PDA

View Full Version : With Alex Gibbs gone, runningbacks are coached different


Brisco_County
08-30-2010, 11:42 PM
Here's Lance Zierlein's observation on how our RB's are being coached with Alex Gibbs gone:

Alex Gibbs is notorious for wanting the running backs to think "cutback lanes" when he is in charge of the running game, while new offensive coordinator Rick Dennison clearly prefers his running backs to think "outside" first and react to cutback lanes. Too often last year, you could see Steve Slaton hesitate as he waited for cutback lanes to develop, and that ended in disaster. This year, Arian Foster is more than happy to ride the outside zone over the left tackle and go with the flow outside. Defenses were defending the Texans from inside out last year, taking the cutback lanes away. That will all change this year now that they are more willing to challenge the edge with their outside zone game.

Read his other observations (http://blogs.chron.com/fantasyfootball/2010/08/the_texans_are_coaching_the_ru_1.html#comments) too.

Zierlein is saying that defenses had an answer to zone blocking by running defenders inside and closing the lanes, so we're adjusting by riding the outside and forcing defenses to relax the inside pressure.

So what adjustments should we expect defenses to make? I imagine a 3-4 defense would be happy to put their OLB's on the line for most downs where they can blitz, cover the outside, or drop back into coverage. A 4-3 will bring up a corner to cover the outside. I imagine we would exploit both of these schemes with screens and boot legs.

So does this indicate the end of the Alex Gibbs ZBS in the NFL, and will our new approach be consistently effective even after enough film of it is out there? I certainly hope so. I took Foster in the 5th this weekend.

Brisco_County
08-30-2010, 11:47 PM
Did I exceed my thread title length? I think it cut off my adverb and made it an adjective. Different = differently.

Carr Bombed
08-30-2010, 11:50 PM
Did I exceed my thread title length? I think it cut off my adverb and made it an adjective. Different = differently.

This is the South...."Runningbacks are coached different" flies. :)

Hervoyel
08-30-2010, 11:51 PM
I think all it means is that you can't take this system and turn it into mindless dogma. The running back has to use his vision, take what's there because they can't take away everything. Possibly Alex Gibbs is too locked into one specific aspect of this offense. If that's the case then it happens to coaches in the NFL all the time. It happens to people in all kinds of fields. Coaches have to keep evolving and adapting.

Got to let the players play.

Brisco_County
08-31-2010, 12:07 AM
I think all it means is that you can't take this system and turn it into mindless dogma. The running back has to use his vision, take what's there because they can't take away everything. Possibly Alex Gibbs is too locked into one specific aspect of this offense. If that's the case then it happens to coaches in the NFL all the time. It happens to people in all kinds of fields. Coaches have to keep evolving and adapting.

Got to let the players play.

True, but if you can be dogmatic about it and be successful, it sure is nice, because then you can impose your will predictably and according to a game plan.

I'm still curious why his ZBS stopped working here. It's either our personnel, or defenses finally had an answer. I'd be more comfortable with the latter.

GP
08-31-2010, 12:13 AM
True, but if you can be dogmatic about it and be successful, it sure is nice, because then you can impose your will predictably and according to a game plan.

I'm still curious why his ZBS stopped working here. It's either our personnel, or defenses finally had an answer. I'd be more comfortable with the latter.

Slaton has become habitual about how he runs. Right up to the pile, slows down, puts his hand out and rests it upon the back of one of his blockers, and then tries to make a cutback. Too late, though, because defenses figured it out.

Arian is stretching it to the outside as fast as he can, and then quickly making an up-field move or continuing to the outside if the room is there.

I honestly don't think Alex Gibbs helped us as much as we had expected. Maybe he helped the lineman, but I don't see the translation onto the RBs. He just always seemed like he was griping at the RBs all the time. He reminded me of Coach from the TV show "Cheers."

