X's and O's guys... Set my ass straight about the "Zone" D.

[BlueThunder]

I never played football, but I believe I've watched enough over the last 30+ years to feel pretty good about my general football knowledge. So a couple honest questions just to set myself straight on the mechanics of the game. I thought some other readers might also gain some knowledge by my asking this question.

Was I or was I not seeing alot of zone coverage against the Colts? Yes or no? Seemed like it neutralized our secondary's dominance, and Sherman looked pissed over it, especially on that one play. Why were we in it to begin with, with a guy like Luck on the other side?

Didn't the "Legion of Boom" make a name for themselves last season while playing "Man" coverage? Isn't that the hallmark of an "Elite" defensive backfield, that your players are so good that they can shut you down in "Man" coverage? If so, why don't we ALWAYS play man against every team? Why would we ever play "zone"?

And while admittedly not being anywhere close by a longshot to the knowledge of an NFL Defensive Coordinator...

Why is it that every, single, frickin' time I see us playing zone coverage, we give up seemingly every pass play for significant yardage that the opposing team doesn't drop or screw up in some other way?

In previous years, I have heard that the Seahawks had gone to a "Prevent" defense at the end of games to deny the "Big Play". The only thing I've seen is them breaking up the "Big" play into 3 semi-big plays which turned into winning scores for our opponent (See 2012 Playoffs, final seconds, Atlanta/Seahawks).

Could somebody tell me of what use the zone defense is? I still call the "Prevent Defense" the "Prevent a win" defense.

Somebody care to enlighten me with an annoyingly long post?

 

[Brahn]

Simple Quick

In Man 2 Man you are responsible for the player assigned to you. (Sherman follows Megatron no matter what during the play)

In Zone you are responsible for an area of the field. Usually the safeties split the back half of the field and you will see typically if I recall right more DE's dropping into coverage. (Our issue has been a combination of LBs not dropping or expanding the zone enough, or straight up missed assignments)(This is more like what happened in Atlanta)

Prevent you are giving up the short yardage play in front of you in exchange for time off the clock and the lower possibly of a big play and possible score.(This is usually used when up by 2 scores or more with the time late in the game)

These are just quick summaries that I hope I didn't botch to much.
I would expect to see a much more savvy explanation soon, and I welcome it.

 

[ivotuk]

I thought they were playing man but in some cases handing off a receiver. Either way, they got burned on both types of coverages.

 

[BlueThunder]

Simple Quick

In Man 2 Man you are responsible for the player assigned to you. (Sherman follows Megatron no matter what during the play)

In Zone you are responsible for an area of the field. Usually the safeties split the back half of the field and you will see typically if I recall right more DE's dropping into coverage. (Our issue has been a combination of LBs not dropping or expanding the zone enough, or straight up missed assignments)(This is more like what happened in Atlanta)

Prevent you are giving up the short yardage play in front of you in exchange for time off the clock and the lower possibly of a big play and possible score.(This is usually used when up by 2 scores or more with the time late in the game)

These are just quick summaries that I hope I didn't botch to much.
I would expect to see a much more savvy explanation soon, and I welcome it.

Yeah, I understand that part of it, that you're responsible for an area of the field, but it always leaves this massive cushion for receivers to exploit, and we're just tackling guys that have already gained 15 yards. It's infuriating!

 

[Brahn]

Simple Quick

In Man 2 Man you are responsible for the player assigned to you. (Sherman follows Megatron no matter what during the play)

In Zone you are responsible for an area of the field. Usually the safeties split the back half of the field and you will see typically if I recall right more DE's dropping into coverage. (Our issue has been a combination of LBs not dropping or expanding the zone enough, or straight up missed assignments)(This is more like what happened in Atlanta)

Prevent you are giving up the short yardage play in front of you in exchange for time off the clock and the lower possibly of a big play and possible score.(This is usually used when up by 2 scores or more with the time late in the game)

These are just quick summaries that I hope I didn't botch to much.
I would expect to see a much more savvy explanation soon, and I welcome it.

Yeah, I understand that part of it, that you're responsible for an area of the field, but it always leaves this massive cushion for receivers to exploit, and we're just tackling guys that have already gained 15 yards. It's infuriating!

Usually a guy has failed to get the required depth on the zone. You are trying to keep a man underneath to take away a short/under thrown pass and also a man deep in case it is over thrown/deep pass. When played right, zone causes the QB to have to be pinpoint. Where as in man a guy who is good can shake a lesser defender easier and cause separation.

