Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › Wagoner: Run-first Rams' struggle go beyond the basics
- This topic has 26 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 7 months ago by
Herzog.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 2, 2015 at 10:29 pm #31588
znModeratorRun-first Rams’ struggle go beyond the basics
Nick Wagoner
http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/21977/run-first-rams-struggles-go-beyond-the-basics
EARTH CITY, Mo. — The St. Louis Rams’ offseason left zero doubt about the offensive identity they were trying to forge.
In drafting running back Todd Gurley No. 10 overall and five offensive linemen, coach Jeff Fisher made it clear he wanted to get back to the type of dominant running game that was a hallmark of some of his Tennessee teams.
Even with a new coordinator, a new running back and three new starters on the offensive line, the Rams hoped they’d be able to adapt well enough to run the ball effectively early in the season. Run blocking in the NFL is widely believed an easier adjustment for young linemen.
But you wouldn’t know it from watching the Rams. Three weeks into the season, they are 30th in the league in rushing attempts. That would indicate that there’s not much of a commitment to the run but the reality is that the Rams haven’t run much because they haven’t had much success doing it.
So, what do you make of a run-first team that can’t run the ball?
“If we’re going to have this type of team be successful, we have to get the run game going,” guard Rodger Saffold said.
So far, the Rams have gained just 214 rushing yards (29th in the NFL) with an average of 3.75 yards per carry (21st). And while those numbers aren’t good enough in their own right, they’re actually buoyed by production from quarterback Nick Foles and receivers like Tavon Austin and Chris Givens.
The Rams’ primary running backs (not including Austin) are last in the NFL in attempts (42), yards (111), touchdowns (0), and yards before contact (54). They’re second to last in yards per carry (31st) and yards after contact per rush (1.09).
So how did the Rams end up in this spot? It’s not as simple as just blocking better and running harder.
Earlier this week, I asked Fisher if he believed the change in offensive scheme under coordinator Frank Cignetti, particularly in the run game, has been a factor in the slow start.
“No, I mean, we’ve added a couple of things over last year,” Fisher said. “But I think in the long run we’re going to benefit from it. It’s going to help us.”
When Fisher says a “couple of things” he’s referring to the team’s added reliance on outside zone concepts. Saying “a couple of things” would indicate that the changes have been small but the Rams have leaned heavily on the use of outside zone. They’re still mixing in some man blocking plays but the zone seems to be where it’s all headed when (if?) everything comes together.
Outside zone run plays ask something different of each player. For offensive linemen, it’s about moving laterally and pushing defenders aside to create cutback lanes. It’s imperative for them to get to the second-level to block linebackers and there’s a premium placed on technique and taking proper angles.
For running backs, it’s about staying “on track” by remaining patient, waiting for the right hole to open up and then pressing it at the right time. A hole that might initially look like the right one isn’t necessarily going to be it as the back tries to get linebackers flowing in a certain direction before hitting one cut and taking off.
“It starts with their footwork, pressing their reads,” offensive coordinator Frank Cignetti said. “The line can do a great job, but if the running back’s not in sync, it won’t matter. It takes all 11 guys to function as one. We talk about it every day. So, in the running game, the running back has to have his core set right, trust what he sees and be a decisive one-cut runner.”
On the surface, it sounds simple enough but the Rams have a number of players who have never run the scheme. Chief among the newcomers is Gurley, who said Georgia has zone concepts but never really used them.
“It’s a new thing we put in,” Gurley said. “It just takes repetition and you just keep getting reps at it and looking at other teams’ outside zone schemes and learning from that and watching film with the O-line. We’ll get it down pat and get this thing rolling soon.
“[It] definitely [requires] patience and getting those backers to flow, stretching the D end, making sure you are pressing the track and making that cut at the heels of the line.”
When those plays don’t work, it can result in little or lost yardage which is why Rams running backs average just 1.29 yards per rush before contact. That number is put in better perspective when you see that they average 2.67 yards per attempt as a team. In other words, the running backs are often getting hit before they start running north and south while some of the jet sweeps and scrambles have yielded bigger gains before anyone gets touched.