Mr. White
08-31-2010, 12:17 AM
So does this indicate the end of the Alex Gibbs ZBS in the NFL, and will our new approach be consistently effective even after enough film of it is out there? I certainly hope so. I took Foster in the 5th this weekend.

Alex Gibbs = Unfrozen Caveman Assistant Coach.

Mr. White
08-31-2010, 12:20 AM
I honestly don't think Alex Gibbs helped us as much as we had expected. Maybe he helped the lineman, but I don't see the translation onto the RBs. He just always seemed like he was griping at the RBs all the time. He reminded me of Coach from the TV show "Cheers."

I agree, except I don't think he helped the linemen all that much either. He reminds me more of Jerry van Dyke's character in "Coach."

C Madd
08-31-2010, 12:24 AM
I agree, except I don't think he helped the linemen all that much either. He reminds me more of Jerry van Dyke's character in "Coach."

I was just about to say he reminds me more of Luther. I need to type faster.

dalemurphy
08-31-2010, 01:03 AM
I loved LZ's blog today. I was already excited about some of the nuances from the run game and was working on an article with video- showing some of those nuances. I included some video of LZ's analysis as well. Here it is:

Texans Bull Blog (http://www.texansbullblog.com/dennison-resurrected-running-game/news/)

Brisco_County
08-31-2010, 02:15 AM
Alex Gibbs = Unfrozen Caveman Assistant Coach.

You win the thread.

Brisco_County
08-31-2010, 02:50 AM
I loved LZ's blog today. I was already excited about some of the nuances from the run game and was working on an article with video- showing some of those nuances. I included some video of LZ's analysis as well. Here it is:

Texans Bull Blog (http://www.texansbullblog.com/dennison-resurrected-running-game/news/)

I love pulling the guards-- except when Wade Smith ran all that distance to hardly block his man for Foster. But otherwise, I love it.

What you called misdirection, I thought was an outside zone choice by Foster. Are they similar?

It's too bad we didn't do any of this for Slaton last year. He has the best acceleration, and always had his biggest gains on the outside. I'm very curious to see what this does for him this year.

I just thought of something: Maybe the man blocking and placing more responsibility on the RB is the reason we drafted a back in the second round instead of third or lower.

dalemurphy
08-31-2010, 06:55 AM
I love pulling the guards-- except when Wade Smith ran all that distance to hardly block his man for Foster. But otherwise, I love it.

What you called misdirection, I thought was an outside zone choice by Foster. Are they similar?

It's too bad we didn't do any of this for Slaton last year. He has the best acceleration, and always had his biggest gains on the outside. I'm very curious to see what this does for him this year.

I just thought of something: Maybe the man blocking and placing more responsibility on the RB is the reason we drafted a back in the second round instead of third or lower.

The misdirection is intended to look like a zone run to the front 7. If you watch, the LT, LG, C all fire off to the right as if it is a zone run to the right. However, the RG, RT, TE on right side all have entirely different movement and responsibilities. Watch the RG, particularly, slide the opposite direction (to the left) and trap block the DE. Also, notice that Foster runs left, not right, by design.

The beauty of this play is that it is designed specifically to take advantage of a defense that is overpursuing in order to stop the zone run.

El Tejano
08-31-2010, 07:43 AM
If you go back and look, Foster was running like this in the Miami and New England game before Dennison came to the team. Perhaps Foster is just more suited for this type of offense and has awesome vision.

thunderkyss
08-31-2010, 07:52 AM
I think all it means is that you can't take this system and turn it into mindless dogma. The running back has to use his vision, take what's there because they can't take away everything. Possibly Alex Gibbs is too locked into one specific aspect of this offense. If that's the case then it happens to coaches in the NFL all the time. It happens to people in all kinds of fields. Coaches have to keep evolving and adapting.

Got to let the players play.

I remember when Kubiak first got here, his emphasis was on pressing the hole, and making the cut at the very last minute.

I just think different people focus on different things, I didn't notice what LZ said he saw last year, about Slaton looking for the cut-back first. I thought Slaton was playing with blinders, and not even looking for the cut back lanes.

