Training Camp: News, Notes & Updates

[Au165]

(08-02-2019, 12:13 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: And outside of the Cardinals, those teams have heavily invested in LBs.  The other part that always seemed to be missing on our defense was an answer to when a team goes max protection.  No pass rush whatsoever.  Opposing QB just pats the ball and waits for an easy checkdown.  Hoping Lou is more aggressive in sending an extra rusher from time to time.  The strength of our defense is the secondary and I think they are much better suited for man defense.  

This kind of highlights what I was talking about above about understanding the intricacies of defense, and more specifically zone defense.  

[McC]

Price to start practicing today.

[Au165]

(08-02-2019, 12:54 PM)McC Wrote: Price to start practicing today.

Awesome news, we need a little.

[McC]

(08-02-2019, 12:55 PM)Au165 Wrote: Awesome news, we need a little.

No doubt.

[cinci4life]

(08-02-2019, 12:54 PM)McC Wrote: Price to start practicing today.

https://www.cincyjungle.com/2019/8/2/20751784/bengals-billy-price-ohio-state-buckeyes-football-nfl-training-camps-2019?fbclid=IwAR1dHaY14Aefniaha1ER2Ekps7GbUPVCZ0wnc60FTvL_jf83rbuyBd6K77g

[*pally*]

Planter Fasciitis eh? Hope the rest put the problem behind hm

[McC]

(08-02-2019, 01:50 PM)pally Wrote: Planter Fasciitis eh?  Hope the rest put the problem behind hm

I developed it in both feet several years ago and ended up with custom fitted molded shoe inserts that made it stop being painful to walk almost immediately and eventually made it go away completely.

[SunsetBengal]

(08-02-2019, 12:10 PM)Au165 Wrote: Colts just changed schemes last year to a Tampa 2 along with adding a bunch of new players on defense. This idea that man good/zone bad that gets perpetuated by a lot of fans, not just here,is simply comical because people think zone means you spot drop and cover grass. It highlights people's lack of understanding about matching concepts and checks and how they can work together to make zones a VERY effective option for defense. Man defenses like the patriots/broncos require superb technicians to pull off and it's why when they work they are elite but can quickly go to the bottom as talent declines. 

Hmm, Colts finished 14th in pass defense last year.  Not bad, but not spectacular either.  However, they were 8th in rushing yardage given up, boosting them to 11th in total defense.  (10th in scoring defense)  

Eberflus made a little magic happen for them in 2018, we'll see if he endures any sort of Sophomore slump.  This year's schedule has the Colts facing some pretty good offenses.  In addition to seeing the Texans twice in their division, they also face Chargers, Chiefs, Saints, Steelers, Falcons and Buccaneers.  All good offenses.  If they finish 11th or better in total defense this season?  I'll be truly impressed.

[Joelist]

No one said zone is universally bad, however it is bad for us with the players we have in our secondary. Dre, Jackson and Dennard are all better when playing Man. And it is especially bad when you play the kind of soft zones we were doing especially with Austin.

[*ochocincos*]

(08-02-2019, 10:35 AM)Au165 Wrote: We were top 10 in the league last year in the amount of times we ran man, we were a mam defense last year. This weird hate for zone defense around here, and by most NFL fans is funny. The top 5 teams in the amount of zone defense ran last year were Colts, Chargers, Cardinals, Seahawks, Cowboys. Outside of the Cardinals those are four of the top defenses in the NFL last season. 

I think most people against zone are thinking of soft zone where the DBs are playing back to prevent getting beat over the top. People see the 5 yard passes (that may result in some more YAC) get completed and teams just marching down the field because the defense is giving up short receptions. And the thought is, "Why wasn't that zone covered? Zone sucks!"

Austin's scheme (IIRC) was considered a soft zone and emphasized keeping the offense in front and coming up to make the tackle or go for the turnover. But you need very quick-twitch, speedy athletes to be able to pull off that scheme, which the Bengals really didn't have outside of a couple guys. Given how many yards and points the Bengals gave up, it's no surprise people are against that type of defensive scheme. 

