So…about that zone blocking.
Jan 11, 2008 2008 Season, Alex Gibbs, Awesomeness, Football 101, Nnamdi Asomugha, Posts that list too many players, Preview, RB free-for-all, Ron Dayne likes pie, Stats, Teams that aren't the Texans
The hiring of Alex Gibbs prompted at least three people to ask me to re-address the zone blocking concept. Because there are a few things in the original post on the subject that I wanted to correct or clarify, I am glad to. [Note: all block quotes are cut-and-pasted from the original post.]
Not long ago, I heard a color commentator mention during an NFL game that a “zone blocking system is one in which the lineman all have a specific area they are responsible for, kind of like a zone defense in basketball.” I found the same sort of thought at Football Outsiders, too. While this is more-or-less, sorta kinda accurate when it comes to pass blocking, it is not correct vis-a-vis run blocking. Or, at least, not near correct enough to get the point across. At its most basic level, all a zone run blocking scheme means is that the offensive linemen work in pairs against two or three of the defensive linemen–i.e. the guard and center simultaneously block a defensive tackle–with one of the offensive linemen then peeling off and blocking a linebacker. The “zone” the system refers to is the part of the line where the running play is going. This is what creates the “one cut” system, but we’ll get to that in a minute.
Let’s expound on that a little. First, for the sake of brevity and clarity, let’s get some acronyms working. “ZPB” will refer to zone pass blocking and “ZRB” will refer to…well, you get it.
Anyway, in a ZPB scheme, it is true that the offensive linemen are responsible for an area rather than a specific defender. This means on a blitz or a defensive lineman stunt, the offensive linemen must all be on the same page as to assignments and all must maintain zone discipline similar to lane discipline on special teams coverage. Getting this coordinated movement down is one of the more difficult aspects of learning the system, mainly because of some of the intricacies involved.
For instance, imagine a twist-stunt between the RDE and RDT. In pure theory, the LT and LG are just going to wait for the stunting lineman to come into their respective zones. Problem is, the game moves at too high a speed–especially when you are talking about the speed of a DE compared to an OG. In this situation, assuming a normal twist where the end goes under the tackle, four distinct movements will happen on the O-line. (1) The LT will engage the DE to stop him from shooting the gap. (2) The LG will step backward and to his left. (3) The LT will disengage the DE, passing him off to the LG who is now in position to block him. (4) The LT will locate and pickup the stunting DT.
As with any pass-blocking scheme, you have the question of how blitz pickup works. There are some people who disagree, but I actually feel blitz pickup is easier in a zone system. Assume a blitz where the SLB is going to shoot the B gap, the LDE is going outside the tackle (C gap) and the LDT is going A gap. Here, we have at least three defined movements. (1) The RG engages the DT, allowing the C enough time to get his head up and make the 45-degree step back and to his right. (2) The RG passes the DT off to the C, now in position, and slides right to pick up the SLB. (3) The RT picks up the LDE as he usually would. The reason this is preferable (at least in my mind) is that it simplifies the blitz pickup assignment, as each offensive lineman is essentially guarding a gap rather than worrying about who will pick up the extra rusher. This way, if the SLB actually goes to the C gap and the LDE stunts to the B gap, the RT mirrors what the RG did in steps (1) and (2) above, then passes the DE to the RG. The TE mirrors the two linemen, picks up the SLB (if necessary), and then passes him off to the RT before releasing.
“Yeah, yeah,” you say. “That’s all fine and dandy, but what about the good stuff?” Because, as we all know, the real excitement of the Gibbs hire (and the real difficultly in implementing the zone system) comes from ZRB.
Let’s walk through a example play where the running back is supposed to go right against a 4-3 defensive front. At the snap of the ball, the left tackle and left guard block the nose tackle, the center takes under tackle, and the right guard and right tackle block the left defensive end. This two-on-one blocking allows the offensive front to get a push and, also, to create the running lanes. Now, here’s where it gets tricky. Depending on certain factors (where the defensive player lined up, which direction the running play is going, where the LB is in relation to the defensive lineman, etc.), one offensive player from each double-team will disengage the defensive lineman and pick up the corresponding linebacker. So, in our example, assuming a standard 4-3 Over, the LT would disengage and slide to the second level to pick up the WLB, the RG would do the same and pick up the Mike linebacker, and the TE would be responsible (from the snap) for the SLB.
