PDA

View Full Version : Denver Offense 101


Texans_Chick
06-22-2006, 07:36 PM
Fanblog: Texans "Changing the color of the Bronco playbook" (http://blogs.chron.com/fanblogtexans/2006/06/texans_changing_the_color_of_t_1.html)

You prolly know the basic stuff about the offense. But there is some other statistical stuff about the Denver offense that you might not know.

Just trying to talk about some next year stuff some.

Tex Trenches
06-22-2006, 07:50 PM
Hey Texans Chick I just sent you an e-mail write me back if you are intrested.

Señor Stan
06-22-2006, 07:52 PM
The one cut and go mantra for the runningbacks is telling. I think this is the problem Morency is having from what I have read.

Texan Asylum
06-22-2006, 08:48 PM
Nice read TC. I'm now officially too excited to wait any longer. :yahoo:

jmerog
06-22-2006, 09:02 PM
excellent as ussual, TC. You have a promising future as a sports journalist. I have enjoted your articles far more than those of justice or McClain. kudos

Texans_Chick
06-22-2006, 09:06 PM
Hey Texans Chick I just sent you an e-mail write me back if you are intrested.


Hmmm, didn't get it. I'll check again later. :)

Buffi2
06-22-2006, 09:49 PM
Thanks, TC! That certainly makes the draft and fa moves crystal clear. I can't wait for the season to start.
Go Texans!

Runner
06-22-2006, 10:08 PM
Seems pretty clear the coaches will evaluate run blocking skills in their lineman as well as pass blocking, which has been the main focus on this board.

thunderkyss
06-22-2006, 10:10 PM
I've been saying we'll avg between 25 & 30 points......

This "blog" gives me evidence to support this gut feeling.

Thanks TC....

TexanFan881
06-22-2006, 10:46 PM
I've been saying we'll avg between 25 & 30 points......

This "blog" gives me evidence to support this gut feeling.

Thanks TC....

If your gut feeling is right we're going to win a lot of games this year :redtowel:

clandestin
06-23-2006, 12:49 AM
I wonder how the sports editor feels after having a fan waltz in to the room to provide the best Texans coverage the chronicle has had to date. Focusing on a how a new Texans' offense and defense may look instead of having an unhealthy obsession with local college players and former NFL organizations--Texans_Chick you are a genius! Love the column, keep up the good work.

bayoudreamn
06-23-2006, 01:14 AM
I wonder how the sports editor feels after having a fan waltz in to the room to provide the best Texans coverage the chronicle has had to date. Focusing on a how a new Texans' offense and defense may look instead of having an unhealthy obsession with local college players and former NFL organizations--Texans_Chick you are a genius! Love the column, keep up the good work.

Great column TC. Fact and humor in one big gulp. Excellent idea....maybe while you're holding Jr. for ransom you can get a raise from the Chronicle. I think they should double your salary!

Texans_Chick
06-23-2006, 08:33 AM
I wonder how the sports editor feels after having a fan waltz in to the room to provide the best Texans coverage the chronicle has had to date. Focusing on a how a new Texans' offense and defense may look instead of having an unhealthy obsession with local college players and former NFL organizations--Texans_Chick you are a genius! Love the column, keep up the good work.


Great column TC. Fact and humor in one big gulp. Excellent idea....maybe while you're holding Jr. for ransom you can get a raise from the Chronicle. I think they should double your salary!

I am guessing that there isn't much noticing by the big boss sports editors of what I'm writing. There was actually a bigtime delay in posting my last post because the online editor was bombarded with all things Roger Clemens and Rice University baseball. Maybe that will change some come football season.

As for "doubling my salary," one of the first things that really stuck with me about learning multiplication as a kid is that if you take zero, and you multiply it with anything else, you always end up with zero. :cool:

thunderkyss
06-23-2006, 08:46 AM
Well maybe they'll triple your salary......

infantrycak
06-23-2006, 08:49 AM
Good article. Bronco Tim qualified his statement about not relying on the long ball, but to give an idea, here is a comparison of long gains:

The 1st number is 20+ yd receptions and the 2nd is 40+ yds. The order is by total passing yards.

Tom Brady 59/9
Trent Green 51/11
Brett Favre 40/7
Carson Palmer 43/9
Eli Manning 49/8
Kerry Collins 49/6
Peyton Manning 45/6
Drew Bledsoe 42/9
Drew Brees 46/4
Matt Hasselbeck 41/7
Jake Delhomme 44/13
Jake Plummer 44/8
Steve McNair 29/7
Mark Brunnell 36/9

Rather than having a noticeably absent long game--the Broncos were right in line with other teams with only NE standing out in the long ball category.

edo783
06-23-2006, 10:11 AM
Rather than having a noticeably absent long game--the Broncos were right in line with other teams with only NE standing out in the long ball category.

Kind of interesting about NE. Personally, they never come to mind if I were thinking about teams that go long a lot. Manning, Farve and maybe Cullpepper are the guys/teams that would be the one that one would expect, but not Brady and NE.

