Henne and the myth of zone coverage

[dolphone]

There are good posters on here who are proponents of this theory, and while I do think it has some merit (any quarterback who tends to stare down his targets and take an extra split second to make a decision is going to be vulnerable against zone coverage), I think it's been somewhat overdone.

The Dolphins' struggles against umbrella coverage as a team last year were, I think, more a part of strategic fallacies and offensive weaknesses that were exploited. The Dolphins intended to run a power running offense that faced mostly single high coverage in the passing game. The route concepts were designed to face these coverages primarily on third and short to medium as a means of extending drives so we could run the ball more. This whole thing has been talked about to death, but to state it once again, to me the failure of the Dolphins running game against the seven man box was the doom of their passing game.

The passing game wasn't structured to go against that soft a defense, it wasn't structured to carry the team. So they struggled. Henning mostly stayed away from the middle of the field -- a prime weakness in cover 2 shell -- and we failed to invest in a seam busting tight end who could exploit it more effectively. We didn't run enough of the classic cover 2 beater patterns -- the post corners, the double verticals. The goal and strategy never changed to fit the reality of our substandard interior run blocking offensive line. Without an ability to run on first and second down, the offense was not suited to convert third and long. So we didn't. Which is not to say Henne always did his best in these adverse circumstances, because he didn't. But when you look at those games in which we faced more single high looks despite our inability to produce against cover 2 and the Tampa 2 -- like the Oakland game or the first Jets game -- you see what the passing game could have been with a more effective running game forcing those looks from every team.

Wait. Cover 2 has nothing to do with zone coverage; it's a safety alignment. Umbrella is 4-deep, and can have man (which is usually overkill, prevent defense) or zone defense underneath.

The thesis that we struggled against umbrella because we were designed to beat single high (or even zero) coverage is interesting, but I don't see the evidence. We had plenty of short routes, curls, comebacks, slants, and (as everyone here knows) dumpoffs, to say that we were depending on fly or post patterns. Also, it's somewhat counterintuitive. If you're built as a power running team, why would you get 3- or 4-deep looks?

The thesis that we struggled because we couldn't run effectively is, I assume, built to support the deep coverages. Except... the whole "substandard interior run blocking" doesn't hold. See here. We were ranked #1 in power situations (3rd-4th down and goal situations, 1-2 yards to go), 7th least stuffed team, but rock bottom in 2nd level yards (5-10 after the LOS). Overall, the Dolphins are ranked 15th in Adjusted Line Yards, well within the "3 yards and a cloud of dust" philosophy.

 

[dolphone]

anyone can come up with a theory. in the end its still just a theory, not a fact. We do know however that henning was bad, the wildcat sucked really bad 85% of the time and b marshall has probs and fasano called out henne in front of the team and sparano threw henne under bus only to later regret and.....just add what u saw.

My point is that it's being presented as fact (worse, as dogma) without any factual support.

 

[MD]

The only thing I can think of adding is when Pennington played in 2008 he attacked the seams extremely well with Fasano Once Pennington went down the scheme changed holding the TE in as a blocker. When you wind up sending only 2-3 guys in to the pattern the odds are heavily stacked against the QB' particularly one who has a tendency to focus on where he is going. Umbrellas or shells need only read his eyes to get the jump on the pass.

 

[Kdawg954]

The only thing I can think of adding is when Pennington played in 2008 he attacked the seams extremely well with Fasano Once Pennington went down the scheme changed holding the TE in as a blocker. When you wind up sending only 2-3 guys in to the pattern the odds are heavily stacked against the QB' particularly one who has a tendency to focus on where he is going. Umbrellas or shells need only read his eyes to get the jump on the pass.

We also had David Martin and Ted Ginn Jr. Whether Ginn was gonna drop the pass or not, teams had to respect his speed, especially when you beat a guy like Revis in primetime. And David Martin was the type of TE we needed for the past 2 years . . . we went with Haynos in 2009 and "insert name here" in 2010 . . . that just isn't good enough . .. combined with no speed threat at WR at all in 2010 and injuries on the OLine causing us not to be able to run the ball at all . . . alot of QBs would have failed in that system.

