Can we please stop with the Zone D

[Nickster 837]

5 hours ago, Mitch Connors said:

I think thats sort of the point - even pedestrian WR's (no true #1) wrecked this zone defense. What happens when Thielen shows up next week? If the zone can't stop Chark from getting wide open for TD's what hope is there to stop Thielen with the same zone coverage? At least a little more press coverage and/or man coverage might disrupt timing and throwing lanes on quick throws allowing the pass rush to activate.

 

Even if we factor in the 4 sacks as incomplete passes, Minshew was still 19/24 (80%) which is still WAY above acceptable completion percentage. This team will need about 12 sacks per game to get to a reasonable completion percentage with this current defense.

I agree the defense sucked, but Chark is good.  

[chad72 7,165]

59 minutes ago, Superman said:

They need to mix up coverages, and play with better technique at the snap. If they play off and allow quick completions, it's going to be a problem.

 

Trying to boil it down to man vs zone -- like people always do -- misses the point. The problem isn't zone. If we played man with the kind of cushion and technique they played on Sunday, the results wouldn't have been any better.

 

Also, while the pass rush wasn't impressive, it wasn't as bad as it seemed. On some plays, yeah, no pressure. But the Jags moved Minshew quite a bit. Whenever he took more than 2.5 seconds to throw, it was either a play action, or he got pressured. The issue was with the plays where he threw quick -- which the pass rush isn't the issue, it's the technique right at snap. Can't play with big cushions, and fail to drive on the ball, and miss tackles. We did all of that on Sunday.

 

It's fine to favor one kind of scheme or coverage. But stop blaming zone for bad technique and execution. 

 

When you saw the Seahawks play the Cover 3 or Saleh's Cover 3 with the 49ers, the  cushions weren't as huge and they mixed it up like you said, they had long armed LBs and DBs like we have that got in the passing lanes for incompletions or INTs. Like you said, it is not as simple as man vs zone, you can play both but if you are going to give huge cushions while playing zone and not drive on the ball and miss tackles, it makes you wonder if the players playing the Cover 3 are fully grasping what needs to be done.

 

Instinctively, man coverage can be easier to play with fewer assignment mistakes if you have a lot of young players on D, IMO, which we do. If you have good experienced guys in the Cover 3 system like K.J.Wright, Wagner, Chancellor, Sherman etc. with the closing safety speed of Earl Thomas or excellent safeties, fewer mistakes will be made. We cannot wait for all these young guns to ramp up their learning curve and pay the price with high completion percentages and thus the bend-and-break results from that. I firmly believe that is what is happening and thus warrants a mixing of coverage approach from the DC.

[Nickster 837]

39 minutes ago, stitches said:

It is... the difference is the Legion of Boom played very physical press-man at the LoS in order to disrupt the release and relied on Earl Thomas to clean up any leaks in the deepfield. What we are doing is the polar opposite. We play off. We don't disrupt anything. We allow HUGE cushions and give up everything in the short range uninterrupted. This is the most frustrating thing with this defense. We don't even try to cover parts of the field. If an offense is patient enough, they WILL move the ball against us. All opponents need is to not get greedy and they will kill our defense.

 

Seattle was in a basic cover 3 look most of the time.  

[stitches 8,065]

1 minute ago, K-148 said:

So problem is not zone defense by itself, right? Even zone with cushions is legit, but not with that weak pressure, poor awareness and bad tackling.

Yeah. In general a specific type of defense is not the biggest problem. You can play various types of defense if you have the appropriate personnel to execute it and it could be good decision in any of those various cases. The problem is that we don't create quick enough pressure and that we are predictable. We don't mix it up enough... and we don't have good enough personnel both pass-rush and pass-coverage wise.

 

Opponents know that we are running off-man zone that allows huge empty zones in the short range and they rarely get surprised. Additional sticking point for me is... this defense relies on the pass-rush to create quick pressure... BUT at the same time it GIVES UP quick throws - in other words it creates a perfect storm as long as the opponent just takes what we give them - we cannot get there quick enough because we give them the quick hit throws on a platter.  

 

[Indyfan4life 819]

The difference in Seattle and our defense is that they were allowed to let their safeties roam the field. Not back 20 yards off every play. Their corners were also playing a lot of man and press coverage while refusing to give a cushion of 5-8+ yards like we do. I’m not sure if we’re scared to do something like that or just truly don’t have the guys for it, but with the types of quarterbacks playing now, it isn’t going to work. 

[Coffeedrinker 3,537]

I probably need to review the game but it seemed that most of the damage in the pass game between the numbers, not from numbers to sideline.  That, to me, indicates more an issue with LBers and safeties and less on the CBs.

 

I'm not saying the Cbs didn't give up catches and there were throws to the outside but not enough to blame the CBs for the high completion percentage.

