PDA

View Full Version : Need answers on goaline blocking/Discuss?



pittpete
11-13-2008, 06:49 PM
Down on the goaline, Kemo and Max twice went down to the ground purposely.
Obviously this is scheme, but what benefit does it give when LBs can step up and fill the hole.
Probably be better if we had a FB that could block.
Ive been itching to bring this up and havnt seen it discussed before.
Any one can add their :2c

RussBII
11-13-2008, 07:01 PM
Down on the goaline, Kemo and Max twice went down to the ground purposely.
Obviously this is scheme, but what benefit does it give when LBs can step up and fill the hole.
Probably be better if we had a FB that could block.
Ive been itching to bring this up and havnt seen it discussed before.
Any one can add their :2c

Was the play going to the other side? Or was it run right up behind them?

If the play was to the other side maybe its to trip up the persuing/penatrating DLs/LBs.

If the play was right up their arses, I dunno... get down low so MM could leap?

SanAntonioSteelerFan
11-13-2008, 11:26 PM
Down on the goaline, Kemo and Max twice went down to the ground purposely.
Obviously this is scheme, but what benefit does it give when LBs can step up and fill the hole.
Probably be better if we had a FB that could block.
Ive been itching to bring this up and havnt seen it discussed before.
Any one can add their :2c

Was the play going to the other side? Or was it run right up behind them?

If the play was to the other side maybe its to trip up the persuing/penatrating DLs/LBs.

If the play was right up their arses, I dunno... get down low so MM could leap?

I didn't notice that. It sounds bizarre. And if it's what happened those plays we couldn't punch it in from the one, that just makes me mad all over again.

sd steel
11-14-2008, 01:33 AM
Down on the goaline, Kemo and Max twice went down to the ground purposely.
Obviously this is scheme, but what benefit does it give when LBs can step up and fill the hole.
Probably be better if we had a FB that could block.
Ive been itching to bring this up and havnt seen it discussed before.
Any one can add their :2c

Offensive lineman should never go to the ground purposely unless they are chopping a defender. On the goal line the lower they are the less likely they will be pushed back, but they should keep their feet and drive. In those situations the lowest man wins, (it's a physics thing). Those quick hitting goal line plays happen so fast that guys do end up on the ground, but that's not their job.

I have coached alot on dline, with undersized dlineman, and we will lineup in the gaps and basically dive and bearcrawl to fill the gaps, basically taking the olineman out of the way and clogging any hole, because the olineman will normally fall on top of the dlineman. This allows our lb's to come up and make tackles without a olineman in their face.

But their isn't really a scheme that has the olineman go to the ground immediately unless they are chop blocking a defender which usually won't happen on the goal line, especially if that is where the play is designed to be run.

AngryAsian
11-14-2008, 05:17 AM
I don't know... but what I'd like to see is this, DEEBO or WOOD playing FB. These guys are used to driving into 300 lb. tackles, couldn't they try their hat at opposing LBs in a backfield blocking capacity? Crazy thought or what?

BURGH86STEEL
11-14-2008, 07:43 AM
Down on the goaline, Kemo and Max twice went down to the ground purposely.
Obviously this is scheme, but what benefit does it give when LBs can step up and fill the hole.
Probably be better if we had a FB that could block.
Ive been itching to bring this up and havnt seen it discussed before.
Any one can add their :2c

Steelers scored twice running the ball down on the goal line. I would have to rewatch the plays but I think the blocking scheme was the same. Is a FB always the answer? I do not think so. I do know that there were times in the past they had a FB in the game and came up short. The play Moore was tackled was about execution. The Colt's player made a great play. That is how I look at it. Sometimes it is not always about what we do. The other guys get paid to make plays.

stlrz d
11-14-2008, 08:27 AM
Down on the goaline, Kemo and Max twice went down to the ground purposely.
Obviously this is scheme, but what benefit does it give when LBs can step up and fill the hole.
Probably be better if we had a FB that could block.
Ive been itching to bring this up and havnt seen it discussed before.
Any one can add their :2c

Steelers scored twice running the ball down on the goal line. I would have to rewatch the plays but I think the blocking scheme was the same. Is a FB always the answer? I do not think so. I do know that there were times in the past they had a FB in the game and came up short. The play Moore was tackled was about execution. The Colt's player made a great play. That is how I look at it. Sometimes it is not always about what we do. The other guys get paid to make plays.

That's exactly what happened. The bigger execution was the play call. That was really my only beef with Arians that game. That play should have been a PA pass.

I know they ran it because they figured the Colts would never think they would try it again, but I don't think that's the best logic to use when calling plays.

"They'll never expect us to do this" is fine.

"They'll never expect us to do this because we just tried it twice in a row" is not.

