PDA

View Full Version : Vinny for you!


Ibar_Harry
10-10-2005, 06:24 PM
I will throw my 2 cents out there and say the following should be the O-line with the removal of the zone blocking scheme. Close the gaps and use the following:

Wand at LT
Wiegert at LG
Washington at C
Pitts at RG
Wade at RT

If you wanted an all W line you would use Weary at RG. That would be a laugh. On a more serious note I think playing Pitts on the opposite side would take advantage of his tendency to be aggressive. Wand would be better served by having an older consistant player to help him when he gets in trouble. I think Wand would learn a great deal from Wiegert and he would gain the confidence necessary to play the position. Wiegert would not be competing for the LT position like Pitts. I think Pitts is a problem from a personnel point of view and doesn't help Wand. Washington held his own long ago and I think would be better than McKinney with the other beef beside him. We need to close down the gaps and protect our QB. Let DD find the holes which he does well in year 2. We would be alright, but they won't try something like this.

I know you will probably be critical, but I think it would be a wiser use of our personnel. I would alternate Hodgen with Washington to give him game experience. Riley could occasionally sub for Wiegert. To me Wiegert would be the key person in this lineup.

Vinny
10-10-2005, 06:26 PM
ugh, why for me....how bout for a good cause or some humanitarian effort this time?

texan279
10-10-2005, 06:27 PM
I will throw my 2 cents out there and say the following should be the O-line with the removal of the zone blocking scheme. Close the gaps and use the following:

Wand at LT
Wiegert at LG
Washington at C
Pitts at RG
Wade at RT

If you wanted an all W line you would use Weary at RG. That would be a laugh. On a more serious note I think playing Pitts on the opposite side would take advantage of his tendency to be aggressive. Wand would be better served by having an older consistant player to help him when he gets in trouble. I think Wand would learn a great deal from Wiegert and he would gain the confidence necessary to play the position. Wiegert would not be competing for the LT position like Pitts. I think Pitts is a problem from a personnel point of view and doesn't help Wand. Washington held his own long ago and I think would be better than McKinney with the other beef beside him. We need to close down the gaps and protect our QB. Let DD find the holes which he does well in year 2. We would be alright, but they won't try something like this.

I know you will probably be critical, but I think it would be a wiser use of our personnel. I would alternate Hodgen with Washington to give him game experience. Riley could occasionally sub for Wiegert. To me Wiegert would be the key person in this lineup.

Why dump zone blocking? The one thing that actually works for us?

powda
10-10-2005, 06:30 PM
current forecasted 2006 ol:

LT d'brick ferguson
LG pitts
C eslinger
RG weigert
RT best available free agent

i woulda found a way to replace weigert to but according to the current regime "we have to have some cohesion in the line!"

what i meant to say was he's scheduled for replacement the following offseason.

Ibar_Harry
10-10-2005, 06:30 PM
ugh, why for me....how bout for a good cause or some humanitarian effort this time?

Wouldn't disagree with you, but critic away if you will. I really think these are bad at putting together combinations. We need to get Wand back in there. He's far better than people think, but his confidence has been destroyed. I really want to get rid of the zone blocking. We need to close the gaps down. I don't want the other team knowing whether its a run or pass and we do not have the personnel to play zone blocking. Tighten it up and play the traditional line play. We are not a Denver either from a running back or O-line point of view..............

Wolf
10-10-2005, 06:31 PM
ugh, why for me....how bout for a good cause or some humanitarian effort this time?


thanks Vinny .. I needed a chuckle :)

Ibar_Harry
10-10-2005, 06:33 PM
Why dump zone blocking? The one thing that actually works for us?

Zone blocking is probably the heart and soul to all of the problems with respect to the O-line. We do not have the personnel to play it. Zone blocking requires a very nimble QB to avoid sacks. That's one of the fundamental weaknesses of zone blocking. Why use something that's going to jepordize your QB even more.

texan279
10-10-2005, 06:35 PM
Zone blocking is probably the heart and soul to all of the problems with respect to the O-line. We do not have the personnel to play it. Zone blocking requires a very nimble QB to avoid sacks. That's one of the fundamental weaknesses of zone blocking. Why use something that's going to jepordize your QB even more.

Huh? Did you watch Davis run the ball at all yesterday? The problem is with Victor freaking Riley at LT, the most important position on the O line, playing patty cake with rushing defensive lineman. The zone blocking probably makes our O line look better than it is when we rush the ball...

