The Offensive Line Thread

[markmills67]

18 hours ago, megared said:

 

Sure it does...from that you can draw comparative analysis. 

 

Player	Position	Team	Score	Unit         Rank	Ind  Rank	Avg Pos Score
Trent Williams	LT	Redskins	78.7	8	5	64.7
Chase Roullier	LG	Redskins	57.8	8	21	64.9
Ton Bergstrom	C	Redskins	55.1	8	26	68.4
Brandon Scherff	RG	Redskins	75.3	8	6	60.4
Morgan Moses	RT	Redskins	70.5	8	9	64.1

 

There's nothing else out there comparable to the level of information you can get on linemen.  More specific, just how bad are Roullier and Bergstrom?  This gives us a better idea.

Just a quick question,  what score was Roullier getting when playing C.

 

HTTR 

[Est.1974]

We should have upgraded at LG. Our starting tackles still look banged up. I fear that Trent will always be banged up at this stage. Our investment in Christian in the third round last year needs to pan our. Well ideally anyway. Plus I'd look to pick up the best interior line guy I could in the next offseason, either via FA or the draft.

[RandyHolt]

Do we run mostly power, or zone? 

 

Our left side is built for zone. Those are Mike's guys. Lauvao dominates when healthy and moving his feet. Our line just seems like a mish mash of zone and power guys and I think leans towards zone.  Is Jay play calling best utilizing our OLs collective strengths?  I always thought of Jay as a power guy.

 

Some of the best looking/designed plays from the past few years seem to often involved Trent and Shaun on the move.

 

Agree with the esteemed poster that suggested DLs should stunt early and often against us until we can figure out how to stop it.  If we cannot, Callahan is at fault.

[Darrell Green Fan]

10 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

Chase has been fine. He's better at C right now because that's where he's been playing, and while he might not be a world breaker, but is more than serviceable. Lack of depth, and moving 2 guys on the OL when 1 guy goes done are real issues though.

 

 

Chase is not the main problem but he is looking more and more like Long, just a guy.  I'm looking for good players on the OL, not "more than serviceable".  When you have 2 such players next to each other in your starting OL you don't have a good OL. When one injury means you are now inserting something called Tony Bergstrom, and are forced to move Chase as you said, your OL sucks.  

[RandyHolt]

What is happening to our OL, isn't unique to us.  We have a bookend LT which goes a long ways toward a viable OL. All teams have injuries and its the ones we don't know about that guys play through, that make them look much worse than they are. It doesn't get talked about much but being an OL is a BRUTAL job. Is there a more physically demanding job out there?

 

DL are subbing fresh guys on them all day long.  The endless battles in the trenches, the Dallas stunt where a LB at full speed broadsides an engaged blocker, picking up endless blitzers, the running back hitting you square in the back, heck watching the OL drag themselves off the turf every single play hurts here at home.... it all takes its toll.  Not to mention the difficult part - the mental side. One screw up, one, and the QB is toast. You wonder why Tony is in there? Maybe he knows the playbook.

 

All this is standard stuff.  What is left. Play calling - it is a key cog into making an OL look good. I think Jay needs to do better, including swallowing his pride and joy slow play heavy sub offense and go hurry up to take some of the steam out of the pass rush. Carolina is going to be bringing it. We don't have to run plays any faster folks, we just need to rush to the line / show hurry up to kill fresh subs coming in. To this day I still think proper hurry up dictates to the D, who is forced to more often than not, run the same D as they did on the play before. And, gives them less time line up correctly, lending towards more blown coverages, and heck, even making them burn timeouts.  But its nothing I will hold my breath for, after watching it shunned yet again last week. If we didn't try it vs NO, we likely won't use it all year.

 

Sigh. i think our OL needs any advantage it can gain right now, if even for a series in a blowout.

