PDA

View Full Version : Why do we play so much zone?



Rudyy
01-22-2013, 02:07 PM
Do we not have the players to play man to man defense?
Do we only play man when we can get pressure on the Quarterback?

Also, does anybody know specifically how much zone defense we played this year?

slipknottin
01-22-2013, 02:21 PM
They have always played a lot of zone. Spags called a ton of it

As to why they play so much zone. Well that is what fewel has always called.

And it's not a negative. Especially with how many running QBs there are now. You really can't play man against them.

giantsfan420
01-22-2013, 03:47 PM
i think we played more of it this season bc the DL wasnt getting home. If the DL is generating consistent pressure, you can play more man. When the QB isnt getting pressured, you cant expect the corners to hold up coverage 4 seconds or more really, especially Webster this past season at least. I also think bc of who we could field at LB, our more athletic guys were hampered all season, PF might not have been comfortable depending on them tracking the athletic TE's and RB's we faced downfield...theres a ton of reasons...'


btw, rudy, this is a good question. and notice how theres like 2 replies? dont u find it funny, ironic, hypocritical how theres certain posters who complain that eli gets all this attention and its on "homers" minds non stop, meanwhile theyre creating eli threads to pick at and instigate banter?? i dunno i just find it funny at least...

Drez
01-22-2013, 03:54 PM
btw, rudy, this is a good question. and notice how theres like 2 replies? dont u find it funny, ironic, hypocritical how theres certain posters who complain that eli gets all this attention and its on "homers" minds non stop, meanwhile theyre creating eli threads to pick at and instigate banter?? i dunno i just find it funny at least...

Well, I think some of the lack of response is because a lot of people just don't know the answer and/or aren't strong enough in the X's and O's to give an informed opinion on why we run so much zone.

Rudyy
01-22-2013, 03:59 PM
i think we played more of it this season bc the DL wasnt getting home. If the DL is generating consistent pressure, you can play more man. When the QB isnt getting pressured, you cant expect the corners to hold up coverage 4 seconds or more really, especially Webster this past season at least. I also think bc of who we could field at LB, our more athletic guys were hampered all season, PF might not have been comfortable depending on them tracking the athletic TE's and RB's we faced downfield...theres a ton of reasons...'


btw, rudy, this is a good question. and notice how theres like 2 replies? dont u find it funny, ironic, hypocritical how theres certain posters who complain that eli gets all this attention and its on "homers" minds non stop, meanwhile theyre creating eli threads to pick at and instigate banter?? i dunno i just find it funny at least...Yes I do find it funny, it is what it is. They know who they are.

Anyway, I find it interesting that under Spags we were this powerhouse defense. Maybe it's because he had better players under his belt.

Rudyy
01-22-2013, 04:02 PM
Well, I think some of the lack of response is because a lot of people just don't know the answer and/or aren't strong enough in the X's and O's to give an informed opinion on why we run so much zone.This is also true.

Drez
01-22-2013, 04:05 PM
Yes I do find it funny, it is what it is. They know who they are.

Anyway, I find it interesting that under Spags we were this powerhouse defense. Maybe it's because he had better players under his belt.

We had a great pass rush in '07 that petered out at the end of '08, though, we did play excellent defense for most of '08.

I just think that Spags' defenses were kind of a perfect storm of personnel that fit great and players that truly got his scheme. I really would have been interested in seeing if he could have had continued success or if he was just a two year wonder.

Mercury
01-22-2013, 04:08 PM
I think it is because PF emphasizes turnovers. Zone allows the secondary to look back at the QB more than man to man, and theoretically allows them to make a play for the ball.

Drez
01-22-2013, 04:10 PM
I think it is because PF emphasizes turnovers. Zone allows the secondary to look back at the QB more than man to man, and theoretically allows them to make a play for the ball.
And importantly, he does like that quasi-read-and-react thing, lol (which is essentially what you just said).

YATittle1962
01-22-2013, 04:13 PM
I actually cannot remember the last time this team was a primarily press man team

Perry calls a whole lot of zone ......but that is not what bothers me .....its the particular type of zones they run that bother me sometimes

there is a difference between zone and press zone

these corners are almost always way off the LOS because the safeties in this scheme are often forced to be LB or nickel corners

I personally believe playing more press zone will help the pass rush ...but in order to play a successful press zone you would need that safety over the top of each half

and further more......for that to happen the Giants will need more affective LBs

for years and years the NY Giants defensive scheme has been built around the pass rush and also built to mask a weakness at LB

Kruunch
01-22-2013, 04:16 PM
Do we not have the players to play man to man defense?
Do we only play man when we can get pressure on the Quarterback?

Also, does anybody know specifically how much zone defense we played this year?

Zone is used for a bunch of reasons:

1) Keep everything in front of you. If you are running man across the board and bringing extra rushers (or doubling some people) and a swing pass, or run play gets to the second level, you're looking at a big gash in yardage (possibly score).

2) Zone provides a base that's easy to get back to when things are going wrong. Carl Banks remarked one of Sheridan's problems was that when our defense was being abused over and over, we wouldn't get into a base zone as a "reset". We kept reacting to the last play instead of preparing for the current one.

