Man to Man Defense

[KManx89]

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.

We were playing man-to-man coverage effectively in 2010 with Woodson, Tramon, Shields and Co., and guess what? We had the 5th ranked defense and won the Super Bowl with that scheme. And low and behold, those same guys are still here. I understand we couldn't really play man coverage last year because of all the injuries in the secondary, but they're all healthy now, including Tramon, so who's to say we can't go back to doing what worked for us? Yes, you run the risk of giving up big plays while playing man coverage, but playing that crappy zone scheme with our DBs each playing 10 yards off the receivers sure as hell isn't working (*I* could come in and play QB and complete a lot of passes against that coverage scheme with my 20/100 uncorrected vision). It didn't work last year when our defense was ranked dead last, and it won't work now (hell, it didn't work last Sunday, so my point's already been proven).

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

^ I was just stating that each scheme has good and bad points. But, with the new, young guys being plugged in, they will get picked on by veteran QB's during man to man more often....thus getting burned more often.

 

[rodell330]

Man -Zone anyone? I'm reading the debates man vs zone.... so why not combo the two? Like my man said two post above mines that 2010 we were ranked 5th and we did play alot of man to man. The peices of the back end are still here minus Collins. We can't be afraid to be aggresive because our pass rush consists of two players. We need to be smart in our approach but Just the quarterback position you can't hide your lack of a pass rush, just can't. A little more Safety blitz and mor twist or crossing blitzes is what i would like to see.

 

[mradtke66]

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

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. I've maintained that "Cover-3" is a simple coverage that can be easily beaten for short-medium gains. Care to point out my mistake?

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

Man -Zone anyone? I'm reading the debates man vs zone.... so why not combo the two? Like my man said two post above mines that 2010 we were ranked 5th and we did play alot of man to man. The peices of the back end are still here minus Collins. We can't be afraid to be aggresive because our pass rush consists of two players. We need to be smart in our approach but Just the quarterback position you can't hide your lack of a pass rush, just can't. A little more Safety blitz and mor twist or crossing blitzes is what i would like to see.

There are a TON of schemes that employ a combo package.....having the personel that can execute is another story.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. I've maintained that "Cover-3" is a simple coverage that can be easily beaten for short-medium gains. Care to point out my mistake?

You and I were talking about a man to man scheme, and then you brought up"zone".....just saying.

If you think that a cover 3 wont work, go take a look t what great pass defense teams are using. They may not call it "cover 3"...they have their own creative scheme name(s), but look at it from the above view and you will see a cover 3 format. Teams use it. Keeps from the "big play" happening. I am will ing to bet that teams that have a diesel LB corps that can cover the middle employ this scheme more than you think. Yes, it may seem "simple" but disguised, it can be a nightmare.

 

[mradtke66]

You and I were talking about a man to man scheme, and then you brought up"zone".....just saying.

If you think that a cover 3 wont work, go take a look t what great pass defense teams are using. They may not call it "cover 3"...they have their own creative scheme name(s), but look at it from the above view and you will see a cover 3 format. Teams use it. Keeps from the "big play" happening. I am will ing to bet that teams that have a diesel LB corps that can cover the middle employ this scheme more than you think. Yes, it may seem "simple" but disguised, it can be a nightmare.

Oh, it can work. I just don't like it as a base. It's a fine defense for preventing big plays in a normal time situations.

Also, "cover-3" is a zone coverage is nearly all cases. If you're doing a base-rush of 4 men and put 3 guys deep, you don't have enough to play man to man. Now you can play mixed coverages, but then I'd argue you aren't really in cover-3 any more.

"cover-2" can be either man or zone, though is usually refers to cover-2 zone. I prefer "man-2-deep" for "cover-2 man". I find it more descriptive.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

That's all I was saying...really...is that it will help us to prevent getting burned on the 'BIG PLAY". So, we do agree then...lol

I do find that the more a team plays that cover 2 man, the more they get burned.....hope that Lovie Smith keeps up his cover 2 and tampa 2 trend for tonight. J. Nelson may have a huge game.

 

[mradtke66]

That's all I was saying...really...is that it will help us to prevent getting burned on the 'BIG PLAY". So, we do agree then...lol

I do find that the more a team plays that cover 2 man, the more they get burned.....hope that Lovie Smith keeps up his cover 2 and tampa 2 trend for tonight. J. Nelson may have a huge game.

What I don't like about cover-3 is the relative ease of completion of 5-7 yard routes. It would be my preferred defense on 3 and 10. I don't care if you get 7 yards, but I'm still rushing 4.

As far as "getting burned" by cover-2-man, I doubt that. It's a very pass-safe defense. That's the coverage that has ultimately beaten us our last three losses: Man everyone up and keep the safeties deep over the top. The is the one place where you do need to run, as cover-2 is weak against it. The safeties are deep enough that 3-4 yards should be a gimme.

Running didn't work against the 49ers (in part) because their front is so good, they could probably play a nickel front against a 2 tight end, 2 back set and still stop you. And playing against 3-4 teams doesn't help us either. 3-4's are generally better run defenses and the one place you can generally be under-sized on the o-line, center (which we are), has to face the nose tackle.

Also, minor nit, Tampa-2s are cover-2 zones.

 

[slaughter25]

Man -Zone anyone? I'm reading the debates man vs zone.... so why not combo the two? Like my man said two post above mines that 2010 we were ranked 5th and we did play alot of man to man. The peices of the back end are still here minus Collins. We can't be afraid to be aggresive because our pass rush consists of two players. We need to be smart in our approach but Just the quarterback position you can't hide your lack of a pass rush, just can't. A little more Safety blitz and mor twist or crossing blitzes is what i would like to see.

Way too big of a minus when the half wits we have playing back there don't have their less than mediocre play covered up by an all pro.

 

[Marsh]

Not a bad idea, but man to man leaves you slightly more vulnerable to overloads doesn't it?

 

[HardRightEdge]

We mixed in a fair amount of man coverage against CHI. You need a pass rush to make it work, and it looks like we have one once again. Not much Bush out there; McMillan looked pretty good taking Jennings spot (who, as it turns out, gave up the Moss TD when he missed Burnett's adjustment call.)

It also helps that CHI doesn't run picks as a staple of their offense the way SF does.