CFN Ranks Vols O-Line #1

#26
#26
That team could no run block worth a dime against a good front 7. They are about as good of pass blockers as you can get but are very average run blockers against good teams.
 
#28
#28
oklavol said:
I guess the move from man blocking to zone was a success. Here's a good article on zone blocking:

ESPN.com: NCF - Football 101: Zone blocking
Click to expand...

I bookmarked that link. Now any time I think to myself "Why isn't Bob Davie coaching somewhere?", I can open it up and remember.:)

There is one huge problem that exists with zone blocking, and that is that the first commandment of defensive line play is DO NOT GET REACH BLOCKED. Teams can talk about zone blocking all they want, but even a moderately disciplined defense can easily negate it by fighting a reach down the line. Instead of creating a situation where the front 7/8 is basically getting walled off, it creates an enormous logjam of anywhere from 5-15 guys. The advantage is that most defensive linemen are simply too dumb to maintain discipline (yeah, I said it; I'm an offensive lineman at heart).
 
#29
#29
General Jack said:
Good post, interesting stuff. I don't have the "hands-on" experience that you do, but from a layman's perspective, its appears to me that more recently the O-line has done a better job of creating holes for the RBs. I attribute much of this to the change in coaches (Stephens to Adkins) and change in mindset away from just growing our guys into mammoths. In '03 our think we averaged 330 accross the line, they guys had just gotten relatively immobile and were getting beat by quicker D-linemen.

To your point, wouldn't a stalemate be close to ideal for the passing game? Seems like that would prevent pressure on the QB.
Click to expand...

The first part speaks to an issue I have with who gets recruited where, and largely a "what on earth are these guys LOOKING at?" problem. If I'm a college line coach, I'm getting quick guys with great feet and banking on the idea of getting them a bit bigger and stronger. I'm convinced that a college team would have no problem at all winning regularly with an offensive line that averages, say, 270 pounds instead of 300+.

A stalemate in the passing game isn't a bad thing either because most linemen are taught to soft-set in pass protection. I have no idea why this buffoonery is such a huge part of the game; you're basically giving up a lot of ground for no reason, and it puts the interior line (which isn't normally accustomed to sliding backwards) in a tough spot because they tend to drop too much weight back and make themselves susceptible to a bullrush. When the offensive line gives up that much ground, a stalemate still works because it cuts down on how high a defender has to get to swat down a pass or else harry the quarterback,

I refuse to teach soft-set pass blocking for these reasons, in addition to the fact that it telegraphs "PASS!"
 
#31
#31
Its only because of the sacks irs the scheme we run bubble screen left bubble screen right 3 yrd out hard to get sacked when that happnes.
 
#32
#32
Ainge's ability to drop, cock and release in 1.5-2 seconds pretty much accounts for this. I could probably count them times he kept the ball more than 3 seconds this season on my fingers and toes.

The quick trigger is a complement to Ainge BTW. Should help him in the pros.
 
#33
#33
VolunteerHillbilly said:
Ainge's ability to drop, cock and release in 1.5-2 seconds pretty much accounts for this. I could probably count them times he kept the ball more than 3 seconds this season on my fingers and toes.

The quick trigger is a complement to Ainge BTW. Should help him in the pros.
Click to expand...

And is firmly in line with the gospel of Cutcliffe.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top