I don't know how successful this offense or Chad Henne will be this year, but stats or no stats, a change in philosophy had to come and Daboll brings that to the table.

 

[dolphone]

This is exactly right. Most quarterbacks who are either young, or lack confidence in what they're seeing will struggle against zone coverage. Which Henne did... However, Miami's skill positions struggled against zone coverage, which caused the quarterback to suffer even more. The running game struggled against 7 in the box... Henning's offense will NOT work in that scenario. He has to be able to control the line of scrimmage for his offense to work.


Most of the time when you're facing a single high look, zone coverage by the cornerbacks will convert to man if he's attacked vertically... Miami's offense didn't attack vertically, therefore no convert. DB's were allowed to stay in zone coverage and consistently play the quarterback rather than playing their man.

Zone coverage is a little harder for a quarterback to attack anyway. It requires more anticipation and more accuracy... the receiver is relying more on the quarterback than the quarterback is relying on the receiver. Ball placement is vital.

Man coverage is easier to attack for a quarterback simply because your receiver is allowed to attack the ball more and make a play on the football. The quarterback is relying more on the receiver here. A quarterback is able to decipher a lot sooner who has the advantage between the receiver and the defensive back vs. man coverage.... the release at the line of scrimmage immediately tells him all he needs to know... the quarterback's top priority here is his responsibility for the safety(s).

The trick to consistently beating zone coverage and shell looks is controlling the middle of the field... you do that with a weapon at the tight end position. When you threaten the seams of a defense, it forces the safeties to play you more honest.

If you're not going to feature that type of vertical threat at the tight end position, spreading the field horizontally with receivers (spread offense) is the other way you attack the seams of a defense... which is where the upgrade in philosophy with Daboll comes into play.

Again, where is the evidence? It's being bandied around so matter-of-factly, it should at least be accompanied with some sort of numbers, splits, I mean... something.

I saw plenty of plays where Henne threw a perfect pass just into the seam of a zone. I saw plenty of plays were Henne threw an awful ball against man coverage (often on comeback/curl routes). I just don't see the dichotomy some are talking about.

I don't disagree about any particular comment regarding strategy - they're mostly correct - but it has *nothing* to do with the argument at hand.

 

[Pachyderm_Wave]

Wait. Cover 2 has nothing to do with zone coverage; it's a safety alignment. Umbrella is 4-deep, and can have man (which is usually overkill, prevent defense) or zone defense underneath.

The thesis that we struggled against umbrella because we were designed to beat single high (or even zero) coverage is interesting, but I don't see the evidence. We had plenty of short routes, curls, comebacks, slants, and (as everyone here knows) dumpoffs, to say that we were depending on fly or post patterns. Also, it's somewhat counterintuitive. If you're built as a power running team, why would you get 3- or 4-deep looks?

The thesis that we struggled because we couldn't run effectively is, I assume, built to support the deep coverages. Except... the whole "substandard interior run blocking" doesn't hold. See here. We were ranked #1 in power situations (3rd-4th down and goal situations, 1-2 yards to go), 7th least stuffed team, but rock bottom in 2nd level yards (5-10 after the LOS). Overall, the Dolphins are ranked 15th in Adjusted Line Yards, well within the "3 yards and a cloud of dust" philosophy.

Henne struggles against zone coverage, not Cover-2. He struggles against zone coverage by the linebackers moreso than the cornerbacks. The worst interceptions Henne throws are against zone coverage by the linebackers where he misreads the middle of the field (see the picks to Ninkovich, Rolando Mclain, etc.) They're all basically the same mistake over and over again.

Short routes, curls, and comebacks are the easiest routes to defend with zone coverage. Especially when you already know they're coming.... like I said, Miami didn't attack the field vertically with their route combinations in order to convert zone to man, even in instances where there was a single high safety. They took away Miami's ability to control the middle of the field.

