Zone Blocking Explained

by abender20 on Mar 12, 2009 8:40 AM PDT in Seahawks News & Rumors

Ever since the Denver Running Back Factory started getting elite production from vagrants that Mike Shanahan kidnapped on his way in to work, zone blocking has been a popular topic of discussion. Several teams have successfully mimicked the Alex Gibbs system (You're welcome, DeAngelo), while Dallas has gone the opposite route, finding some of the world's largest humans and coaching them with one simple directive ( "Flozell smash!"). As the Seahawks are switching over to a zone blocking scheme, wouldn't it be great to learn more about the concepts involved? Eric Williams at the TNT has your back.

The key to zone blocking is to stretch the defense horizontally, creating vertical seams at the point of attack which allow the running back to quickly get to the second and third level of the defense. That’s why it’s important to have a one-cut guy at running back who sees the hole and runs downfield quickly instead of hesitating at the line of scrimmage. Both Julius Jones and T.J. Duckett fit that description.

Here's my favorite of the proposed benefits:

Shorter learning curve – Because the scheme is easier to learn, younger players or players new to the team can come in and pick up the system easier. Also, with the proliferation of the spread offense in college, many young players already are familiar with the system, providing an easier transition from college to the pros.

Williams also posits that the Hawks could use their new blocking scheme to run the Wildcat with Seneca Wallace. Somewhere, Mike Holmgren is turning over in his chair.

Tweet Comment 32 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I read this myself yesterday

I had wondered what exactly zone blocking meant. Great explanation. Does this mean Seattle can count on mid round guys to get the job done and no longer need to draft top lineman, ala Jones and Pace using 1st round picks? I don’t think so, but maybe Ruskell does.

by diehard82 on Mar 12, 2009 8:45 AM PDT reply actions

Not necessarily

A good example is Ryan Clady. He was a top 15 selection, and his strengths were a perfect match for the system which instantly propelled him to become an excellent tackle in his first season.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 12, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions

Great commentary.

Somewhere, Mike Holmgren is turning over in his chair.

I look forward to a ‘trick play’ every once in a while. Even if that ‘trick play’ is just some more passes to the RBs and FBs or fewer FB draws on 3rd and long.

by LantermanC on Mar 12, 2009 8:52 AM PDT reply actions

That is the truth.

Cogito Ergo Sum

by censor1979 on Mar 12, 2009 6:32 PM PDT up reply actions

Trick plays?

“Mike Holmgren thinks the shotgun is a trick play.” ~John Morgan

by BrianL on Mar 12, 2009 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions

But we can't use Seneca Wallace! We can't risk our backup QB getting hurt!

If I had a dime for every time I heard Mike Holmgren say that one I’d have, well, I’d probably have like 20 bucks or something.

by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 12, 2009 9:35 AM PDT reply actions

Another benefit is that zone blocking works best with nimble O-linemen.

Who tend to be smaller and cheaper than the behemoths that Dallas/Minny/etc. covet and pay big bucks for.

by waldo rojas on Mar 12, 2009 10:06 AM PDT reply actions

As more teams adopt zone blocking principles, the price for nimble linemen will rise

so get ’em while you can!

by Mr Fish on Mar 12, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions

I've heard two theories on this

The first is, as said, that it’s best suited to smaller and nimbler OLs. And that’s the most common perception – because that’s the way Gibbs liked to run it, and he’s the one that made it famous.

The other way I’ve heard it is that a ZBS actually benefits the bigger, “mauler” OL’s – because it simplifies their assignments and is less likely to leave them in one-on-one situations with more athletic DL’s and speed rushers. There’s a whole school of coaches who prefer to run it this way. (the Vikings actually use a lot of ZBS)

My impression is that you’re not limited to any particular size of linemen. What makes or break them is if they have a good quick first step and lateral movement. If they can do that, you can make the system work.

Everything is always about trade-offs and compromises. You can have small OLs that move great but then can’t hold the point, or you can have big slow guys that maul but can’t get to the 2nd level.

The guys that can do both – big & athletic – are going to be coveted and paid well, no matter what system you use.

by jteckmann on Mar 12, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah, like Ryan Clady.

Pehaps Duke Robinson, too.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 12, 2009 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions

So, what are the drawbacks?

by jacobstevens on Mar 12, 2009 11:10 AM PDT reply actions

If I could only frequent one website for the rest of my life

It’d be this one. This article provides so much insight into not only their offensive scheme, but their strategy in regards to signing players, drafting players, etc.

Thanks A TON!

by Nick Andron on Mar 12, 2009 1:39 PM PDT reply actions

The price is right, too!

by waldo rojas on Mar 12, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions

I think you meant MySpace!

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 12, 2009 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions

This should fix one of our bigger problems

Haven’t heard anyone mention this, but to me, one of our problems has been when Matt lines up over center and then sees something and changes the play. Seems like 90% of the time he did that, something bad happened or the play was ineffective.
Zone blocking should help reduce play-call changes because the scheme is designed to handle different looks the defense may give.

by Kryten on Mar 12, 2009 4:31 PM PDT reply actions

I'm not so sure.

ZBS isn’t inherently more resistent to blitzing and extra pressure than conventional man blocking, I contend. So if he’s reading a pressure package that is sure to beat the protection package called, it’d pretty much be the same situation. In addition, he still has to read coverages.

In 2005 the effectiveness of the audibles was well noted. I think what’s happened the past couple years is after Spencer couldn’t handle the line reads, after the Bears debacle where Tommie Harris destroyed us, Hasselbeck took over those reads in addition to the coverage reads, and being the guy who takes the hit if pressure gets home, I’m thinking he’s a bit more concerned about what he sees than the Center, and has allowed the pressure reads to dictate more of the audibles we’ve called, rather than utilize audibles to capitalize on something the defense is doing on a particular play.

by jacobstevens on Mar 12, 2009 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions

He may be changing something else

like a hot read or something like that. As for whether a play is ineffective or not it’s hard to tell. Obviously if it ends in a pick or a sack it was a poor call, but a simply ineffective play like an incomplete pass or a rush for no gain may have been a better result than the original playcall.

by Nate Dogg on Mar 12, 2009 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions

Very exciting.

I’d like to see Beenie running of left tacle.

Cogito Ergo Sum

by censor1979 on Mar 12, 2009 6:34 PM PDT reply actions

Random Note

Eric Williams has done quite a good job at Seahawks Insider since taking over. It is surprising that a relatively unknown newspaper is producing such quality football journalists (John Clayton, Mike Sando, and now Eric Wiliams.) Unfortunately, their readers have some of the stupidest comments.

by Built2Spill on Mar 12, 2009 7:32 PM PDT reply actions