I am no defense guru so I defer to you guys who know defense much better than me.

Is it not possible With Ward and Greedy and a stout d-line that we might be transitioning or at least going to be burring heavy from Tampa's old cover 2 defense? What do you guys think who know more than me on this topic?

I am excited by what is back there for coverage. CB looks very good. Not sure about our run D.

I'm not a heavy X's & O's guy either, but I think we see various types of coverage by most teams throughout the games, depending on the situation at the time. I think we will lean heavily on man coverage (cover 0) with our two lockdown corners, with cover two (two deep zone) and cover 1 (safety or LB on man with FS deep) on occasion. With the addition of Takitaki, we may be in even better position to cover tight ends in the cover 0, he has the speed, so it will depend on how he adjusts to coverage, IMO. I don't see us doing much cover 3 or cover 4 (3 & 4 deep zones) given the lockdown talent we have. But what do I know?

I'm not trying to be negative, but it's probably going to sound that way. LOL

When Steve Wilkes was in Carolina as the DC, his team played more zone coverage than any team in the league. He did mix up the zone coverages from Cover 2, Cover 3, Cover 4, and Cover 6.

The strength of our two corners is playing man coverage. Yet, a defense such as Cover 2 asks its corners to be very good against the run and doesn't require them to be fast guys or stay w/receivers.

Seems like an odd fit to me.

I hope Wilkes can adjust because there is no way that I want to see us in Cover 2.

I could live w/some Cover 3 and Cover 4, but would prefer Cover 1 which is basically a man defense w/the FS playing deep and "free."

Cover 3 is similar in how it looks pre-snap to Cover 1, but the corners cover a "third" of the field. They line up outside the hashes and cover the WR short and deep in their "zone." They get inside help from the linebackers and safety. They can get some help from the FS on deep routes.

Cover 4 has more man responsibilities than most of the other defenses because the field is divided into quarters. Your corners cover the WR in their area, which is on the outside on both sides of the field. This particular defense is often called a "safe" defense because it is hard to get over the top on them, but can be exploited by short passes and isn't good against the run.

Cover 6 is a combination of Cover 2 and Cover 3. It isn't used as much in the NFL as it is in college and high school because the hash marks in the NFL are much closer together and the safeties have to cover too much space.

I can answer questions or give more detail if anyone is interested.

Now, the negative part........... Wilkes background as being such a heavy zone guy is not really the best fit w/our two corners. Especially Cover 2.

I hope for a bunch of cover 1 and cover 3. I don't really see a 2nd deep safety for a bunch of cover 2. Aggressive seems to be a buzzword this off season. Between our speed at corner and improved pass rush, we might more dare people to try to throw deep by having more guys within 10 yards of the LOS.

I was thinking the same thing. It seems like we have a lot of "man" personnel and a coach that likes to play zone.

I'm definitely not a defensive guru. I found this in-depth article about Pattern-match Cover 3. This is a scheme that Wilks has used in his time with Carolina.

By no means do I understand this scheme completely. I did learn that both corners have man coverage responsibility on verticle routes on outside receivers they are lined up to defend. But there are a considerable number of rules that the whole secondary has to learn thoroughly in-order run it successfully.

Simply put, Ward's and William's man coverage skills are highly valued in this Pattern-match pass defense. When you think about it, before drafting a player like Greedy we might not have had the personnel to execute this scheme well.

Thank you Vers this has to be a very happy time for you and Eotab
I hope both of you get to go to a super bowl with the browns.

The only question I have is about personnel. In many cases teams simply do not have shut down or good man to man CB's. Sometimes the personnel you're given dictates you simply can't play the defense you would if you had the right personnel.

I'm not sure if that's the case with Wilks or not. But it could very well be that this roster gives Wilks the freedom to install the defense he wants to execute rather than the defense he was forced to execute based on the personnel he had to work with.

we clearly are high on playing man and applying pressure with the front 4 ... It's a great approach if you can do it

What makes you think we are high on playing man?

As I said in my previous post, Wilkes played more zone than any other DC in the entire NFL when he was in Carolina.