Over the past few weeks, in the preseason, I've seen several teams using zone blocking, or zone blocking like plays. We are no where near the best team at doing so, which I would have thought we would be by now, going on 5 years.

I don't think ZBS is dead, or is going anywhere. Teams like NYJets & New Orleans are getting a lot more movement along the front line, maybe that has to do with bigger linemen, it would be the most obvious conclusion. So the smaller linemen thing may be going by the wayside, but the basic principals will still be there.

One thing I noticed against Dallas, we pulled Wade Smith a few times, very similar to the way we used Chester Pitts, and it made for huge holes on the playside (to the right). We didn't do much of that (if any at all) in 2009. In 2008, I think that was a big part of our run game, and our best rushing season since Kubiak got here. It may be something that Studdard simply can't do, I don't know, but it may be the reason Wade Smith was brought in.

thunderkyss
08-31-2010, 08:06 AM
True, but if you can be dogmatic about it and be successful, it sure is nice, because then you can impose your will predictably and according to a game plan.

I'm still curious why his ZBS stopped working here. It's either our personnel, or defenses finally had an answer. I'd be more comfortable with the latter.

We had several issues with the run game last year. I think we went to more of a "pure" ZBS scheme. We had (IMHO) two players that were not very good on the backside at the beginning of the year. The one who played on the left side of the line, didn't consistently get movement when the plays would go to the left. The line would stack up at that player, and the backside wasn't there. So, there would be nowhere to run.

Once that player was out of the lineup, we got the backside working when running to the right. When running to the left, we got decent movement to the left, lanes started to open up. The guy on the right side also started to secure the backside, which opened even more running lanes.

By the time we got to Tennessee, the line was doing enough to open running lanes, we just didn't have the RBs with the talent to get to them. By the time Chris Brown got to the hole, it was gone. Steve Slaton didn't see them, and Kubiak didn't like to put Moats on the field.

By the time Arian got in the game, we were doing a good job run blocking, not great, but good, and you could see there was room to run.

Many people think I'm incapable of criticizing Gary Kubiak as a head coach. But I'll tell you the biggest problem I had with him last year. We should have either got Larry Johnson (no holds barred, play-offs or bust) at the bye week, or did whatever it took, to get Foster ready to play in that Monday night game. It may be a simplistic view, Foster may not be the "Pro" that he is now, Larry Johnson might have broke Duane Brown's leg, who knows. But it made absolutely no sense to me, to go into Tennessee with Chris Brown as our featured back.

thunderkyss
08-31-2010, 08:34 AM
I'm still curious why his ZBS stopped working here. It's either our personnel, or defenses finally had an answer. I'd be more comfortable with the latter.

Another thing, when ran properly, there is no answer. The ZBS is about the RB reading the offensive line. It's kind of like the QB reading the defense. Every play is designed to give you options. The QB reads the safeties, or the CBs or the LBs to anticipate where the open spots will be. He knows his routes, and his receivers. If he does his homework, learns teams tendencies, and is in sync with his receivers, he is able to quickly make his reads, and find the open receiver. Sometimes the defense does find the perfect combination to stymie a play, they found an answer, but the probability of that happening much with the way we run our offense, is very slim.

It's the same thing with the ZBS. We run the same presnap motions, so the RB & the OL, can read and identify the defense. They make their adjustments, and when the ball is snapped, the RB has to read his blocks, just like a QB makes his reads. He'll usually have a minimum of three options, where the run is designed to go, to the outside, or to the backside. The only "practical" difference between the ZBS, and regular power O, is that the options are built in, and the RB is expected to read them.

Felix Jones is going to be told to hit the hole, and hit it hard. If he is in the backfield looking for a place to go, he's going to get chewed out, unless it works out in his favor more times than not.

