Zone Defense vs Man Defense?· Page 2

Rios39
Member

12 years ago

I agree with Pack93z said. But I think this is a tricky subject because really teams can play all man, all zone, CB man and the rest zone, LBers man and the rest zone, CB and OLB zone with S and MLB in man and all sort of different combos... and things like bump and run can be done in ether man or zone coverage when talking about across the NFL...

Such as Packers with Al Harris played bump and run man coverage for years, Bears have been playing bump and run zone coverage with their CBs for years...

And you could have a CB playing in man with a S waiting over the top in case he tries to go deep they'll be double covered.

But if you play in man coverage with the CBs you better make sure you have one of the following
- Safety help over the top
- Some of the best man CBs in the NFL
- All out blitz giving the QB very little to no time to get the ball out
(All out blitz one is normally only used in emergency stop cases, unless you're defense is being run by Greg Williams or someone in the Ryan family...(Buddy Ryan, Rex Ryan or Rob Ryan), though I haven't seen the Ryan family run it lately, Rex might pull it out again with their best CB injured)

Personally I really liked the former system of the Packers DBs, CBs in man coverage (playing bump and run if they're good at it), One Safety (normally Collins) in a deep zone reading the QB and ready to run over to and WR going deep, One Safety (the SS) playing a short zone, helping out the LBers in coverage. LBers in both man or zone coverage depending on what the call is and how many are blitzing...

Originally Posted by: beast

Agreed. I wouldn't go entirely man across the board because that means your LBs aren't free to make plays, same with safeties. I like having 2 zones that are fairly deep or intermediate. Prime recievers covered man to man and the middle of the line backers taking on the RB's in a zone.

It all depends on the situation of course but what I don't like seeing is the dime or nickle in and seeing the entire team drop back into back off about 10 yards. When this happens their are voids in each level of the defense. One before the first wave of linebackers, one over top of the linebackers inbetween the safties (this is where colston killed us) and then deep by the safeties on the side lines. If they run past the safties then you got to take that up with poor pass rush.

At the very least playing man coverage will contest throws a little more and you wont see a guy wide open 10 yards away from a DB. There's nothing a DB can do about that, it's the scheme.

blank

istanbulpacker
Registered

12 years ago

#12

I agree with beast and Rios39 regarding being not in favor of entirely man defense. That would eliminate things like Cover 2 formations and Zone blitzes. Employed correctly, these can be confusing for the opponents offense and even lead to some misreads of the blitzing scheme. However, that presupposes that you have D-linemen that can effectively drop into coverage just as much as playing man coverage assumes that you have a secondary (especially cornerbacks I'm thinking of) who can cover good receivers.

I know there was a lot of griping in chat about Brees picking apart the zone defense during the game and maybe that is where the genesis of the question comes from. That said, I'll join the group with wpr who prefers a team that can do both effectively. After all, if you only have one trick, then it is easier for the other team to figure out that trick and find ways to counter it. I like all the crazy blitzing schemes with DEs dropping back and LBs or Ss rushing the passer. I DON'T like just a 3-man rush play after play. Bring about confusion in the enemy...someone like Sun Tzu or Clausewitz probably said that.

As to the question of what is the talent pool available to the Packers to run either particular defense, I guess that remains to be seen. They certainly seemed to play up for the Seattle game but they have had their challenges in some of the other games. I would say it probably has something to do with particular match-ups on particular teams. Maybe we're better to run more man against the Saints but could afford to run more zone against the Chargers, etc. Just my 2 pennies worth, fwiw.

blank

porky88
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#13

You don't abandon one or the other entirely, but that's my problem. They pretty much did that against the Saints. They played predominately zone and they went to off man on occasion. It's all about personnel, though. The Packers should play to their strengths, especially with Tramon Williams and Sam Shields. Frankly, Williams is one of the top man coverage corners in the game. He should've been matching up with Marques Colston or Jimmy Graham when the latter lines up as a wide receiver. Shields has played man coverage the last two weeks. In week two, he blanketed Alshon Jeffery, despite a noticeable size difference.

The Saints have a great offense, but this was a mirror image of what Brees did to Green Bay last year. He set a season-high in passing yards, rating, and he tied for his season-high in touchdowns. In addition, he completed 65% of his passes, despite throwing the ball 54 times. This was an average of over eight yards per completion, which is also a season-high. Those are all bad omens. Fool me once -- fool me twice.

http://www.row12.com/

gbguy20
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#14

Watch the game film vs the niners to see every thing that is wrong with a zone defense. Our team EXCELS at revealing the flaws in playing zone defense. Other teams can pull it off, we can't. Wide open receivers absolutely everywhere. Linebackers sitting in zone 12 yards deep not even acknowledging that there are receivers running crossing routes 5 yards in front of them. Disgusting to watch.