3) Zone follows the philosophy of providing "traffic". Most of your picks are in a zone defense when a QB doesn't see someone playing center field.

4) Zone also follows the philosophy of assigning players "permanent" positions from which you can then add your wrinkles in. In other words, when asked to blitz, you know who/where your back up is.

Generally speaking, when you bring an extra man (or more) on a blitz, your zone becomes too open (not enough coverage) so you go to man coverage to make up the difference. Often you will see a combination of zone and man coverage on almost every defensive play in the NFL. The caveat here is the sell out blitz (when you bring two or more extra rushers) and the zone blitz (where you bring an extra rusher (Safety or LB) and drop a dlineman).

We ran pure zone about 40%(ish) of the time in 2012. When we've done this, its almost always been in a Cover 3 look. Normally we run a Cover 2 shell with single or double man underneath (although our Safeties tend to cheat a lot on that). Very occasionally we've run pure man coverage (we almost never blitz that many players).

We ran a type of zone about 90%+ of our defensive snaps this year.

Hope that helped :)

Drez
01-22-2013, 04:17 PM
I actually cannot remember the last time this team was a primarily press man team

Perry calls a whole lot of zone ......but that is not what bothers me .....its the particular type of zones they run that bother me sometimes

there is a difference between zone and press zone

these corners are almost always way off the LOS because the safeties in this scheme are often forced to be LB or nickel corners

I personally believe playing more press zone will help the pass rush ...but in order to play a successful press zone you would need that safety over the top of each half

and further more......for that to happen the Giants will need more affective LBs

for years and years the NY Giants defensive scheme has been built around the pass rush and also built to mask a weakness at LB
Well, we usually have one S playing slot or hybrid LB... and then our deep safety is often somewhere in Morris County. That creates the additional problem of making that deep center area that the LB is supposed to cover too large and too deep, only exposing our LBs more.

Rudyy
01-22-2013, 04:19 PM
Zone is used for a bunch of reasons:

1) Keep everything in front of you. If you are running man across the board and bringing extra rushers (or doubling some people) and a swing pass, or run play gets to the second level, you're looking at a big gash in yardage (possibly score).

2) Zone provides a base that's easy to get back to when things are going wrong. Carl Banks remarked one of Sheridan's problems was that when our defense was being abused over and over, we wouldn't get into a base zone as a "reset". We kept reacting to the last play instead of preparing for the current one.

3) Zone follows the philosophy of providing "traffic". Most of your picks are in a zone defense when a QB doesn't see someone playing center field.

4) Zone also follows the philosophy of assigning players "permanent" positions from which you can then add your wrinkles in. In other words, when asked to blitz, you know who/where your back up is.

Generally speaking, when you bring an extra man (or more) on a blitz, your zone becomes too open (not enough coverage) so you go to man coverage to make up the difference. Often you will see a combination of zone and man coverage on almost every defensive play in the NFL. The caveat here is the sell out blitz (when you bring two or more extra rushers) and the zone blitz (where you bring an extra rusher (Safety or LB) and drop a dlineman).

We ran pure zone about 40%(ish) of the time in 2012. When we've done this, its almost always been in a Cover 3 look. Normally we run a Cover 2 shell with single or double man underneath (although our Safeties tend to cheat a lot on that). Very occasionally we've run pure man coverage (we almost never blitz that many players).

We ran a type of zone about 90%+ of our defensive snaps this year.

Hope that helped :)I'm not too well with X's and O' specifically with coverages and different looks and all that, but this helped. Thanks!

Kruunch
01-22-2013, 04:20 PM
I actually cannot remember the last time this team was a primarily press man team

Perry calls a whole lot of zone ......but that is not what bothers me .....its the particular type of zones they run that bother me sometimes

there is a difference between zone and press zone

these corners are almost always way off the LOS because the safeties in this scheme are often forced to be LB or nickel corners

I personally believe playing more press zone will help the pass rush ...but in order to play a successful press zone you would need that safety over the top of each half

and further more......for that to happen the Giants will need more affective LBs

for years and years the NY Giants defensive scheme has been built around the pass rush and also built to mask a weakness at LB

Parcells put it best ... zone is meant to be played to the player, not the patch of grass. Fewell's defense plays it to the patch of grass (no matter what else is going on).

Rudyy
01-22-2013, 04:20 PM
I actually cannot remember the last time this team was a primarily press man team

Perry calls a whole lot of zone ......but that is not what bothers me .....its the particular type of zones they run that bother me sometimes

there is a difference between zone and press zone

these corners are almost always way off the LOS because the safeties in this scheme are often forced to be LB or nickel corners

I personally believe playing more press zone will help the pass rush ...but in order to play a successful press zone you would need that safety over the top of each half

and further more......for that to happen the Giants will need more affective LBs

for years and years the NY Giants defensive scheme has been built around the pass rush and also built to mask a weakness at LBSo is the LBer position a bigger need than the DE position? In terms of helping out the secondary.

I've seen many posts on if we rush the QB then we wouldn't play so much zone.

