Chalk Talk: The Outside Zone AKA The Stretch

[KDawg]

So then would this guy make sense at RT (even though he played LT in college): "XX has improved his run blocking while being rock solid as a pass-protector. He is very quick on the edge. XX has no problem getting depth in his drops to negate speed rushes. XX has plus athletic ability to serve as a blind-side protector. It looks like he has the quickness and length to be a good pass-blocker for the passing-driven NFL. XX has quick feet and is a natural left tackle. He also is a decent run-blocker with some power and mobility." (6'6/310)

I have to wonder what round this scout projected this guy in. He sounds like the near-perfect offensive lineman... Which is very, very difficult to come by in all actuality. I hate when people use words like "decent" in conjunction with the word "some" in regards to power and agility.

Sounds like a lazy scouting report.

[GothSkinsFan]

I have to wonder what round this scout projected this guy in. He sounds like the near-perfect offensive lineman... Which is very, very difficult to come by in all actuality. I hate when people use words like "decent" in conjunction with the word "some" in regards to power and agility.

Sounds like a lazy scouting report.

Most of them usually are.... As someone once said, most of these things are just people perusing other mediocre reports and repackaging them. Still, if that description is generally accurate, I'd take him if he were available (i.e., it's not Tom Compton).

[KDawg]

Most of them usually are.... As someone once said, most of these things are just people perusing other mediocre reports and repackaging them. Still, if that description is generally accurate, I'd take him if he were available (i.e., it's not Tom Compton).

It's Oday Aboushi. The scouting report seems a bit overzealous. I've never been overly impressed with him, but I suppose I'll watch some more film on him given that I watch a lot of different things any time I watch college ball.

[GeoPro]

Thanks for takig time to post this KDawg! Really informative and enjoyable to read. Can't thank you enough!
I have dug into any play breakdowns I can find to learn what Mike and Kyle are up to. And I really like the way they seem to have combined older concepts that still work very well with newer ones and have our Off rolling.
Thanks again!
HTTR!!!
George

[KDawg]

Thanks for takig time to post this KDawg! Really informative and enjoyable to read. Can't thank you enough!
I have dug into any play breakdowns I can find to learn what Mike and Kyle are up to. And I really like the way they seem to have combined older concepts that still work very well with newer ones and have our Off rolling.
Thanks again!
HTTR!!!
George

You're most welcome. Thank you for reading and leaving a quick note! Appreciate it!

[brandymac27]

Ok, I know this is gonna be a really stupid question to most of you, but I don't understand something in the OP (go figure Lol). Why would the uncovered OL switch to be the blocker, while the original covered blocker then becomes uncovered and moves to the second level (I hope this is making sense). Why wouldn't the original uncovered OL just stay uncovered and move straight into the next level as opposed to doing all that other stuff? I'm obviously missing something and have no clue wth I'm talking about, but that threw me off.

[thesubmittedone]

Ok, I know this is gonna be a really stupid question to most of you, but I don't understand something in the OP (go figure Lol). Why would the uncovered OL switch to be the blocker, while the original covered blocker then becomes uncovered and moves to the second level (I hope this is making sense). Why wouldn't the original uncovered OL just stay uncovered and move straight into the next level as opposed to doing all that other stuff? I'm obviously missing something and have no clue wth I'm talking about, but that threw me off.

You have just solved the problem that has perplexed coaches teaching this scheme for decades. Congratulations.

[brandymac27]

You have just solved the problem that has perplexed coaches teaching this scheme for decades. Congratulations.

I seriously don't understand this part. What am I missing?

[thesubmittedone]

I seriously don't understand this part. What am I missing?

It's kind of hard to explain, and KDawg will probably be better at it than myself, but basically you need to focus on the primary function of the Oline in creating "double teams". Basically, the "double team" here is that switch off. Does that help? I hope I understood it correctly as well, lol.

[brandymac27]

It's kind of hard to explain, and KDawg will probably be better at it than myself, but basically you need to focus on the primary function of the Oline in creating "double teams". Basically, the "double team" here is that switch off. Does that help? I hope I understood it correctly as well, lol.

I get what you're saying, but it still seems kind of dumb. Why not just double team, and then let the original covered OL keep blocking instead of making a switch? Why does it have to be so complicated?

[thesubmittedone]

I get what you're saying, but it still seems kind of dumb. Why not just double team, and then let the original covered OL keep blocking instead of making a switch? Why does it have to be so complicated?

That's a good point, but I think it just goes back to the point of the stretch play. I think it's a bit difficult for Olinemen to run laterally all the while sticking to double teams the entire time. Actually, it's probably impossible, lol. They're running laterally not forward and, so, one guy is going to always eventually run ahead of the Dlinemen he's got to block and when he does so, the other "uncovered" Olinemen is going to have get to that guy.

I really hope I'm not making this worse.

KDawg?

[Dukes and Skins]

KDawg, that was the worst write up i've ever seen

[skinny21]

I get what you're saying, but it still seems kind of dumb. Why not just double team, and then let the original covered OL keep blocking instead of making a switch? Why does it have to be so complicated?

As far as I undersand it (and I'm a novice myself), the reason is to string the linemen out to create cutback lanes. Also, by getting the defense to flow one way or another you open up the bootlegs and such.

If lineman blocked the individual in front of them, then they're moving them back instead of laterally. At least it would be quite a bit more difficult to get a guy lined up in front of you to move parallel to the LOS. What you're describing would be more 'power-blocking' instead (pushing guys backward instead of sideways).

That's my take anyway.

[darrelgreenie]

Ok, I know this is gonna be a really stupid question to most of you, but I don't understand something in the OP (go figure Lol). Why would the uncovered OL switch to be the blocker, while the original covered blocker then becomes uncovered and moves to the second level (I hope this is making sense). Why wouldn't the original uncovered OL just stay uncovered and move straight into the next level as opposed to doing all that other stuff? I'm obviously missing something and have no clue wth I'm talking about, but that threw me off.

I hope this helps....
o most single 1-on-1 blocks result in a 'stalemate' or worse
o the ZBS falls apart if there is penetration i.e. an OL loses at the POA (point of attack)
o a double team is one of the best means to insure a 'win' at the POA and create movement of a DL
o the double team shoud 'win' at the POA then carry the DL to the second level
o once the double team reaches the second level it should already obstruct the LBs ability to see/get to the ball carrier and the once covered OL is in equal if not better position to then the uncovered OL block the LB

I hope this makes sense....

[brandymac27]

So basically, what you all are saying is that if you try to double team the way I suggested, it screws up the whole rip and run technique in the OP (moving laterally) at the LOS b/c the original uncovered OL will technically never be moving laterally? He'll really be penetrating (or moving forward) without the switch off (this is where I'm lost b/c he's still moving laterally during the actual double team if I'm understanding this right)?

Seems the only difference in the way I suggested it is that there would be no "switch off", right?