Same thing with Arian Foster. He's going to be told to push the hole as hard, and as long as he can, to set up the defense, then he's going to be told, "you should have cut here, or there, or bounced it here."

thunderkyss
08-31-2010, 08:54 AM
I loved LZ's blog today. I was already excited about some of the nuances from the run game and was working on an article with video- showing some of those nuances. I included some video of LZ's analysis as well. Here it is:

Texans Bull Blog (http://www.texansbullblog.com/dennison-resurrected-running-game/news/)

I don't mean to nit-pick, I enjoy your blog, but your description of the first example, and what the video actually shows are two different things. It looks like an inside zone play. I'm saying this, because there is no lateral movement to the right, and everyone from Myers to Brown kicks inside, and move the defenders to the left. Then Winston
just blows up anyone in front of him. If I had to guess, I'm thinking the run was supposed to go between Myers and Caldwell. Anthony Spencer does such a good job beating Dressen to the outside, it creates a huge hole between Dressen and Winston. Caldwell is getting his but kicked on this play.

thunderkyss
08-31-2010, 09:08 AM
I loved LZ's blog today. I was already excited about some of the nuances from the run game and was working on an article with video- showing some of those nuances. I included some video of LZ's analysis as well. Here it is:

Texans Bull Blog (http://www.texansbullblog.com/dennison-resurrected-running-game/news/)

That second one looks like a very nice inside zone run, with the pulling guard. Brisiel, which I don't ever remember pulling the right guard.

Foster does a great job of pushing the hole, right behind Dressen, but he sees something, and makes a great cut, beating Ware to the outside.

If we played this game, the way Atlanta played it, and Washington played it, and Denver played it, Demarcus Ware would have been laying on his back, and would have not been able to make a play at all. I understand he's "Demarcus Ware" I'm just saying. That LB Dressen hit, also would have been hit hard.

It also looks like Schaub turned the wrong way. The H-Back, the pulling guard and the tail-back all ran to the left from the get go, leaving Spencer to do what he will on the right side. Good thing Winston was able to make a play, and contain the backside.

thunderkyss
08-31-2010, 09:19 AM
I loved LZ's blog today. I was already excited about some of the nuances from the run game and was working on an article with video- showing some of those nuances. I included some video of LZ's analysis as well. Here it is:

Texans Bull Blog (http://www.texansbullblog.com/dennison-resurrected-running-game/news/)

Ok, I think I'm getting your descriptions mixed up with the wrong play. The description on the bottom fits the video much better.

The third video is definitely a misdirection. Schaub turns to his right, Vonta makes a weak attempt to show he's going to the right, as does Foster (definitely things we need to work on).

Brisiel again gets a good block on Ware, 94 is just a stud, nothing else you can say about that. This video also shows Myers having trouble. He should have turned into the play, like he's done in the others, to keep Ratcliff off Foster. Ratcliff is a stud as well, but Myers should have done better.

Vonta Leach shows you how to hit a LB. Oh, and take a look back at that second video, the way Brown creamed that ILB was textbook.

thunderkyss
08-31-2010, 09:40 AM
I loved LZ's blog today. I was already excited about some of the nuances from the run game and was working on an article with video- showing some of those nuances. I included some video of LZ's analysis as well. Here it is:

Texans Bull Blog (http://www.texansbullblog.com/dennison-resurrected-running-game/news/)

Ok, the description at the top is the right one. Either way, your descriptions are fine, so don't mind me.

This play, what is Winston trying to do? I'm surprised he didn't get called for holding. Caldwell, very slow off the snap, and lost after the snap. And, another bad showing from Myers. And that was a weak hit by Wade. If he were to clear the way for Foster, that could have been another 15+ yard run.

badboy
08-31-2010, 10:03 AM
The misdirection is intended to look like a zone run to the front 7. If you watch, the LT, LG, C all fire off to the right as if it is a zone run to the right. However, the RG, RT, TE on right side all have entirely different movement and responsibilities. Watch the RG, particularly, slide the opposite direction (to the left) and trap block the DE. Also, notice that Foster runs left, not right, by design.

