Man to Man Defense

[Packers80]

Everyone knows how bad our defense was last year when it came to the passing game. We all know that statistically we were the worst in NFL history. IMO, I would love to see Capers switch over to more of a man-to-man approach rather than all this zone coverage. We all saw Randy Moss wide open in the end-zone due to a blown coverage this past Sunday, and there were a few others that allowed the 49ers to get big plays down field.

Playing more of a man-to-man, jamming receivers at the line and disrupting their routs is something I would love to see more off. We're lacking physicality; while trying to pounce on every route conceived.. (Tramon..). Point is, if someone screws up while playing man-to-man, there is no one else to blame but the dummy who didn't know how to play his position. No one has to point fingers at who blew the coverage and didn't follow up with their man.

And again, emphasizing physicality. I don't see that hunger that I saw back in our Superbowl year. A.J. Hawk, hit the guy in the mouth and don't let him push you two yards back before you make the tackle. Morgan Burnett, instead of leading in with your shoulder and completely looking like a high school football player, hit Gore the way Tramon hit him after he got in the end zone. Seriously, we need that hunger again, and right now, I'm just not seeing it.

Thoughts?

 

[MLB]

I agree.

 

[HyponGrey]

Pushing only works if you actually push him out of bounds. You know what else doesn't work? Batting/diving at the guys legs.

 

[GreenBlood]

Morgan Burnett, instead of leading in with your shoulder and completely looking like a high school football player, hit Gore the way Tramon hit him after he got in the end zone. Seriously, we need that hunger again, and right now, I'm just not seeing it.

Thoughts?

How about we quit worrying about hitting altogether and start worrying more about making a proper tackle?

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

Man to man can be a good thing or a VERY bad thing. If you have shut down cover corners, man to man will allow the D line time to get to the QB. It's also a way of getting burned, BADLY. Since we have a bunch of younger guys that don't "get it" yet, doubt you will see a ton of man to man coverage.

Coverage schemes all have advantages and disadvantages. I just hope that the bears play their cover two on defense since we have speedy J. Nelson, he will be able to burn the high safety on his side. I can only really hope that they would be dumb enough to play single high safety in a cover one man coverage on us...lol

We need to employ a cover 3 scheme, dividing the mid to deep threat part of the field into thirds.

 

[HyponGrey]

Man to man can be a good thing or a VERY bad thing. If you have shut down cover corners, man to man will allow the D line time to get to the QB. It's also a way of getting burned, BADLY. Since we have a bunch of younger guys that don't "get it" yet, doubt you will see a ton of man to man coverage.

Coverage schemes all have advantages and disadvantages. I just hope that the bears play their cover two on defense since we have speedy J. Nelson, he will be able to burn the high safety on his side. I can only really hope that they would be dumb enough to play single high safety in a cover one man coverage on us...lol

We need to employ a cover 3 scheme, dividing the mid to deep threat part of the field into thirds.

I'm gonna miss seeing Brandon Merriweather getting torched in navy and orange.

As for our secondary, our corners are too opportunistic to play man without competent safeties covering their rears.

 

[burt packerack]

GreenBlood, hitting is a part of tackling fundamentals. A good tackle could mean a dude just hanging on until the guy gets on the ground which is what I don't want to see Hawk do anymore. A good hit & tackle could cause a fumble and make the receiver afraid to come across the middle.

 

[burt packerack]

and when i say hit i mean an initial hit of the tackle instead of just a shoulder bump

 

[JBlood]

Don't know if we've got guys like a young Woodson and Al Harris that could play man with anyone. Capers must feel the same.

 

[HyponGrey]

Don't know if we've got guys like a young Woodson and Al Harris that could play man with anyone. Capers must feel the same.

Capers missed that era. He's only been here since 09

 

[mradtke66]

Coverage schemes all have advantages and disadvantages. I just hope that the bears play their cover two on defense since we have speedy J. Nelson, he will be able to burn the high safety on his side. I can only really hope that they would be dumb enough to play single high safety in a cover one man coverage on us...lol

We need to employ a cover 3 scheme, dividing the mid to deep threat part of the field into thirds.

