Anyone else concerned with this talk about playing more man coverage?

[LinvilleGorge]

Bradberry looked plain bad last year. Every bit as bad as Worley. Cockrelll has played well in the past but he’s played well in zone schemes. Jackson has the speed and agility measurable but he’s tiny by NFL standards. The rest of the CBs are JAGs and the safeties are too old and slow to provide much help over the top. On paper this looks like a disaster if we truly go man heavy.

[Growl]

No because I watched the saints game last year

[Growl]

Heres a simple truth for you:

The Carolina Panthers will not win the super bowl this season if they do not play more man.

The entire NFL watched the saints run zone beater after zone beater in the NFCWCG.

Ignoring that is leaving mike remmers at RT after Super Bowl 50.

The logic is sound. Grab a high draft pick and a couple FAs and do what you can. There is no scenario where the panthers are a successful team without incorporating more man looks.

[Ship]

I think we play more man and our defense is top 3 this year.

[Bronn]

The Panthers’ biggest problem on defense the past 15 or so years is that they run too much weak zone coverage to begin with. We’ve relied too heavily on the front seven, and good teams pick that apart with TE’s and slot guys.

Yes we desperately need to run more man coverage.

That said, I’m not sold we have the personnel.

Honestly, I think the LBs and DE we got in the draft are going to be molded into rotating edge rushers/cover guys like Denver and a Seattle have featured in the past. You can give lots of different looks with this type of defense, and allow your corners to man up while your safeties roam zones. Rather than featuring a nickel or dime in some scenarios, I expect we are planning on having the extra guy up front manning up or showing blitz.

[tondi]

I think we need to be less predictable and have the flexibility to go man if its a better matchup for us. 

[PizzaTheHutt]

we desperately need to play more Man coverage. I'm so sick of this soft zone BS...letting the catch go uncontested every time and THEN trying to make a play. It just leads to too many first down conversions. A good QB will rip that soft zone apart. I would rather our guys get beat trying to actually play their man than get beat after an uncontested catch. At least mix it up a little bit. 

[MtnProwler]

28 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Bradberry looked plain bad last year. Every bit as bad as Worley. Cockrelll has played well in the past but he’s played well in zone schemes. Jackson has the speed and agility measurable but he’s tiny by NFL standards. The rest of the CBs are JAGs and the safeties are too old and slow to provide much help over the top. On paper this looks like a disaster if we truly go man heavy.

I get what you're saying. But why not have both zone and man packages, at least more of a balance. I think we didn't in the past as much because of our stubborn coordinators and/or our personnel. Every other sport changes defenses based on match ups why not us? It will also keep offenses more unaware to our typical defensive tendencies.

[SCMunnerlyn1]

They have combo coverages as well man with safetys or linebackers in Zone. It's a chess match. The key for this team I feel will be how we play 0 coverage. We can't keep playing so far off when we blitz and get raped by slants and comebacks. 

 

[Mr. Scot]

Given that we've built a secondary featuring zone corners?

[LinvilleGorge]

12 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Given that we've built a secondary featuring zone corners?

Glad somebody saw what I was getting at. A big part of why our secondary struggled so badly last year was that Wilks ran more man coverage than McDermott did before him and now Washington is evidently talking about running even more.

[Joe the Show]

yes, I am very concerned.  I also don't like that we are on our 3rd defensive coordinator in 3 years.  I hope Rivera lets Norv handle the offense, and has a bigger role in making sure the plan on defense actually makes sense.

[MHS831]

1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Bradberry looked plain bad last year. Every bit as bad as Worley. Cockrelll has played well in the past but he’s played well in zone schemes. Jackson has the speed and agility measurable but he’s tiny by NFL standards. The rest of the CBs are JAGs and the safeties are too old and slow to provide much help over the top. On paper this looks like a disaster if we truly go man heavy.

Nice thread.  I think Bradberry and Cockrell will have some moments when they have to lock into man, but I am seeing a possibility of Jackson locking onto the opposition's speed WR, or their #1 WR.If so, that means Bradberry could be locking onto the opposition's #2 or #3---or staying in Zone, ignoring the #1--different game.  Good question, but I dont think Bradberry is useless--he is simply a target against some WRs.

[panthers55]

Playing man coverage successfully is about making it difficult to get off the line and into your route. Man coverage is about technique more than just closing or recovery speed. When was the last time we saw anyone besides Munnerlyn actually jam a receiver off the line and not get beat when they wiff. Playing man would make the defense instantly better as receivers wouldn't get free releases and easy catches anymore. You negate Brees by making him hold the ball and go through his progressions rather than simply let the receiver come free off the line and be wide open in a zone crease or area.