|
|
Post by coachcb on Aug 4, 2007 22:08:41 GMT -6
Someone commented in an earlier threat that they prefer to run 1 or 2 formations with a wide variety of blocking schemes for their plays.
I read the same thing from a Hall of Fame HS coach in an AFCA publication. This coach stated that
"It doesn't matter how many formations you run a play out of, but how many blocking schemes you run with that play".
Now, all though I don't utilize this philosophy as I prefer a few blocking schemes with lots of formations. BUT, this does make sense to me; the more blocking schemes you can run with a play, the more you screw with the defenses reads and angles.
For example; lets look at an offtackle power play, you can run it with-
1. Down blocks, FB kick out, BSG lead
2. Fold block between TE and PST, FB lead
3. Down block, PSG kicks out, FB leads
4. Stretch blocking
What do you guys think of this philosophy?
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Aug 4, 2007 22:11:58 GMT -6
i prefer limited blocking schemes
period
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Aug 4, 2007 22:29:43 GMT -6
I usually count running plays by blocking schemes, and the more formations you have, the harder it is to keep 5 ways to block power, because each formation produces a different look from the defense, and therefore gives you less time to rep
I understand the idear behind multiple blocking schemes (especially if you are in one formation), as it allows you to handle different looks------heck, that's the same thing as when we make a line call to GOE (some call it TOG-------hmmmmm I wonder who?) block a front so we get angles.
Part of my fascination with zone blocking is it's ability to solve both problems........I can be as mulitiple as I want, and because my guys know the rules (covered/uncovered), and you can rep the crap out of it as one blocking scheme, I'm fine.
Plus, it gives you the ability to hit whatever gap the defense gives you........IZ can hit B, A and A away (essentially replacing iso, trap, dive)
tog said something a couple weeks ago about folding of draw to the effect of: "I can draw up a blocking scheme for anything and make it work, getting my kids to understand and execute is the hard thing"
|
|
|
|
Post by CVBears on Aug 4, 2007 23:05:24 GMT -6
i prefer limited blocking schemes period me too. multiple formations, different plays with similar blocking schemes. the less the kids have to know, the more reps and the better the kids know it (not just their assignment rule but muscle memory as well) and execute it. |
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Aug 4, 2007 23:22:17 GMT -6
establishing blocking rules is paramount (and, no doubt this is earth-shattering revelation, here ...  ) but when doing so, try to set them up for Most fronts ... then, each weak you must evaluate whether you will need to modify it for a unique front the defense has in it's arsenal (i.e. oddball that doesn't fit the rules or a defensive front that is not as condusive to running that play against) . for this, you must decide A) we won't run _____ from these formations in which they play that defense or B) we must develop a special rule for _____ this week in the event we see said formation from the defense. what this means is that you don't really need to block EVERY front in your basic establishment of the blocking rules (i.e. keep it simple to the general fronts) ... then, each week you must make the decision to kick it out or modify the rules (or have a built in check - either via qb or sideline - to get out of that play) for us .. the 2nd day of game planning (Sunday in HS) ... we have a "block 'em" meeting in which we review each formation and plays vs the defenses the opponent plays vs each formation and literally "block" each play based on the established rules. we then determine if the "game plan adjustment" to the blocking rules for that play is viable (can our kids learn it that week and execute it) or do we need to scrap (or check out of) that play from the formation if we see that front |
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Aug 5, 2007 1:45:31 GMT -6
I think of us as having really only one main blocking scheme. However, since it consists of 7 calls... we could have 49 different schemes per play (plus a few huddle calls for backs). So we could run our Toss about 200 ways...but we have 1 play with 4 variations (G kick out, FB kick out, FB load, Zone), so I (and 15 years worth of OL) think it is limited like Tog suggests. For this year's guys, apparently our system is on par with nuclear physics (as is going on "two").
Otherwise...what Huey said...
|
|
crl
Junior Member
Pick me , pick me... I want to be on the RNC location scout team.
Posts: 476
|
Post by crl on Aug 5, 2007 2:31:19 GMT -6
I have to agree with Huey, firstly establish rules and then adjust to fronts and situations you will see. In those rules the must and most paramount is the reading of teq´s of the def front 7 and the complete understanding between players, the line captain and the staff. The game adjustments become so simple. Also the "this ain´t gonna work this way" is so important as to not waste time.
As to varations in the blocking scheme with limited formations...hey if you have the talent by all means, but I was taught that using formations to get the look we want so as to attack it with our strength and if that look does not happen to have the adjust ready or the setup.
If it were only that easy!
JMHO
CRL
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Aug 5, 2007 3:44:19 GMT -6
Someone commented in an earlier threat that they prefer to run 1 or 2 formations with a wide variety of blocking schemes for their plays. I read the same thing from a Hall of Fame HS coach in an AFCA publication. This coach stated that "It doesn't matter how many formations you run a play out of, but how many blocking schemes you run with that play". Now, all though I don't utilize this philosophy as I prefer a few blocking schemes with lots of formations. BUT, this does make sense to me; the more blocking schemes you can run with a play, the more you screw with the defenses reads and angles. For example; lets look at an offtackle power play, you can run it with- 1. Down blocks, FB kick out, BSG lead 2. Fold block between TE and PST, FB lead 3. Down block, PSG kicks out, FB leads 4. Stretch blocking What do you guys think of this philosophy? what I like to do is have blocking schemes, rules to match the scheme, tags to vary the scheme and line calls to vary the scheme slightly. For example, lets take a power off tackle play we might want to down block the front a trap a 6 tech with the fb, pull and lead thru next time we might want to down and trap with the ps guard, pull and lead thru we might want to have a wing then provide a double team on that same 6 tech and kick the next man out with the fb, pull and lead thru... ...next time we might double the 6 again with wing and te and kick the next man with the psg, lead the fb and bs linemen thru the hole... ...next time we might want to scoop the 6 with the tackle and te, send the wing to the backer, kick the next man, pull and lead thru... next time we might want to BOB block the playside and have the te drive the defensive end outside, send the wing to the lber level. pull and lead thru with the bs and the fb. .... get what Im saying? based on what a man is doing we can make simple adjustments to "tweak" how we attack the defense. Blocking rules give us the great foundation to execute and attack with high efficiency, line calls or tags added on to the play provide blocking adjustments so that we can exploit what the defense is giving us. Another coach might want to change the formation to do the same thing, however in my opinion if I move away from the base double tight dw then I show tendencies and also quite possibly limit my ability to attack with all of my plays to both sides of the formation- the balance of the formation is a big part of what stresses the defense so much. If I didnt feel it was the best formation for what I wanted to do I wouldnt be in it in the first place. I do however think that a couple of wrinkles is nice to have, for example, I like to have another formation that is wickedly unbalanced as a change of pace. One thing I dont ever have to worry about is "illegal proceedure" or "illegal formation" because "thats all we run"... this is of course another case of what our experiences and level of play have taught us. I know I know..."couldnt do it in the NFL"...I dont coach in the NFL. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Aug 5, 2007 7:45:36 GMT -6
I've been coaching the OL for a long time. For the life of me I don't see how you'd find the time to rep up multiple blocking schemes for the same play.
|
|
|
|
Post by lukethadrifter on Aug 5, 2007 10:36:17 GMT -6
it has been my experience that having a handfull of blocking schemes that you have time to work and perfect is much better than having many schemes that you are mediocre at because of lack of practice time/reps - have also heard that you can develop a great running offense by just utilizing 2 schemes of blocking down/kicking out and zoning everything across - Luke
|
|
|
|
Post by CVBears on Aug 5, 2007 12:14:47 GMT -6
have also heard that you can develop a great running offense by just utilizing 2 schemes of blocking down/kicking out and zoning everything across - Luke 90% of our offense |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Aug 5, 2007 12:36:27 GMT -6
Nice stuff guys, keep it coming.