The 'proper' way to beat Cover-2 zones isn't trying to out run the safety, it's to squeeze into the space between the corner and safety. Anyone can make a mistake, but generally it's very difficult to get deep against cover-2.

Put two routes to a side. Make the corner choose who he covers, short guy or deep guy. Throw to the other one. Most times, he takes the short guy, as his zone is the flat and the deep guy is normally running a corner, which is a more difficult throw, than say a 2 yard out or swing route. If you're going to push for yardage, your tight end up the seam is your target.

Of course Tampa-2s try to slow that down by dropping the MLB deeper. The counter punch to that is to have your back, slot, or second tight end settle in front of the MLB. The counter punch to that is that those routes tend to be slower developing, so the pass rush/protection matters.

As far as cover-3, yuck. There's a time and place for that coverage, but as a base, I'll pass. It tends to be the easiest to diagnose. It's a high school coverage, so every quarterback knows exactly where to find the holes.

If Shields get his head screwed on right and keeps playing like he did against the 49ers (ie, he actually tackled) we can get cuter in the secondary. Cover-1 with Burnett deep would be nice. He's not as fast Collins, but fast enough to let Woodson roam close to the line. The defense would take a step forward if you could count on 2 of Matthews, Perry, and Woodson coming on plays.

 

[HyponGrey]

If it's fast we want for a safety, I'll be happy when McMillian finally learns to cover.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

The 'proper' way to beat Cover-2 zones isn't trying to out run the safety, it's to squeeze into the space between the corner and safety. Anyone can make a mistake, but generally it's very difficult to get deep against cover-2.

Put two routes to a side. Make the corner choose who he covers, short guy or deep guy. Throw to the other one. Most times, he takes the short guy, as his zone is the flat and the deep guy is normally running a corner, which is a more difficult throw, than say a 2 yard out or swing route. If you're going to push for yardage, your tight end up the seam is your target.

Of course Tampa-2s try to slow that down by dropping the MLB deeper. The counter punch to that is to have your back, slot, or second tight end settle in front of the MLB. The counter punch to that is that those routes tend to be slower developing, so the pass rush/protection matters.

As far as cover-3, yuck. There's a time and place for that coverage, but as a base, I'll pass. It tends to be the easiest to diagnose. It's a high school coverage, so every quarterback knows exactly where to find the holes.

If Shields get his head screwed on right and keeps playing like he did against the 49ers (ie, he actually tackled) we can get cuter in the secondary. Cover-1 with Burnett deep would be nice. He's not as fast Collins, but fast enough to let Woodson roam close to the line. The defense would take a step forward if you could count on 2 of Matthews, Perry, and Woodson coming on plays.

Not picking on you, but cover 3 is NOT highschool stuff. Most HS kids and coaches couldn't comprehend more complex schemes.

One of the biggest benefits of the cover 3 coverage scheme is the ability to walk the strong safety up into the box with minimal to no changes in the coverage due to the pre-snap center field position of the free safety. This enables the defense to play both man and zone coverage out of an 8 man front while cover 2 schemes allow only for man coverage with 7 man fronts

Disadvantage:
Cover 3 schemes are susceptible to short, timed passes to the outside due to the hard drop of both cornerbacks ( cutler is ok, but not that good with timing routes). This puts pressure on the outside linebackers to react to pass plays and get into their drop quickly if they need to cover a receiver.

As far as the disadvantage goes: We have one OLB ( CM3) that can and has proved he can cover, but Perry has yet to be proven or given much of a chance to learn that and to ball hawk, so to speak.

 

[GreenBlood]

GreenBlood, hitting is a part of tackling fundamentals. A good tackle could mean a dude just hanging on until the guy gets on the ground

No, that's not a good tackle. But you don't have to try to knock a guy's head off to make a good tackle. "Harder" does not equal "better."

