Chalk Talk: The Evolution of the Zone Running Game

[KDawg]

As most of you are aware, the zone running game is becoming common place in the NFL. With the Washington Redskins, the stretch play has become a staple, and back when the Hogs and Joe Bugel were here, some of our most memorable plays were part of the zone scheme (50 GUT, 70 CHIP anyone?). But with the zone game becoming so common place, defenses began to adapt.

So teams transitioned to the zone read offense. And again, defenses adapted, this time by using something called a scrape exchange. So what was the next adaptation? Well, the answer is something both high end rookie quarterback did in college, the Inverted Veer.

Thoroughly confused? Stick with me.

Zone Game:

The basic premise of the inside zone game is to create running lanes using split-flow. Split-flow means that your running back and full back (or H-Back) go in different directions. The offensive line will all step to the zone side, so if we called inside zone right, all of the linemen should be stepping to their right and "getting on their tracks". Obviously, as the name implies, in zone you don't have a man. You have an area. When someone comes into your area, they become your man. The "split-flow" part comes in with the backside defensive end (or the last man on the line of scrimmage, sometimes that could be a linebacker).

The fullback goes and blocks him. This could create a major cutback lane to the backside, but there are generally lanes a lot easier and more realistic for the back to get to. On inside zone the runningback is generally reading the defensive tackle aligned to the side of the play that the lineman are stepping to. If he goes in, the back goes out. If he goes out, the back goes in. Cat and mouse.

On the stretch play, one of Mike Shanahan's favorite plays, you get full-flow. Which is the fullback going the same way. The object is to "reach" or "hook" the defenders. The read here is the EMLOS (end man on line of scrimmage), usually the DE. If he knifes outside, the cutback lane is inside of him. If he is successfully reached, the play hits outside. Roy Helu tends to go outside more often than not. Royster tends to see the cutback a bit better and Alfred Morris certainly sees it better.

Zone Read:

So what is the zone read? Well, it was an adaptation on the zone scheme (using Power O blocking OR traditional inside/outside zone principles). This was something that came with the spread offenses. In this style, the line zone blocks or power blocks (this is a different play, that is extremely complex, that justice can't be served to trying to explain it quickly here. Look for it's own thread at a later time) just as they did in the zone scheme, and the back runs zone just like they always would. The difference being, the quarterback now has a read.

Since you use this play from a spread formation, you're usually without your fullback. And to keep teams spread out, you want to avoid motioning someone inside. So how do you account for the backside defensive end now?

You make it a read. It remains split-flow due to the quarterback essentially "blocking" the defensive end by reading him.

If the end crashes hard, the quarterback pulls the ball out from the running back's stomach and runs backside with it. If the end sits down, the quarterback gives the ball

(image taken from SBNation)

Now, looking at this diagram, let me try to explain how defenses adapted to the zone read...

The defensive end was widely known as the read man, and all of the blocking was going away from the quarterback. So the quarterback was essentially one on one with the end and the offense was hoping for the defense to run to the running back zone play.

So how did they counteract the play? Something called the "scrape-exchange". The defensive end, knowing that he was the read man, crashes HARD inside after the inside zone play. That should tell the quarterback that he's tucking the football and running outside, right? The problem was that the linebacker (W or the WILL in the diagram) would come down hard over the top and replace the defensive end, thus blowing up the read.

So the offense had to evolve again.

Inverted Veer:

Here is where Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III made a living. The inverted veer. Now instead of split-flow, it became full flow.

Let me backtrack. Just to give you a real idea of how RG3 ran this at Baylor... Art Briles seemed to enjoy running the play with a pulling guard. The guard pulls to the playside. Linebackers see a guard pulling and they will generally fly to the side of the field that the guard is running towards.

Why? Because generally you don't want to take a player away from the playside, and the guard is essentially a lead blocker. In a VERY basic sense, the pulling guard makes that play "Power O" (remember the play that I said deserves a lot of time earlier? That's it, in a very basic nutshell )

Power O is generally run in conjunction with a zone scheme, they just seem to mesh well together. All of that said, you could JUST as easily and just as effectively (if not more effectively) run the inverted veer with a zone blocking scheme.

