Gang Green Nation
Much was said about the glory of man coverage of defense when Rex Ryan was the head coach of the New York Jets.
Years later, Robert Saleh took over as the head coach of the New York Jets and suddenly the virtues of zone coverage were extolled.
Nowadays, we have Aaron Glenn, whose defense ran a very high man coverage rate, but still ran it less than 50% of the time. We can think of him as somewhat of a hybrid of the two former head coaches in this regard.
So what’s the deal? Which coverage scheme is better and why?
Well, like most things in the world the answer is “it depends.” In this case, “it depends” on what outcome you’re prioritizing.
As broken down by Tej Seth, man coverage is more likely to yield a negative estimated points added for the offense, but comes with a greater likelihood of a chunk play that yields a relatively great deal of estimated points added. Zone coverage, by comparison, is more likely to allow for some offensive progress but is less likely to facilitate a chunk play for the offense or defense.
What this means from a practical sense is that the situation that a defense needs is really what dictates the decision between man and zone. Need a stop on short yardage? Probably going to need to run man. Operating from third and long? Zone it up.
What this also means for the Jets is that we’ll probably see more impact plays on that side rather than the bend and don’t break mentality that in many ways defined the defense under Robert Saleh. From a watchability standpoint, I consider this a welcome change, but what do you think about the pros and cons to this scheme change?
