Merits on playing zone versus man-to-man question

[Woods]

I was wondering, and I'm sure quite a few on this board would know, if the Cowboys decide to primarily play zone coverage instead of man-to-man coverage in the secondary with our CBs next year, is it as essential to draft a CB as high?

I was under the impression that CBs who can play man to man effectively, like D Sanders or Revis, are an extremely rare commodity.

On the other hand, if you play zone coverage, you can get by without usually having to spend a premium draft pick.

I'm not saying that CBs who play zone aren't talented. Just that you can find more of them - and throughout the draft. Whereas it seems more difficult to find solid man to man CBs.

Is this generally a true statement?

The reason I ask is that in the upcoming draft that if we know we will be playing more zone in the secondary, maybe a CB in Round 1 (unless he's clearly the best player) wouldn't be as much a priority as if we were going to be playing more man to man for the next few years.

Thanks.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I was wondering, and I'm sure quite a few on this board would know, if the Cowboys decide to primarily play zone coverage instead of man-to-man coverage in the secondary with our CBs next year, is it as essential to draft a CB as high?

I was under the impression that CBs who can play man to man effectively, like D Sanders or Revis, are an extremely rare commodity.

On the other hand, if you play zone coverage, you can get by without usually having to spend a premium draft pick.

I'm not saying that CBs who play zone aren't talented. Just that you can find more of them - and throughout the draft. Whereas it seems more difficult to find solid man to man CBs.

Is this generally a true statement?

The reason I ask is that in the upcoming draft that if we know we will be playing more zone in the secondary, maybe a CB in Round 1 (unless he's clearly the best player) wouldn't be as much a priority as if we were going to be playing more man to man for the next few years.

Thanks.

I think you can do the man if you have the pass rush. the key to playing man is not giving the QB too much time. I know people will point to deion, revis and baily as evidence of how important a shut down corner is, but what they provide is to allow one of the safties to play closer to the LOS, blitz and help in run support. In essence they help the pass rush by allowing an extra man to play in the box.

last couple of years, for what ever reason we were able to generate a pass rush and sacks and our CB play was good.

the steelers don't have a standout CB, but their pass rush is deadly and they have a great saftey.

the ravens don't have a big name at CB, but their front 7 is deadly and they have Reed.

and players like revis, baily and deion come once every 10 years. the rest are good CBs.

now, as you mentioned zone coverage is to minimize the impact of big plays. you keep things in front of you. you force the offense to go the length of the field. you provide help. for it to truly be successful you still need a good pass rush. Dungy's famour cover 2 was a great example of it. but looking at his teams he always had great DLs and pass rushers to make it work.

 

[bootyhunta]

You can play man-to-man if you have above-average pass rush and safeties. If you are average in those two areas, I would be more inclined to play zone.

 

[VACowboy]

A good corner is a good corner, whether he's playing man or zone. Corners in the Tampa Two still cover guys man-up in their sectors of responsibility and DBs playing man usually have deep help of some kind.

 

[AdamJT13]

You can play man-to-man if you have above-average pass rush and safeties. If you are average in those two areas, I would be more inclined to play zone.

Zone coverage with no pass rush usually is a recipe for disaster. There are always holes between zones, and if the quarterback has time, he usually can find a receiver in one. That might be OK in prevent defenses or on third-and-long (if you make the tackle), but not in most situations.

Zone is more successful when pressure forces quarterbacks to throw without having time to see all of the defenders or to throw an inaccurate pass. Unlike in man-to-man, players in zone coverage are usually facing the quarterback, so they can take advantage of those poor throws.

To answer the question in the original post, we need defensive backs, period, whether we're playing more man or more zone.

 

[Woods]

Zone coverage with no pass rush usually is a recipe for disaster. There are always holes between zones, and if the quarterback has time, he usually can find a receiver in one. That might be OK in prevent defenses or on third-and-long (if you make the tackle), but not in most situations.

Zone is more successful when pressure forces quarterbacks to throw without having time to see all of the defenders or to throw an inaccurate pass. Unlike in man-to-man, players in zone coverage are usually facing the quarterback, so they can take advantage of those poor throws.

To answer the question in the original post, we need defensive backs, period, whether we're playing more man or more zone.

Adam, statistically speaking over the last few years, do most of the top defenses play mostly zone or man to man? Or is it 50/50?

 

[Doomsday101]

One thing about zone you really have to have some physical guys who will lay the wood. One problem I see when we play zone is guys not coming up and making the big hit. Zone has always been a style that will allow catches to take place but the WR pays for it.

