playing man coverage benefits from a shutdown corner more than one playing zone? If so, explain why.

The difference is we have an over reliance on our secondary to support the run because our front 7 is weak. And our defense currently allows them to peer in the backfield. The Jets didn't have any problem relying on their front 7. Oakland was terrible against the run.

Our defense currently allows them to peer into the backfield? Why do you need to peer into the backfield to defend a running play?

Hall is certainly a zone CB.

Yes, I know and I don't care. My strategy isn't concerned with the fit of a grade B corner.

Orakpo and Kerrigan almost dictate that we run a zone of some sort.

Another claim with no reason to support it.

And Landry is certainly not a man defender.

Landry did pretty well on Witten. Landry has blown lhis share of zone assignments also.

[megared]

When you make a claim like this, you should supply a reason without being asked for one. Why do you think that zone coverage would work better against Mike Vick's running?

Who can we or any other NFL defense assign to shadow Vick and actually stop him? When he was in Atlanta, all they had to do was run receivers off on deep routes and roll him out of the pocket. The only teams that could effectively shut him down ran a zone, with more than one defender assigned to spy him. Tampa comes immediately to mind as an example.

I'm not oversimplifying anything. If you think I am, then quote me. What did I say to prompt your comment?

You first made it seem that coverage breakdowns in zone are worse than in man. In reality it's bad for any defense. I don't see how you can differentiate. I don't think man coverage is simpler, or does it eliminate risk.

If I forgot to say it, then I'll set that straight now. Intelligence is definitely a major factor in running a good man coverage defense because the deception in man coverage comes from the players not from the orders of coaches.

What? Teams can still give cues to appear they're in a zone when in fact they're running man. And vice versa. My point was that instead of watching a QBs eyes, you have to be able to pick up on cues based upon the way the offense lines up, know the offense's tendencies, etc. Running man isn't a plug and play expedition. It doesn't do any favors for the players...

Here's a good article about how the Raiders have an over reliance on man defense which includes this tidbit about Woodson:

While there were other issues such as dedication and maturity that were involved, Charles Woodson’s stats exploded once he left the Raiders and joined a Green Bay team that mixed and disguised coverages more often and put him in position to use ball skills that were seldom seen in Oakland. In 106 games as a Raider, Woodson had 17 interceptions and returned two for touchdowns. In 77 games with the Packers, Woodson has 30 interceptions and returned eight for touchdowns.

Woodson’s best season total with Oakland was nine passes defensed. In Green Bay his worst season total is nine passes defensed.

In Oakland, Woodson was regarded as a Hall of Fame talent. In Green Bay, he is a Hall of Fame player.

http://www.ibabuzz.com/oaklandraiders/2011/01/01/over-reliance-on-man-to-man-hurts-raiders/

[Oldfan]

megared ~ When he was in Atlanta, all they had to do was run receivers off on deep routes and roll him out of the pocket. The only teams that could effectively shut him down ran a zone, with more than one defender assigned to spy him. Tampa comes immediately to mind as an example.

To support any claim, you need either logic or stats. You have neither. Instead, you supported your claim with more claims.

You first made it seem that coverage breakdowns in zone are worse than in man. In reality it's bad for any defense. I don't see how you can differentiate. I don't think man coverage is simpler, or does it eliminate risk.

Man coverage assignments are much simpler than a collection of zone coverage assignments. Therefore, there is less likelihood of blown assignments. If that isn't a logical deduction,you are willing to accept, there's no point in our continuing this discussion.

Let's just agree to disagree.

[megared]

So? Are you saying that a team playing man coverage benefits from a shutdown corner more than one playing zone? If so, explain why.

Sure it does. And it's often why teams that have elite corners like that match their #1 corner to the #1 WR via man coverage, even if everyone else plays zone. Someone like Revis has a completely different skillset than Asante Samuels, even though both are very good at what they do.

Our defense currently allows them to peer into the backfield? Why do you need to peer into the backfield to defend a running play?

The players are still going to their predetermined spots, but you have 5-7 players with their eyes on the ball, which allows for quicker recognition.

Man is risky if the LB shadowing the RB gets blocked, or if our D-line can't penetrate and disrupt the blocking, which is very probable with us. There's actually more of a reliance on the secondary to read the play to contain it.

Another claim with no reason to support it.

Because Orakpo and Kerrigan were not known as good coverage guys in college, seeing as how they both played DE. Not only has Orakpo not shown the ability to be able to even handle dropping into a zone, but in man you'd possibly have to entrust him with covering a RB. Kerrigan will have a certain adjustment period, but he never had any coverage responsibilities either.

Landry did pretty well on Witten. Landry has blown lhis share of zone assignments also.

That's one example of him 'doing' okay. That doesn't indicate him being able to do it consistently. And there are many examples of him actually looking lost in open space.

[Oldfan]

.

megared,

Sure it does. And it's often why teams that have elite corners like that match their #1 corner to the #1 WR via man coverage, even if everyone else plays zone.

So, a shutdown corner plays man coverage benefiting both zone and man teams equally. But, your claim was that the man coverage teams benefited more. You just disproved your own claim.

Someone like Revis has a completely different skillset than Asante Samuels, even though both are very good at what they do.

They use similar techniques, but how is this point relevant even if true?

The players are still going to their predetermined spots, but you have 5-7 players with their eyes on the ball, which allows for quicker recognition

.

This statement causes me to question your knowledge of the game. At ground level, it's impossible to see the ball in the backfield on a running play from most defensive positions. Defenders look for cues. The first cues often come from the OTs' first move at the LOS.

Because Orakpo and Kerrigan were not known as good coverage guys in college, seeing as how they both played DE.

If our DC asks Orakpo or Kerrigan to drop back and cover often, he's an idiot. So, these edge rushers are non-factors in the decision to play man or zone.

That's one example of him 'doing' okay. That doesn't indicate him being able to do it consistently. And there are many examples of him actually looking lost in open space.

Landry strikes me as the very kind of player who would benefit most from a simpler scheme. He has the physical tools, but could be a tad slow mentally. At least I've never heard him being praised for his grasp of the game.

Once again, I'm not concerned with how well my strategy fits this current roster. There aren't enough good players on it to make it a concern.