PDA

View Full Version : Blocking Scheme


Runner
10-26-2005, 12:04 PM
I'd like to throw this one out there for some discussion to see what people think.

After moving Pitts to LT, the coaches had Bruener stay in and double the end on a lot of plays with Chester against Seattle. It seemed pretty effective.

In the Colts game, they changed to a scheme where McKinney doubled at times from the inside or Davis chipped the end (Freeney usually) on the outside as he went out for the pass. On some occasions Freeny was tripled teamed by these players. Again, pretty effective from the blocking Freeney angle.

Topics for discussion:

What effect do you think these schemes had on the offense (Davis catching fewer passes last game, does the middle of the line get weakened, etc)? Did it further limit our already anemic passing game?

What do you think Chester thought of the move to LT, only to be shown by the coaches they didn't think he could do it one on one?

Did it strengthen or weaken the line overall? For instance, Pitts plays pretty well at guard - if they were going to go with frequent double or triple teams, should they have left Pitts at guard and had someone else play LT?

Do all lineman even like the RBs to chip? I've heard that many don't like it because the RB can hit the o-lineman's arm and cause him to lose "control" of the end.

In the second half of the Colts game, Freeney moved to tackle on a play, stunted with the end, and beat the double team scheme to the outside anyway. I thought that was a good example of the type of adjustment that we don't make.

Vinny
10-26-2005, 12:33 PM
The team has been helping the LT the entire season the same way, although it was useless with Riley over there. Also, everyone doubles Freeney most of the time anyway. Freeney is simply going to get his...he is a hall of fame talent. A chip block doesn't hurt a OL....it only helps to slow down the pass rusher.

Runner
10-26-2005, 01:22 PM
The team has been helping the LT the entire season the same way, although it was useless with Riley over there. Also, everyone doubles Freeney most of the time anyway. Freeney is simply going to get his...he is a hall of fame talent. A chip block doesn't hurt a OL....it only helps to slow down the pass rusher.

No doubt about Freeney - he's just about unstoppable. Watching him and Pace go at it two weeks ago was some entertaining football.

Texans Horror
10-26-2005, 01:35 PM
What effect do you think these schemes had on the offense (Davis catching fewer passes last game, does the middle of the line get weakened, etc)? Did it further limit our already anemic passing game?

What do you think Chester thought of the move to LT, only to be shown by the coaches they didn't think he could do it one on one?

Did it strengthen or weaken the line overall? For instance, Pitts plays pretty well at guard - if they were going to go with frequent double or triple teams, should they have left Pitts at guard and had someone else play LT?

Do all lineman even like the RBs to chip? I've heard that many don't like it because the RB can hit the o-lineman's arm and cause him to lose "control" of the end.



I assume that the Texans knew to prepare offensively for a running game (big surprise), but in this case, the history supports that DD has been effective running against the Colts (that's announcer-speak--I haven't researched it). So I don't think the game plan was to pass often to DD, and so the blocking schemes shifted with the game plan.

I think Pitts probably doesn't care about what the coaches think of him. He is just happy to get LT pay. I'd say he is happy to be playing, but like the rest of the linemen, he knows that he will never be benched because Capers is still trying to bring them together as a useless and incohesive line.

Did it strengthen or weaken the line? We had a strong running game in the first half, but we were never really airborne. So I would call it a sideways move rather than a plus or minus.

infantrycak
10-26-2005, 02:02 PM
I think Pitts probably doesn't care about what the coaches think of him. He is just happy to get LT pay.

Pitts' pay didn't go up when he got moved back to LT and it won't go down when he gets moved back to LG--he has a contract he signed while playing LG.

nunusguy
10-26-2005, 02:06 PM
Watching him and Pace go at it two weeks ago was some entertaining football.
And Pace without doubt got the best of it - I've never seen anybody play Freeney that well. He is unquestionably "the man" at LT. Many of us saw the
Ogden-Freeney matchup last year when Ogden looked like a Seth Wand playing Freeney so its striking to consider how much difference there is between the performances of Ogden and Pace vs Freeney. But then only one of them is a Hall-of-Famer.

Texans Horror
10-26-2005, 02:07 PM
Pitts' pay didn't go up when he got moved back to LT and it won't go down when he gets moved back to LG--he has a contract he signed while playing LG.

Well, then if he isn't getting a pay raise, this must be mud in his face. He must be super-ticked off. I wouldn't want to be told that I couldn't handle my job, so another person was being assigned to help me out.

Runner
10-26-2005, 02:15 PM
And Pace without doubt got the best of it - I've never seen anybody play Freeney that well. He is unquestionably "the man" at LT. Many of us saw the
Ogden-Freeney matchup last year when Ogden looked like a Seth Wand playing Freeney so its striking to consider how much difference there is between the performances of Ogden and Pace vs Freeney. But then only one of them is a Hall-of-Famer.

True, Ogden is considered a premier tackle in the league and Freeney handles him pretty well. It is hard to judge anyone by their play against Freeney. It does point out Pace's stature in the league though.

Back to one of my original questions - I think that using McKinney on the double team against the DE made good sense against Indy, since Indy doesn't do much blitzing. However, doing so against teams that have a tendency to blitz from the middle could have hurt, given that our rookie center and RBs would have been under more pressure to pick the right guy and block him effectively. The coaches planned it pretty well to start the game, but I think we didn't adjust to some of Indy's half time adjustments.

infantrycak
10-26-2005, 02:28 PM
Well, then if he isn't getting a pay raise, this must be mud in his face. He must be super-ticked off. I wouldn't want to be told that I couldn't handle my job, so another person was being assigned to help me out.

What the heck are you talking about? Pitts is under contract--he plays for that amount no matter what position he plays or who helps him out. By the way, every team in the league gives help to their LT when facing Freeney--no shame there.