 

[TJV]

Man to man can be a good thing or a VERY bad thing. If you have shut down cover corners, man to man will allow the D line time to get to the QB. It's also a way of getting burned, BADLY. Since we have a bunch of younger guys that don't "get it" yet, doubt you will see a ton of man to man coverage. Coverage schemes all have advantages and disadvantages.

I agree and I'll add: The key to NFL pass defense is to disguise the coverage the team is going to play that down. Not only that, but when fans advocate for this scheme or that I hope they understand no team plays the same scheme over and over - NFL offenses are far too sophisticated for that. It's my impression most teams play a combination of man and zone on most passing downs.

Regarding mostly man vs. mostly zone, if Capers would have played mostly man coverage last season the Packers' pass defense would have been even worse. Man coverage needs a pass rush to be effective because even the best DBs can't cover "forever". Also, when the front 7 (or however many) of a D doesn't tackle well, the last thing you want is man coverage behind them because DBs will have their backs to the guy running the ball. I think Capers prefers zone coverage because with all - or most - of the DBs facing the QB there is a better chance of an INT and less of a chance of an explosive play: Although that didn't work well last year, IMO it really could have been worse.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

I agree and I'll add: The key to NFL pass defense is to disguise the coverage the team is going to play that down. Not only that, but when fans advocate for this scheme or that I hope they understand no team plays the same scheme over and over - NFL offenses are far too sophisticated for that. It's my impression most teams play a combination of man and zone on most passing downs.

Regarding mostly man vs. mostly zone, if Capers would have played mostly man coverage last season the Packers' pass defense would have been even worse. Man coverage needs a pass rush to be effective because even the best DBs can't cover "forever". Also, when the front 7 (or however many) of a D doesn't tackle well, the last thing you want is man coverage behind them because DBs will have their backs to the guy running the ball. I think Capers prefers zone coverage because with all - or most - of the DBs facing the QB there is a better chance of an INT and less of a chance of an explosive play: Although that didn't work well last year, IMO it really could have been worse.

I like the way you think. Good post sir, good post.

 

[burt packerack]

@GreenBold, again i am not saying rip the dude's head off everytime. I just want a hard initial contact while still wrapping the guy up. It's embarrassing seeing these guys *****foot around and just barely get tackles.

 

[mradtke66]

Not picking on you, but cover 3 is NOT highschool stuff. Most HS kids and coaches couldn't comprehend more complex schemes.

See, that's the rub. Cover-3 isn't complex. Your FS and your corners drop straight back. And yes it is "high school" stuff, that's the base zone coverage my school played ~14 years ago.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Everyone knows how bad our defense was last year when it came to the passing game. We all know that statistically we were the worst in NFL history. IMO, I would love to see Capers switch over to more of a man-to-man approach rather than all this zone coverage. We all saw Randy Moss wide open in the end-zone due to a blown coverage this past Sunday, and there were a few others that allowed the 49ers to get big plays down field.

Playing more of a man-to-man, jamming receivers at the line and disrupting their routs is something I would love to see more off. We're lacking physicality; while trying to pounce on every route conceived.. (Tramon..). Point is, if someone screws up while playing man-to-man, there is no one else to blame but the dummy who didn't know how to play his position. No one has to point fingers at who blew the coverage and didn't follow up with their man.

And again, emphasizing physicality. I don't see that hunger that I saw back in our Superbowl year. A.J. Hawk, hit the guy in the mouth and don't let him push you two yards back before you make the tackle. Morgan Burnett, instead of leading in with your shoulder and completely looking like a high school football player, hit Gore the way Tramon hit him after he got in the end zone. Seriously, we need that hunger again, and right now, I'm just not seeing it.

Thoughts?

If you're going to run man D, you need a robust blitzing pass rush. NFL QBs shred man given enough time. Our man coverage did not look good last year when we used it because the QBs were sitting back in rocking chairs.