[Au165]

(08-02-2019, 02:37 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I think most people against zone are thinking of soft zone where the DBs are playing back to prevent getting beat over the top. People see the 5 yard passes (that may result in some more YAC) get completed and teams just marching down the field because the defense is giving up short receptions. And the thought is, "Why wasn't that zone covered? Zone sucks!"

Austin's scheme (IIRC) was considered a soft zone and emphasized keeping the offense in front and coming up to make the tackle or go for the turnover. But you need very quick-twitch, speedy athletes to be able to pull off that scheme, which the Bengals really didn't have outside of a couple guys. Given how many yards and points the Bengals gave up, it's no surprise people are against that type of defensive scheme. 

I mean, no one plays a "soft zone" scheme. There are times and coverage where guys will play off, but that same thing goes for man too. In most cases off coverage comes based on offensive alignment, down and distance, as well as what coverage shell you have behind you. Very few people are up in press man all the time because it's boom or bust, and in the NFL too many busts costs DC's their jobs. My belief is most people think of zone as middle school spot dropping where your responsibility is places not people. In high level college, and especially in the NFL, most zone teams run pattern matching zone coverage. You have special checks that can convert zone to man either across the board, or just on one side of the field, based on alignment. 

For instance a real popular cover 3 check is "Rip/Liz" which allows teams to run cover 3 against spread looks (mainly 2x2) that hadn't been able to be done with the old spot dropping concepts because the ability to get your inside receivers vertical. With Rip/Liz checks the play can convert to man coverage if the 1 and 2 receiver on the same side both go vertical, the back side however could still be running cover 3. 

If you are in a 3 x 1 you probably have a "Mable" check on, so you have cover 3 on the trips side while the back side CB who would normally be a deep third coverage is now playing Man. There is also a Skate call that similar to Mable the safety would still take the 3 receiver but instead of rolling to the strong side he'd roll to the backside to provide a little support against a deep post, which is what a team will usually run if there is a Mable check on against their trips set. 

Even man defenses have their own checks which, often confuse people because they think a guy blew coverage because he didn't take the man lined up across from them. For instance, bunch formations get used a lot to beat man because one receiver will get a free release plus it creates some self picking actions depending on the route combos. Because of that a common check is "Banjo", which basically sets rules for how you handle the traffic. This can result in guys taking players that don't look like preplay that they are their man, you'll sometimes hear it referred to passing off a receiver. 

Bottom line, Zone isn't bad and man isn't bad. No team runs either more than 65% or so on average so it comes down to what you are comfortable with your guys doing in certain situations. Just remember next time you see an open receiver a lot more went into it than just a guy not following his guy, or not covering his area.

Side note: this wasn't specifically aimed at you Ocho it just seemed like a good place to put it haha

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(08-02-2019, 03:04 PM)Au165 Wrote: I mean, no one plays a "soft zone" scheme. There are times and coverage where guys will play off, but that same thing goes for man too. In most cases off coverage comes based on offensive alignment, down and distance, as well as what coverage shell you have behind you. Very few people are up in press man all the time because it's boom or bust, and in the NFL too many busts costs DC's their jobs. My belief is most people think of zone as middle school spot dropping where your responsibility is places not people. In high level college, and especially in the NFL, most zone teams run pattern matching zone coverage. You have special checks that can convert zone to man either across the board, or just on one side of the field, based on alignment. 

For instance a real popular cover 3 check is "Rip/Liz" which allows teams to run cover 3 against spread looks (mainly 2x2) that hadn't been able to be done with the old spot dropping concepts because the ability to get your inside receivers vertical. With Rip/Liz checks the play can convert to man coverage if the 1 and 2 receiver on the same side both go vertical, the back side however could still be running cover 3. 

If you are in a 3 x 1 you probably have a "Mable" check on, so you have cover 3 on the trips side while the back side CB who would normally be a deep third coverage is now playing Man. There is also a Skate call that similar to Mable the safety would still take the 3 receiver but instead of rolling to the strong side he'd roll to the backside to provide a little support against a deep post, which is what a team will usually run if there is a Mable check on against their trips set. 