 

As I was typing, I decided to look it up.  And according to Next Gen Stats  the above is correct.

 

Some other interesting things in that.

 

only 5 of his 20 passes were more than 10 yards, and if the placement on the chart is accurate 19 of hos 20 passes were less than 15 yards.

 

So, yes, Flus needs to adjust when teams do that short passing game, have the interior dlineman penetrate for 1 second, stop and get their hands up.  Or the method I think works best is to switch the safeties to play medium zone (8-12 yards) have the Lbers  play a zone from 5-8 yards and the outside CBs play man coverage.  There is a bigger risk of a big play, especially if one of the safeties does not react quickly enough to a 3rd receiver going past 12 yards but you have to do something to break a QB out of his comfort zone (see what I did there.)

 

The problem is not a zone D, it's not adjusting the zones based on the game flow.

 

For comparison, if you look at P. Rivers chart, Rivers was 25 of 27 on passes 10 yards or less.  He was 10 of 17 with 2 INTs in passes from 10-20 yards and 1 of 2 on passes over 20 yards.

[CoachLite 406]

20 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

The key is getting pressure and sacks on the opposing QBs 

There is nothing wrong with zone defense IF pressure and sacks can be had. 

Even man to man defenses will struggle without those two things. 

Give the opposing QB the time and he will find open receivers.

 

I'm not sure that the key is known. Given that what you know is insufficient, what do you do to develop required knowledge. Thankfully, THAT is known. See the AlphaZero Paradox. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/08/henry-kissinger-the-metamorphosis-ai/592771/

[CoachLite 406]

1 hour ago, Nickster said:

 

Seattle was in a basic cover 3 look most of the time.  

Seattle flexed out of a basic Cover-3 most of the time. Pay attention from what, to what.

[B~Town 211]

Rhodes had a really bad game hoping that turns around we are very thin at cb . Makes me wonder how much of the vanilla defense is because our defensive coordinator doeant trust the talent .

[Shive 1,990]

6 hours ago, WoolMagnet said:

What confuses me is we played alot of man when we beat the Chiefs but we dont stick with it for “lesser” teams?

seems odd to me.

This is something I've thought about quite a bit after Sunday. We obviously have the capability to run this style of defense and with how well it worked, I don't get why we don't employ it more often.

[will426 146]

Bro I’m not even blaming the defense we’ve been seeing it for years we play better in Press man coverage allowing our line to actually rush..should we play it 95% no but we damn sure need to in obvious pass situations and blitz because this 5-10 yard cushion for 3qtrs of a game is annoying..we need to play man the way we were with Toler/Davis..btw Rhodes CAN play man he just doesn’t match up well with Speedy agile receivers but guys like PittMans size he can get his hands on & isnt Rock a Man corner?? Seems like we’re forcing the defense on the players rather than playing to strengths 

[Thunderbolt 453]

The only way you can stop the Zone D is fire Eberflus, Reich won't do anything.  They(Colts) had this type of defense since Flus came into the picture about 3 yrs ago.  So, we're stuck with it until maybe we lose a couple of more games without a win...

[superrep1967 539]

On 9/15/2020 at 9:37 PM, Moosejawcolt said:

Either Eberflus is arrogant, stubborn and just not creative. Or he just not trust his players to play more man. Someone needa to be held accountable. Eberflus is not a good coordinator or the GM is not providing him with talented players. It may simple be a combination of both

I'm not a fan of Eberflus he's costing us games with his soft manila defense.  I think we got the talent it's the scheme that's killing us. If this continues Eberflus may be looking for a job.  

[bleevit 41]

This team held jax to 150 yds passing and allowed them to win. Someone needs to tell Eberflus its about Ws and Ls and not passing yards against. They even got 4 sacks. Isn't that what makes zone work? Apparently not one this bad.

[Nickster 837]

20 hours ago, CoachLite said:

Seattle flexed out of a basic Cover-3 most of the time. Pay attention from what, to what.

They basically stayed in 3.  They had the SS roam some, but like any other 3 scheme he is basically an LB.

 

 

Davis Hsu: In a recent interview, Seahawks Safety Kam Chancellor said something to the effect of "it's no secret that we typically play Cover-3". So, basically 8-in-the-box and the three remaining defensive backs play deep thirds. Why is that a popular coverage for our defense?

 

 

 

How Earl Thomas and the Seahawks' defense use the Cover-3

"We didn't do anything special" - Pete Carroll, on his defense's impressive performance against the Saints.

By Mike Chan  Dec 6, 2013, 10:19am PST 

Share this story

Share this on Facebook (opens in new window)

Share this on Twitter (opens in new window)

SHAREAll sharing options

Kirby Lee-USA TODAY Sports

If you'd simply took at snapshot of any particular play on the Seahawks defense, chances are you'll see Earl Thomas roaming around deep in the secondary all by himself. Now, this may seem counter-intuitive, considering that NFL offenses have transitioned to a point where they want to beat you with the middle of the field, but consider that Pete Carroll's number one defensive philosophy is to stop the run. This aspect is so important to him that he's willing to frequently move the strong safety, Kam Chancellor, down inside to create an eight man box.