If this is done correctly, there should be a hole between the TE and RT, the C and where the RG was, and the C and LG. This is the “inside zone” and is where the “one cut” comes into play. In this system, the running back chooses one of these holes, makes his single cut, and goes. Ideally, he won’t make this cut until he is almost to his offensive lineman, thus allowing the defense less time to react to his angle. By contrast, the “outside zone” is the area beyond the TE/Sam block. Plays designed to seal off the defense and open up the outside zone do not have the “one cut” aspect to them–the running back is obligated to head outside (in theory, at least)–so the linemen block similar to a man blocking scheme, where there is a pre-determined hole.
The above part is where I should have been more precise. Apologies.
For one thing, if you want to be extremely technical, running this play to the hole between the RG and RT is “middle zone.” That’s really neither here nor there for our discussion, but I want to be thorough. Additionally, you could include a stretch play, where the RB heads for just inside the last offensive player (i.e. a WR). This is far more common in college, but can be done in the NFL with the right personnel. We shan’t be doing it much with Ron Dayne, however, so we’ll ignore it for now.
Another slight correction. Re: the man-blocking appearance of the outside zone runs, it is possible to run a variation, wherein the tackle seals the DE, the C cuts the DT, and the G peels around to seal off the OLB. This is often called a “pull and overtake” or “pin and pull” maneuver. The key is that the G make an initial hit on the playside shoulder of the DE to knock him off balance and allow the OT to overtake him.
With those corrections out of the way, let’s look at some other aspects of ZRB.
First, some historical background. Like all good football innovations, ZRB was developed as a response to a defensive trend. Teams were using a slant/angle defense, where the defensive linemen all rush to the same side of their corresponding offensive linemen and the blitzing linebacker flows back the other direction into a wide open rushing lane to sack the QB or blow up the running play. ZRB (and ZPB) mitigated this by allowing linemen to pass rushers off and stay home to deal with the linebackers. In fact, with ZRB, a properly-handled blitzing LB is basically taking himself out of the play. If he is blitzing to the same side as the running play, he’s picked up and and sealed off like any other defensive lineman; if he’s blitzing to the backside of the running play–as long as it is not through the A gap–he is generally allowed to shoot through with minimal resistance as the one-cut technique allows the RB to be long gone by the time the LB adjusts.
A second feature of ZRB is its consistency in appearance. From snap to cut, every play should look more or less the same, forcing the linebackers into a no-win choice–do they stay home and see where the play develops (and, thus, risk getting picked up by the offensive lineman who has just disengaged and looked to the second level) or do they flow with the play and more often than not overpursue? Part of the reason they are forced into this quandry is because the RB in a ZRB system has two responsibilities–first, he is running to a specific spot (usually called a “landmark”) on each play. This spot can vary, but it usually somewhere right around the OG’s butt. Second, he is running toward that landmark as for as long as he can, so that he gets as deep as possible into the line–and causes the flowing linebackers to keep moving away–before making his cut.
[Author's note: I need to make another correction here. I stated that running to the outside zone does not have the one-cut aspect to it and that it is more like traditional man blocking. While this is true, it overlooks that, because it looks the same as the middle- and inside-zone runs as it initially develops, the fact that your back has been making cuts effectively turns not making a cut and going outside just as effective as the cuts. Like anything in football, it's all about mixing it up.]
A third feature of ZRB is actually what it does not feature. Namely, it is very rare (read: never) that you will see a counter or misdirection play. The reason for this should be obvious. If the running back goes right, but the entire ZRB unit sets up for a run to the left, the play doesn’t really fool anyone, the RB is pretty much forced to turn the run into an outside zone or stretch play when he heads back to his left, and the RB is running right into the defensive players that ZRB lets through with minimal resistance. There are some variations on ZRB that attempt to incorporate traps and counters, but they are few and far between.
Fourth, traditional ZRB chooses which side to run the play to based upon the defensive technique. What do I mean? Well, take your inside zone, for instance. Most teams will run all inside- and middle-zone runs toward the 1-technique tackle, regardless of whether he lines up on the right or left. This is because his position relative to the inside shoulder of the OG makes it easy for the C and OG to double-team him, push him in the proper direction, and still be in position to pick up the LB. This lack of this sort of theory is part of what made the Texans system in ‘06 and ‘07 a hybrid–they would run plays to pre-determined sides, meaning that certain plays called for man blocking and eliminated double teams.
Facets of zone blocking thus taken care of, let’s move on to the final pieces of the puzzle–personnel and Gibbs’ history.
In the last post, I wrote:
Well, as Tim correctly notes, the zone blocking scheme almost invariably features smaller, more agile offensive linemen. The reason should be obvious–it is not going to be real easy for a Larry Allen to engage a defender, then slide his big butt away from the block and pick up a linebacker who is 4 or 5 tenths of a second faster than he is. Besides, since you are hitting at the initial point of attack with a 2-on-1 advantage, you don’t need a pair of 340 lb. behemoths; a pair of 280 lb. lineman will work just fine, with the added bonus of being able to pick up linebackers and be more maneuverable in space.
I then went on to opine that our current crop doesn’t fit that mold, which is true, and explaining the underlying theory of the smaller guys. However, what I failed to really flesh out is that the idea of smaller linemen is only the current theory of what works and it is primarily based on the success Denver has had. However, just like how teams moved from the power-I to today’s offensive formations, the current mold for a ZRB lineman is not necessarily the only thing that works.
The Denver theory of using two-on-one and having the speed to get to the second level is fine and it is incredibly successful. However, it is also the reason that they have to use the cut-blocks that so many people complain about. When Gibbs took over Denver’s offensive line in 1984, his offensive linemen were nearly all between 260 and 280. He played with the hand he was dealt and created a ZRB scheme that utilized cutblocking because he had to (though it is no stretch to say that, over time, he developed an affinity for the sub-300 lbers). After all, there are two ways to create running lanes–you can move the defensive player out of the way or you can knock him down. Even going two-on-one, because of the way ZRB quickly disengages and moves to the next level, your two 280-lb linemen don’t have the bulk to appreciably move a 340-lb 1-technique tackle before one of them releases. So you send one of the 270-lbers into the side of the DT’s thigh and knock him flat.1
If, on the other hand, you have more bulk at the point of attack, you obviate the need for the cut block because you can physically move the DT before the OG (or whomever) slides to the next level. Simple physics, really–620 lbs are going to exert more force in a given time than 560 lbs will.
Now…which of these lineman prototypes is preferable? I honestly can’t say. On the one hand, as we discussed, the smaller, more agile linemen give you the speed to move to the linebackers and the size to fit through smaller gaps in order to get to that next level. However, as commenter cseafous pointed out (comment #4), modern linebackers are always going to be faster than even the most agile OG. So, unless your RB is really, really good at running to his landmark and freezing the LBs, there’s a fairly decent chance that the OG will not be able to pick up the LB on the run. Conversely, if you have traditional offensive linemen, you have a lot more mass at the point of attack, but you create a situation where the doubleteam has to engage, move, have one disengage, and find the next level more quickly to compensate for the lack of speed.
Ideally, you’d get guys like Eric Winston who were slightly smaller than average (305) but were strong (22 reps) and quicker (4.93) than average, basically splitting the baby and getting maximum push in a short amount of time while still having the agility to pick up LBs. Of course, if it were that easy to find those guys, everyone would do it. Still, I imagine that, over time, you will see the girth of our existing line lessened.
Ignoring the size of the blockers for a second, the cool thing about Gibbs, however, is that he’s had success everywhere he’s gone, regardless of the initial group he got to work with. When he got to Denver, the team ran for 746 yards in its first five games. When he went to Atlanta in 2004, he had guys like Kynan Forney (307), Martin Bibla (306), Michael Moore (318)…not exactly the prototype from his Denver days (and not exactly All-Pros). Yet that Falcons team had both backs–Warrick Dunn and TJ Duckett–average at least 4.2/carry and they were consistent in those averages pretty much game in and game out.
With that kind of sustained success, regardless of the personnel he starts with, I think it is safe to say that hiring Alex Gibbs is going to prove to be bigger than any single offseason move we might make. And I would stick by that statement even if we signed Nnamdi Asomugha.
Another consistent thing about Gibbs’ teams–more often than not, they don’t take offensive linemen early in the draft. In 1984, the first o-lineman they took was in Round 8 (Winford Hood). In 1985, Round 5 (Billy Hinson). In 1986, Round 4 (Jim Juriga–this one is misleading, though, because the fourth round was the first pick Denver had). In 1987, Round 8 (Dan Morgan). In 1995, Round 4 (Jamie Brown). In 1996, Round 7 (Leslie Ratliff). In 1997, Round 3 (Dan Neil). In 1998, Round 7 (Trey Teague). In 1999, Round 2 (Lennie Friedman). In 2000, Round 4 (Cooper Carlisle). In 2001, Round 4 (Ben Hamilton). In 2002, they didn’t draft one. Finally, in 2003, Round 1 (George Foster).
