The Joke about Pad Level

[bobblehead]

Ok, we have all heard MM talk about "he needs to get his pad level down" but here is my gripe.

Having a low center of gravity and a low base is a natural instinctual thing. We are all built differently and we all move differently. You can't take a guy with a high base and teach him to lower his pad level and expect him to do it effectively.

Sure, Scott Wells is small, but he naturally gets under people and imposes his will. He will never be as good at it as a guy with the same natural base and is 3" taller and 30 pounds heavier, but he is always better at it than a big guy who lacks that.

I fear that if we have a ton of guys who naturally are athletic and such, but have a high base, and MM is busy trying to teach them to have a low base we are going to get our ass beat at the line for as long as he is coach and TT is GM.

Just like you cant' teach a 4.7 guy to run a 4.4, you can't teach a high strength guy to become a low strength guy. You have to find that balance, and we look pretty sucky on the line.

[pbmax]

Strength and leverage are two different things. A strong upper body guy who plays high will get run over by a player of similar stature playing with better leverage. And there is no reason a strong upper body player couldn't play low, with leverage and good technique.

But that is why everyone talks about knee bend in the draft. Even big guys need to be flexible to get low. And then they need to learn the techniques to gain and use leverage for their benefit.

But size still matters. No DB is going to bull rush a left tackle. No matter how low they go.

[Guiness]

Pad level is no joke!!!!!!!

[sharpe1027]

I'm pretty sure that they are not asking a 6'6" guy to get lower than a 5'10" guy. They're just asking their 6'6" guy not to stand straight up. Any coach I have heard talk on the subject has said that pretty much everything starts and ends with the legs. Upper body strength is also needed, but very much secondary.

However, I might be off-base because, honestly, I am not sure that I understand what you are talking about.

What is someone with a high base? Someone lacking sufficient athleticism to use their legs, or just someone tall? If it is the first, cut them immediately. If it is the second, they still need to keep themselves low or they lose all power.

What is someone that is a high-strength guy? Someone that lacks sufficient leg strength to push anyone other than with their arms? If so, cut them immediately.

[Guiness]

Are you talking about knee bend sharpe?

A guy with good knee bend and pad level. That's a player!

[cheesner]

When NFL OL coaches discuss getting a good low pad level as a fundamental for playing the position, I believe it is probably important. It's not like MM is the only coach who says this. Its as fundamental as wrapping up on the tackle and a WR catching the ball before looking upfield to run.

[sharpe1027]

Are you talking about knee bend sharpe?

A guy with good knee bend and pad level. That's a player!

I guess it is possible to have low pad level without knee bend, but you'd have bend at the waist and get your center of gravity out in front of your feet. Might be good for falling forward and getting a yard. Maybe they should give that a try?

[Noodle]

Pad level is not a new concept. I got it screamed in to my earhole by my psychopathic coaches back in the late 70s and early 80s.

When you get tired or sloppy or lose focus, you stop paying attention to keeping your pads low and you start playing straight up, which will get your ass beat unless you are uncommonly stout.

The concept applies to all players, regardless of where their natural "base," or center of gravity is. High CG guys need to be particularly mindful about it, but the concept applies even for the short-legged dudes.

So I get what he's saying, and in some respects, its a way of addressing a whole host of technique problems.

It just starts to wear a little thin when we keep hearing the same problem diagnosis over and over.

[Partial]

What is the ideal height for a linemen knowing that elite knee bend will only get you so low?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What is the ideal height for a linemen knowing that elite knee bend will only get you so low?

No such thing.

[Noodle]

Interesting question about OL height. Those big hosses keep getting bigger and bigger, but here's the heights of the 2008 All-Pro OL:

Jordan Gross, T, 6ft 4 in
Michael Roos, T, 6ft 7 in
Steve Hutchinson, G, 6ft 5 in
Chris Snee, G, 6ft 4in
Kevin mawae, 6ft 4in

and the second team

Ryan Clady, T, 6ft 6 in
David Stewart, T 6ft 7 in
Walter Jones, T, 6ft 5in
Jason Peters T, 6ft 4in
David Diehl, T, 6ft 5 in
Joe Thomas, T 6ft 6in
Kris Dielman, G, 6ft 4in
Alan Faneca, G, 6ft 5in
Shaun O'Hara, C, 6ft 3in

Oldies but goodies
Orlando Pace, T, 6ft 7in
Joe Jacoby, T, 6ft 7in
John Hannah, G, 6ft 3in

So, Tackles around 6 5 to 6 7, Guards 6 4 to 6 5 and Centers 6 3 to 6 4.

