Cover Zero Is a Risk Worth Taking for the Redskins
by UkRedskin on Oct 21, 2011 1:16 PM EDT
in Redskins Analysis
Email
PrintThe 'Cover Zero' defence is something that's been talked about a lot when discussing the Redskins defence. It got a lot of negativity after two key plays we used it in, and it failed (namely, the Rams TD with Orakpo missing coverage, and the 3rd and 21 play against the Cowboys). But I personally, am a big believer in it. As a defence, we are very aggressive. Look at our key players, DeAngelo Hall, LaRon Landry, Brian Orakpo, Ryan Kerrigan. All aggressive play-makers for us. I think the Cover Zero suits their aggressiveness perfectly and allows us to really attack the QB and rush his throws. But what exactly is the Cover Zero defence? Let's have a look...
The concept of the Cover Zero is simple, with a few main principles. The first principle is that any potential receiver is marked man-to-man. This includes TE's, RB's and FB's along with the obvious WR's.
In this example, the Eagles go with an empty backfield. You can see at the far side of the picture, we have 3 WR's, all in man coverage with 3 DB's. On the near side, we have both safeties, Oshiomogho Atogwe (wow, that's not easy to spell...) and Landry in man coverage with the extra WR and the TE respectively.
What you'll notice is that everybody else is stacked up on the Dline. The men in coverage have no coverage help over the top, or at all for that matter, it's all one-on-one, man-to-man. This brings us t the second principle of the Cover Zero defence. The defender's covering any potential blockers that could be receivers (so for example, a TE or a RB) are in read and react mode. Usually this is the job of safeties or OLBs, in this case Landry is the best example. He is in man coverage with the TE. Now the TE could stay in and help protect Vick to give him a little bit extra time in theory. If that happens to be the case, Landry joins the rest of the defence along the Dline with the blitz. The idea of this being that you want to send one more man than the offence can block, which is virtually guaranteed with this defence because the QB doesn't count as a receiver or a blocker, leaving the offence with only 10 blockers maximum, and the defence with a maximum of 11 blitzers.
However, as you can see, in this case the TE is running a route, forcing Landry to drop into coverage. I've also circled Kerrigan coming off the edge on the far side. You can see he has a free run, and that's because all the other blockers are occupied one on one. That's the other big advantage of this defence. It forces one on one's, making a statement to the other team that says "Hey, we're better than you guys matched up one on one. We're good enough to cover your receivers without any help and we're good enough to beat any blocking scheme you attempt to stop us with." It also tells your own defence that you have confidence in them that they are good enough to play this style.
But back to the play, we have Kerrigan running free, meaning Vick HAS to get the ball out quick, or he's going to get blown up. We also have a one on one with Orakpo on the Eagles back up LT, a favourable match up for us.
With the pressure coming from Kerrigan, Vick is forced to back-pedal and throw off his back foot. Orakpo was beating his man, and has the awareness to stick a hand up and bat the ball down, forcing the Eagles into 3rd and goal with 7 or 8 yards to make to get it.
So now we've clarified what the Cover Zero is, lets see how productive it's been for us.
Here's a 3rd and goal for the Eagles, they were up 14-0 already, and a TD here could have killed the game for us.
The Eagles have a bunch formation with 4 potential receivers on the far side. I've put an arrow above the 4 guys that are in coverage with them. On the near side of the picture, we have Hall all on his own with Jeremy Maclin. I've circled the vacant area in the middle of the field to highlight the fact that there is no safety help. No doubt this is a risky defence.
Once again, the Eagles let Kerrigan have a free run at Vick. The offensive line slides to the left to pick up the blitz from that side and make sure there's no gap for a defender to run up the middle at Vick. So this leaves Kerrigan unblocked.
The Eagles like this match-up with Maclin on Hall. If they can get the ball in Maclin's hands before Hall can eat up the cushion, they think Maclin can break the attempted tackle from Hall.