The beauty of this play is that it is designed specifically to take advantage of a defense that is overpursuing in order to stop the zone run.So the left tackle, guard and center go to the right to block > and the RG slides left < to block the DE, does the RG go behind the left line blocking right to avoid collision? ><?

The1ApplePie
08-31-2010, 10:08 AM
Gibbs' zone-blocking scheme was simply antiquated

New rules and the increasing athletic ability of d-linemen made it obsolete.

Its good that we are keeping the principles but are also adjusting to the new way of defense.

Tailgate
08-31-2010, 10:13 AM
Foster looked great at the end of last season.

thunderkyss
08-31-2010, 10:16 AM
Gibbs' zone-blocking scheme was simply antiquated

New rules and the increasing athletic ability of d-linemen made it obsolete.

Its good that we are keeping the principles but are also adjusting to the new way of defense.

These are some of the same things we did with Gibbs. Didn't do them last year, maybe because two of our starting Guards got hurt early in the season.

Just like the defense, I'm sure we were going to be adding more wrinkles into our offensive scheme this year anyway.

I haven't seen them pull the right guard and tackle on a stretch play to the right, but I'm sure it's coming.

badboy
08-31-2010, 10:26 AM
We had several issues with the run game last year. I think we went to more of a "pure" ZBS scheme. We had (IMHO) two players that were not very good on the backside at the beginning of the year. The one who played on the left side of the line, didn't consistently get movement when the plays would go to the left. The line would stack up at that player, and the backside wasn't there. So, there would be nowhere to run.

Once that player was out of the lineup, we got the backside working when running to the right. When running to the left, we got decent movement to the left, lanes started to open up. The guy on the right side also started to secure the backside, which opened even more running lanes.

By the time we got to Tennessee, the line was doing enough to open running lanes, we just didn't have the RBs with the talent to get to them. By the time Chris Brown got to the hole, it was gone. Steve Slaton didn't see them, and Kubiak didn't like to put Moats on the field.

By the time Arian got in the game, we were doing a good job run blocking, not great, but good, and you could see there was room to run.

Many people think I'm incapable of criticizing Gary Kubiak as a head coach. But I'll tell you the biggest problem I had with him last year. We should have either got Larry Johnson (no holds barred, play-offs or bust) at the bye week, or did whatever it took, to get Foster ready to play in that Monday night game. It may be a simplistic view, Foster may not be the "Pro" that he is now, Larry Johnson might have broke Duane Brown's leg, who knows. But it made absolutely no sense to me, to go into Tennessee with Chris Brown as our featured back.You saw the same thing I did concerning the running game and was one of the reasons I wanted Studdard out of lineup. My fear this season is Gary will try to force Slaton into the same role he played two season ago due to yardage he accumulated.

thunderkyss
08-31-2010, 10:39 AM
You saw the same thing I did concerning the running game and was one of the reasons I wanted Studdard out of lineup. My fear this season is Gary will try to force Slaton into the same role he played two season ago due to yardage he accumulated.

No, The major problems went away when Studdard was put into the lineup.

disaacks3
08-31-2010, 11:08 AM
Slaton has become habitual about how he runs. Right up to the pile, slows down, puts his hand out and rests it upon the back of one of his blockers, and then tries to make a cutback. Too late, though, because defenses figured it out.

Arian is stretching it to the outside as fast as he can, and then quickly making an up-field move or continuing to the outside if the room is there.

I honestly don't think Alex Gibbs helped us as much as we had expected. Maybe he helped the lineman, but I don't see the translation onto the RBs. He just always seemed like he was griping at the RBs all the time. He reminded me of Coach from the TV show "Cheers." the Slaton stuff had me in tears...all too true.