Ibar_Harry
06-23-2006, 11:55 AM
Kind of interesting about NE. Personally, they never come to mind if I were thinking about teams that go long a lot. Manning, Farve and maybe Cullpepper are the guys/teams that would be the one that one would expect, but not Brady and NE.

Despite what some think, may be Houston this year. We have the receivers to do it.....

Double Barrel
06-23-2006, 01:26 PM
The philosophy of the offense is to use SHORT, SAFE passing routes and balance these with a strong running game. The object is to control the ball for long periods of time and march methodically down the field. It doesn't rely on deep passing routes or Hall of Fame runners who can bust out for 40, 50, 60 yards at a clip. It's the SCHEME, not the personnel, that has made the Broncos successful.

Thank you. I've been trying to stress that fundamentals - ie. ball control with a strong running attack coupled with a consistent passing game - are the cornerstones of Denver's (and Kubiak's) gameplan.

Which leads me to a point about David Carr's role on the offense. We don't need him to be a superstar - one that is making huge passes and amazing runs. We need him to manage games, to read defenses and make the proper adjustment at the line, to see pressure and react accordingly. And I think DC is fully capable of playing that role on this team, and if anyone can teach him, it'll be Coach Kubiak.

But the running game is the first aspect, followed closely about protecting the pocket. Without that one-two tandem, the full effectiveness of this scheme falls apart.

Thanks, TC! Another excellent article on your part. :thumbup

GP
06-23-2006, 02:44 PM
I wonder how the sports editor feels after having a fan waltz in to the room to provide the best Texans coverage the chronicle has had to date. Focusing on a how a new Texans' offense and defense may look instead of having an unhealthy obsession with local college players and former NFL organizations--Texans_Chick you are a genius! Love the column, keep up the good work.

It's because she loves the Texans, and those other guys seem to be writing about the Texans because they "have to" in order to get a paycheck.

It's beyond me why a newspaper bankrolls guys like McClain who honestly offer less about our team than what one of our own fans has been able to piece together. Keep it up, TC.

TemeculaMike
06-23-2006, 04:37 PM
Fanblog: Texans "Changing the color of the Bronco playbook" (http://blogs.chron.com/fanblogtexans/2006/06/texans_changing_the_color_of_t_1.html)


I'll grant you its basically the West Coast offense. But I think your article misses an important element of what makes the Broncos offensive system work.

As you can see by my Avatar, I am a Chargers (and Texans) fan and have first hand knowledge of what makes the Broncos system work. If I were writing your article I would rewrite this line:

The Broncos-style offense is merely a modification of the so- called "West Coast Offense," popularized by Bill Walsh's San Francisco 49ers in the Nineties.

With this

The Broncos-style offense is merely a crossof the so- called "West Coast Offense," popularized by Bill Walsh's San Francisco 49ers in the Nineties and dirty play of the Oakland Raiders.

At the heart of the Broncos offensive system is the "cut-block" and "chop-block." The Broncos offensive line strikes fear in the hearts and minds of opposing defensive lineman due to their penchant to cut-block when defensive players are not looking. By teaching their offensive linement to hit defensive players below the knee "...opposing defensive players start worrying about their knees and ankles. They lose a bit of their aggression and speed since they’re paranoid that some lineman is going to creep up on them and take out their legs. This has the benefit of slowing down the entire defense." (source (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2005/03/31/ramblings/stat-analysis/2484/))


I hope the Texans are successful and Carr stops setting records for most sacks against. The one area the Texans can improve is the o-line play and Kubiak will certainly help. Just be prepared for longer games do to injury time-outs when the Texans offense is on the field.

AFD1717
06-23-2006, 05:39 PM
The Broncos-style offense is merely a crossof the so- called "West Coast Offense," popularized by Bill Walsh's San Francisco 49ers in the Nineties and dirty play of the Oakland Raiders.

At the heart of the Broncos offensive system is the "cut-block" and "chop-block." The Broncos offensive line strikes fear in the hearts and minds of opposing defensive lineman due to their penchant to cut-block when defensive players are not looking. By teaching their offensive linement to hit defensive players below the knee "...opposing defensive players start worrying about their knees and ankles. They lose a bit of their aggression and speed since they’re paranoid that some lineman is going to creep up on them and take out their legs. This has the benefit of slowing down the entire defense." (source (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2005/03/31/ramblings/stat-analysis/2484/))
[/INDENT]

I hope the Texans are successful and Carr stops setting records for most sacks against. The one area the Texans can improve is the o-line play and Kubiak will certainly help. Just be prepared for longer games do to injury time-outs when the Texans offense is on the field.

The Raiders aren't known for cut blocking, so I fail to see how The Broncos scheme is a cross between the West Coast Offense and the Raiders. If you would like to say that it is the west coast offense with a different blocking scheme then that would be a "modified west coast offense" just like TC said. The ZBS isn't meant to be cut blocks and it certainly isn't dirty play.

TemeculaMike
06-23-2006, 06:21 PM
The Raiders aren't known for cut blocking, so I fail to see how The Broncos scheme is a cross between the West Coast Offense and the Raiders. If you would like to say that it is the west coast offense with a different blocking scheme then that would be a "modified west coast offense" just like TC said. The ZBS isn't meant to be cut blocks and it certainly isn't dirty play.