Even man defenses have their own checks which, often confuse people because they think a guy blew coverage because he didn't take the man lined up across from them. For instance, bunch formations get used a lot to beat man because one receiver will get a free release plus it creates some self picking actions depending on the route combos. Because of that a common check is "Banjo", which basically sets rules for how you handle the traffic. This can result in guys taking players that don't look like preplay that they are their man, you'll sometimes hear it referred to passing off a receiver. 

Bottom line, Zone isn't bad and man isn't bad. No team runs either more than 65% or so on average so it comes down to what you are comfortable with your guys doing in certain situations. Just remember next time you see an open receiver a lot more went into it than just a guy not following his guy, or not covering his area.

Side note: this wasn't specifically aimed at you Ocho it just seemed like a good place to put it haha

[XenoMorph]

(08-02-2019, 01:56 PM)McC Wrote: I developed it in both feet several years ago and ended up with custom fitted molded shoe inserts that made it stop being painful to walk almost immediately and eventually made it go away completely.

so the DR that cleared him was DR Scholl's.?

[*Synric*]

(08-02-2019, 03:04 PM)Au165 Wrote: Bottom line, Zone isn't bad and man isn't bad. No team runs either more than 65% or so on average so it comes down to what you are comfortable with your guys doing in certain situations. Just remember next time you see an open receiver a lot more went into it than just a guy not following his guy, or not covering his area.

Side note: this wasn't specifically aimed at you Ocho it just seemed like a good place to put it haha

Teryl Austin ran cover 2 zones as a default defense. The Bengals were in zone coverage almost 90% of the snaps. I agree it's neither either or but Austin defaulted to that defense when opposing offenses used hurry up. 

I believe the defense with a safety with the range to play cover 1, the other safety who excels as an overhang defender, and 3 first round  press/bump & run corners should use more man schemes. 

[McC]

(08-02-2019, 03:54 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: so the DR that cleared him was DR Scholl's.?

I think it was, now that you mention it.

[Au165]

(08-02-2019, 05:04 PM)Synric Wrote: Teryl Austin ran cover 2 zones as a default defense. The Bengals were in zone coverage almost 90% of the snaps. I agree it's neither either or but Austin defaulted to that defense when opposing offenses used hurry up. 

I believe the defense with a safety with the range to play cover 1, the other safety who excels as an overhang defender, and 3 first round  press/bump & run corners should use more man schemes. 

This isn’t true, the Bengals ran man coverage 42.6% of the time last year. In fact no team in the NFL ran zone more than 77% last year with only 8 running it more than 65% of the time. That line should have read “not many” not “no team”

[*Synric*]

(08-02-2019, 05:11 PM)Au165 Wrote: This isn’t true, the Bengals ran man coverage 42.6% of the time last year. In fact no team in the NFL ran zone more than 77% last year with only 8 running it more than 65% of the time.

Where did you get your numbers?

[Au165]

(08-02-2019, 05:15 PM)Synric Wrote: Where did you get your numbers?

Sports info solutions. Even going back to Austin in Detroit he was never in zone more than 63% per PFF.

[*Synric*]

(08-02-2019, 05:17 PM)Au165 Wrote: Sports info solutions. Even going back to Austin in Detroit he was never in zone more than 63% per PFF.

Dre Kirkpatrick was targeted 22 times in man coverage out of over 1000 snaps. Most of those were after Marvin took over as the DC. 

You can argue those were only when he was targeted but even if you multiply that by 10 it's still less than 25% 15 less than 40...

Sorry but under Austin in Cincy he played mostly cover 2 zone. It was literally their default defense.

[Au165]

(08-02-2019, 05:29 PM)Synric Wrote: Dre Kirkpatrick was targeted 22 times in man coverage out of over 1000 snaps. Most of those were after Marvin took over as the DC. 

You can argue those were only when he was targeted but even if you multiply that by 10 it's still less than 25% 15 less than 40...

Sorry but under Austin in Cincy he played mostly cover 2 zone. It was literally their default defense.

Perception isn’t reality, I’m going with the organization who is contracted by NFL teams and Casinos on this one. Even if you use PfF data, haven’t seen it from them for last year, over the previous three years no one runs any coverage more than roughly 75% of the time, and that has never included an Austin defense.