 

[Morneblade]

4 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

 

Chase is not the main problem but he is looking more and more like Long, just a guy.  I'm looking for good players on the OL, not "more than serviceable".  When you have 2 such players next to each other in your starting OL you don't have a good OL. When one injury means you are now inserting something called Tony Bergstrom, and are forced to move Chase as you said, your OL sucks.  

 

Ok, let me rephrase then. Chase is better than average at C. He had one of the highs rankings on PFF last year for any rookie C in years. His PFF ranking is average for G, after playing there 1 game. Honestly, he's a 2nd year 6th round pick, what are you expecting? My point is, Chase is not the issue. I'd put Chase back at C and have Berg at G and roll with it for the time being, look for a better option for G, both for a starter, and depth.

 

 

[JSSkinz]

I don't know about Moses, if anyone has a chance go look at the play where Alex almost got chopped in half and fumbled the ball into Trent's hands, Trent ran it for 4 huge yards which got us that last FG.

 

Anyway, the pass pro by Mosses was awful.  The pass rusher didn't even use a creative move or bull rush, basically he just redirected and Moses was so slow he couldn't keep up, really poor effort and we're lucky the QB didn't get KO'd.

[bird_1972]

1 hour ago, JSSkinz said:

I don't know about Moses, if anyone has a chance go look at the play where Alex almost got chopped in half and fumbled the ball into Trent's hands, Trent ran it for 4 huge yards which got us that last FG.

 

Anyway, the pass pro by Mosses was awful.  The pass rusher didn't even use a creative move or bull rush, basically he just redirected and Moses was so slow he couldn't keep up, really poor effort and we're lucky the QB didn't get KO'd.

 

This is exactly why I'm a proponent of taking one of the top OT in the draft in the first round next year. We start him at RT until Williams is done and then can be moved to L side. 

 

Trade Moses or move him to backup.

[Redskinscub]

My opinion is that the line is over-rated (even puff the magic dragon Trent) or not properly coached or both. Callahan has a great resume' but I just have not seen the results. Does Joe Bugel have any sons coaching?

 

I think the overall consensus is that we have one weak link on the line (left guard), but usually we are lucky to even have an average performance by this group.    

[bh32]

I think Callahan is overated and is the problem..How many times does a OL have to get their ass beat by stunts before they figure out how to handle them? 

[RandyHolt]

Something is not working with our OL, and its easier to blame / replace Callahan than the players.  How will our OL handle the dallas delay blitz where a late LB blindsides an engaged unsuspecting OT?  And what is that play called - I cannot remember but we may all be very familiar with the name a week from now. I actually thought the league would outlaw it as it just seems to break the spirit of the game, not attacking the ball nor QB.  I hope we do it to them, instead. Sigh.

 

And I sure as hell hope that the project OT we drafted pans out... .I hate to be a negative nelly but color me skeptical, if what we see now is what he becomes. I think we will have to focus on the OL early next spring, regardless.

 

AP is our keeping our offense afloat IMO. Without him, our goose may be cooked and fully expose our OL that I see struggling with basics/injuries week to week. I want to see Bibbs and Perine get the odd series to keep his pitch count down.

[megared]

Think the problem is we lack a run identity.  Right now we incorporate every concept you can think of... zone, power, RPO, counters.   Where someone like Shanahan would target certain kinds of linemen (small,  quick,  nimble) to execute his zone runs,  we have two guys that can realistically run any scheme.   We shouldn't need five elite guys to have an effective run game.   

[KDawg]

7 hours ago, megared said:

Think the problem is we lack a run identity.  Right now we incorporate every concept you can think of... zone, power, RPO, counters.   Where someone like Shanahan would target certain kinds of linemen (small,  quick,  nimble) to execute his zone runs,  we have two guys that can realistically run any scheme.   We shouldn't need five elite guys to have an effective run game.   

 

Our run game is more than passable. And for the record counters and power are both considered "gap" scheme plays. There's really three types of run blocking: Man, zone, gap. 

 

It's our pass protection that is the bugaboo.

[RandyHolt]

@KDawg

 

Do we run a lot (~33% whatever) of Mike's zone still? 