Henning's offense is dependent upon play action, not necessarily fly or post patterns. Linebackers in zone coverage weren't biting on the play action... and when you're consistenly running 5 and 7 step drops with no 3 step or 1 step drops, it allows defenses to basically predict the timing of your offense.. and your routes.

 

[MD]

Henne struggles against zone coverage, not Cover-2. He struggles against zone coverage by the linebackers moreso than the cornerbacks. The worst interceptions Henne throws are against zone coverage by the linebackers where he misreads the middle of the field (see the picks to Ninkovich, Rolando Mclain, etc.) They're all basically the same mistake over and over again.

Short routes, curls, and comebacks are the easiest routes to defend with zone coverage. Especially when you already know they're coming.... like I said, Miami didn't attack the field vertically with their route combinations in order to convert zone to man, even in instances where there was a single high safety. They took away Miami's ability to control the middle of the field.

Henning's offense is dependent upon play action, not necessarily fly or post patterns. Linebackers in zone coverage weren't biting on the play action... and when you're consistenly running 5 and 7 step drops with no 3 step or 1 step drops, it allows defenses to basically predict the timing of your offense.. and your routes.

Exactly what Bellichik did. He dropped his LBs back and Henne did what they expected. This is what I am anxious to see if Daboll corrects.

 

[Playmaker76]

Go watch a practice and you will see for yourself the myth is fact.

 

[dolpns13]

Unfortunately it is not a myth. Please dont try to spin it into something its not.

 

[Mr. Magoo]

Wait. Cover 2 has nothing to do with zone coverage; it's a safety alignment. Umbrella is 4-deep, and can have man (which is usually overkill, prevent defense) or zone defense underneath.

The thesis that we struggled against umbrella because we were designed to beat single high (or even zero) coverage is interesting, but I don't see the evidence. We had plenty of short routes, curls, comebacks, slants, and (as everyone here knows) dumpoffs, to say that we were depending on fly or post patterns. Also, it's somewhat counterintuitive. If you're built as a power running team, why would you get 3- or 4-deep looks?

The thesis that we struggled because we couldn't run effectively is, I assume, built to support the deep coverages. Except... the whole "substandard interior run blocking" doesn't hold. See here. We were ranked #1 in power situations (3rd-4th down and goal situations, 1-2 yards to go), 7th least stuffed team, but rock bottom in 2nd level yards (5-10 after the LOS). Overall, the Dolphins are ranked 15th in Adjusted Line Yards, well within the "3 yards and a cloud of dust" philosophy.

I have never heard that "umbrella" refers exclusively to cover 4. It could be the case, but I've never heard it.

I'm not sure I get where you're going with trying to refute the notion that we were substandard in the interior of our line. Our effectiveness in short yardage and inability to block at the second level is exactly the point. We had some power players that could push people a yard or so but couldn't get on the second level and hit someone to save their lives. Hence a gain of one yard on first down and a gain of two on second down and voila, it's third and long. Few offenses are designed to be effective on third and long but some do include as part of their philosophy a means to attack it. But with Henning, even going back to when Pennington was running the offense, we didn't. As I recall we didn't convert a third and 7+ in all of '08. But that offense was effective because we could run the ball well enough to stay out of those situations.

 

[thefranchisedef]

Just because you are blitzing, doesnt mean you are disguising your defense.. honestly, henne does great against the blitz, that leaves his players one on one. As you could see against the jets, Henne has enjoyed some of his finest games. The problem lies when henne faces a 3 to 4 man rush and everyone drops in coverage... part of the reason he threw alot of picks with this is because we only ran 2 receivers and a tight end. if we would spread it out, i believe he will make it happen!

 

[dolphone]

Henne struggles against zone coverage, not Cover-2. He struggles against zone coverage by the linebackers moreso than the cornerbacks. The worst interceptions Henne throws are against zone coverage by the linebackers where he misreads the middle of the field (see the picks to Ninkovich, Rolando Mclain, etc.) They're all basically the same mistake over and over again.

