Why do we play zone defense against garbage QBs?

[Hagbard Celine 10498]

15 minutes ago, hookem48 said:

bend but don't break to the extreme.

welp, it's not working.  to open the game we traded drives to the red zone, and they had to settle for a FG on the second, but otherwise they drove the ball at will in the 1st/3rd/4th quarters, and didn't have a chance in the 2nd because we were busy being Sarktastic and they didn't have any of the ball.

ecstatic for this win but we're not beating roach playing like this.   rape and ku are tossups, depending on which ewers we get.

Edited November 6, 2022 by Hagbard Celine
derp

[Dahobbs 17089]

Our man coverage is infinitely worse than our zone coverage. Did you see what happened when our linebackers were matched up on anyone? 

[Dark Horse 2250]

The obsession in almost all fandoms of running a 4 man front and playing man every play cracks me up. 
 

This defense has a lot of problems and deficiencies, a simple scheme adjustment isn’t going to fix it. 

[Auto Driller 2502]

47 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Well I'll be damned. I guess I assumed playing 10 yards off of WRs was zone coverage. Fuck me, I guess they were playing man from 10 yards away. 

I’ve been vocal about wanting more man coverage in this thread and others, but I think this is more to the point. We can give such massive cushions at the snap in an all-out effort to prevent the big play. Plan man (or zone) with tighter spacing and force the QB to make more accurate throws. This does introduce a higher risk of big plays downfield but we gave up 329 yards and at least one 30+ yard TD last night with the ultra conservative strategy. It’s the 12 yard completions on 3rd and 10 to a receiver with no one within 5 yards of him that we really need to eliminate.

[Auto Driller 2502]

1 minute ago, Dark Horse said:

The obsession in almost all fandoms of running a 4 man front and playing man every play cracks me up. 
 

This defense has a lot of problems and deficiencies, a simple scheme adjustment isn’t going to fix it. 

This issue with 3 man base fronts is that most/all of them actually are “4 man” fronts that use an OLB with some fancy name like joker or buck as the 4th DL. But instead of a 260lb+ DE setting the edge you’ve got a 225lb LB operating out of a 2 point stance. It’s great if you have someone like Will Anderson in that spot. Not so much with someone like Ovie Oghoufo.

The most important elements of any defense are:

1. Stopping the run

2. Pressuring the QB

Most often you’re going to do both better with an actual DL in that 4th spot.

[Brothahorn 10079]

Quote

Is he so impressed with his scheme that he force feed something on to them that he admits they do poorly. 

 

[Zeus 5862]

55 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Well I'll be damned. I guess I assumed playing 10 yards off of WRs was zone coverage. Fuck me, I guess they were playing man from 10 yards away. 

You would think man means you have some over the top help - so why play any further than 5 yards off? 

I like a disguise every once in a while but how about play man press across the board and actually cover the RB.

You can play two high and still bring 4 rushers. 

Do it

Double their biggest deep threat with the safety. Dare them to run four verts.

[Hagbard Celine 10498]

6 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

I’ve been vocal about wanting more man coverage in this thread and others, but I think this is more to the point. We can give such massive cushions at the snap in an all-out effort to prevent the big play. Plan man (or zone) with tighter spacing and force the QB to make more accurate throws. This does introduce a higher risk of big plays downfield but we gave up 329 yards and at least one 30+ yard TD last night with the ultra conservative strategy. It’s the 12 yard completions on 3rd and 10 to a receiver with no one within 5 yards of him that we really need to eliminate.

fucking this

what is the point of playing this way?  it doesn't get the defense off the field.  it's a coin-flip crapshoot.  against iSu and kSu we got the big D plays to end the halves/games that we needed to win by 1 score, v. oSu and tceh the opposite, didn't get the plays, lost by a score.

i see the differences in sark v. thermensa, but i'll be damned if the result isn't about the same.  1-score games with the occaisional outlier.

[Royale with cheese 1421]

10 hours ago, Hermanator said:

It's happening every game. It's far more than just a few things in one game. They consistently are poor on offense in the 2nd half when they have as much offensive talent as anyone and have dominated top 15 teams in the first half. We have more 14+ point 2nd half collapses under Sark than most teams have in a decade

 

[Dahobbs 17089]

23 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

This issue with 3 man base fronts is that most/all of them actually are “4 man” fronts that use an OLB with some fancy name like joker or buck as the 4th DL. But instead of a 260lb+ DE setting the edge you’ve got a 225lb LB operating out of a 2 point stance. It’s great if you have someone like Will Anderson in that spot. Not so much with someone like Ovie Oghoufo.

The most important elements of any defense are:

1. Stopping the run

2. Pressuring the QB

Most often you’re going to do both better with an actual DL in that 4th spot.

We actually do those two things fairly well. But we don't convert pressures to sacks. And our coverage, man or zone, tends to fall apart too quickly for pressure to matter. 

[Had Enough 2021]

The most important elements of any defense are:
1. Stopping the run
2. Pressuring the QB
Most often you’re going to do both better with an actual DL in that 4th spot.

We are very good at #1 and much improved at #2.

I’m surprised at the Tech and OSU numbers of man vs. zone. Do wonder if those hold true in all other games. And it’s often about 3rd down so what’s the breakdown there.

We’ve worked to take the run away this year. That’s been done for the most part. We’ve kept the QB run game in check. Only Young really had a good game relative to his other games. And that was due to the flat out miss on the blitz.

27 points on the road against an above average team and creating two turnovers is decent defense. The pass defense numbers look terrible, but people do need to look a little past that. They had 10 after two possessions so there were some adjustments.

[Surly Bevo 24249]

Again this is not hard.  We have to scheme around the fact that we have an inconsequential pass rush.  The sacks we do get are usually coverage sacks.  

[Yesh 903]

Do we ever run cover 2 man?  I agree that if our players aren't good at man, it doesn't matter how good it looks on a chalkboard.  I'm just assuming our problems with third down defense are because we are predictable, and cover 2 man could be a "safe" changeup.

[bschoolprof 6219]

I watched every defensive snap in the 1st quarter, stretching into the 2Q for KSU's second scoring drive.  Every pass play we gave up was against zone.  Every single one.  We didn't play man much at all.  When we did, we actually had a nice stop down at the goal line by Jamison on 2nd and 6.  

Our zone coverage was bad not only because our LBs suck in zone.  It was also bad because KSU was flooding some of our zones, with some routes by Duece Vaughn standing out.  It's beyond obvious at this point our defense has no idea how to execute pass defense.  It's just painful to watch.

I'd also like to see some audit on these internet stats that our completion % is much lower in zone vs man.  Maybe that's true.  It wasn't last night.