[bobblehead]

You guys are all missing my point. I absolutely agree that good knee bend (which in turn gets you a lower pad level) is vital. My point is they talk about it constantly as if they can teach any old 6'6" guy to do it. YOU CAN'T!!

Its a gift to get low and have power still. Just like running a 4.4 is a gift the ability to have good knee bend and still play with athleticism is a gift. You absolutely can not teach it. So when guys get destroyed and MM says its all about pad level and we need to get that fixed I'm begging the question HOW!!!

If a speedster ran by our DB would MM say its just a matter of not being fast enough and we have to get that fixed?? Hell no, but its the same damned thing. Wells is natural leverage guy, that is why he survives at 6'2". Tauscher is a natural leverage guy, plus he is 6'5" so he was a successful tackle. DC and cliffy are agile high base guys which is why they are not good run blockers in tight quarters, but DC's agility and speed allow him to be awesome in the open field, and similar traits allow(ed) cliffy to be successful as a pass blocker.

My summary is this. If a guy doesn't have the natural instinct to get low and drive(or anchor in pass) you aren't likely to teach him to do it on a consistent basis. He might get it at times, but the natural ability and instinct will take over at times (times of fatigue mostly). So if we have guys who are having trouble with pad level for the last 4 years we need to find other guys.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You are making a false assumption. The assumption being that the players in the NFL don't have that natural ability. Wrong. The ones that don't...don't generally progress thru college and don't tend to get drafted.

And, even if we go by your theory, you have yet to show that it can't be taught. There is nothing natural about playing football...nothing instinctual..not like running.

this is another one of your ridiculous theories, like married coaches being less successful than single coaches.

[Fosco33]

I recall hearing, "outside contain" about a million times from hs coaches (I was OLB and sometimes had to make sure the dumbass DE was playing in position).

As a LB, I always heard, "keep your head up" as I was always hitting people with my crown (and at risk for injuries, etc.).

I never played on the line - but pad level is damn common and makes perfect sense (just like, "keep your feet moving" for a RB - or - "maintain your lane" for kickoff coverage).

[pbmax]

Its a gift to get low and have power still. Just like running a 4.4 is a gift the ability to have good knee bend and still play with athleticism is a gift. You absolutely can not teach it. So when guys get destroyed and MM says its all about pad level and we need to get that fixed I'm begging the question HOW!!!

If a speedster ran by our DB would MM say its just a matter of not being fast enough and we have to get that fixed?? Hell no, but its the same damned thing.
No, getting low, getting leverage and having a good base are not like running fast. And no one is stronger or less likely to be moved by playing high. A high center of gravity only makes you more vulnerable to getting beat. The technique is easiest to apply to interior lineman, because for a running play, you often get hit before you can truly stand up. At this point its a hand fight and shoving match. Low man usually wins.

Low man wins. That's what Line coaches always teach, same with LB coaches teaching a breakdown. There is a technique to it and bending at the waist will not help.

Some are natural at it and have no problem operating in the correct position. Some people (waist benders vs. knee benders in scouting parlance) do not come by it naturally and must learn to operate that way. Its no different than any hand technique. Gifted, large players can get away with not having it at lower levels, but will get burned by the pros. Undoubtedly, there area few pro specimens who never had to worry about it because they were gifted beyond most. But they are rare.

Walk through any high school practice field and there will be a contraption built of metal fence posts and ropes. Its like a limbo stick for lineman. There will be three to five paths (like part of an obstacle course) through the fence posts and then open space on the other side. Lineman will line up in the paths, facing the posts and rope. And if you don't want to strangle yourself, then when the coach yells "HIKE!" or blows the whistle, you shoot out real low.

[denverYooper]

Its a gift to get low and have power still. Just like running a 4.4 is a gift the ability to have good knee bend and still play with athleticism is a gift. You absolutely can not teach it. So when guys get destroyed and MM says its all about pad level and we need to get that fixed I'm begging the question HOW!!!

If a speedster ran by our DB would MM say its just a matter of not being fast enough and we have to get that fixed?? Hell no, but its the same damned thing.
No, getting low, getting leverage and having a good base are not like running fast. And no one is stronger or less likely to be moved by playing high. A high center of gravity only makes you more vulnerable to getting beat. The technique is easiest to apply to interior lineman, because for a running play, you often get hit before you can truly stand up. At this point its a hand fight and shoving match. Low man usually wins.

