PDA

View Full Version : What can I say . . .



Craic
11-12-2012, 11:04 PM
Part of me watched this game and said, "There's no way we're ready for the better teams in the NFL." What a horrible, sloppy game. I had issue with everything from the early playcalling on offense to the lackluster defensive effort for two and a half quarters and then the end of the fourth quarter.

Then the other side of me watched the game and said, "This is a game we lose normally. The fact that we won it with a backup QB means something. The fact that our defense allowed one drive in the entire fourth quarter means even more. The fact that they came through for the offense in overtime puts a stamp on the team that ugly or not, this team is done with losing." The way the defense stepped up after Ben went down was tremendous. There's very little that can be said about the way they played that second half.

Then there's a third part of me that says, "Stop giving me friggen heart attacks!"

So much to complain about in this game, and yes, a few things to be happy about, but I'm not in the mood to be happy right now.

Why is that?

1. Offense: it's raining, it's a bad field, and we have two RB's that have had a hot hand three games in a row. So why are we coming out throwing, throwing, throwing. Look, I like the passing game. I have said a million times that the days of "three yards and a cloud of mediocrity" is over. But when you have a team that running like we were, and your going against a defense as bad as theirs is against the run, POUND THE ROCK. We didn't early, and we never got into a rhythm. Bad choice, Haley. It's probably the first set of play-calls I've really disagreed on since the season started.

2. Defense: why, in the name of all that is holy, was this defense allowing the Chiefs to gash them early on the run. Look, I know they have good RB's, but that was sickening. Right down the field and into the endzone.

3. I was so-so on the 4th and 1 attempt and refuse to play hindsight games.

4. I've gotta re-check the rules, but if I'm right, i'm going to be pretty ticked off if there's not a fine for a helmet-to-helmet hit on the Chiefs DB against Redman late in the game. I'm thinking that the hit was "a hit on a defenseless receiver," but I need to check the rules. Really torqued that they completely missed that call.

5. Willie Colon: Shut up. You saw it last week - you can't mouth off to the refs. Period! Shut up and go back to the huddle.

That's it for now. I really have no idea what to think about this game.

Psycho Ward 86
11-12-2012, 11:12 PM
to be fair, dwyer and redman were being hunted down by derrick johnson and hali all night. and dontari poe did pretty well against the run, even with pouncey on him

Craic
11-12-2012, 11:16 PM
to be fair, dwyer and redman were being hunted down by derrick johnson and hali all night. and dontari poe did pretty well against the run, even with pouncey on him

It's why I didn't blame the RB's. We should have been running down their throats from the first snap of the game and wearing them down. When that run offense was as strong as ours was for the last three games, then keep going with it.

- - - Updated - - -


to be fair, dwyer and redman were being hunted down by derrick johnson and hali all night. and dontari poe did pretty well against the run, even with pouncey on him

It's why I didn't blame the RB's. We should have been running down their throats from the first snap of the game and wearing them down. When that run offense was as strong as ours was for the last three games, then keep going with it.

Devilsdancefloor
11-12-2012, 11:17 PM
Part of me watched this game and said, "There's no way we're ready for the better teams in the NFL." What a horrible, sloppy game. I had issue with everything from the early playcalling on offense to the lackluster defensive effort for two and a half quarters and then the end of the fourth quarter.

Then the other side of me watched the game and said, "This is a game we lose normally. The fact that we won it with a backup QB means something. The fact that our defense allowed one drive in the entire fourth quarter means even more. The fact that they came through for the offense in overtime puts a stamp on the team that ugly or not, this team is done with losing." The way the defense stepped up after Ben went down was tremendous. There's very little that can be said about the way they played that second half.

Then there's a third part of me that says, "Stop giving me friggen heart attacks!"

So much to complain about in this game, and yes, a few things to be happy about, but I'm not in the mood to be happy right now.

Why is that?

1. Offense: it's raining, it's a bad field, and we have two RB's that have had a hot hand three games in a row. So why are we coming out throwing, throwing, throwing. Look, I like the passing game. I have said a million times that the days of "three yards and a cloud of mediocrity" is over. But when you have a team that running like we were, and your going against a defense as bad as theirs is against the run, POUND THE ROCK. We didn't early, and we never got into a rhythm. Bad choice, Haley. It's probably the first set of play-calls I've really disagreed on since the season started.

