PDA

View Full Version : Question about Don / Zone



packers11
01-11-2010, 11:06 PM
people keep saying that the front 3/4 where not getting enough pressure and blitz's were not working because Warner would just do quick passes...

My question is : Does Don's scheme have press coverage with blitzing in it? Like what Baltimore / the Jets do...

It just seems like I don't see any press anymore, thats the only thing Don could take from Vanilla Bob's scheme.

Cheesehead Craig
01-11-2010, 11:08 PM
The loss of Harris really showed in this game. With him in, there's more comfort going MTM and running some schemes.

Bretsky
01-11-2010, 11:09 PM
The loss of Harris really showed in this game. With him in, there's more comfort going MTM and running some schemes.


Bingo; Dom called this game like he didn't have a lot of faith in his players

pbmax
01-11-2010, 11:12 PM
people keep saying that the front 3/4 where not getting enough pressure and blitz's were not working because Warner would just do quick passes...

My question is : Does Don's scheme have press coverage with blitzing in it? Like what Baltimore / the Jets do...

It just seems like I don't see any press anymore, thats the only thing Don could take from Vanilla Bob's scheme.
There is occasionally press coverage. But usually its Harris, sometimes Woodson and TWill. But it is not called as often as it was, obviously.

But the basic Capers/Cowher/LeBeau scheme is zone coverage (most commonly a form of 3-3) as opposed to Rex Ryan and Ravens/Jets.

KYPack might be able to fill in some details of the Ravens defense. My impression is that its closer to the 3-4/4-3 hybrid of Parcells and Belicheck.

KYPack
01-12-2010, 09:47 AM
people keep saying that the front 3/4 where not getting enough pressure and blitz's were not working because Warner would just do quick passes...

My question is : Does Don's scheme have press coverage with blitzing in it? Like what Baltimore / the Jets do...

It just seems like I don't see any press anymore, thats the only thing Don could take from Vanilla Bob's scheme.
There is occasionally press coverage. But usually its Harris, sometimes Woodson and TWill. But it is not called as often as it was, obviously.

But the basic Capers/Cowher/LeBeau scheme is zone coverage (most commonly a form of 3-3) as opposed to Rex Ryan and Ravens/Jets.

KYPack might be able to fill in some details of the Ravens defense. My impression is that its closer to the 3-4/4-3 hybrid of Parcells and Belicheck.

There is a little press in Dom's scheme. PB covered the zone in back of fire zone blitzes. It's a cover 6 in 3-3 alignment. In the regular cover 6, 2 deep DB's are in quarters the other guy is in half. if you want to get real nerdy, 2 CB's deep with a S is called sky and 2 S's with a corner deep is called cloud.

Dom put some stuff in for Al Harris. He runs a lot of off coverage for the corner. 1 yard off cover and press look very similar. The way to tell if it's off or press is to read the CB. if he looks at the QB at the snap, he's in off technique. If he delivers a blow, that's press coverage.

Baltimore runs some of the most off the wall defenses in the league. They run 3-4, 4-3 and some 4-6, (although that 4-6 was mainly under Rex Ryan). They don't really run the fire zones of Capers and LeBeau, but they do some similar stuff. You can't predict them real well. Defensive personnel in Balt? Fuggitaboutit. Ray Lewis, Terrell Suggs, Ed Reed and Haloti Ngata, should be playing in a league above the NFL. Ray's old, but even he is still great. If they zone blitz, Ed Reed will be in the middle of the wide side of the field at half depth. Suggs plays all over and with his hand down, 2 point stance, you name it. He's a roamer and a wrecker. Ngata is as fine a DL as there is in the league. They scheme him so he can make plays, too. He requires a DTeam and he sheds them like water drops. They will one gap and two gap Ngata depending on the situation. They are more like the NE school of 3-4, but they are so unique based on their people, they are a nightmare for any OC gameplanning 'em.