Low man wins. That's what Line coaches always teach, same with LB coaches teaching a breakdown. There is a technique to it and bending at the waist will not help.

Some are natural at it and have no problem operating in the correct position. Some people (waist benders vs. knee benders in scouting parlance) do not come by it naturally and must learn to operate that way. Its no different than any hand technique. Gifted, large players can get away with not having it at lower levels, but will get burned by the pros. Undoubtedly, there area few pro specimens who never had to worry about it because they were gifted beyond most. But they are rare.

Walk through any high school practice field and there will be a contraption built of metal fence posts and ropes. Its like a limbo stick for lineman. There will be three to five paths (like part of an obstacle course) through the fence posts and then open space on the other side. Lineman will line up in the paths, facing the posts and rope. And if you don't want to strangle yourself, then when the coach yells "HIKE!" or blows the whistle, you shoot out real low.

The chutes?

[MJZiggy]

Great discussion, gents.

[bobblehead]

this is another one of your ridiculous theories, like married coaches being less successful than single coaches.

That's not what I said...or at least not what I meant. My implication was good husbands (and new fathers) don't make good coaches because its hard to put in the 16 hour days.

I could be making a false assumption about pad levels, but my guess is most guys get through college and drafted based on size and strength mostly. If they do instinctively have it in them, then why do they fail at it so often according to MM??

I'll grant you that I can't prove my theory, especially since its next to impossible to get data on it. I go by personal anecdote, which I know is sketchy. I was a high school wrestler with an incredibly low center of gravity. I could drive block most anyone on a football field. What I couldn't do would have been stand in pass pro and stop a guy with a head of steam who was bigger than me (which would have been many, i'm 5'9") which is likely why I played RB.

Also I have been involved in Judo for most of my life. Guys who come into the gym and naturally stay low and have balance ALWAYS maintain that advantage over guys trying to learn it. Even if some guys learn it very well, they hold their own until they get tired, then the guy who is a natural flops him/her.

yes, this is all my theory, but its based on my personal experience, and if MM talks about pad level as if he can teach a guy not to stand upright one more time I'll scream.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

this is another one of your ridiculous theories, like married coaches being less successful than single coaches.

That's not what I said...or at least not what I meant. My implication was good husbands (and new fathers) don't make good coaches because its hard to put in the 16 hour days.

I could be making a false assumption about pad levels, but my guess is most guys get through college and drafted based on size and strength mostly. If they do instinctively have it in them, then why do they fail at it so often according to MM??

I'll grant you that I can't prove my theory, especially since its next to impossible to get data on it. I go by personal anecdote, which I know is sketchy. I was a high school wrestler with an incredibly low center of gravity. I could drive block most anyone on a football field. What I couldn't do would have been stand in pass pro and stop a guy with a head of steam who was bigger than me (which would have been many, i'm 5'9") which is likely why I played RB.

Also I have been involved in Judo for most of my life. Guys who come into the gym and naturally stay low and have balance ALWAYS maintain that advantage over guys trying to learn it. Even if some guys learn it very well, they hold their own until they get tired, then the guy who is a natural flops him/her.

yes, this is all my theory, but its based on my personal experience, and if MM talks about pad level as if he can teach a guy not to stand upright one more time I'll scream.

Married: You were wrong. The # of married men that have won the superbowl is long and illustrious. And, eventually some give it up to spend time with their family.

MM: Because they do. Because it isn't as you say natural. It is something that takes a long time, and we have a young line. Or it could be just one of those things that MM stresses and notes. Some coaches just seem to say something over and over..whether it is true or not.

theory: Why did you have a low center of gravity? Short legs? As noted, personal anecdote is pretty poor. At the worst, i would need you to at least define and note the natural low center of gravity guys. I doubt you can do that by watching them on TV. How do you determine who is naturally able to stay low?

All of this sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

[sharpe1027]

I could be making a false assumption about pad levels, but my guess is most guys get through college and drafted based on size and strength mostly. If they do instinctively have it in them, then why do they fail at it so often according to MM??

No, otherwise the entire line would be full of the guys that spend 6 hours a day in the weight room and can't tie their own shoes for lack of flexibility.



Also I have been involved in Judo for most of my life. Guys who come into the gym and naturally stay low and have balance ALWAYS maintain that advantage over guys trying to learn it. Even if some guys learn it very well, they hold their own until they get tired, then the guy who is a natural flops him/her.