The quick pressure from Kerrigan forces Vick to throw quicker than he would have liked to, and at a slightly different arm angle than normal to get the ball past Kerrigan's raised arms. This messes up the timing between Vick and Maclin, and the ball is behind Maclin, falling incomplete.
The main reasons the Cover Zero fails is either down to a mistake from a player in coverage, or a QB that can scramble and extend the play. We saw examples of both of these in the Cowboys and Rams games as I mentioned earlier. First lets look at the Rams TD.
This is a perfect example of the risks involved while using the Cover Zero. Orakpo has to read and react to whatever the RB Steven Jackson does. If Jackson stays in to block, Orakpo blitzes, but if Jackson runs a route, Orakpo has to cover him.
Orakpo takes his first step instinctively as if he's rushing the passer, before realising that Jackson isn't blocking. Orakpo then has to turn back on himself, playing catch up to Jackson.
Bradford is much too good to miss that opportunity. Jackson pulls in the pass and takes it for a TD.
Then there was the infamous 3rd and 21 play against the Cowboys. We're in a great position to win the game. It's 3rd and 21, Cowboys are down by a point, backed up in their own half and only 2:20 left on the clock. All the Redskins need to do is stop them here and potentially on 4th and long, and the game is theirs. But instead of sitting back in zones and trying to force an underneath route, the Redskins take the aggressive route, Cover Zero.
The key to this play is that Tony Romo does an excellent job sliding the protection and that he has two blockers in the backfield to slow down any pressure on Romo.
What Romo calls for is the Oline to slide left, and the two blockers in the backfield to get on the free runners from the right. The key here is that the Oline does a good job of not allowing space for free runners, despite being overloaded on the far side. This buys Romo more time than he was expecting.
This is when Romo was meant to throw the ball. But he's aware enough to see that no pressure has gotten to him yet. So he decides to roll outside the pocket...
Signalling to Bryant to get up the field.
The extra man from the far side has more ground to make up thanks to Romo scrambling, by the time he forces Romo to throw, it's too late...
And Dez Bryant gets himself open and catches it for a first down. The rest is history.
So yeah, the Cover Zero is a risk, but here's another example, from the Cowboys game no less, of how it can be very effective.
This is earlier in the game than the 3rd and 21. The Cowboys attack it this time by spreading out the defence, with 4 WRs and Jason Witten in at TE.
The Oline doesn't do as good a job this time, leaving our star pass-rusher, Brian Orakpo with a free run on Romo.
The pressure from Orakpo (and Kerrigan who is getting the better of his one-on-one on the outside) forces Romo to throw off his back-foot.
Kevin Barnes does a fantastic job locating the ball in the air. He then leaves his man and goes to make a play on the ball.
And he comes down with it. A really nice example of the potential benefits of the Cover Zero.
So there you have it, The Cover Zero defence. It's definitely a risk, but the pressure it can put on a QB so quickly can be deadly. It can force rushed, off-balanced throws like we've seen, and that can lead to CB's like Hall (or evidently, Barnes as you just saw) jumping routes and getting INTs. It's been a very effective play for us, and I didn't even touch on how we show the offence it at times, before checking out of it into zone coverage, which can really mess up an offensive play. What do you guys think? Do we use it too often, or not enough?
81 comments
|
7 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
No i really like the look
I think it can really screw with an offense. As for the 3rd an 21 it is pretty clear that Kerrigan got confused as you see him hesitate between going after Romo or covering the back. Now it still might not have mattered since Romo played it perfectly, but a bit more of a pass rush and maybe Romo is off on the play.
It’s a risky formation, but it can be high reward. The play before the 3-21, the Skins were in the formation and Romo went to try to align the protection and the center snapped the ball, which caused the 3rd and 21. If the Skins were in some basic package, Romo would have been ready and it might have been a positive play.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Great Point About Kerrigan on that Play
People went on and on talking about the 3rd and 21 against Dallas, questioning the intelligence of calling such a blitz with the game on the line; however, I haven’t heard anyone bring up the point you just made: If Kerrigan rushes straight for Romo without hesitation, he either gets to Romo for a sack or at least forces a more rushed throw. That play could have ended very differently.
