Emerald Bowl Review: Part IX: Zone Blocking Creates A Numerical Advantage
In this ninth edition of a twelve post analysis, we're going to look at how Cal's zone blocking creates a numerical advantage at the line of scrimmage. In case you missed the previous installments, here is Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, and Part VIII.
Typically in Cal's man blocking scheme seven blockers would take on the seven defenders in the box (usually the four defensive linemen and the three linebackers). For an example of this, see the 8th picture of my old Maryland analysis post. Such a situation is great. Seven blockers and the seven nearest defender are blocked. But remember in my previous zone blocking post (Part IV), I pointed out how since the typical zone running play moves so quickly and away from the backside defensive end that the offense leaves the backside defensive end unblocked since that defender can't get to the play? What's the result of doing such an act? The defense loses a defender on the play and the offense can use that would-be-blocker somewhere else to block.
Let's see this in action.
Below is the pre-snap read.

Cal is facing a 1st and 10. Cal has 21 personnel on the field (2 backs, 2 WRs, 1 TE) . Miami counters with a 4-3 defense with their linebackers shifted over slightly to the strong side. The offense's strong side is the offense's left side because the tight end is to the left.

Cal motions its flanker wide receiver out. Miami's cornerback follows.

Here's the pre-snap read from a better angle. Note Miami's strong side linebacker #51 (SLB or Sam) creeping up on the line of scrimmage (LOS) on the right side of the picture.

Miami currently has seven defenders in the immediate box. I've numbered the defenders. Some people might count Miami's free safety #26 as being in the box since he's only 10 yards off the line of scrimmage, but since he's not an immediate defender in the box, I am not going to count him. So Miami has seven defenders in the box.

Cal has seven blockers on the play. Cal has five offensive linemen (numbers 1 through 5), a tight end (number 6), and the fullback (number 7). So if Cal was running it's typical man blocking scheme that was used often back in 2005 and 2006, things should be just fine. Seven defenders, seven blockers. But Cal has become predominantly zone running team in 2008. Cal will zone block out on this play and gain a numerical advantage.

Here's the picture immediately post-snap. Notice all the Cal blockers have stepped to their right flowing the zone right. The Miami defenders have all ready this flow and have also started moving playside (the direction that the run play is going which is the offense's right and defense's left). Also interesting to note that Cal is running this zone play to the weakside. In other words, away from the tight end. This is somewhat interesting because traditionally, when Cal runs out of the I-Formation Cal will run towards the strength probably around 90% of the time - another tendency.

Now, remember how on the typical zone running plays the backside defensive end is left unblocked? The offense can leave this defender unblocked because typically that defender is so far away from the play and the ball that he's a non-factor. Thus, that is why on zone running plays the backside DE is ignored. Cal does that on this play. Actually, Cal has left the Miami SLB unblocked on this play and is blocking the backside Miami DE. In other words, Cal treated the Miami SLB who positioned himself outside of the Miami backside DE, as the backside defensive end who is usually left unblocked.
I suppose I should clarify things. The rule isn't so much that the backside defensive end is always left unblocked on a zone running play, so much as it is "the least dangerous backside defender is left unblocked." On this play, prior to the Miami SLB creeping out to the LOS outside of the backside DE, the backside DE was the least dangerous backside defender. However, once the Miami SLB repositioned himself on the LOS and outside of the backside DE, the Miami SLB became the new least dangerous backside defender and the backside DE became relatively more dangerous.
Now back to the picture. Cal has gained a numerical advantage. Cal has seven blockers still (the yellow numbers one through seven), and Miami now only has six defenders on the play (red numbers one through six). The green line represents the fact that Cal's fullback will block Miami's weakside linebacker (WLB or Will).

Because Cal has seven blockers on six defenders, Cal is able to double team a defender somewhere. This double team isn't necessarly pre-determined. The blockers will just double the most dangerous defender in their area/zone. On this play, the double team occurred towards Cal's left tackle (LT) and tight end (TE) on the right side of the picture. On the right side of the screen you can see Cal's LT and TE both focusing on Miami's right defensive end (who is the backside DE). Just above the Cal LT and TE you can also see the Miami SLB who was left unblocked attempting to re-assert himself into the play but because of his bad positioning he fails. Cal's runningback, Jahvid Best, has a huge lane opening up for him.