Marcus
10-10-2005, 06:37 PM
I will throw my 2 cents out there and say the following should be the O-line with the removal of the zone blocking scheme. Close the gaps and use the following:

Wand at LT
Wiegert at LG
Washington at C
Pitts at RG
Wade at RT

If you wanted an all W line you would use Weary at RG. That would be a laugh. On a more serious note I think playing Pitts on the opposite side would take advantage of his tendency to be aggressive. Wand would be better served by having an older consistant player to help him when he gets in trouble. I think Wand would learn a great deal from Wiegert and he would gain the confidence necessary to play the position. Wiegert would not be competing for the LT position like Pitts. I think Pitts is a problem from a personnel point of view and doesn't help Wand. Washington held his own long ago and I think would be better than McKinney with the other beef beside him. We need to close down the gaps and protect our QB. Let DD find the holes which he does well in year 2. We would be alright, but they won't try something like this.

I know you will probably be critical, but I think it would be a wiser use of our personnel. I would alternate Hodgen with Washington to give him game experience. Riley could occasionally sub for Wiegert. To me Wiegert would be the key person in this lineup.

Oh hell . . . why not?

That would guarantee that not a single blitz would be picked up for the rest of the season . . . but then none are getting picked up anyway, so . .

Ain't message board head coaching fun? :rolleyes:

Ibar_Harry
10-10-2005, 06:39 PM
Huh? Did you watch Davis run the ball at all yesterday?

Yes, I watched him run in year 2 also. DD will get his yards from either scheme. The real question is how do you stop your QB from being killed. You have to close the gaps and keep the other team from dominating you with 3 or less D-linemen. You have to make them utilize more players in an attempt to get to the QB. That in turn gives your other offensive players a better chance to get open......................

texan279
10-10-2005, 06:40 PM
Yes, I watched him run in year 2 also. DD will get his yards from either scheme. The real question is how do you stop your QB from being killed. You have to close the gaps and keep the other team from dominating you with 3 or less D-linemen. You have to make them utilize more players in an attempt to get to the QB. That in turn gives your other offensive players a better chance to get open......................

At least we can run the ball using zone blocking, I would rather have that than not being able to rush or pass the ball.

Ibar_Harry
10-10-2005, 06:42 PM
At least we can run the ball using zone blocking, I would rather have that than not being able to rush or pass the ball.

DD had a 1000 yards rushing in year 2 employing the other scheme and we cut our sacks way down. Our sacks went way up when we went to the zone blocking scheme. Go back to what works for this ball club based on the skills of our personnel...........................

Scooter
10-10-2005, 06:44 PM
Wand - LT
Riley - LG
Hodgdon - C
Wade - RG
Pitts - RT

wand & pitts are the best bookends we've got. riley & wade are the best maulers but entirely too slow to be on the ends. mckinney & weigert are pathetic. hodgdon could fall asleep out there and still be an upgrade.

edited for spelling

Ibar_Harry
10-10-2005, 06:52 PM
Wand - LT
Riley - LG
Hodgdon - C
Wade - RG
Pitts - RT

wand & pitts are the best bookends we've got. riley & wade are the best maulers but entirely too slow to be on the ends. mckinney & weigert are pathetic. hodgdon could fall asleep out there and still be an upgrade.

edited for spelling

At least you are willing to put your 2 cents worth in. Most consider Wiegert our best lineman and I think he still is, but injuries have taken a toll. That's why I put him next to Wand. At least you agree to put Pitts on the other side.

Hervoyel
10-10-2005, 06:58 PM
2006

LT Brick (or bust! I'm really sick of this LT problem, hear that Bob? Fix it)
LG Pitts (Why would anyone move him at this point?)
C I don't know really, do we draft one? Sign one? Start one of ours?
RG Weigert for one more year if Milford Brown can't take his job away from him.
RT Wade or Wand. An open (and this time real) competition for the spot.

Scooter
10-10-2005, 07:00 PM
i'm deffinately not a weigert or mckinney fan, and if i had my way we'd eat their salaries and drop em both. i'm not really sure why you think folks agree that weigert is our best lineman, last post on the subject made it pretty clear that pitts and wade were the only ones worth a lick atleast in the posters' eyes. i like the way both riley and wade have held up when they're able to step into the defenders. it's when they're backpedalling is when they're getting burnt. pitts i agree and think he should switch to the right side, because he's much more aggressive than wand and quicker than wade so i think he'd be the best seal we have on the right side.

Honoring Earl 34
10-10-2005, 07:53 PM
:texflag: How does it work if you release someone under contract ?

infantrycak
10-10-2005, 07:54 PM
Why dump zone blocking? The one thing that actually works for us?

