Questions about Zone???

Whats the deal with this Zone crap.

I have never really understood its purpose on the field, at least with LSU. I mean, we have some Big physical doods, and I see them shine when we are in MAN.

Is it just something that is just hard to pick up?

Is it b/c of how far they are off the WR's?


I noticed that while in zone and in blitz, jake would just dump to a RB or close WR and BAM, huge play...

Also saw our DE's going up the field as apposed to keeping contain...

I have never really seen ZONE work out. So whats so special about it?

 

I hate the zone/prevent defense. The Saints used to use it a lot...especially against the Falcons...and as far as I can see it only prevents the offensive team from being stopped !!:insane:.

Even someone like me, who never played the game and doesn't watch the game analytically (I'm a fan who just follows the ball) can see that it's very ineffective and probably should only be used in a close game on the last two or three plays.

It can't be used to make the other team run out the clock because it just gives the offense exactly what they want...a series of ten to twenty yard down and outs that stop the clock. Well, that and the opportunity to never face a third down situation.

:huh:. I'm confused, but me...I'm just a cook.

 

I too am the non-analytical type. Is the zone something a coach would turn to when you have absolutely no idea what to expect from an offense?

 

I'm far from being an expert but I think the zone works Ok against the traditional Pro or 2 back set with 2 receivers and a big tight end that a linebacker can cover. Then along came the spread with potentially 5 wide receivers that spread the field from sideline to sideline. The zone becomes so stretched out that it becomes pretty much much ineffective in my opinion. Teams with blazing speed like Florida try to get one of their guys in space and if they get the ball to him it's all over. Florida (and W potentially) is also expecially effective because their quarterback is their running back.

 

:geaux: LSU has the personnel to play man to man and I hope they go to it more than zone. Guys like Peterson, etc. seem to excel in man coverage. Even the game announcers, who were openly favoring Washington, commented on how much better LSU played in man to man vs zone coverage. Zone may be good in certain situations, but I hope LSU will stick more to man coverage as the year goes on. :LSU231:

 

A zone is designed to do a couple of things:
1. Minimize personnel mismatches. If your D has a corner that gets consistently beaten by a bigger and/or faster WR, a safety can drop down to help in coverage.
2. Take away the big play. In man coverage there's always the possibility of a receiver beating his man and if the QB hits him, touchdown.

As you saw there are problems with this. Receivers often neutralize zone defenses by running routes into the middle of the field in the boundary between 2 zones. Also, the poster who mentioned the spread is absolutely right. The number of receivers/backs renders the coverage moot and a good QB can pick that defense apart. It became obvious over the course of the game that the LSU DBs matched up very well against the UW receivers in man coverage and weren't going to get beat often. But that won't always necessarily be the case against elite SEC receivers.

The zone is not a bad defense in the right situations, but it looked like Chavis just lined up his guys way too far downfield of the UW receivers. Again, you take away the long ball, but Locker could pick us apart
with short passes. Add to that the fact that Locker is not known as a deep ball threat and it is a bit puzzling. I chalk that up to Chavis learning his defense and playing it relatively safe.

 

Although I am no expert... and appreciate just getting to comment... there may be no team that plays zone defense as much as Iowa.

The philosphy is simple:
* Keep the play in front of you.
* Don't allow anything deep.
* Make your opponent have to put together 10 or so plays, without error, just to get down the field.

You may easily argue that Iowa can do that because they play in the horrible Big Ten, where teams are boring, slow, and have no skill players. If you can get beyond that, I would point out that Iowa has used this base defense (DC Norm Parker) against LSU, Florida twice, South Carolina, Texas, USC, and Texas Tech with fairly good success.

I would also point out that there is a big difference between a game plan zone D and a prevent zone defense that you usually see late in games.

Although Iowa always shows zone to start every play, there are many versions.... although the primary difference between man coverage and zone remains the same: in zone, coverage switches as a receiver moves out of one "zone" into another... in man, the cover stays with the receiver through completion of the play. The zone is actually designed to contain speedy wide receivers... some credit the origin to teams trying to cover Bob Hayes when he was with the Cowboys.

IMHO, the success of either man coverage or zone depends on the pressure of the front seven, as all defensive schemes look poorly planned if the qb has time.

I will add this. Most offensive minded teams hate playing against zone defenses. They have to be more patient. They are forced to throw shorter passes... and their egos get disrupted when they think the other team is dictating how the game is being played. A case in point would be Penn State. We are 6-1 against them... as JoePa insists on running his plays instead of taking what's there. We have much more trouble with a team like Northwestern, who is more than happy to take the underneath stuff every play.

Yes, the zone allows more short completions... but it also allows the safeties coming over to put some real wood on their hits. Bob Sanders loved playing safety at Iowa for that very reason.

All that said, I can see where Chavis may have a problem having your talented dbacks try to play more patient.

 

You must play zone against a mobile QB at least part of the time. Do you really want 4-5 DBs having their backs turned to a QB that could run like Locker could? No.. we don't. Zone works and it works well -- provided you tackle well and you're getting push up front on the DL. The 2nd half is a great example of how mixing zone/man coverage is beneficial.

 

Nice post Hawker, I knew there was a reason they kept you around :hihi: