Zone Blocking vs Man Blocking

[Yakuza Rich]

If the Skins have strength anywhere, I believe it is along the O-line and at RB. Yes, a Zone Blocking scheme can help them and be a strength.

I would like to know when was the last time the O-Line was a strength for the Skins. Did you watch their O-Line play last season?

Rich.........

 

[LaTunaNostra]

I think the idea is sort of dumb. This a team that couldn't block to save their lives last season. They are basically incorporating the scheme to make Portis feel more comfortable. My belief is that it should be the other way around.

That's a comforting take. If it's true, Gibbs has totally surrendered to the new breed of NFL player. Smoot, Coles, Gardner, Taylor and Portis have done him in.

It depends on the O-linemen you have. From my knowledge, a good majority of O-Linemen prefer the man to man scheme as its something they are taught early and have primarily used.

Well, it does allow for oline guys to be heroes..and get their names called in a good way since if there are several lineman blocking the same square of turf, one of them might get the chance to block further downfield.

So maybe Joe is throwing the line the same bones he's throwing Portis. FAME.

The one thing that would scare me about this if I was a Commanders fan is that if the zone blocking scheme doesn't work, you could see mutiny on your hands. That's what happened in 2002 when the Dallas O-Linemen basically revolted against Coslet's zone blocking scheme because they hated it so much. Even to the point where Flozell almost pummeled O-Line coach Frank Verducci in the lockerroom after an argument about it.

Here's hopin!

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

LOL on the rest of that post, ABQ.

But if only it WOULD go the way of tackling..

This is one area where the players union has just plain flopped/caved imho.

Upshaw made enough noise about it immediately after Bryan Cox's leg got broken by Dan Neil, and that Tanavasa guy's season got ended by Lepsis..when you can take out two players' seasons in a short time period it gets attention.

But then...yawn, forget about it.

I despise illegal cut blocking with a passion.

But I also realize it ain't gonna be outlawed til Roy Williams starts doin it.

I agree with you LTN. I'm not a big fan of it either. As I said before, the Niners used it for years and I honestly believe that that is a big reason for the league not doing something about it years ago. Basically, the 49rs were the cash cow of the league in the 80s. "Don't mess with a good thing" was, I believe, the approach. Then, as many more teams adopted the WC, that blocking scheme came along with it. Then you had Elway and the Broncos and again, don't screw the golden goose so it's managed to hang on. Having said that, I just beliieve it is a danger to the players. I, for one, don't see how you can take the stance the league has elected to take on the RLW tackle but look the other way on cut blocks that basically hurt players. If it were QBs that were getting laid out, it would change mid season. Because it's used to protect QBs, I think that too contributes to the problem.

In the end, I think your right. The NFL and the players union have collectively looked the other way for far too long. It should be addressed.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I don't think so. They haven't had success with man to man blocking and their O-Linemen are better fit to play man to man. Outside of Rabach and Thomas, I don't think the others have played zone at all. Dockery doesn't fit the zone blocking scheme and neither does Jansen, whose skills are eroding and just came off an achilles tear.

Samuels had a nice season last year and could fit the scheme, but when he gets banged he becomes almost completely immobile. That and there would be a learning curve.

I think the idea is sort of dumb. This a team that couldn't block to save their lives last season. They are basically incorporating the scheme to make Portis feel more comfortable. My belief is that it should be the other way around.


Rich...........

Good post and I agree... Seems like I read second hand somewhere that the Skins did this "in-depth" study and came to the conclusion that they had more productive running plays on zone blocking plays last year. But I bet it's more to appease Portis than anything else.

And it does seem backwards. The Hogs were always huge maulers, not quick guys, so I wonder how well this will fit Bugel.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Having said that, I just beliieve it is a danger to the players. I, for one, don't see how you can take the stance the league has elected to take on the RLW tackle but look the other way on cut blocks that basically hurt players.

Simple... The Horse Collar is a defensive penalty... Eliminating chop blocks would hurt the offense. And we can't have that, you know.

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

I think the idea is sort of dumb. This a team that couldn't block to save their lives last season. They are basically incorporating the scheme to make Portis feel more comfortable. My belief is that it should be the other way around.

I agree. If this is all true, the Skins are just trying to utilize Portis the same way the Broncos did. I guess Portis put up some decent number last year but in my opinion, he didn't look like the same impressive back he was in Denver. But I guess all those fellas look like Pro Bowlers in Denver.

I disagree with you that they shouldn't incorporate stuff to fit the players talents. We would all be complimenting Parcells if he did the same thing if he had a quick cutting runner like Portis and thought it would help him gain more yards. And he does do the same thing, with different players. Going from 4-3 to 3-4 is really the only big move Parcells has made that didn't use the strenghts of his players and even that was with a front 7 heavy draft.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I disagree with you that they shouldn't incorporate stuff to fit the players talents. We would all be complimenting Parcells if he did the same thing if he had a quick cutting runner like Portis and thought it would help him gain more yards.

I don't think you understand my point. I have no problem with customizing a scheme around players talents, in fact that's what you should do.

The problem is that the Skins O-Line stunk last season and now they are trying to go to implement a scheme that doesn't fit their talents. The only talent it really fits is Portis'.

Call me crazy, but I think you're better off fitting a scheme to fit the majority of players instead of just the star, especially when you're talking about the O-Line.

And there's other ways to help a guy like Portis out without having to change blocking schemes such as finding out what type of plays (draws, pitches, etc) that he excels at and find out which ones he struggles with.


Rich...........

 

[adbutcher]

There are two important tenants in executing a zone-blocking scheme. One is having agile O-Line. Two perfecting the reach and overtake techniques, meaning in most cases you are blocking a man over. Hence many times in the aforementioned scheme the chop blocks are always skirting legality. Essentially there are only two base running plays, inside and outside. Most D-lineman myself included hates zone-blocking schemes. It promotes cowardly and underhanded tactics.

Hos is right in his assessment on how to attack a zone blocking scheme. To effectively blow up the scheme is to get as much penetration from as many different angles as possible. For example on a stretch (outside zone) if there is any penetration it almost always result in a substantial loss because the line got to take a “bucket (almost moving lateral to the LOS)” step and try to get their heads on the play side of the lineman that is lined up a man or half a man over from them. The play also has two distinct advantages. One if the back side is not containing and playing their technique, it opens up a huge cutback when the playside does there job effectively. Two, if o-line manages to chop the playside d-line then it is usually off to the races. Evidence of this can be found by watching at T. Davis (before injuries), Portis (before Washington), or any other of Denver’s RB on their long runs.

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

I don't think you understand my point. I have no problem with customizing a scheme around players talents, in fact that's what you should do.

The problem is that the Skins O-Line stunk last season and now they are trying to go to implement a scheme that doesn't fit their talents. The only talent it really fits is Portis'.

Call me crazy, but I think you're better off fitting a scheme to fit the majority of players instead of just the star, especially when you're talking about the O-Line.

And there's other ways to help a guy like Portis out without having to change blocking schemes such as finding out what type of plays (draws, pitches, etc) that he excels at and find out which ones he struggles with.


Rich...........

Well, it certainly can't be any worse than when the Cowboys tried this crap with an out-of-shape Larry Allen, a 400 pound Aaron Gibson, Charon Dorsey, and others...

 

[playit12]

There are two important tenants in executing a zone-blocking scheme. One is having agile O-Line. Two perfecting the reach and overtake techniques, meaning in most cases you are blocking a man over. Hence many times in the aforementioned scheme the chop blocks are always skirting legality. Essentially there are only two base running plays, inside and outside. Most D-lineman myself included hates zone-blocking schemes. It promotes cowardly and underhanded tactics.

Hos is right in his assessment on how to attack a zone blocking scheme. To effectively blow up the scheme is to get as much penetration from as many different angles as possible. For example on a stretch (outside zone) if there is any penetration it almost always result in a substantial loss because the line got to take a “bucket (almost moving lateral to the LOS)” step and try to get their heads on the play side of the lineman that is lined up a man or half a man over from them. The play also has two distinct advantages. One if the back side is not containing and playing their technique, it opens up a huge cutback when the playside does there job effectively. Two, if o-line manages to chop the playside d-line then it is usually off to the races. Evidence of this can be found by watching at T. Davis (before injuries), Portis (before Washington), or any other of Denver’s RB on their long runs.

Could you explain a little more about the inside versus outside running plays in Zone blocking. What are the general assignments of the linemen, are there any accounting for the Linebackers, and does the running back have a progression of holes to take (if so what order).

Also if you are moving laterally to the next man to your right on a run play, then does that mean the zone blocking is substantially different between a 3-4 and a 4-3 where interior linemen in the 3-4 would be face up versus lined up in the gaps. Finally, if gap penetration is the key, it would seem that a 4-3 would be better, as they have more gap penetrators in the front 7?

 

[LaTunaNostra]

Could you explain a little more about the inside versus outside running plays in Zone blocking. What are the general assignments of the linemen, are there any accounting for the Linebackers, and does the running back have a progression of holes to take (if so what order).

Also if you are moving laterally to the next man to your right on a run play, then does that mean the zone blocking is substantially different between a 3-4 and a 4-3 where interior linemen in the 3-4 would be face up versus lined up in the gaps. Finally, if gap penetration is the key, it would seem that a 4-3 would be better, as they have more gap penetrators in the front 7?

Yeah Ad, let's hear it..nice questions playit12.

How is our two-gapping D gonna solve this?

 

[adbutcher]

I got a meeting in about 15 minutes but I did a quick google and I think this article covers it pretty well. If you still have questions I will check back after I get off of work. Enjoy.

http://www.americanfootballmonthly.com/Subaccess/Magazine/2005/may/northwestern.html

 

[playit12]

I got a meeting in about 15 minutes but I did a quick google and I think this article covers it pretty well. If you still have questions I will check back after I get off of work. Enjoy.

http://www.americanfootballmonthly.com/Subaccess/Magazine/2005/may/northwestern.html

Ad that's a great article... That certainly clears up quite a bit. My remaining questions are just these then...

Is there are defined hole or hole range on inside zone blocking plays?

And it seems like speed is the secret weapon against zone blocking. If linemen have to check the front 3 before attacking the LB then if the line backer is quick enough he should be able to close down any gaps before being touched. Is that right?

Has anyone every tried to blend a zone and man blocking? As in running zone on one side of the line and man on the other?

LTN might have more questions...

 

[Hostile]

Ad that's a great article... That certainly clears up quite a bit. My remaining questions are just these then...

Is there are defined hole or hole range on inside zone blocking plays?

And it seems like speed is the secret weapon against zone blocking. If linemen have to check the front 3 before attacking the LB then if the line backer is quick enough he should be able to close down any gaps before being touched. Is that right?

Has anyone every tried to blend a zone and man blocking? As in running zone on one side of the line and man on the other?

LTN might have more questions...

Most offenses define the attack points as holes. It is rare that they would call them anything else. It is part of the culture of the game to call them holes. So, yes the Zone Blocking scheme calls for holes to be hit.

Speed is absolutely the best weapon to combat a Zone scheme. A LB like Dexter Coakley who was so fast to pursue sideline to sideline would be a true asset. The blitz is also a hell of a weapon. You have to do 2 things with it though. First you must choose the right play and you have to disguise it well. If you bring a corner and the play is a trap up the middle you are going to get killed because someone in the middle is peeling to the side to cover the CBs assignment. Truthfully the best tool against a Zone Scheme is smart players. The design of the Zone scheme is to create overplays and thus open bigger holes.

For example, say the LG pulls to take on the LDE, he will want him most likely to be in the backfield a good ways before contact. This way he can push him further outside and out of the lane thus widening the hole. If the LDE is smart and realizes he's being drawn deeper into the backfield he needs to think screen or cut back under. If he stops his pursuit it clogs the hole.

I honestly don't remember a team running both Zone and man, but I won't say it has never been done. Not at the same time of course, but throughout a game is possible.

 

[playit12]

Most offenses define the attack points as holes. It is rare that they would call them anything else. It is part of the culture of the game to call them holes. So, yes the Zone Blocking scheme calls for holes to be hit.

I didn't mean to say that they were using a different nomenclature... rather if the line is intending to open a specific gap or creating gaps through lateral movement letting the Running back select a hole at will. I know Man on Man blocking is very specific on the hole for the running back to hit... but does this varry with Zone?