Kruunch
01-22-2013, 04:23 PM
So is the LBer position a bigger need than the DE position? In terms of helping out the secondary.

I've seen many posts on if we rush the QB then we wouldn't play so much zone.

We need our guys to stick better first. I don't think any amount of talent would have actually made our brand of zone better.

Same for our pass rush. Our pass rush was at its best when we blitzed 30-40% of the time, stunted the dline, and mixed in zone blitzes.

You can have the best pass rushers in the world but if you run them the same way play after play, it's not hard for an offense to figure out how to nullify what they know is coming.

YATittle1962
01-22-2013, 04:24 PM
So is the LBer position a bigger need than the DE position? In terms of helping out the secondary.

I've seen many posts on if we rush the QB then we wouldn't play so much zone.

I don't think they would play less zone if the pass rush was more affective.....but I do think this zone would be a hell of a lot more affective if the pass rush was relentless

...and in my personal opinion LB is the second or 3rd need on this teams list behind O line ........CB and LB being tied for second possibly

you will see a huge difference in this defense with some more athletic LBs

Rudyy
01-22-2013, 04:45 PM
I don't think they would play less zone if the pass rush was more affective.....but I do think this zone would be a hell of a lot more affective if the pass rush was relentless

...and in my personal opinion LB is the second or 3rd need on this teams list behind O line ........CB and LB being tied for second possibly

you will see a huge difference in this defense with some more athletic LBsYeah. I wonder why we don't draft LBers like we do pass rushers.

slipknottin
01-22-2013, 04:50 PM
Ok, now that Im out of work I can put more into this.

Theres more to it than just running zone. Zone is a whole bunch of different coverages.

Anyway, Perry, at least from what I could tell, has always been a tampa 2 guy. Giants ran a good amount of it, but it was not their base defense. Their base defense seemed to be cover 3. Why they ran more C3 than Tampa 2 is a couple reasons.

1. Lack of a pass rush
2. Lack of linebackers who can cover.
3. Lack of trusting their safeties (Rolle) deep.
4. Inability to stop the run with the front 7.

C3 allowed them quite a few things.
1. Took away the deep play for the most part
2. Adds an extra defender to the box for run support
3. Adds an extra underneath defender (in the middle of the field anyway, C2 technically has more defenders underneath, but the corners are on the outside not in the middle of the field)
4. Allowed them to play Rolle down in the box where he was less of a liability in coverage and he could help against the run



Why you didnt see much press.

You can not press in C3. Corners have to remain deeper than the WRs.


You dont have to play man to get press. Tampa 2 is notorious for having CBs that absolutely maul receivers at the line.


What the giants need to play more tampa 2.

1. Better pass rush. Tampa 2 the front four HAVE to generate pressure on their own.
2. Corners who can tackle and get off blocks. The corners are the contain players on a run in a C2. Prince improved on this quite a bit during the season, but both Webster and Prince are inconsistent there.
3. Safeties who are disciplined. Rolle is a problem here, he free lances quite a bit, and does not take good angles. Stevie did alright for the most part, but has a lot he can improve upon as well.
4. Linebackers who can anticipate routes, and tackle.

giantsfan420
01-22-2013, 04:52 PM
Yes I do find it funny, it is what it is. They know who they are.

Anyway, I find it interesting that under Spags we were this powerhouse defense. Maybe it's because he had better players under his belt.while slip is right when he says spags used a lot of zone, spags used a lot more fire zone schemes. a lot more OLB or MLB or DB's or sometimes a combo of 2 were coming on blitzes. and instead of just blitzing out of man which is often done, Spags designed zone coverages to compensate for the blitzing defender that otherwise would be in coverage. PLUS, we also had strahan, osi, and a hungry young Tuck with Kiwi all getting after the QB pretty relentlessly...

people forget bc (and i dont blame them either) of the last two putrid defensive seasons, but in 2010, when we had the pass rush and were somewhat healthy, PF's defense was like top 10 across the board and top 5 in many areas...its hard to get the most out of ur scheme when ur getting pivotal injuries and lack of pressure, but that doesnt absolve PF from failing to make the necessary adjustments. Just in terms of the zones, in 2010, they worked much better bc the DL. and the postseason in 2011, as well, zone worked much better bc of the DL getting pressure...


football is perhaps the best example of the necessity of so many different parts and aspects/units coming together and playing as 1 (in terms of personnel and scheme). when one of those aspects isnt working, it can create a domino effect that causes every other unit to struggle, sheerly bc of those units dependency on the failed aspect to actually work. (sorry i know that was confusing lol)

edit-meaning, for example, while the DL, LB, and DB's are all seperate units individual of another, if one of those units struggles, it leads to the other units struggling as well even tho they're independent (did i just make it more confusing lol)

giantsfan420
01-22-2013, 04:55 PM
Ok, now that Im out of work I can put more into this.

Theres more to it than just running zone. Zone is a whole bunch of different coverages.

Anyway, Perry, at least from what I could tell, has always been a tampa 2 guy. Giants ran a good amount of it, but it was not their base defense. Their base defense seemed to be cover 3. Why they ran more C3 than Tampa 2 is a couple reasons.