Ibar has no idea what he is talking about with zone blocking and refuses to listen to anyone trying to correct his misapprehensions. We do not give away our run/pass calls because of different gaps. The gaps are not even consistant all the time depending on the formation not the run/pass call. If Ibar would actually watch a game some time he would see on many plays the only way for the OL to close their gaps much more is to share a uniform. Zone blocking just happens to be primarily used by teams with mobile QB's--Plummer, Vick & Carr--it does not need a mobile QB any more than man blocking. The RB not the QB's style is much more important to the success of zone blocking--the RB needs to have good vision, hit holes with authority and have a good cutback style.

texasbrad
10-10-2005, 08:15 PM
just give the ball to 37 he can do it

eriadoc
10-10-2005, 08:35 PM
How does it work if you release someone under contract ?

I'm not promising I have this correct, but I *think* the team has to pay out any bonus money 100%, while remaining salary is cancelled. The bonus money then counts against the cap, and I am not even going to pretend to know how long/when it goes against the cap. IIRC, the guaranteed money has been at the heart of so many of the holdout issues. The players can be cut at any time by the team and get zero money aside from signing bonus, yet they cannot exit a contract so conveniently.

Perhaps someone a little more knowledgeable can clear it up.

outofhnd
10-11-2005, 01:07 AM
Zone Blocking Works

Just not with our passing plays....

Look at the teams running the zone block and now look at the passing style of offense that they use....

If you said West Coast offense, then you are correct. Now lets break down the west coast passing attack. Short precise routes that tend to pick up small amounts of field. Receivers uaually are in the same general area so the QB can progress through his reads and unload the ball quickly.

We use an offense that has more stay in the pocket and look over the field and then get rid of the ball plays with slower developing routes and timing routes where the rec needs to be where carr puts the ball.

So what do you do? scrap the zone or do you scrap the passing playbook? neither in the middle of the season that is certain. Look for one of those to change this offseason.

outofhnd
10-11-2005, 01:12 AM
Because of the zone blocking scheme is the reason the o-line has given up 27 sacks this year. That's why Bullock went untouched through the middle of the line to get his sack on SUN.

Actually, The Bullock play was not the zone block scheme, by that logic McKinney should have immediately picked him up, And let the other guy go, since bullock was first thru the gap. What should have happened is Carr audibles for DD to stay in and pick up Bullock, while mcKinney picks up the next guy like he did. The Quandry lies in with the fact that we cant have DD be a safety valve if he is picking up the blitz but if he can allow more time, Is there another option than DD in the flat? there is some food for thought...

touttail
10-11-2005, 04:44 AM
What about putting Riley back at Right Tackle. That's what he has played his career at and is used to that position , he was and is not a Left Tackle.

bobby 119C :brickwall

Runner
10-11-2005, 06:21 AM
Wand at LT
Wiegert at LG
Washington at C
Pitts at RG
Wade at RT

On a more serious note I think playing Pitts on the opposite side would take advantage of his tendency to be aggressive. Wand would be better served by having an older consistant player to help him when he gets in trouble. I think Wand would learn a great deal from Wiegert and he would gain the confidence necessary to play the position. Wiegert would not be competing for the LT position like Pitts. I think Pitts is a problem from a personnel point of view and doesn't help Wand. Washington held his own long ago and I think would be better than McKinney with the other beef beside him. We need to close down the gaps and protect our QB. Let DD find the holes which he does well in year 2. We would be alright, but they won't try something like this.

I know you will probably be critical, but I think it would be a wiser use of our personnel. I would alternate Hodgen with Washington to give him game experience. Riley could occasionally sub for Wiegert. To me Wiegert would be the key person in this lineup.

I wouldn't mind Washington getting some playing time at center to see how he compares to McKinney. Wand at left tackle is good, I'm sure I surprise no one by agreeing with that. I wouldn't switch Weigert and Pitts because I'd like to see them stay where they have the most experience. This leaves Wade at RT, and he needs to get better; perhaps Riley is a better choice there but I haven't seen much from him at LT that makes me believe so, even if RT is his natural position.

As far as Pitts not "helping" Wand, I don't think this is an issue. The O-line needs to work as a unit, and if Pitts is doing less then he could because he wants to play LT, then the coaches should handle that by holding him accountable for bad play. Let me reiterate that I don't think Pitts has sabotaged anything, and now that he's signed his new contract his LG/LT preference my be a moot point.