My statement was "dirty play of the Raiders" not cut-blocks of the Raiders. You are right, the Raiders are not known for cut-blocking per se. The Raiders are legendary for "dirty play." The Broncos have taken the cut block to a whole new level. The "zone blocking" scheme employed by the Broncos uses the cut and chop block to knock defenders to the ground. 95% of the time the cut-blocks used by the Broncos are legal and the defender sees it coming and can protect himself accordingly. Its the other 5% that borders on dirty and/or illegal play.

The Broncos came under withering criticism from coaches, players and ABC announcers Al Michaels and John Madden after offensive lineman George Foster broke Cincinnati defensive lineman Tony Williams' ankle Monday night by diving at his lower legs. Williams had surgery Wednesday and is expected to take six months to recover.

Technically, the cut block — a block below an opponent's waist — was legal because Foster's helmet was in front of Williams at contact. But it was vicious, too, in part because Williams didn't see it coming. It also looked unnecessary given that the play was moving away from the spot where the block was made.

"Although people may say it's not illegal, it doesn't necessarily have to be a part of the game," Bengals coach Marvin Lewis said. "There was no reason to block a man low like that when he has his back basically turned to you. There is no reason to chop the guy like that." (source (http://www.coloradoan.com/news/coloradoanpublishing/Football2004/Broncos/season/102804_angrycoach.html))

According to a December 1, 2004, San Diego Union Tribune article called "Cutting careers (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041201/news_1s1broncos.html)":

A list compiled by the Denver Post blamed cut blocks for at least five significant injuries to Broncos opponents since 2001:


Oct. 21, 2001: Chargers defensive lineman Maa Tanuvasa suffers a broken ankle on a cut block by left tackle Matt Lepsis.

Oct. 28, 2001: New England linebacker Bryan Cox blames a broken leg on a clip by right guard Dan Neil, who denies hitting Cox.

Dec. 1, 2002: Chargers defensive tackle Jamal Williams suffers a dislocated ankle when blocked from behind by guard Steve Herndon.

Sept. 19, 2004: Jacksonville defensive end Paul Spicer's leg is broken on a low block by Lepsis.

Oct. 25, 2004: Cincinnati defensive tackle Tony Williams suffers a broken ankle after a cut block by right tackle George Foster.


Here are some of the Broncos' "cut block" victims:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041201/images/2004-12-01cutblock.jpg
September 19, 2004 victim (see list above)

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041201/images/injuredbolt.jpg
December 1, 2002 victim (see list above)

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041201/images/injuredbolt2.jpg
October 21, 2001 victim (see list above and note M. Tanuvasa career was ended on this Bronco dirty play -
Lepsis was fined $15,000)

My point here is just to point out that the Broncos offensive play depends heavily on zone blocking which requires cut-blocks to be effective. Cut-blocks are dirty (but not illegal). If the NFL makes the cut-block illegal, as Gene Upshaw (NFLPA President) has urged (http://espn.go.com/chrismortensen/s/2001/1101/1271999.html), the Broncos and all other teams using zone blocking will be in trouble.

aj.
06-23-2006, 06:24 PM
Cut blocks are legal as long as the defender is within the 3 yard blocking zone and not engaged. Chop blocks (the same block from the side with the helmet behind the leg, or from the rear) are not.

mancunian
06-23-2006, 06:25 PM
Fanblog: Texans "Changing the color of the Bronco playbook" (http://blogs.chron.com/fanblogtexans/2006/06/texans_changing_the_color_of_t_1.html)

You prolly know the basic stuff about the offense. But there is some other statistical stuff about the Denver offense that you might not know.

Just trying to talk about some next year stuff some.

Great article TC.

Can't wait for next year.

Thinking of Kubiaks overall philosopy I guess it will be summed as "run the ball, stop the run".

TwinSisters
06-23-2006, 06:40 PM
I am with Lewis, Upshaw, and the myriad of other guys in the NFL. The cut block is not necessary in the NFL. It's like the head slap and stick'um to me. Sure they help you out, but you don't need to do it and it doesn't add to the game.

It's not like I don't like all the extra dirty stuff that went on in the past, but I like it like that... in the past. The game is still fairly tough without the cheap shots.

---

I don't agree that we will be in trouble if the cut block rule is ever modified. It's not the only way to get things done, and Denver didn't win a Super Bowl almost ten years ago now just because of a cut block.

---

The Packers are inserting it into their scheme now. They don't practice it on their own players though!

http://www.packersnews.com/archives/news/pack_26416899.shtml

TemeculaMike
06-23-2006, 07:09 PM
I don't agree that we will be in trouble if the cut block rule is ever modified. It's not the only way to get things done, and Denver didn't win a Super Bowl almost ten years ago now just because of a cut block.


Cut-blocks weren't necessary because they were cheating on a much grander scale by illegally defering compensation to Elway and T.Davis at the time. The illegal deferals allowed the team to keep Elway and T. Davis and/or sign additional players during their Superbowl seasons.

On September 16, 2004, the NFL stripped the Denver Broncos of their third round draft pick in the 2005 NFL Draft and fined the team $1,000,000.00 as a punishment for circumventing the salary cap in 1996-1998.

The Broncos won the following Superbowls:

XXXIII Jan. 31, 1999 Denver 34, Atlanta 19 (1998 Season)
XXXII Jan. 25, 1998 Denver 31, Green Bay 24 (1997 Season)

I wonder how they would have done if their starting QB and RB were not paid in violation of the salary cap (he said rhetorically)?

TwinSisters
06-23-2006, 08:06 PM
The thing with the cap violation is that Taglibue ruled it as nothing that gave the Broncos an unfair advantage or "competitive advantage"... I think that is the words he used.

I do know that the Raiders, Seahawks, Broncos have all done some tricky stuff to massage the cap for extra benefits in the past too. However none of them have resulted in a really big deal ( yet ).

I wouldn't be surprised if I found something going on in San Diego though too.

bayoudreamn
06-23-2006, 08:13 PM
:yahoo: Well maybe they'll triple your salary......

bayoudreamn
06-23-2006, 08:17 PM
Kind of interesting about NE. Personally, they never come to mind if I were thinking about teams that go long a lot. Manning, Farve and maybe Cullpepper are the guys/teams that would be the one that one would expect, but not Brady and NE.

I think teams that exercise exceptional ball control have a tendency to be highly successful with the long ball because I don't think it's part of the gameplanning. Defenses have to be so aggressive in trying to limit the short game that they often get burned by these teams and it often ends up being a really disastrous play for them. So it doesn't surprise me that NE would be a leader in this category without people really noticing them getting there.

AFD1717
06-23-2006, 08:20 PM
My statement was "dirty play of the Raiders" not cut-blocks of the Raiders. You are right, the Raiders are not known for cut-blocking per se. The Raiders are legendary for "dirty play." The Broncos have taken the cut block to a whole new level. The "zone blocking" scheme employed by the Broncos uses the cut and chop block to knock defenders to the ground. 95% of the time the cut-blocks used by the Broncos are legal and the defender sees it coming and can protect himself accordingly. Its the other 5% that borders on dirty and/or illegal play.

I guess we have different definitions of "dirty play." I consider dirty play to be intentionally trying to injure another player. I don't think anyone in the Broncos or Texans organization would do anything like that. I am curious where you got your statistics from. I'd be very suprised if the Broncos were called for chop blocks on 5% of their plays.

bayoudreamn
06-23-2006, 08:20 PM
The Raiders aren't known for cut blocking, so I fail to see how The Broncos scheme is a cross between the West Coast Offense and the Raiders. If you would like to say that it is the west coast offense with a different blocking scheme then that would be a "modified west coast offense" just like TC said. The ZBS isn't meant to be cut blocks and it certainly isn't dirty play.

This has been discussed alot in the NFL by different players, coaches, and media. Nothing has been done about it because even though there has been some vocal complaining, there hasn't been any compelling evidence to support the argument that Broncos' personal promote illegal blocking.

bigbrewster2000
06-23-2006, 08:21 PM
I think teams that exercise exceptional ball control have a tendency to be highly successful with the long ball because I don't think it's part of the gameplanning. Defenses have to be so aggressive in trying to limit the short game that they often get burned by these teams and it often ends up being a really disastrous play for them. So it doesn't surprise me that NE would be a leader in this category without people really noticing them getting there.
Very good point. I whole heartedly agree.

TemeculaMike
06-23-2006, 09:22 PM
I guess we have different definitions of "dirty play." I consider dirty play to be intentionally trying to injure another player. I don't think anyone in the Broncos or Texans organization would do anything like that. I am curious where you got your statistics from. I'd be very suprised if the Broncos were called for chop blocks on 5% of their plays.

Dirty play in my book is conduct that (1) is illegal, or (2) violates the spirit of the rules (even though it may not be technically legal). The spirit of the rules are designed to prevent serious injury. With zone blocking the offensive players are taught to cut-block (aim for the knees or ankles). I contend (as does Gene Upshaw) that cut-blocking violates the spirit of the rules because it creates a significant risk of injury to the defensive players - especially when the cut-blocks are practiced against defenders who can't see the career ending move coming.

My off-the-top-of-my-head statistic did not claim 5% of the plays, rather of those plays where the Broncos cut-block (note, not all plays call for cut-blocks (i.e. pass plays)) a large percentage of the blocks border on illegal. I came up with these estimated statistics based on the trail of injured players that lay in the wake of Broncos games.

Because my favorite team plays the Broncos twice every year, I see the dirty (and often uncalled penalties) through my "blue and gold" colored glasses.

Let me bottom line it, the Bronco's zone blocking scheme requires cut-blocks to be effective. Rather than engaging defenders above the waist, the goal is to take the defender out of the play by using cut-blocks whenever necessary. A defender has a much greater chance of serious season or career ending injury when a cut-block is applied for the simple fact the knees and ankles are not designed to give way when a 300+ pound offensive lineman drives his weight on a defenders knee/ankle.

ent
06-23-2006, 11:17 PM
Before the draft, people were discussing if Bush was going to be taken, I told them no way. They'll model the team after Denver. Denver doesn't use premium running backs. They use 3 or 4 decent backs and platoon them.
They also play run and dink.