 

[DavidSeven]

Well, "prevent" and zone aren't technically the same things. "Prevent" is designed to limit huge passing plays by subbing DBs in for LBs and playing your safeties deep. All passing targets are kept in front of viable defenders. In zone, DBs and LBs are assigned specific areas of the field for coverage.

As much as our fanbase would love to see our DBs play man coverage all the time, I think D-Coordinators have a responsibility to mix up coverages to keep the offense guessing. If the coverage becomes too easy to diagnose, a good QB/O-coordinator is going to find a way to slice you up. I do agree that our personnel tends to be stronger in man-coverage, but you can't give opposing QBs the same look all the time. It's really about finding the right balance of playing to your stengths while remaining unpredictable.

 

[CaptainSkybeard]

I think in general, if you have the personnel to pull it off playing man is much better. However, colts might have been running plays specifically designed to beat man coverage, forcing the switch. Just a guess.

 

[jdblack]

Zone is a little better for run defense, gives a little more opportunity to break on possible interceptions, and makes it harder for opposing QBs to see the field well. Man requires tighter windows on throws, can double up a receiver easier, and can stack more against the run or blitz. Mixing up zone & man can further confuse QBs. You can also do things like spontaneously send a coverage guy at the QB if everyone drops out of his area. Mixing it up is the way to go IMO, although I do think we tend to zone a little much.

 

[DavidSeven]

Someone who's better versed in defining coverages may be able to answer whether Sherman's pick-6 vs. Houston was a zone concept disguised as man. At first look, it seems like Sherm was zoned to the flat (where he got the pick) and Earl was responsible for whoever went deep. The initial look was to fool Schaub into thinking Sherm would play man on Johnson and be nowhere near that area.

 

[ivotuk]

One thing I think Pete Carroll should look at a little more, especially considering it's success against Boldin is assigning a DB to a WR as much as possible. Then a DB can focus on that player in the film room and on the field. Pete can match DB to WR based on best possible coverage, Thurmond to smaller fast guys no matter if they are slot or wide, Brandon against big heavy receivers and Sherman against the most versatile WRs for example.

We see it done by players such as Revis with great success, and with our level of DB talent, it could make it even better. Buy like the poster above mentioned, always mix it up here and there.

 

[Hawks46]

We tend to mix it up a lot.

We'll have our outside CBs in press man, while our LBers will go zone in the middle of the field. We tend to run a lot of single high safety, leaving Earl the entire back of the field. Technically it's a zone, but he's allowed to freelance a lot as he's basically reading the QB.

Problem is, our LBers don't seem to run zone very well, which causes us to give up a lot of receptions to TEs.

On the other hand, Sherman got about 1/3 of his picks last year from zone coverage.

 

[RolandDeschain]

The real question, IMO, is how much yardage we give up in zone versus how much we give up in man.

 

[BlueThunder]

The real question, IMO, is how much yardage we give up in zone versus how much we give up in man.

That... Is THE question. Way to trim down my OP Roland! :lol:

 

[Fuzzman55]

One of the things the zone D counters is crossing routes and pick plays. I'm not sure if the Colts are known to use those heavily, but matchups play a part in what the D runs. I think zone vs man also tells you a lot about how coaches feel about their nickle corners. If your slot guy is capable of running step for step with a WR across the middle, man defense is probably easier to call. It's why players like Winfield have been so valuable in the league.

 

[firebee]

If we played man coverage without using a man to spy the QB, we would've gave Luck opportunities to make big plays with his feet because everybody in coverage would have their back turned to Luck. If we spied Luck, we'd be taking away from our pass rush, playing cover 1 or we're letting a man go completely free into a Cover 2.

Typically, throwing a lot of zone coverages against a younger QB is the most sound strategy because they're more prone to make a bad read vs. forcing them to make reads against man coverage. You don't want to play a lot of man coverage against a mobile QB because they'll kill you with their feet and make big plays when coverage gets their backs turned to the QB. Man to man is preferred against pocket QBs like Manning, Brady, Palmer & Schaub because you're forcing them to make quick throws before they get sacked and they don't have the mobility to be a threat on the ground.