Cal's runningback, Jahvid Best, runs for a large gain.
Conclusion:
So this is one advantage of the zone blocking scheme: it creates a numerical advantage. Because the zone blocking runs flow at such a wide angle to the outside, the offense can leave the least dangerous backside defender unblocked, thus using the would-be-blocker somewhere else creating a stronger run block.
Typically the least dangerous backside defender is the backside defensive end. However, on this play, the Miami SLB became the least dangerous backside defender by positioning himself outside of the backside defensive end and further away from the ball.
Because the zone blocking scheme can create such a numerical advantage, it forces defenses to bring an eighth defender into the box since they will lose a defender to the wide angle of the zone run. In other words, the defense must bring an eighth defender into the box to replace a lost defender in order to maintain seven defenders in the box to counter the offense's (typically) seven blockers.
29 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Interesting
1. Nice execution across the board for Cal, especially the interior linemen doing a good job opening and then sealing.
2. Helps to have a ball carrier with some snap!
jh
When watching live game action on TV
what are the tell-tale signs that we’re blocking in zone vs. man – in live action, I’m not necessarily catching the unblocked defender behind the play. How does one tell the difference between zone and man when watching live action, full speed play?
it's really hard to tell when just watching
sometimes.
in the man-blocking schemes we use there are more pulling linemen. in the play above the strong side guard would have pulled around the center and charged into the hole at the same time or just ahead of the full back. The idea being the same….put two blockers on the defender right where the ball is going.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Aug 10, 2009 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Execution is the key again. Good call that got us more blockers than defenders, but the double team ends up happening on the guy farthest away from the ball, so he probably wouldn’t have factored into the play anyways. Everyone else wins their battle against the defender they’re blocking, and it opens up a huge lane for Best. I guess they did double team the nose tackle initially, though. Anyways, yet another great analysis that shows why Tedford emphasizes execution so much.
On a related note, a good addendum might be the situations in which zone blocking fails. Poor execution, obviously, but there are probably tactical ways in which it fails that I don’t know.
the zone blocking is for when the defense is
very aggressive at the line of scrimmage. Man blocking is for when the defense is more reactive, and waiting on the play before committing to it.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Aug 10, 2009 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Because the zone blocking scheme can create such a numerical advantage, it forces defenses to bring an eighth defender into the box since they will lose a defender to the wide angle of the zone run. In other words, the defense must bring an eighth defender into the box to replace a lost defender in order to maintain seven defenders in the box to counter the offense’s (typically) seven blockers.
Let me see if I get this. Due to the fact that we take out seven defenders with just 6 blockers, the defense decides to stack the box with an extra defender leaving the backfield/secondary a bit undermanned.
So:
1) Zone-block for the run but…
2) It’s a play action pass
3) ????
4) TOUCHDOWN!
Would that work?
In other words, Go Bears!
that's the idea behind a strong running game generally.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Aug 10, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Except you probably wouldn’t zone block on the pass play, since a slowly developing play-action pass is going to allow time for the unblocked man (or men, if there’s 8 in the box) to get in the backfield and hit the quarterback. The SLB in Hydro’s case is completely out of the play because A.) the action is movng away from him and B.) in order to get to the ball carrier he’d have to cut through traffic (also helps that he couldn’t catch up to Jahvid anyway). Maybe a zone play to set up a play action bootleg in the direction of the blocking, though?
If you’re going to playaction with zone blocking then the bootleg needs to be in the opposite direction of the zone blocking. So if we zone block right, the bootleg needs to go left. The bootleg will be naked. The WR on the side of the run direction will run a route towards the QB (so if the QB boot is left, the right WR will run a route going towards the left). The WR on the side of the bootleg will also run a route going left like a whip or something.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I think another important part of this is that it shows the danger of loading the box against Best. If he gets that hole there’s no one left to stop him until he’s well into the secondary. Also see first play of scrimmage against WSU.
yes!
i love starkeys call of that play (i was in the car)
“Bears in the I Formation with Best as the tailback….give to best….and….he’s gone.”
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Aug 10, 2009 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Looking at the video