2. Defense: why, in the name of all that is holy, was this defense allowing the Chiefs to gash them early on the run. Look, I know they have good RB's, but that was sickening. Right down the field and into the endzone.

3. I was so-so on the 4th and 1 attempt and refuse to play hindsight games.

4. I've gotta re-check the rules, but if I'm right, i'm going to be pretty ticked off if there's not a fine for a helmet-to-helmet hit on the Chiefs DB against Redman late in the game. I'm thinking that the hit was "a hit on a defenseless receiver," but I need to check the rules. Really torqued that they completely missed that call.

5. Willie Colon: Shut up. You saw it last week - you can't mouth off to the refs. Period! Shut up and go back to the huddle.

That's it for now. I really have no idea what to think about this game.

I feel that way myself

1. i looked at my son and said WHY are we not runnning these 3 and outs are killing us.
2. Woodley did a horrible job of setting the edge and we got burned big time for it.
3. Why Run with so many chiefs in the box i walked away shaking my head.
4. i really didnt think he was going to get up from that hit and was upset because i really think it was a penalty
5. Looks like bad willie is back. this time my son looked at me and said WHY is he being stupid, plus i said he touch an official why is he still in the game?
Over all it was a W so i will move on

steel striker
11-12-2012, 11:17 PM
Yeah very sloppy game played here and, I really thought they would play better at home. Your right Preacher about not starting the game by running the rock and, the o-line had a horrible night. I'm glad they won the game and, the defense bailed us out to get the win. I'm still surprised our wr's did not win more of the one on one battles. Atleast Suisham has been soild this year.

SteelerFanInStl
11-12-2012, 11:17 PM
4. I've gotta re-check the rules, but if I'm right, i'm going to be pretty ticked off if there's not a fine for a helmet-to-helmet hit on the Chiefs DB against Redman late in the game. I'm thinking that the hit was "a hit on a defenseless receiver," but I need to check the rules. Really torqued that they completely missed that call.

Even a RB can be a defenseless receiver and that's what that play looked like to me. I knew that they wouldn't call it but you can damn sure bet that they would have called it AGAINST us.

zulater
11-12-2012, 11:20 PM
Here's what I can say. The next time anyone says the refs stole a game from us remember they did their level best to give us this game against the Chiefs. The Steelers go ahead fg "drive" that put them up in regulation until the final moments was basically gifted to them.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's what I can say. The next time anyone says the refs stole a game from us remember they did their level best to give us this game against the Chiefs. The Steelers go ahead fg "drive" that put them up in regulation until the final moments was basically gifted to them.

Craic
11-12-2012, 11:24 PM
Even a RB can be a defenseless receiver and that's what that play looked like to me. I knew that they wouldn't call it but you can damn sure bet that they would have called it AGAINST us.

Yes and no, a RB can be a defenseless receiver, but a "Runner" can't be a defenseless receiver. Either way, he wasn't a runner yet, so he was definitely defenseless. However, the other part of that phrase, is "a hit" on a defenseless receiver, and "a hit" is also very specifically defined, so that it isn't just a tackle or a hit on a body. Let me go find it....

Edman
11-12-2012, 11:24 PM
This was about as hollow a "victory" as it gets.

1) Antonio Brown is the man of the WR core and not Mike Wallace.

2) I don't see this team putting up much of a fight against Baltimore next week.

3) The O-Line had a tough game.

4) Haley didn't have a great gameplan. Coming out slinging it in sloppy weather.

GodfatherofSoul
11-12-2012, 11:24 PM
Gruden was bitching about calls that I thought were legit. Stiff-arming like w/ Timmons is a PF that doesn't get called enough IMO.

About the only place I think the Chiefs got screwed was on their stupid endzone celebration. If the play didn't count, I don't know why the penalty would.

SteelerFanInStl
11-12-2012, 11:27 PM
Yes and no, a RB can be a defenseless receiver, but a "Runner" can't be a defenseless receiver. Either way, he wasn't a runner yet, so he was definitely defenseless. However, the other part of that phrase, is "a hit" on a defenseless receiver, and "a hit" is also very specifically defined, so that it isn't just a tackle or a hit on a body. Let me go find it....

Well he obviously wasn't a "runner" so I'm not even sure why you brought that up. He was defenseless and he got hit in the helmet by the defender. That's supposed to be a penalty.