Maybe he will switch things up, but I don't get the feeling that "we are clearly high on playing man..."

because we drafted the best cover CB, a very athletic LB, and a S who is exemplary in covering TEs

Yup.
Wilkes played a lot of zone in 'zona, and in Carolina.... but unless y'all are looking at the personnel he had and can say that he had the horses to primarily play man with consistent success, I'm going to lay my odds on him playing a lot of zone because that's what he had the personnel to do with consistency.

There is little chance, in my opinion, that Dorsey hires a guy that is going to go all zone and then turn around and get a boatload of players that allow us to be a hyper-aggressive man-cover defense.

This is not a defense being built that will do the old "bend but don't break" thing that waits for the offense to make a mistake. They going to come after you and put HUGE pressure on you FAST and force you into making mistakes and get you off the field.

****This is NOT to say we will never play any zone - of course we will, we will likely see a bit of everything, but the way the cupboard is getting stocked tells me that won't be the soup du jour.

J/C

I'll say it another way. Wilks' zone defense uses man corners for verticle routes. Ward and Williams can do that.

Just wondering if you read my post? That isn't a Wilkes thing. It's how the certain coverages are run.

I think some people [that is plural] on this thread are misinformed and aren't willing to learn how things work.

That's fine. But again, it will be a different story in a year when people are calling for his head and saying things like "square peg in a round hole."

What a great discussion guys thanks for responding!!!

I originally though that cover two meant you had two shutdown corners on the two best receivers and a heavy focus on pass rush while linebackers and safeties played zone.

Vers, my comments weren't directed at you. Without looking back at the thread I recall there were questions as to why we would draft a press man corner for a scheme that is predominantly zone. Based on what I learned about Wilk's preferred cover 3 and his use of pattern-match zone I was making the point of how man coverage skills fit into his zone pass defense.

I think another way to look at guys who can cover, is that they also have good instincts, which should in theory mean they'd do well in zone schemes as well.

All I'd like to see is a mix of all coverages.. I'm not a fan of predictability.. Mix it all up.. Man.. Cover 2.. Cover 3.. Cover 4.. Cover 6.. lets see it all.

Our safeties are built for man coverage as well though.

Maybe Wilks will play more man. Our personnel certainly would suggest that, but we won't actually know until they take the field and Vers is very correct that Wilks went nuts on zone coverage last year.

Man coverage and zone coverage require a different set of instincts and a different set of skills. Some DB's do really well in both, but most DB's excel in one or the other.

good post Deputy .. I agree

In fairness if he runs Cover 2 with this personnel as his primary coverage than I think those crying "square peg in a round hole" will have a point. I hate bashing coaches when they don't have talent, but if a coach is not putting the talent in the best position to succeed he deserves it......these guys aren't doing this for free.

My only hope is that Wilkes adapts to the talent he has (and I'm not sold on Burnett making it through the season but that's another thread).

Steve Wilks was the Panthers defensive coordinator in 2017. I know the numbers were similar last year in Arizona.

It would seem that our personnel would be best deployed playing man coverage most of the time. Hopefully our new defensive coordinator can adapt or plays zone and our players fit.

Yep, that is why I wrote this in the post where I explained the different coverages.

We've recently seen a coach go outside of his expected scheme recently with Gregg Williams. In 2016 with the Rams he played almost exclusively two linebackers (and one of those two linebackers was Mark Barron). Then with us in 2017 he played almost exclusively a base defense (which no ones does anymore) because we had a terrible secondary.

Let's hope Steve Wilks also makes a change in his philosophy in 2019. I am not looking forward to Denzel Ward and Greedy Williams diving at the ankles of opposing running backs.

Yep, I'm hoping he adjusts his schemes to fit our talent. Cover 2 would be a horrible fit for our corners.

Cover 3 would be a lot better if he wants to play zone in addition to Cover 1. I can also see Cover 4 if we are protecting a lead.

Just say no to Cover 2.

We actually played quite a bit of cover two last year. It's probably why Schobert blew out his hamstring. He was running twenty yards downfield way too much.

Either way, just because we are playing zone, it doesn't mean we are playing cover two. My expectation is that we will be playing a little bit of everything (which is what almost every team does nowadays).