1. Lack of a pass rush
2. Lack of linebackers who can cover.
3. Lack of trusting their safeties (Rolle) deep.
4. Inability to stop the run with the front 7.

C3 allowed them quite a few things.
1. Took away the deep play for the most part
2. Adds an extra defender to the box for run support
3. Adds an extra underneath defender (in the middle of the field anyway, C2 technically has more defenders underneath, but the corners are on the outside not in the middle of the field)
4. Allowed them to play Rolle down in the box where he was less of a liability in coverage and he could help against the run



Why you didnt see much press.

You can not press in C3. Corners have to remain deeper than the WRs.


You dont have to play man to get press. Tampa 2 is notorious for having CBs that absolutely maul receivers at the line.


What the giants need to play more tampa 2.

1. Better pass rush. Tampa 2 the front four HAVE to generate pressure on their own.
2. Corners who can tackle and get off blocks. The corners are the contain players on a run in a C2. Prince improved on this quite a bit during the season, but both Webster and Prince are inconsistent there.
3. Safeties who are disciplined. Rolle is a problem here, he free lances quite a bit, and does not take good angles. Stevie did alright for the most part, but has a lot he can improve upon as well.
4. Linebackers who can anticipate routes, and tackle.wow, missed this post. well said and explained. i tried summing all that up in a couple sentences...didnt work that great.

Spags ran more fire zone concepts, PF runs more Tampa 2 concepts.

edit-altho one small mistake, u certainly can play press in C3

ShakeandBake
01-22-2013, 04:55 PM
I don't know if this has been said yet but with Vick(possibly), RG3 and Tony Romo in our division zone defense is a good thing because in zone the CBs eyes are looking at the QB where in man the CB will have his back to the QB(makes it more difficult for a QB to be able to run and pickup huge chunks of yardage).

giantsfan420
01-22-2013, 04:57 PM
Parcells put it best ... zone is meant to be played to the player, not the patch of grass. Fewell's defense plays it to the patch of grass (no matter what else is going on).wow, that really is summed up well

giantsfan420
01-22-2013, 04:58 PM
I don't know if this has been said yet but with Vick(possibly), RG3 and Tony Romo in our division zone defense is a good thing because in zone the CBs eyes are looking at the QB where in man the CB will have his back to the QB(makes it more difficult for a QB to be able to run and pickup huge chunks of yardage).excellent point shaneandbake...so true...

giantsfan420
01-22-2013, 04:59 PM
Zone is used for a bunch of reasons:

1) Keep everything in front of you. If you are running man across the board and bringing extra rushers (or doubling some people) and a swing pass, or run play gets to the second level, you're looking at a big gash in yardage (possibly score).

2) Zone provides a base that's easy to get back to when things are going wrong. Carl Banks remarked one of Sheridan's problems was that when our defense was being abused over and over, we wouldn't get into a base zone as a "reset". We kept reacting to the last play instead of preparing for the current one.

3) Zone follows the philosophy of providing "traffic". Most of your picks are in a zone defense when a QB doesn't see someone playing center field.

4) Zone also follows the philosophy of assigning players "permanent" positions from which you can then add your wrinkles in. In other words, when asked to blitz, you know who/where your back up is.

Generally speaking, when you bring an extra man (or more) on a blitz, your zone becomes too open (not enough coverage) so you go to man coverage to make up the difference. Often you will see a combination of zone and man coverage on almost every defensive play in the NFL. The caveat here is the sell out blitz (when you bring two or more extra rushers) and the zone blitz (where you bring an extra rusher (Safety or LB) and drop a dlineman).

We ran pure zone about 40%(ish) of the time in 2012. When we've done this, its almost always been in a Cover 3 look. Normally we run a Cover 2 shell with single or double man underneath (although our Safeties tend to cheat a lot on that). Very occasionally we've run pure man coverage (we almost never blitz that many players).

We ran a type of zone about 90%+ of our defensive snaps this year.

Hope that helped :)awesome post man...dang i haveta kick my own *** for giving u **** all that time before...

gmen0820
01-22-2013, 05:00 PM
Magnets.

slipknottin
01-22-2013, 05:01 PM
I don't know if this has been said yet but with Vick(possibly), RG3 and Tony Romo in our division zone defense is a good thing because in zone the CBs eyes are looking at the QB where in man the CB will have his back to the QB(makes it more difficult for a QB to be able to run and pickup huge chunks of yardage).

It shouldnt be all that surprising that a lot of the top defenses play zone. 49ers play C4 almost all game. Bears and that ridiculous takeaway stat they have going play predominately C2.

Steelers play a ton of C3.

The seahawks are one of the few teams with a top defense that run mostly man coverage. And that is by necessity because of how they setup their front 7. I can link to an article on that if anyone wants to read.

Rudyy
01-22-2013, 05:02 PM
Magnets.Thanks for the in depth analysis, I totally get it now! POSTER OF THE YEAR! /red

ShakeandBake
01-22-2013, 05:02 PM
excellent point shaneandbake...so true...