Perhaps overlooked in the process is the fullback, Cory Harkey, who is often asked to set the “track” (the path for the runner to follow) for the tailback.
“In our offense, the fullback is considered the bus driver,” Harkey said. “We are kind of trying to see everything out and yes, there are times where you would like to see the running back follow the fullback but realistically in the outside zone, our job is to get those ‘backers flowing so that way the running backs can really stretch it and make one cut and go.”
The Rams believe they aren’t far away from the day when that one cut will lead to the back going for big gains. The belief is that they’ll then be multiple enough in the run game to keep defenses guessing and use the run game to open up everything else.
“If you can run and the sack numbers are down, everything goes hand in hand,” center Tim Barnes said. “We want to have that reputation as a good running offensive line.”
The Rams have learned the hard way the first three weeks that if they are going to be run-first, they must first run well.
October 3, 2015 at 10:02 am #31593
rflParticipantSo in addition to relying on rookie OL, Fisher’s brain trust shifted to a new zone blocking scheme which, in the OC’s words, takes precise synchronization between the players. And no one has run it before.
All after insisting that this year we needed to start fast.
A couple weeks back, I pointed out that relying on a rookie OL and seeking a fast start with a really tough early schedule were contradictory. I was told that I was being silly. Now we find out that it’s even worse.
It was not reasonable to expect a fast start with this offense constructed as it was.
I think the record bears out the simple observation that this regime runs miles to avoid taking responsibility for actually winning games.
But, you you know, they’re … close. Oh, so close. One of these days …
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by rfl.
By virtue of the absurd ...
October 3, 2015 at 10:35 am #31596
nittany ramModeratorSo in addition to relying on rookie OL, Fisher’s brain trust shifted to a new zone blocking scheme which, in the OC’s words, takes precise synchronization between the players. And no one has run it before.
All after insisting that this year we needed to start fast.
A couple weeks back, I pointed out that relying on a rookie OL and seeking a fast start with a really tough early schedule were contradictory. I was told that I was being silly.
I think the record bears out the simple observation that this regime runs miles to avoid taking responsibility for actually winning games.
But, you you know, they’re … close. Oh, so close. One of these days …
I share your frustration.
But Fisher isn’t stupid. He couldn’t have survived as a HC in the ultra-competitive NFL for two decades if he was. If we see the folly of relying on rookies to master a new complex blocking scheme then must have seen it too. I mean, certainly Fisher understood the potential pitfalls of such a move.
I think Fisher is still building for the future. He’s not in “win now” mode, because he knows he doesn’t have to be. His job is as secure as Belicheck’s. So he’s building every aspect of this team exactly the way he wants it without compromise while knowing he’s going to take some lumps in the process. He’s doing this because he knows he doesn’t have to win now.
Fisher knows he’s gonna see every year of his contract. This is especially true if the Rams relocate. He’s in no hurry. We are but he isn’t.
And who knows, maybe in the long run that’s a good thing.
October 3, 2015 at 11:04 am #31600rflParticipantI think Fisher is still building for the future. He’s not in “win now” mode, because he knows he doesn’t have to be. His job is as secure as Belicheck’s. So he’s building every aspect of this team exactly the way he wants it without compromise while knowing he’s going to take some lumps in the process. He’s doing this because he knows he doesn’t have to win now.
You may be right.
And if so, well, I at least would consider that to be a cynical attitude. And damn tough on StL fans who have endured decades of lousy football and ALSO are looking at losing their team just when Fisher’s plans come to fruition.
I’d actually consider this, if true, to be more despicable than mere incompetence.
By virtue of the absurd ...
October 3, 2015 at 11:23 am #31604
wvParticipantSo in addition to relying on rookie OL, Fisher’s brain trust shifted to a new zone blocking scheme which, in the OC’s words, takes precise synchronization between the players. And no one has run it before.
All after insisting that this year we needed to start fast.