Good question and interesting info on the thread.

I'm no expert - but do agree that it's a great topic for discussion and concern.

My understanding is that good coaches adapt their scheme to the personnel they have available to them. I think that's a must to reach the potential of any team.

When I heard we were taking Greedy I was very happy - based on where he was taken and the ability he has flashed as a cover corner - the idea of developing him and Ward on opposite sides is tantalizing. Mix in the ability to put pressure on the passer with the additions of Oliver and Richardson ... it's potentially a great recipe for turnovers and a dominant D.

I don't know the make up and area of excellence of our Safties - or if the new LBers can cover better than what we have had before .... But hopefully they compliment what the CB's are doing.

Based on everything we know about the players - I'd be shocked and expect it to be a mistake to play a lot of Zone. They will play some Zone ... but hopefully not the majority of the time. Just my 2 cents.

Williams played a lot of Cover 2 in LA, also.

I just don't think that Cover 2 is a good fit for Ward and Greedy. Hell, I know it isn't. Turning them into tacklers and limiting their coverage opportunities would be a waste.

Defenses mix it up. I just wouldn't mix in Cover 2 very often.

J/C

I'm not interested in stifling football talk but I encourage all readers of this forum to read the article in the included link if you have not done so already.

I think it contains answers about how Ward and Williams man coverage skills fit into Wilks zone. Also when you start to think about the skill sets of our other DBs you begin to get a sense how they will fit as well. Particularly when thinking about Carrie who I believe was mentioned as a player that could line up as a Corner or at Safety. Then with further projections, Eric Murray and Redwine can play either free or strong Safety. This versatility seems perfectly suited for Pattern-Match Cover 3 zone. The article says this type of matchup zone has influenced how Wilks implements his zone. You might say it also explains why the skills our DBs have are compatible with this scheme.

I didn't know where else to put this:



It'll be interesting to see what Avery's role is once the season starts.

I wonder if Carrie will move inside on some of the zone coverages and help w/the TEs?

I would like to see Avery used as a pass rusher more than a coverage guy.

Yeah me too. He showed a knack for getting pressure in a limited role, and he'll only get better in his second year.

Our defensive coordinator was the Cardinals head coach last year. He was hired because of his defense. The Cardinals defensive coordinator last year, Al Holcomb, is now our linebackers coach.

This is good information to know and perhaps there wasn't another place to put it, but what coverages you play is not the same thing as base, nickel, dime, etc defenses.

I'm not getting on your case because this probably was the best thread for that information. I just didn't want other posters to get confused.

That is also good information. Do you have an opinion on what base set goes more-likely with a Cover 2? Or is that combo(s) based more on the personnel available?

I'm no expert there, but I feel like I've read a lot where Wilks likes to play 'zone'...while we have now drafted the best 'cover' guy available in each of the last two drafts. Maybe I'm reading that stuff wrong, but it feels like our DC has been a zone guy and our GM is drafting cover guys.

Willie, I realize you directed your question to Vers about our man coverage corners in Wilks' zone. My answer is this: Wilks's preferred zone is Pattern-Match Cover 3. Depending on the pattern run by outside receivers the cornerbacks play man technique in that zone. Vertical routes are defended with man technique. In other words, Wilks' zone pass coverage incorporates man coverage skills.

To a novice like me it's still complicated but here is a video of Nick Saban explaining how it works. When he says something to the effect of "we tell the corner you got all 1 unless he (the receiver) goes underneath in the first five yards" that's referring to cover 1 (man coverage).

Don't let the title of the video confuse you. The video is explaining Pattern-Match Cover 3. Rip/Linz are right/left calls to respond to the alignment of the receivers pre-snap, I think. LOL

I thought this was the best thread for this article. .

Jermaine Whitehead getting 1st team reps, could play a role in Wilks' defense

By: Brad Ward | 3 hours ago

The Cleveland Browns claimed safety Jermaine Whitehead via waivers from the Green Bay Packer last November. The news that he was being waived by the Packers came as a surprise to many in Green Bay as he was contributing a good amount for their defense. It appeared he was in line for the starting free safety position after the Packers traded Ha-Ha Clinton Dix to the Washington Redskins in late October of 2018.

