Quote: I think part of the issue is zone blocking is looked as "softer" than drive blocking..
Perception is not always reality. We used zone blocking and everyone can tell you that we were the most physical team around. Does anyone realize how hard you can pop someone when you gap block? I mean.......you are getting a head of steam.
Might be time to close this down. I'm starting to get a little frustrated. Kinda like that old saying.........you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us." --Ralph Waldo Emerson
Quote: I think part of the issue is zone blocking is looked as "softer" than drive blocking..
Perception is not always reality. We used zone blocking and everyone can tell you that we were the most physical team around. Does anyone realize how hard you can pop someone when you gap block? I mean.......you are getting a head of steam.
Yep. It's almost like a receiver cracking down on a linebacker, although unlike cracking, the D-lineman is usually expecting the contact and there's less momentum because there's less ground to cover.
Don't close the thread, those of us who want to learn are learning. I haven't said too much because I don't wanna say something that might be over my head.
Quote: Did you happen to look at the play I described for Diam? If not, you may want to look at it. Believe me, they will block someone and they will move.
I will say I didn't create this thread to argue the merits of either zone blocking or drive blocking. I thought it would be pretty obvious that zone blocking was superior, but I guess not.
In your opinion, why do you think many teams still use drive blocking? Is it mainly a personnel thing, or maybe just comfort level?
Quote: I think part of the issue is zone blocking is looked as "softer" than drive blocking..
Perception is not always reality. We used zone blocking and everyone can tell you that we were the most physical team around. Does anyone realize how hard you can pop someone when you gap block? I mean.......you are getting a head of steam.
Might be time to close this down. I'm starting to get a little frustrated. Kinda like that old saying.........you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Why would yo want to close it down? I thought you were a teacher. Do you give up in the classroom when you get frustrated? It is a very good thread with a lot of valuable info. Maybe you should try another tactic if you don't think you're getting your point across.
Even then not everyone is going to agree with you no matter how right you are. That's life. This thread may need to eventually change direction slightly to continue to teach it's main point. When it veers way of course (most do unfortunetely) then it is time to start the next thread.
I think it probably is almost unanimous that this is one of the best, indepth discussions. It gives many of us who like to breakdown the game a better understanding of what we should be seeing and watching for.
So you know this was suppose to be like a pep talk, not a criticism of you. The fact that I felt I needed to put this disclaimer in might be a bad sign.
I really can't say that I know how the zone blocking scheme works in say a Goal Line situation...Goal Line to me of course is a completely different animal than short yardage to me because of how the field is so compressed. So I can see how in short yardage you can use the zone blocking methods. I would like to see how it is used in the goal line situation...because I see the point about shooting gaps that you speak of...but then I also start seeing 2 vs 1 in favor of the defense on certain guys in a zone blocking scheme on the goal line and as we all know the team that has the best penetration usually wins in that situation. And as you said...zone blocking typically(obviously there are always exceptions) moves or stretches the play more horizontally while drive blocking is moving or stretching vertically.
One of the things I see about zone blocking is bottling uo the front 7 of the defense. A perfect example was Baltimore when Lewis ran all over us. We constantly had guys all bunched up in the middle while Lewis took the cutback lane and absolutely KILLED us...and not just Lewis...But Ladanian, Holmes and quite a few others.....lol
Another thing I see is the utilization of angles, which in turn leads to leverage. And as someone who loves a good trap block...Zone blocking has a definite appeal as you use that angle to a huge advantage and as so elloquently described before...guys like Warren would just be driven miles away from the play.
We actually tried to implement a zone blocking scheme several times...but we never had the personnel to do so. Palmer tried to start things and before they could get anywhere he was gone. We had guys like Pyne, O'Hara, Barry Stokes. But then Palmer was gone and I then remember hearing about how we were going after huge guys like Tre Johnson, Paul Zakauskas(for you tabber ) and Ross Verba (a G playing T)....and they tried to go that route. But we never really got the personnel to do that as we still had guys like Stokes and O'Hara. Butch goes the route of drive blocking and we draft.....Faine????
So maybe this is true or maybe it isn't...but I almost feel that Savage brought in guys like Andruzzi and Coleman, and Kelvin Garmon....and they were here to try and just solidify a few things....a stop gap if you will. In the meantime we start grabbing pieces...drafting guys like Sowells, and Chambers....(don't look at whether they were successful or not...just the type of player) Grabbing Bentley who excels in either situation and is the primary position on the line...and then finally going and trying to complete some puzzles by going hard after Steinbach, and drafting Joe Thomas....even look at Shaffer...now in this case I want you to look at where he came from and not what he did on the field last year. He came from Atlanta who was primarily a zone blocking team....and then last year he was lost in a drive blocking game....Maybe there is hope for him...I don't know...I see him either at RT or gone within 2 years...
I think zone blocking was the way we have always wanted to go but the market, as well as the amount of holes we had to fill, would not allow it. We haven't truely had the personnel to run a zone blocking scheme until this year....I really think is important so I will say it again...lol WE HAVEN'T TRUELY HAD THE PERSONNEL TO RUN A ZONE BLOCKING SCHEME UNTIL THIS YEAR!!!!!
The only real problem I see is that cohesion is soooooooooo important in this scheme and we have some VERY tough tests right out of the box in this season....Lets hope they are up to it. Now I know this is one of the reasons you(Verse) wanted Shaffer moved in OTA's...and I can see that point ( and in many ways I agree)..but I can also see the derogatory effects of GIVING the spot to Thomas before he earns it as Crennell is known for making players earn their spots(and I know you see this as well)...so it cuts both ways and I think Crennell is making the best decision he can now. Shaffer has protected a QB's sighted side before, has played in a zone blocking scheme before, and I don't think the fact that he has not been moved in OTA's will not hurt us very much..
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
Now........we have had bigger offensive linemen here in Cleveland. And we drive block. How damn effective have the Browns been in short yardage situations? Seriously bro......we've been the worst in the entire NFL. Hell, running the ball between the tackles hasn't even been a freaking option for us! And it's got coordinators fired.
I doubt if it was the scheme and I'm not debating which scheme is better, I'm just going to point out that size(as you said )means little sometimes. The Browns linemen as a whole from 99 were not powerful men. Not like other teams who sported big guys who were dominate.
They had size but had little strength(and leverage) to effectively blow Dlinemen off the LOS.. They didn't have any athleticism to get out and hit their man and get to the next level. We also had a mix of finesse and supposedly power guys which didn't work. Well to put it direct our linemen stunk.. Look at where they were drafted..not a talented one of the bunch.. The FA's were a fake...they were dressed up to make us think they could do something and they couldn't..and I also wonder how much they had upstairs.. But again they didn't fit..no talent.. The ones we have now seem to fit the scheme we want to run..
Quote: One other thing.............I am still waiting for someone to post how zone blocking teams like Indy, Denver, etc fare in short yardage situations. I know someone can find that info. Some of you guys are really good at researching quickly.
I think it is important, because it would eliminate a lot of the drive blocking questions at the goal line type questions. Well.......I am assuming that those teams fare well in short yardage situations, so perhaps it wouldn't clear it up. *L*
Ok, I know this information is not recent, but maybe can still be useful in the comparison of short yardage offenses (the image may be tough to read so use the link for a better table):
‘Tis Better to Have Rushed and Lost Than Never to Have Rushed at All 1/12/2004
by Aaron Schatz
Midway through the first quarter yesterday, and Philadelphia had the ball with 2nd-and-1 on their own 44-yard line. Instead of rushing for the first down, Philadelphia passed incomplete, leaving 3rd-and-1. Again, instead of rushing for the first down, Philadelphia called a pass play, which led to Donovan McNabb being sacked, fumbling, and losing the ball. Next play, Favre passes to Ferguson, touchdown, 7-0 Green Bay.
The Eagles eventually pulled out the win — oddly enough, in part because Green Bay punted instead of ran on 4th-and-1 — but if they had not, this is the kind of play that Gregg Easterbrook’s Tuesday Morning Quarterback would mention in a comment entitled "’Tis Better to Have Rushed and Lost than Never to Have Rushed at All." It is one of TMQ’s great pet peeves, teams that get pass-wacky on third-and-short instead of just pounding the ball for the first down.
Of course, TMQ is only right to complain about this if teams really are better off running the ball on 3rd-and-short situations. Therefore, to test this important axiom of TMQ, I consulted the comprehensive Football Outsiders database of every single play from the 2003 season. The results are pretty clear. In almost every single short yardage situation, running the ball is more likely to lead to a first down or touchdown than passing the ball. (As you will see later, Philadelphia is even better than average rushing in these situations, which makes that play call yesterday even worse.)
I started with every single play during the 2003 regular season where there was only one yard needed for a first down. That’s the ultimate short yardage situation, of course; you should be able to just fall forward and get the first down. With one yard to go, teams ran 1212 times, and passed 364 times. The rushing plays were far more effective: 71% of rushing plays resulted in first down or touchdown, compared to only 53% of passing plays.
OK, what if you move the ball back a bit. How about every single play with two yards needed for a first down. That’s 542 pass plays and 637 run plays. Once again, the rushing plays were far more effective: 67% of rushing plays resulted in first down or touchdown, compared to only 50% of passing plays.
OK, let’s move back a bit more. How about every single play with three yards needed for a first down. At this point, teams are passing more often than rushing, with 592 pass plays and 511 run plays. The running plays are slightly less effective, with only 62% of rushing plays gaining a first down or touchdown, but they are still better than passing plays, which still get a first down or touchdown only 50% of the time.
OK, you say, well, three yards to go isn’t really a "must run" play. The defense is probably still playing for both the pass and run. What about those 3rd-and-short plays when the defense is likely to be crowding the line, expecting a run to get a first down?
Well, there were 156 pass plays on 3rd-and-1, and 53% of them made a first down or touchdown. But there were 555 run plays, and 72% of them made a first down or touchdown. 4th-and-1 plays were much more likely to be runs than 3rd-and-1 plays, but the percentage for conversions are the same. Runs converted more often than passes.
Get closer to the goal line, where that one yard you need to get is the only yard remaining, and the advantage of running the ball becomes even stronger. 61% of the 84 run plays on 3rd or 4th-and-goal on the 1-yard line were converted. Only 33% of the 15 pass plays on 3rd or 4th-and-goal on the one were converted. That’s a grand total of five plays.
What about when you are on the goal line, but it is first or second down? Well, that’s the only short-yardage situation where a pass is more likely to have success than a run, possibly because play action is more likely to confuse a defense on first or second down. There were 57 pass plays and 168 run plays on 1st or 2nd-and-goal from the 1-yard line. The pass plays scored a touchdown 58% of the time, while the runs scored a touchdown only 52% of the time.
Interestingly, move the play back a yard, and passing loses its small advantage over running. On 1st or 2nd-and-goal from 1 or 2-yard line, both runs and passes are successful 51% of the time.
The combination of all these situations is what we call "power success" in our offensive line and defensive line ratings. That consists of all third and fourth downs with two yards or less to go, plus first and second downs on the 1 or 2-yard line. Overall, teams are successful 65% of the time when running in these situations, and only 48% of the time when passing. (As an aside, the offensive line and defensive line ratings are now completely updated through the end of the 2003 season, including directional stats for the first time since Week 12.)
Here are all the results summarized in a fun little table:
These numbers, of course, are for the entire NFL as a whole. Perhaps there are some teams where the running games are so poor that it makes more sense to pass in power situations than to run the ball. It turns out that there are teams that have more success passing than running in power situations, but only four of them. For three of the teams, the conversion rates on passes aren’t much different than rushes: Cincinnati (59% passing, 58% rushing), Cleveland (45% passing, 44% rushing), and the New York Jets (67% passing, 63% rushing).
And then there are the Tennessee Titans. Tennessee ranks next-to-last in power rushing success, converting only 47% of the time when they run in power situations. That’s 8 first downs and 8 touchdowns in 34 attempts. But they converted 71% of the time when they passed in power situations. That’s 8 touchdowns and 9 first downs in 24 attempts. Yes, this was the best passing conversion rate in the NFL for power situations. This included scoring touchdowns on 6 out of 8 passes from either the 1 or 2-yard line (the other two touchdowns came on other 3rd-and-short passes that went for first downs and then some).
What’s ironic here is that Tennessee was the subject of TMQ’s first "Better to Have Rushed and Lost" comment in last week’s article. Gregg wrote:
Facing third-and-1 in the first quarter, leading 7-0, Tennessee called pass; Steve McNair sprinted backward 10 yards, incompletion, punt. On the Flaming Thumbtacks’ next possession, facing third-and-1 again, McNair ran the sneak, first down. Three snaps later, the Thumbtacks faced third-and-2; pass, intercepted. Then, trailing 10-7 in the third quarter, Tennessee faced third-and-1. Eddie George runs for the first down, touchdown on the possession. Then, game tied at 17 with 1:22 remaining, Tennessee faced third-and-1. Eddie George runs for the first down, game-winning field goal on the possession.
So Tennessee faces third-and-short on five occasions. The Titans pass twice, for an interception and an incompletion; they run three times, for three first downs. Does anyone other than TMQ draw a conclusion from this?
The strange thing is that, prior to their game against Baltimore, the Thumbtacks were the only team in the NFL who clearly had established that they should pass rather than run in these situations. They only had two "power situations" in their game against the Patriots this weekend. They got called for a False Start on one, and on the other, they passed — and completed a 10-yard pass to Derrick Mason on 3rd-and-2. (For good measure, they also passed on their only 2nd-and-2, and completed that pass as well.)
Despite the fact that they were so much better passing than running in power situations, the Titans still ran more often than they passed. The average NFL team ran on 65% of power situations. The Titans ran on only 58% of power situations. The six teams that passed more often than the Titans did in power situations is not exactly a parade of winners. The only NFL team that passed more often than ran in power situations was Cleveland. Second was Detroit, which passed 30 times and ran 30 times, an odd decision by Mariucci considering that the Lions converted 22 of these runs — and only 12 of these passes. You also have Arizona, Oakland, and both New York (Jersey) teams.
Which team was most likely to run in power situations? Would you believe that it was a team with a terrible running game — and the best record in football? Yes, the New England Patriots ran on 40 "power" plays, and passed on only 12 "power" plays. Despite taking TMQ’s advice to heart, the Patriots actually weren’t much better running (63% conversions) than passing (58% conversions). The only other team that ran in three-quarters of power situations was San Diego. I hear they have a running back there.
Here is the table of how all 32 offenses did in 2003, with how often they rushed in power situations, how often they converted in the air, and how often they converted on the ground:
You may remember that TMQ often writes, "At this point Tuesday Morning Quarterback has written so many items about the Bills bringing defeat upon themselves by going pass-wacky on shortage-yardage downs that I might as well just enter a generic Buffalo short-yardage-fiasco item into my AutoText." While the Bills, surprisingly, were middle-of-the-pack when it comes to run-pass split in power situations, they were almost last in the league in conversion rate when passing in these situations. Maybe the new coach up there will understand this and Gregg can get rid of his AutoText item.
Note: numbers may differ slightly from official NFL numbers due to play-by-play log errors on a handful of plays.
Postscript: Here is another table that includes some of the situations that were requested in the first few comments after this article went up on Monday morning. Unfortunately, I do not yet have plays split out for the final two minutes of a half, so you’ll have to live with just getting the second and fourth quarters as a whole:
On the subject of yards per play, yes, pass plays on 3rd-and-short do gain more yards, on average, than rushing plays. Removing goal-to-go situations, where a short field keeps down the length of plays, a rush play on 3rd/4th-and-1-2 averages 3.8 yards, while a pass play averages 5.6 yards. Is the sharply increased chance of being forced to punt (or worse, turning the ball over on downs) worth the extra 1.8 yards per play? I think that the answer is likely "no," but hopefully I can look at that with further research in the offseason. (Just giving you another reason to keep reading Football Outsiders.)
I won't close it down. I was pissed about the Cavs *L* and that arch guy got me more pissed. I didn't start this thread to argue. It's supposed to be so people can learn. Jesus, there is no agenda here.
Ammo: You played high school ball and that's more than most people here. Besides, you could always give an opinion and ask if it's right. Diam has been doing that. And if I don't know an answer, I'll try and find someone who does.
PDawg: I think because it is easier for big, dumb guys to learn. I know that sounds harsh, but it's the truth. Do you realize how big most of these guys are? Do you think they ever had to work hard at studying the game? They went out there in high school and even in college and beat people up because they were so much bigger and stronger than everyone else.
I also think that free agency has screwed things up. Offensive lines used to stay together for years and years and years. That's not possible anymore and let's face it, offensive linemen are a hot commodity during free agency.
The only other thing is that many of the offensive linemen in the NFL just aren't agile enough to pull it off.
And that's it. There is NO schematic advantage at all. It's not even close.
Now........I hope we can drop this stupid short yardage thing soon, but do any of you remember when Indy played Baltimore in the playoffs this past year? Baltimore had home-field advantage, had a better record, was favored, and their D was killing people. It was a close, low-scoring affair and Indy had the lead in the 4th quarter. And what did they do?
They RAN the ball play after play after play. They would get 3 yds, then 4 yds., and on 3rd and 3 they would run it between the tackles and pick up a first down. They did this ALL the way down the field. Baltimore knew they were going to run it. They stacked the LOS and brought the house on every 3rd and short situation, yet Indy kicked their Rat asses and converted first down after first down.
And that is why I say they have the best offensive line in football. They might not have the most individual talent, but they have the best unit.
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us." --Ralph Waldo Emerson
Guys don't get pissed because your opinion differs...that's the beauty of the NFL. Everything has value...and just about any scheme (minus crazy stuff like the option) is successful if ran properly. If one guy prefers zone blocking, it doesn't make him wrong, or right for that matter.
Wow.......interesting article. Thanks for digging that up, Shark.
Man, did you see the Browns were the worst in the league at converting those short yardage situations? LOL........does that surprise anyone?
I also thought it was interesting that the percentages only favored a pass play on first or second and goal from the 1, and that wasn't by much. Running the ball in every other instance produced better results.
And man..........look at the Browns compared to Denver. Browns convert on 44% while Denver converts 76% of the time.
This is no secret, but we have to get better at running the ball and we must be able to convert those short yardage situations that have killed us every freaking year. I really believe that switching to zone blocking will help this cause......if we do switch like many of us expect.
One more thing.........I see no one addressed my point about how it is easier to audible into another play when you employ zone blocking. Does anyone but me think that might be important? And even more important in short yardage situations?
Hey Shark......thanks again. Good article for this thread.
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us." --Ralph Waldo Emerson
Quote: One more thing.........I see no one addressed my point about how it is easier to audible into another play when you employ zone blocking. Does anyone but me think that might be important? And even more important in short yardage situations?
I could see how it would be easier in a passing play, when they audible into another pass play. You area/zone of responsiblitiy would basically remain the same, therefore that is five guys that don't have to drastically change their mindset for that particular play. Also, if crowd noise/weather is affecting you, if one or two players do not recieve the audible, it may not drastically breakdown the play.
Running plays and even short yardage I am not sure I have a handle on how it would make it a little easier. especially if you a changing sides that the play is run to. The linemen would still have to switch thier zones, especially if you have a pulling lineman. . Short yardage also would be in the same boat.
I did play High School ball, but that was a looooonnnngggg time ago , and I played a pretty good safety .
So agian Vers, thanks for the post, but you might have to spell it out for us pions , although I think I have an idea, I just can't seem to word it correctly. Especially in the NFL, wouldn't the Center also have to adjust his line call on an audible? Particulerly if a play switches from a pass to a run or vice-versa?
As a side note questions, will we be able to tell what type of scheme they are trying to initiate by watching the mini-camp segment on NFL network, if they show us the O-line drills or offensive drills like they should considering two of our biggest offseason moves were acquiring Thomas and Steinbach? And what should we look for when watching that?
You won't be able to tell blocking schemes on the mini camp footage since they usually just run 7 on 7's...and mini camp isn't geared towards the linemen. Have to wait till preseason for that.
Quote: So agian Vers, thanks for the post, but you might have to spell it out for us pions , although I think I have an idea, I just can't seem to word it correctly. Especially in the NFL, wouldn't the Center also have to adjust his line call on an audible? Particulerly if a play switches from a pass to a run or vice-versa?
I think the biggest thing is that in man blocking schemes, blocking rules change if the defensive front changes, or if you read the D pre-snap and see a stunt or blitz coming.
That is not true w/zone blocking. The rules stay the same no matter the defensive front. Now, can you see how that would make it easier to change to another play. Think about how teams like Indy, Denver, Seattle, and Atlanta not only audible into new plays, but change their formations at the LOS.
I want to post an article that I found that is saying some of the same things I've been trying to say, but perhaps he is more clear than I am.
The fourth chapter in Bobby P's playbook concerns zone blocking. You hear the term on the weekends and you nod your head, but you have no idea what they're talking about. In fairness, the talking heads probably don't know either. Read this and you will know.
Is there anything more beautiful than seeing an offensive line move in concert, washing a defensive front to one side, and then out of the mass of confusion, seeing a running back cut back against the grain through a massive hole that seems to appear out of nowhere? Most football purists would agree with you. Well if you ask me, I'd have to say seeing a wily free safety fill that cutback lane with some serious authority is a much prettier sight, but I am a little biased.
The running game in football used to be pretty simple. The most complex things you would see for line play were some pulling guards to run sweeps or traps. But then several years ago you began to hear the word zone get thrown around more and more frequently until it's about all you hear anymore. Now, I don't know all the ins and outs of how a zone should be blocked, so I won't pretend to be an expert, but I will try to go through the basics to simplify things a bit. In the offense you and I grew up in, most of the time the running back had a specific point to try to run through, and the OL tried to create a seam right in that spot. With zone, you don't tell the running back exactly where to go. You direct his first couple of steps, and the point at which he gets the hand-off from the QB, but from there it's his responsibility to find a seam.
There are a couple different kinds of zone, two of the most common being the inside zone and the zone stretch. The inside zone is more of a downhill attack, and is more likely to produce the cutback lane. The zone stretch does just what it sounds like - runs more towards the edge, trying to get defensive flow horizontally so a vertical seam can be created for the back to dart through.
Blocking the zone is where it really helps to have linemen who can move horizontally. In fact, the OL must be able to move horizontally, all while keeping their shoulders square to the LOS (line of scrimmage) and while engaging the defense. If they open up their shoulders at all, at can create a seam for the defense to get penetration and disrupt the play before it starts. Their first step (the coaches I worked with called it a bucket step) is incredibly important. In most instances it's going to be a very short (6 inches), very quick step directly to the side in which the play is running (in a zone to the right it will to the right with the right foot and vise versa). It should be almost directly horizontal. The reason the first step is so important is it allows them to keep a solid base, and ensures they stay squared to the line.
To start off we'll talk about the inside zone to the strong side against a basic 4-3 front out of an I set with one TE:
fig 1
In a traditional iso play, everyone would block the man in front of them while the fullback picked up the Mike and the TB followed him through the hole. This works fine, but if the defense runs any twists or slants, it can really affect the results of the play. That's the primary reason for running a zone type scheme; instead of being responsible for an individual, you have to work with the guy next to you to block whoever shows. I'll draw it below, blown up a little more than usual to make it a little bit easier:
fig 2
As you can see, I've drawn them blocking in pairs, with a bold line denoting the first responsibility and the dotted line denoting second level responsibility. There is only one dotted line for each second level player because the two blockers have to work together and pick him up depending on which side he shows. You can see why the first step would be very important for them. If the Center takes too big of a step, he'll leave a large gap allowing the Nose to crash down on him, disrupting the entire play. If he takes too little of a step, he can't induce any flow (LBs read the OL's steps and will slide the same direction to maintain their position) from the Mike making it much more difficult for him and the guard to pick him up. Looking at this, is it clear why guys who are good in the 3 technique are so valuable to a defense? He's going to be facing an immediate double team on almost any running play, and if he can force his hand on those offensive linemen, his LBs are going to LOVE him as they will make a TFL (tackle for loss) after TFL. It's also very clear to see why and where that cutback lane is going to be (right off the left hip of the left guard). It's very important that the left guard and center don't lose any ground to the nose - if he gets any penetration whatsoever, the potential cutback lane disappears. You should also be able to visualize why you don't need to cutback all the time. There should be running space in both the A and B gaps on the strong side. In fact, we tried to work with our RBs to pound it on the strong side a couple of times to try and develop quicker defensive flow to the strong side, thusly making the cutback an even better option later.
For the QB, it's very important that he gets the ball the running back as deep and as quickly as possible. Again, the quicker and deeper you get the tailback the ball, the better angle he has at the cutback lane. In my eyes, the best thing to do with the QB after a play like this where he didn't have to get too lateral to make the handoff is to boot back to the weak side (fake the handoff and then turn his back to the LOS and loop back to the opposite side). The boot does two things here that a straight drop won't do for you: A) helps hold the defensive end from crashing down, B) keeps the Will LB honest for the same reasons, and C) it gives you more options offensively for the play action.
What about in a different set though? What if you don't have the FB? Well a lot of that depends on what formation are you in, and how the defense generally lines up against that formation. I'll show you one case below:
fig 3
In this situation, Will should widen out a bit (as explained in a previous article) pre-snap for pass reasons. Because his position is a bit different, Mike and Sam have to adjust a bit as well. This does two things to the offense, it makes the block on Will much more difficult, thus making the cutback a bit of a riskier proposition (unless you've done your job as an OC and made him nervous about the boot and passes into the flat, thus making him a little slow on his run fills). And it also changes the route to the Mike, again making the cutback seam a little tougher to create. As a benefit though, it should make the defense much softer on the strong side of the ball. You can clearly see how some times a ball carrier will take the inside zone and, rather than cutting back, bounce the play outside to the strong side. These are the kind of things a RB should come to recognize through repetition in practice.
Now for the stretch zone:
fig 4
The stretch is obviously much different, and has entirely different aims than the inside zone. Rather than trying to get flow that you can seal off and cut behind, you're trying to force the defensive front to flow and to stretch horizontally so you can create seams. There are options with what you want to do blocking as well. If you have a speedy tailback, you don't always even have to block the weak side end, letting the tackle go immediately to the second level. However, if that end is good, you may want to keep the tackle on him, hoping that congestion will make it tough for the Will to make a play (it usually does). Again, the bulk of the OL is going to be working as a team trying to get a body onto the defenders in the second level. This time, the fullback is working as a lead blocker, hopefully picking up the first body that shows, and chipping the outside shoulder of the bull end if he needs to help the Y seal that edge. The tailback is taking a much more aggressive outside path, forcing the QB to hustle to get him the ball. Again, you want the hand-off as deep as possible so the tailback has better angles on any potential lanes. Since the Bull is taught to keep his outside free, he will often press upfield as much as he can. In this instance, a lot of teams will teach the Y to let him go that way, but force him WELL outside. That way the FB and TB can cut underneath him and run right off the block of the RT on Sam. As the QB has to work so hard to get the TB the ball, it makes much more sense to have the QB plant his right foot after the hand-off and sink into a pocket behind the original strong B gap.
Here's how it looks in the other formation:
fig 5
In this situation, a lot hinges on the ability of both the Bull and your Y. If the Bull is quick, the Y should try and get him to commit up field and then seal off a lane for the TB to run through. If he's strong, just try and keep him in the same place and let the TB bounce the play outside. The H/FB shouldn't worry too much about getting to Will. He should try, but if Will disappears quickly then he needs to work to the secondary and hope to get a body on the FS.
It's always very important for the TB to stay patient and let the zone develop, but it's also necessary that as soon as he sees a crease - accelerate through it. These types of plays take a lot of repetition in practice to run well, and the reps will help the TBs understand when and where to expect those creases to open up. The zone is a fantastic play, but can be greatly disrupted by one or two talented defensive linemen. Inside penetration kills the play, as does a failure to communicate among the offensive line.
Well, that's that. Next week I'll talk about the play action look off of the zone, and explain why the boot is my favorite play of all time.
- Bob Pentland
Damn..............I guess you have to click on the link to see the diagrams.
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us." --Ralph Waldo Emerson
Thanks Vers, the light bulb just went off . That makes total sense now and I could see how it would help.
Another question that I think I know the answer to but I am going to ask anyway. It seems that the RB is just as important to this scheme in his style of running. I read earlier in this post that B-more runs or has run a variation of a zone blocking scheme? Jamal seems to be a pretty good cut-back runner (as seen plenty against us ), so I am going to "ass-u-me" that he could/can thrive in this style. But here is my main question, I doubt very many, if any colleges, run this system, so what style of RB are you looking for to run behind a Zone blocking line?
Finally I have got to put this in there though as I am just a little biased also:
Quote: Is there anything more beautiful than seeing an offensive line move in concert, washing a defensive front to one side, and then out of the mass of confusion, seeing a running back cut back against the grain through a massive hole that seems to appear out of nowhere? Most football purists would agree with you. Well if you ask me, I'd have to say seeing a wily free safety fill that cutback lane with some serious authority is a much prettier sight, but I am a little biased.
Born and breed with OSU, App. State alumni, but bleed orange and brown.
You know........I was doing some research this morning......LOL...after I started this thread, but anyways............it appears that many college football teams have already switched or are switching to zone blocking.
To answer you question about RBs, I'll just borrow what a coach from the Packers said..........Instincts, vision, and quick feet are what's need from your RB and that speed is overrated.
They also said that zone blocking is based on POUNDING IT OUT, POUNDING IT OUT, POUNDING IT OUT...........and then BOOM! It's not designed to give you a ton of big plays, but you get 4 yds., 3yds, 4yds, then boom.......64 yds. Think about some of the runs we've seen from teams that do use zone blocking. Sounds familiar, huh?
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us." --Ralph Waldo Emerson
hehe....if you google "nfl zone blocking on the goal line" this thread is the 5th result
i think what people are having a hard time comprehending is that in a goal line situation all the line backers might be right up at the los....
now when you look at the diagrams that have been posted on this thread, it shows double teams on tackles or ends, and then one or the other blocker breaking off to the second level to block a linebacker...
nobody can dispute that, and i can see how it works exceptionally well...
but i don't think teams run a 4-3 on the goal line....maybe it would help if you took a standard goal line d and broke down what you are saying for it...
the way i'm looking at it is if the linebackers are right up on the line, then i don't see how a olinemen could just ignore that guy, and double down on another...
now maybe using the term power(man) blocking is the wrong way to say it, but in the above situation i can't see how you would be able to double team and leave a guy free....
if in the zone blocking scheme everyone is responsible for an area, then imo the defensive guy thats right over you is in your area, and your responsible.....now if they stunted, then you might have a different guy, and they left your area, but in general, on the goal line i don't think there is time for too much messing around....
Quote: I won't close it down. I was pissed about the Cavs *L* and that arch guy got me more pissed. I didn't start this thread to argue. It's supposed to be so people can learn.
What??? I stated my opinion, and I made it clear in my post that it was my opinion. Sorry I pissed you off - I'll be sure to not state my opinion in the future.
Wow, great article and as ncdawg stated, this really helps explain the concepts when added to all the previous discussions in this thread. Thanks for sharing.
Quote: For the QB, it's very important that he gets the ball the running back as deep and as quickly as possible. Again, the quicker and deeper you get the tailback the ball, the better angle he has at the cutback lane. In my eyes, the best thing to do with the QB after a play like this where he didn't have to get too lateral to make the handoff is to boot back to the weak side (fake the handoff and then turn his back to the LOS and loop back to the opposite side). The boot does two things here that a straight drop won't do for you: A) helps hold the defensive end from crashing down, B) keeps the Will LB honest for the same reasons, and C) it gives you more options offensively for the play action.
I've never understood why more teams don't implement this notion. Running a fake boot on every play seems so logical to keep the defense off-guard after they have gotten burned by the actual boot play previously. Its entirely possible that its not as effective in real life as it is in my head.
Quote: In this situation, a lot hinges on the ability of both the Bull and your Y. If the Bull is quick, the Y should try and get him to commit up field and then seal off a lane for the TB to run through. If he's strong, just try and keep him in the same place and let the TB bounce the play outside. The H/FB shouldn't worry too much about getting to Will. He should try, but if Will disappears quickly then he needs to work to the secondary and hope to get a body on the FS.
I know someone briefly touched on this in a previous post, but it wasnt until this article that I saw exactly how important the TE, or Y as they refer to in the article, is to a successful zone blocking play. If they dont make the proper seal or kickout, or they face a difficult bull, the zone blocking will become very difficult and will have to rely heavily on the cut-back lane.
Thanks for sharing this info again. It certainly helped.
No time right now to break down your post and ask more questions and tell u I agree that size dont matter ... *L* ..
can u break down my 3-4 play for me?? wanna know how that works but figured I'd give it a shot ....can u break it down for me please?? .. should ahve some time in the next couple days to get to your other resonse and read some of the other replies ..
Yes, I'll look at what you said about how to block against the 3-4. I just want you to remember that there are different running plays and things can change. You got that, right? And, a lot has to depend on how they line up in the 3-4. If the Sam and Will line up right on the LOS like the Browns did last year, well that changes the responsibility of the FB, LT, and TE as opposed to if the either or both the Will and the Sam are off the LOS. Make sense?
Bro...........do this. Take out a piece of paper and draw the offensive line along w/the TE.
O O X O O O
The center is the X guy. LOL
Now, draw it again.
Then, on the first diagram, put both the S and the W on the LOS. The W would be completely outside the LT, the RDE shaded to the inside of the LT, the N over the C, the LDE head up on the RT and the S on the outside shoulder of the TE. Got it?
Now, draw the defense w/either the S or the W or both off the LOS. Hell, draw it 3 damn times. So, you will end up w/this---1 diagram w/both OLBs on the LOS. The second diagram has both off the LOS. And the 3rd diagram has the WLB off the LOS. Now, look at those 3 diagrams and I guarantee you can see how it will be blocked differently. Right? And don't feel bad, I draw diagrams everytime I answer one of your questions that ask me about responsibilities.
Okay, now to your blocking strategy:
C .... seals the NT by gettting to the NT's lefts shoulder and sealing him from going left .. Good. Remember this term. He will area block. Which is kinda like that baseball step I told you about earlier. Some people call it a scoop step or a bucket step. Make sense? In this case, you lift the right leg up and back a half step, keeping shoulders square, drive upfield hitting inside shoulder of nose and try to seal him just as you said.
RG .... i want him to help the C but dont think thats possible .. he best take right off for the SIL (strong inside linebacker) ... and he has to attack him and he will have no angle to get to his outside shoulder so it would make sense he just goes to his inside shoulder and seals him off that way .. but that would seem to put him right in the hole ... soi i guess he needs to push him out ... hmmm .. maybe i should have went through the 2 hole ..*L* .. Oh, it's possible. Remember this rule, bro.........in zone blocking, if you are covered you block the man in over you, and if you are uncovered, you double team. And again, one of those guys always comes off the double to get the LBer.
Okay, here is how it works. The RG will angle towards the RDE, and be part of the double team w/the RT. Depending on what the ILB does, this hit will either be very quick or he may stay w/him for awhile. Let's say the ILB is good and reads the play, our RG slams into the shoulder of the LDE and immediately heads toward the LBer. Now, this is key..........he isn't going to try and force him either way. Instead, he will read the path of the backer and block him in that direction. He'll use the backer's own momentum against him. {Remember this when I get to the RB}
RT .... LDE and does the same block u said he did in the previous play .. and then depending on where the SOL (strong outside LBer) either stays with the LDE or goes and seal the SOL ... this is more than likely . The RT will drive pretty much drive block the LDE. And remember, he is going to be getting help from his inside.
TE - mushes the LDE as above ...
LOL....His responsibility is block the man who is over him or to his outside. In this case, I am going to have the defense's Sam on the LOS, which is fairly common, and he is lined up on the outside shoulder of our TE. Our TE area blocks him to the outside.
LG goes and seals the WIL (weak inside LBer) by getting to the WIL left shoulder and not letting him through ... Okay.....now remember. He is uncovered, so he has to............?
Yep, double. He is going to double on the NT, helping the C. Bro, next time don't start the description w/the C. Start on one of the ends. You see why, right? Anyway, the LG doubles the NT w/the C and then it will probably be him that releases to the the other ILB. He will try to seal him to the outside, unlike the other guard who read the movement of the other ILB.
LT goes and takes care of the WOL by getting to his left shoulder and not letting him through ... Good. First the LT MUST make sure that the RDE does NOT cross his face and then he works his way to the WLB. Is Joe going to be great at this, or what?
then the FB goes through the 0 or maybe 2 hole this time to mush first guy in his face Actually, most of the time, the FBs responsibility is to get the outside man on the weak side, either the WLBer or LDE, depending on how they line up. Remember I asked you to draw those 3 diagrams. Can you see it?
the WRs. *L*
Bro.......you forgot the RB, and he is pretty important since he is the one toting the rock.
Here's what he does:
Keys on the RG [playside] If that guard is covered, he goes opposite of him towards the A gap. If that is confusing, think back to when our RG was blocking their ILB and I said that his block depended on the path of that backer. Well, the RB shoots for the inside leg of the G and then cuts off of him, or in other words, opposite of the path of the LBer.
And bro.......this is one of the beauties of zone blocking. We all know that the 3-4 was designed to stop the run, but zone blocking almost ensures that you will get some positive yards. In drive blocking there is a specific hole while in zone blocking your RB has options.
Damn man...........you make me type a lot.
racer: I'll try to get to yours soon. I need a break though. *L*
Oh, and Diam..........I ain't taking time to proofread this, so if I said something whacky, like if I mixed up linemen or something.......ask me about it. One more thing, bro...........You did pretty good.
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us." --Ralph Waldo Emerson
Keep in mind that EVERY offensive play is "diagrammed" to score a touchdown if every offensive player does his part perfectly.
But also, every defensive play is diagrammed to stop the o. Bottom line - it's man against man. Diagram it perfectly - make sure every guy knows exactly what to do on every single play.
Then, problem is, you need to do it. The d won't cooperate with the o, and the o won't cooperate with the d.
Since you want to close the thread I'll have some fun before U do.
.
This movement off the LOS is important in zone blocking principles. If this defender remains inside of you, continue to drive and maintain contact – once you are forced off by the inside blocker now you can look for the scraping linebacker on Level 2. If the defender aligned on you slants inside – punch and push off the defender and explode to 2nd level when the linebacker crosses your face. Block the linebacker by exploding up through his play side armpit, using a good drive block technique. Remember – we want movement first. When we come off to the second level we will take the linebacker anywhere we can. The following calls are the different zone-type blocks between offensive linemen at the point of attack:
This movement off the LOS is important in zone blocking principles. If this defender remains inside of you, continue to drive and maintain contact – once you are forced off by the inside blocker now you can look for the scraping linebacker on Level 2. If the defender aligned on you slants inside – punch and push off the defender and explode to 2nd level when the linebacker crosses your face. Block the linebacker by exploding up through his play side armpit, using a good drive block technique. Remember – we want movement first. When we come off to the second level we will take the linebacker anywhere we can. The following calls are the different zone-type blocks between offensive linemen at the point of attack:
1. “Single” zone blocking between the center and onside guard is necessary in order to handle the defensive tackle and middle linebacker. The onside guard will make the call when the defensive tackle is aligned head up or inside eye or shoulder on alignment. This call is to reaffirm the blocking assignment. (See Diagrams 1A, 1B, and 1C)
"We actually tried to implement a zone blocking scheme several times...but we never had the personnel to do so. Palmer tried to start things and before they could get anywhere he was gone. We had guys like Pyne, O'Hara, Barry Stokes. But then Palmer was gone and I then remember hearing about how we were going after huge guys like Tre Johnson, Paul Zakauskas(for you tabber ) and Ross Verba (a G playing T)....and they tried to go that route."
Just a note...Barry Stokes didn't come here till after Verba. The guys Palmer had were all the guys others were willing to throw away...either too old or too small.
As for when Butch came here...yes he was looking to implement a drive blocking scheme and drafted (late rounds - or UDFA) big guys who were not known for their lateral movement. In many cases this is done for two reasons...for Butch at least. 1. He came from the Cowboys the leaders of the Drive Blocking Scheme with Big late round guys. 2. Butch wanted to win right away and he knew a Zone Blocking scheme would take time - especially with lesser talent guys available they would have to strictly rely on Gelling in Continuity of the Unit not individual talent.
In Butch's defense there really wasn't the talent available in FA - they started coming out (great to good OGs like Wahle, Hutchinson, Steinbach, etc.) after Butch's tenure. So he saw his best bet and also what he was familiar with was getting late round Big guys like the Cowboy SB teams did. But the influx of bigger faster DTs making that thinking pretty obsolete and not easily put together like before. Butch was the master of getting the square peg for that round hole. Verba at OT, Stokes a finesse guy, Faine a #1 pick at 285 with mobility as his prowess were pretty much the square pegs for his Drive blocking schemes. And Paul Z was probably his best draft investment or UDFA investment as far as Power, Technique and Intelligence were concerned. Most of the others were lacking one or more of those variables.
Regarding Zone Blocking on the Goal line. I'm sure there is a package of Zone Blocking which have some characteristics of both. But you cannot try to stretch the D laterally that easily as in Goal Line situations most teams have 10 in the box and many shooting gaps for penetration from the snap. The more lateral movement our OL would make at the snap the more Gaps for penetration would be there. So I'm sure there is a Blocking scheme with a quick Zone Blocking that can create angles - more Down blocking schemes then Double teams - so that all would have angles on their blocks and use the DLs forward penetration to our advantage by riding them and using their movement by getting them out of the intended gaps.
???
Just trying to imagine my strategy if I was the OL coach. Its been a long time since I was one
Defense wins championships. Watson play your butt off! Go Browns! CHRIST HAS RISEN! GM Strong! & Stay safe everyone!
I just want to dive in here and thank everyone for such enlightening discussions in this very, very good thread.
I've read every post, (some of them twice and thrice), in an effort to learn about this, how you say, "Zone Blocking".
I believe the Browns may have used a form of zone blocking back in the Kosar era as I remember sitting in the Dawg Pound using binoculars and as the Browns neared the endzone I could swear I remember seeing the right-side of the offensive line moving to their right in unison on more than one occasion. I had no idea what was going on but it was impressive. I haven't seen anything like that since our return.
I may be wrong about what I thought I saw but that doesn't matter. What matters is that those of you who ask questions keep asking and those of you who answer keep answering because it is elevating the football intelligence of anyone who takes the time to read it.
Me? I'm not going to ask or answer. I'm getting plenty out of this the way it is.
Thanks all!
btw...Ain't it great to hear Diam actually admit he doesn't know everything?!
Well at least everything we know about Blocking schemes there is a lot I'm sure you n I and others don't know - at least I never think I know it all - there's always more to learn...if not then INVENT
Btw - we haven't even touched on Cross Blocking...I loved using cross blocking schemes and I wonder if it can be utilized in the Zone blocking - I'm sure it could be.
Along with Counters...Traps the really intense stuff when an OL Unit knows each other. JMHO
Defense wins championships. Watson play your butt off! Go Browns! CHRIST HAS RISEN! GM Strong! & Stay safe everyone!
Quote: Btw - we haven't even touched on Cross Blocking...I loved using cross blocking schemes and I wonder if it can be utilized in the Zone blocking - I'm sure it could be.
We utilized cross blocking at times. We typically did it w/our TE and T instead of a G and a T. For those of you who don't know what cross blocking is.....it works like this. The outside guy, in this case the TE, goes first. He fires out of his stance at an angle to the man over the T. The tackle takes a bucket step as he would in an area block and then crosses over and blocks the man who was over the TE.
One note here.......you need a RB who has very good vision and good patience for this type of block.
Quote: Along with Counters...Traps the really intense stuff when an OL Unit knows each other. JMHO
The counters are made for zone blocking. And we used to trap all the time. I love trap blocking. I talked about it earlier when I spoke of our center trapping the DE. LOL, that was sweet. Most times, you trap the guy one man down from you, but this was a 2 gap trap. *L*
Again, for those of you who don't know what a trap is:
You come out of your stance like you do when you pull. Envision a play to the right. You throw your right arm back.....go ahead, get in a stance, now throw your arm back until your elbow is tight to your hip, w/your fist just off the lower right rib cage. I'm serious.........do it. Did you notice how this caused your right foot to open up? To pull, you would open it up more so it was parallel to the LOS. However, for trap blocking, it should be fine where you are at now. It should be angled towards the defender down from you. The rest of your line mates on the right side fire out and you move behind them, keeping yourself between the defender and the RB. You then get to slam into him and he doesn't even see you coming. and you knock his ass into a new zip code. I LOVE TRAP BLOCKING!
So yes tab...........you can use trap blocking and I hope to hell the Browns use it this year. One more note.......the Squeelers are really good at trap blocking. You can even see it on TV now that you guys know what you are looking for.
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us." --Ralph Waldo Emerson
Cool. Thanks for the vid BpG. Let me ask you something. You said while reading the thread you wished you could see some of the techniques. Does that mean you can't visualize them when I describe them? If that is the case, ask me to explain it again and I'll try and do a better job. I still say you guys should try doing them yourself right after you read them. It helps.
Some notes from the vid:
--One thing I did not like. The o-linemen had their heads down when they were in their stance. That is a no-no. Their stances were good, but the head has to be up.
--Did you guys notice how they swung their arm during the trap block. The one little guy got it out way too far, but did you notice how that opens you up? That was good.
---The angle block they showed is what I call a gap block and it is the best block in the world.
---They didn't use the bucket step during the zone segment. That is actually the area block. And it is a mistake not to bucket. The playside foot needs to be back slightly because the goal is not to drive the man, it is to turn and seal him.
---The punch thing was okay. We used it some, but there are now weight machines that simulate the move. It's expensive, but a good investment.
---The last segment was good because it showed that you need a wide base and that chop steps are key. Look at the feet chopping again if you missed it. That is hard to do when you are pushing something, but it is essential. They also did a nice job of keeping their chest over their thighs and many of you have heard me speak of that that. Well, if you couldn't visualize it, there is a picture of it.
Thanks again BpG. I'm sure that this video will help people learn. It's much appreciated.
Man, this thread has been good. Thanks guys.
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us." --Ralph Waldo Emerson
I know you were... and no, I don't think you're are an A-hole at least not when we are talking football I was clarifying and I think adding you in with my little claim there - so people don't take what you said as a know it all statement.
"You n I"
Cross Blocking - yeah actually I envision JT and ES with their speed and lateral abilities able to get it done even for a quick strike in the 3 hole with the FB blast getting the Will LB. Yes its good to use with the TE - OT. JT being athletic like a TE can get that quick explosion on the outside and Steinbach would beable to almost get a trap block on the quick DE.
Counters I thought would be perfect as usually you have Counters moving in unison with more than one OLmen.
Traps - Center traps are excellent when done right...well that goes for any trap. But I see our left side and see many trap possibilities again with the speed and athleticism on the left. Its something we got that most NFL teams don't and we should utilize it.
JMHO
Defense wins championships. Watson play your butt off! Go Browns! CHRIST HAS RISEN! GM Strong! & Stay safe everyone!
Quote: Cool. Thanks for the vid BpG. Let me ask you something. You said while reading the thread you wished you could see some of the techniques. Does that mean you can't visualize them when I describe them?
Oh I can visualize them, as an individual linemen. What I would like to see is how they work together as a unit at game speed, when defense throw stunts and blitz packages at them.
Seeing their heads on a swivel looking around to block anyone who comes into their zone.
It is really the game speed that I have a hard time visualizing. In my head it is just so fast, it's hard to imagine all these different stunts and movements...my head will explode. hehe
I thought you were a teacher. Do you give up in the classroom when you get frustrated? It is a very good thread with a lot of valuable info. Maybe you should try another tactic if you don't think you're getting your point across.
) and Ross Verba (a G playing T)....and they tried to go that route. But we never really got the personnel to do that as we still had guys like Stokes and O'Hara. Butch goes the route of drive blocking and we draft.....Faine????
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/6WV79RV/Browns-Coach-Sig.png)
. Short yardage also would be in the same boat. 
. That makes total sense now and I could see how it would help. 
and you knock his ass into a new zip code. I LOVE TRAP BLOCKING! 