 

[rash]

now, as you mentioned zone coverage is to minimize the impact of big plays. you keep things in front of you. you force the offense to go the length of the field. you provide help. for it to truly be successful you still need a good pass rush. Dungy's famour cover 2 was a great example of it. but looking at his teams he always had great DLs and pass rushers to make it work.

Zone isn't necessarily JUST for minimizing the big plays. There are MANY zone coverages (especially those that include a blitz) in the NFL that are meant to make a big play and force a turnover. With your back to the ball in man coverage, you will rarely force turnovers simply because your back is to the ball and can't make break on a QB's pass.

For instance, the Steelers and many other defenses run a lot of semi-buzz duo in their 34 scheme, which has the FS drop to cover the short-middle part of the field (usually where a MLB or 2 sit). Meanwhile, the middle backers cover the deep flats and the OLBs generally blitz. All this movement to unfamiliar territory is generally meant confuse defenses. A man to man coverage doesn't have the luxury of confusing the defense this way. More times than not a team like the Steelers blitz while running this type of coverage to force a QB to get rid of the ball quickly. Yes they sacrifice a lot of open field, generally where a post route is ran by the WR, but the time isn't there to run such a route.

I wanted to show a picture of this to yall but am not such a tech wiz...

 

[BAT]

Even teams that play a lot of man, can successfully play zone, and vice versa, when necessary. Corners have to have the ability to play both but more importantly be accountable for their responsibilities.

No team can be so predictable as to play man or zone all the time. Flexibility and unpredictability throughout the defense, especially in the secondary, is key to a consistently good D.

That said, Cowboys fans need to stop looking for the next Deion, Revis, etc, as the missing piece to a SB. There have been a MULTITUDE of Lombardi's won without one.

 

[Beast_from_East]

The key to man to man coverage is pressure. You have to generate a good pass rush in order to make QBs throw the ball early or throw the ball inaccurately.


For example, we played mostly man to man coverage under Wade, but our pass rush was pathetic. What happened? We were getting toasted left and right in the secondary. So what did Garrett do when he took over? He realized that we could not play man to man with our current pass rush so he changed the defense to mostly zone coverage.

Now as you have seen, defenses still can get burned with zone coverage if your secondary sucks and/or you cant generate any pass rush.


Bottom Line.....Regardless of scheme, we need better players on defense.

 

[AMERICAS_FAN]

You can play man-to-man if you have above-average pass rush and safeties. If you are average in those two areas, I would be more inclined to play zone.

Exactly! Dallas has the CBs to plan man-coverage, but even the best ones can't hold that coverage very long. If you play man-to-man your pass rush better get to the QB. If not, a WR will eventually break free and make it look like your secondary got exposed. The reality is, Dallas did not switch from man to zone defense to aid the secondary; they did it because the pass rush is below par this season, and so they needed to switch to zone to aid in that deficiency.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

You've got a quandry in the secondary.

You've got two corners in Jenkins and Newman who are better in man coverage BUT as others have pointed out the lack of pressure was a killer because it left the corners isolated for too long.

However, the safeties, especially Ball do not seem to grasp their responsibilities in playing zone. He tends to cover the wrong guy, letting a receiver get behind him. He also bites too hard on play-action, thereby again letting receivers get behind him.

 

[Apollo Creed]

It's tough to say because you want to have flexibility in your coverage, but our inability to generate any pass rush hurts us more than we realize.

Jenkins and Newman aren't bad corners. If they played for the Steelers or Ravens we'd be screaming for guys like them, they just don't have much help on that side of the ball, at all.

 

[Chuck 54]

You have to play both, a combination. Zone is less likely to give up the quick TD. Teams have to be methodical, patient, and the Qb needs to be accurate against a zone.

Personally, I like the zone against mobile QB's and teams that run the screen well, like Philly. IN man to man, the QB or the screen pass can go a long way before anyone hardly knows it. In the zone, guys are facing the QB and see the screens developing. Zone will give up more yardage, but fewer easy TD's.

When blitzing, I like man to man better, because you can get up and jam the receivers and make the hot read harder to complete; however, if the blitz doesn't get there, you're likely to give up a big play somewhere along the line.

Ideally, you'd like the QB and receivers to see zone before the snap, but run man to man or partial man to man; sometimes you want to look like man to man, but actually be in a zone...interception time.

When the QB and receivers know what you're in, then it's a challenge either way.

 

[rash]

^You are right, zone is definitely better against Qbs that can scramble because they are always facing the QB. In man, your back is to him and if he takes off, you won't know until he is 8 yards down field