In the first game after the departure of Clinton-Dix, Green Bay matched up with New England in Foxboro, Mass. on Monday Night Football (Nov. 5th, 2018). In the second quarter, Whitehead began exchanging shoves with Patriot’s Center David Andrews, then spun around and slapped Andrews in the face. He was flagged for unnecessary roughness and ejected from the game. He was promptly waived by the Packers and then claimed by the Browns.


Whitehead is entering his fourth year in the NFL and went undrafted after playing at Auburn. He was one of the four free agents the Browns re-signed to their roster in April. He played exclusively on special teams for the Brown last season.

It was somewhat surprising that the Browns tendered the 26-year-old while waiving fellow safety Derrick Kindred at the same time. However, it may be starting to make more sense after last week’s OTAs.

Whitehead received primarily first-team reps for the Browns defense during last weeks workouts. New defensive coordinator Steve Wilks had Whitehead lining up opposite Damarious Randall at Strong safety, opposite Morgan Burnett at Free Safety and in a three-safety alignment that has Randall, Burnett and Whitehead all on the field. Second team reps at the position featured newly acquired Eric Murray and fourth-round draft pick Sheldrick Redwine.

Wilks has been known to use two linebackers with a hybrid LB/safety. There was speculation as to who could potentially fill that role and while it is certainly very early in the process, it is noteworthy that Whitehead could potentially be used there. The Packers did use Whitehead in their “Nitro-Linebacker” role which is a fancy way of referring to a Safety who lines up in the box, where they would traditionally have a Linebacker.

Interesting video. So the word zone for a 'zone-favoring DC' should not be taken as literally as the word zone might be taken in a zone-blocking scheme for the OL...I think.

Then...I read your article on Whitehead and I wonder how the hybrid-LB/S factors into any coverage or the Pattern Match Cover 3.

I think the only thing I'm certain of is that your corners better be able to play man in the Pattern Match Cover 3. I would think a man-cover CB would fair better when in zone coverage than would a zone-cover CB being forced to defend in man-coverage.

No wonder so many players have a hard time figuring out how to play without having to spend time thinking it all out first.

Yes, the connotation of the word "zone" on offense seems obviously different when applied to defenses.

I'm also unclear how a hybrid defender will fit into our new coverage scheme so there's more to learn.

I like your observation that generally you'd expect a man corner to transition to zone better than a zone corner to man coverage. I did think about it until you mentioned it. That explains to some degree why they feel good about Ward and drafted Williams to play in this scheme.

U know what i’d love answered ... what would D-Coordinators PREFER to play if they had the talent ... thats the key ....

Maybe Vers and a few others can chime in in this one .... i have zero knowledge when it comes to things like this ....

IMO if u have the personal playing press man is the ideal coverage to play .... is that correct? ... if so, why? ... if not, why not? ... please dive deep ....

As for Wilks and what he did in the past ... not to worried about it ... he has awesome man cover corners ... i’m Sure he’ll utilize them with the proper mix of straight up man and zone coverages with man concepts and even some straight zone mixed in ...

Dorsey’s not a round peg square hole kinda guy .... and our corners have a definite skill set ...

j/c..........kinda/sorta. I'm going to try and address a couple of questions that were asked and some ground that was covered. I addressed some of this earlier in the thread, but it didn't draw much interest at the time.

One thing that is a fact is that Wilks played more zone coverage than any other DC in the league when he was at Carolina.

A second fact is that he did not lead the league in either Cover 2, Cover 3, Cover 4, or Cover 6.

That leads me to believe he mixed up his zone coverages.

Regarding his personnel.........Norman is a very good corner and was highly regarded. The second corner was not all that.

I believe Wilks followed Rivera around in all but one year until he got the HC gig in the desert. Rivera is another zone guy and that should not be dismissed.

Our current talent suggests that we play more Cover 1, Cover 0, and Cover 3. The latter is the only zone coverage of the three.

I have no idea what Wilks will do and I don't think anyone else does, either.

I have only one strong statement...........I hope we don't play much Cover 2. That particular coverage does not ask its corners to trail WRs all that much and instead asks them to be strong tacklers in the running game.