Thanks, this topic can get very confusing once you start throwing in hybrid man/zone coverages, like cover 2 man where the safeties are in a deep zone where the rest of the defense are in man.

giantsfan420
01-22-2013, 05:04 PM
Thanks, this topic can get very confusing once you start throwing in hybrid man/zone coverages, like cover 2 man where the safeties are in a deep zone where the rest of the defense are in man. or when DC start utilizing reverse c2 concepts where corners and safeties are changing responsibilities (by design) after the snap mid play...when it works, u get turnovers. when it doesnt, u get TDs like the one we gave up vs Buffalo in 2011 that was analyzed here by some of our more x and o savvy posters

Rudyy
01-22-2013, 05:07 PM
Ok, now that Im out of work I can put more into this.Theres more to it than just running zone. Zone is a whole bunch of different coverages. Anyway, Perry, at least from what I could tell, has always been a tampa 2 guy. Giants ran a good amount of it, but it was not their base defense. Their base defense seemed to be cover 3. Why they ran more C3 than Tampa 2 is a couple reasons. 1. Lack of a pass rush2. Lack of linebackers who can cover. 3. Lack of trusting their safeties (Rolle) deep.4. Inability to stop the run with the front 7.C3 allowed them quite a few things.1. Took away the deep play for the most part2. Adds an extra defender to the box for run support3. Adds an extra underneath defender (in the middle of the field anyway, C2 technically has more defenders underneath, but the corners are on the outside not in the middle of the field)4. Allowed them to play Rolle down in the box where he was less of a liability in coverage and he could help against the runWhy you didnt see much press.You can not press in C3. Corners have to remain deeper than the WRs. You dont have to play man to get press. Tampa 2 is notorious for having CBs that absolutely maul receivers at the line. What the giants need to play more tampa 2.1. Better pass rush. Tampa 2 the front four HAVE to generate pressure on their own.2. Corners who can tackle and get off blocks. The corners are the contain players on a run in a C2. Prince improved on this quite a bit during the season, but both Webster and Prince are inconsistent there.3. Safeties who are disciplined. Rolle is a problem here, he free lances quite a bit, and does not take good angles. Stevie did alright for the most part, but has a lot he can improve upon as well. 4. Linebackers who can anticipate routes, and tackle. So we are NOT a cover 3 team then but we had to be because of the players.

ShakeandBake
01-22-2013, 05:07 PM
or when DC start utilizing reverse c2 concepts where corners and safeties are changing responsibilities (by design) after the snap mid play...when it works, u get turnovers. when it doesnt, u get TDs like the one we gave up vs Buffalo in 2011 that was analyzed here by some of our more x and o savvy posters

Yes, this is why I'm very reluctant to place the blame on player X or Y in a given situation because we do not know what defense has been called/changed. There are plenty of pre snap reads the defense makes and adjust accordingly. Similar to how our WRs will make sight adjustments in the passing game.

Rudyy
01-22-2013, 05:09 PM
Yes, this is why I'm very reluctant to place the blame on player X or Y in a given situation because we do not know what defense has been called/changed. There are plenty of pre snap reads the defense makes and adjust accordingly. Similar to how our WRs will make sight adjustments in the passing game.So turnovers come mostly from the read and react defense? Meaning the defender reads the quarterback, but is at risk for allowing a huge gain.

ShakeandBake
01-22-2013, 05:09 PM
It shouldnt be all that surprising that a lot of the top defenses play zone. 49ers play C4 almost all game. Bears and that ridiculous takeaway stat they have going play predominately C2.

Steelers play a ton of C3.

The seahawks are one of the few teams with a top defense that run mostly man coverage. And that is by necessity because of how they setup their front 7. I can link to an article on that if anyone wants to read.

It's no surprise at all, however you might think so considering the amount of people screaming for more man coverage/blitz packages

slipknottin
01-22-2013, 05:10 PM
So we are NOT a cover 3 team then but we had to be because of the players.

Essentially. And C3 can work very effectively, but the giants had problems with that too. Specifically the lack of good underneath coverage.

All those slants and quick inside routes teams beat the giants with all season, a lot of those were against C3 which should not have been allowed. C3 should absolutely take away slants. It should force underneath outside breaking routes or outside comeback routes.

slipknottin
01-22-2013, 05:13 PM
So turnovers come mostly from the read and react defense? Meaning the defender reads the quarterback, but is at risk for allowing a huge gain.

Depends on the zone and the man coverage you are comparing.

C3 and C4 are some of the best defenses you can play to prevent big plays, both are zone. Cover 0 on the other hand is exclusively man coverage, but one that very easily could result in a huge gain by the offense.


And I really hate the "read and react" label as some supposed negative.
The best defenders in man coverage (revis, sherman, etc) do that too. Read the WR, read the formation, break on the ball.

ShakeandBake
01-22-2013, 05:15 PM
So turnovers come mostly from the read and react defense? Meaning the defender reads the quarterback, but is at risk for allowing a huge gain.

Our defense is designed to make turnovers, however we rely primarily on rushing 4 so if the d-line is horrible as they were last year, the defense doesn't work so well because even the greatest defensive backs can not cover all day long. The defensive backs read the QB in a cover scheme and are responsible for a certain area, they are more aware of where the ball is going because they can see the QB.