It's really a cross by the way between the 49 West Coast Offense and the scheme used by the late 80's Giants....

CloakNNNdagger
06-24-2006, 12:27 AM
Looks like we're not the only ones to begin incorporating the cut blockThe Packers are adding it. (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=436466)

CloakNNNdagger
06-24-2006, 12:44 AM
Cut blocking (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10913767/) is an ongoing emotionally stirring subject.

disaacks3
06-24-2006, 01:05 AM
Let me bottom line it, the Bronco's zone blocking scheme requires cut-blocks to be effective. Rather than engaging defenders above the waist, the goal is to take the defender out of the play by using cut-blocks whenever necessary. Whether the success of the Denver scheme REQUIRES the use of Cut Blocks is still up for debate. You'd be hard-pressed (even w/ the blue/gold tinted glasses) to show that it CAN'T be effective without their use. :crutch:

Don't get me wrong, this isn't a NEW subject in the NFL (the Denver O-Line causing serious injury), but who says it HAS to be that way to work? I tend to think the Broncos can still be quite successful a good percentage of the time without having to resort to this.

Besides, this is HOUSTON, and what better notion for Kubiak to hang his hat on than a 'cleaner' variation of the same blocking scheme? :texans:

The Pencil Neck
06-24-2006, 02:44 PM
Good article. Bronco Tim qualified his statement about not relying on the long ball, but to give an idea, here is a comparison of long gains:

The 1st number is 20+ yd receptions and the 2nd is 40+ yds. The order is by total passing yards.

Tom Brady 59/9
Trent Green 51/11
Jake Delhomme 44/13
Jake Plummer 44/8

Rather than having a noticeably absent long game--the Broncos were right in line with other teams with only NE standing out in the long ball category.

Actually, it looks to me like the Panthers and Chiefs are the ones that really stand out with Denver in line with NE.

bigbrewster2000
06-24-2006, 04:22 PM
Actually, it looks to me like the Panthers and Chiefs are the ones that really stand out with Denver in line with NE.

How do you figure? In total NE had more 20/40 yd+ plays than the others did. Plus NE had more total passing yards than everyone else. Which was the original point of the post.

Wolf
06-24-2006, 05:51 PM
Dirty play in my book is conduct that (1) is illegal, or (2) violates the spirit of the rules (even though it may not be technically legal). The spirit of the rules are designed to prevent serious injury. With zone blocking the offensive players are taught to cut-block (aim for the knees or ankles). I contend (as does Gene Upshaw) that cut-blocking violates the spirit of the rules because it creates a significant risk of injury to the defensive players - especially when the cut-blocks are practiced against defenders who can't see the career ending move coming.

My off-the-top-of-my-head statistic did not claim 5% of the plays, rather of those plays where the Broncos cut-block (note, not all plays call for cut-blocks (i.e. pass plays)) a large percentage of the blocks border on illegal. I came up with these estimated statistics based on the trail of injured players that lay in the wake of Broncos games.

Because my favorite team plays the Broncos twice every year, I see the dirty (and often uncalled penalties) through my "blue and gold" colored glasses.

Let me bottom line it, the Bronco's zone blocking scheme requires cut-blocks to be effective. Rather than engaging defenders above the waist, the goal is to take the defender out of the play by using cut-blocks whenever necessary. A defender has a much greater chance of serious season or career ending injury when a cut-block is applied for the simple fact the knees and ankles are not designed to give way when a 300+ pound offensive lineman drives his weight on a defenders knee/ankle.


I though Shanahan had a problem with disclosing injuries or the extent of injuries to the NFL office..

as far as the cut block.. if the NFL thought this was really bad, rule changes would be in effect pretty quick.. I mean look at Roy Williams and his horse collar tackle.. didn't take long to outlaw that.

CloakNNNdagger
06-24-2006, 07:00 PM
Dirty play in my book is conduct that (1) is illegal, or (2) violates the spirit of the rules (even though it may not be technically legal). The spirit of the rules are designed to prevent serious injury. With zone blocking the offensive players are taught to cut-block (aim for the knees or ankles). I contend (as does Gene Upshaw) that cut-blocking violates the spirit of the rules because it creates a significant risk of injury to the defensive players - especially when the cut-blocks are practiced against defenders who can't see the career ending move coming.

My off-the-top-of-my-head statistic did not claim 5% of the plays, rather of those plays where the Broncos cut-block (note, not all plays call for cut-blocks (i.e. pass plays)) a large percentage of the blocks border on illegal. I came up with these estimated statistics based on the trail of injured players that lay in the wake of Broncos games.

*************************

Cut blocking is not only used in running situations. It is also incorporated in pass blocking to open up passing lanes. I feel that this technique, intentionally or unintentionally does significantly contribute to injury statistics. Unfortunately, if you watch enough games carefully, you realize that even though many teams complain about it, most all of them utilize it.........and that may very well be why the subject recurrently crops in at the NFL meetings without any action.

