Colts utilized highest percentage of man coverage in Eberflus' tenure last night

[aaron11]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

OK.  I didn't know this was a Hooker thread.  But he's fine.  I'm glad to see that Geathers is going to be replaced (prediction).

 

its not a hooker thread, but its not a tyreek hill thread either and a lot of people keep bringing up that we basically won because he was out.  hill and hooker being out offset each other imo

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, aaron11 said:

its not a hooker thread, but its not a tyreek hill thread either and a lot of people keep bringing up that we basically won because he was out.  hill and hooker being out offset each other imo

Well, I didn't get why you brought up Hooker in a thread about zone coverage or man coverage. 

 

I don't think it matters as to how we think about a deep-ball FS.  He is pretty much always playing zone if he's simply playing the deep ball, isn't he?  He just slides to one side or the other, or stays in the middle when the ball is thrown into the deep zone, or takes the deep zone away ahead of time.  It doesn't really matter what coverage the rest of the D is playing.

 

That really doesn't impact what happens when Hill or Shady gets the ball on a screen pass near the LOS and runs through the defense for 25 yards, which is what KC likes to do, IMO.  Good thing Odum is a great tackler and forced the fumble that kept KCs point total low and gave us another possession to control the ball.  

 

[aaron11]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Well, I didn't get why you brought up Hooker in a thread about zone coverage or man coverage. 

 

I don't think it matters as to how we think about a deep-ball FS.  He is pretty much always playing zone if he's simply playing the deep ball, isn't he?  He just slides to one side or the other, or stays in the middle when the ball is thrown into the deep zone, or takes the deep zone away ahead of time.  It doesn't really matter what coverage the rest of the D is playing.

 

That really doesn't impact what happens when Hill or Shady gets the ball on a screen pass near the LOS and runs through the defense for 25 yards, which is what KC likes to do, IMO.  Good thing Odum is a great tackler and forced the fumble that kept KCs point total low and gave us another possession to control the ball.  

 

Hill is their deep threat, they throw it down the field a lot when hes out there

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, aaron11 said:

Hill is their deep threat, they throw it down the field a lot when hes out there

Oh.  I was thinking they never threw it deep when Hill was playing last year and Hooker wasn't, and they scored like 35 points on us and still had possessions where they were trying to kill clock.  I may be mistaken.

[zibby43]

3 hours ago, Restored said:

I get the logic but it doesn’t really apply to the Colts current personnel situation. Who outside of Ya-Sin is a young and inexperienced CB? Sure, when teams go with 4 WR’s or 5 WR’s you end up with some of the lesser skilled CB’s being on the field but that’s when I would expect the Colts to be in zone. Desir has been around the block and has been able to limit opposing WR’s one on one multiple times. Moore can matchup with slot WR’s and has been great there for the most part.

 

Ya-Sin is the only inexperienced CB in the top 3 and all indications have pointed to him being a better man-coverage player than zone. Wilson struggles regardless if he is in zone or man sometimes but he always seems to be in a position to make a play but misses the opportunity a lot of the time.

 

Again, not saying that the Colts should use it exclusively now but they definitely have shown they can utilize it effectively.

 

It's not just about being young and inexperienced; it's about what scheme the older/veteran guys were drafted to play in and what kind of coverage they've been predominantly asked to play during their time in Indy.

 

But, as I said before, I'm in agreement with you that the Colts need to continue to vary their coverage schemes.  They've shown enough to prove they can, at minimum, play man and press man effectively in stretches.  They don't need to be a 75% zone per game team. 

[Restored]

1 minute ago, zibby43 said:

 

It's not just about being young and inexperienced; it's about what scheme the older/veteran guys were drafted to play in and what kind of coverage they've been predominantly asked to play during their time in Indy.

 

But, as I said before, I'm in agreement with you that the Colts need to continue to vary their coverage schemes.  They've shown enough to prove they can, at minimum, play man and press man effectively in stretches.  They don't need to be a 75% zone per game team. 

That doesn’t make sense. Yes, the Colts played zone a ton last year and this year so far so that’s what the corners are most likely used to playing but it doesn’t mean they can’t play more man coverage. Desir, Ya-Sin, Moore and even Wilson to a degree are more than comfortable playing man and have shown they can do so at different points.

[zibby43]

5 hours ago, will426 said:

we give up way more playing zone 19 yards off allowing people to run freely uncontested..and we actually HAVE the corners for Man coverage we just refused to use Man because our DC is trying to make this cover 2 stuff work regardless if our players aren’t reading and reacting well..just watch anytime we play man and give up something big it’s either due to pass rush not getting there  or a Tight End running freely down field 

 

The Colts certainly give up chunk plays underneath when running the soft zone.  That leads to long drives where opposing teams are forced to sustain drives without committing penalties or turnovers; it forces them to convert on 3rd down. 

 

Press man makes you vulnerable to the 1 or 2-play drive where a 75-yard TD goes over the top of your defense.  A long run can also hit if someone fits a gap incorrectly.