But here it is with the power scheme attached:

(image taken from elevenwarriors.com)

The end is still your read man, except this time you're attacking the playside defensive end. If the end flys with the running back, who is running outside zone, the quarterback keeps and runs inside that defensive end. If the defensive end crashes hard, the quarterback hands the ball off to the running back. Terrance Ganaway and Robert Griffin III made a living off this concept. The guard, on this play, cuts up inside the defensive end and looks for a linebacker flowing to the play.

The offensive line will down block (they block away from the defensive end. So if you're running inverted veer right, like in the diagram, the offensive line all blocks left.

But eventually, defenses will adapt to that, too. So what do you do to counter that?

Simple. Play-action.

Most linebackers, as I mentioned above, are taught to fly with a pull. The pull will generally take you to the football. So if you run the same play but decide to throw it, well, you have people evacuating their pass responsibilities to play run. And then what happens? A lot of points.

Play-Action Pass

Bill Walsh once said, "The Play-Pass is the one fundamentally sound football play that does everything possible to contradict the basic principles of defense. I truly believe it is the single best tool available to take advantage of a disciplined defense. By using the play-pass as an integral pant of your offense you are trying to take advantage of a defensive team that is very anxious very intense and very fired-up to play football. The play-pass is one of the best ways to cool all of that emotion and intensity down because the object of the play-pass is to get the defensive team to commit to a fake run and then throw behind them. Once you get the defensive team distracted and disoriented, they begin to think about options and, therefore, are susceptible to the running game"

So by using the pull, you're really keeping teams off-balance as it is generally a run key.

(illustration taken from smartfootball.com)

That diagram is the power principle version of the pass, which is a more effective pass in my opinion due to the pull. If you ran inverted veer with zone principles, as I mentioned above as being effective, then the pass may not be as effective. Zone principles don't have the guard pull. Power principles do.

The premise is the same up front. The line all down blocks. The difference is the guard. On the inverted veer play we said that the guard wants to lead up inside the defensive end. On this play, someone HAS to account for the end. So the guard blocks him. It's a 5-man protection scheme.

The quarterback (Griffin III at Baylor) fakes the hand off and stays in the pocket.

As you can see, the backside slots runs sluggo (slant and go), but that's just one way to do it. You can use it in many ways, as the running back carrying out the play fake will jump to the flats and become the dump receiver.

That's it for now, if you have any questions, comments, or concerns feel free to share!

Thanks for reading!

HTTR!

[Chachie]

Nice work, KDawg. Thanks for the quick seminar.

[KDawg]

Nice work, KDawg. Thanks for the quick seminar.

No problem Chach!

If you can't see the first image (it's polarized for me) just click it. It will give you the real version

[Koolblue13]

Such great threads, thanks.

[Laxpunk2006]

Great read KDawg! Can we get you working on these full time?

[KDawg]

Great read KDawg! Can we get you working on these full time?

If you got the cash, I got the time

[sideshow24]

Very nice indeed. Thank you for the work.

[darrelgreenie]

Good stuff KDawg

I think/hope the evolution of this offense Baylor-Kyle-Griffin East Coast Offense will be to more spread formations with zone-read used against 5 or 6 in the box.

Right now we run more base personnel and normal splits but I think this offense will prove more efficient and explosive from a spread 3 wide 1 TE 1 back personnel with spread formations.

Teams are going to be in a quandry to match-up personnel and coverages against the passing game and contain the zone read against a 5/6 man front.

A wrote an article in another forum about this article from smartfootball:

http://smartfootball.com/passing/a-very-wise-coach-once-told-me-if-you-really-want-play-action-you-better-pull-a-guard

[KDawg]

.I had the article typed and ready to roll when I google searched for a diagram and I read through that same article you just posted and I literally was laughing. They were very similar. Although mine focused more on a system in general rather than the play itself. But it's still a fun read.

I love smartfootball.com

Probably my favorite website besides extremeskins

PS: You ever read "Football Scouting Methods" by Steve Belichick? I just bought it and it arrived yesterday. I'm in the opening pages, but it's a very interesting read, although slightly outdated. Very good book.

