+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 75

Thread: Why do we play so much zone?

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudyy View Post
    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

  2. #12
    All-Pro Drez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    14,317
    Quote Originally Posted by YATittle1962 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Drez; 01-22-2013 at 03:21 PM.

  3. #13
    All-Pro Rudyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Waffles > Pancakes
    Posts
    34,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Kruunch View Post
    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!

    Please support.
    Get well soon #80.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by YATittle1962 View Post
    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).

  5. #15
    All-Pro Rudyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Waffles > Pancakes
    Posts
    34,204
    Quote Originally Posted by YATittle1962 View Post
    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
    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.

    Please support.
    Get well soon #80.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudyy View Post
    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.

  7. #17
    Moderator YATittle1962's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Uncle YA
    Posts
    19,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudyy View Post
    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

  8. #18
    All-Pro Rudyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Waffles > Pancakes
    Posts
    34,204
    Quote Originally Posted by YATittle1962 View Post
    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
    Yeah. I wonder why we don't draft LBers like we do pass rushers.

    Please support.
    Get well soon #80.

  9. #19
    All-Pro slipknottin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    37,474
    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.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudyy View Post
    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)
    Last edited by giantsfan420; 01-22-2013 at 03:54 PM.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts