Quote:I was definitely wrong. I believe he's referring to this:

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2010/2/9/1209031/rufios-playbook-pattern-matching'>http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2010/2/9/1209031/rufios-playbook-pattern-matching</a>

 

It's kind of tough to gauge since it's a small quote and also we put emphasis on both zone and man coverage in different games last season, but I think you actually were right.

 

I think Wash wants to get away from playing a mixture man and zone and instead focus on playing zone as much as possible. It would make sense that we were playing far more man coverage last year than they would have liked because you can get absolutely killed in zone if your line can't get to the quarterback. Zone coverage creates a lot of turnovers if you have a good line since the quarterback doesn't have as much time to read the defense and recognize where the defenders zone are located before they throw. Those defenders who are sitting in the zone and reading the QBs eye can make a quicker play on the ball and create turnovers. However, with our putrid line, a quarterback could sit back in the pocket all day, find the soft spots between two zones, and pick us apart. The game against New England would be a prime example of that.

 

Seattle runs quite a lot of zone coverage as has Carolina. With the returns of Fowler, Skuta, and Marks and the additions of Ngakoue and Jackson, we should be able to put much more pressure on the opposing QBs and improved back seven should be able to capitalize on that. It would make sense that if Wash believes we can sufficiently put pressure on the opposing quarterback, we'd move towards that style of defense.

---