 

Are our OL a mish mash of guys that are built for zone, built for power etc?

 

Which of the 3 types of run blocking is our OL's collective strength (at full health) - what is our identity forced to choose.

 

Is Tony a good run blocker? 

 

Thanks in advance

[KDawg]

Just now, RandyHolt said:

@KDawg

 

Do we run a lot (~33% whatever) of Mike's zone still? 

 

Are our OL a mish mash of guys that are built for zone, built for power etc?

 

Which of the 3 types of run blocking is our OL's collective strength (at full health) - what is our identity forced to choose.

 

Is Tony a good run blocker? 

 

Thanks in advance

 

Haven't watched too much film on 'em. Just watched live.

 

Bergstrom is much better in run game versus pass game from watching live. Although I saw him whiff a few times. I'd say all in all this is a line built for gap scheme plays moreso than anything else. Typically gap pairs with zone. But our line appears to be better with pulls and traps. Not sure man schemes are all that successful in the NFL now without real fullbacks around. It could work, but your line has to be maulers for it. With big linemen that like to move gap schemes are better. Which in my opinion fits the entire line aside from Moses.

[megared]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

 

Our run game is more than passable. And for the record counters and power are both considered "gap" scheme plays. There's really three types of run blocking: Man, zone, gap. 

 

It's our pass protection that is the bugaboo.

 

Disagree...that's overly reductive.  Inside zone is different from outside zone.  But I'm sure you know this.  Would it also be true to say that there's really only two types of defenses?

 

And the 'more than passable' aspect of our run game is due to the AD effect.  Not sure about this week, but he was leading the NFL in yards after contact.

 

Quote

The Redskins have graded poorly in run-blocking. This is something of a surprise, given the track record of several of the team’s offensive linemen, but the line has struggled to open holes in the running game. Only left tackle Trent Williams has earned an above-average run-blocking grade from Pro Football Focus through three games.

Brandon Scherff and Morgan Moses have been good run-blockers in the past, but both have been below-average this season.

 

From the same article:

 

Quote

Some teams rely on just a couple of different broad run concepts all season, varying only the plays within those broad buckets, but the Redskins have mixed it up. They have deployed inside-zone, outside-zone, duo and power-run concepts each on more than 15 percent of their attempts and counter plays on another 9 percent, meaning defenses can’t simply dial into defending one or two specific blocking concepts.

 

Wa Post: The Redskins’ running game is much improved this year. Can they keep it up?

 

My initial point is that, due to the variance of plays we're calling, we lack an identity...or plays that we can consistently execute well, regardless of who is blocking, or who is carrying.  Peterson is the proverbial lipstick on a pig, but it isn't like history doesn't tell us this:

 

 

Another interesting tidbit from this article (written before the season began):

 

Quote

Since being named head coach of the Washington Redskins, Gruden has relied on three main running schemes: outside zone (which has accounted for 32.1 percent of rushing attempts), man (14.9 percent) and inside zone (12.7 percent).

 

PFF: Running back 'three-for-all' – the competition to revive Washington's run game

 

[RandyHolt]

11 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Haven't watched too much film on 'em. Just watched live.

 

Bergstrom is much better in run game versus pass game from watching live. Although I saw him whiff a few times. I'd say all in all this is a line built for gap scheme plays moreso than anything else. Typically gap pairs with zone. But our line appears to be better with pulls and traps. Not sure man schemes are all that successful in the NFL now without real fullbacks around. It could work, but your line has to be maulers for it. With big linemen that like to move gap schemes are better. Which in my opinion fits the entire line aside from Moses.

 

Thanks much. I remember Jay's first presser when he said if zone ain't broke don't fix it. But before that I believe he wanted a power run game. Of course that is when a FB was a thing.  The left side of the OL are holdovers from Shanahan and are fantastic when using their feet. That's about all I know, and I know that I love watching those 2 running loose trucking DBs.  That is when Lauvao is at his best IMO - mobile run blocking.