Another thing, when ran properly, there is no answer. The ZBS is about the RB reading the offensive line. It's kind of like the QB reading the defense. Every play is designed to give you options. The QB reads the safeties, or the CBs or the LBs to anticipate where the open spots will be. He knows his routes, and his receivers. If he does his homework, learns teams tendencies, and is in sync with his receivers, he is able to quickly make his reads, and find the open receiver. Sometimes the defense does find the perfect combination to stymie a play, they found an answer, but the probability of that happening much with the way we run our offense, is very slim.

It's the same thing with the ZBS. We run the same presnap motions, so the RB & the OL, can read and identify the defense. They make their adjustments, and when the ball is snapped, the RB has to read his blocks, just like a QB makes his reads. He'll usually have a minimum of three options, where the run is designed to go, to the outside, or to the backside. The only "practical" difference between the ZBS, and regular power O, is that the options are built in, and the RB is expected to read them.

Felix Jones is going to be told to hit the hole, and hit it hard. If he is in the backfield looking for a place to go, he's going to get chewed out, unless it works out in his favor more times than not.

Same thing with Arian Foster. He's going to be told to push the hole as hard, and as long as he can, to set up the defense, then he's going to be told, "you should have cut here, or there, or bounced it here." Agreed with all of your analysis on the RBs. My only bone of contention is the difference in "Power O". It's not just the reads. Traditional Power "O" doesn't have O-Lineman getting upfield to make 2nd / 3rd-level blocks.

Good read on the Broncos forum about the differences (http://forums.denverbroncos.com/showthread.php?p=3125154) - It also explains why ZBS suffers in short yardage.

Rey
08-31-2010, 11:25 AM
Guards don't pull in a true ZBS. If a gaurd or tackle is pulling it is a form of man blocking.

Rey
08-31-2010, 11:28 AM
Winston was on the radio talking about the difference in the plays from last yr. to this yr...

He said they are running a lot more man blocking than they have done in the past, but he stated that they pretty much still consider themselves a Zone Blocking team.

silvrhand
08-31-2010, 08:51 PM
Winston was on the radio talking about the difference in the plays from last yr. to this yr...

He said they are running a lot more man blocking than they have done in the past, but he stated that they pretty much still consider themselves a Zone Blocking team.

Yes, finally rid of the zone blocking scheme, it's had it's glory much like the vaunted run and shoot did for a few years till people got used to it. The biggest thing I have noticed is the fact that we are actually blowing people off the ball, when you are driving 3 linemen 3-5 yards down the field.. it's going to open up running lanes that any NFL running back could hit.

leebigeztx
08-31-2010, 10:46 PM
Thing is, no team can be pure man or zone team. There are times when you have to fire and get push and there are times when you let the athletes loose. Jets struggled 2 yrs ago early until they started running the old g-power with faneca. The vikes under green with tice as line coach also did both with those huge lineman they had. The zbs has its place, but alot of 3-4 team poke their olb's outside to give the illusion to cut back while the ilb fires inside. Just in its natural ability, the 3-4 will contain the outside run and force it inside to those huge 2 gappers.

Brisco_County
09-01-2010, 12:43 AM
Thing is, no team can be pure man or zone team. There are times when you have to fire and get push and there are times when you let the athletes loose. Jets struggled 2 yrs ago early until they started running the old g-power with faneca. The vikes under green with tice as line coach also did both with those huge lineman they had. The zbs has its place, but alot of 3-4 team poke their olb's outside to give the illusion to cut back while the ilb fires inside. Just in its natural ability, the 3-4 will contain the outside run and force it inside to those huge 2 gappers.

This was my concern with the outside zone run vs. 3-4's in my original post. In the videos I watched of Arian's big runs outside, he misdirected the LB's. I'm thinking that's not going to be so effective after teams start studying you.

76Texan
09-01-2010, 07:29 AM
Thing is, no team can be pure man or zone team. There are times when you have to fire and get push and there are times when you let the athletes loose. Jets struggled 2 yrs ago early until they started running the old g-power with faneca. The vikes under green with tice as line coach also did both with those huge lineman they had. The zbs has its place, but alot of 3-4 team poke their olb's outside to give the illusion to cut back while the ilb fires inside. Just in its natural ability, the 3-4 will contain the outside run and force it inside to those huge 2 gappers.

