Run Blocking - Part II

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Run Blocking - Part II

    Earlier this week, I posted some film of Cannon pulling from the tackle position to help open up big holes in the running game against Buffalo.  This evening, I've been glancing through film of previous games to try to understand what wasn't working as well in those games when we ran the ball.  Here from the Cleveland game is another example of us pulling the tackle, but this time the tackle is Svitek.  Watch the way both Svitek and Solder get pushed around in this sequence.  The blocking here is much less effective than it was against Buffalo.  Maybe it's just the difference between Cannon and Svitek.  But the Cleveland defenders also seem to be doing a much better job than the Buffalo defenders did.

     

     

     

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Run Blocking - Part II

    Without seeing the actual footage it is tough to say but my premise is that Svitek doesn't have the same ability to pull and isn't as athletic as Cannon.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Run Blocking - Part II

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Without seeing the actual footage it is tough to say but my premise is that Svitek doesn't have the same ability to pull and isn't as athletic as Cannon.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think that's true (if I knew how to create a gif I would).  But I also think the D line and LBs are moving much better than the Buffalo front too. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from stillgridlocked. Show stillgridlocked's posts

    Re: Run Blocking - Part II

    As if Buffalo was a top D playing for something.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fidd. Show Fidd's posts

    Re: Run Blocking - Part II

    Thanks for breaking out the film!

     

    I posted about this in the first thread. Buffalo's run D was awful. Their front was moved and pushed around all day. This led to our T's, who played very well. To get to the 2nd level kinda quick and put a body on the backers. I didn't notice Kiko at all. Mostly due to the fact that he was getting pancaked by Solder and couldn't get off a block. Blount himself made at 7-8 defenders miss and almost ran for 100 yards after contact. That never speaks well for the opposing D.

    I don't think theres any doubt about Svitek not being the athlete Cannon is. Like every other part of our team the line has been hit with serious injuries. That said there is no dominant front in the AFC that we have to worry about. Theres no question the Pats have been unlucky with how many key players have been injuried. That said, things really couldn't have been set up better for us.

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Run Blocking - Part II

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Without reading into a few plays too much, one clear difference is that the Buffalo plays were big-on-big blocking schemes and this clip against Cleveland is a zone blocking scheme. The pulling tackle, something that only usuallly occurs when you have a good TE on the backside, is a tell because he starts his pull with a "chip" in the hole. 

    Most of the time when you see lineman "chip" at defenders that are already blocked, rather than go hat-to-hat ... that means you are in zone. 

    Yeah, perhaps the difference is that Cannon is more of a road grader, more suited to man blocking schemes? 

    At any rate, Svitek is pretty much garbage, and wouldn't be out there if NE hadn't sustained so man injuries. So, take that fwiw ... he's obviously not going to be as good as the guy BB started over him (Cannon) AFTER the starter (Vollmer) went down. He's 3rd string. 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Run Blocking - Part II

    For the sake of discussion, here's the play from Buffalo where Cannon pulls from the right side. What's your take on the difference between this play and the other Z (assuming there's enough info to comment on it)? Is this zone too?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Run Blocking - Part II

    Is that missing a frame? It looks like Mankins gets a chip down before heading to the second level? It looks like an inside zone .... the other could be outside or inside zone (sometimes you'll hear announcers falsely say NE runs the "stretch" all the time, when they really run the stretch rarely, and favor outside zone with Ridley.) Also, the difference between the 34 and 43 fronts we see in the two plays confuses things as well. Post-mortem on run blocking is dizzying ... it's by far the most complex part of managing a line. 

    At any rate ... the story about play two is Mankins ..  Cannon is practically irrelevant. Mankins thouroughly dominates the backside of the block, giving Blount his "read" to the interior guard. 

    That's the story of that one. 

    The man block was the play with Develin and Edelman from yesterday's thread. 

    Typically, two TES, or committed bodies on the line mean zone ... because that lends itself to it .... FBs and H-Backs let you run some more man, because you can really move them around like hammers. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Run Blocking - Part II

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    Is that missing a frame? It looks like Mankins gets a chip down before heading to the second level? It looks like an inside zone .... the other could be outside or inside zone (sometimes you'll hear announcers falsely say NE runs the "stretch" all the time, when they really run the stretch rarely, and favor outside zone with Ridley.) Also, the difference between the 34 and 43 fronts we see in the two plays confuses things as well. Post-mortem on run blocking is dizzying ... it's by far the most complex part of managing a line. 

    At any rate ... the story about play two is Mankins ..  Cannon is practically irrelevant. Mankins thouroughly dominates the backside of the block, giving Blount his "read" to the interior guard. 

    That's the story of that one. 

    The man block was the play with Develin and Edelman from yesterday's thread. 

    Typically, two TES, or committed bodies on the line mean zone ... because that lends itself to it .... FBs and H-Backs let you run some more man, because you can really move them around like hammers. 

     



    Yep, you read that right.  Mankins does chip on the first level before getting to the second level (see additional shot below).  That was a great play by him.  I thought Solder also blocked well on that one. 

     

    One thing to point out though, is that whoever was supposed to do what, the end result was a lot different in the Buffalo and Browns games.  In the Buffalo game, Blount had a wide open lane behind the backs of Cannon, Solder, and Mankins.  In the Browns game, the hole is poorly defined and I can't tell whether Ridley was better off doing what he did and following Svitek into the hole or whether he should have cut back and tried to get between Mankins and Solder. Either way, there wasn't much of a hole for Ridley and there was a huge one for Blount. 

    Blocking makes all the difference in whether the run works or doesn't work--that and what the defense does.  Watching film, I see a real difference between games like Cinncinati, Cleveland, and Miami and what we saw in the last two games. Part of it is the blocking and part of it is the defense.  How aggressive the LBs are attacking at the LOS seems to make a big difference on whether the run works or not for the Pats.  For teams like Cinncinati, play action didn't seem to affect them, because I think they felt having the LBs be aggressive worked regardless of whether the play was a run or pass.  If it was a run, the LBs closed the hole.  If it was a pass, they were able to penetrate and get lots of pressure on Brady. Baltimore played it far more conservatively as did Buffalo, and the Pats were able to exploit that more conservative defense with the run.  

     

     

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Run Blocking - Part II

    great stuff pro.

    its funny, here are photo facts you are posting as to why the PAts are successful running or not. clearly it is on the OL to open lanes, and just as clear they did not do it against the Browns, but they did against the Bills. (I also posted in my observations post that it appeared the Bills front 7 had no interest in tackling anybody)

    for those who simply state, "just run the ball"...here's evidence that they are trying, but against some fronts they simply cannot.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share