Blocking Scheme

[FirstAndGoal]

We've been using some zone blocking towards the end of the season. The problem with zone blocking is that you need fast tackles to do a stretch play though. You can do zone blocking and run between the tackles which is what the Pats have been trying to do towards the end of the season but doing those stretch plays where the RB cuts back from the outside (like LdT does so well ) required tackles who can get out there and keep up with ends. I do think the Pats are going to more more and more to this but it will be interesting how it continues to develop with the current personnel.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I've posted this several times but NEM keeps ignoring it. Bill was on WEEI several weeks ago and was specifically asked if we had alternate blocking schemes for Dillon and Maroney. His answer was NO. He said they tried it in pre season but because it would require continual and potentially confusing substitutions (i.e. we don't have a line that could do both) they decided not to persue it in the regular season. Just too difficult to manage.

He also stated at that time that they expected all the RB to run all the plays in the playbook. This is classic BB, and while he certainly realized Maroney was better suited to running in space, he also realized his lead back was not. The decision was made to primarily block for Dillon and Maroney was coached to deal with it. Not easy for a rookie with a tendancy to dance. But BB obviously wasn't going to change to a scheme suited to an unproven rookie RB who could easily hit a wall come playoff time. Of course he ended up with essentially 2 divergent backs who hit the wall so to speak anyway, and his most viable alternative on the bench in the third quarter of the last game of the season.

I think if Dillon returns in 2007 it will be as Jerome Bettis - short yardage plowhorse, and they will look to shift to a modified zone blocking scheme for Maroney. Of course that may mean some changes in Oline personnel. But in an organization where the HC has total football operations control, it's not up to an OC to make those decisions. He's working within the limits of running Belichick's existing offensive system with the personnel he is handed, period.

 

[BelichickFan]

I think if Dillon returns in 2007 it will be as Jerome Bettis - short yardage plowhorse, and they will look to shift to a modified zone blocking scheme for Maroney. Of course that may mean some changes in Oline personnel.

I'm no O-Line expert but I was thinking that zone blocking, ala Denver, required smaller, quicker OLmen which is pretty much what we've got. I wouldn't be surprised if our OL is well suited to it.

I agree with your thing on the OL moving towards Maroney's skills and away from Dillon's, it only makes sense.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

That may, or may not, be so.....but sometimes common sense has to prevail, especially in a game such as the one this past Sunday.

It became very apparent, throughout the past season, that Maroney excelled on the outside runs compared to when they sen him inside.

And, Dillon excelled on the opposite.

That was seen, and commented on by just about every person in this forum.

Now, just because BB said what he may have said, and I dont doubt that he did...that does not mean that sometimes you have to use common sense and use your running backs to the best that they had shown during the season, and in the second half of the game Sunday, as I showed in the official game book of the NFL, both Maroney and Dillon were used in completely the opposite way that they had excelled at in earlier games.

Now, I dont know who was responsible, but my guess it is the duty of the OC to make sure that the right personnel are in the game for the play that is being called. That did not happen in Indy and there can be no excuse for that kind of mistakes, intentional, or not.

The OC has responsibility for the offense, plain and simple..... and the buck stops with him. Again, plain and simple. If he cant cut it, then replace him with someone that can.

It's up to the position coaches to manage rotation. But that doesn't really matter since Belichick made the determination long ago that all his backs would be expected to run the full playbook for the position. He does that because he never can be entirely sure who will be at the teams disposal given our injury history. They call plays based on down, distance, opposition personnel groupings, prior plays, time remaining, etc. The didn't run much at the end of this game because time was running out, Faulk was unavailable, and Maroney and Dillon were both ineffective. Perhaps a better blocking scheme would have mitigated that, but we didn't have one to implement so end of story.

And again, be careful what you wish for NEM because Bill is also on record just this week saying that an outside coordinator is of no use to him because they are running an established system that they draft and scout for that has won them 3 superbowls and 5 division titles in 6 seasons so they're pretty happy with it's continuity even through we all know you aren't.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Ihave no problem with continuity, in fact it's a good thing. But it's not good if someone is not getting the job done, as is the case with McDaniels....so, we shall see what transpires, wont we?

NO, "we" shall not see what transpires, you've demonstrated time and time again that you are too busy boasting about your purported knowledge of football to even glance at what is happening with the team, let alone actually looking and comprehending what you see.