I remember screaming at my TV
For Kerrigan to do SOMETHING because he was moving but was going nowhere and ended up watching Romo throw the ball downfield just like the rest of us.
i liked the call on 3rd and 21
and generally with that kind of length to get a first down, or to even a 4th and manageable, I like his type of call as it forces the QB to either do a spectacular play (which I believe will be the minority) vs throwing it away, taking a sack, or causing a turnover (the majority).
Sorry for the run-on.
yeah i'm sure the play will burn us a few times, but overall the formation has been strong for the Skins
in the Rams game I believe their were two false starts against that formation as well.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Something I've Wondered About
I see teams mix up their cadence and snap count on offense to cause defenses to jump offsides.
I hardly ever see this from the Redskins….is this a function of the QB?
Awesome post
Editor at Hogs Haven - Redskins Blog
Twitter: @RVAparks Check it out for the latest Redskins news and opinions
I have a question: how come every week we are so quick to put blame on someone on our team and...
never recognize the other team actually does things well?
Editor at Hogs Haven - Redskins Blog
Twitter: @RVAparks Check it out for the latest Redskins news and opinions
So it's Rex's fault
We didn’t stop Dallas on 3rd and 21? I’m OK with that?
Where do they teach you to talk like this? In some Panama City "Sailor wanna hump-hump" bar, or is it getaway day and your last shot at his whiskey? Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.
well if you read the subheadings here you will find that..
there was no mention of blaming Rex SPECIFICALLY FOR THE 3RD AND 21 however the only person I have blamed at all on this team for anything is Rex Grossman. Read Parks initial post here and THEN come down to read the subs.
Then go somewhere else if you want to find sympathy for Rex.
Yea I Agree
3rd and 21 wasn’t our fault, Romo and Bryant made great plays.
Bu thats what teams do, gripe about their coaches and players.
adam archuleta and brandon lloyd
Fear the Turtle!
by HailToTheRedskins on Oct 23, 2011 3:46 AM EDT up reply actions
haynesworth for that matter
Fear the Turtle!
by HailToTheRedskins on Oct 23, 2011 3:46 AM EDT up reply actions
b/c we are supposed to score 31 points a game so it must be partly our fault
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
actually i think it depends on who the blame falls on
If it is Grossman, Doughty, Moore, McIntosh, it is okay to blame them. But if it’s anyone else the blame falls on Halsett or Shanahan(s)
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Hall is a pincushion as well
I try not to jump n D Hall, because I know sooner or later he’s gonna make a really big play that’s gonna make me go nuts.
Where do they teach you to talk like this? In some Panama City "Sailor wanna hump-hump" bar, or is it getaway day and your last shot at his whiskey? Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.
+1
DHall’s INT was HUGE…was a game changer. Unfortunately, Rex Grossman is the ultimate gamechanger (in the most negative way possible)
Yeah, I know
But I think he still has a game winner in him.
Where do they teach you to talk like this? In some Panama City "Sailor wanna hump-hump" bar, or is it getaway day and your last shot at his whiskey? Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.
you know what...
screw that, there are still people arguing for Grossman. When we are talking about the major keys to winning a game, what do we cite as the most important? Generally, time of possession, 3rd down efficiency, and TURNOVERS yet somehow when Rex creates so many it seems to be irrelevant in the eyes of some people.
The thing is...
…Beck didn’t look like the greatest in terms of avoiding turnovers in the preseason, either.
by The Agent C 83 on Oct 21, 2011 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions
there is a difference betwen A turnover versus...
Rex’s whole life being a turnover. It is in defensible
wow you really can't spell
thats twice now
Fear the Turtle!
by HailToTheRedskins on Oct 23, 2011 3:47 AM EDT up reply actions
i know right
plus i get so lazy when i type, if i miss an extra letter, i just say screw it and hit post anyway.