Lucky
06-24-2006, 08:06 PM
Dec. 1, 2002: Chargers defensive tackle Jamal Williams suffers a dislocated ankle when blocked from behind by guard Steve Herndon.
I saw this play, and it had nothing to do with cut blocking. Herndon chased Williams 10 yards down the field, and clipped him from behind. After the game, Shanahan ripped Herndon in his press conference, saying that there is no room in the NFL for that type of play. To toss this play into a discussion on cut blocking is completely extraneous. And it makes me question whether cut blocking really played a role in the other injuries.

Plus, where is the data on defensive line injuries caused by the other NFL teams? Is 5 injuries over a 4 season span a huge amount in regards to the rest of the NFL? Without supporting data, I don't think there is a real case to be made against the Broncos' blocking scheme.

The Pencil Neck
06-24-2006, 09:34 PM
How do you figure? In total NE had more 20/40 yd+ plays than the others did. Plus NE had more total passing yards than everyone else. Which was the original point of the post.

Carolina and KC had more 40+ plays than anyone else did. NE had significantly more 20+ plays but when it came to 40+, they were average.

TemeculaMike
06-26-2006, 02:57 PM
I saw this play, and it had nothing to do with cut blocking. Herndon chased Williams 10 yards down the field, and clipped him from behind. After the game, Shanahan ripped Herndon in his press conference, saying that there is no room in the NFL for that type of play. To toss this play into a discussion on cut blocking is completely extraneous. And it makes me question whether cut blocking really played a role in the other injuries.

Plus, where is the data on defensive line injuries caused by the other NFL teams? Is 5 injuries over a 4 season span a huge amount in regards to the rest of the NFL? Without supporting data, I don't think there is a real case to be made against the Broncos' blocking scheme.

I agree that what happened to Williams was a clip because it was from behind. The same block from the side or the front would have been a legal cut-block.

This is precisely the problem in my book. Players that are taught the cut-block, sometimes use it when they shouldn't. While the Williams injury was a clear violation of the rules, a number of defense players will be injured every season because they didn't see the cut-block coming.

Given the speed of the game, its only natural for a player to mess-up (once and a while) and use a technique incorrectly. Heck, we see it all the time on Special Teams - how many great returns have been wiped from the record book because some idiot special teamer held or blocked somebody in the back. Mistakes happen and when a cut-block is improperly used, a defensive players season ends.

TemeculaMike
06-26-2006, 03:06 PM
*************************

Cut blocking is not only used in running situations. It is also incorporated in pass blocking to open up passing lanes. I feel that this technique, intentionally or unintentionally does significantly contribute to injury statistics. Unfortunately, if you watch enough games carefully, you realize that even though many teams complain about it, most all of them utilize it.........and that may very well be why the subject recurrently crops in at the NFL meetings without any action.

Presently, there are only two teams that employ the zone blocking scheme almost exclusively. Denver and Atlanta. Next season, Green Bay and the Texans will also adopt the scheme. (Note, just about every NFL team will use a zone blocking scheme along with man) Cut-blocking is much more prevelant in a zone blocking scheme Denver and the Falcons use, therefore, we can expect more injuries next year due to cut-blocks with Houston and GB using it. I imagine, the NFL will have to take a serious look at the practice now that more teams will be employing the technique.

El Tejano
06-26-2006, 03:09 PM
Hey, whatever gets DLs and LBs dancing on their tippy toes when trying to crush my QB.

Lucky
06-26-2006, 03:15 PM
...we can expect more injuries next year due to cut-blocks with Houston and GB using it. I imagine, the NFL will have to take a serious look at the practice now that more teams will be employing the technique.
Do you have any statistics to back this up? What's the average number of injuries to d-linemen when playing the Broncos or Falcons as opposed to the league average? Just saying it's so doesn't make it true.

infantrycak
06-26-2006, 03:29 PM
Presently, there are only two teams that employ the zone blocking scheme almost exclusively. Denver and Atlanta.

Houston has been a primary zone blocking team for 2 years already.

El Tejano
06-26-2006, 03:31 PM
Yeah but our Oline hasn't counted for the last 4 years.

nunusguy
06-26-2006, 04:47 PM
I agree that what happened to Williams was a clip because it was from behind. The same block from the side or the front would have been a legal cut-block.
This is precisely the problem in my book. Players that are taught the cut-block, sometimes use it when they shouldn't. While the Williams injury was a clear violation of the rules, a number of defense players will be injured every season because they didn't see the cut-block coming.
Given the speed of the game, its only natural for a player to mess-up (once and a while) and use a technique incorrectly. Heck, we see it all the time on Special Teams - how many great returns have been wiped from the record book because some idiot special teamer held or blocked somebody in the back. Mistakes happen and when a cut-block is improperly used, a defensive players season ends.
A block behind the offensive player is always a clip whether below the knees, or in the shoulder blades, wherever. There's a clear distinction between a
clip and a cut-block. Some cut'blocks are legal, clips never are.

powerfuldragon
06-26-2006, 04:50 PM
what's a cut block?

real
06-26-2006, 04:55 PM
A block behind the offensive player is always a clip whether below the knees, or in the shoulder blades, wherever. There's a clear distinction between a
clip and a cut-block. Some cut'blocks are legal, clips never are.