Although I do see the logic in the "more blocking schemes" philosophy, I'd prefer to limit them and run each one to perfect.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Aug 5, 2007 13:07:47 GMT -6
we have
3 basic schemes for run plays
zone/dart
stretch
veer/power
carryover is key to getting reps against variable fronts, stemming linemen, and prowling linebackers
|
|
|
|
Post by poweriguy on Aug 5, 2007 13:34:06 GMT -6
We just had a few base plays and basically had one way to block those plays. Just make sure there is a hole open where the play is going. But we practiced those handful of plays against multiple defensive fronts.
After that I added a wedge play from our sniffer formation, and used double wing style wedge blocking scheme.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Aug 5, 2007 13:42:00 GMT -6
Do those of you that run several blocking schemes for one play every find it difficult to implement with the kids?
There are some years were it seems like we're doing everything we can to get the kids to learn a few simple blocking schemes (trap, veer, Iso, etc..).
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Aug 5, 2007 14:04:42 GMT -6
we have 3 basic schemes for run plays zone/dart stretch veer/power carryover is key to getting reps against variable fronts, stemming linemen, and prowling linebackers you guys dont trap or wedge? man you dont know what youre missing  |
|
|
|
Post by hoptions on Aug 5, 2007 15:21:02 GMT -6
We really like to formation teams to death in order to put them where we want them. If you line up in the same formation the whole game I feel you are putting the defense in a favorable position, no matter how many different blocking schemes you have. I know for us the more blocking schemes we have the more the kids screw up, and screw ups are bad for the team.
What we have done is meshed the zone style of blocking with the veer. We were finding that no matter how much scouting we have done on the other team’s defense, they were coming out in something different that we have not seen. In order to counter this the zone style we have come up with allows us to block anything from a 3-3 stack to a 70 diamond (seven man line 1 lb) no matter what play we call from any of our multiple formation. Now I realize there are still plays vs. each defense that are not ideal so we still have our checks in play.
Hoptions
|
|
|
|
Post by okpowerspread on Aug 5, 2007 15:21:33 GMT -6
All our rules stay the same reguardless of what formations we are in and what front we see. We can run the same plays against any front from any of our formations with very little adjustment. That in my opinion is the best way to do it. The less our O-line has the think the better. Not because they are dumb, but all i want mt guys the think about is kicking @$$, not ok if he is in a 3 I zone, if he is 4I I scoop or what ever. Follow your rule take your step, then fit, drive & finish. Obviously there are plays that are better against certion fronts, but that is our job as coaches to make those adjustments.
|
|
|
|
Post by okpowerspread on Aug 5, 2007 15:30:49 GMT -6
we have 3 basic schemes for run plays zone/dart stretch veer/power carryover is key to getting reps against variable fronts, stemming linemen, and prowling linebackers These are the exact same basic schemes that we absolutly rep everyday. Add to that a pass pro session and we do these at least everyday. |
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Aug 5, 2007 15:37:15 GMT -6
i try to keep my O linemens rules simple, when they come up to the ball the know they have to do 1 of 2 things. depending on alignment of DL. if hes lined up one way they do A, if hes different they do B. try to keep it simple for the big guys
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Aug 5, 2007 15:42:01 GMT -6
I don't even think it would be feasible for us to add in any additional blocking schemes this year; we're going to see ALOT of different fronts..
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Aug 5, 2007 16:44:08 GMT -6
another reason to kinda do something along the lines of steve's thinking on this
we always have a 5 man surface, no TE ever, we will have tight slots, but by having the 5 man surface and generally being spread out we will only see so many looks up front
|
|
) but when doing so, try to set them up for Most fronts ... then, each weak you must evaluate whether you will need to modify it for a unique front the defense has in it's arsenal (i.e. oddball that doesn't fit the rules or a defensive front that is not as condusive to running that play against) . for this, you must decide A) we won't run _____ from these formations in which they play that defense or B) we must develop a special rule for _____ this week in the event we see said formation from the defense.