[Jumbo]

The info is out there, but laying it out in an interesting and accessible way with the helpful graphics is really ncie work. Thanks, amigo.

Re: Buges & the Hogs, while a counter run with some specific targets for some, I have long thought of our old beloved Counter Trey as foreshadowing the evolution of ZBS as a broad technique.

BTW, this seems like another good source for folks (link is not to main age):

< edit, cripes, KDawg, I missed we were talking about the exact same site lol>

[Oldfan]

...Bill Walsh once said, "The Play-Pass is the one fundamentally sound football play that does everything possible to contradict the basic principles of defense. I truly believe it is the single best tool available to take advantage of a disciplined defense. By using the play-pass as an integral pant of your offense you are trying to take advantage of a defensive team that is very anxious very intense and very fired-up to play football. The play-pass is one of the best ways to cool all of that emotion and intensity down because the object of the play-pass is to get the defensive team to commit to a fake run and then throw behind them. Once you get the defensive team distracted and disoriented, they begin to think about options and, therefore, are susceptible to the running game"...

Good stuff, KDawg. I appreciate the work you put into this.

About this quote, though. It was true when Bill Walsh said it, but is it still true in the NFL? Some defenses are still geared to stop the run first, so play-action works against them. But would you play defense to stop the run first aqainst the Patriots? I don't think it would be smart. Matt Bowen called the Patriot's offense a WCO out of the shotgun. I think that's a good call.

The use of the shotgun in the NFL has gone up every year in the NFL. That fact changes many of the truisms of the Walsh era.

[Jumbo]

Agreed in general, Oldfan. The more generalized a truism can be, usually the greater its longevity. But the game isn't stagnant and things that were once innovative or even groundbreaking move into dependable and then eventually to pedestrian. Of course, there are those unique players who can make pedestrian seem groundbreaking. But now I'm musing/rambling during the calm before the onslaught of real work.

[DaGoonie55]

You wouldn't game plan to stop the Pats run game, but if they were effective - you would get destroyed by their passing game off the play action. I pray every draft that they don't bolster their running game. There would be no point in playing the patriots, just shake hands and get back on the bus.

Great write up, very enjoyable read!!!!!

Hail

[Oldfan]

Agreed in general, Oldfan. The more generalized a truism can be, usually the greater its longevity. But the game isn't stagnant and things that were once innovative or even groundbreaking move into dependable and then eventually to pedestrian. Of course, there are those unique players who can make pedestrian seem groundbreaking. But now I'm musing/rambling during the calm before the onslaught of real work.

I had play-action on my miind before reading KDawg's OP. RG3 was saying that maybe he shouldn't carry out his play action fake quite so well. That way the refs could see that he didn't have the ball and they would penalize the D linemen who crush him anyway. And my thought was, "Now wait a minute, Man...":ols:

[MartinC]

I had play-action on my miind before reading KDawg's OP. RG3 was saying that maybe he shouldn't carry out his play action fake quite so well. That way the refs could see that he didn't have the ball and they would penalize the D linemen who crush him anyway. And my thought was, "Now wait a minute, Man...":ols:

I had the same thought about RGIIIs comment about play action - if you don't sell it what's the point.

I think play action does work - we have seen linebackers held a number if times by RGiIIs fakes creating space behind them and in front of the safety(s) for crossing routes. To make play action work though you need a legitimate running threat which is why it works well in our offense but you don't see the Patriots run it very much - as you say no one takes the play fake seriously and in any case your playing pass first against the Pats not the run.

[KDawg]

Good stuff, KDawg. I appreciate the work you put into this.

About this quote, though. It was true when Bill Walsh said it, but is it still true in the NFL? Some defenses are still geared to stop the run first, so play-action works against them. But would you play defense to stop the run first aqainst the Patriots? I don't think it would be smart. Matt Bowen called the Patriot's offense a WCO out of the shotgun. I think that's a good call.

The use of the shotgun in the NFL has gone up every year in the NFL. That fact changes many of the truisms of the Walsh era.