When he went to Atlanta, the trend continued. 2004–didn’t draft one. 2005–Round 5 (Frank Omiyale). 2006–Round 5 (Quinn Ojinnaka).
Long story short, you can probably stop mentioning names like Ryan Clady and Sam Baker when you are talking about possible picks at 18. While not drafting first-round OTs is nothing new for this franchise, with Gibbs on board, the results almost surely will be.
1 Mark Schlereth has also said that a benefit of the cutblock is that you keep knocking these 300 lb. DTs down and they have to get right back up and trail the play while the O-lineman lays there and rests until the play ends, thus tiring the defensive player far more quickly. This is probably true, but is more of an added benefit than a raison d’etre for ZRB.
(click arrow to reply)
January 12th, 2008 at 1:11 am
geez, matt. something this long should have chapters and/or pictures. maybe a nice animated dancing, hula girl on the side. seriously, kudos again for your diligence in helping to educate those of us that are admittedly not as informed as we would like to be. now if you could just explain sudoku to me, i’d be one happy mofo.
s.
(click arrow to reply)
January 12th, 2008 at 5:34 am
Sudoku? Is that some kind of porn where all those japanese guys nut on a girl’s face?
(click arrow to reply)
January 12th, 2008 at 9:28 am
No no no, Matt. That’s called chronkkake.
(click arrow to reply)
January 12th, 2008 at 9:29 am
good job. you need a virtual white board for illustrations.
btw..everyone vote for Mario Defensive Player of the Year.
http://www.nfl.com/partner?partnerType=players-defense
(click arrow to reply)
January 12th, 2008 at 11:00 am
@bfd: chronkkake? isn’t that a porno that’s narrated by walter kronkite?
(click arrow to reply)
January 12th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Naw, it stars Chron.cum sports hack, lil Dickie Justice (wearing his French Maid outfit) with Sudoku Young nuts on his chin…
(click arrow to reply)
January 12th, 2008 at 11:59 am
stacy, I’ve never been so turned on. I betcha the background music has sporadic typing sounds in it, too. oh baby YEAH! Hit my carriage return, bay-bee!
-
Eric, if I ever visualize lil dickie wearing that, I am blaming you.
-
Matt – I’ll actually read this and come up with something meaningful. No promises, though.
(click arrow to reply)
January 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Great blog entry.
A few thoughts.
Your #2 feature of consistency of appearance I think will be something that will very much improve the Texans ability to run/pass in the same game. With the version of the Texans offense that was Sherman/Kubiak, IMO, the lack of consistency of appearance created games where the Texans either could run or pass, but struggled to do both well in the same game.
One of the things that Kyle Shanahan talked about in the coaching clinic I attended was how important it was for the blocking to look the same run/pass, to keep the defenders off balance. That the reality is that the defensive players on the line are usually better athletes, so by not allowing them to know run/pass, it neutralizes their physical advantage. The cut blocks also do this by making the defenders less athleticly instinctive and more cautious.
And here’s some total speculation. I think that the Texans tended to struggle in division on offense because the defenses had figured out whether the Texans were going to run or pass based on how the team lined up to block. The Titans especially appeared to know when the Texans were going to pass. Perhaps going to a predominantly ZBS will help deal with that. /end total speculation.
I’ve read articles where Gibbs has said that he doesn’t care how much the lineman weigh as long as they have good feet. I haven’t read this anywhere, but I do think that in Houston the lineman can afford to be a little heavier than in Denver because they don’t have the altitude considerations that they have there that might cause more fitness benefits to lighter linemen.
I’ve also read stuff that says that the ATL linemen did not like the weight numbers that they were given by Gibbs to get playing time, and that it cause a number of them to starve themselves before weigh-in. Making it more difficult to play against big lines because they were wore out from making weight. I’ve heard through a number of sources that the Texans had make weight numbers for their linemen year 1 of Kubiak but got rid of that the following year.
I agree with the no way on the first pick being Oline. Though typically, they haven’t picked running back high, it wouldn’t surprise me if they did. Denver picked Clinton Portis relatively high for them.
Ultimately, I could see them doing a minor trade down, and really focusing on defense with their higher picks. Why? Because they have been able to run a pretty decent offense with mostly system guys, but if they aren’t going to get a new defensive coordinator, then they better get that bottom ranked defense some more players and just hope that the talent will eventually lead to a defense that is not boat anchor for the rest of the team.
I agree Alex Gibbs is a terrific offseason move. They tried to get him when Kubiak first came here but ATL was able to keep him.