[KDawg]

Inside zone and outside zone are actually damn near the same. Only changes are some footwork for linemen, dependent on defensive alignment and the back's aiming point.

 

Saying there are two kinds of defenses is vastly different than saying there are three types of run scheme, FYI.

 

Defensive "tags" are all just a basic idea of structure. In reality a 4-3/3-4/3-3-5/5-3-3/5-2 and 46 are all the same thing with different personnel and alignment. What differentiates defenses more are coverages and 1-gap vs. 2-gap schemes.

[megared]

Disagree.  They are widely recognized as different concepts because each has it own characteristics of blocking assignments, where and how linemen move post snap, counters to defensive alignments, blitzes, etc.  And from watching this team be consistently confused by interior stunting, it makes me wonder whether there is enough time in a week to prepare for every possible look a defense could give you out of such varied concepts.  The whole doing a few things very well versus doing a lot of different things, not well.

 

Pretty good article outlining a few differences of inside zone versus outside zone:

 

Quote

The biggest thing here are the reads for the running back. The blocking itself is very similar in that you are trying to flow everything in one direction, then give the running back options at the point of attack (typically the A-gap between the guard and center) as well as a cutback lane. The inside zone is a quicker read and the running back often needs to be reading the play prior to taking the hand-off.

The outside zone is designed to stress the defense horizontally, while also giving the running back and offensive lineman more time to allow the play to develop. The aiming point here is generally the outside or inside shoulder of the end blocker on the line of scrimmage. 

    

Windy City Gridiron: To Be (an Outside Zone Team), or Not To Be...That, is the Question

 

Hopefully this article can put the semantics to rest. 

 

Quote

 

Also known as a “stretch” play, the outside zone play is designed to get the defense moving laterally, challenge the edge of the run defense and hit the hole where the defense is at its weakest. The running back takes a wide track, looking to stretch the edge of the defense and he is generally reading the playside edge defender to determine whether or not he should continue his path or “cut back” against the grain as the interior of the defense is being moved laterally. Outside zone can and will hit anywhere, playside and backside, and it’s crucial that the running back read his keys decisively while relying on only one quick cut to his desired hole. Because the play can hit anywhere along the offensive line, back-side blocks are critical to ensure that there are holes for the running back to hit if he has to take the ball inside or even all the way to the back side of the play.

 

The inside zone is more of a downhill play compared to outside zone, and it will generally look for the running back to hit a hole in between the tackles, though many plays still hit outside the tackles due to the flow of the defense. Like the outside zone, there are multiple gaps in which the play can hit, though the running backs read the defensive tackles, rather than starting with the defensive end, to determine where to take the ball. Due to the angle in which the offensive line fires off the ball, the inside zone play will often “cut back” as offensive linemen look to create both vertical and horizontal displacement along the defensive front. Linemen must communicate effectively as their blocking assignment is heavily dependent on the defensive alignment, and they’ll look to double team, if possible, before finding their predetermined second-level assignment. Backside blocks are crucial on inside zone plays as the ball cuts back often.

 

 

In PFF terms, any play that features a single pulling offensive lineman from the backside of the play to the front side of the play is considered “power,” though there are certain versions of the play that will feature different terminology in every playbook. Power features a series of blocks on the front side of the play, looking to clear out the first level of the defense while a backside puller comes through to clean up the rest. Unlike zone plays, power plays have a predetermined point of attack and it’s more dependent on multiple clean blocks in order to give the running back room to operate. While the running back on a zone play is often reading the defense and making a quick, decisive cut, he must exhibit good patience when running power in order to allow his blocking to set up before running away from the leverage of the defense. Due to the blocks up front that take the defense in one specific direction, cutting back on power is generally not advised as the running back is often running right into the flow of the defense, despite holes that appear enticing when watching plays in slow motion. However, the cutback on power is a weapon when used against fast-flowing linebackers who are too quick to jump to their play-side gap. Back-side blocks are less important on power plays as the ball should stay on the front side and most backside defenders will be holding their ground in order to keep gap integrity.

 

 

Counter plays are very similar to power plays though in PFF’s definition, there is a second blocker coming from the backside to the playside. There is still a backside puller, however on counter, the puller will generally get to the hole first, while the fullback will get to the hole first on power. Much like power, the point of attack is predetermined and the front side blockers are looking to clear out the defensive line to give room for the puller and the running back to run through the hole.

 

 

Think double teams and vertical displacement as the offensive line is looking to create movement through multiple double teams while the running back takes the ball away from the middle linebacker. The edges of the defense will often collapse in this run concept, making room for a quick cut to the outside if the middle linebacker gets sucked inside or even slowed up by strong double teams up front. If the middle linebacker stays outside, the running back can jam the ball up the middle behind the double-team blocks.

 

 

It’s a trap! Just as it sounds in the name, trap plays are looking to catch a defender off guard, most often a down lineman who is looking to penetrate upfield. But allowing him to come free, often to his surprise, while using a pulling guard to wash him out of the play, offenses are able to get two offensive linemen to the second level cleanly. A well-executed trap is one of the prettiest plays in football, though it loses effectiveness if defenders have an idea that it could be coming. When used at the right time, it’s an easy way to create and open gap while giving the running back a clear path into the secondary.

 

PFF: Breaking down PFF's run concepts

 

And I'm really not saying anything groundbreaking here...but I feel like our inconsistent performances stem from the fact that we don't have an offensive identity...and a microcosm of that is Gruden's insistence on incorporating every popular run concept into gameplans.  

 

Quote

Coach Jay Gruden wants to build this offense around versatility. He sees a team with the ability to mix and match and function as a football chameleon, transforming into whatever the situation demands. That’s a fine characteristic, but it can’t be the entire personality of this offense. The pieces aren’t dynamic enough for that. While the Redskins should aim to have balance and spread around the football, they still need to develop a calling card, a bread-and-butter aspect to their game, a strength that forces the defense to adjust. Until they identify that superpower and become consistent in using it to their advantage, they will be prone to listless performances.

 

Wa Post: After two weeks, Jay Gruden’s Redskins lack an identity. And that’s a problem.

 

[KDawg]

Yup. I'm aware of all of that. But the concepts don't shift between the two. The idea is to get on your track. Hit the proper milestone/aiming point. The read and aiming point for the back changes.

 

Are there larger nuances? Yes. But for all intents and purposes a zone play is a zone play is a zone play. RPOs start changing that dynamic.

 

You're also aware that the article says basically exactly what I said, right?

[megared]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

Yup. I'm aware of all of that. But the concepts don't shift between the two. The idea is to get on your track. Hit the proper milestone/aiming point. The read and aiming point for the back changes.

 

Are there larger nuances? Yes. But for all intents and purposes a zone play is a zone play is a zone play. RPOs start changing that dynamic.

 

You're also aware that the article says basically exactly what I said, right?

 

It really doesn't.  And it surprises me that as someone who has coached, you'd push aside those differences, especially at the highest level of football. 

 

Do you really think an NFL D-coordinator looks at inside zone and outside zone and says "ah, they're all the same."?!  Like any other concept, there's dozens of subvariations that aim to exploit a defensive weakness, and/or an individual matchup.  One or two back?  Split?  Ghost Motion?  Stretch G?

 

It's funny that we kept the outside zone plays after Gruden was hired, but suddenly Morris became ineffective, with largely the same supporting cast.  It was because we were missing the nuances of running the scheme.  Alex Gibbs created a science out of running that particular scheme, what the linemen should do...their first steps off the line, what should happen on the backside, etc.  The concept also calls for certain kinds of lineman that are nimble with good footwork.      

 

And that lack of attention to detail (as well as the accompanying lack of consistent success) is probably due to the fact that we have too many run concepts.  You're not going to get really good at one, when you've got to split your time practicing executing 5-6 different concepts.  Same for film study.  