::facepalm::
Just say NO! to Rex Grossman.
Re: Time of Possession
Granted, it is great to be able to run the clock out at the end of a game with a lead, but I believe Time of Possession may be the least important statistic of all.
by Belly Kilmer on Oct 22, 2011 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I have to agree with the goon
Are you high? It ranks up there with turnover margin.
When life gives you potatoes, make potato salad.
When life gives you shit, make shit salad.
by 64ShagginWagon on Oct 22, 2011 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Because it's natural for fans of a team...
that’s been mediocre for so long. When the team starts to play well, giving us hope, and then suddenly a big play happens, it’s natural for fans to think back to the previous years where we had been so poor and think that certain players are back their old ways. Also, some people think every play can be prevented some how, so naturally look for someone to blame rather than accepting that sometimes, the other team just made a good play.
Follow me on Twitter: @UkRedskin1 feel free to give suggestions on what you'd like to see broken down each week.
Like everyone else said
Because we’re fans. I try not to, but I’ve done it myself. Fans have a hard time realizing that the other team gets paid to play football too, so instead of giving the other team credit, we blame our players.
As long as we're not calling it in an obvious passing situation
with long yardage to go and the game on the line with a lead, I don’t care. But as soon as it fails us in a critical moment and costs us the game, it pisses me off. Nothing is worth risking actually losing the game.
Personally, I'm against plays that fail us
Cover zero costs us a game? Too aggressive! FAIL
“Prevent” defense costs us a game? Not aggressive enough! FAIL
As long as the plays work, I’m in favor of them. Not a moment longer!
there's a good point of compromise
such as cover 2, a zone blitz, or generally anything other than cover 0 or prevent It’s ok to be agressive in a situation like that but there is such a thing as TOO aggressive for a certain situation.
How do we think this will work against the Panthers?
I’d imagine they will show it a lot more than they actually run it to try and confuse Newton.
Follow me on Twitter: @UkRedskin1 feel free to give suggestions on what you'd like to see broken down each week.
by UkRedskin on Oct 21, 2011 1:58 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
exactly,
I also think it will help prevent him from stepping up and making plays with his feet. The only killer is being able to cover Steve Smith.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Newton has not been confused by blit packages
All year. Doing this puts steve smith in one on ones and if Cam breaks contain, we are screwed.
I notices we showed the look less and called all out blitzes less against Vick and the Eagles. I expect the same this week. We can return to the plan with less athletic qbs and WRs.
by DavidDunn on Oct 22, 2011 5:23 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Why
Wouldn’t you show the other all out blitz when they scored a touchdown after the missed tackle. And you really want to blame Ryan ? A rookie playing out of position on the 3rd and 21 Dallas play ?
The Rod has spoken
by Rodskin on Oct 21, 2011 2:05 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
There's only so many plays I can show
before it becomes too long winded and nobody bothers to read it..
And I’m not blaming Kerrigan, I don’t think anyone is. I think the belief is that he could have made the it a lot more difficult for Romo to extend and make that play, but nobody knows what the outcome would have been.
Follow me on Twitter: @UkRedskin1 feel free to give suggestions on what you'd like to see broken down each week.
Exactly
The point isn’t that the play was Kerrigan’s fault….in fact, I think we’ve all agreed that it was simply a great offensive play by Romo and Bryant (hurts me to give a Cowboy any credit).
But I don’t think you can deny that it wasn’t Kerrigan’s best rookie moment or anything. He could have made more of an impact on the play is all
what other all out blitz play?
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
I'd prefer we mostly use cover 0 in the red zone.
The biggest risk with the defense is that if one guy blows coverage (Orakpo on S-Jax) or misses a tackle (almost D-Hall on Dez), it can easily be a TD. This is a huge risk when the opponent has 70 yards to go, but not as big a deal when they’re already within 20 or so yards of the endzone.