Once again, I really enjoy your post about this. Blogs entries like this make the offseason easier to deal with.
(click arrow to reply)
January 12th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
@ tyler: FYI, you can refresh the page and vote multiple times.
(click arrow to reply)
January 12th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I don’t know who Alex Gibbs is, but you have no idea how happy I am that we didn’t hire Joe Gibbs as our defensive coordinator. The news flash I saw after two weeks out of the country just said “Texans hire Shanahan, Gibbs”, and I panicked. As if it was enough for that senile douche to make the Redskins unwatchable for the past two years, I thought he had actually come to drive the Texans into the ground just to spite me.
(click arrow to reply)
January 12th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Mind-numbingly Jaworski-esque. Nicely done.
Y’all might be tinkering with your fancy zone-blocking, I just wish my team would trend away from our NO-blocking approach. I’d gladly swap Alex Barron for Eric Winston. At least the Winston I saw with the T-Rex head on here a few weeks ago.
Kissies,
Disgruntled Rams Fan
(click arrow to reply)
January 12th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Love the post. I have a quick question for you, though. You sure know a heck of a lot of X’s and O’s and I was just wondering how you acquired all the knowledge, from playing, talking with others, or innate ideas (had to throw the Plato in there)?
(click arrow to reply)
January 12th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
No, I never played. The majority of it comes from a lot of reading and the fact that I went to law school with a couple of great football minds. I suppose there is a bit of “innate idea” to it, though, if only when it comes to thinking about the inter-connectedness of the whole thing.
–
I am admittedly lacking in my offensive Xs and Os, though.
(click arrow to reply)
January 12th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
So did anyone watch the Packers run all over Patrick Kearney’s Seahawks? At one point Bubba Franks flat out pancaked him and the announcer mentioned that Kearney gives up a lot in the run game. My inner Mario fan was thinking, “All-Pro my ass”
(click arrow to reply)
January 12th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Just an awesome article, Matt. This is a huge reason why I no longer read the chron: they would never print this. There’s no ego stroking, and no team “insider” information. It’s awesome analysis.
-
One thing about the Broncos offensive line – I was living in Denver at the time – is that they had two other keys. First, they were well conditioned. They could play all day, and that gave them a substantial advantage. That leads to my second point, which is their conditioning made them more fit.
-
I mean, how many times have we seen where a guy had to “bulk up” from 280 to 320 to become a viable O-lineman? Inherently, you do lose both agility and speed. However, even since 1997, how much more athletic have o-linemen become?
-
All this is why I love the zone blocking schemes. Yes, defensive players are faster, as well. But, where I see the most disruption is in plays where there’s zone blitzing combined with faking who’s blitzing. A ZBP scheme helps deal with that situation. Focus on fundamentals, and an awesome reach is helpful, and you can put together a strong o-line.
-
This is my take. It’s rare that I am so overwhelmed by knowledge like this, but it’s a great take on the zone schemes. Jeebus, Matt pwn3d me with this post.
(click arrow to reply)
January 12th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
@bigwood25: Alex “Three Penalties In Three Plays” Barron is not good. At all.
–
@steph, bfd: All good points. As far as more fit linemen go, do you think part of that was necessity, as the thin air required them to condition more, thus making it harder to keep weight even if they wanted to?
–
@DSITE: I laughed when I heard that. Yeah, that’s the mark of an All-Pro. “He’s really good at doing one thing, but is pretty piss poor at the other important part of his job.”
(click arrow to reply)
January 12th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I screwed up. I meant stronger. Fact is, there are many cases where the o-linemen’s weight is based on heft rather than strength. And there’s a difference. yes, it’s harder to move 320 pounds versus 280, but there’s not necessarily an appreciable gain in strength. A strong, quick o-lineman can make up for the weight disparity with training and technique rather than eating.
-
I don’t think the altitude mattered much. In the case of the Broncos line, they were exceptionally good at working together. When you look at the success of their RBs over a long period of time, they weren’t as dependent on RBs as they were quality line play.
(click arrow to reply)
January 12th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Oh, I agree completely there. That was what I was trying to get at with the Eric Winston mold. Slightly smaller than average, but strong and fast. We don’t necessarily need a bunch of 270lbers, but we can’t expect Chester effin’ Pitts to successfully zone block.
(click arrow to reply)
January 13th, 2008 at 8:25 am
@16 Matt: Don’t know. What I do know is that the ATL guys were bigger type people who weren’t drafted specifically for the ZBS. Whatever the reason, I’m guessing fat guys don’t like playing in altitude.
@18 Matt: Actually, I have little worry about Pitts being able to zone block. He has very good feet and is quick. Our centers are a problem with it–I’d be fine with McKinney except that he is coming off the knee, and Flanagan showed little aptitude with the ZBS stuff Kubiak year 1 when Sherman was doing more of it. Charles Spencer is a bigger question mark. If he is a bit fluffy these days coming off a serious leg injury, that can’t be a good thing. Fred Weary coming off a broken leg is a problem too.
Gibbs says he doesn’t care how big the guys are as long as they can move. Really, Pitts and Winston are the only guys I’m not worried about on the line. We will have to hope that Gibbs can work miracles with the rest.
(click arrow to reply)
January 13th, 2008 at 10:12 am
@Steph: Pitts is quick, but he is still very large for a zone lineman. I know Gibbs says he doesn’t care (Kynan Forney would argue with that however), but there has to be an upper threshold.
–
And I have all sorts of concerns about Spencer; ZB is only one part of that.
(click arrow to reply)
January 13th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
So does this mean we should plaster Chester’s picture at every Houston-area Mickey D’s location, with the caption, “DO NOT SERVE THIS MAN!”
Fantastic post, Matt. I had no idea how much I didn’t know.
(click arrow to reply)
January 14th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Sweet, Matt. This post got deadspin-ed.
-
Is it time to post those pics we found of Starter Wife?
(click arrow to reply)
January 14th, 2008 at 7:18 am
It got picked up by Football Outsiders, too. It’s always nice when that happens, even if it reminds me just how big a dork I really am.
–
Starter wife meaning D.M. or something else?
–
Edit: Good lord, this place got 1200+ hits yesterday. Behold the power of the mighty internets.
(click arrow to reply)
January 14th, 2008 at 7:19 am
@ BFD — Starter Wife? You better follow through with whatever the hell you’re talking about.
(click arrow to reply)
January 14th, 2008 at 7:53 am
She’s a frequent poster at deadspin: http://deadspin.com/commenter/TheStarterWife/
-
And her own gig: http://ladiesdotdotdot.wordpress.com/
(click arrow to reply)
January 14th, 2008 at 8:22 am
@BFD — Gotcha…she hangs w/ Texas Gal.
(click arrow to reply)
January 14th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Extensive article. The only thing is that all pass blocking is zone blocking, with the exception being left tackles taking on a fast DE. In the example you give of a DE-DT twist, you can’t have “man-to-man” blocking for that, otherwise they run a twist and a blitz since the guard and tackle are engaged. But not just with that example, if it were man-to-man blocking, all blitzes would be successful because the line would have responsibilty for only 5 guys, so no one would be at fault.
The exception being fast DE’s becasue these big tackles have to move for them and have that be their only responsibility. They don’t have time to look inside first, and then move out to take the DE.
(click arrow to reply)
January 14th, 2008 at 9:45 am
@kd: Thanks for the input, but that’s not correct. Not all pass blocking is zone blocking. There are many schemes where each of the five offensive linemen are responsible for a certain man pre-snap and sticks with him throughout, even through a stunt. The LG moves underneath the LT to pick up the stunting RDT. If your LG is not nimble enough to pull off this move, good communication between him and the LT can allow them to switch. This move looks similar to the footwork in zone blocking, but it still done out of a man blocking system.
–
What’s more, since there are five offensive linemen (plus a TE) and only three or four defensive linemen, the reason not every blitz is successful is because the fifth “uncovered” lineman has two responsibilities–first, pick up the linebacker nearest to him if that LB blitzes, and second, drop back and pick up where needed if the LB doesn’t blitz. This is all straightforward man blocking. The RB and FB are integral parts of a man blocking scheme as well and one of them (or the TE) is responsible for picking up the sixth man, should the defense send that many. (Which is fairly uncommon in the modern NFL.)
–
In a pure man blocking system, the body-on-body responsibilities would be LT=RDE, LG=RDT, C=MLB (or SLB on a shifted alignment), RG=LDT, RT=LDE, FB/RB=SLB (if necessary). Sure, there are reads and adjustments to be made for twists and stunts, but this is still not zone blocking.
–
In actuality, there are THREE types of offensive pass blocking schemes: zone, man, and slide. For the sake of accuracy, I’ll give a run down of slide blocking:
1. You usually have a TE and/or RB seal the front side to create a clear lane for the QB to roll out. The most important part of this whole system, obviously, is that you control/seal the edge. If the outside defender gets the edge, not only will the slide itself breakdown, but the play will be blown up.