Of course, this creates a lot of potential open spaces for wide receivers to exploit, and thus it is just as important that Carroll implements a good scheme to play off of the run focus he emphasized early on.  The funny thing, though, is that he manages to do this with one of the more basic defensive schemes in the field in the Cover 3 scheme, or as Matt Bowen puts it, "a defense taught at the high school level that is still prevalent on Sundays."

One of the outstanding features of the scheme besides its commitment to defend the run is its ability to remain balanced and defend big plays (sound familiar?). The short safety dropping down inside the box now plays more of a role as a linebacker, being able to defend the outside edge and force the RB to cutback at the same time he can drop back into coverage. Likewise, the Cover 3 also sends more players down to defend the pass than with its cousin Cover 2, and with three defensive backs rotating around the deep third of the field teams are hard pressed to make big passing plays down the field.

[rock8591 545]

Buckner did not have a bad game at all

 

6 tackles, 1 TFL

That is basically like 96 tackles on the season, which is high for a DL.

 

That number means nothing for a LB or DB, but for a DL, it indicates that he is stopping plays near the line of scrimmage and is making plays in the run-game, despite not having any obvious sacks.

[Coltsman1788 1,467]

On 9/15/2020 at 6:15 PM, Chucklez said:

How many times does our coaching staff need to see the zone defense not work before we finally decide to abandon it? At least for the majority of the game? The scheme should have gone the way of the immobile QB by now.... It is an outdated, predictable amd weak scheme that even QBs like Minshew can pick apart and make them look like top 5 QB material. Sure you can say that Minshew has shown some promise and arguably isnt a bottom tier QB and even has some good upside.... but let's not kid ourselves, he's no Patrick Mahomes / Russel Wilson / Drew Brees etc....

 

I for one want to see us get more inventive, let's play more man-to-man... let's do ANYTHING different, because we sure as hell aren't doing anything good in the pass defense department, nor have we for quite some time. 

 

Let's make people beat our players, not the scheme. I have seen too many times where our defenders are playing their zone, so technically doing their job.... just to watch someone find that open soft spot with no one within 5-10 yards of them when they are 8 yards down field from the line of scrimmage, and then the get another 4 or 5 yards after the catch as well.

 

Let's get more aggressive, let's give our players the opportunity to get their hands on some balls.... not just "prevent the big plays"..... Teams take what you give them and if you keep giving them 8 or 9 yard pass plays, they will dink and dunk you all the way down the field. Give us some hope, because it is soul destroying watching teams like the Jags dismantle a defense that should have some promise to it. Sure we haven't got a top 10 defense... but what we watched on Sunday night was like watching a pre-pubescent teenager trying to explain to you that their life is hard, whilst they attempt to hook up with Scarlett Johansson... tedious and quite frankly embarrassing for everyone involved.

I agree with you but it is the same sad story every season with this defense.  They will not change.  Ballard said that he can live with a team dinking and dunking on us for a 80 yard drive but he hates giving up the big play.  I don’t agree with him. Playing that way gets you beat by even mediocre QBs.  He loves this crappy zone defense and Colts fans are stuck watching this garbage D.  It doesn’t even look like a NFL caliber unit and that is a crime with the talent supposedly on this roster. 

[BornHoosier 170]

On 9/15/2020 at 10:38 PM, danlhart87 said:

I don't expect Eberflus to be back next season.

I hope he proves me wrong. 

2 of last 4 games his D are in the history books!  Both games gave up a 95+ completion percentage which is embarrassing.  This is a scheme failure not a pass rush failure as most are quick reads to the slant or open man in the zone coverage.  No D coordinator or play calling experience was puzzling at time of hire.

[BornHoosier 170]

57 minutes ago, rock8591 said:

Buckner did not have a bad game at all

 

6 tackles, 1 TFL

That is basically like 96 tackles on the season, which is high for a DL.

 

That number means nothing for a LB or DB, but for a DL, it indicates that he is stopping plays near the line of scrimmage and is making plays in the run-game, despite not having any obvious sacks.

What makes Donald such a force in LA?  HINT, not his tackles on rb's but his dominant presence in collapsing the pocket!  Donald makes $100 Mil to do so which is close to what we paid Buckner.  Did you see this type presence on our Dline Sun?  I kept asking is Buckner even in this game?  I must have missed all 6 tackles because I swear he didn't play.  $100 mil is a game changer and with 2 All Pro gifts on the roster i hope we didn't set the team back with this bust signing.