ShakeandBake
01-22-2013, 05:37 PM
I love to see us run cover 1 if KP could stay healthy

slipknottin
01-22-2013, 05:38 PM
I love to see us run cover 1 if KP could stay healthy

They run a lot of C1 when KP is out there. Very little C1 when KP isnt.

ShakeandBake
01-22-2013, 05:39 PM
They run a lot of C1 when KP is out there. Very little C1 when KP isnt.

Yeah exactly, they never do

slipknottin
01-22-2013, 05:40 PM
Yeah exactly, they never do

superbowl stretch there they ran a ton of C1. When all the DBs were talking about how they started playing more man coverage. Really they switched from C3 to C1.

ShakeandBake
01-22-2013, 05:41 PM
superbowl stretch there they ran a ton of C1. When all the DBs were talking about how they started playing more man coverage. Really they switched from C3 to C1.

Yeah I was just making a joke about KP and how he is injury prone, I definitely prefer the zone defense but I am a big fan of the C1(played DB in hs/junior college), its nice to finally see some potential in our depth so that we can keep our coverages flexible if our FS goes down.

Rusty192
01-22-2013, 05:45 PM
Man gets burned just as much as zone. The Giants were getting torched a ton in man-to-man. One is not necessarily better than the other. You need to instill both interchangeably on defense and need a good passrush from the front 4.

Rudyy
01-22-2013, 05:49 PM
Man gets burned just as much as zone. The Giants were getting torched a ton in man-to-man. One is not necessarily better than the other. You need to instill both interchangeably on defense and need a good passrush from the front 4.I was looking for in depth analysis on why we play zone more. You jumped to conclusions and thought I wanted our defense to play press more. Tisk tisk :|

JesseJames
01-22-2013, 06:03 PM
maybe just maybe we don't have the personnel to play man as has been mentioned on this board a few times....

Rudyy
01-22-2013, 06:05 PM
maybe just maybe we don't have the personnel to play man as has been mentioned on this board a few times....Well I wasnt insinuating for us to play more man

Rusty192
01-22-2013, 06:05 PM
I was looking for in depth analysis on why we play zone more. You jumped to conclusions and thought I wanted our defense to play press more. Tisk tisk :|Nope. Im saying we play a lot of zone because man coverage is not the only effective be all end all of defense.

Rudyy
01-22-2013, 06:07 PM
Nope. Im saying we play a lot of zone because man coverage is not the only effective be all end all of defense.Busting your chops again Rust.

Rusty192
01-22-2013, 06:10 PM
Busting your chops again Rust.I'll bust your chops missy.

Rudyy
01-22-2013, 06:13 PM
I'll bust your chops missy.Well that doesn't sound friendly. MODS??

nycsportzfan
01-22-2013, 10:49 PM
I don't think they would play less zone if the pass rush was more affective.....but I do think this zone would be a hell of a lot more affective if the pass rush was relentless

...and in my personal opinion LB is the second or 3rd need on this teams list behind O line ........CB and LB being tied for second possibly

you will see a huge difference in this defense with some more athletic LBs agreed.. Not to mention, LB's that actually can make plays on the ball..

Rudyy
01-22-2013, 10:51 PM
When did we stop drafting LBers early? and why?
Heard Reese isn't too big on LBers.

giantsfan420
01-22-2013, 10:55 PM
When did we stop drafting LBers early? and why?
Heard Reese isn't too big on LBers.well banks was the last one i can remember in 84 i think...we've gotten quality LB play over that span but I cant recall how highly we invested the picks ex. Armstead...iirc he was a 6th round pick, coulda been an 8th even back when the draft was longer. but LT was in 80, Banks 84 iirc i could be off...i havent hit my "wrong" quota for the day so be warned

and i dunno if JR isnt big on LB's, I think he just values it less than other positions, like significantly less. If u think about it, itd almost require more time and attention trying to hit on a LB in the 6th round than the 1rst or 2nd ya know what I mean...its not like he isnt investing time into the LBs, just in our system, JR is cognizant of the value in relation to the defensive scheme

nycsportzfan
01-22-2013, 11:02 PM
When did we stop drafting LBers early? and why?
Heard Reese isn't too big on LBers. Well, the thing is, u can go stretches in drafts where there simply is a better player at a certain positon, and also u can sign LB's via FA'cy, and then when a LB falls to the value at a certain round of draft for you, u think u don't need LB anymore, and then the FA u picked up ends up not being the player u thought, and then the whole thing starts again, with LB just not being of good value for sometime when ur picking..etc

We've picked up guys like Mike Barrow, Antonio Pierce, Mike Boley, Carlos Emmons, Barrett Green in FA'cy over the yrs, and had moderate success filling in with other picks in mid to late rds like Brandon Short, Dhani Jones, Jaquain Williams, just 2 name a few, which all changes the landscape of what u do in the draft at the positon..