My other concern is who makes the line calls if McKinney isn't out there, but I don't know enough about the players and their knowledge to have an opinion on that.

If such a line-up change is made, the fans would need to let them play 2-3 games together to let the bench players adjust to being starters (especially with Freeney coming up) and do a fair evaluation after that. Expect some occasional lapses as the players come back up to game speed.

I think this would improve the pass blocking, and Davis's vermiculate running style would allow him to worm his way through the holes that this line could open. Their best running (average yards/carry) last year came behind Pitts and Wand anyway.

infantrycak
10-11-2005, 06:41 AM
Zone Blocking Works

Just not with our passing plays....

Look at the teams running the zone block and now look at the passing style of offense that they use....

If you said West Coast offense, then you are correct. Now lets break down the west coast passing attack. Short precise routes that tend to pick up small amounts of field. Receivers uaually are in the same general area so the QB can progress through his reads and unload the ball quickly.

You are making a coincidence into a conclusion. Yes the Broncos and Atlanta run zone blocking and have mobile QB's. Their passing game is picked not because they have zone blocking but because of the strengths/weaknesses of their QB's. Vick was originally in a more vertical passing offense but couldn't make the reads, held the ball too long, wasn't accurate down-field. They moved to a more west coast system to make things simpler/shorter for him since he basically isn't a very good QB. It didn't have anything to do with the zone blocking. Similarly, Plummer gets happy feet when asked to sit in a pocket and actually seems to get more accurate when passing on the run. Thus they have all sorts of designed roll-outs (things we have seen the Texans try to put in for Carr) and timing routes. Once again, the nature of their passing attack is based on the QB not the zone blocking. Now if you would like to construct an argument that Carr is more like Plummer than a pocket passer so we should go to a similar offense that might make some sense.

HardKnockTexan
10-11-2005, 07:31 AM
LT - Pitts
LG - Weigert
C - McKinney
RG - Wade
RT - Riley
TE - Wand

HardKnockTexan
10-11-2005, 07:37 AM
A lot of people seem to think that "zone blocking" is used on passing plays. It's a run blocking scheme where a lineman has a designated zone and picks up the nearest defender in their zone. Our offensive line executes this decently. Now I'm not sure if the gaps between the linemen widen or shorten when a run play is called (tipping our hat to the called play), but I really havent seen much of a problem with our run blocking. A lack of strength, speed and intelegence seem to be the key problems with our offensive line. Pretty much everything that makes an offensive line good we lack. Riley is strong but has no footspeed. Pitts is strong and has good speed but lacks diciplin ie. intelegence. McKinney has decent speed but lacks strength. Wade plays inconsistantly. There are times he'll get beat around the edge and times he'll get bullrushed and pushed aside. Weigert is the only one on the line that seems to have decent speed, good strength and diciplin.

On another note.. wasnt Seth Wand a TE comming out of college???

Runner
10-11-2005, 10:08 AM
On another note.. wasnt Seth Wand a TE comming out of college???


Nope - tackle. His first year here he did duty in the "jumbo" formation where he would line up as a tight end. As expecected, we were pretty effective runnning the ball in this set.

I don't think we used the jumbo fornation last year, but with Wand back on the bench they have run it this year in short yardage situations.

At least when they have Wand on the active roster.

BigBull17
10-11-2005, 10:23 AM
Actually, The Bullock play was not the zone block scheme, by that logic McKinney should have immediately picked him up, And let the other guy go, since bullock was first thru the gap. What should have happened is Carr audibles for DD to stay in and pick up Bullock, while mcKinney picks up the next guy like he did. The Quandry lies in with the fact that we cant have DD be a safety valve if he is picking up the blitz but if he can allow more time, Is there another option than DD in the flat? there is some food for thought...
Blitzing MLB's should be picked up by Mckinney. That is a double nose to LB, and he has to see it and pull away to block him. All he did is turn sideways and give him a better lane to run through. But i think thats more people making bad reads than design.

Ibar_Harry
10-11-2005, 07:15 PM
LT - Pitts
LG - Weigert
C - McKinney
RG - Wade
RT - Riley
TE - Wand

Thanks for posting another idea. It does seem like people can see that some movement in the O-line might not be bad. Using Wand as a TE might not be a bad move. I bet he could catch better than any TE we have now plus he can block. I still believe Wiegert would serve us better on the left than right. Once again, at least some looked at this in a positive way. All I will say is when we changed to the zone blocking scheme in year 3 are sacks began to sky rocket once again. Why? Personnel wasn't changed that much......