[crazycolt1 7,429]

20 minutes ago, BornHoosier said:

What makes Donald such a force in LA?  HINT, not his tackles on rb's but his dominant presence in collapsing the pocket!  Donald makes $100 Mil to do so which is close to what we paid Buckner.  Did you see this type presence on our Dline Sun?  I kept asking is Buckner even in this game?  I must have missed all 6 tackles because I swear he didn't play.  $100 mil is a game changer and with 2 All Pro gifts on the roster i hope we didn't set the team back with this bust signing.

So you can tell Buckner is a bust signing by one game?  

Sorry to inform you but no you cant. 

[2006Coltsbestever 21,944]

2 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

So you can tell Buckner is a bust signing by one game?  

Sorry to inform you but no you cant. 

People overreacting over one 1 game = , 

[BornHoosier 170]

3 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

So you can tell Buckner is a bust signing by one game?  

Sorry to inform you but no you cant. 

No Crazy, my impression is from one game and my outlook is from the same performance for a 16 game schedule.  This one game is all we have on tape and if doesn't improve will be for the season.  Yes, things can change but I can only report from what I see in present tense not future 

[2006Coltsbestever 21,944]

4 minutes ago, BornHoosier said:

No Crazy, my impression is from one game and my outlook is from the same performance for a 16 game schedule.  This one game is all we have on tape and if doesn't improve will be for the season.  Yes, things can change but I can only report from what I see in present tense not future 

It was a bad loss and unexpected but too early to panic. Things can change come Sunday.

[BornHoosier 170]

6 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

People overreacting over one 1 game = , 

I'm on the side that hopes your right, just an overreaction but until we see that play I can play Devils Advocate and say the wheels are coming off this bus.  We won't know until end of season so hope im wrong.

[2006Coltsbestever 21,944]

1 minute ago, BornHoosier said:

I'm on the side that hopes your right, just an overreaction but until we see that play I can play Devils Advocate and say the wheels are coming off this bus.  We won't know until end of season so hope im wrong.

This Sunday will show me a lot because Cousins is an above average QB and good at times. They are also 0-1 so both teams need the win.

[BornHoosier 170]

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It was a bad loss and unexpected but too early to panic. Things can change come Sunday.

I get that, really do but this team has had horrible starts even with Luck as qb over the last couple yrs.  This yr was all about starting off 1-0, 2-0 and getting off to a strong start but again so many of the same disappointments.  Best Oline, improved wr corps, formidable rushing attack, 2 All Pro on D, etc...  Same result and no matter how bad it was it came down to a 101 coaching miscue in not taking the points and a miss chip shot from a rookie kicker who got beat out in TC!  When does the madness end 06?

[2006Coltsbestever 21,944]

1 minute ago, BornHoosier said:

I get that, really do but this team has had horrible starts even with Luck as qb over the last couple yrs.  This yr was all about starting off 1-0, 2-0 and getting off to a strong start but again so many of the same disappointments.  Best Oline, improved wr corps, formidable rushing attack, 2 All Pro on D, etc...  Same result and no matter how bad it was it came down to a 101 coaching miscue in not taking the points and a miss chip shot from a rookie kicker who got beat out in TC!  When does the madness end 06?

Yeah I am disappointed by the loss because the Jags are a team we should beat. What really is bad is we out gained them yardage wise by a lot, controlled ToP even and still lost. Only way to offset this loss is win the next 2 games in reality and get to 2-1. One game at a time but we need the next 2 because of what happened Sunday.

[J@son 909]

9 hours ago, BornHoosier said:

No Crazy, my impression is from one game and my outlook is from the same performance for a 16 game schedule.  This one game is all we have on tape and if doesn't improve will be for the season.  Yes, things can change but I can only report from what I see in present tense not future 

 

Crazycolt wouldn't have even asked the question if you hadn't made the statement below:

 

Quote

$100 mil is a game changer and with 2 All Pro gifts on the roster i hope we didn't set the team back with this bust signing.

 

 

[Coffeedrinker 3,537]

10 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It was a bad loss and unexpected but too early to panic. Things can change come Sunday.

We'll see in the next couple of games.  But I am reminded of 2018.  The Colts were 1-5 but the offense was playing well the defense showed some flashed but it seemed like 2 or 3 critical plays in the game lead to a loss.

 

 

[Coffeedrinker 3,537]

10 hours ago, BornHoosier said:

I get that, really do but this team has had horrible starts even with Luck as qb over the last couple yrs.  This yr was all about starting off 1-0, 2-0 and getting off to a strong start but again so many of the same disappointments.  Best Oline, improved wr corps, formidable rushing attack, 2 All Pro on D, etc...  Same result and no matter how bad it was it came down to a 101 coaching miscue in not taking the points and a miss chip shot from a rookie kicker who got beat out in TC!  When does the madness end 06?

The Colts have had issues starting well for years, not just the last couple.  I think it's been 6 years since the Colts won on opening weekend.