You answered your own question. As you said, everyone can learn it, and some can even learn it very well.

How about an analogy? Some guys are naturally faster than others so there is no reason to work on being faster since those naturally gifted will always be better...pretty much what you are saying about playing low and with balance.

No, no and no, you still want to be faster (or lower with balance), even if other guys will always be faster (lower) than you. Same thing with good technique in other areas. Sure, some guys may be better at it than others, but why wouldn't everyone try to improve it?

[bobblehead]

Ty, you still miss my point, you are saying married, and I am saying GOOD husbands...HUGE difference as my ex probably can attest. I think/thought MM as a NEW husband and father was likely not to spend the necessary time away from his new bride and baby. I may not have stated it well the FIRST time I typed it, but I clarified it about ten times yet you still continue to mischaracterize my point (I know, your liberal, you can't help it).

I firmly disagree with you that it isn't natural. I have a lifetime of experience that tells me different. Scott Wells has it naturally, but MM is obsessed with starting spitz there and teaching him what scott does naturally because spitz is bigger....something that would be more relevant if they were playing tackle (and maybe spitz is good enough that combined with the size he IS the better option). Why do I have a natural low center...no clue, but if you watch me or scott move compared to say Cliffy at this point, you can just see the difference. Tony Boselli was huge, but had a naturally low base, when healthy he was in a class of his own. Same with Ogden. Wahle had it, and Rivera. Most of the good natural run blockers have a low base (Babre seems to be an exception which might be why they are convinced he will adjust). Most DT's have a low base. Barry Sanders had a ridiculously low center.

How do I determine it? Well, when the ball snaps Babre is ok when he engages, but in pass pro he stands up almost immediately...or worse, he is focused on staying low and by the time he focuses on the defender its too late.

Sharpe, its a myth that you lose flexibility when you get stronger. HUGE myth. And, like most things flexibility is natural as well...and you can work at it, but a natural guy/girl will always stay ahead of you. You also would lose muscle and size if you spent 6 hours a day in the weight room. Either you typed without really thinking or you have no clue when it comes to strength training and flexibility.

and then you said "You answered your own question. As you said, everyone can learn it, and some can even learn it very well. " In response to me stating guys who have it naturally ALWAYS maintain an advantage?? I'm very confused how you drew the dead opposite conclusion of what I actually said? Of course you can learn it, you can learn to be better at anything, but guys with natural ability will stay ahead if they work half as hard.

And your analogy is way off. I am talking guys who hav it and guys who don't. A better analogy would be more like this. Some guys are naturally FAST (not faster). Why not draft a slow guy who is agile and strong and teach him to run fast?? Because you can't. Sure, a 4.6 guy can get to 4.5...maybe 4.45 but he will never get to 4.3...and a 4.7 guy will never get to 4.45. So if you draft a guy with a shitty center what are the odds you can ever get him up to par at it despite his size/strength combo?

I'm not totally disagreeing with your point, size/strength/agility/balance are all factors and you try to improve on them all (and strike a balance). But as often as MM claims his guys are getting beat because of pad level I have to assume one of 2 things....either we are drafting guys with REALLY shitty balance (4.7 guys) or we are REALLY bad at teaching them to improve.

[sharpe1027]

Sharpe, its a myth that you lose flexibility when you get stronger. HUGE myth. And, like most things flexibility is natural as well...and you can work at it, but a natural guy/girl will always stay ahead of you. You also would lose muscle and size if you spent 6 hours a day in the weight room. Either you typed without really thinking or you have no clue when it comes to strength training and flexibility.

Listen jackass, don't start a thread and then come out hurling insults when someone decides to discuss the topic with you. Especially when you completely miss the point. There ARE people that don't have any flexibility, but yet are stronger than many starting O-linemen. My point was that strength and size doesn't mean a damn thing if you don't have good enough mobility and skill-set. Also, the lecture on hours in weight training is not relevant to my point, but it does show your ability to point out obvious exaggerations and to be a jackass in doing so.



and then you said "You answered your own question. As you said, everyone can learn it, and some can even learn it very well. " In response to me stating guys who have it naturally ALWAYS maintain an advantage?? I'm very confused how you drew the dead opposite conclusion of what I actually said? Of course you can learn it, you can learn to be better at anything, but guys with natural ability will stay ahead if they work half as hard.

So why are you riding MM for trying to improve his team? If the guys we have play too high, work on getting them lower.