Craic
11-12-2012, 11:45 PM
Well he obviously wasn't a "runner" so I'm not even sure why you brought that up. He was defenseless and he got hit in the helmet by the defender. That's supposed to be a penalty.

I brought it up because you said a RB can be a defenseless player (not sure why, since I wasn't arguing that), so I just clarified that it doesn't matter whether he was a RB or not, only whether he was a "runner."

As far as the rules go, I was not sure about whether it was illegal or not because of rule Rule 12 Article 7 (b) 3, which includes hitting the body with any part of the helmet - and that it must be accompanies with a launch from both feet prior to contact. However, the part before that (1) and (2) both cover this tackle, and yes, it was illegal and finable - unless they claim that it wasn't "Forcibly hitting the defenseless player's head."

- - - Updated - - -


Gruden was bitching about calls that I thought were legit. Stiff-arming like w/ Timmons is a PF that doesn't get called enough IMO.

About the only place I think the Chiefs got screwed was on their stupid endzone celebration. If the play didn't count, I don't know why the penalty would.

I wondered the exact same thing. I think it's because it's a personal foul . . . but then again, wasn't that the same thing with Brown's penalty on the kick? Oh wait, no it wasn't, because they took the penalty that happened before that, negating any other penalties from the play thereafter, I think.

Either way, I thought it was a bad call.

7willBheaven
11-13-2012, 12:08 AM
Gruden was bitching about calls that I thought were legit. Stiff-arming like w/ Timmons is a PF that doesn't get called enough IMO.

About the only place I think the Chiefs got screwed was on their stupid endzone celebration. If the play didn't count, I don't know why the penalty would.

I think the reason it was enforced is because its a penalty that happened after a play...regardless if the PLAY was negated the activity AFTER the play still happened.

Also if we're talking about the officials...heres a ? for anyone...when Clark and Bowe were down and how they said each team will be charged a TO...the Steelers had 1...and got it charged...the Chiefs had none...and that was that...shouldnt there have been some kind of like 10 second run off or something? I've seen it happen before when a team doesn't have a TO they do the 10 second run off. While ONE team had a timeout and was forced to use it...that shouldnt "excuse" the other team and they loose nothing.

vader29
11-13-2012, 12:19 AM
Also if we're talking about the officials...heres a ? for anyone...when Clark and Bowe were down and how they said each team will be charged a TO...the Steelers had 1...and got it charged...the Chiefs had none...and that was that...shouldnt there have been some kind of like 10 second run off or something? I've seen it happen before when a team doesn't have a TO they do the 10 second run off. While ONE team had a timeout and was forced to use it...that shouldnt "excuse" the other team and they loose nothing.
Yeah that was the first time I've ever heard of a team getting credit for an extra timeout for an injury.

bayz101
11-13-2012, 12:48 AM
Is it just me, or is there a LOT of double posts going on? Maybe it's just an all-at-once display of double clicking the reply button. :chuckle:

Craic
11-13-2012, 01:55 AM
I think the reason it was enforced is because its a penalty that happened after a play...regardless if the PLAY was negated the activity AFTER the play still happened.

Also if we're talking about the officials...heres a ? for anyone...when Clark and Bowe were down and how they said each team will be charged a TO...the Steelers had 1...and got it charged...the Chiefs had none...and that was that...shouldnt there have been some kind of like 10 second run off or something? I've seen it happen before when a team doesn't have a TO they do the 10 second run off. While ONE team had a timeout and was forced to use it...that shouldnt "excuse" the other team and they loose nothing.


Yeah that was the first time I've ever heard of a team getting credit for an extra timeout for an injury.

No, I caught this in the rules when I was reading them concerning about Sander's "injury" last week. Rule 4 Section 5 Article 4 (b): If a team has used it's three charged team timeouts, an excess team timeout shall be called by the Referee, unless: (i) the injury is a result of a foul by an opponent; (ii) the injury occurs during a down in which there is a change of possession, a successful field goal, or an attempted Try; or (iii) the opponent calls a timeout).

According to the rules below that, only if there is a second excessive team timeout in that half, is there a 10 second runoff - and also a five-yard penalty.

- - - Updated - - -


Is it just me, or is there a LOT of double posts going on? Maybe it's just an all-at-once display of double clicking the reply button. :chuckle: Yeah, the site seems to be running slow tonight, I think there's multiple clicking going on because of it . . . :chuckle: So many jokes, so little time.

