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.

Originally Posted by: Rios39 

I realize that zone has to be played at least some of the time. I also realize that all 8 backers (LB and DB) are not going to be in man to man coverage on any play. I am not even sure it is possible unless you are double covering almost everyone. But there is something to be said for the Corner who goes mono e mono with the Receiver and shuts him down. I am not worried about not being able to get the Int. If the Corner is covering the receiver like a wet blanket most of the time the ball is not going to be thrown that direction. Of course there will be plays like the ball Jones caught one handed without even seeing it. LOVED IT! Other WR will do the same. But out of 10 balls thrown like that 7 or 8 will be incomplete.

And certainly there is risk with m2m coverage if the defender falls or bites on the fake or something like that. There is risk getting out of bed in the morning. The advantage is being more aggressive. Better able to communicate. Less holes for the receiver to run to and sit. More able to shake up the WR. Someone said the other day the reason they are playing WR is they don't like to be hit. While that is a bit of an exaggeration we have seen many times receivers have an off day when the corner is a little tighter on the coverage. HoF WR Jerry Rice had one of his worst games when GB got tough with him in the playoffs. Was that 93 or 94?

Originally Posted by: wpr 

Agree with everything you said.

Originally Posted by: Rios39 

Agree with everything you said. And then you have situations where you can play slightly off like tramon does and if they run a short out route you have the option to cut that off in a zone but if the WR runs up the field I'd like to see the CB not just let him go, he should carry him up the field.

The problem becomes when you have a guy like Colston in the slot, he will run straight down the field. That's where you need a nickle or dime out there and have one of Woodson, Hayward or another safety running with him cause if he's one on one with a LB that's going to be a tough match up.

So what I'm mostly saying is I don't like flat footed zones where they just stand and watch a receiver run by them even though they know there is a large void in the seam behind them.

Originally Posted by: Rios39 

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.

Originally Posted by: Rios39 

I saw a repeat of 2011 last year, and let’s face it, a phantom holding call kept New Orleans from the 30-point mark.

Originally Posted by: porky88 

What phantom holding call are you talking about?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Yet, Brees still racked up season-high totals across the board. I saw a repeat of 2011 last year, and let’s face it, a phantom holding call kept New Orleans from the 30-point mark.

Originally Posted by: porky88