Zone blocking scheme versus In-Line blocking... (1 Viewer)

[cobalt_27]

I don't know enough about these two schemes, but from what I do know, it seems like they would likely cater to RBs with different skill sets. What are these, and can someone give me an example of a RB who works well in each (as well as a RB who wouldn't) and why?

 

[SSOG]

Zone Blocking tends to work best with RBs who perform well between the tackles. The first and most important skill is going to be an RB's vision- with Zone Blocking, the RB needs to be able to identify WHERE the hole will be opening and WHEN, and he needs to be quick and decisive enough to hit that hole before it closes. More than any physical attribute, this is what separates the men from the boys in a Zone-blocking system. After vision and decisiveness, you're going to be looking for a bit of size to break arm tackles and make it through the LBs and hopefully into the open field, and after that you're going to want speed.

Guys who are very successful in Zone Blocking systems can also be very successful in non-Zone Blocking systems (see Portis, Clinton), and guys who are successful elsewhere can be very successful in the ZB scheme (see Dunn, Warrick). In addition, studs are going to be studs no matter what you do (see Tomlinson, LaDanian), but there are some types of backs that can be successful elsewhere who would be poor in a ZBT- these are mostly dancers, guys who rely too much on speed and not enough as vision, guys who make several cuts in the backfield before finally committing. An example of that type of player would be a Reggie Bush-type. Barry Sanders was another guy who probably wouldn't have been as good in a Zone-Blocking offense, simply because it would negate his biggest strength (his improvisation).

Beyond just the blocking system, there are a lot of other factors that influence what RBs will succeed, too. For instance, Mike Shanahan favors high-percentage RBs over home-run threats. That has nothing to do with zone-blocking, that's just Shanahan's personal preference. As a result, an RB that might flourish elsewhere (a Tatum Bell type) tends to languish behind a steady-but-unspectacular Mike Anderson-type.

 

[lborges]

Looks like the Raiders are switching to Zone Blocking this year whatever that means

 

[SSOG]

Lots of teams have been switching to "Zone Blocking" schemes. Atlanta, Houston, and Green Bay have been running it for at least a year, off the top of my head. The thing to remember is that Zone Blocking is really no better than standard in-line blocking (if it was, every team in the league would be using it, wouldn't they?). Everyone thinks that Denver's OL is so great because of the Zone Blocking scheme, but in reality, Denver's OL is great because of personnel. Nalen is a HoFer, Lepsis and Hamilton have both been among the top 5 at their position for pretty much their entire careers, Rick Dennison is a phenomenal coach, and Bobby Turner (the RB coach) is perhaps the best position coach in the entire NFL, which makes the OL look better. They have unheard-of stability, draft replacements years in advance, never let anyone go unless there's someone better waiting in the wings, and make EVERYONE sit on the bench for at least one year (usually much longer) to master the system before they're allowed to play. Also, no team in the entire NFL annually devotes a larger percentage of its salary cap to the offensive line. In other words, just because another team is switching to a Zone-Blocking scheme, don't think they're going to be the next Denver Broncos. The Denver Broncos put more thought, effort, time, and resources into building their line than any other team in the league, which is the real secret behind their success.

 

[coolnerd]

Lots of teams have been switching to "Zone Blocking" schemes. Atlanta, Houston, and Green Bay have been running it for at least a year, off the top of my head. The thing to remember is that Zone Blocking is really no better than standard in-line blocking (if it was, every team in the league would be using it, wouldn't they?).

Houston does not run exclusive zone blocking. Everyone assumed tha Kubiak would just be a Denver south coach, but they run quite a bit more power stuff than Denver and old Atlanta. with Sherman as OC, if anything we are expecting less pure zone scheme than more. Actually, most of the NFL incorporates some zone blocking into its scheme. That handoff of Manning where he barely gets the ball to the RB is the outside zone play for example even though Indy is not consider a ZBS team. The designation of a team a ZBS team has to do more with the amount than anything.

 

[Pygmy Marmoset]

Tall running backs do better in zone blocking. Being able to see over your lineman's shoulder is absolutely key.

 

[cobalt_27]

Lots of teams have been switching to "Zone Blocking" schemes. Atlanta, Houston, and Green Bay have been running it for at least a year, off the top of my head. The thing to remember is that Zone Blocking is really no better than standard in-line blocking (if it was, every team in the league would be using it, wouldn't they?). Everyone thinks that Denver's OL is so great because of the Zone Blocking scheme, but in reality, Denver's OL is great because of personnel. Nalen is a HoFer, Lepsis and Hamilton have both been among the top 5 at their position for pretty much their entire careers, Rick Dennison is a phenomenal coach, and Bobby Turner (the RB coach) is perhaps the best position coach in the entire NFL, which makes the OL look better. They have unheard-of stability, draft replacements years in advance, never let anyone go unless there's someone better waiting in the wings, and make EVERYONE sit on the bench for at least one year (usually much longer) to master the system before they're allowed to play. Also, no team in the entire NFL annually devotes a larger percentage of its salary cap to the offensive line. In other words, just because another team is switching to a Zone-Blocking scheme, don't think they're going to be the next Denver Broncos. The Denver Broncos put more thought, effort, time, and resources into building their line than any other team in the league, which is the real secret behind their success.