Steeldude
11-13-2012, 02:26 AM
2. Defense: why, in the name of all that is holy, was this defense allowing the Chiefs to gash them early on the run. Look, I know they have good RB's, but that was sickening. Right down the field and into the endzone

The Steelers run defense has been average to poor this year. The D-line is subpar. Mclendon needs to start, not the gelatinous mess. On top of that you have Foote taking bad angles, as usual. You have to hand it to the Chiefs. They knew the left side(Woodley, Foote) is weak vs the run.

tube517
11-13-2012, 09:05 AM
Gruden was bitching about calls that I thought were legit. Stiff-arming like w/ Timmons is a PF that doesn't get called enough IMO.

About the only placI think the Chiefs got screwed was on their stupid endzone celebration. If the play didn't count, I don't know why the penalty would.

I didn't understand that one either.

steelpride12
11-13-2012, 09:13 AM
I still have to give the Chiefs credit because they earned it last night. Once again the Steelers overlooked them on the week before the Ratbirds and the weather played a huge role as well. They may have been 1-7, but Charles is a damn good running back and the Chiefs finally began to expose our weak side by literally running it to that side multiple times a drive and sadly being successful 3/4 of the runs.

They have a monstrous D Line which attacked and pushed our OL back with or without Ben who wasn't having his best game either.

I still put 0 blame on Lefty. How long has it been since he played an entire half of regular season football? Can't say Batch would have done any better in his position and I think with a weeks worth of preparation he will be better equipped with the new offensive scheme.

Craic
11-13-2012, 12:31 PM
The Steelers run defense has been average to poor this year. The D-line is subpar. Mclendon needs to start, not the gelatinous mess. On top of that you have Foote taking bad angles, as usual. You have to hand it to the Chiefs. They knew the left side(Woodley, Foote) is weak vs the run.

The issue however, is that they are great against the run come the second and fourth quarters. The "average to poor" applies to the first and third quarter, then they step it up. They ran the ball 35 times for 142 yards - but only 14 yards in the fourth quarter and overtime, and 52 yards in the third quarter, an 17 in the second quarter, 63 yards in the first quarter. In other words, they are great at adjusting in game (comes to 147, I didn't include sacks from QB running here) - but the first quarter (and the third to a bit lesser degree) still needs help. The best teams are allowing an average of 20 yards per quarter rushing. The worst teams are allowing 40.75 yards per quarter.

Also Pittsburgh defense is 9th in yards per attempted rush. That's not average to poor, that's top third of the league. My question then, is why do we have such problems against the run in the opening quarters?

st33lersguy
11-13-2012, 12:59 PM
Without Big Ben and Troy playing, this is at best a 4 win team in the running for a top 5 pick

oneforthetoe
11-13-2012, 01:07 PM
The issue however, is that they are great against the run come the second and fourth quarters. The "average to poor" applies to the first and third quarter, then they step it up. They ran the ball 35 times for 142 yards - but only 14 yards in the fourth quarter and overtime, and 52 yards in the third quarter, an 17 in the second quarter, 63 yards in the first quarter. In other words, they are great at adjusting in game (comes to 147, I didn't include sacks from QB running here) - but the first quarter (and the third to a bit lesser degree) still needs help. The best teams are allowing an average of 20 yards per quarter rushing. The worst teams are allowing 40.75 yards per quarter.

Also Pittsburgh defense is 9th in yards per attempted rush. That's not average to poor, that's top third of the league. My question then, is why do we have such problems against the run in the opening quarters?

I think it is discipline more than skill itself. Woodley has been more apt to be out of position than Harrison, IMO, who has always been a headier player that he has been given credit for. I think Foote is trying to anticipate too much because he knows he isn't what he used to be. Similarly, our secondary has always been important to our run D. I see those guys out of position more this year. Lewis is young. Clark, who is having a good year, may at time be trying to make up for the loss of Troy too much. Well, Troy has been a huge part of our run D. How many times has he cut down a back behind the line, or redirected a running back by his penetration. Not saying the D line has been stellar all year, especially big snack. Still, I think it is more mental that physical. Otherwise, our run d should get worse as the game goes on as opposed to better.