A couple weeks back, I pointed out that relying on a rookie OL and seeking a fast start with a really tough early schedule were contradictory. I was told that I was being silly. Now we find out that it’s even worse.
It was not reasonable to expect a fast start with this offense constructed as it was.
I think the record bears out the simple observation that this regime runs miles to avoid taking responsibility for actually winning games.
But, you you know, they’re … close. Oh, so close. One of these days …
I have never read anyone on this little board
call you ‘silly,’ RFL. People just disagreed,
iz all i saw.To me, you are acting like three games is the same
as 16 games. They may be playing a lot better on offense
by mid-season.w
vOctober 3, 2015 at 11:42 am #31606
ZooeyParticipantI think Fisher is still building for the future. He’s not in “win now” mode, because he knows he doesn’t have to be. His job is as secure as Belicheck’s. So he’s building every aspect of this team exactly the way he wants it without compromise while knowing he’s going to take some lumps in the process. He’s doing this because he knows he doesn’t have to win now.
You may be right.
And if so, well, I at least would consider that to be a cynical attitude. And damn tough on StL fans who have endured decades of lousy football and ALSO are looking at losing their team just when Fisher’s plans come to fruition.
I’d actually consider this, if true, to be more despicable than mere incompetence.
I don’t think it’s cynical. And the StL vs. LA thing just isn’t Fisher’s responsibility, and I’d be pissed, frankly, if that issue was influencing personnel decisions.
The alternative to attempting to build a rock-solid team from the ground up, patiently, over time, is to try to build one quickly through FA. Well, you can only grab so many guys through FA, and the fact is the Rams did what they could there only to have those players explode. I just don’t think there is any evidence that Fisher is complacently “mailing it in” in terms of building a winner. Actually, I don’t even know what that would mean, or look like.
I mean…”win now” mode is easier if you have the players. Fisher started out with very few quality players, and some of those weren’t ever on the field.
I am tired of the losing, too. We all are. But the explanation for their failure to win yet lies in personnel. I think this is the first season when we’ve looked at the Rams and been able to say, “Yeah, every unit on the team has talent now.” But one of those units -the OL – had to be completely overhauled this offseason, and it is just a bunch of babies. Their sluggish start was expected. And we don’t really know for sure that the line is fixed. GRob is a question mark, and Havenstein and Barnes haven’t dashed all doubts.
This is a young and talented team. Their day is coming, and it’s coming soon. And as I said in the preseason, I think next season is the season the Rams HAVE to produce (barring a rash of injuries).
October 3, 2015 at 1:17 pm #31613
InvaderRamModeratorbut there is a point to be made here. why did the rams decide to go to this wide zone blocking scheme?
the running backs and the oline have never been in this scheme before. it doesn’t seem to be playing to their strengths. why did the coaches decide to install this into an offense that is already inexperienced to begin with?
now they don’t run this zone blocking scheme exclusively. from what i’ve read they still do man blocking at times. did they try to install too much at once? couldn’t these new schemes have been integrated more gradually? if it requires synchronicity between linemen and between linemen and backs when the line and backs were still trying to get some chemistry, was it wise to try and install a blocking scheme that apparently none of these guys had done before?
seems to me they should have been more heavily slanted toward the man blocking with the zone blocking gradually pipetted in. so in a sense it is a little cynical? or maybe they have done this, and it still is flopping. i don’t know how i would feel about that. that might make me feel worse.
i don’t know the running game for the first three games has had many moving parts. first game cunningham. then second game they try to integrate mason. third game gurley gets his feet wet. meanwhile the oline is still trying to find their footing.
at present the oline is still healthy. mason and gurley are set as the backs. and even more time on the field and in the tape room to get the timing down. so we’ll see.
but still. is this zone blocking scheme necessary? what advantages does it offer over man blocking which perhaps could have led a faster start?
October 3, 2015 at 1:35 pm #31615rflParticipantI don’t think it’s cynical. And the StL vs. LA thing just isn’t Fisher’s responsibility, and I’d be pissed, frankly, if that issue was influencing personnel decisions.
