Patriots moving to a full zone blocking scheme?

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

I had pulled together a pretty large post (with pictures and everything!), but the internet ate it. 
 
In discussing some other things with a few of the BbtL staples, I had brought this topic up and began discussing it with Super Nomario. 
 
Long story short, I'm curious if the Logan Mankins move symbolizes a shift back to a more traditional setup (best pass blocking interior lineman moving to LG) as well as a full focus on a zone blocking scheme instead of their current zone/power hybrid blocking scheme.
 
Since I'm at work, I'll include the messages below as the genesis to this thread. Sorry for the structure. It's from my mailbox and I don't know how to format the quotes properly.
 
What are peoples thoughts about the Patriots moving to a full ZBS? Is it happening? Will it help cure some of their problems with interior pressure? Will the run game suffer or thrive?
 
 

They've tended to play the smaller guys (like Kline) at LG and bigger guys (like Cannon, Devey, and Fleming, who are all 6'5+ 315+) at RG. Maybe part of the goal is to get bigger on that right side, which is why we've seen Connolly (more of a LG type) working at C instead of RG this preseason.
 
 
He has literally played G before, like week 6 last year when Connolly left with injury. I do think they see him more as a T though.

 
My Response:
 
 

I got 1/2 way through a pretty lengthy post playing off of something SN picked up on (BB playing smaller guards at left guard). The post was operating under the old adage that you put your best pass blocking interior lineman at LG (which is a common rule of thumb), that BB may have been making plans for removing Mankins (at least) all preseason by trying out solid pass blockers at LG, that it makes sense why he'd put the bigger guards at RG if he was operating under this premise, and that this could symbolize a shifting to a full zone scheme blocking from their current hybrid zone/power scheme they run (much less pulling involved from RG - where BB has been trying out his larger interior linemen - in zone blocking, left guards do pull outside TE on left side during outside zone runs, etc).
 
Anyway, I had some pictures and examples, but the post got eaten on me. Awesome way to waste 45 minutes.

 
 
Super Nomario:
 

I have two reactions:
1) Some of the sacks on Brady last year were on play action plays with complicated blocking structures - e.g., Mankins would pull as if it was a run play, and Wendell would try to pick up the 3-tech left unblocked by that action. Sometimes this didn't work and Brady was left dead to rights. A ZBS run game less dependent on pulling action would let them use more conventional play action, helping protect Brady and eliminating some of these negative plays.
 
2) I'm having trouble squaring a shift to ZBS with the guys they drafted. Stork is probably fine either way, but Halapio and Fleming are a lot more man/power guys - some of the biggest and slowest players in the draft (and Stanford famously runs man/power). Do you see these guys as exceptions or part of the shift?
 
Interested to see what you come up with.

 
 
My response:
 

To your first point, not just are left guards supposed to be the better pass blocker, but right guards actually have the hardest job on the interior line.
 
 

Without question the most difficult of the interior line positions, right guards are most likely to be left one-on-one with an elite inside rusher. The predominance of teams to slide their center to the left to protect the quarterback's blind side creates a greater value for the right guard position. Fourteen-year veteran Todd Steussie, currently available on the free agent market, says, "Right guard is definitely harder than left guard." Recently-retired lineman Todd Fordham, a 10-year NFL vet, agreed: "The left guard always has help."
 
Though the difference in value between the two guard spots is lessened somewhat in an offense that rarely slides the pass protections like the Colts, the strength of the formation often dictates that the right guard has the wider alignment, and thus more difficult assignment, on his side.

 
 
I'll be the first to admit that I never re-watched a single play form last season, but I certainly recall the team getting into trouble with some of their play-actions. It sounds like the Patriots were taking the most difficult job on the interior line (RG) and increasing the level of difficulty with plays like that. The Patriots obviously want the defense to bite on the play action, and pulling your guard is a great way to do it. Obviously you don't pull a guard on a pass play, safeties and LB's key on first step (forward is run, backwards is pass) as well as guard movement, etc. But, as you alluded to, if the Patriots end up in a full ZBS, the team won't be pulling the guard often anyway, so there's no reason to do so in play-action. I think the offense was out-thinking themselves if they were pulling on play-actions. Peyton Manning has run a zone scheme in both Indy and Denver and I think he and Brady are the two best play-action QB's in the NFL.
 