Seven
11-13-2012, 02:01 PM
1. Offense: it's raining, it's a bad field, and we have two RB's that have had a hot hand three games in a row. So why are we coming out throwing, throwing, throwing. Look, I like the passing game. I have said a million times that the days of "three yards and a cloud of mediocrity" is over. But when you have a team that running like we were, and your going against a defense as bad as theirs is against the run, POUND THE ROCK. We didn't early, and we never got into a rhythm. Bad choice, Haley. It's probably the first set of play-calls I've really disagreed on since the season started.

This is the one thing I was worried about going in. I thought Haley might come out of the gate too cute. It was just too obvious. The Chiefs were ready for it.

I posted a ton of thoughts this morning here if you or anyone else has any interest (easier than typing some of my observations over again in response to some of yours).

http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/showthread.php/15464-Observations-From-Last-Night-(Chiefs)

HollywoodSteel
11-13-2012, 04:43 PM
[QUOTE=zulater;331718]Here's what I can say. The next time anyone says the refs stole a game from us remember they did their level best to give us this game against the Chiefs. The Steelers go ahead fg "drive" that put them up in regulation until the final moments was basically gifted to them.

- - - Updated - - -

What bad calls were made on that drive? I honestly don't remember. I know that helmet to helmet hit was certainly a clear rule violation.

The only bad call that I remember going our way was the offensive PI, but even that might have been technically correct, even if nitpicky and a case bad judgement from the official.

HollywoodSteel
11-13-2012, 04:58 PM
I wondered the exact same thing. I think it's because it's a personal foul . . . but then again, wasn't that the same thing with Brown's penalty on the kick? Oh wait, no it wasn't, because they took the penalty that happened before that, negating any other penalties from the play thereafter, I think.

Either way, I thought it was a bad call.

But we took the earlier penalty on the same play too (just like our opponents did on the Brown TD). That's why they took the TD away from the Chiefs, for the other penalty on the same play.

I think the difference is, as 7wbh pointed out, on the Brown TD/taunting play both penalties were called during the play, as in between the whistles, so the other team had to pick which one they wanted (obviously the one that takes away the TD). With the Chiefs the unsportsmanlike conduct penalty was after the whistle. Our logical minds conclude that if it hadn't been a TD there would have been no celebration, which is obviously true, but irrelevant. It doesn't matter why a team has a multi-player celebration in the endzone after the whistle, it's still a penalty. They could have been celebrating the news that Ben's wife went into labor after a non-TD play and the penalty would be the same. The result of the previous play doesn't matter.

HollywoodSteel
11-13-2012, 05:11 PM
To be even clearer about my last post, the logic about tacking on the after-the-whistle penalty to the previous one makes complete sense when you think about it. If there are two personal foul penalties during a play by the same team you only get the yardage for one. But once the whistle is blown and the play is over, everything else is whole new ball of wax. As far as the universe is concerned, the penalty during the play has already been enforced, whether the refs have announced it and moved the ball yet or not. Imagine if it didn't work that way. Imagine Harrison is called for a helmet to helmet during a play. Afterward, is he allowed a free taunt of a player or to cuss out an official at no price just because they are already gonna move the ball 15 yards?

Count Steeler
11-13-2012, 05:44 PM
How about a public posting of the scores for the NFL refs? Another sad sack of felons from last night.

Replacement refs my ass. These guys are worse.

SteelerFanInStl
11-13-2012, 06:24 PM
What bad calls were made on that drive? I honestly don't remember. I know that helmet to helmet hit was certainly a clear rule violation.

The only bad call that I remember going our way was the offensive PI, but even that might have been technically correct, even if nitpicky and a case bad judgement from the official.

I'd like to know too because I honestly can't remember any. There were some pretty obvious calls that should've been made against KC that weren't, like the helmet-to-helmet hit on Redman.

Craic
11-13-2012, 11:03 PM
So I went back and re-watched the first and second quarter - conclusion?

The problem is Ziggy Hood. On almost every zone-block scheme, Hood is ending up 3-5 yards back. That's not good, since a zone-block really is supposed to be moving people to a side. Second quarter, he gets a little better, and Woodley also helps out by shedding his block and slicing through.