I would say now more then ever, its seemed like the LB core if as bare, and not as potentially solid a unit as its been in some time.. even when guys like Barrett Green were busting for us, u still gotta give him his chance to proove hes a bust, and stuff like that.. For all we know, the GIANTS can go grab a couple FA's at the LB positon, and then we have a sick LB fall to us in a certain round, but we think we fixed the problem, and pass on em to fix other positons, and then u just wait and see, and it seems were ignoring hte positon in draft, but in reality, the thought process is we fixed it via FA'cy..

ELI_HOF_NYG
01-22-2013, 11:04 PM
not sure why either ,zone seems to be more of a detriment to the D rather than a help more times than not. guys seem to always be too far off the ball, receivers running wide open all the time. I like my corners to be physical at the line, jam the receiver, disrupt his route and the timing with the QB all together. I dunno, maybe it's just me,,I played corner from pop warner through HS and that's how we were taught to play. I guess our coach's weren't a zone guys.

ELI_HOF_NYG
01-22-2013, 11:05 PM
Well, the thing is, u can go stretches in drafts where there simply is a better player at a certain positon, and also u can sign LB's via FA'cy, and then when a LB falls to the value at a certain round of draft for you, u think u don't need LB anymore, and then the FA u picked up ends up not being the player u thought, and then the whole thing starts again, with LB just not being of good value for sometime when ur picking..etc

We've picked up guys like Mike Barrow, Antonio Pierce, Mike Boley, Carlos Emmons, Barrett Green in FA'cy over the yrs, and had moderate success filling in with other picks in mid to late rds like Brandon Short, Dhani Jones, Jaquain Williams, just 2 name a few, which all changes the landscape of what u do in the draft at the positon..

I understand that but we passed on the likes of navarro bowman, sean witherspoon and sean lee.

slipknottin
01-22-2013, 11:06 PM
I understand that but we passed on the likes of navarro bowman, sean witherspoon and sean lee.

And got JPP and Linval Joseph instead.

Bowman every team in the league passed on at least twice. Lets not pretend he was a surefire all-pro.

ELI_HOF_NYG
01-22-2013, 11:07 PM
And got JPP and Linval Joseph instead.

Bowman every team in the league passed on at least twice. Lets not pretend he was a surefire all-pro.

lets not pretend that he didnt have skills,,and from penn state to boot,,how many backers have panned out from there compared to the ones who didnt? I am in pa,,penn state is LB country.

slipknottin
01-22-2013, 11:11 PM
lets not pretend that he didnt have skills,,and from penn state to boot,,how many backers have panned out from there compared to the ones who didnt? I am pa,,penn state is LB country.

You cant draft in hindsight. No team saw him as a certain all-pro. If they had they would have drafted him in the first, not at the end of the 3rd.

I could give a crap if he was from Penn State, I look at players, not schools.

ELI_HOF_NYG
01-22-2013, 11:13 PM
You cant draft in hindsight. No team saw him as a certain all-pro. If they had they would have drafted him in the first, not in the middle of the 3rd.

you can say the same about JPP, it was a gamble that we were lucky that paid off,,,,,he did not do much this year so next year will be very telling.

Buddy333
01-22-2013, 11:15 PM
You cant draft in hindsight. No team saw him as a certain all-pro. If they had they would have drafted him in the first, not at the end of the 3rd.I could give a crap if he was from Penn State, I look at players, not schools.Yeah, and the two guys he took are pretty good.

slipknottin
01-22-2013, 11:16 PM
you can say the same about JPP, it was a gamble that we were lucky that paid off,,,,,he did not do much this year so next year will be very telling.

I dont understand what you are saying.

Giants thought JPP and Linval Joseph and Chad Jones were all better players coming out.

Not a team in the league thought Bowman was better than a late 3rd round pick.

Drez
01-22-2013, 11:17 PM
you can say the same about JPP, it was a gamble that we were lucky that paid off,,,,,he did not do much this year so next year will be very telling.
If you didn't think JPP did much this year, then you need to relearn how to watch football. His sack numbers were down, but he was still a disruptive force and one of the best run stopping DEs in the NFL.

Buddy333
01-22-2013, 11:19 PM
I dont understand what you are saying. Giants thought JPP and Linval Joseph and Chad Jones were all better players coming out. Not a team in the league thought Bowman was better than a late 3rd round pick.Think what could have been had Jones been playing today?

ELI_HOF_NYG
01-22-2013, 11:24 PM
If you didn't think JPP did much this year, then you need to relearn how to watch football. His sack numbers were down, but he was still a disruptive force and one of the best run stopping DEs in the NFL.

lol...ok kid,,,what we need is for him to get after the QB,,,,what I saw was a guy who was good against the run but couldnt fight through a double team like all the greats do. maybe you should adjust your screen?

Drez
01-22-2013, 11:56 PM
lol...ok kid,,,what we need is for him to get after the QB,,,,what I saw was a guy who was good against the run but couldnt fight through a double team like all the greats do. maybe you should adjust your screen?
So, you don't ***** when Osi loses contain on a run play?

Kruunch
01-23-2013, 08:56 AM
When did we stop drafting LBers early? and why?
Heard Reese isn't too big on LBers.