 

Now are the inside zone/outside zone complementary?  Yes, they are or can be.  But the same thing?  No.    

[KDawg]

1 hour ago, megared said:

 

It really doesn't.  And it surprises me that as someone who has coached, you'd push aside those differences, especially at the highest level of football. 

 

Do you really think an NFL D-coordinator looks at inside zone and outside zone and says "ah, they're all the same."?!  Like any other concept, there's dozens of subvariations that aim to exploit a defensive weakness, and/or an individual matchup.  One or two back?  Split?  Ghost Motion?  Stretch G?

 

It's funny that we kept the outside zone plays after Gruden was hired, but suddenly Morris became ineffective, with largely the same supporting cast.  It was because we were missing the nuances of running the scheme.  Alex Gibbs created a science out of running that particular scheme, what the linemen should do...their first steps off the line, what should happen on the backside, etc.  The concept also calls for certain kinds of lineman that are nimble with good footwork.      

 

And that lack of attention to detail (as well as the accompanying lack of consistent success) is probably due to the fact that we have too many run concepts.  You're not going to get really good at one, when you've got to split your time practicing executing 5-6 different concepts.  Same for film study.  

 

Now are the inside zone/outside zone complementary?  Yes, they are or can be.  But the same thing?  No.    

 

I think you're taking what I'm saying entirely too literally here.

 

I have no desire to sit here and break down each tiny nuance. There are nuances. Agreed. But the concept of zone is a concept. This conversation started because I said there are three types of runs: Man, Zone and Gap. You chose to try to get all convoluted and break things down to the minutia. My point still stands. A zone play is a zone play. A gap play is a gap play. A man scheme is a man scheme. You don't block lead the same as you do an off tackle run in the man scheme, but they are still man assignments. You don't block power the same as counter, but they are still gap plays.

 

Outside and inside zone have nuances. But they are still zone plays. 

[megared]

Guess I'm confused by your initial comments then.  I said I think our run game is ineffective because we are incorporating too many concepts, which requires a level of versatility in our linemen that isn't feasible to have in all five spots.  Not only do we not currently have it, but it isn't reasonable to expect that we'll ever get that kind of talent from all five positions.  

 

Nothing you've said has countered that.  All you mentioned was your opinion that there's three types of running plays, despite the evidence stating the different concepts have different goals, techniques, strengths, weaknesses, and counters.  If it was that simple, why are there coaches that are simply outside zone disciples if they are that interchangeable?

 

If we have a dozen plays in 5 concepts, that's 60 plays (not including the RPO stuff that's been introduced).  6 different techniques of blocking...different footwork, different reads, different responsibilities (some of them do overlap).  Then the different personnel groupings, pre-snap motions (those are what I'd call nuances).  Plus acquiring the knowledge of assignments on any possible alignment, blitz, stunts, etc. 

 

Don't see how you can't even entertain the idea having that multitude of plays reduces the effectiveness/focus of the run game overall.  

[Wildbunny]

Going on with what i just posted in the good juju thread that I gathered from this article:

 

https://247sports.com/nfl/tennessee-titans/ContentGallery/Most-penalized-NFL-teams-in-the-2018-season-through-six-weeks-121870592/

 

We've had 36 penalties so far this year.

 

And 20 of them are coming from the OL sorted like this:

- 12 Holdings

- 8 False starts.

 

That's more than 2 holdings/game and nearly 2 False starts/game.

 

In comparison, the most penalized team in the NFL, the Pittsburhgh Steelers (with 68 for 528yards) "only have":

- 13 Holdings

- 4 False starts.

And they played one more game than us.

 

So there's probably something to do here.

[KDawg]

I don’t know what you’re going on about @megared

 

I said our run game was passable in response to your post that we’re doing too much. Then I said there are three kinds of run schemes. Now we’re here and I’m not sure how.