BAD EMAIL because the address couldn ot be found, or is unable to receive mail.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

12 years ago

#15

From Jason Wilde ...
"One complaint the defensive backs had back when the Packers played almost exclusively man-to-man coverage was that it prevented them from having vision to the ball – a crucial component for takeaways. So look for Capers to continue to mix coverages – and the takeaways to return, eventually."

porky88
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#16

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

If they had an offense similar to Seattle's, then I'd understand this concept. However, Green Bay's offense can strike from anywhere on the field. They don't need field position. I much rather limited the opponent's opportunities than rely on turnovers if the trade off is allowing 350-plus passing yards each week. Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic and we'll get the best of both worlds.

http://www.row12.com/

flep
Member

12 years ago

#17

I am a man defense person.

I played football and hated zone.

You are too (repeat tooooooooooooooooooo)dependent on other people in zone.

In man it's you and you alone. but you know the FS and SS are there in cover as well.

Many a time I thanked my Safety for covering my arse if I got beat deep.

Formed Merseyside Nighthawks. British Champions 1992. Packer fan for 32 years

I feel very wrong now!!!!!!!!!

wpr
Preferred Member

12 years ago

#18

Originally Posted by: flep

old man. [grin1]
Bet I am older. But never could keep up with the receiver even when I was young.

Pack93z
Select Member

12 years ago

#19

From a linebackers perspective, I will tell you zone is a ton easier to play. After the post snap read, it is much easier to drop into a zone than it is to pick up a man in coverage.

One thing we did a ton of.. the safety would be barking out depth calls to the backers as the routes were developing. Don't know that is possible in a stadium full of people during a play.. I would imagine the instructions would be flooded out with the crowd noise.

And straight man is rarely played in anything other than a blitz package.. so the term here of man is almost universally understood as a man under with either one to two safeties over. Two being the norm. Cover 2 Man. Basically taking Bud Carson's cover two.. keeping the deep into halves and playing man under it.

Again.. there are natural holes in that coverage over the middle of the field and depending on technique of the corners and nickel/dime players.. either inside or outside shoulder of the receivers. It also creates mismatches in coverage with Backs and athletic TE's... so it is not the only defense to be relied upon.

Personally, I would rather see Capers continue to use zone over the course of the season so we improve upon it and can shift to it when we need it. The Playoffs.

There will be teams that will stack and motion a man coverage to death with the crossers and picks/rubs if the OC has any depth to him at all. So we need the zone.. and we need to play and practice the zone within games.

I just think we could be a little more spattered with switching back and forth and forcing the QB to make the reads and adjustments on the field, not the OC dialing up the playbook with the looks being somewhat static.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

Rios39
Member

12 years ago

#20

We did play a lot of man as well we aren't just playing zone and Pack93z is dead on you have to play some zones. The Bears are mostly zone and they have holes that can be exploited by good QB's but they make you drive the full length and you can put up yards but zone becomes difficult to pass on when it's in the red zone. If you have everyone in man coverage and one guy slips up, nobody will be looking at the ball and that's going to be a big play.

I personally liked the 2 man we played against the bears. We played trail technique 2 safeties deep to help out the CB's in man coverage. If your LB's can play zone but pass the WR/TE up the field in tight coverage to the safeties that's going to be your best bet. In dime or nickle your coverage over the middle of the field should be able to cover that well. Sometimes a QB is going to thread a needle like Brees did in a few cases and you just have to tip your hat.

An offense like the Saints you need to be realistic about though. You are not going to simply shut them out. They will put up minimum 24 points IMO unless you really have long drives. You have to eliminate the big plays . The one on shields on the miscommunication was unacceptable. Other than that we forced a lot of FG's and played them MUCH better than we did last year. We were more on par with 2010. In 2010 against elite offenses we usually gave up 25 points or so.

In reality we should not have gave up 32 points to an offense like the 49ers, they are a solid football team but that was easily the worst showing this year when you take into context the style of football team that they are.

We got to find a way to get our middle zones to cover the WR up the field a little further and not just allow them to walk past and sit in the opening.

blank

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Mucky Tundra (9h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (9h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (9h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (9h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (9h) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (13h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (13h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (13h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (16h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (16h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (16h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (16h) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (16h) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (16h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (16h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (16h) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (17h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (17h) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (17h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (17h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (18h) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (18h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (18h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (18h) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (18h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (19h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (19h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (19h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (19h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (19h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (20h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (21h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (21h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (22h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (22h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (22h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (22h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (22h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (22h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (22h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (22h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (22h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (22h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (22h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (22h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (22h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (22h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (22h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (22h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (22h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS