Grizz: The Phillps 34 Playbook

[Bob Sacamano]

Well, a zone-blitz allows you to stay in zone, but it doesn't require you to stay in zone.

it ceases to be a zone-blitz then

just admit it dude, a zone-cover scheme plays more of a role in a zone-blitz than what you earlier suggested, which according to you, was very little

 

[big dog cowboy]

You guys need a room or what?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

and again, you would be committing suicide on D if you decide to switch the responsibilities in a man-cover scheme, you almost have to be in a zone to effectively run a zone-blitz

 

[theogt]

it ceases to be a zone-blitz then

just admit it dude, a zone-cover scheme plays more of a role in a zone-blitz than what you earlier suggested, which according to you, was very little

Ok. What would you call a play in which a 3-4 DE drops into coverage and a ILB rushes the passer along with the other DE, the NT, and one of the OLBS, while the rest of the secondary is in man coverage? What would you call that?

 

[theogt]

and again, you would be committing suicide on D if you decide to switch the responsibilities in a man-cover scheme, you almost have to be in a zone to effectively run a zone-blitz

No, you wouldn't. Typically on a blitz, you use man coverage. A zone-blitz allows you to use zone coverage. It doesn't require it, but it gives you that option.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Ok. What would you call a play in which a 3-4 DE drops into coverage and a ILB rushes the passer along with the other DE, the NT, and one of the OLBS, while the rest of the secondary is in man coverage? What would you call that?

not a zone-blitz, because you're in man-coverage

 

[CoachHodnett]

To be honest, Zone-Blitzes are classified differently by all teams. Traditionally, a Zone-Blitz would have a Cov. 2 or 3 Zone behind a 7 Man Front. One of the Linemen would drop off into an area that the Blitzing LB has vacated.

In today's more sophisticated schemes, though, Zone-Blitzes have expanded too. Several teams will man up across the board, blitz a safety and LB, and drop a DE into the Hook/Curl area or Flats. It's still a Zone Blitz even though there is a Cov. 0 look to it.

Something becoming more popular with athletic 4-3 teams these days is having a Zone-Man Switch Blitz where you have your DE man up on the TE or RB, blitz the LB and still play a Zone behind it. This occurs a lot when a team is getting beat with quick hits to the Backs or TE's (most comming in HS or college).

 

[theogt]

not a zone-blitz, because you're in man-coverage

So what would you call it? I think every defensive coordinator in the game would call it a zone blitz. I've yet to see any definition that states that zone coverage is required.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

So what would you call it? I think every defensive coordinator in the game would call it a zone blitz. I've yet to see any definition that states that zone coverage is required.

I'd call it a LB blitz

the definition of a zone-blitz is to allow your D to remain in zone-coverage

 

[theogt]

I'd call it a LB blitz

Just a blitz? You wouldn't call it anything special, considering that it's quite different from every other blitz in the playbook?

the definition of a zone-blitz is to allow your D to remain in zone-coverage

Right. It allows the defense to remain in zone coverage. However, it does not require the defense to stay in zone coverage.

 

[theogt]

Why do your posts keep disappearing?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Right. It allows the defense to remain in zone coverage. However, it does not require the defense to stay in zone coverage.

if you switch from zone coverage to man coverage, you wouldn't be running a zone-blitz

 

[theogt]

if you switch from zone coverage to man coverage, you wouldn't be running a zone-blitz

Why would the change of responsibility require there to be zone coverage?

I agree that it allows for zone coverage, and I agree that the majority of time there will be zone coverage. However, there's nothing that requires there to be zone coverage.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Why would the change of responsibility require there to be zone coverage?

to confuse the opposing O

I agree that it allows for zone coverage, and I agree that the majority of time there will be zone coverage. However, there's nothing that requires there to be zone coverage.

except for the fact that the zone-blitz was instituted so as to not run a man-cover scheme

 

[dwmyers]

I'll try my hand at this.

What theogt is calling a zone blitz is "always" a zone blitz because the lineman isn't going to chase a running back all over the place. He's probably not mobile enough to play anything other than an underneath zone to begin with.

This would be true no matter what else the defense does.

If the corners and safeties are in man coverage, what does that have to do with the responsibilities of the blitzing pair? nothing.

And if summerisfunner wants to call this mixed (zone) coverage, so be it. I don't think zone blitzing requires a pure zone (i.e. every man playing zone and nothing but..)

David.

 

[theogt]

to confuse the opposing O

The confusion is created by dropping the pass-rusher into coverage.

except for the fact that the zone-blitz was instituted so as to not run a man-cover scheme

I agree with this, but it does not require that you not use man-coverage.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

The confusion is created by dropping the pass-rusher into coverage.

yes, but you try to confuse the opposing O before the snap, that's what having your defenders sitting back in zone, in off-coverage, does, you feign the secondary and LBs going into coverage, when in reality, the LBs are going to be blitzing at the snap, and sometimes members of the secondary too, while someone or 2 from the front 7 will drop back into coverage

 

[Rack]

No, you wouldn't. Typically on a blitz, you use man coverage. A zone-blitz allows you to use zone coverage. It doesn't require it, but it gives you that option.

A Zone blitz does require you to play zone. If you call a blitz and you aren't playing zone, then it's not a zone blitz.

You can't possibly blitz and play man to man and call it a "Zone blitz".

 

[Clove]

A Zone blitz does require you to play zone. If you call a blitz and you aren't playing zone, then it's not a zone blitz.

You can't possibly blitz and play man to man and call it a "Zone blitz".

That should end the argument.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

That should end the argument.

:laugh2: yeah right, I said that about 2 pages back