Now, you've offered a bet claiming Hobbs will not start in 2007. The loser does not post on any Patriots' forum for the entire season. Is that your bet? What will be the basis for Hobbs not starting? Injury? Death? Demotion? Trade? Cut from the roster? Let's get the details hammered out, this seems like a rare opportunity for one us to take a vacation.

 

[DarrylS]

That may, or may not, be so.....but sometimes common sense has to prevail, especially in a game such as the one this past Sunday.

It became very apparent, throughout the past season, that Maroney excelled on the outside runs compared to when they sen him inside.

And, Dillon excelled on the opposite.

That was seen, and commented on by just about every person in this forum.

Now, just because BB said what he may have said, and I dont doubt that he did...that does not mean that sometimes you have to use common sense and use your running backs to the best that they had shown during the season, and in the second half of the game Sunday, as I showed in the official game book of the NFL, both Maroney and Dillon were used in completely the opposite way that they had excelled at in earlier games.

Now, I dont know who was responsible, but my guess it is the duty of the OC to make sure that the right personnel are in the game for the play that is being called. That did not happen in Indy and there can be no excuse for that kind of mistakes, intentional, or not.

The OC has responsibility for the offense, plain and simple..... and the buck stops with him. Again, plain and simple. If he cant cut it, then replace him with someone that can.

You continue to respond to the threads reporting what BB says in print or voice, by what you think how the world works for you. Over and over again it has been written and spoken about how Maroney was hurt in the last part of the season, and specifically the Indy game the two primary backs(Dillon and Faulk) were dinged(BB's words) and Maroney was not 100%, thus the use of Evans. Most of these decisions are not arbitrary, nor are they spur of the moment. You need to look at a big picture and stop blaming McDaniels as you blamed Charlie for winning the superbowl with a less than adequate play calling and poor offensive schemes.

 

[Seneschal2]

That is not necessarily so. It could be interpreted as "you" (meaning the OC) cant let that happen.....

BB has never criticized his coaching staff in public, and I agree that he shoudlnt.

BB took this loss as hard as I have ever seen him, or any coach take a loss.

It was obvious by his facial expressions, and by his tone.

You've evaded my point. By BB saying "you can't let that happen", he's taliking about collectively -- not the OC. The emphasis behind his statement also signifies his intent of addressing this serious concern during the off-season. Do you think he's just going to throw this concern into the lap of the OC and say - 'Get it done!' Of course not. As I clearly stated, BB will oversee a collective effort with all offensive coaches to "get it done".

To open just one hole for Maroney requires a collective effort. Starting up front with the OL blocking, the TEs in-line blocking, to the WRs downfield blocking, and the WRs running through their routes -- it's an entire unit's effort to be successful. And all of the position coaches will be involved -- not just the OC.

 

[BelichickFan]

McDaniels isn't responsible for the run blocking schemes. Scarneccia is. It's been made abundently clear that the position coaches also have cross responsibility and the coordinator puts it all together.

This is almost irrelevant to McDaniels - he just needs a running game that works. Getting rid of the negative runs on first down will be the combination of Fears and Scarneccia to combine the skills of Maroney and the OL into something that will work more consistently.

 

[ATippett56]

It's time to consider the Patriots offense reverting back to the Pro-Set formation, eliminating the double tight end formation. If Garrett Mills can be converted to a fullback during the 2007 OTA's, he could be the lead blocker for Laurence Maroney for years to come. Furthermore, Garrett Mills could also play the Larry Centers role as a pass receiving fullback out of the backfield. The best offense during the Belichick era occurred in 2004 with Patrick Pass at fullback blocking for Corey Dillon.

http://www.profootballreference.com/teams/nwe2004.htm

 

[AzPatsFan]

I have wondered about this a little but from a different perspective. My question was why was the running game so inconsistent?

- was it the O Line?
- the RBs dancing around too much?
- WR or TE blocking?
- scheme?
- predictability? 1st down runs, etc.
- other?

Good running teams seem to be able to be get 2-3 yards on first down, this is critical. 2 and 7 , turns into 3 & 4 which is really managable. As BB said when it is 2 and 12 you cannot depend on the run..

No, it not having a lead FB to pick up the run blitzer...

 

[AzPatsFan]

Yes, I agree. That day will come. But for now, he had to be used in the best way possible, and we saw what that was ...and in the game when he was needed in that capacity, he was incorrectly being used.

In the future, perhaps as early as next season, you are correct...but for the one game that meant everything, he was improperly used, as was Corey Dillon.