Atlanta has switched to an in-line scheme this year under Petrino. Honestly, that's why I asked the question, originally...just trying to figure out how this might affect Norwood. The guy, from what little I've seen, seems to have outstanding vision. I was thinking the zone scheme might be better suited to his abilities, but who knows?

 

[coolnerd]

Lots of teams have been switching to "Zone Blocking" schemes. Atlanta, Houston, and Green Bay have been running it for at least a year, off the top of my head. The thing to remember is that Zone Blocking is really no better than standard in-line blocking (if it was, every team in the league would be using it, wouldn't they?). Everyone thinks that Denver's OL is so great because of the Zone Blocking scheme, but in reality, Denver's OL is great because of personnel. Nalen is a HoFer, Lepsis and Hamilton have both been among the top 5 at their position for pretty much their entire careers, Rick Dennison is a phenomenal coach, and Bobby Turner (the RB coach) is perhaps the best position coach in the entire NFL, which makes the OL look better. They have unheard-of stability, draft replacements years in advance, never let anyone go unless there's someone better waiting in the wings, and make EVERYONE sit on the bench for at least one year (usually much longer) to master the system before they're allowed to play. Also, no team in the entire NFL annually devotes a larger percentage of its salary cap to the offensive line. In other words, just because another team is switching to a Zone-Blocking scheme, don't think they're going to be the next Denver Broncos. The Denver Broncos put more thought, effort, time, and resources into building their line than any other team in the league, which is the real secret behind their success.

Atlanta has switched to an in-line scheme this year under Petrino. Honestly, that's why I asked the question, originally...just trying to figure out how this might affect Norwood. The guy, from what little I've seen, seems to have outstanding vision. I was thinking the zone scheme might be better suited to his abilities, but who knows?

I have no links to support this at the moment, but many scouts consider vision the best asset any RB can have no matter the scheme.

 

[SSOG]

Actually, most of the NFL incorporates some zone blocking into its scheme. That handoff of Manning where he barely gets the ball to the RB is the outside zone play for example even though Indy is not consider a ZBS team. The designation of a team a ZBS team has to do more with the amount than anything.

Yeah. I remember one week when Cowher was complaining about Denver's zone-blocking, so Shanahan brought the media together and showed a 30-minute film of nothing but Zone Blocking plays from the Pittsburgh Steelers.

 

[rascal]

Actually Cowher was complaining about "chop blocks" that Denver's lineman use. So he showed a film of steelers o-lineman doing the same thing. Never heard back from Cowher on that one.

 

[IU Hoosier]

Zone blocking is based on: A) getting the defense to move laterally instead of upfield, B) Aiming points (explained below) and C) one cut Rb's.

The teams that come to mind as "zone teams" run primarily the inside zone series. In the inside zone series the RB and O-line move laterally (which influences the D to do the same) and the RB will have a specific landmark/aiming point, instead of a hole. Many inside zone schemes are about teaching the RB to press the inside leg of the T or the outisde leg of the G. Ideally a lane will be open at the aiming point. If not, the most common cut is to the inside.

The outside zone has a wider aiming point, typically the outside foot of the T or inside foot of the TE. The outside zone is good against DE's that overplay the inside gap. Some teams will even have their OT jab-step inside to influence the DE.

The third most common type of zone scheme is the stretch, ala the play that Edge made famous in Indy. The stretch is good against over-aggressive defenses that play upfield. The RB has an outside aiming point and hits the "hole" faster than in the other two zone variations. The cut is not as drastic, as it is more of a plant and get north-south type of step. The other two zone plays rely more on a true cutback.

There are a couple of different schools of thought on blocking the zone, although they are very similar. Some teams will pull an OL without a head up or playside gap defender. The most popular scheme today is to double team the line of scrimmage and scoop to the first threat to the playside gap.

The reason some teams don't rely on the zone more is that it takes quite a committment. The O-Line must drill footwork and double team scenarios daily. The RB has to be coached to the point that his cut is all based on what he sees. If the lane is "cloudy" then the inside lane must be "clear", etc.