I’m not saying never use it elsewhere on the field. I love mixing it with the fake blitz, and I recognize that the blitz itself has great potential to cause turnovers. I just want us to be smart about it. For example, I didn’t like the call on 3rd and 21. And yes, if Kerrigan commits better, the outcome could’ve been different. I just think our base defense is pretty damn good at keeping opponents from gaining yards. Rushing five with Kerrackpo isn’t exactly a low pressure defense.
"Dominant" is an adjective.
"Dominate" is a verb.
We'll work on "Dominance" once we get the first two figured out.
I love your posts and I know that you're English
but oh man you have to stop spelling offense and defense with a “c”. It’s driving me bananas.
Seriously, I do really enjoy your posts, though.
I knew this was coming at some point today.
I used those words a lot in this piece. I’m sorry dude, but it’s incredibly difficult when your in the flow of writing to constantly remember to spell things differently to how you were brought up to spell them.
Follow me on Twitter: @UkRedskin1 feel free to give suggestions on what you'd like to see broken down each week.
I say just keep writing....
Your posts are interesting and easily understood…who cares if you spell a few words differently….i mean, we all read The Economist right?
Your spelling it correctly for where you are
And putting out the best content on this site. Can’t believe d-bags are complaining about spelling offence and defence. Spell it however you want and keep up the awesome work.
by BayAreaBullet on Oct 21, 2011 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions
ho ho! Though one this is more annoying than spelling
and that’s an asshole!
Look, he writes beautifully and 99.9% of his readers are American. Hopefully, he read the encouraging part and took it as a constructive criticism.
and here’s some constructive criticism for you- don’t be an asshole.
by sofutomygaha on Oct 21, 2011 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions
ugh, one "thing"
hate how a good zinger ties up your fingers
by sofutomygaha on Oct 21, 2011 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Haha, no worries dude.
I can understand in a way because whenever I read something that is spelled wrong, I find that it bugs me. But at the same time, it’s not exactly if I’ve massively got it wrong. It’s correct here in England, and it’s only difference is ‘c’ instead of ‘s’. Surely you can understand that it’s not that big of a deal, and that it’s difficult to remember to spell a word differently from the way you were brought up to spell it?
But yeah, I didn’t take any offence (see what I did there?) by it. There’s usually someone that picks up on it. I will try to remember to spell it the American way, but cut me some slack if I miss one or two in the middle of a piece?
Follow me on Twitter: @UkRedskin1 feel free to give suggestions on what you'd like to see broken down each week.
Alrightyroo
I’m out on this one. Not trying to disrespect anyone (except for Mr. Bullet there). Like I said before, UkRedskin, I love your posts. I didn’t mean to be trollish with the bananas thing. See y’all in a different thread.
by sofutomygaha on Oct 21, 2011 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I would have liked to actually heard your thoughts...
On the topic of the article, the Cover Zero defense.
Follow me on Twitter: @UkRedskin1 feel free to give suggestions on what you'd like to see broken down each week.
the risk-reward is even higher for us than most
Our edge rush is good enough to get pressure in a cover 1 or a cover 2 more reliably than most teams. Out of a zero, our rush should be unstoppable but a quicker defense might create more havoc than we do. Our DBs, on the whole, love to gamble and are built to take advantage of mistakes. On the whole, the way they are built the Redskins are going to produce more big plays out of the cover 0 than almost any other team I can think of.
That said, with the exception of Otogwe our DBs and backers are particularly weak in man coverage. That means that when we fail, we fail hard. For a lot of teams, this type of scheme is high stakes. For us, it’s Lehman Brothers.