"clips" aren't legal, but it is legal to cut a d-lineman from behind within three yards...or something like that

Runner
06-26-2006, 04:58 PM
what's a cut block?

Here are 1000 words on cut blocking:

http://www.wvmetronews.com/images/pics/wc13091005.jpg

TemeculaMike
06-26-2006, 05:18 PM
Do you have any statistics to back this up? What's the average number of injuries to d-linemen when playing the Broncos or Falcons as opposed to the league average? Just saying it's so doesn't make it true.

I believe this article was posted already in this thread (not sure): Jagodzinski adds cut blocks (http://www.packersnews.com/archives/news/pack_26416899.shtml).

The Packers have practiced cut blocking several times this offseason in their minicamps and organized team activities, something they rarely, if ever, did under their last three coaching staffs. The offensive linemen practice it by running and diving at low-placed blocking dummies.

The cut blocking has caused controversy the past several years when defensive linemen have sustained knee and leg injuries against Denver and Atlanta, the two teams that ran Gibbs’ system before the Packers and Houston joined the group this offseason.

In December, for instance, Carolina defensive ends Julius Peppers and Mike Rucker each sustained a sprained ankle when cut blocked by Atlanta linemen. In 2004, Cincinnati defensive tackle Tony Williams and Jacksonville defensive end Paul Spicer sustained season-ending leg injuries on back-side cut blocks by Denver linemen.

***

The only live cut blocking the Packers will do is in games, because even in training camp, teams don’t cut block their own players. With the blocking dummies, they can simulate the technique of a cut block, but they can’t simulate hitting a moving target.

Statistics? No. To my knowledge this type of statistic is not readily available and I'm not crazy enough to compile it myself. My opinion on this issue is formed from the wisdom of NFL offensive coordinators (and the President of the NFLPA, and Joe Theisman (http://proxy.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=theismann_joe&id=1912145)) who are not crazy enough to practice cut-blocks on their own players. Its fairly clear that cut-blocks increase the risk of injury, otherwise, there is no reason not to practice it against your own teammates.

Lucky
06-26-2006, 05:30 PM
Its fairly clear that cut-blocks increase the risk of injury, otherwise, there is no reason not to practice it against your own teammates.
If you've ever attended a NFL practice, you know that teams rarely go live in blocking and tackling. Again, we're talking about a cut block, a block everyone who played in youth league on up has executed. Not a chop block.

The best way to eliminate the chop block is to stiffen the penalties and fines against the chop block. Not legislate against a legit blocking technique. If defensive linemen are allowing offensive linemen to get into their legs, shame on the d-linemen. You're supposed to stay low in the game of football.

TemeculaMike
06-26-2006, 05:35 PM
Houston has been a primary zone blocking team for 2 years already.

There are multiple types of zone blocking schemes. What we are talking about in the Gibbs style zone-blocking scheme that Denver has used for the last 10 years and Atlanta used last year. For the 2005 campaign, only two teams used the Gibbs zone-blocking scheme. This year that number will increase to 4, with Green Bay and Houston (likely) employing the cut-block as a primary tactic to remove defenders from a play.

While every team zone blocks - only two zone block the way Gibbs teaches it. A fundamental component of the Gibbs' scheme is the cut-block. Most teams use a cut block as an option of last resort - the Gibbs zone block scheme uses the cut block much more frequently.

Cut-blocks go against standard o-line wisdom, which is "stay on your feet." The Gibbs style zone blocking scheme uses the cut block for the sole purpose of freeing up running lanes. It is credited with allowing Denver to field 1,000+ yards rushers each year.

real
06-26-2006, 06:00 PM
If you've ever attended a NFL practice, you know that teams rarely go live in blocking and tackling. Again, we're talking about a cut block, a block everyone who played in youth league on up has executed. Not a chop block.

The best way to eliminate the chop block is to stiffen the penalties and fines against the chop block. Not legislate against a legit blocking technique. If defensive linemen are allowing offensive linemen to get into their legs, shame on the d-linemen. You're supposed to stay low in the game of football.

Chop block...Cut block....It's the same thing....

And as far as d-line getting cut......It happens...even the best of the best get cut...If all they did was worry about getting cut, IMO they wouldn't be very effective

Historyhorn
06-26-2006, 06:22 PM
A chop and a cut block are not the same things. A chop block is blocking a defender below the waist while he is engaged with another offensive player. It is never legal and is always considered a dirty play.

A cut block is a block below the waist, from the front (ie the defender can see you). It is usually legal in all circumstances except when executed from behind or via a "crackback" by someone who lines up outside and then comes back to cut a defender who doesn't know its coming. You also can't cut block on kick, fumble, or interception returns.

The cut block is a legal technique that most folks who have played football know and are familiar with executing.

The rub comes from Denver kind of pushing the envelope on blocks below the waist. Their cutblocks generally don't take place at the point of attack, but in eliminating the pursuit. That's what makes the 1 cutback slashing style so effective for Denver RB's. The RB needs the vision to pick the hole on the cutback and then haul butt N & S, because the backside pursuit will be on the ground.