 

[PrinceofDarkness]

Lots of teams have been switching to "Zone Blocking" schemes. Atlanta, Houston, and Green Bay have been running it for at least a year, off the top of my head. The thing to remember is that Zone Blocking is really no better than standard in-line blocking (if it was, every team in the league would be using it, wouldn't they?). Everyone thinks that Denver's OL is so great because of the Zone Blocking scheme, but in reality, Denver's OL is great because of personnel. Nalen is a HoFer, Lepsis and Hamilton have both been among the top 5 at their position for pretty much their entire careers, Rick Dennison is a phenomenal coach, and Bobby Turner (the RB coach) is perhaps the best position coach in the entire NFL, which makes the OL look better. They have unheard-of stability, draft replacements years in advance, never let anyone go unless there's someone better waiting in the wings, and make EVERYONE sit on the bench for at least one year (usually much longer) to master the system before they're allowed to play. Also, no team in the entire NFL annually devotes a larger percentage of its salary cap to the offensive line. In other words, just because another team is switching to a Zone-Blocking scheme, don't think they're going to be the next Denver Broncos. The Denver Broncos put more thought, effort, time, and resources into building their line than any other team in the league, which is the real secret behind their success.

Atlanta has switched to an in-line scheme this year under Petrino. Honestly, that's why I asked the question, originally...just trying to figure out how this might affect Norwood. The guy, from what little I've seen, seems to have outstanding vision. I was thinking the zone scheme might be better suited to his abilities, but who knows?

Actually, I was wondering the same thing RE: Norwood. One thing that is clear, a ZBS seems to favor lighter, more agile linemen. So the question is will Norwood and the offensive line be successful switching to the new scheme? What changes have the Falcons made to their OL?Falcon homers, any insight?

 

[gianmarco]

That's the other thing about the ZBS that I think most people don't realize that has been alluded to above. This is not a simple system to implement if it wasn't previously in place. A lot of the DeAngelo Williams proponents keep screaming "now with the new ZBS which is what he ran in college, he's gonna tear it up". Not so fast.

The thing Carolina has in its favor is that it has light, athletic lineman to make the change. But it won't happen overnight and there will be growing pains. It's not simply a plug-n-play scheme that the O-line can grasp immediately. I think one of the reasons they are changing is because their O-line just hasn't been good for a few years now and this should cater to them. But t won't happen this year.

 

[cobalt_27]

Zone blocking is based on: A) getting the defense to move laterally instead of upfield, B) Aiming points (explained below) and C) one cut Rb's.

The teams that come to mind as "zone teams" run primarily the inside zone series. In the inside zone series the RB and O-line move laterally (which influences the D to do the same) and the RB will have a specific landmark/aiming point, instead of a hole. Many inside zone schemes are about teaching the RB to press the inside leg of the T or the outisde leg of the G. Ideally a lane will be open at the aiming point. If not, the most common cut is to the inside.

The outside zone has a wider aiming point, typically the outside foot of the T or inside foot of the TE. The outside zone is good against DE's that overplay the inside gap. Some teams will even have their OT jab-step inside to influence the DE.

The third most common type of zone scheme is the stretch, ala the play that Edge made famous in Indy. The stretch is good against over-aggressive defenses that play upfield. The RB has an outside aiming point and hits the "hole" faster than in the other two zone variations. The cut is not as drastic, as it is more of a plant and get north-south type of step. The other two zone plays rely more on a true cutback.

There are a couple of different schools of thought on blocking the zone, although they are very similar. Some teams will pull an OL without a head up or playside gap defender. The most popular scheme today is to double team the line of scrimmage and scoop to the first threat to the playside gap.

The reason some teams don't rely on the zone more is that it takes quite a committment. The O-Line must drill footwork and double team scenarios daily. The RB has to be coached to the point that his cut is all based on what he sees. If the lane is "cloudy" then the inside lane must be "clear", etc.

Phenomenal. Thanks for the detailed explanation.

 

[coolnerd]

Zone blocking is based on: A) getting the defense to move laterally instead of upfield, B) Aiming points (explained below) and C) one cut Rb's.

The teams that come to mind as "zone teams" run primarily the inside zone series. In the inside zone series the RB and O-line move laterally (which influences the D to do the same) and the RB will have a specific landmark/aiming point, instead of a hole. Many inside zone schemes are about teaching the RB to press the inside leg of the T or the outisde leg of the G. Ideally a lane will be open at the aiming point. If not, the most common cut is to the inside.

The outside zone has a wider aiming point, typically the outside foot of the T or inside foot of the TE. The outside zone is good against DE's that overplay the inside gap. Some teams will even have their OT jab-step inside to influence the DE.

The third most common type of zone scheme is the stretch, ala the play that Edge made famous in Indy. The stretch is good against over-aggressive defenses that play upfield. The RB has an outside aiming point and hits the "hole" faster than in the other two zone variations. The cut is not as drastic, as it is more of a plant and get north-south type of step. The other two zone plays rely more on a true cutback.

There are a couple of different schools of thought on blocking the zone, although they are very similar. Some teams will pull an OL without a head up or playside gap defender. The most popular scheme today is to double team the line of scrimmage and scoop to the first threat to the playside gap.

The reason some teams don't rely on the zone more is that it takes quite a committment. The O-Line must drill footwork and double team scenarios daily. The RB has to be coached to the point that his cut is all based on what he sees. If the lane is "cloudy" then the inside lane must be "clear", etc.

Phenomenal. Thanks for the detailed explanation.

Agreed quality technical stuff.