Well, I was just responding to someone else’s hypothesis about what Fisher is up to. I dunno if it’s true or not.
My point was that, this offseason, it was contradictory to A) aspire to a fast start against top opposition and B) start a green OL. Now we know the shift to zone blocking is also a problem.
Now, you appear to accept the notion that Year 4 is not the year to expect results. OK. I don’t really get that view, but essentially you are accepting Nittany’s premise–that it’s OK to accept another year of failure.
The only point I’d make in responding to your argument about team building is that it seems to rely on an either-or dilemma:
The alternative to attempting to build a rock-solid team from the ground up, patiently, over time, is to try to build one quickly through FA. Well, you can only grab so many guys through FA, and the fact is the Rams did what they could there only to have those players explode.
This formulation makes little sense to me. An NFL roster is a big, complex entity. Building it requires numerous strategies in different places. It’s never a choice between 2 polar options.
In terms of the OL, let’s place things in perspective. They would not have needed “so many guys.” One or two vets would have been plenty.
Now, a couple weeks back, you said I’d need to name names. I don’t accept the requirement, but I will partially respond now.
First, it was ridiculous to let Barksdale go. He was clearly miffed at being mucked about. It would not have cost that much to make him happy and keep him. Most likely, it would have been a matter of going to him early and making him feel wanted.
Keep Barksdale and the challenge this year would have been much less.
That leaves OC and one OG. Surely it’s not too much to try to get 1 serviceable vet at OG or OC. One? You asked me which one. I dunno. But anyone with mid-table capability and experience would have helped.
See, the point I’ve made is not about an absolute choice between vets and rookies. The league doesn’t work that way,m and this year, we ARE talented in other areas. I’ve been talking about this year as, at least, a TRANSITION. Suppose we’d kept Barksdale and signed a mid-level OC or OG. We could then draft all those young OL and work them in over a season or two. Surely that would have been smarter?
Cap money? Well, we signed Ayers and then Fairly, who seems to be a luxury, and shed Bradford’s salary. Surely if we really wanted to, we could have made room in the cap for Barksdale and 1 ordinary vet. The fact that we didn’t shows that the FO had other priorities. And, if you cared about this year, that made no sense.
The point is that the FO made a conscious choice to simply do nothing of substance with vet OL. And we are paying the price.
Then we have this sudden reference to zone blocking. I dunno whether that really matters a lot. But that’s what they’re saying. Assuming it does matter, then, again, it would be unrealistic to expect a fast start.
So, why say what they said? PR gobbledy-gook, I guess. But I think it would have been honest to put things in context. It’s not hard: “You know, we want to get off to a better start. We want to win. But we are committed to building a team for the long haul …” Blkah, Blah, Blah.
I dunno. Whatever.
It’s Year 4. Year 4.
I simply cannot understand why anyone would say that it is reasonable to wait til Year 5 to expect competitiveness. I don’t get the abstract argument for this.
And then when you consider the actual evidence of how the team plays, the sloppiness, the intermittent intensity, the way the talented defense is on 1 week and off the next …
I really cannot understand how it is that this bunch of coaches is getting this much indulgence from experienced and intelligent fans.
Zooey, you’re one of my favorite people online. But I am bewildered by your response to all of this.
By virtue of the absurd ...
October 3, 2015 at 1:49 pm #31618
AgamemnonModeratorI am just fine with drafting a bunch of linemen this year. I am fine with starting rookies. I think it will pay off.
I am not satisfied that they did the best they could to get them ready for this year. They could have settled the composition of the line much sooner. It was like we are going to try every possible configuration before we try the optimal configuration. Why not try the optimal configuration first? I also think the starters should have played more in preseason. I think all preseason, Robinson, Brown, and Havenstein had less than 50 snaps each.