2. The entire line move (slide step) in unison 3 full strides.
3. Each offensive lineman is responsible for the gap on the side to which they are sliding and, once a defender commits to a certain gap, that offensive lineman blocks him throughout the play.
4. Guys who do not have a defensive player to block in their gap are responsible for turn back (away from the slide) and picking up trailing D.
5. If you finish the slide and don’t see anyone that is a threat to your gap you turn to the outside and look for seepage from the backside (which is part of the reason that the back end of the slide tends to move backwards as well as laterally).
—
So, like I said, I appreciate the comment, but it is completely incorrect to say that all pass blocking is zone blocking. There might be zone blocking elements to man blocking, but it is still a different philosophy.
(click arrow to reply)
January 14th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Didn’t you admit you didn’t play football? I did, I know what blocking is and I know how to do it. You will never see a guard man-block a DT, and if they run a twist continue to take the DT even if he goes outside. If he does, he sucks and shouldn’t be out there. The guard and tackle will always switch off who they’re blocking if a twist or stunt is run. Additionally, the first rule in blocking is to look inside. As an example, if I’m a right tackle on a pass, obvioulsy my first step is back, but I’m looking inside to the def. tackle and then LB, if they’re coming, I have to take them because the easiest way to a QB is obviously up the middle. I might throw a hand on the DE to maybe slow him, but I can’t just ignore a blitziing LB or safety.
There is sliding protection, but that’s not “typically” done by the entire line. More often than not, it’s done by the weak/backside of the line and “typically” done with a roll-out/waggle/bootleg.
Backs and TE’s help on ends, chipping, or on blitzes. Notice that most backs are even blocking zone, they have to pick up whatever gets through, they don’t just commit to the ILB and if he doesn’t come just twiddle their thumbs, they go through their progressions.
(click arrow to reply)
January 14th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Matt, you officially know more about football than I. Don’t expect me to remember saying that if I ever disagree with you though.
(click arrow to reply)
January 14th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
“You will never see a guard man-block a DT, and if they run a twist continue to take the DT even if he goes outside.”
–
You shouldn’t speak in absolutes. Is it common for the G to pick up the stunting DT? No, of course not. But to say that you will “never” see it is wrong. Depending on the line splits, the location of the DE in relation to the OT, and other things, this type of stunt pickup is used occasionally as part of the overall blocking scheme. Hell, I can think of at least one time I saw it in the Jags/Pats game.
–
“Additionally, the first rule in blocking is to look inside. As an example, if I’m a right tackle on a pass, obvioulsy my first step is back, but I’m looking inside to the def. tackle and then LB, if they’re coming, I have to take them because the easiest way to a QB is obviously up the middle. I might throw a hand on the DE to maybe slow him, but I can’t just ignore a blitziing LB or safety.”
–
Well obviously you are not going to just let the LB come through the B gap untouched. Which is why I said “Sure, there are reads and adjustments to be made for twists and stunts, but this is still not zone blocking.” Part of the Center’s job–as I’m sure you know, since you played football–is to call out blocking assignments. My equating of specific O players with specific D players was an example and would be subject to change based on the defensive alignment pre-snap. Simply because you adjust who you are picking up, that does not mean you are zone blocking.
–
“There is sliding protection, but that’s not “typically” done by the entire line. More often than not, it’s done by the weak/backside of the line and “typically” done with a roll-out/waggle/bootleg.”
–
Whether the whole line slides or only the weakside depends on the defensive front, whether you are running play action, and a whole host of other things. What is true for one team (i.e. using the half-slide to free up for bootlegs) is not true for another (i.e teams who use the full slide as part of their base zone pass blocking). Note also that the half-slide is also half-MAN. And that is the whole point of our disagreement: Saying that there is no such thing as man pass blocking is just asinine. Sure, there are overlapping aspects, but unless you are expanding your definition of zone blocking to mean “blocks whomever he can get to,” you are just simply incorrect.
–
“Backs and TE’s help on ends, chipping, or on blitzes. Notice that most backs are even blocking zone, they have to pick up whatever gets through, they don’t just commit to the ILB and if he doesn’t come just twiddle their thumbs, they go through their progressions.”
–
Again, no kidding. Just like with the offensive line adjustments pre-snap, the RB/FB is going to adjust based upon the defensive front. This still doesn’t make it zone unless, again, you are calling it zone simply because he is blocking the linebacker that gets through. Coming out of the huddle, in a given play, each of the offensive players in a man-blocking scheme has a specific, assigned person to block. Based on how the defense presents itself, some or all of those assignments might change at the line. It’s still man blocking.