Myles from the left, Vernon from the right

Flood the short middle, keep one guy deep, 3 CBs in a man/zone thing, hope the rush is effective.

I thought you made a good post. You tried to steer clear of overstating anything.

After reading your post I realize that what I wrote could be taken to mean he plays cover 3 at the exclusion of other schemes. That wasn't my intention. I base what I've said about Wilks on articles I've read that give the impression that cover 3 is his go-to zone coverage. Mainly I wanted to explain how or why a "zone" DC would want his corners to have man coverage skills. Anyway, good post.

I also assume(d) that the zone that Wilks statistically-favored is the Patter Match Cover 3 on which you shared a video. Let's say that that is true for a minute....

When stats are being kept, if the flow of the play calls primarily for man coverage out of the patter match cover 3, was that statistically counted as a man/base or zone scheme?

I'm still curious how the patter match cover 3 works/doesn't-work with a 3rd CB or S in the mix over a 3rd LB. Additionally, what does the 3rd CB or S do to the Cover 0,1,2,3,6 plan? (Disclaimer: I'm tossing out those cover #s like I know what the heck I'm talking about....when I mostly do not.)

No guard, I didn't take it that way. I just thought you posted an article that gave us more information. It was good stuff because it was educational.

The coverage responsibilities don't change when moving out of your base defense. You just have more DBs in there in place of the LBers. They are still responsible for the same zone coverage areas, regardless of which particular zone coverage it is.

One more thing... I may have misinterpreted something, but your "base" defense refers to terms like 4-3, 3-4, 5-2, 46, etc. You can play either man or zone coverage in all of those base defenses. Your coverage choice is not directly tied to your alignment. That's a very simplistic explanation because certain alignments against certain offensive formations and the use of motion can change things a bit.

One thing that might help people understand and/or recognize coverages is to go back in this thread and look again at the numbering system and my brief description of each coverage. It's pretty easy to see why it's called Cover 2, or Cover 3, of Cover 4. Even Cover 6 is pretty easy because you can do the math to see it is a combination of two other coverages. It's the same for the Man defenses. Cover 1 is where everyone but your FS is responsible for a man. That S provides help where needed. Guys like Ed Reed and Weddle were masters of diagnosing offensive formations and tendencies. Cover 0 is simple, too. Every person in coverage has a man. Very dangerous.

Anyway, I think if you want to look at the coverage responsibilities, it's pretty easy to understand and even identify what coverages are being employed. It's simple math.

Ok and thanks for the response. That makes sense. I'll get a little more detailed question next. In theory, a 3rd CB or S should be better in coverage than a 3rd LB...in my mind, that would lend itself to a more man-coverage scheme...and maybe a perfect fit for the Pattern Match Cover 3.



Thanks again. Let's say we have a 4-3 base...but show a 3-4 look to mix it up...is that a potential 'giveaway' as to what cover scheme we would use? I'll way over-simplify here but...with 4 LBs wouldn't a zone coverage scheme be 'better' if your LBs aren't that good in coverage? I'd also like to learn more about what the motion does to the coverage. I know we've run a lot of motion to try to get the defense to commit/show their coverage. But if that's all it takes, why not run motion on every play?



My problem here is that I cannot always - or even frequently - tell what the responsibilities really are. Twenty years of watching the Browns has done that to me (blown coverages and all that). That and the disguising of coverages makes it difficult for me to 'see' it. It's a little better being AT the game because I can watch/see the DBs better than I can on TV. I can 'see' it after the fact on replays and such...but not live very often unless it's very obvious - like in Cover 0 & 1 and sometimes cover 2 - but I get lost easily when the zone concepts have variations built into them. Also, it's hard for me to 'see' when the S or LB is responsible for certain coverages...I know there is a lot of 'if this, than that' in coverage responsibilities...but I struggle with that as well (at least at full speed).



Unfortunately the math is the only part I 'get'...at least until I need a second hand of fingers anyway. It seems to me that there is a fair amount of other jargon that is required to understand before one gets to the math.