Essentially LBer has been considered the position(s) to have the least priority with current NFL trends. With the new defenseless receiver rules and the league going towards more of a passing league, CBs and Safeties become paramount on the back end, while the defensive line is always en vogue for the pass rush (this includes 3-4 OLBs). The by product of LBers becoming the last positions to be filled, is that they are also the cheapest positions to fill (which makes them good FA targets).

I think running QBs (Kapernick, Wilson, RGIII, Vick, etc ...) and the return of strong run games (Redskins, Seahawks, 49ers, etc ...) will start having that trend reverse over the next few years (to a degree).

Kruunch
01-23-2013, 08:57 AM
awesome post man...dang i haveta kick my own *** for giving u **** all that time before...

Yes, yes you do :D

Redeyejedi
01-23-2013, 09:10 AM
Do we not have the players to play man to man defense?
Do we only play man when we can get pressure on the Quarterback?

Also, does anybody know specifically how much zone defense we played this year?I would love to go back and go through each game and see if they played more man with Phillips playing. It seemed like the Giants were a more aggressive with their coverage. Giants really only have Prince and Michael Coe " Who is gone now" that are capable press man corners.

Running QB's u have to play more zone or u get what happened to the Packers in the playoffs. U get all your LB's and CB's with their backs turned while a QB has 10 yards before u can get a guy to him

I like the Tampa 2 Defense but U need the Front 4 to be very good and it was pretty pedestrian this season. The Giants missed on Marvin Austin in the draft and that hurt pretty bad. They also have ignored the DE spot for 5 seasons its no wonder they have gotten old. They have added 1 player in 5 Drafts

Mercury
01-23-2013, 09:14 AM
Essentially LBer has been considered the position(s) to have the least priority with current NFL trends. With the new defenseless receiver rules and the league going towards more of a passing league, CBs and Safeties become paramount on the back end, while the defensive line is always en vogue for the pass rush (this includes 3-4 OLBs). The by product of LBers becoming the last positions to be filled, is that they are also the cheapest positions to fill (which makes them good FA targets).

I think running QBs (Kapernick, Wilson, RGIII, Vick, etc ...) and the return of strong run games (Redskins, Seahawks, 49ers, etc ...) will start having that trend reverse over the next few years (to a degree).

It's hard to argue with success. This model worked to bring us two SBs. But personally, I think more empahsis needs to be put on the LBers. They are the guys that contain the run and cover the short and intermediate routes, which is essentially most plays. And yes, these things seem to be cyclical, so a return to LBer prominence will come.

JesseJames
01-23-2013, 11:46 AM
Well, the thing is, u can go stretches in drafts where there simply is a better player at a certain positon, and also u can sign LB's via FA'cy, and then when a LB falls to the value at a certain round of draft for you, u think u don't need LB anymore, and then the FA u picked up ends up not being the player u thought, and then the whole thing starts again, with LB just not being of good value for sometime when ur picking..etc

We've picked up guys like Mike Barrow, Antonio Pierce, Mike Boley, Carlos Emmons, Barrett Green in FA'cy over the yrs, and had moderate success filling in with other picks in mid to late rds like Brandon Short, Dhani Jones, Jaquain Williams, just 2 name a few, which all changes the landscape of what u do in the draft at the positon..

I would say now more then ever, its seemed like the LB core if as bare, and not as potentially solid a unit as its been in some time.. even when guys like Barrett Green were busting for us, u still gotta give him his chance to proove hes a bust, and stuff like that.. For all we know, the GIANTS can go grab a couple FA's at the LB positon, and then we have a sick LB fall to us in a certain round, but we think we fixed the problem, and pass on em to fix other positons, and then u just wait and see, and it seems were ignoring hte positon in draft, but in reality, the thought process is we fixed it via FA'cy..


other than Brandon Short all the players you named were drafted by other teams and there is the problem, why can't we draft our own. other teams have very good LBers so there must be good ones there when we pick and us not getting any is the problem...

Kruunch
01-23-2013, 12:37 PM
It's hard to argue with success. This model worked to bring us two SBs. But personally, I think more empahsis needs to be put on the LBers. They are the guys that contain the run and cover the short and intermediate routes, which is essentially most plays. And yes, these things seem to be cyclical, so a return to LBer prominence will come.

I tend to agree. And you will notice that the post season teams all had excellent LBers (49ers, Ravens, Falcons and Pats most notably). I've felt we've undervalued the LB position for the past half decade but it's hard to argue that the secondary or dline aren't more important when push comes to shove.

Kruunch
01-23-2013, 12:38 PM
other than Brandon Short all the players you named were drafted by other teams and there is the problem, why can't we draft our own. other teams have very good LBers so there must be good ones there when we pick and us not getting any is the problem...

Because it's cheaper buying LBers than it is Safeties, DEs or CBs.

JesseJames
01-24-2013, 11:49 AM
Because it's cheaper buying LBers than it is Safeties, DEs or CBs. I understand that part of it but my question is that after more than 10 years of drafting mediocre LBers wouldn't you think we'd get it right just once and draft a good one

Rudyy
01-24-2013, 11:56 AM
I understand that part of it but my question is that after more than 10 years of drafting mediocre LBers wouldn't you think we'd get it right just once and draft a good oneThat's my question