Talk:Zone defense in American football

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. American football This article is within the scope of WikiProject American football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of American football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.American footballWikipedia:WikiProject American footballTemplate:WikiProject American footballAmerican football articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I don't know jack about "American football", but there is also an article about Zone blocking, in addition to Zone defence... If zone blocking and zone coverage are the same, you should perhaps take note of this? If not, please just ignore this message ;-) Greswik 17:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zone defense and zone blocking are completely different. The size of this article indicates that there indeed needs to be a separate article for zone defense in football versus zone defense in general. 49giantsharks (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like a discussion was ever started on this, but I want to voice my strong support anyway, since American football coverage shells is virtually the same article... although I will ask, are coverage shells ALWAYS related to zone defense? Brycehughes (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I have any issues about merging the two, it's that the converged article doesn't cover just zone defenses (both titles would be wrong), as Cover 0 is man to man. The zone defense article is lousy *as* a zone defense article, in that it lack historical context, and misses historically important zone defenses. There is no coverage of a strong side rotating zone, for example, and that's pretty much the pass defense story in Super Bowl III. You would think someone would have enough wherewithal to cover that. A merged article titled "Pass coverage in American Football" or "Coverage techniques in American football" would be preferable. Note that the "man to man" link points to an article largely focused on basketball, and probably could be removed, and specific man to man features added to the Cover 0 section (e.g. bump and run).

At least in the books I'm reading, there is no consensus on what Cover means beyond Cover 4. It's highly dependent on the coach who is doing the talking.

It would also help any potential writer/editor to read Dan Daly's book "National Forgotten League" as some of the quotes from the 1920s and 1930s suggest the old defenses had more pass defense sophistication to them than is commonly assumed. The Dana Bible reference I push everywhere shows linemen falling back into zones in the 1940s. It's not just a 2000ish B.J. Raji trick. It's not that hard to find references to zone blitz tactics in the 1930s either. Dwmyers (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. However, while "zone defense in American football" could be its own article (covering history, etc.), as it stands now, I don't think it's worthy, given that everything is more-or-less covered in the coverage shells article. Until a good zone defense article gets written, how about this as a solution for the meantime?:

1) Rename the "American football coverage shells" article to "Pass coverage in American Football".

2) Insert a new section in the pass coverage article describing zone vs. man-to-man.

3) Turn "Zone defense in American football" into a redirect pointing to that new section, essentially killing off this zone defense article (for now).

The question prior to step (3) would then be, is there anything worth keeping in the zone defense article that belongs in the pass coverage article? Doesn't look to me like there's much needing to be merged. Brycehughes (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at both articles, it seems as if coverage shells has more content, but the zone defense coverage "shells" are better written. Paul Zimmerman, in "The New Thinking Man's Guide to Pro Football", has a breakdown like this in his Chapter 9 (pp. 176-177). 1. Man to Man defenses. His text makes it clear that Cover 0 and 1 are both man to man defenses. 2. Zone defenses. This would have Cover 2-4 and 6, Tampa 2, Double Zones (another name for Cover 2), Rotating Zones (a kind of Cover 3), etc. 3. Blitz or Dog Coverages. He points out that if teams leave receivers back to pass protect, coverage adjustments are possible. This would be where you could discuss zone blitz tactics as well. 4. Nickel, Dime, and Seven Back Defenses. various kinds of prevents. 5. Keys, Mixers, Combination Coverage. What the coverage shell article calls Cover 7 belongs here. This includes half zones, (half field zone, half field man), key coverage (depending on key, some defenders go man to man on specific players), various combination strategies. Finally not in Zimmerman but a point to be made, you have to define field and boundary corner in order to discuss Cover 6 well, in terms of the "coverage shell" discussion. Not every team thinks in terms of field and boundary corners, just as some teams have no strong and free safeties. So is it worth it? Dwmyers (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think it's worth merging. When I have time I'll use your advice as a guide. Thanks. Brycehughes (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ran into this - link http://smartfootball.com/passing/attacking-coverages-in-the-passing-game - which may be useful in terms of a rewrite. The benefits and debits are clear here, and it is the first explanation I've seen of "robber" coverage (though I've heard the phrase before). Note that what Wikipedia calls "Cover 6" (not in any sense universal) is called QQH here. Dwmyers (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support The coverage shells are zone defense in football, with zone defense thus being the overarching, included subject. No reason to separate the two, merge them... Cesium_133 (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of the American football coverage shells page were merged into Zone defense in American football on 14 July 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

If anyone's still reading this, I Strong Support Renaming this "new" article after the coverage shells the whole thing covers by name, exclusively. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The words might be English, but the sentence isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.133.139.56 (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]