The test of all this will be what the OL can do in the second half of the season. imo
AgamemnonOctober 3, 2015 at 2:03 pm #31620ZooeyParticipantWell, RFL, first of all, I just don’t know what I don’t know, and I’m reluctant to make judgments about what I don’t know. So, for example, nobody really knows what happened with Barksdale. You say the Rams SHOULD have gone to Barksdale early, and tried to make him feel wanted, and negotiate something that would have kept him here.
But the thing is, you don’t know that they didn’t do that. We DO know that Barksdale wanted a LOT more money than he eventually got on the open market. Meaning…Barksdale and his agent vastly overestimated his value.
So this is kind of made up, imo:
First, it was ridiculous to let Barksdale go. He was clearly miffed at being mucked about. It would not have cost that much to make him happy and keep him. Most likely, it would have been a matter of going to him early and making him feel wanted.
Keep Barksdale and the challenge this year would have been much less.
We all wanted Barksdale to stay, at least transitionally, including the Rams. Those talks broke down over money, but we don’t know which side bears responsibility for shutting that door. Therefore I don’t blame anybody. I don’t assume it was the Rams’ fault. I just don’t know.
The market was similarly cold for all OL. There are a lot of teams out there with OL needs, and there was just slim pickings in FA.
So the choice there may well have been 1. tie up cap space on a placeholder vet or two (and thus limit their ability to re-sign their own guys just as they emerge as red and blue chip players), or 2. go with rookies with high upside who are cheap, but better for the team in the long run both in terms of talent and finances (and health, incidentally).
They took option 2.
Now you may say that flies in the face of the “fast start” talk in preseason, and I respond by saying, “Big deal.” I don’t care. I want the team built right, and built sustainably for a 5 year run of contention.
If I was going to complain about the slow start, the OL personnel decisions aren’t where I would focus. I would complain that the first team offense didn’t get enough work in the preseason. Foles just hasn’t built any chemistry with his receivers, and the OL needs more experience. I would have played them more.
And my indulgence of Fisher boils down to this: He started with f*** all. And they are still the youngest team in the league. I am in awe of the foundation. Fisher has completely restocked the cupboards.
If they can keep this team together, they are going to win.
October 3, 2015 at 2:16 pm #31622rflParticipantAnd my indulgence of Fisher boils down to this: He started with f*** all. And they are still the youngest team in the league. I am in awe of the foundation. Fisher has completely restocked the cupboards.
If they can keep this team together, they are going to win.
Obviously, we are applying different metrics. Just a couple of points:
1. The roster was in rough shape when Fisher and Snead got here. No doubt. But plenty of coaches have built competitive teams much faster than waiting until Year 5.
2. Talent. I started the thread the other day because I fundamentally disagree with the assumption that you can keep building talent until you win. Winning coaches need some talent, but they often beat more talented teams. And bad coaches screw up the opportunity with talent. Football is a coach’s game. Talent is no guarantee, and many teams achieve past their apparent talent limit.
3. In terms of talent, I like the build up of the team. I actually like what Snead does. I’d keep Snead and dump Fisher.
4. These discussions seem to mire themselves in abstractions. But, you have acknowledged some preparation issues, so that’s good. I personally think that this coaching staff’s prepration of its team has for 3+ years been spotty and sub-standard in many ways. I think Fisher is a sloppy coach. And I think it SHOWS ON THE FIELD in scores of ways and plays, whatever the team’s talent level is.
By virtue of the absurd ...
October 3, 2015 at 2:35 pm #31624ZooeyParticipantObviously, we are applying different metrics. Just a couple of points:
1. The roster was in rough shape when Fisher and Snead got here. No doubt. But plenty of coaches have built competitive teams much faster than waiting until Year 5.
2. Talent. I started the thread the other day because I fundamentally disagree with the assumption that you can keep building talent until you win. Winning coaches need some talent, but they often beat more talented teams. And bad coaches screw up the opportunity with talent. Football is a coach’s game. Talent is no guarantee, and many teams achieve past their apparent talent limit.