Case Hampton is not a probelm at all. Truthfully, he's becoming a rock out there again. Their barely able to move him anywhere but where he wants to go. I saw him make a tackle, cut of a couple runs to a side, forcing the cut back, and in general eating up a lot of space. McClendon, in the couple plays I say him in, wasn't even close to the same caliber. That figures however, when it gets to be November and December, the separation between the young guys and the true vets starts to show itself.

On the offense, Adams got burned once by speed, Ben was already moving. Other than that, I have to admit, the O line didn't look to bad. They had some problems moving people, but I hate to admit it, the real problem IMO, was the same problem I had with Arians concerning the run game. They tried to run too many times out of a tight three man set, or with two TE's, both of which bringing 8-9 men in the box. It just got too crowded.

Seven
11-13-2012, 11:39 PM
So I went back and re-watched the first and second quarter - conclusion?

The problem is Ziggy Hood. On almost every zone-block scheme, Hood is ending up 3-5 yards back. That's not good, since a zone-block really is supposed to be moving people to a side. Second quarter, he gets a little better, and Woodley also helps out by shedding his block and slicing through.

I've only seen the game live as of yet, but was Hood really that poor? Seemed to me in most instances Woodley couldn't get off his man leaving Hood all by his lonesome against two or more Chiefs until Allen and whatever corner had that side got there. I understand his job is to hold the point on his side, but I have been defending him all day.

Also didn't think Hampton played as well as you are indicating. Seemed to me he got phased out of the play off the snap on several occasions.

I'm really interested to take another look now.

Craic
11-13-2012, 11:49 PM
I've only seen the game live as of yet, but was Hood really that poor? Seemed to me in most instances Woodley couldn't get off his man leaving Hood all by his lonesome against two or more Chiefs until Allen and whatever corner had that side got there. I understand his job is to hold the point on his side, but I have been defending him all day.

Also didn't think Hampton played as well as you are indicating. Seemed to me he got phased out of the play off the snap on several occasions.

I'm really interested to take another look now.

For Woodley, It looked like he was holding his point in the line as it shifted, but when Hood was being pushed back, the RB was able to run up through his hole in the line. Since it looked like they were running a whole lot of zone blocking plays, it just takes that one seam and the RB is at the second level. Granted, I'm sure there's times that Woodley could have sliced through, but if he does get blame, it's secondary to Ziggy - at least in the first quarter.

Hampton, I'll admit, it is spotty. However, he's a big body, and he's not being dominated and pushed back off the line. Like I said, he was able to disrupt a couple of things. Unfortunately, since Harrison is still not himself, when Hampton pushed through and caused one cut back, there was no Steelers D coming up the backside to finish the play, so it sprung for a good five or ten yards or more. I also don't remember whether it was first or second quarter - and again, I only watched the first half.

Seven
11-13-2012, 11:54 PM
For Woodley, It looked like he was holding his point in the line as it shifted, but when Hood was being pushed back, the RB was able to run up through his hole in the line. Since it looked like they were running a whole lot of zone blocking plays, it just takes that one seam and the RB is at the second level. Granted, I'm sure there's times that Woodley could have sliced through, but if he does get blame, it's secondary to Ziggy - at least in the first quarter.

Hampton, I'll admit, it is spotty. However, he's a big body, and he's not being dominated and pushed back off the line. Like I said, he was able to disrupt a couple of things. Unfortunately, since Harrison is still not himself, when Hampton pushed through and caused one cut back, there was no Steelers D coming up the backside to finish the play, so it sprung for a good five or ten yards or more. I also don't remember whether it was first or second quarter - and again, I only watched the first half.

Okay, like I said I only saw it live, so I'll take your word for it for now. If I disagree after watching the all-22 then we will have fundamental differences, haha. But I don't feel that strongly about it. No doubts that your observations will hold true.

Something I want to see is how much of a difference was made when Woods was inserted over Hood. Not sure how many snaps he saw but I believe it was several, if not an entire series. I'm hoping anyway. I feel like being able to see another player in the same spot against that scheme would really give us some more persepective.

El-Gonzo Jackson
11-14-2012, 10:26 AM
So I went back and re-watched the first and second quarter - conclusion?

The problem is Ziggy Hood. On almost every zone-block scheme, Hood is ending up 3-5 yards back. That's not good, since a zone-block really is supposed to be moving people to a side. Second quarter, he gets a little better, and Woodley also helps out by shedding his block and slicing through.
.