From the defensive perspective, if the point of attack is away from you, you flow toward the ball parallel to the line of scrimmage. The Denver OL take those flowing DL and Backers and cut block as they flow away. The Defenders are rarely looking for the block as they are keying on the play moving away. The blocks are usually from the side with the helmet in front of the knee. The RB moves toward the point of attack and then makes his move to the backside where there should be some DL and Backers, but if the play works right, those guys are on the ground, leaving a lane into the secondary.

This is highly effective in that players pursuing the play become wary of the cut blocks as they flow to the ball. The pursuit slows down, and creates more opportunities for that single cutback.

It skates the edge of being legal, but it certainly has proven to be effective. I'll be interested to see if the Texans employ that same "zone blocking" philosophy or style as employed in Denver. If so, get ready for some complaints from opponents, but also get ready for D Davis to have a record breaking year.

Go Texans

Double Barrel
06-26-2006, 06:24 PM
If it's legal, do it. We need all the help we can get.

The cut block may not be nice, but it is a valid technique until the NFL decides to outlaw it.

real
06-26-2006, 06:28 PM
A chop and a cut block are not the same things. A chop block is blocking a defender below the waist while he is engaged with another offensive player. It is never legal and is always considered a dirty play.


That statement is not true...They are the same thing...Cutting while a defender is engaged is a hi-low block...

infantrycak
06-26-2006, 06:34 PM
That statement is not true...They are the same thing...Cutting while a defender is engaged is a hi-low block...

No--a chop block and cut block are two different things--one not legal and one that is. aj has explained it many times--doesn't seem to make a difference.

Lucky
06-26-2006, 06:38 PM
Chop block...Cut block....It's the same thing....
No, it's not. A cut block is a block below the waist where the blocker's head is in front of the defender. A chop block is a block below the waist from behind or to the side of the defender OR a block below the waist against a defender already engaged by another blocker.

This year that number will increase to 4, with Green Bay and Houston (likely) employing the cut-block as a primary tactic to remove defenders from a play.
The cut block is used mainly on the backside of the play, against defenders attempting to pursue. It's not the primary blocking technique at the point of attack.

The best thing the cut block does for the Texans offense is that it gives the opposing defense just another thing to think about. I haven't seen the preponderance of evidence that cut blocking causes X more injuries than other blocking techniques. I think the reason cut blocking bothers defenses is because, as TemeculaMike pointed out, it is practiced by only a handful of teams. Most of these linemen are used to getting up out of their stance and moving upfield. They're not used to staying low and taking on the low block. Mario Williams was targeted with low blocks earlier this season at NC State. It wasn't until he learned to defeat these blocks that Mario's season turned super.

infantrycak
06-26-2006, 06:39 PM
There are multiple types of zone blocking schemes. What we are talking about in the Gibbs style zone-blocking scheme that Denver has used for the last 10 years and Atlanta used last year. For the 2005 campaign, only two teams used the Gibbs zone-blocking scheme. This year that number will increase to 4, with Green Bay and Houston (likely) employing the cut-block as a primary tactic to remove defenders from a play.

Houston has been running zone blocking for 2 years. What they have not been doing effectively is sealing off the back side edge--which is sometimes, but by no means always done but cut blocking. It is a vast overstatement to say cut blocking is the hallmark or primary part of zone blocking. Zone blocking is a concept of movement and engagement along the entire line and from the back field with the RB not having a designed running lane. The cut block is only used to seal off the back side edge of the play to provide the RB with a cut back running lane.

TemeculaMike
06-26-2006, 07:05 PM
It looks like we are all on the same page - we just disagree with the consequences of the Gibbs style zone blocking scheme. Ultimately, I think we are just one injured "star" player away from having the block outlawed. A number of prominent figures around the league are already calling for its removal from the game.

If it gets banned, teams that are centered around "tripping" up backside pursuit with the cut-block by using smaller/quicker o-linemen will be in a world of hurt.

Lucky
06-26-2006, 07:24 PM
If it gets banned, teams that are centered around "tripping" up backside pursuit with the cut-block by using smaller/quicker o-linemen will be in a world of hurt.
I don't see something that's been taught from day 1 being banned. But if so, I don't see a huge impact on the Texans in the future. Both linemen the team drafted this year (Spencer & Winston) are huge. And 2 of the young vets on the team, Pitts & Wand, are both 320+ lbs. I don't see a big concern either way.

CloakNNNdagger
06-26-2006, 08:26 PM
I don't see something that's been taught from day 1 being banned. But if so, I don't see a huge impact on the Texans in the future. Both linemen the team drafted this year (Spencer & Winston) are huge. And 2 of the young vets on the team, Pitts & Wand, are both 320+ lbs. I don't see a big concern either way.

You remember Pink Floyd's Brick in the Wall? Well, it looks like evertime you turn around, we've added "just another brick in the wall"..........another frigging BIG brick. Indeed we will be playing a "variation" of the Denver offense in that, when we eventually get it all together, we will have an array of MOBILE and HUGE O linemen probably giving us the BIGGEST, BADDEST, HARDEST "WALL" in the NFL.........with or without cut blocking.

aj.
06-26-2006, 08:55 PM
At this point I'd settle for adequate.