The 4-3 with a LB on the LOS is practically the same as the 3-4 with 2 LBs on the LOS, would'nt you say?

You can always line up the TE wider than OLB to block in or you can have a WR come in to block the OLB (while the TE fired out to block the CB).
Also, normally, when the TE fires out, the OLB - most likely - would follow him anyway.

Or, we can send a TE in motion from the other side to take on an OLB and stretch the field.
Foster's TD in the second quarter of the Dolphins' game for example.
Dresseen went ino motion from the left side to the right and took on the LOLB.
He took the LB to the outside, which made him wanting to go further outside, trying to control the edge.
This, and good blocking inside, left a huge hole for Leach to work the safety.
Foster simply took the path of least resistance and basically walked into the end zone.

But at any rate, I don't think the 3-4 has a "natural" tendency in stopping a strecth play any more than a 4-3 with a LB on the LOS.

El Tejano
09-01-2010, 07:40 AM
This was my concern with the outside zone run vs. 3-4's in my original post. In the videos I watched of Arian's big runs outside, he misdirected the LB's. I'm thinking that's not going to be so effective after teams start studying you.

Maybe he isn't breaking 18 yard runs but when he goes in between the tackles he's still getting 3-4 yards a pop. With Matt Schaub as QB, that's all we need from him on 1st and 2nd down.

76Texan
09-01-2010, 07:51 AM
I really enjoy this thread.
There's a lot of good stuffs here.

silvrhand
09-01-2010, 10:25 AM
Thing is, no team can be pure man or zone team. There are times when you have to fire and get push and there are times when you let the athletes loose. Jets struggled 2 yrs ago early until they started running the old g-power with faneca. The vikes under green with tice as line coach also did both with those huge lineman they had. The zbs has its place, but alot of 3-4 team poke their olb's outside to give the illusion to cut back while the ilb fires inside. Just in its natural ability, the 3-4 will contain the outside run and force it inside to those huge 2 gappers.

I think that totally depends on the players, the thing the ZBS does is that your backside players have to be discplined, stay at home trail the play don't give the cutback option. Slide the line, don't get pushed downfield, pursue the RB and don't allow him any cutback lanes. If you can do that you can be successful against the ZBS.

silvrhand
09-01-2010, 10:27 AM
Maybe he isn't breaking 18 yard runs but when he goes in between the tackles he's still getting 3-4 yards a pop. With Matt Schaub as QB, that's all we need from him on 1st and 2nd down.

No, to be successful we need to be able to chunk 5-6 yards on first down, this will set the tone for us to be able to do whatever we want. Anyone have stats on how often we run on first down, my gut feeling is it's way high 65-70%?

leebigeztx
09-01-2010, 01:51 PM
The 4-3 with a LB on the LOS is practically the same as the 3-4 with 2 LBs on the LOS, would'nt you say?

You can always line up the TE wider than OLB to block in or you can have a WR come in to block the OLB (while the TE fired out to block the CB).
Also, normally, when the TE fires out, the OLB - most likely - would follow him anyway.

Or, we can send a TE in motion from the other side to take on an OLB and stretch the field.
Foster's TD in the second quarter of the Dolphins' game for example.
Dresseen went ino motion from the left side to the right and took on the LOLB.
He took the LB to the outside, which made him wanting to go further outside, trying to control the edge.
This, and good blocking inside, left a huge hole for Leach to work the safety.
Foster simply took the path of least resistance and basically walked into the end zone.

But at any rate, I don't think the 3-4 has a "natural" tendency in stopping a strecth play any more than a 4-3 with a LB on the LOS.

They reallyy do because 3 guys taking up 5 players and the olb's on the outside cant really get hooked by a te or tackle. If you look at the teams that have the most success stopping the run, especially stretch run are 3-4 teams.

