kearly wrote:I don't like zone either, but here are some reasons why it exists:
#1: Man coverages are often exposed against mobile QBs. Having linebackers sitting in zones gives a defense a safety valve if the QB takes off.
#2: Zone coverages tend to force a higher rate of interceptions, particularly against non-elite QBs. This is mainly because of deception- players who look wide open really aren't, and because a QB will sometimes fail to notice a LB sitting in the line of fire. Another factor is that very few corners can play coverage and look for the ball. Zone is built around looking for the ball and watching the QB's eyes.
#3: Zone coverage tends to be stingier with big plays, and scoring drives against zone defenses tend to require a lot of plays. More plays equals more chances for turnovers.
#4: Zone coverage is generally considered to be easier to find talent for (the Seahawks ability to find great man coverage corners is truly exceptional).
Man coverage is a lot better for actually covering WRs, but is harder to find talent for and generally forces fewer turnovers, and is more susceptible to dual threat QBs.
I can buy point #2 there Kearly, but
Point #1 - Matt Ryan does not scare me in the open field considering our ability to close down, he ain't that
fast. He most certainly couldn't pick up the big yardage they needed with his feet, IMO.
Point #3 - Scoring drives that result in a TD do require more plays I'm sure, but this was a FG. It wasn't like they need to go 80 yrds so "More plays" doesn't take there. Like someone said about the Denver game, Ravens needed 7 and that would have been more of a justification to play "prevent" but not when the other team has a short field.
Point #4 - Yes, we have great DB's that can hang in man coverage, another reason to possibly consider abandoning the softness.
Finally, I don't consider Matt Ryan a "dual threat" QB ... he is a tall drink of water but ,considering his caucasian dissent, I'd be all in
on him pulling up and try running on our D.
I can see where you are making a point about traditional reasons for running the type of Defense we typically see in those situations but I think, with our team, it could have been dealt with differently, again ... IMO