Panthers played more zone defense than any NFL team last year

[Moo Daeng]

We are a zone blitz team.  Rivera learned from Jim Johnson. Therefore there will be a good amount of zone and blitzing. McDermott also learned under Johnson. Surprise....the Bills do the same. 

[Khyber53]

I guess this explains the 5-11 season last year.

[AU-panther]

21 hours ago, mc52beast said:

There’s one thing that can hide your obvious holes in a secondary...

Have a muther fugging top 10 d-line

While I agree that having a good d-line is important I’m starting to think having great corners can be as effective.

There is a physical imit on how quick even the best defenders can get to the QB.  Unless an o-lineman totally whiffs on a block it still takes them how long to the qb? 2 secs? 2.5 secs? 3 secs? Either way there are qbs in this league who can get the ball out that quick, especially if you are playing a soft zone.

I’ll take a good D-line and 3.5 secs of coverage over a great d-line and 2 secs of coverage.

 

[Snake]

14 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

While I agree that having a good d-line is important I’m starting to think having great corners can be as effective.

There is a physical imit on how quick even the best defenders can get to the QB.  Unless an o-lineman totally whiffs on a block it still takes them how long to the qb? 2 secs? 2.5 secs? 3 secs? Either way there are qbs in this league who can get the ball out that quick, especially if you are playing a soft zone.

I’ll take a good D-line and 3.5 secs of coverage over a great d-line and 2 secs of coverage.

 

There is about 3 great CBs in the entire league at any given time. Having a really good dline is not only easier to accomplish but most certainly can make avg CB look really good. Not saying it's not nice to have both like when Norman was here but it's just rare. 

[AU-panther]

8 hours ago, Snake said:

There is about 3 great CBs in the entire league at any given time. Having a really good dline is not only easier to accomplish but most certainly can make avg CB look really good. Not saying it's not nice to have both like when Norman was here but it's just rare. 

Depends on what your definition of an average CB is.

If your secondary consistently has to play a soft zone to cover up their deficiencies you can have the best dline in the game and they will still have trouble getting to some of the best QBs who excel at the short passing attack.

 

[Manther]

9 hours ago, Snake said:

There is about 3 great CBs in the entire league at any given time. Having a really good dline is not only easier to accomplish but most certainly can make avg CB look really good. Not saying it's not nice to have both like when Norman was here but it's just rare. 

Yes.  Letting Norman, and most of the secondary walk is looking like one of the worst decisions Gman made.  We're still trying to clean up that mess.

[Snake]

8 hours ago, AU-panther said:

Depends on what your definition of an average CB is.

If your secondary consistently has to play a soft zone to cover up their deficiencies you can have the best dline in the game and they will still have trouble getting to some of the best QBs who excel at the short passing attack.

 

Soft zone doesn't cover up poor CB play. It's actually harder to play soft if you have bad CBs because the WRs have more cushion and doesn't get jammed. A zone scheme doesn't mask poor CB play either. We have one of the better front 7s in football so it makes a whole bunch of sense to play zone because you open up blitzing lanes you can't in man with a 4-3 team. It's also why you see more man in a 3-4 base but that's another topic entirely. 

[Snake]

6 hours ago, Manther said:

Yes.  Letting Norman, and most of the secondary walk is looking like one of the worst decisions Gman made.  We're still trying to clean up that mess.

That's debatable because the Redskins paid a whole bunch of money for Norman to be average. 

[MHS831]

On 6/22/2018 at 9:54 AM, RumHam said:

You're fuging dreaming. It's the same if not worse than last year. 

Interesting concept, but I would say it is unknown at this point.  Did they address the weaknesses?  Yes. Worley was a dog--should have been a S.  Bradberry was always on the opposiitiion's #1--a zone CB on Julio Jones most of the time.  Crazy. 

So what did we do.  Coleman out (good riddance) and Searcy in.  I think that (believe it or no) is an upgrade. Then we added Gaulden, and he is a good player that is probably not ready--will he be ready by midseason?  Probably, but ideally they want him to learn this year, and i think a major reason is Jackson.  I think they expect him to play a lot this year.

And nobody has high expectations for Seymour, but I think the Panthers feel they have a solid man CB in him.  Not a star, but solid.  I think we would have signed another CB or drafted one if they were not high on him. 

So, we can provide different approaches--a man-man CB defense, a zone-man CB scheme, or a zone-zone.  Do not underestimate Seymour.  If you have ever heard the term "developmental player" it applies here.  Jackson will be on the field a lot this year, and he will bring some swag to the defensive backfield.  Bradberry?  He is no worse  off than Norman was after 2 seasons. 

[Toomers]

14 hours ago, Manther said:

Yes.  Letting Norman, and most of the secondary walk is looking like one of the worst decisions Gman made.  We're still trying to clean up that mess.

  Why would that matter? At best he plays here in 2016. We sure weren't gonna pay him 15/M year. We re-signed Coleman(mistake) and Tillman retired. Harper was let go but are you suggesting he was an asset? 

  We played zone 78% of the the time in 2015. 70% last year. Every team in the NFL plays zone over 50% of the time. So what do these numbers prove again?

 

 

[Manther]

8 hours ago, Snake said:

That's debatable because the Redskins paid a whole bunch of money for Norman to be average. 

I think part of game is fit.  Norman fit in well here and had learned to cover the WR in our division.

38 minutes ago, Toomers said:

  Why would that matter? At best he plays here in 2016. We sure weren't gonna pay him 15/M year. We re-signed Coleman(mistake) and Tillman retired. Harper was let go but are you suggesting he was an asset? 

  We played zone 78% of the the time in 2015. 70% last year. Every team in the NFL plays zone over 50% of the time. So what do these numbers prove again?

 

 

A one year franchise tag of 14mill (which he had) would have held Norman one more year.  It is very unlikely he would have done as well and his market value would have declined.  I'm not arguing for keeping Harper...I'm arguing against the decimation of the secondary in one year.

 

[Toomers]

26 minutes ago, Manther said:

I think part of game is fit.  Norman fit in well here and had learned to cover the WR in our division.

A one year franchise tag of 14mill (which he had) would have held Norman one more year.  It is very unlikely he would have done as well and his market value would have declined.  I'm not arguing for keeping Harper...I'm arguing against the decimation of the secondary in one year.

 

   In his last game against ATL, Julio had 178 yds. 

   So we should have paid 14M to a player who “is very unlikely to have done as well and his market value will decline”. That’s what was done wrong? Seriously?

  It was the timing(after most of FA over) that killed it. And Harper and Tillman were done. What was the issue with getting rid of them. Who would you have kept that would change anything right now? You giving Norman 5/75 with 50M guaranteed? For a player who is the very definition of Zone CB. Which is somehow becoming a very misunderstood term. 

[Manther]

2 hours ago, Toomers said:

   In his last game against ATL, Julio had 178 yds. 

   So we should have paid 14M to a player who “is very unlikely to have done as well and his market value will decline”. That’s what was done wrong? Seriously?

  It was the timing(after most of FA over) that killed it. And Harper and Tillman were done. What was the issue with getting rid of them. Who would you have kept that would change anything right now? You giving Norman 5/75 with 50M guaranteed? For a player who is the very definition of Zone CB. Which is somehow becoming a very misunderstood term. 

No your right.  We should have gone 6-10, get swept 3 games by NO and spend 7 draft picks over the next 3 years filling in the holes.  That's worked out well.

[Toomers]

39 minutes ago, Manther said:

No your right.  We should have gone 6-10, get swept 3 games by NO and spend 7 draft picks over the next 3 years filling in the holes.  That's worked out well.

 And coming off a playoff appearance despite multiple injuries and set up to contend this year again. Would you feel better if we went 7-9? Because that the difference, at most. Unless Josh is as going to about 3 OL positions he wasn’t taking us to the playoffs. And we lose KK. A lot more at play than cutting one  CB on a team that plays 80% zone. 

  I bet the team that signed Josh would trade places with us in a heartbeat