They do what they are told to do....and this time they were told wrong...end of story.

And, quite frankly, it was brought up in this forum by several different posters, myself not included..... so, why cant you admit it that in the game against the Colts, in the l2nd half, for what time they WERE in the game, both Maroney and Dillon were given plays to run that was opposite of what they did best for the major part of the season. It's not asking to much to ask you to admit the same thing that a lot of other people saw, and commented on, is it?

Once again you are simply wrong. BB on multiple occasions has said he will not tailor plays to specific individuals because it is impractical with the mass situation substitution that he employs; plus it alerts the Defense to anticipate certain plays by certain individuals.

The simple answer is that we had a talent defiiciency; Not good enough lead FB blocking, and more importantly, not enough continuity to the passing game due to the uniques circumstances of 2006.

If you inspect the running plays for losses, invariably it was a penetrating defender who run blitzed, and caught the single back taking the handoff and not yet up to speed. The WHAM TE couldn't help since the penetration happened too quickly. When they tried that with a lead FB, he was picked up, the ballcarrier had an opportunity to get up to speed, and sometimes went for several yards into the vacated hole. But playing a lead FB took something off the immature passing game and it suffered too much.

Next season and a more Normal season, the passing game can stand on its own, without a single or empty backfield, and the lead FB can be employed more often. Sooner or later the run blitzing will cease, as it proves unprofitable, and Teams get burned, and the more single back formations can again be used.

Stroke counterstroke in the Chess game.

 

[cstjohn17]

It's time to consider the Patriots offense reverting back to the Pro-Set formation, eliminating the double tight end formation. If Garrett Mills can be converted to a fullback during the 2007 OTA's, he could be the lead blocker for Laurence Maroney for years to come. Furthermore, Garrett Mills could also play the Larry Centers role as a pass receiving fullback out of the backfield. The best offense during the Belichick era occurred in 2004 with Patrick Pass at fullback blocking for Corey Dillon.

http://www.profootballreference.com/teams/nwe2004.htm

I have always liked the FB, not completely sold on Mills as a lead blocker but something should be done to improve the consistency of the running attack. With Graham possibly leaving I don't see the 2 TE set as being such an attractive option.

Actually, I like this a lot, with Mills in the backfield he can act as an H-Back, and shift over to TE when if 3 WRs are used.

Sounds like a good idea to me. As far as changing the blocking scheme, I don't like it. Maybe they add more zone into their plays but it doesn't seem to make sense to change the whole office for a single RB. What would happen if Maroney got hurt?

What about pulls and sweeps? It seems like we hardly ran these at all in 2007, these are great plays to run play action off of and tire a defense. Can the Pats offense execute these types of plays with the current roster?

 

[ATippett56]

With Graham possibly leaving I don't see the 2 TE set as being such an attractive option.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

I don't ever envision Daniel Graham as the elite pass catching tight end in the Patriots offense. With Daniel Graham turning 29 years old in November, I'd rather invest the money in Asante Samuel since the cornerback depth on the Patriots roster is somewhat questionable.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I still don't understand how the Pats' offensive coordinator's results are so piss-poor, when in fact the Pats scored points in the vicinity of the top of the league. Since the offense did their job (27 points, as I recall,) against the Colts, and the D pitched in to generate a TD, you could pretty much argue that, short of "coaching" Brady into a "more miracles now!" frenzy, McDaniels did what he was supposed to do. That is to say, the offense scored plenty in this latest game, and pretty much did so all year. It was a flawed team, yes, but I just do not see the evidence that McDaniels is incapable of doing his job - judging on results.

I do see that those who claim to draw their conclusions usually base them on arcana of tape study, or even rememberances of the game.... I am aspiring to be a student of the game at that level, though it's not my forte. But I will say, since those who pick apart the play-by-plays, or at least base their opinions on the play-by-plays, end up diametrically opposed as to what really is happening, it's likely results will continue to be the best way to analyze performance (rather than a claim of nuances picked up on the tape.)

Okay, the OC aside... one of the most overused phrases of all time, to my mind, is "zone blocking scheme." I've tried to parse this phrase a number of times, and what I come up with is "student body left," and "student body right," with the back either behaving as if he's running in a sweep, or taking an initial step to the other direction, then reversing field, resulting in a counter. Others here point out that the "zone blocking scheme" Denver uses, is really just a league-approved "chop blocking scheme," and on occasion I've even been able to pick this up watching Denver play this year (though not often; TV analysts love to talk about O-line play, but rarely give you a very good camera shot, since they are either in front of or behind the "action" all the time.)