I've learned/realized that while we play a 4-3 'base' and might deploy different nickel packages more than we play base, none of that necessarily dictates the coverage we may deploy. I think my next area to better-understand is what coverage are we most-likely to use in the base or nickel.

Good stuff...for me anyway. Thanks.

As a general rule, just remember the number after "cover" usually refers to the number of deep defenders, almost always defensive backs (combination of safeties+corners).

Cover 0 - 0 safeties deep, very aggressive D. Usually means 6 rushers and 5 defenders in man

Cover 1 - 1 safety deep, somewhat aggressive D. Usually means 5 rushers and 5 defenders in man though sometimes there are wrinkles, for example having a QB spy instead of a 5th rusher.

Cover 2 - 2 safeties deep, usually refers to a zone where the outside corners play the flat and sometimes bump the receiver, which can mess up the offense's timing and route combinations. This was the base defense of the Tony Dungy tree, with some variations (for example the middle linebacker dropping deep to cover seam routes.)

Also you can play man with 2 safeties deep, though it would usually be called something like man up, 2 deep. It wouldn't often be called cover 2 but sometimes it is anyway. It's a safe defense but often easy to march down the field against. You might hear something like "taking what the defense gives you" against a defense like this as it's hard to throw over the top of this type of coverage.

Cover 3 - 3 DBs covering thirds of the field (deep safety plus outside corners), almost always refers to zone (for example, 4 rushers, 4 underneath defenders). Like above, you can also play man up, 3 deep-- a VERY safe defense you might use near the end of the half, where a full-blown prevent defense would be inappropriate (perhaps because ceding big yardage might lead to a FG or whatever.)

Cover 4 - 4 DBs with deep responsibilities, split in quarters. Another very safe defense.

Cover 6 - Confusingly, 3 DBs with deep responsibilities. Mix of Cover 4 and Cover 2-- Often played Cover 4 on the wide side of the field and Cover 2 on the short side of the field.

As far as personnel.. defense is largely reactionary. You have to match up to the offense's personnel... not just in theory (e.g. going to nickel against 1 back/1 tight end/3 receivers) but also in practice. Can your linebackers actually hold their own against that tight end and back in man coverage, even if they're split out wide? What about when the OC uses a clever scheme+motion combination and that linebacker is now matched up on a speedy receiver? Probably not... better have a call to get back into cover 3 or whatever.

Not to be argumentative, but that is not really true. For example, Cover 3 doesn't have 3 safeties deep. The field is split into thirds. The corners have the outside segments of the field. There is typically one deep safety who provides over the top help/support and a safety who plays closer to the LOS and is asked to cover the short to short-intermediate middle of the field or the flats.

Think geography rather than number of safeties.

No you're right, I definitely mis-typed that. It basically refers to the number of deep safeties in cover 0, cover 1, and cover 2, but most certainly not in cover 3/cover 4 where the corners have the outside segments of the field, basically the deep responsibility there. I edited my post to make this more accurate.

Someone posted this link quite a while ago, (and if I could remember who, I would credit them, but I cannot) and I thought it might fit here. (and please forgive me if it has been posted on this thread, and I just missed it)

Football 101: Coverage Shells - The Phinsider
https://www.thephinsider.com/2014/8/15/6000113/football-101-coverage-shells

Here is a look at the QB's reads against the various zones. (a look from the other side of the LOS)

Same site, but kind of interesting.

Football 101: How a quarterback ‘reads’ a defense (aka Defensive coverage schemes) - The Phinsider
https://www.thephinsider.com/2016/6/27/1...reads-a-defense

I guess anything is possible. But, I don't think drafting Ward and Greedy suggest that playing Cover 2 (Zone) scheme is imminent.
Those guys are man corners, good man corners.
One of the benefits of playing Tampa-2 is your corners don't need to be great in man coverage. They need to be able to press at the LOS and support the run and have good zone awareness.

If the team plays Tampa-2 I don't think its because of Ward/Greedy.

If you want to use scheme to capitalize on Ward and Greedy's skills Cover-1 and Press Man w/o Safety helps seems to make more sense based on their specific skills.

Some great post guys! Thank you to all of you who were kind enough to participate in the discussion =)