By it natural course, the zbs is on a train track with the linemen. They step to a side of the run and all stay on this track. The zbs is taught when you see the outside number of the olb, this means cut back. Well, when you play against a 3-4, the nt is handling the center and half a guard. The 5 technique is handling the half a guard and the tackle. So now the olb can poke his head outside, make the back cut in to the ilb scraping. In the past years, 3-4 teams and really just teams in general have been poking outside to make the back cut bak into the flow of the scraping defenders. Alot of team try to use both because against alot of teams, basically most of the 3-4, you don't want your linemen first step to be horizontal. You step sideway against jenkins,hampton,rogers,franklin,woolfolk and guys like that, they have basically cut off the cut back.

I've always thought and heard winston on sirius talk about how they were running more power plays last.Inside the 10, you need to have more man blocking or power running, but because meyers is so small, it really makes it hard to do. I've always been in favor of what sherman was starting and what the holmgren tree had with big physical maulers who could do both. It was more power zone when mike was in green bay and the same when he was in seattle. They could get on you and stick. In new orleans, they have the best inside triangle of any team and they run both zone and man schemes. Thats why it seems they can run on anyone. Nix and evans at guard are just maulers in the run game.

76Texan
09-02-2010, 04:04 AM
They reallyy do because 3 guys taking up 5 players and the olb's on the outside cant really get hooked by a te or

tackle. If you look at the teams that have the most success stopping the run, especially stretch run are 3-4 teams.

By it natural course, the zbs is on a train track with the linemen. They step to a side of the run and all stay on this track. The zbs is taught when

you see the outside number of the olb, this means cut back. Well, when you play against a 3-4, the nt is handling the center and half a guard. The

5 technique is handling the half a guard and the tackle. So now the olb can poke his head outside, make the back cut in to the ilb scraping. In the

past years, 3-4 teams and really just teams in general have been poking outside to make the back cut bak into the flow of the scraping defenders.

Alot of team try to use both because against alot of teams, basically most of the 3-4, you don't want your linemen first step to be horizontal. You

step sideway against jenkins,hampton,rogers,franklin,woolfolk and guys like that, they have basically cut off the cut back.
OK, let's back track a bit here.
We were actually talking about running an outside zone.
My contention is that the 3-4 is no different than a 4-3 with a LB on the LOS.
They both are practically the same; therefore, the 3-4 has no advantage over the 4-3 in defending the outside zone run, or any other running play for that matter.

Next, let's take a more real-life approach and look at a couple of plays that the Texans actually run against the Jets just last year: The first and third play of the game.

Play one: Slaton 2yd run inside LT (weak side).
Texans in offset I; Leach on weak side on the left.
ROLB outside LT Brown (the ROLB actually put his hand down and played like a RDE in a 4-3 (this ties with what I said about how the 2 defenses were practically the same)
RDE in weak side B gap (very slightly outside Pitts)
NT Jenkins in strong side A gap (close and looking straight at Myers).

In this play, Leach (and/or Slaton) could have gone outside Brown (if it was a stretch play; Brown had maintained his block on Scott that would allow the RB to go on either side even though Scott wanted to "poke" his head outside; Slaton wouldn't have been able to see Scott's outside number and therefore, wouldn't have to cut back).

Leach took on the RILB.

Myers actually started on Jenkins then slipped out (but did not reach the LILB); Brisiel came next with a cut block on Jenkins.

Pitts was able to get to the outside shoulder of the RDE and under him, but the defender put a hand up to grasp Pitts' facemask, pushed him into
the running lane, disengaged and made the tackle on Slaton.

Without that facemask, Slaton would have had plenty of room on the left side; it would have been at least a first down for us.
AJ had taken the RCB past the marker (and the lone safety playing deep).

Play two was a 7yd pass to AJ
Then on third and 3, the Texans ran again to the left side (but this time it's the strong side, with Jenkins lining up on that side); Chris Brown gaining eleven yards. I'm going to get to it another post.