Oviedo
11-14-2008, 09:28 AM
Read the answer from someone who actually knows--Craig Wolfley

The Making of a Root Hog


By Craig Wolfley
SteelCityInsider.com
Posted Nov 13, 2008


The Pittsburgh Steelers could've used Craig Wolfley's techniques Sunday against the Colts.

The reality of goal line blocking schemes is that they are only as good as the hosses up front doing the heavy lifting. Because of the short distance to "pay dirt," naturally the defensive curmudgeons hunkering down on the opposite side of the ball are quite eager to put the kibosh to any shenanigans the offensive linemen may be plotting. Included in their defensive repertoire is the "root-hog," or more simply put, shooting the gaps by the inside defensive tackles. Generally the defensive tackles can pinch (go inside), play it straight, or run a "tackles out" where the tackles line up inside shoulder of the guards and play to the outside shoulder. All of these are done with the chin of the defensive player 12-16 inches off the ground and firing off like Howitzers with a bad disposition. In other words they are coming, and they are coming low and hard.
In such a situation as this, trying to re-establish the line of scrimmage on the defenders’ side of the ball on a straight-ahead running play would be near impossible. Getting movement, and trying to drive the defensive tackle back when there's less than a yard to go for a touchdown is very difficult because the gap shooters are so low and virtually digging their nails into the turf while clawing away at forward movement. They look like surfers who try to turtle under the big waves out in Hawaii only to resurface on the other side of the mondo wave. And even if you could drive the man back, it would take too long to be effective because of him playing that low and the resultant stalemate that inevitably goes with phone booth fighting.

Normal run blocking schemes and techniques don't apply to this situation. The rising blow as taught by all line coaches can’t be applied here. You can't get under something that is low enough to be a bedspread, and yet stubbornly refuses to back up like a rented mule. There's no way to lift the man without incurring the wrath of the head zebra and his golden hankie, so what's left for a self-respecting hog to do? (Without taking a bow as the public address system blares your number all over the stadium, that is). Remember, your team is going to run the ball right at you and the guy over you is burrowing down like a tick on a hound.

It's time for the wily vet to reach into his bag of tricks and pull out an oldie, but a goodie. As a matter of fact, former Steelers guard Sam Davis first demonstrated this for me in training camp my rookie year. First off, let's start off with a bit of anatomy. The head is connected to the body. Pretty simple stuff, eh? Okay, the body follows the head. Therefore, it also follows that when you wrench the head, the body will follow the wrenched head, correct? Voila! Enter the cross-face technique. It’s the perfect antidote to the root-hogs.

Ok, here’s how it plays out. The offensive lineman fires off the line of scrimmage knowing his opponent will hug the turf. A double fisted uppercut under the hat of the defensive lineman starts the engagement process. With the defender now on his hands and knees underneath the upper body of the O lineman it’s time to apply the cross-face. The O lineman uses his forearms to twist the head of the defensive guy. This will turn the body of the defender enough so that the hog can now start to “tenderize” the ribs of the ground hugger with pumping knees. With the marination of the ribs complete, the last bit of business is to continue to roll the carcass of the defender out of the hole enough to create a split in the line. It sort of resembles the time you had to push your car to the gas station using double under hooks with your arms after running out of gas. Not a lot of split is needed, but enough to give the running back a good place to slam it home. And it starts with turning your opponents head.

The best part about it is that you can do all this without listening to your wife say “I told you we were low on gas.”

Chemsteel
11-14-2008, 03:58 PM
One of the greatest offensive linemen ever to play college football said this about playing the OL:

“I think attitude goes through everything you do. I mean, to be a great football player, you have to be aggressive - that's a given. But you also have to have solid technique and you have to know how to apply it and when, if that all makes sense. I don't know that one is more important than the other but I guess if you pinned me down, I'd rather have somebody who was tough and wanted to beat somebody up, because you can hopefully teach them and give them technique, but I don't know if you can teach toughness."

Craig Wolfleys comments are more than a pity homoly on blocking but it is more. It is attitude, angles and lastly angles. When the DL is coming straight at you, you may not have the time to "tenderize the ribs".

The Steelers OL have some difficulty, in my opinion, with basics. I would be happy to speek on this if there is interest in this subject.

pittpete
11-16-2008, 01:58 PM
Steelers scored twice running the ball down on the goal line. I would have to rewatch the plays but I think the blocking scheme was the same. Is a FB always the answer? I do not think so. I do know that there were times in the past they had a FB in the game and came up short.
Im talking about when we got stuffed on the goaline on 2nd and 3rd downs and settled for the FG.
I remember seeing the replays on 2nd and 3rd downs and Kemo and Max went down on both plays like a greanade had been thrown in the area. Both runs were to the left side.
Is a FB the answer? A FB that can block, not Carey Davis. Davis does nothing for the run game. He usually clogs up any potential hole. Try to watch him this week and see what Im talking about. Ill eat my hat if Im proven wrong.. :Bow