Anyhoo: What's the advantage I'm not seeing, in the case of the New England Patriots? We have 2 guys who combined for around 1600 yards and 19 TDs (that's not even counting Faulk, Evans, whoever.)

Is that not enough, for the running game?

We have a QB who ended up with (I believe) 24 passing TDs, and 12 picks.

Is that not a good enough passing game?

Are the Pats toward the top of the league in sacks allowed? Are they toward the bottom of the league in yards per carry? How about time of possession? How can all these good results come from such a bad offense?

Aren't we kind of working overtime trying to figure out what to fix here? After all, we gave Brady a receiving corps we picked up at Wal-Mart in the "scratch and dent bin," and -- pissed as he initially may have been -- he turned them into a winning unit. Yeah, our rookie back hit a rookie wall -- but I have even seen people saying Maroney is our problem. News flash: our problem is that other teams select personnel, work out, practice, and game plan, every time we play them, for the sole and express purpose of beating us.

It's not very nice behavior, when you think about it, given that they should all lay down at the Pats' feet, occasionally throwing rose petals beneath them perhaps, to form a living carpet of crimson down which Brady, Belichick, Pioli, and Kraft stroll, as they receive ever more diamond-encrusted bling.

But that's their jobs, those other teams, to beat us, not to act as "the bad guy" in another "Three Games to Glory" DVD.

Now, I'm glad to eat my words when and if a zone blocking scheme is put into play, or NEM is named offensive coordinator, or I'm otherwise wrong about things this season. But the point I'm making is that we're looking for these radical changes in scheme, or the radical move of ditching yet another coordinator -- this time voluntarily -- on a team that's already been bleeding coordinators like a hemophiliac on the rag.

All this is yet another way to PANIC. I hate to be boring and undramatic, but I think we'll all continue to see no results in the offseason, or at least very few. We might make a mid-level (or even splashy) pickup in free agency... but I bet they'll be more like "oh that would have been splashy five years ago." We'll have a good draft. We won't work on getting a fantastic number 1 receiver, we'll work on acquiring/developing a serviceable WR corps. Again, not Moss/Porter, not Owens/Rice, not Harrison/Wayne. The key will be to have five or so you can field regularly, and a couple backups you're not ashamed to see on the field. We'll add a number of interchangeable talent (most likely,) at LB and the DB positions (possibly retaining Samuel at corner via the tag, possibly not, possibly making a run at Briggs or Thomas, likely not,) etc.

The strength of the Pats is an ability to field a number of players that can step up when necessary, where necessary.

I understand that this model is not a big rah-rah party for the fan. But drafting and working the FA market NOT for the biggest name available, but for quality starters backed up by quality depth, will go a long way to solving this season's "issues."

In terms of offensive scheme, I'll leave it to the guys in Foxboro to come to a conclusion. I just can't see calling for the head of a guy that helped win 12 regular season games, and had the team 1 minute shy of another Super Bowl appearance.

I feel like Alan Greenspan here... "What do we want? Cautious and gradual change! When do we want it? Now!"

Full of piss n vinegar,

PFnV

 

[TripleOption]

what do the broncos run?

They run Zone, but the "get in the hole and go" philosophy is more of a "scheme" blocking concept (Traps, Power O, etc) and Zone blocking relies on a patient cutback type of runner.

Maroney was in a Zone scheme at Minnesota and some of the big runs you see from his highlight package are cutbacks or "windback" runs.

 

[cstjohn17]

I don't ever envision Daniel Graham as the elite pass catching tight end in the Patriots offense. With Daniel Graham turning 29 years old in November, I'd rather invest the money in Asante Samuel since the cornerback depth on the Patriots roster is somewhat questionable.

Is Graham really 29 next year? let me check.. Nov 16, 1978

Yep, he will be 29 in November, wow... I am getting old, 1978 = 29... incredible.

No brainer, I agree lock up Samuel (Jan 6, 1981 ) who turns 26 next January...

This should be interesting, Samuel is going to paid a lot or will be franchised. Hope it is with the Patriots, with out top 2 CBs signed, good yound D-Line, 3 out 4 LBs (Tedy returns) and our top 2 Safeties back for next year (Harrison and Wilson) the holes can be filled. Add a hole at #1 corner at it gets a whole lot more difficult.