Zone defense

[hawkfan68]

I just don't understand why they kept calling this defense. For the majority of the first half, it seemed they were playing in the zone. They weren't very effective with it either. I heard many times that the players hate the zone but they still keep playing. I don't know if Carroll or Quinn is hearing this. I hope they stick to their strength and stay with press (man to man) more.

 

[chris98251]

They played Zone to help with the run game and keep break aways to a minimum I think. Everyone in a gap or Zone and then collapse on the run. Peterson getting to the second level is where he does his damage, he didn't have a chance to get there today.

 

[Basis4day]

Part of the defensive strategy is to keep the clock running. You can't stay man to man the whole game and not expect the opponent to adapt. Keep them guessing and keep the clock running.

 

[seahawksfanatic000]

Zone is bad pass defense because it is easier to complete passes on it, but there are less big gains. Zone is also better against the run. Man defense lets the run game go for bigger gains and makes it easier for tight ends to get open because linebacker will get beat by te's one on one. Each defense has its flaws, they call it situationally

 

[DavidSeven]

You weren't hating that zone when it was putting Kam and ET in position to stop AP from breaking past the second level.

 

[SirTed]

I like us in Man too... but we were in zone when Wagner and WTIII got their picks, you know.

 

[vin.couve12]

You may have heard me talk about this before. Now you can see it.

 

[Mick063]

Ponder dinked and dunked against the Seattle zone for a bit of first half success. He didn't do a whole lot of damage. Indeed, it is the pass interference, defensive holding past five yards, and personal fouls that have habitually bailed opponents out on third down during the course of the season. It wasn't any different with the Vikings. Seattle leads the league in pass interference penalties and the margin would be even larger if they played press coverage 100% of the time. I believe that the staff switches it up a bit when the refs tighten up the calls.

Regardless, with respect to the first half touchdown, Sherman was beat in man coverage on a double move. Another reason to switch things up a bit. Zone keeps the plays in front of you to avoid the big play.

The fore mentioned circumstances easily explain the rationale for using some zone.

 

[vin.couve12]

Zone is bad pass defense because it is easier to complete passes on it, but there are less big gains. Zone is also better against the run. Man defense lets the run game go for bigger gains and makes it easier for tight ends to get open because linebacker will get beat by te's one on one. Each defense has its flaws, they call it situationally

Pete prefers to keep everything in front the majority of the time, yes. We run a lot of cover 3 and man situationally with some cover 2 buc sprinkled in where the MLB bails out for a deeper zone.

The other problem you have in man coverage is that on 1st and 2nd downs it may be easier for your WRs to get a release because you have to take that half second to read run or pass. Conversely, if you don't take that half second you could be covering the WR while behind you the RB is taking a hand off or worse yet, a delayed hand off.

But you're right. Every defense has it's weakness and we do call it situationallly.

 

[mikeak]

Against a crappy qb I like it. Ponder could not play a flawless game even if he was playing madden in easy.... Those random crappy throws that led to pick 6s keep coming and remember Wagner dropped one in the first half as well.

Alex Smith on the other hand could just pick away at it all day long and he did last year....

 

[Throwdown]

Certain looks will dictate the coverage, I swear I gotta put this every week in the Gameday Chat.

 

[sutz]

I'm happy you found something to complain about in the biggest victory of the year.

 

[Tical21]

Zone can be very effective in creating turnovers. A couple big picks today, and Wagner should have had another.