It says the play-pass contradicts the basic principles of defense. But the opposite is true, too. The run play with a play pass connected to it would be more successful against defenses geared to stop pass. The quote still very much applies as its suggesting that you have to contradict the basic principles of a defense. It says the play pass, but it could just as well as the run with a play fake off of it.

[brandymac27]

:thud: I am so NEVER gonna get this stuff :doh:

[Darth Tater]

Agreed in general, Oldfan. The more generalized a truism can be, usually the greater its longevity. But the game isn't stagnant and things that were once innovative or even groundbreaking move into dependable and then eventually to pedestrian. Of course, there are those unique players who can make pedestrian seem groundbreaking. But now I'm musing/rambling during the calm before the onslaught of real work.

If you ever look at Dutch Meyer's playbook (circa 1930), you'll see pretty much the same concepts kdawg just talked about with the changes due to unlimited substitution, to allowing the coach to actually talk to his QB and to making the game more pass friendly.

[Oldfan]

... in any case your playing pass first against the Pats not the run.

I would have thought so too, but after his Cowboys were blown out, Wade Philips once explained on National TV that he had played run first against the Patriots. And, Greg Blache, following in the Chicago tradition, seemed to play the run first against everybody.

Honestly, Martin, I think we give these NFL coaches too much credit.

[Bishop Hammer]

Thanks bruv. It's nice when the intricacy of the game is broken down in such a fashion. It makes viewing them all the more enjoyable.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Good stuff, KDawg. I appreciate the work you put into this.

About this quote, though. It was true when Bill Walsh said it, but is it still true in the NFL? Some defenses are still geared to stop the run first, so play-action works against them. But would you play defense to stop the run first aqainst the Patriots? I don't think it would be smart. Matt Bowen called the Patriot's offense a WCO out of the shotgun. I think that's a good call.

The use of the shotgun in the NFL has gone up every year in the NFL. That fact changes many of the truisms of the Walsh era.

If you play run defense against the Patriots, you will get toasted through the air.

If you play pass defense against the Patriots, you will still get toasted through the air.

The Patriots really don't need to rely on playfakes because their level of execution in one phase of the game is absolutely off the charts (unless you can get to Brady). The same could arguably be said for other teams like the Packers and the Saints over the last few years. However, even though the league as a whole is more pass heavy, not every team is like this and the teams that can execute in the ground game can still use the playfake to their advantage in a way that is every bit as effective as it ever was.

Look at a multi-dimensional team like the Texans and you'll see that it still works. In Week 2 the Jaguars decided they were going to shut down Andre Johnson, so the Texans gashed them on the ground for over 200 yards. Obviously playing the pass against them isn't an especially great strategy... but what happens when you get caught playing the run? Fast forward to Week 4 and you see Schaub connect on two 50+ yard TDs to Andre Johnson and the none-too-speedy Kevin Walter off the playfake against a respectable Denver D.

The playfake is always dangerous when you have a respectable rushing attack, even if you're a 60-40 pass-run team.

[Oldfan]

If you play run defense against the Patriots, you will get toasted through the air.

If you play pass defense against the Patriots, you will still get toasted through the air.

The Patriots really don't need to rely on playfakes because their level of execution in one phase of the game is absolutely off the charts (unless you can get to Brady). The same could arguably be said for other teams like the Packers and the Saints over the last few years. However, even though the league as a whole is more pass heavy, not every team is like this and the teams that can execute in the ground game can still use the playfake to their advantage in a way that is every bit as effective as it ever was.

Look at a multi-dimensional team like the Texans and you'll see that it still works. In Week 2 the Jaguars decided they were going to shut down Andre Johnson, so the Texans gashed them on the ground for over 200 yards. Obviously playing the pass against them isn't an especially great strategy... but what happens when you get caught playing the run? Fast forward to Week 4 and you see Schaub connect on two 50+ yard TDs to Andre Johnson and the none-too-speedy Kevin Walter off the playfake against a respectable Denver D.

The playfake is always dangerous when you have a respectable rushing attack, even if you're a 60-40 pass-run team.

Let's use the Patriots simply as an example of the way the league has trended. The shotgun is 70% of their offense. They use the slot and two TEs. They use high-percentage passes to achieve ball control. When they go under center, they are probably going to run the ball. They will use play-action only now and then. That's pretty typical of the way things are going in the NFL.

