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

[YoungPanthers89]

As long as we don't have guys giving WR's 10 yard cushions idc what they play

[PantherBrew]

Yes, I am one of the small group of fans that wanted to see us lean back to more of a zone. In my personal experiences, zones lead to more turnovers, and less big plays given up this is because the DB's eyes are always on the QB.  Now, there are obvious downsides to be sure. 

 

However, one thing most fans don't understand is that it is just ZONE vs MAN.  There are dozens of things that go into pass defense.  For example, a play can start off in a zone on both sides, but then can be checked to man when a man motions away.  These are things that are done at the high school level.  Most fans don't realize the next level of a defense.  I know this sounds like a dickish, superior comment, but its true.  It is easy to look at your Defense and say, okay we are in Cover 2 vs a 2x2 set, but where it gets nuts and confusing (by design) is when teams start motioning.  Then you have to make sure everything you check is going to be sound.  Like another example, you don't want to be playing cover 2 when teams motion to trips, you are going to have to check.  Sometime we would check a version of Cover 3 or Cover 5.  Also, if we were in Cover 2, and we had #1 and #2 far apart like a WR and a TE, we would check LOCK which put us in off man to that side.   Also, in college and the NFL these checks can change every series.  Because if Drew Brees knows what you are checking when you motion into trips, youre going to have a bad time. 

 

Sorry, I have been wanting to talk about this type of stuff for a while, but really haven't had the right time.  But it is never just as simple as, we are playing more zone or more man.  The biggest thing regarding that is building your base, and what your bread and butter is going to be.

[pantherclaw]

The best defenses in the history of the game, are mostly zone based defenses. 

We'll never get away from that, as it would do more harm than good.

I'm excited to see us bring more man coverage on the back end, and it is absolutely necessary against some of these offenses we face, especially within our own division. 

 

[bythenbrs]

You mean, like, move away from the successful zone coverage that worked so well for us last year?  True dat.   If it 'aint broke, don't fix it.

[Mr. Scot]

Nice work, LG. You made our corner coach resign!

[MillionDollarCam]

If the coaches use each player specifically to their strengths then there is no reason why this secondary can't succeed.

For example, Kevon Seymour recorded the most cover snaps per reception of any rookie in 2016 for the Bills who primarily ran a man to man defense under Rex Ryan. Yet, we bring him in and try to force him to play zone.

We then line James Bradberry up in man to man when he played primarily zone for the entirety of 2016 under McDermott.

Our roster is set up for players like Bradberry and Cockrell to play zone, Seymour and Gunter to play man, and potentially Jackson and Elder to play both (based off of their college experience).

This secondary is set up for success as long as we stop forcing players to play in coverage's that they are simply not good at.

[GoobyPls]

Jackson has played mainly man his entire life

[panthers34]

2 hours ago, Growl said:

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.

We hardly ran zone in the wild card game or at all last year so your point makes no sense. Wilks was big on rushing 5 and running man coverage almost every play and the defense just looked bad most of last year. Almost won the Super Bowl and had the best year in franchise history with a zone defense so I really don’t get why you’re saying we need more man defense or else we’ll get exposed. I would say running more man would be a disaster but we really can’t run more man than we did last year because that’s all we ran. 

Really hoping we go back to a zone defense more like McDermotts which our LBs thrived in and the rest of the secondary was much more successful with. Bradberry and Worley we drafted for their zone cover skills and looked awful last year in man.

I will say though that drafting Jackson will definitely help our man defense a lot if that is what we end up running this year. Nothing can we worse than what we saw last year. Couldn’t ever get off the field on a 3rd down, and had almost no turnovers. Just didn’t have the athletes for a man defense.  

[Growl]

25 minutes ago, panthers34 said:

We hardly ran zone in the wild card game or at all last year so your point makes no sense. Wilks was big on rushing 5 and running man coverage almost every play and the defense just looked bad most of last year. Almost won the Super Bowl and had the best year in franchise history with a zone defense so I really don’t get why you’re saying we need more man defense or else we’ll get exposed. I would say running more man would be a disaster but we really can’t run more man than we did last year because that’s all we ran. 