2.) I truthfully don't know much about the young guys the Patriots brought in. You're right about Stork. Zone blocking for a center is essentially the same as power blocking. With that said, I think this situation is similar to the old adage, "All Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholics". If an interior lineman has the ability to play in a power/counter scheme, there is no reason he can't play in a zone scheme. 
 
The power/counter scheme involves a lot of movement. Pulling across the line, getting up through a hole before the lead back, engaging linebackers, etc. While zone blockers have always been considered "smaller", there isn't any reason that the larger linemen who already do all this movement in a power scheme can't also commit to a ZBS.
 
In practice, the ZBS should be easier for the big interior guys. They're in charge of the "inside zone" and have 3 responsibilities.
 
1.) Block the guy in front of you.
 
2.) If nobody is in front of you, double team the play side (help center if the run is to the opposite side of the line, or help tackle if its to the outside of the guard)
 
3.) Work your way up to the linebacker 
 
It's a simplistic view, but that's basically it for the inside zone.
 
I think the misconception of "only lighter linemen play the ZBS" occurs because people look at teams who run a ZBS and see smaller linemen. In reality, the teams that run a ZBS simply choice smaller linemen because you don't NEED to be big to play in a ZBS, so they implement the smaller linemen because they're usually cheaper or have the added benefit of being better at pass blocking (quicker, more agile, better at hand checks, better at backpedaling, better balance, etc). 
 
In other words, big linemen can play a power scheme or ZBS, but smaller linemen have a difficult time in a power scheme. 
 
TL;DR, I don't think the Pats drafting larger linemen precludes them from running a full ZBS.

 

 

[soxfan121]

You need an editor.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

I have one.

 

[Grogan's NeckRol]

Sorry for the dumb question KFP but what is the difference for an interior lineman (particularly the guards) in a pure power scheme from three responsibilities you list in the zone scheme?  Or is there a difference? 
 
Thanks, this is interesting because I agree on a lot of the pressure up the middle coming from blown assignments on play action. 

 

[IdiotKicker]

So I'll be the first to admit that I have watched maybe 3 quarters of play so far this preseason, so I don't have a great feel for the team this year, not like you can get a great feel for a team in the preseason anyways.  We all remember a couple years ago when everyone was all excited about blitzing and pressure and then we turned into a pretty vanilla defense in the regular season, so I don't put too much stock into play-calling and such in the preseason.
 
What I do think is interesting about this move is that more than changing the entire blocking scheme for the line, I think it does open them up for some more creative blocking involving TEs in both the passing game and run game.  Statistically, the Pats were in 14% less 1TE sets last year and 11% less 2TE sets than in 2012.  Which makes sense when your second tight end turns out to be a murderer and your first tight end gets his knee blown up part way through the season.
 
Picking up Wright allows for greater use of these sets, and more blocking down from the TE to fill gaps, as opposed to having to use the opposite guard instead.  So this should help somewhat with run blocking.  I also think that being able to go 2TE with the personnel they have opens up the potential for a little more screen usage as well that can help to remove pressure in the passing game in that fashion.
 
I don't think you'll see a huge shift from the Pats on this front, but just the fact that these options are available have the potential of opening things up a little more by giving defenses some additional looks.  But I'll have to get a look at the first 3-4 games to see what is really going on here.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

Sorry for the dumb question KFP but what is the difference for an interior lineman (particularly the guards) in a pure power scheme from three responsibilities you list in the zone scheme?  Or is there a difference? 
 
Thanks, this is interesting because I agree on a lot of the pressure up the middle coming from blown assignments on play action. 

 
Football Outsiders has a piece that's a few years old, but does a good job answering the question:
 

 
For those of you unfamiliar with the Denver offensive line scheme, they use a technique known as "zone blocking". In a "man" or "drive" blocking scheme the lineman is responsible for an individual, and the play is designed for a running back to hit a particular gap. The zone blocking scheme, on the other hand, has a lineman blocking an area instead of a designated defensive player. If multiple linemen are blocking an area than one can break off and block into the second level.
 
The offensive line typically moves as a unit laterally, and the result of their blocks should create some natural seams or gaps in the defensive formation. The running back is responsible for finding a hole, making a cut, and then running upfield. One of the key tenets of the Denver system is that the running back takes what he can get -- he should never dance around waiting for a hole to open. He needs to be agile, authoritative, and possess good instincts. Nothing fancy, just try to gain positive yardage.