On defense, Belichik wants to take away what the opponent does best. If he was game planning against his own offense, he would try to take away some of the passing game by forcing Brady to move his feet. He would play run-first and worry about play-action only when Brady goes under center.

Against the Texans or against the Redskins, a defense should play the run first and play-action is a major concern. But these aren't typical NFL offensive schemes.

In the Walsh era, it was different. Play-action played a greater role in all the games. Stopping the run first made sense against all opponents.

[darrelgreenie]

Good stuff, KDawg. I appreciate the work you put into this.

About this quote, though. It was true when Bill Walsh said it, but is it still true in the NFL? Some defenses are still geared to stop the run first, so play-action works against them. But would you play defense to stop the run first aqainst the Patriots? I don't think it would be smart. Matt Bowen called the Patriot's offense a WCO out of the shotgun. I think that's a good call.

I still think its true.

I'm not sure I agree with looking at defenses as being geared to stop the pass vs the run as an overall gameplan from the macro level.

I think its better to look at it from a micro level; from game to game or even series to series as offenses and defenses react to each other.

Its like a Pavlov effect, defenses are geared up to stop whatever an offense tells them stop.

While there some cases like with the Packers, Eageles (when Morningwhig falls in love with Vick's arm) and the Lions where due to their pass happy nature the gameplan might be to a play for the pass and react to run.

But, in most games there will be times when the offense will commit to moving the ball on the ground maybe for as little as a few plays maybe for a series.

And if that offense is effective in those instances the play pass will have an effect on the defense either at the mirco level on the individual player who will be influenced by the run action or from the defensive call from a coach that calls a defenses that plays the run and reacts to pass in an effort to get a stop in the running game.

The use of the shotgun in the NFL has gone up every year in the NFL. That

fact changes many of the truisms of the Walsh era.

Defenses are already catching up to shotgun formations in conventional passing downs and as teams use shotgun in non-conventional run downs the defenses will begin to catch up even more if that offense is one dimensional and can only pass from their shotgun formations.

Looking ahead the ability to run from the shotgun will become crucial to the ability to maintain a viable offense from the shotgun.

And Griffin is the type of QB that will make a defense have to play honest against a shotgun formation.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Against the Texans or against the Redskins, a defense should play the run first and play-action is a major concern. But these aren't typical NFL offensive schemes.

In the Walsh era, it was different. Play-action played a greater role in all the games. Stopping the run first made sense against all opponents.

I'm not so sure they're as atypical as you profess. In fact, I would consider the Patriots to be more atypical as only teams with truly elite QBs can pull that style of offense off.

Completely off-hand I'd qualify the Texans, Redskins, 49ers, Rams, Raiders, Seahawks, Panthers, Buccaneers, Jaguars, Titans, Vikings, Bears, Chiefs, Jets, Dolphins, Bills, Bengals, and Browns as teams that are balanced offenses (if not run-first). Meanwhile the Giants, Cowboys, Eagles, Falcons, and Ravens are all teams who seem to be pass-first these days but still run often enough and effectively enough to be very dangerous with the playfake.

Of the remaining teams, I'd say that a few are sorely missing the run component they've typically employed in the past (Steelers, Chargers) and there's at least one team that is struggling to find its offensive identity (Broncos). That leaves the Patriots, Saints, Packers, and Lions as rather extreme outliers, no?

[ArmchairRedskin]

I'm interested in seeing how Griffin adjusts his play fakes. I imagine the follow through will be truncated. "Hands up" as Griffin said. Will he have enough time to get hands up while having enough space between him and the pursuing defender to transition from a possible live ball carrier and legal target to an illegal target without the ball? I dunno. A lot of times the mesh point seemed to be split seconds before he got drilled. The ball will have to change hands quicker. I hope we find a nice balance so that he doesn't take shots every other drop back.

I would also like to see the exchanges cleaned up. To many mistakes have marred the option plays.

I wonder if we should just try to run a more basic Shanahan offense for the most part and maybe just sprinkle in the option stuff more sparingly for now.