Really hoping we go back to a zone defense more like McDermotts which our LBs thrived in and the rest of the secondary was much more successful with. Bradberry and Worley we drafted for their zone cover skills and looked awful last year in man.

I will say though that drafting Jackson will definitely help our man defense a lot if that is what we end up running this year. Nothing can we worse than what we saw last year. Couldn’t ever get off the field on a 3rd down, and had almost no turnovers. Just didn’t have the athletes for a man defense.  

lol no

https://mobile.twitter.com/PanthersCentre/status/977303589415768064

New Orleans won the game on the inside slants on loose zone. You don't draft a 4.3 CB to run zone. 

[AU-panther]

I've been saying it for awhile but I think our defense if somewhat overrated and 2015 is a large reason for that.

Someone else posted this a few days ago but I'll repost again.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/givetake/year/2015

Not only did we lead the league in turnover margin we led it by a large margin.  You can't count on that every year.  I doesn't matter how many defensive players you select with "ball skills" there is some luck in turnovers.

We tend to play soft zones and hope for mistakes by the other team.  Unfortunately the really good QBs, the ones that tend to make the playoffs, sometimes don't make mistakes.

Last year we didn't get all the turnovers so we tried to force the action by blitzing more but we had to play off coverage.

I don't care how great your defensive line is, unless an offensive lineman totally whiffs on his block, the QB has a few seconds to make a pass.  If you are playing a soft zone how many QBs can get a pass off in the time?

Everybody thinks a great Dline can make your secondary look good but it works both ways.  A great secondary can make your Dline look good.  I'll take an average Dline and 4 seconds to get to the QB over a great line and 2 seconds to get to the QB.

 

[CarolinaNCSU]

4 hours ago, YoungPanthers89 said:

As long as we don't have guys giving WR's 10 yard cushions idc what they play

I've always wanted more man coverage, but am also worried about the personnel.  But this, is the key thing going back for YEARS.  We always give the other team cushion, rarely meet WRs at the line, etc.  We can get away with it during the regular season, but in the playoffs, where you're going Ryan/Wilson, Brees/Wentz, Brady to win a Super Bowl?  Your pass rush will fail one week, and you can't sit back and let a HOF level QB pick you apart 10 yards at a time. 

[Woodie]

7 hours 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.

While I get what you're saying, and it's reasonable to be somewhat concerned, I actually think we will be ok.  First of all, we can't just look at the corners, we have to also look to the fact that most of the time, they did not have effective safety support.  Adams was good, but Coleman had a rough year, so that played into it as well.  

I also think the scheme had a lot to do with it.  While I like the fact Wilkes was aggressive, he became very predictable with that aggression.  So much so that teams knew when our blitzes were coming and called a play that took advantage of an extra man rushing the passer.  It also seemed like Luke played closer to the LOS than he had in previous years (nothing to back that up with but my own observations, so I won't swear on it), which took away one of our greatest assets in defending against the pass in the middle of the field.

I don't think we really ran a true man scheme either.  Most of our man coverage came when we were blitzing, which put our CB's on an island without much support.  There wasn't a whole lot of man coverage with safety and LB help filling in the gaps.  We also played a whole bunch of top shelf QB's.  Precision passers that can drop the ball on a dime.  So, all of those things came together to form the perfect storm that made our pass defense look pretty bad.

Fast forward to this year, it sounds like the scheme is going to be more of a true man coverage with the safeties expected to play center field and force turnovers.  While last season we didn't have anyone that could keep up with the faster and shiftier receivers, this year we now have Jackson and Corn that should help limit their effect.  We also brought in a rangier and more instinctive safety than Coleman, so that should help protect our CB's as well.  Now, many of the players are young and relatively inexperienced, so there will be mistakes and growing pains, but in no way do I think our pass defense will consistently struggle as it did last year.

[RumHam]

BUT BUT WE DON'T TAKE DB PLAY SERIOUSLY

[Moo Daeng]

I don't see it being significantly more. Every team mixes coverages. We will continue to be a zone defense.

Why do people commonly associate man coverage with being better?  It's different, not better.