Short routes, curls, and comebacks are the easiest routes to defend with zone coverage. Especially when you already know they're coming.... like I said, Miami didn't attack the field vertically with their route combinations in order to convert zone to man, even in instances where there was a single high safety. They took away Miami's ability to control the middle of the field.

Henning's offense is dependent upon play action, not necessarily fly or post patterns. Linebackers in zone coverage weren't biting on the play action... and when you're consistenly running 5 and 7 step drops with no 3 step or 1 step drops, it allows defenses to basically predict the timing of your offense.. and your routes.

From the Mr. Magoo post I quoted (and the one you're replying to):

The passing game wasn't structured to go against that soft a defense, it wasn't structured to carry the team. So they struggled. Henning mostly stayed away from the middle of the field -- a prime weakness in cover 2 shell -- and we failed to invest in a seam busting tight end who could exploit it more effectively. We didn't run enough of the classic cover 2 beater patterns -- the post corners, the double verticals. The goal and strategy never changed to fit the reality of our substandard interior run blocking offensive line. Without an ability to run on first and second down, the offense was not suited to convert third and long. So we didn't. Which is not to say Henne always did his best in these adverse circumstances, because he didn't. But when you look at those games in which we faced more single high looks despite our inability to produce against cover 2 and the Tampa 2 -- like the Oakland game or the first Jets game -- you see what the passing game could have been with a more effective running game forcing those looks from every team.

Now, regarding your other points:

- If short routes are the most easily defended routes in a zone (which zone coverage? All of them?) then why were we so successful with them? So far it's been postulated that a) Henne struggles against zone and b) we faced a lot of it. So how come we were succesful with the easiest to defend routes?

- You say "Miami didn't attack the field vertically". Yet umbrella is quoted as a particularly hard coverage for Henne. How can he face 4-deep if we don't attack vertically?

 

[MD]

I have never heard that "umbrella" refers exclusively to cover 4. It could be the case, but I've never heard it.

I'm not sure I get where you're going with trying to refute the notion that we were substandard in the interior of our line. Our effectiveness in short yardage and inability to block at the second level is exactly the point. We had some power players that could push people a yard or so but couldn't get on the second level and hit someone to save their lives. Hence a gain of one yard on first down and a gain of two on second down and voila, it's third and long. Few offenses are designed to be effective on third and long but some do include as part of their philosophy a means to attack it. But with Henning, even going back to when Pennington was running the offense, we didn't. As I recall we didn't convert a third and 7+ in all of '08. But that offense was effective because we could run the ball well enough to stay out of those situations.

You're right on how horrible our 3d and +7 was. I believe we only converted 1 until late in the season. The success of the offense was based largely on the wildcat. It averaged 7 yds per play. It also gave them more of an opportunity to use the middle of the field. If you recall the Ravens simply took away the middle of the field and dominated the playoff game.

 

[dolphone]

Go watch a practice and you will see for yourself the myth is fact.

Hard to do when you live in Mexico. But I watch the game and see little evidence of this.

Again: I see plays where Henne struggle against man too. And I see plays where Henne succeed against zone. No dichotomy.

Unfortunately it is not a myth. Please dont try to spin it into something its not.

Fine. Show me the evidence.

 

[dolphone]

I have never heard that "umbrella" refers exclusively to cover 4. It could be the case, but I've never heard it.

I'm not sure I get where you're going with trying to refute the notion that we were substandard in the interior of our line. Our effectiveness in short yardage and inability to block at the second level is exactly the point. We had some power players that could push people a yard or so but couldn't get on the second level and hit someone to save their lives. Hence a gain of one yard on first down and a gain of two on second down and voila, it's third and long. Few offenses are designed to be effective on third and long but some do include as part of their philosophy a means to attack it. But with Henning, even going back to when Pennington was running the offense, we didn't. As I recall we didn't convert a third and 7+ in all of '08. But that offense was effective because we could run the ball well enough to stay out of those situations.

#1 in power situations is not "some power players". It's the whole offense.

But you're right, I went back and checked different splits. 27th in 1st down rushing. However we do rank 13 in 2nd down rushing.