3. In terms of talent, I like the build up of the team. I actually like what Snead does. I’d keep Snead and dump Fisher.
4. These discussions seem to mire themselves in abstractions. But, you have acknowledged some preparation issues, so that’s good. I personally think that this coaching staff’s prepration of its team has for 3+ years been spotty and sub-standard in many ways. I think Fisher is a sloppy coach. And I think it SHOWS ON THE FIELD in scores of ways and plays, whatever the team’s talent level is.
You should acknowledge, then, that the Rams HAVE beaten superior teams a number of times. I don’t think “playing over their head” is sustainable, though, by any team, regardless of the coach. Weaker teams win the World Series occasionally, but it just doesn’t happen in football. They can upset good teams here and there, but nobody in the NFL gets away with playing over their heads week in and week out.
As far as the team’s sloppiness, I agree with that. Though I can’t tell how much is coaching, and how much is youth. Penalties are down this year a bit, and I don’t have any stats, but my eyeballs tell me missed tackles are down. It’s been only 3 games, though. I will be watching the sloppiness, and the blown assignments. I do want to see improvement there.
I just think that this season was destined from the start of camp (with a new QB, OC and OL, coupled with a brutal opening set of games), to really begin on Oct. 25 against the Browns. I am expecting the Rams to win 7 of their last 11 games.
October 3, 2015 at 3:33 pm #31628znModeratorNow you may say that flies in the face of the “fast start” talk in preseason, and I respond by saying, “Big deal.” I don’t care
That talk, pointedly, was all about the defense…at least when it came from THEM.
I don’t think the team itself ever pretended that a young line would be optimal right off.
And of course, fast start talk by the defense made perfect sense. The defense itself started slow in 2014, largely because the team did not know the system, but also—and this is me—because Wms had never before taken over a new unit and installed his system in the new conditions dictated by the CBA.
.
October 3, 2015 at 3:47 pm #31629InvaderRamModeratorag makes a good point about preseason preparation. i don’t think they took the optimal route. the oline should have played more snaps together.
however. one thing in the preseason that hampered the running game was the fact that mason and gurley were injured or not playing or practicing for much of it.
synchronization is important according to the internet and coaches for this zone blocking scheme. not just between linemen but between the running backs and the oline. not having those reps with gurley and mason has hurt them. did cunningham have an easier time running against seattle because he had all those reps with the first team? it’s interesting to consider.
again. i wrote earlier this week that i expected to see a difference against the arizona game. i think we will. i’m prediciting a semi-breakthrough for the running game.
also. i do agree that this fast start mostly applied to the defense. and i think everyone expected the offense to struggle a little bit. i don’t know about struggling this bad. and i think there are things the coaches could have done to alleviate that. he could have increased he live reps in preseason games. he could have gone predominantly man blocking to make it easier on the players. make the difference between 1-2 and 2-1 perhaps. but maybe fisher is more concerned with keeping the players rested. keeping them fresh. maybe he figures the difference would have only resulted in the difference of 1 or 2 games over the course of a season. and it was a fair tradeoff if you can keep them fresh for later on in the season. it’s a risk. but maybe that’s the risk you take when you know your job is safe.
we’ll see. if the running games makes significant progress against arizona, it might not even matter all that much in the long run.
October 3, 2015 at 4:18 pm #31631znModeratorag makes a good point about preseason preparation. i don’t think they took the optimal route. the oline should have played more snaps together.
With all due respect, I don’t see it that way. And of course this is all just opinion and mine is, I think that whole issue is a molehill.
I think when teams lose, we dredge up a million reasons why, and we all have our favorites.
These coaches have had lines ready for the season before. Between Fisher and Boudreau, that’s 4 decades of combined experience fielding OLs.
IMO nothing would have changed or mitigated the fact that an OL this inexperienced would struggle at first. No different policy here, no change there, would have made any difference. No coach in the NFL would have found a way to make it any easier or better.
For example, this is the best explanation (from a reporter) I have heard to switching Saffold and Brown—that that was the plan all along. Saffold was always going to be the right OG. BUT during OTAs, they kept him over their for the time being to help Robinson out.
