Originally Posted by Fiddler
I hear this a lot. I remember a time when we were so upset that we were never in man coverage, that we used too much zone. Now, being in man coverage is a bad thing... I guess because the announcer say so much on TV, people just start repeating it.
In no way did I state or imply that man coverage is bad. It insures that every receiver on the field is accounted for, frees up people to blitz and limits the number of defenders standing by themselves in a giant patch of open field.
The down side is that man eventually breaks down somewhere if you don't get to the QB and there's not another guy waiting in the next zone to pick him up.
To be effective, man coverage needs to get after the QB consistently or it's only a matter of time before it gets picked apart.