Preacher, the zone block is not designed to move defenders to a side. Its designed to minimize the impact of LB blitzing and allow the RB to "pick his hole" instead of running to a predetermined gap. The O lineman take a step laterally in the direction of the play and engage their blocker head on. If they can turn him one way to make a gap, they do.

Watch the below video link and see how Clinton Portis runs it to perfection. I saw Portis describe it before that he starts reading from the outside gap-in to the centre and then the cutback lane. So if he sees the TE seal the DE in, he will run to the edge. If he sees the OT seal inside (like in this play) he will run off Tackle, if not then he looks to run off Guard and so on.

How does a defense defend this?? Its called Gap Cancellation. Each player is responsible for a gap and needs to control it. If Eric Winston was sealing Hood inside and Woodley getting kicked out by the TE, then they run off tackle. I think that is what you saw...Eric Winston beating Ziggy Hood. I also saw a lot of Larry Foote getting pushed 7 yards deep by Jon Asomoah. Foot is a huge liability IMO in the run game of this team.


http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d812932d4/Portis-34-yard-run

zulater
11-14-2012, 12:40 PM
Preacher, the zone block is not designed to move defenders to a side. Its designed to minimize the impact of LB blitzing and allow the RB to "pick his hole" instead of running to a predetermined gap. The O lineman take a step laterally in the direction of the play and engage their blocker head on. If they can turn him one way to make a gap, they do.

Watch the below video link and see how Clinton Portis runs it to perfection. I saw Portis describe it before that he starts reading from the outside gap-in to the centre and then the cutback lane. So if he sees the TE seal the DE in, he will run to the edge. If he sees the OT seal inside (like in this play) he will run off Tackle, if not then he looks to run off Guard and so on.

How does a defense defend this?? Its called Gap Cancellation. Each player is responsible for a gap and needs to control it. If Eric Winston was sealing Hood inside and Woodley getting kicked out by the TE, then they run off tackle. I think that is what you saw...Eric Winston beating Ziggy Hood. I also saw a lot of Larry Foote getting pushed 7 yards deep by Jon Asomoah. Foot is a huge liability IMO in the run game of this team.


http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d812932d4/Portis-34-yard-run

Through free agency or the draft Larry Foote needs to be upgraded this offseason.

Craic
11-14-2012, 04:12 PM
Preacher, the zone block is not designed to move defenders to a side. Its designed to minimize the impact of LB blitzing and allow the RB to "pick his hole" instead of running to a predetermined gap. The O lineman take a step laterally in the direction of the play and engage their blocker head on. If they can turn him one way to make a gap, they do.

Watch the below video link and see how Clinton Portis runs it to perfection. I saw Portis describe it before that he starts reading from the outside gap-in to the centre and then the cutback lane. So if he sees the TE seal the DE in, he will run to the edge. If he sees the OT seal inside (like in this play) he will run off Tackle, if not then he looks to run off Guard and so on.

How does a defense defend this?? Its called Gap Cancellation. Each player is responsible for a gap and needs to control it. If Eric Winston was sealing Hood inside and Woodley getting kicked out by the TE, then they run off tackle. I think that is what you saw...Eric Winston beating Ziggy Hood. I also saw a lot of Larry Foote getting pushed 7 yards deep by Jon Asomoah. Foot is a huge liability IMO in the run game of this team.


http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d812932d4/Portis-34-yard-run

I'm not talking about design, but how it actually works. Since it is essentially a doubleteam with one of the lineman coming off the double to take on a linebacker (and the lateral step), the creation of the double team (which players take on which lineman) essentially forces the line sideways (or movement at an angle). The intent isn't to drive the DL off the line, but to create the seam without allowing penetration (I know you know all this, but I put it here to show how I was thinking when I said it). The play therefore always moves at an angle, or to the side, not down field (like man, drive a guy straight back). The genesis of the entire idea was to counter the slant/angle defense - which was already creating the side to side (angle) movement.

So, yeah, I said it wrong. I agree that it's not purposed to move defenders to a side - but the way it is designed, and the reason for it's design (countering slant/angle defense), ends up with a side to side (or angle) movement, rather than the drive straight ahead movement of man defense. That's what I meant, though I was too lazy to write all that out.

With that said, the fact that Ziggy ended up three, four, five yards back as if his guy was taking him on in a straight up man to man blocking scheme is sad.