It’s good to have it in the mix, and good to use it when a big pair of balls is needed, but lord no I wouldn’t want to see them using it even more. Especially when they have OLBs who are are more strong/relentless than they are fast.
by sofutomygaha on Oct 21, 2011 8:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Don't take this wrong, but
You’re being as asshole. And I say that in the least confrontational way possible. Just take a second to think about what you are saying:
Hopefully, he read the encouraging part
That’s about the most patronizing start of a sentence there is. I went to my Kindergarteners literacy workshop last night, and that statement fit right in to what they kept saying there.
and took it as a constructive criticism
Seriously, think about what that. Why would he need ANY criticism, “constructive” or otherwise, if he’s spelling it the way he was taught coming up?
When I was in the Navy, my buddies and I would go out to a restaurant or something, and there was this one guy who, no matter where we were; Greece, Israel, Turkey, Panama, Ecuador….wherever, he would always correct the person waiting on us. You see, most places we went, they were really “into” American culture, and tried their best to emulate us. Especially Turkey. The main thing is, they tried their best to speak English. ( which is actually UK’s language). Again, TRIED THEIR BEST. Yet this kid continuously corrected them, even though he was on THEIR TURF.
Yes, UK may be CONTRIBUTING TO an “American” blog, but he’s doing it front the confines of his living room. Which means, not only is he not bound by the laws of grammar on this side of the pond but, when reading his piece, you’re technically entering HIS SPACE. Please do so with respect.
Where do they teach you to talk like this? In some Panama City "Sailor wanna hump-hump" bar, or is it getaway day and your last shot at his whiskey? Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.
Wow, thanks for defending me.
But it’s really not that big of a deal.
I was going to say, thanks for the defence, but that might have been me taking it a bit to far lol.
Follow me on Twitter: @UkRedskin1 feel free to give suggestions on what you'd like to see broken down each week.
I just want to get into a car conversation with you
So I can hear you talk about the Boot and the Bonet. No offence to anyone else.
Just so you know I read your stuff with a British accent in my head.
When life gives you potatoes, make potato salad.
When life gives you shit, make shit salad.
by 64ShagginWagon on Oct 21, 2011 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Haha
I s’pose I got a bit carried away there. I don’t think the guy’s bein’ a dick, just a little short-sighted.
But, as you may have noticed, there are some people around here who’s postings are, at best, incoherent and, at worst, complete gibberish. Critiqueing that is one thing, but to read these well prepared, in-depth analysis’, and come away complaining about a single letter within a few words is kinda ridiculous.
Where do they teach you to talk like this? In some Panama City "Sailor wanna hump-hump" bar, or is it getaway day and your last shot at his whiskey? Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.
by CJHutch on Oct 22, 2011 4:19 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
You can spell offence & defence
with a Z & a Q for all I care, just keep on with the excellent & informative break downs. CTTR (cheers to the Redskins)
by ENsDad27 on Oct 21, 2011 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Again? Christ
I think, from now on, you should just put a disclaimer at the top of your piece saying that if the DIFFERENT spelling bothers you, move the fu€k on.
The thing is, I too get aggravated as hell when people continuously spell things wrong, or chop up a sentence. But I knew from day one that YOU weren’t spelling it WRONG, so I never thought twice about it. At least not until yet another misguided souls brings it up.
Where do they teach you to talk like this? In some Panama City "Sailor wanna hump-hump" bar, or is it getaway day and your last shot at his whiskey? Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.
So...if you were talkiing about BBall on a UK site...
Sofutomygaha,
Would you write “offence” and “defence”, if you were talking bball on a UK site, such as BBL.org.uk ? What if you were talking about Ron Artest of the Cheshire Jets on http://www.jetsbasketball.co.uk? Or would you figure everybody understands you’re from the States?
by Belly Kilmer on Oct 22, 2011 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Great Post
But, outside of goal line situations, to me it is too risky. Most NFL teams gain an average of 5 to 6 yards per play. This play is too much all or nothing. They either gain zero yards, or the score a touchdown. So the expected result of this play is much worse than just lining up and playing your regular defense. On the very first play of your summary, that receiver was wide open, and only a great play from Orakpo prevented the touchdown. You can get away with it a couple of times a game, but run it much and the offense can anticipate it and burn you.