[zibby43]

51 minutes ago, Restored said:

That doesn’t make sense. Yes, the Colts played zone a ton last year and this year so far so that’s what the corners are most likely used to playing but it doesn’t mean they can’t play more man coverage. Desir, Ya-Sin, Moore and even Wilson to a degree are more than comfortable playing man and have shown they can do so at different points.

 

Since you don't read past my first paragraph, I'm going to put this first this time around: I'm in agreement that the Colts should utilize more man coverage going forward.  People just need to wait to see if the Colts are capable of running it effectively more consistently.

 

And yes, it does make sense.  You want to run the scheme your personnel is suited for.  Just like there are oftentimes skill set/technique differences between 4-3 DEs and 3-4 OLBs, there are skillset and technique differences between predominantly man and zone corners.

 

 

Here's Kenny Moore trying to play man from the slot last year against the Jets (btw, Moore was the lowest-graded CB according to PFF this past Sunday against the Chiefs, where the Colts were playing . . . man).

 

He fails to jam/reroute the receiver, who ends up beating him across his face immediately, and the WR rips off a roughly 20-yard chunk play.

 

Up until that Jets game last year, Moore was asked to play zone about 60% (or the majority) of the time.  He grades out better when he's asked to play zone.

 

Hence my calls to use a more balanced approach, to highlight the skills of all the CBs and be less predictable. 

[will426]

2 hours ago, zibby43 said:

 

The Colts certainly give up chunk plays underneath when running the soft zone.  That leads to long drives where opposing teams are forced to sustain drives without committing penalties or turnovers; it forces them to convert on 3rd down. 

 

Press man makes you vulnerable to the 1 or 2-play drive where a 75-yard TD goes over the top of your defense.  A long run can also hit if someone fits a gap incorrectly.

i agree it makes you more vulnerable but to say to a degree for example if we had Hooker back there  he’d be shutting down least one half of the field over the top  that’s what he’s here for (even tho he isn’t right now  ) But it just always seems as if when we play zone it’s never aggressive like some exotic zone blitz it’s basic and everyone’s already backed far off every receiver but whenever we play man we’re in their face the linebackers are at least bluffing if not are blitzing and contesting not allowing free release we do this better than we do in zone is all i’m saying id risk that vs most of the teams left on our schedule until we reach the likes of brady’s offense 

[SLILLINGTON10]

13 hours ago, IinD said:

Not directed at you so don't take it directly, but I had a few conversations yesterday with football friends who were saying the same thing about them missing guys. I can't buy that because if your guys get injured what's the other team supposed to do, not play? Screw that, teams were pounding on us when we didn't have Peyton that one season and doing the same when Luck was hurt.

 

That excuse don't fly with me. Don't like it?? Stay healthy then.

I totally get your point. And I am not using injuries as an excuse for winning it losing. Our guys balled out against who was on the field and that is the game of football. I was stating a specific point that the DC was able to put us in more man coverages because hill and Watkins weren't available. It was a smart adjustment on our part and helped us win the game. I like when coaches are adapting to personnel and circumstances other than just continuingly doing only things they are comfortable with.

[Moosejawcolt]

I was listening to Lombardi and he said that the teams that run the Pete Carroll Seattle defence, Atlanta, Chargers, Jacksonville and Colts, have all struggled.  It was a good D when Seattle made their run, but is almost obsolete as teams know how to play against it.  

[Restored]

8 hours ago, zibby43 said:

 

Since you don't read past my first paragraph, I'm going to put this first this time around: I'm in agreement that the Colts should utilize more man coverage going forward.  People just need to wait to see if the Colts are capable of running it effectively more consistently.

 

And yes, it does make sense.  You want to run the scheme your personnel is suited for.  Just like there are oftentimes skill set/technique differences between 4-3 DEs and 3-4 OLBs, there are skillset and technique differences between predominantly man and zone corners.

 

 

Here's Kenny Moore trying to play man from the slot last year against the Jets (btw, Moore was the lowest-graded CB according to PFF this past Sunday against the Chiefs, where the Colts were playing . . . man).

 

He fails to jam/reroute the receiver, who ends up beating him across his face immediately, and the WR rips off a roughly 20-yard chunk play.

 

Up until that Jets game last year, Moore was asked to play zone about 60% (or the majority) of the time.  He grades out better when he's asked to play zone.

 

Hence my calls to use a more balanced approach, to highlight the skills of all the CBs and be less predictable. 

I read your second paragraph and we are in agreement on it, which is why I didn’t bother to address it. My issue has been with your reasoning from your first paragraph. Moore has also struggled in zone coverage this year too so you really don’t have a point in saying that the he should be used in more zone coverage instead of man. Meanwhile Desir (locking down Hopkins last season) Ya-Sin (consensus agreement that’s he is more suited for man given his history at Temple and physical attributes) and Wilson have shown flashes in man coverage and their skillset seems to suit it as well.
 

Again, we are in agreement that the defense should start to use man coverage more but we disagree on whether the Colts have the personnel to likely do it effectively. I say they likely do based on the top CBs previous experience and skillset while your evaluation of one player apparently leads you to believe they might not.