The key execution appears to be Mack. He shoves his guy back and more importantly turns him, creating a “pocket” that catches up the three strong side defenders (the fourth is just out of position as described). What I also find interesting is watching the “zone” part it – especially #70 (Boscovitch). Initially it appears that he helps double team #93 with Mack, then when the middle linebacker comes down he switches and block him out, very successfully too.
The other interesting thing to me is that the two Miami players with the best shot outside of #93, who Mack takes care of, largely take themselves out of the play. The weakside tackle and the weakside backer both go to their left and are fairly easy encouraged in that by the respective defenders, totally taking themselves out of position.
Great write-up, thanks!
Did Mack make this play?
Looking over the video and pictures of the play, it appears to me that it was Alex Mack who really made this play, helped by the fact that the other blockers executed their assignments decently.
First, it looks like Cal’s right guard and and fullback have a very easy time executing their blocks because of the angles the defenders took on the play.
As everyone flows to the right, Mack blocks to the left so effectively that he stops his defender cold, and really doesn’t give up an inch. In fact, it is because Mack doesn’t budge that the angles of Miami’s left DT and WLB look so poor (had he been pushed to the right even a yard or two, the hole wouldn’t have appeared nearly as big). This opens up the huge hole for Best.
It also seems like Mack gets a little help immediately post-snap from Cal’s left guard. Though the guard doesn’t really engage Mack’s defender, he seems to be ready do so while Mack repositions himself the the defender’s left side, thus giving him great leverage for his outstanding block.
On second thought...
It now appears to me that Miami was running a defense that was completely inappropriate for the running play called by Cal. In the video, there are two Miami defenders that blitz at the snap of the ball, #93 and #51, with a third player (#3) who appears prepared to blitz, but changes his mind as the play develops. It’s not clear to me whether Miami was anticipating a pass (and therefore blitzing the QB) or prepared for a run to the strong-side, as suggested by the blitzes of #51 and #3.
Either way, it is the blitz of #93, who totally vacates his position on the line that leaves a very large hole for Best to run through.
What really caught Miami off guard is that they shifted their LBs over to the strong side of Cal’s offense (the side with the tight end, Cals’ left side). But Cal ran a zone to the weakside. This put the linebackers out of position at the point of attack. In fact, Miami linebackers #3 and #51 pretty much were taken out of the play by their shift to the strong side of the offense.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
well....93 is a defensive lineman so....
he’s always trying to penetrate, but he gets totaled by Mack (51) and kept far from the action, even though best cuts back through his position. Miami’s 51 is blitzing and totally out of the pay from prior to the snap.
Go Bears Go
Is the vid not working for anyone else?
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
nvm Pootube was down for a bit
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 10, 2009 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Counter play?
Hydro, excellent post, again.
I have seen some teams run a zone blocking scheme to the right and have the RB run to the left and vice versa. Off the top of my head I can’t remember if that happens in the pros or in college or both, but it would seem to be a good “trap” play against a defense that has come to expect a play such as this one.
Would you think it’d be effective for a QB to audible into such a play in certain circumstances? Namely if the LB’s are not shifted strongside, we could zone block right and run left…maybe? Or otherwise, as you had mentioned earlier, we could also playaction into a naked bootleg left in such a situation, right?
I haven’t seen teams run a zone scheme like you have described. So the RB will run to the backside from the start? It doesn’t seem like he’s going to have the blocking he needs to get anywhere. The RB wasn’t just hitting a cutback lane on a zone run?
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Maybe if the right guard pulls against the grain of the zone blocking or something to hit the backside guy on the left? Some sort of hybrid zone/power blocking scheme…
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Hmm...
You obviously know more about this than I do Hydro, so what you’re saying is the RB is recognizing a lane and it simply happens to be towards the backside…right?
A Cane's perspective
Great analysis. One point: this play would have been a heck of a lot different had Miami’s WLB (#31, true freshman Sean Spence) not taken such a bad angle up the hole. Watch the replay again and look at what he does. I’m guessing he expected a pass and took a bee-line for the QB. Had he played the run (or simply taken better position), the hole would not have been so freaking huge. And Best might have only had like 150 yards rushing against us. (sigh) Thank God there’s always next year. Go Canes!

by 













