 
I think that covers most of the differences. You also have to consider that ZBS generally involve less pulling from interior linemen. If you're unsure what "pulling" means, it essentially means that a lineman (usually the guard form the opposite side of the line), steps his near side foot back on the snap with his first step, and chugs behind the rest of the line (usually the center and opposite side guard) to clear a hole for the running back. Because the ZBS creates natural seams and holes, the far side guard generally can focus on double teaming and working up to the second level instead of pulling, sprinting, finding the hole, trying to clear it (or get to the next level if its already clear).

 

[bakahump]

Couple (possibly) dumb questions...
 
1. Why is it assumed that the TE is on the Right Side of the formation? (helping the RT)  Is it so he stays in the line of sight of a RH QB during dropback?
2. IYHO do the Pats Chip the LDE with the RB more then most teams thereby helping the LT? (The article you linked was VERY informative but mentioned most teams used the RB Chip to help the RT.)  Seems like during the halcyon Freeney Light battles Faulk would constantly chip Freeney.
3. How would a ZBS work with the "Screen Game"?  WR and RB?  I know we have brought up questions about can the 340lb Guard get out to block the LBs and secondary. Wouldnt a ZBS be the opposite of that?

 

[wutang112878]

I dont have the knowledge to project how this scheme would affect pass protection so I'm not going to touch that.  But can someone address how in general a zone blocking scheme works for pass blocking?
 
From a personnel standpoint, it seems like they have the interior guys to do this.  At tackle Solder and Vollmer are 6"8' but they are agile.  All their interior lineman hover right around 300 pounds which seems like what you would need.
 
If we move to the rushing game, then I wonder if this would result in more rushes for Vereen?   I think the advantage of the zone blocking in the running game comes from using smaller OL who can make those lateral moves.  Ridley seems to have the ability to look at the line and cut, but I dont think he is much of a threat once his pads get turned and he is facing the sideline.  Vereen on the other hand is more of a threat when running towards the sideline because of his speed.  If they go with this approach it might also give a speedy guy like Finch a better chance to make the roster as well.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

I dont have the knowledge to project how this scheme would affect pass protection so I'm not going to touch that.  But can someone address how in general a zone blocking scheme works for pass blocking?

 
It doesn't.
 
Pass blocking is the same across the board. The ball is snapped and each lineman takes his initial step backwards into a defensive stance. Essentially, the form a shell (pocket, if you will) around the quarterback. Pass blocking is generally a universal concept. The techniques are different depending on the situation (stunts, blitzes, running backs staying in or chipping before going out, etc), but the scheme is the same.

 

[Jimy Hendrix]

Another question from a non technical football fan.

One of the hallmarks of the Pats' schemes under Dante (as noted by commentators at least and anecdotally observed by me as well) has been linemen staying with plays and getting big blocks upfield.

Is that schematic, or just a function of emphasizing high motors and staying in the play after an initial block? Would a scheme change to zone affect that at all?

 

[Saints Rest]

Do the Patriots "Wham-Block" with wideouts (either WR's or TE's split wide) more than most teams?  At the very least, they seem to do so a lot.  Is this because they have traditionally had good blocking WR's (I certainly think that despite their diminutive size, both Edelman and Amendola are very good blockers -- and LaFell seems like he will help in this regard.)
 
How does the Wham-Block work with either the Zone or the Power approach to run-blocking.

Does one approach vs the other inherently better for one type of RB (thunder vs lightning)?

 

[IdiotKicker]

How does the Wham-Block work with either the Zone or the Power approach to run-blocking.
Does one approach vs the other inherently better for one type of RB (thunder vs lightning)?

 
You'll typically see it more in a traditional power game where you're matched up with a man and trying to get specific leverage.  So let's say you have a C and RG, with the C covered by a NT, and two ILBs behind the NT.  You want to get your linemen to the second level to pick up the ILBs and create room to run, so on the snap, the C heads out and takes one ILB out of the play to the left, while the RG take the second ILB out to the right.  You then have a TE in motion who can block down on the NT either way, depending on where you want to go, which if everyone executes, should leave space to pick up at least a few yards there.
 
You will see them occasionally with zone blocking, but not as much, because that tends to just be more "move the pile in one direction and allow an RB to find a hole", whereas power-blocking schemes try to deliberately create a certain hole for the back to run through.