They’ve been showing this and then bailing out of it at the snap, so that the offense is max protecting and then the defense is playing more coverage. I think they run should run the real zero once or so very early in the contest, then mostly bail the rest of the way.
Formerly KS and CS
by ThrowItDownBigManThrowItDown on Oct 21, 2011 5:21 PM EDT reply actions
I'm not so sure.
Hall has been in general, quite good in coverage. His problem comes when QB’s extend the play, and the WRs sort of free-style their own routes to try and get open for the QB.
Follow me on Twitter: @UkRedskin1 feel free to give suggestions on what you'd like to see broken down each week.
I think thats difficult for most corners.
West Springfield Spartans OUTSIDE LB #47
HTTR
by SpartanFS47 on Oct 21, 2011 7:32 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Yeah half a field to freestyle on I could get open on an NFL corner
Not really though.
When life gives you potatoes, make potato salad.
When life gives you shit, make shit salad.
by 64ShagginWagon on Oct 21, 2011 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, to be fair...
We hardly ask any of our corners to play bump and run.
Follow me on Twitter: @UkRedskin1 feel free to give suggestions on what you'd like to see broken down each week.
Do they bump at all in a cover 0? My impression is that they play pretty well off the line of scrimmage in this scenario.
by sofutomygaha on Oct 22, 2011 8:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Not in the Cover Zero no.
But I was talking more in general, we rarely see any of our corners play bump and run.
Follow me on Twitter: @UkRedskin1 feel free to give suggestions on what you'd like to see broken down each week.
definitely rec'd this post!
something i see in the deep pictures (vertical along the field, rather than horizontal; across the field) is that the CBs are on the WRs, like a kite with 1-foot of string. that’s scary for my Panthers, considering the only proven WR we have is Steve Smith.
if Washington does go to Cover Zero, leaving Smith 1v1 with D Hall, i’m of course going to pick Smith.
perhaps something to worry about with Newton is that he’ll break a tackle much more quickly than Vick, who has decided to settle in the pocket as if to prove something. romo and bradford are no threat to run, but i could see our OC readying newton with a designed run play if he sees a cover zero, 8-men on the LOS. or maybe not.
glad i read this post so that i can try and spot it in the game! again, wonderfully written and executed (both the play, and the article)
i dedicated this signature to my dog
Thanks man.
Smith would be the main worry with the Cover Zero this week. It would be a case of do we think Newton will be poised enough to see the blitz coming and extend the play like Romo did in the pictures above. I expect we’ll see one fairly early to try and judge what he’ll do against it.
However, as I said above, I think it’s more likely we’ll show Newton the Cover Zero look, to try and get him to max-protect, then check out of it at the snap to see how quickly he can react and read a defence.
Follow me on Twitter: @UkRedskin1 feel free to give suggestions on what you'd like to see broken down each week.
Great post as usual
My only issue with the Dallas play is that it was clear as day the cowboys went into a max protect formation. I feel like it was incumbent on London at that point to kill the play with that down and distance. There is a point where the risk outweighs the reward. The formation did its job. They audibled into one a very non threatening formation. We won. But didn’t accept the win.
That play will likely go down as one of the most pivotal plays of the season. A different result and we have no QB controversy.
by DavidDunn on Oct 22, 2011 5:13 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
That's a good point and brings up a question
I wonder if London was allowed to audible out of it? Or did Has say no matter what we are riding this bitch into the ground.
When life gives you potatoes, make potato salad.
When life gives you shit, make shit salad.
by 64ShagginWagon on Oct 22, 2011 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Philadelphia Skins Fans
Skin fan in Philadelphia and looking for a Skins Group to watch with?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Displacedskinsfansinphilly/
The bar is right on South St. so if you have a friend in Philly that a Skins fan send them along.
Awesome post dude!
Redskins defense is good scary!
If something in sports is the worst thing that's ever happened to you, you've lived a pretty good life.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Hogs Haven
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