Runner
10-26-2005, 02:36 PM
By the way, every team in the league gives help to their LT when facing Freeney--no shame there.

I didn't mean to imply there was any shame there. I think that Chester's competitive nature may have wanted a shot at him though.

It is interesting to note that while "every team in the league gives help..." as you said, the Texans didn't double team Freeney last year - it was Wand one-on-one, almost exclusively.

infantrycak
10-26-2005, 02:43 PM
I was responding to oso on the no shame thing.

Runner
10-26-2005, 02:46 PM
I was responding to oso on the no shame thing.

I thought so - but I wanted to make sure my original question wasn't misconstrued by anyone.

Texans Horror
10-26-2005, 04:35 PM
What the heck are you talking about? Pitts is under contract--he plays for that amount no matter what position he plays or who helps him out. By the way, every team in the league gives help to their LT when facing Freeney--no shame there.

The way I understand it, a guard is playing tackle, but still getting guard pay. So he is not playing LT for the money. As you said, he gets paid the same no matter what. This is the ole "we want you to assume more responsibilities, but don't expect a pay raise" ploy. But he is being told that somebody else is going to help him block his guy. Maybe he is fine with this. I have not spoken to the man and am not privy to his psychology. But, IMO, if you were told that you couldn't block your man, if you were told essentially that you cannot do your job, that somebody else was needed to help you turn that screw, make that block, whatever, then that would be mud in the face. Doesn't matter if everyone else in the world double-teams that dude. :tomato:

Vinny
10-26-2005, 04:37 PM
You make zero sense. Top tier hall of fame quality pass rushers are always doubled unless you have a hall of fame Tackle blocking him.

Texans Horror
10-26-2005, 04:49 PM
You make zero sense. Top tier hall of fame quality pass rushers are always doubled unless you have a hall of fame Tackle blocking him.

And the blocking schemes did a great job of protecting Carr this year, too. A young Wand took Freeney on one-on-one and survived. It would be interesting to see what he could have done if he had played.

infantrycak
10-26-2005, 06:12 PM
The way I understand it, a guard is playing tackle, but still getting guard pay. So he is not playing LT for the money. As you said, he gets paid the same no matter what. This is the ole "we want you to assume more responsibilities, but don't expect a pay raise" ploy.

Are they giving Wade the ole "we want to pay you top RT money to ride the bench, but don't expect a pay decrease" ploy? What you are saying just doesn't make sense. Pitts is under contract for a set amount for the next 5 years no matter what position he plays, whether it be well paid G, underpaid T, vastly overpaid kicker or underpaid CB. As for assistance, once again for emphasis, even the best LT's in the league get assistance against the best DE's in the league--no insult, just the way it is.

Texans Horror
10-26-2005, 07:24 PM
Are they giving Wade the ole "we want to pay you top RT money to ride the bench, but don't expect a pay decrease" ploy? What you are saying just doesn't make sense. Pitts is under contract for a set amount for the next 5 years no matter what position he plays, whether it be well paid G, underpaid T, vastly overpaid kicker or underpaid CB. As for assistance, once again for emphasis, even the best LT's in the league get assistance against the best DE's in the league--no insult, just the way it is.

Now you're making no sense. :)

Pitts as Kicker? I'll take Brown over him any day...

Look, I agree with you on all these points. Its just that to me, IMHO, being shifted to LT one week, then told that somebody would be helping me out the next week - the underlying message is that the LT can't do the job. And maybe he can't, but the point I'm trying to make (and apparrently failing at) is that the coaches are sending a message to Pitts. The message is: we don't think you can block. I have a bit of pride myself, and so I would read some subtext there (i.e., you can't block). It would tick me off a bit, but maybe the Texans line has lost its confidence and its pride adn it doesn't tick them off. That's just my opinion.

Vinny
10-26-2005, 07:37 PM
the underlying message is that the LT can't do the job. And maybe he can't, but the point I'm trying to make (and apparrently failing at) is that the coaches are sending a message to Pitts. The message is: we don't think you can block. I have a bit of pride myself, and so I would read some subtext there (i.e., you can't block). It would tick me off a bit, but maybe the Texans line has lost its confidence and its pride adn it doesn't tick them off. That's just my opinion.I think you have that backwards. LT is the toughest spot on the line to play (probably why it's the highest paid line position). Shifting Pitts to LT means that they think he is one of the better blockers on the team.

Texans Horror
10-27-2005, 02:57 AM
I think I know what Freeney must feel like being double-teamed...

So if this thread hasn't been killed already, why don't we try to steer it towards actual discussion? I know that some of the people on the boards have extensive O-line knowledge, and I would like to hear what they have to say about RBs chipping or whether they think the line was strengthened/weakened by the blocking scheme.

touttail
10-28-2005, 08:11 AM
After moving Pitts to LT, the coaches had Bruener stay in and double the end on a lot of plays with Chester against Seattle. It seemed pretty effective..


I don't know if you could call it effective. Wistrom was blowing by the OLine getting in the Texan backfield, hurrying Carr or sacking him. He set up homestead exemption in our backfield.

bobby 119C:brickwall

Runner
10-28-2005, 08:43 AM
I don't know if you could call it effective. Wistrom was blowing by the OLine getting in the Texan backfield, hurrying Carr or sacking him. He set up homestead exemption in our backfield.

bobby 119C:brickwall

He blew Rivers up once when he was in for Bruener. I don't think he got into the backfield when Bruener was in there and assigned to him, although he did when he was blocked by Pitts alone. I can't go watch it again because I've erased my copy of the game already.

Vinny
10-28-2005, 10:06 AM
I keep my game copies. Pitts did a pretty good job against Wistrom if the truth is to be told. Wistrom ended up with 2 tackles and one sack...on Rivers.