Now, with Williams back healthy (we think) you'd expect to see him getting back to some bump/physical man coverage and Shields is pretty darn good man cover guy. The pass rush looks better already. The problem is losing Bishop...our best (only?) interior blitz guy.

This is something that will evolve over the season as the new guys get their sea legs. It will probably be tried out a bit more when we get the right match-up.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I agree and I'll add: The key to NFL pass defense is to disguise the coverage the team is going to play that down. Not only that, but when fans advocate for this scheme or that I hope they understand no team plays the same scheme over and over - NFL offenses are far too sophisticated for that. It's my impression most teams play a combination of man and zone on most passing downs.

Regarding mostly man vs. mostly zone, if Capers would have played mostly man coverage last season the Packers' pass defense would have been even worse. Man coverage needs a pass rush to be effective because even the best DBs can't cover "forever". Also, when the front 7 (or however many) of a D doesn't tackle well, the last thing you want is man coverage behind them because DBs will have their backs to the guy running the ball. I think Capers prefers zone coverage because with all - or most - of the DBs facing the QB there is a better chance of an INT and less of a chance of an explosive play: Although that didn't work well last year, IMO it really could have been worse.

To paraphrase Leroy Butler's mid-season comment from last year, I'd be happy if our safeties simply learned the meaning of the word "safety".

 

[slaughter25]

As far as the disadvantage goes: We have one OLB ( CM3) that can and has proved he can cover, but Perry has yet to be proven or given much of a chance to learn that and to ball hawk, so to speak.

This here proves to be the scale tipper IMO. Perry is a rookie and looks very lost when forced to cover anyone especially a WR. Any scheme or play that puts him in a position to cover anyone (at least at this point in his development) is a very advantageous scheme for the offense. Against the 49ers they didn't even try to hide it. If you saw #53 lined up to cover someone or off the line Alex Smith would point at him and call his number. When you have that glaring of weakness in your game anyone with half a brain is going to target it.

 

[slaughter25]

See, that's the rub. Cover-3 isn't complex. Your FS and your corners drop straight back. And yes it is "high school" stuff, that's the base zone coverage my school played ~14 years ago.

Second that.

 

[Shawnsta3]

Capers was never a huge man to man guy. And frankly, we don't have the guys for it. Physical bump and run corners are hard to come by.

Tramon can do it alright as he learned from the best when he came in the league (Woodson, Harris). Hayward was advertised as one coming out of college but I don't see it in him as he is a little small with Sam Shields size- who has made big plays with his speed and can stick with guys but overall struggled in man as he lacked instincts. House is not fit for the role. Bush is definitely not a canidate as he has really struggled in man and is a serious liability if you make him run stride for stride with a receiver around the field.

Dream canidate: Aqib Talib- yes he's had his share of off the field struggles, but he was a first round draft pick for a reason. And as of late it looks like he's got things figured out. He's got prototypical size at 6"1 201 lbs. on field I swear he's gotta be at least 6"2 215 lbs. He has 4.4 40 yard dash speed to go with his size. He can stay step for step with guys downfield and can bump guys at the line- which makes him a bump and run/man to man candidate. He's never been a huge interception guy, but he gets plenty of knockdowns. He can also come up and stuff the run when needed which is what he's really excelled at in Tampa. And the main reason I love this guy is because he could cover Brandon Marshall/ Alshon Jeffrey, Megatron with his physical attributes. Now I know this would never happen, it's just fun to think about!

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

Ok, let's see some fireworks and just get buck wild and go with a cover "0" (zero) package.....LOL
Oh, wait....that's highscool stuff

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

See, that's the rub. Cover-3 isn't complex. Your FS and your corners drop straight back. And yes it is "high school" stuff, that's the base zone coverage my school played ~14 years ago.

lol...you just contradicted yourself. re-read your post and see if you can find your mistake...lol