Excellent take Thanks Tom. +1.
Wiby, basically, no, I think pressing could help the coverage out a lot. It would tighten the outside CBs up on the receiver to help combat the easy ten yard slants for pitch and catch big gains we've been seeing. Tom was also correct when he said the OLBs running to the flat could fight those. The problem I have conceptually with Cover 4 is it puts more men over the top then you have on the first layer of the zone D, which leaves you susceptible underneath... which is exactly where we've been getting killed. That and the boundary on those outside fly routes.
Here's what Cover 4 coverage looks like:
Vs. Cover 3:
And Cover 2:
Conceptually, any of these can work. The problem with running zone is the gaps between the zones. If it were up to me, I'd probably opt for a Cover 3, since it's a good balance between preventing the big play and defending the short and intermediate stuff. It'd get us another man underneath on that first layer. But any zone is liable to weakness at the gaps, which is what we're seeing right now. They're simply running downfield past our LBs that are covering the flat, and exploiting those big rectangular shaped gaps shown in the Cover 4 picture.
It kind of ticks me off that Kalu got that PI penalty yesterday, because I felt that was textbook coverage from him, great coverage, that drew a flag because of a flop job. THAT's how you use the sideline as a defender. Very encouraging to see one DB, on one play, have damn near perfect coverage.
Philosophically, the coaches prefer Cover 4, with some man mixed in occasionally. We're getting burnt by big coverage based on cushions provided in zone, and also seem to have problems playing too loose in man coverage. I know people complain about LBs being matched up on WRs and getting toasted, but hey-- if they come out in a 4 or 5 wide offensive package and we're in nickel, that's just the reality of the situation. Clearly, they seem to believe in the LBs ability to cover.
I also don't buy the "we're experienced" rhetoric. Yesterday, we were without the entire LB corps, VV, Gangwish, and Davie, who we entered the year all thinking would be starters for us. That's over HALF our base D-- that's a TON to not have in terms of personnel. That makes a HUGE impact in how we prepare and play defense.
In both cases, adjustments need to be made. I am confident they will. If they are not, then the "can Banker" conversation legitimizes itself. I'm waiting until I see it for myself.
Sorry for the length of the post-- just things as I see them.