And who’s to say that was the better or worse thing to do?
In terms of center, Barnes is the one Rams lineman getting consistently good grades in live action so far. Rotating centers just did not set him back.
So personally, I just don’t see any fatal flaws in their approach to fielding a young OL. In fact truth is, they are doing better than I expected.
.
October 3, 2015 at 5:04 pm #31637InvaderRamModeratorwhere i would really disagree is the fact that there was nothing they could do to alleviate the situation. they could have stayed strictly with a man blocking scheme. and i don’t see any good reason why they didn’t. it could just be arrogance on the part of the coaches. honestly. even with all their experience, zn. they aren’t the brightest nor most humble people in the world. so yeah. i agree with rfl a little in that i sense a little bit of hubris or cynicism. or whatever you want to call it.
it wouldn’t be the first time.
now. does it ruin the whole season? no. we knew it was gonna be a struggle either way. so as long as they get this figured out. in the end. i won’t care too much. i just wonder why they went zone blocking. and i have yet to read a good reason why they did.
October 3, 2015 at 5:19 pm #31642znModerator. they could have stayed strictly with a man blocking scheme.
That’s assuming the zone scheme never works out.
Because if it does, then, using a lot of zone is just..,again…doing something early that they might struggle at at first in order to set up something good longterm.
If they abandon the zone scheme, I would both say you’re right AND nice try Rams.
.
October 3, 2015 at 7:12 pm #31649InvaderRamModeratorwell if the zone blocking scheme is successful, the one thing we won’t know is if a man blocking scheme would have been just as successful. and if it would have been as successful, i’d really question why make the change.
i hope it doesn’t come to them having to scrap the zone blocking scheme. ultimately, i just want them to be successful. however they get there. but i just question why a zone blocking scheme. i’ll just have to trust that the coaches think this is the best scheme for this talent.
found this on the net.
the difference between the zone blocking scheme and man blocking scheme would explain robinson’s struggles as it seems to require more decision making from the olineman. to me that means they need reps. whereas in a man blocking scheme you know from the start of the play who you’re going to block.
October 3, 2015 at 7:22 pm #31650InvaderRamModeratorit seems to me the advantage would be flexibility. so if the defense calls the right play, the running game loses due to the inflexibility of the blocking call whereas in a zone blocking scheme, the blocking scheme can better adapt to the formation of the defense.
at least that’s my rudimentary understanding. maybe someone else can elaborate.
October 3, 2015 at 7:44 pm #31652AgamemnonModeratorIt is all opinions. Everyone gets to have their own. Some are more interesting than others. 😉
AgamemnonOctober 3, 2015 at 7:51 pm #31653InvaderRamModeratorthis is another on specifically the outside zone run.
Seahawks Scheme Analysis: “22” Personnel Package, Part II – The Outside Zone Run
October 3, 2015 at 7:53 pm #31654InvaderRamModeratorthe difference between inside and outside zone.
A very simple explanation of the zone runs, and the difference between inside zone and outside zone
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by InvaderRam.
October 3, 2015 at 8:02 pm #31656InvaderRamModeratorIt is all opinions. Everyone gets to have their own. Some are more interesting than others. 😉
i just want gurley and mason to be awesome. preferably starting against arizona.
October 3, 2015 at 8:49 pm #31658AgamemnonModeratori just want gurley and mason to be awesome. preferably starting against arizona.
I would guess that Gurley is the reason they are shaping the running strategy the way they are.
AgamemnonOctober 4, 2015 at 1:40 am #31677InvaderRamModeratormarshawn lynch flourished under the zbs of seattle. maybe the rams are looking for something similar with gurley.
October 5, 2015 at 1:02 pm #31786znModeratori just want gurley and mason to be awesome. preferably starting against arizona.
Done.
I had to pull strings with the football gods, but…done.
October 5, 2015 at 4:13 pm #31800HerzogParticipantIs there a Gurley thread? I have some thoughts.
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