(click arrow to reply)
January 14th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
@UotT: I just printed it out and put it in my safe deposit box.
(click arrow to reply)
January 14th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Ok, your website, so you win. Have you ever been wrong about something?
(click arrow to reply)
January 14th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I’m sure I have, but not in this conversation.
(click arrow to reply)
January 14th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
@Matt — The correct answer is “Once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken.”
(click arrow to reply)
January 14th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
[...] Zone Blocking Filed under: Sports — Kevin Feasel @ 7:14 pm There is a good description of zone blocking over at the over-acronymed DGDB&D. [...]
(click arrow to reply)
January 14th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Matt and kd: Unless I am missing something, I think you are both right and talking more about semantics rather than system.
-
When I played (*zing*), we pass-blocked in basically a hybrid method of assignment versus zone. From the way I am understanding kd’s argument – and I could be completely wrong – is that you really can’t pass block in pure assignment fashion. I think the 46 defense and the morph into the zone blitz screwed that up. Therefore, an OL not only has responsibilities for a “man,” but also for a zone or area. And you guys both agree with this. An OL is going to put a hand up and try to at least slow down an extra attacker in his area and hope that the RB is still available.
-
To me, the difference is in the emphasis of zone versus assignment, but I don’t think either of them can successfully live in a complete and total vacuum.
(click arrow to reply)
January 14th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
“From the way I am understanding kd’s argument – and I could be completely wrong – is that you really can’t pass block in pure assignment fashion.”
–
That’s what I am saying, though, when I point out that, while there are assignments as the play is drawn up, those are subject to change based on the realities of the defense you are facing. If, for example, you are facing a team that does a lot of zone blizting, but you are a man-blocking scheme, your tackles (and to a lesser extent, your guards) are going to have to adjust and pick up the linebacker instead of the DE. Sure, they are technically blocking their “zone,” but it works nearly the same as man blocking would have–they are just picking up a linebacker where the DE would have been.
–
I agree that it is more or less an issue of semantics. If you want to broaden the meaning of “zone blocking” to include every blocking scheme that isn’t one-to-one blocking without variation, then be my guest. But that is not how the majority of football world understands it.
–
The other two issues I had with KD’s arguments were, first, the assertion that, because I didn’t play, I couldn’t possibly know more than the did, and, second, that “there is no such thing as man pass blocking.” The first assertion is just sophistry; the second is something that 95% of all football coaches in the world would disagree with.
–
In the end, however, I agree with you that we were arguing over a couple little definitions more than anything. Which is the main reason I was civil in the discourse. (For comparison, see, e.g., my reaction to Tom)
–
Finally, and I’ll be done with this, I will say again that, while it is not as common as switching, there are blocking schemes and–more accurately–single-play blocking strategies wherein the G will pick up the stunting DT on the other end of the stunt.
–
Also, when you played, BFD, they wore leather helmets, talked of the greatness of Red Grange, and thought the forward pass was the work of the devil.
(click arrow to reply)
January 15th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Look, bitch, I kicked ass at the pyramid and the drop kick, so hop on the damn trolley you maroon.
(click arrow to reply)
January 16th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
[...] chances and protect the ball better. Hiring Gibbs goes a long way to improve the run game because it has improved everywhere he’s been. No matter whether the personnel he had fit the scheme, he improved the running [...]
(click arrow to reply)
January 16th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
[...] chances and protect the ball better. Hiring Gibbs goes a long way to improve the run game because it has improved everywhere he’s been. No matter whether the personnel he had fit the scheme, he improved the running [...]
(click arrow to reply)
March 9th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Ryan Channel…
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….
Edit: Nevermind, I made a slight change.
(click arrow to reply)
March 9th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Dearest Ryan, I am going to keep your post up because this has to be the worst fucking spam in history. Your site doesn’t even work. Well done. You are definitely a special talent.
(click arrow to reply)
March 9th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Oops, working now. buh-bye, asswipe.
(click arrow to reply)
March 13th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Burt Reynolds…
The pen is really mightier than the sword, as you have proven here….
(click arrow to reply)
March 20th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Danny T….
I declare war on thee….
Edit: Me, too!
(click arrow to reply)
May 4th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
[...] Cherilus at right tackle [6′7″ and 315] my guess is their signature play will be the outside zone run that will be run towards the [...]