I honestly don't remember a team running both Zone and man, but I won't say it has never been done. Not at the same time of course, but throughout a game is possible.

I wonder if they have run them at the same time. I know it seems odd at first, but the linked article provided examples of zone coverages to address specific defensive players (the MLB and DT for instance). In this case it would certainly be possible for your left side of the line to run man coverage while your right side ran a zone scheme. Of course I guess man on man coverages are advanced enough now to allow for the very same check-offs that you see in zone coverages, so perhaps the question is moot if the outcome is the same in either scheme.

 

[Hostile]

I didn't mean to say that they were using a different nomenclature... rather if the line is intending to open a specific gap or creating gaps through lateral movement letting the Running back select a hole at will. I know Man on Man blocking is very specific on the hole for the running back to hit... but does this varry with Zone?

I didn't explain it well enough. Yes, the line intends to open a specific gap or hole but they do it by trying to entice the defense out of position by movement and blocking.

I wonder if they have run them at the same time. I know it seems odd at first, but the linked article provided examples of zone coverages to address specific defensive players (the MLB and DT for instance). In this case it would certainly be possible for your left side of the line to run man coverage while your right side ran a zone scheme. Of course I guess man on man coverages are advanced enough now to allow for the very same check-offs that you see in zone coverages, so perhaps the question is moot if the outcome is the same in either scheme.

In basketball this is done. I highly doubt a football team would do it. In basketball teams will run a "diamond and 1." Sometimes called a "box and shadow." This is done when you have a particularly good defender to put on the other team's best scoring weapon.

Mixed assignments will not work in football the same way. If you stay with a defender in a man assignment you will be getting right in the way of someone else protecting a certain Zone if that defender enters that territory. Logjam and breakdown.

 

[adbutcher]

I didn't explain it well enough. Yes, the line intends to open a specific gap or hole but they do it by trying to entice the defense out of position by movement and blocking.



In basketball this is done. I highly doubt a football team would do it. In basketball teams will run a "diamond and 1." Sometimes called a "box and shadow." This is done when you have a particularly good defender to put on the other team's best scoring weapon.

Mixed assignments will not work in football the same way. If you stay with a defender in a man assignment you will be getting right in the way of someone else protecting a certain Zone if that defender enters that territory. Logjam and breakdown.

 

[noshame]

Here's a simple definition.

With man blocking, usually, you fire out and take your man where you want him to go.

With Zone blocks you wait for the defensive player to commit, then you just keep moving him that way. The waiting is the killer, that's why physical players like Larry Allen, Flo, and myself hate it. Wouldn't you rather just BLOW THE GUY UP?

Although, with the zone blitzes rampant in the NFL these days, ALL teams are using a little zone in their scheme.

 

[Hostile]

Here's a simple definition.

With man blocking, usually, you fire out and take your man where you want him to go.

With Zone blocks you wait for the defensive player to commit, then you just keep moving him that way. The waiting is the killer, that's why physical players like Larry Allen, Flo, and myself hate it. Wouldn't you rather just BLOW THE GUY UP?

Although, with the zone blitzes rampant in the NFL these days, ALL teams are using a little zone in their scheme.

Very nicely said.

 

[ravidubey]

I agree with you LTN. I'm not a big fan of it either. As I said before, the Niners used it for years and I honestly believe that that is a big reason for the league not doing something about it years ago. Basically, the 49rs were the cash cow of the league in the 80s. "Don't mess with a good thing" was, I believe, the approach. Then, as many more teams adopted the WC, that blocking scheme came along with it. Then you had Elway and the Broncos and again, don't screw the golden goose so it's managed to hang on. Having said that, I just beliieve it is a danger to the players. I, for one, don't see how you can take the stance the league has elected to take on the RLW tackle but look the other way on cut blocks that basically hurt players. If it were QBs that were getting laid out, it would change mid season. Because it's used to protect QBs, I think that too contributes to the problem.

In the end, I think your right. The NFL and the players union have collectively looked the other way for far too long. It should be addressed.

I agree with this take completely. If a similar defensive technique injured offensive players the league would be all over it. To the league anything that hurts the offense is bad.