Obviously no defense sticks strictly to man coverage or zone coverage as a strategy, but a defense will change it's scheme up a bit and favor zone or man coverage based on the QB they're going up against. Luck's mobility and his experience are probably the main reason why we saw more zone coverage than we normally see from our defense.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Except Luck also had the talent to make some tough throws into zone. It's really no shame to say that our defense struggled with Luck, any more than they did with Brady. Luck will see many playoff games.

Also, credit the Colts' staff for developing some smart bunch routes and other play designs that forced our defense out of their strengths.

 

[hawks4thewin]

Seahawks also play zone on half the field and man on half. and as someone mentioned before they play backers in zone and the ends on man and hand off. they don't necessarily play Exclusively man, or zone on a particular play. they mix it up.

Sometimes sending a man in motion on the offense can tell you if the D is at least partially in man to man.

defenses try to hide if there in man or zone. Honestly its difficult to tell if its man or zone sometimes even AFTER a play is done. anyone who says they can tell 100% is way pro and should write a book or they extremely good guessers.

I think there were some good explanations of prevent in previous messages. basically they are keeping everything in front of them and letting them have anything they want short, or right behind the backers.

that's all I got short version. well MY version.. hahaha

 

[RolandDeschain]

The real question, IMO, is how much yardage we give up in zone versus how much we give up in man.

That... Is THE question. Way to trim down my OP Roland! :lol:

I can be artistically succinct when the mood strikes.

 

[Tical21]

You can't play man all the time. A halfway decent QB could complete umpteen passes in a row if he knows man is coming. Coordinators have a sheet of plays they like to run when they think they're going to get man coverage, and a sheet when they anticipate zone. They also have audibles to in place to switch depending on the coverage. If you run man all the time, coordinators will find a matchup and pick on it relentlessly. Against our defense, those would be against our LB's, Kam and Thurmond most of the time. You would also see a lot of pick routes that could go for big plays.

Zone takes away pick plays, which have grown immensely in popularity over the past few years. As previously stated, it is better against the run. It also should be better at covering the middle of the field, TE's in particular. The trick, is to come out in a man look, and fall into a zone, or visa versa. This is how young QB's in particular get duped. They think they have man, and, say a corner route to the TE is called. When the QB goes to throw to who he think is an open receiver, he ends up throwing the ball right to a defender he didn't think would be there. Zone creates more turnovers than man, both with interceptions and big hits for fumbles. We've given up some big plays and drives with zone coverage, but we've also got the majority of our interceptions from it.

You can run more man than zone, and we run about as much man as anybody out there. But you can't run it all the time or there is nothing to keep the QB honest. The other variable with zone is that you can run many different variations out of the same set, hopefully confusing the QB as to which zone you're running. Again, hopefully more turnovers and sacks as the QB tries to decipher.

The deep play on Sherman was zone, cover 3, which we run a lot. Sherman had deep responsibility on that third of the field. It was a mental error. Rare for him. The most popular play right now against this type of coverage is the hitch route. Very few corners, knowing they have deep responsibility, have the balls and skill to break on a hitch or other shorter route. Sherman straddles this line as well as any corner in the game right now. Browner is a bit more hit or miss. If you can convince Browner you're going to go deep, he'll turn and run. Sherman is harder to convince, and is better at making up the ground if he guesses wrong.

You'll see zones get shredded apart if the coordinator guesses right, and QB's get time. But it should greatly limit the big play. When you run zone, you want to test the QB's patience. Can he take 5-10 yard plays all day or get greedy and try to force something down the field? Peyton will take it all day. Luck kind of did too. So will Brady. Brees does something entirely different, which is really cool to watch. They really attack zones vertically, trying to hit the seams between the two defenders in a cover 2 or three in a cover 3.

It takes a lot of balls to run a ton of man. The offense only needs to win one matchup to complete a pass, and can try to setup bigger plays. But I do agree that there are times when our zone simply is not working and we need to abandon it and beg the other team to beat our man. However, a proper mixture is always best if you can do it right. Sorry for babbling, I'm tired. Hopefully at least part of this was correct.

 

[General Manager]

The real question, IMO, is how much yardage we give up in zone versus how much we give up in man.

Great question , I don't know off the top of my head but I would guess we give up more yardage in zone . The coaching staff knows or they better damn well know that's for sure. We all need to just chill out about that loss,we all saw the game , the Hawks are brilliant at home so there's no reason for concern right now.