12-29-2007, 06:21 PM
|
#4
|
|
Rookie
|
Re: Zone or Man?!
From a "Real life" standpoint, there is no definitive "better" coverage, just a difference in philosophy; some people swear by zone coverage because they prefer to allow their back seven to keep their eyes on the quarterback and give them a better chance to make a play on the ball, others prefer to stick with man coverage, but obviously it's important to mix things up either way. I would say it depends on your personel, especially in current-gen as opposed to last-gen; in the current-gen engine defenders have different ratings for man coverage and zone coverage. Either way, though, the first thing you have to decide is whether or not your cornerbacks can physically match up with the receivers they are covering; if your top corner has good size and great acceleration but a speed rating of only 85, you don't want him one-on-one with their 97 speed burner too often (at least not without safety help over the top). You have to remember that football is all about match-ups-- finding match-ups that favor your personell over the opponents' and exploiting that advantage, while understanding where you don't match up so well and altering your strategy in some way to make up for those deficiencies.
All things being equal, though, either coverage can work well or get torched, depending on the situation. Zone coverage can be extremely effective-- IF you get good pressure on the quarterback or the QB is just not very smart. If given ample time, though, a good quarterback is going to pick apart a zone every time. So if the opponent is picking apart your zone because your front four aren't getting close enough to the QB to sniff his farts, but you know you don't have the personell to match up one-on-one in man coverage, then bringing some zone blitzes may help out quite a bit. If you have big, strong corners that can't keep up with smaller, speedier receivers, press coverage can be effective in disrupting the opponents' passing game. Obviously, if you have slow corners I wouldn't advise you playing cover 0 too often.
Generally speaking, man coverage is susceptible to crossing routes, while zone coverage is susceptible to plays that flood or stretch the coverage. Of course, most modern passing plays are designed to beat just about any coverage, it's just a matter of making the right read and getting it to the right man at the right time-- easier said than done. Personally, I tend play man coverages more in a normal down and distance situation (1st and 10/ 2nd and 7 between the 20s), and play more zone in third and long or short yardage, or while in the red zone. In third and long I just want to not give up the first down, so I'll play a cover three or some kind of cloud to keep the ball in front of me; in short yardage, it's too easy to complete a short crossing pattern in man coverage, so I usually play a cover 2 or some kind of short zone (if I had bigger corners who could press effectively, though, I might play man and jam the receivers in this situation); in normal down and distance situations I can mix it up and play whatever I want, depending on personell and offensive strategy of the opponent; in the red zone there is less room for the defense to cover, and therefore less room for the offense to stretch a zone, so I generally stick with zone coverage here. Again, though, an astute passer/playcaller will pick it apart either way if given enough time, so if your front four isn't very good at pass rushing you'll have to get creative and start bringing the heat.
|
|
|