And your analogy is way off. I am talking guys who hav it and guys who don't. A better analogy would be more like this. Some guys are naturally FAST (not faster). Why not draft a slow guy who is agile and strong and teach him to run fast?? Because you can't. Sure, a 4.6 guy can get to 4.5...maybe 4.45 but he will never get to 4.3...and a 4.7 guy will never get to 4.45. So if you draft a guy with a shitty center what are the odds you can ever get him up to par at it despite his size/strength combo?

My analogy is not way off. Stop and think about it. Every single team in the NFL works on player's speed. Same as every single team in the NFL works on players staying low when they engage. Either all NFL teams are wrong, or you are for complaining about trying to do what every other team does.



I'm not totally disagreeing with your point, size/strength/agility/balance are all factors and you try to improve on them all (and strike a balance). But as often as MM claims his guys are getting beat because of pad level I have to assume one of 2 things....either we are drafting guys with REALLY shitty balance (4.7 guys) or we are REALLY bad at teaching them to improve.

Thanks captain obvious. You realize that this is consistent with what I've been saying all along. Of course I believe that MM is just using pad level as a generic response for bad technique, of which pad level is just one component.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ty, you still miss my point, you are saying married, and I am saying GOOD husbands...HUGE difference as my ex probably can attest. I think/thought MM as a NEW husband and father was likely not to spend the necessary time away from his new bride and baby. I may not have stated it well the FIRST time I typed it, but I clarified it about ten times yet you still continue to mischaracterize my point (I know, your liberal, you can't help it).

I firmly disagree with you that it isn't natural. I have a lifetime of experience that tells me different. Scott Wells has it naturally, but MM is obsessed with starting spitz there and teaching him what scott does naturally because spitz is bigger....something that would be more relevant if they were playing tackle (and maybe spitz is good enough that combined with the size he IS the better option). Why do I have a natural low center...no clue, but if you watch me or scott move compared to say Cliffy at this point, you can just see the difference. Tony Boselli was huge, but had a naturally low base, when healthy he was in a class of his own. Same with Ogden. Wahle had it, and Rivera. Most of the good natural run blockers have a low base (Babre seems to be an exception which might be why they are convinced he will adjust). Most DT's have a low base. Barry Sanders had a ridiculously low center.

How do I determine it? Well, when the ball snaps Babre is ok when he engages, but in pass pro he stands up almost immediately...or worse, he is focused on staying low and by the time he focuses on the defender its too late.

Sharpe, its a myth that you lose flexibility when you get stronger. HUGE myth. And, like most things flexibility is natural as well...and you can work at it, but a natural guy/girl will always stay ahead of you. You also would lose muscle and size if you spent 6 hours a day in the weight room. Either you typed without really thinking or you have no clue when it comes to strength training and flexibility.

and then you said "You answered your own question. As you said, everyone can learn it, and some can even learn it very well. " In response to me stating guys who have it naturally ALWAYS maintain an advantage?? I'm very confused how you drew the dead opposite conclusion of what I actually said? Of course you can learn it, you can learn to be better at anything, but guys with natural ability will stay ahead if they work half as hard.

And your analogy is way off. I am talking guys who hav it and guys who don't. A better analogy would be more like this. Some guys are naturally FAST (not faster). Why not draft a slow guy who is agile and strong and teach him to run fast?? Because you can't. Sure, a 4.6 guy can get to 4.5...maybe 4.45 but he will never get to 4.3...and a 4.7 guy will never get to 4.45. So if you draft a guy with a shitty center what are the odds you can ever get him up to par at it despite his size/strength combo?

I'm not totally disagreeing with your point, size/strength/agility/balance are all factors and you try to improve on them all (and strike a balance). But as often as MM claims his guys are getting beat because of pad level I have to assume one of 2 things....either we are drafting guys with REALLY shitty balance (4.7 guys) or we are REALLY bad at teaching them to improve.

I'm missing it because you keep changing it. Must be nice.


I think being newly married and having a kid in the house is probably distracting him some. I said it before and ty mocked me saying something like 90% of winning superbowl coaches are married. I did a little research and found that most marrieges in the NFL don't last (yea, i know, most don't last anywhere). I think being in the first year of marriege, kid is born, it can't help but being a distraction in a job that requires 18 hour days.

Again, you posit a theory that you can't back up or even define. What exactly is a good husband? :lol:

And, now you speculate about how much time a coach/mm would spend away from his new wife. YOU DON'T KNOW.

As for your you natural thing. You can't tell. For example, how do you know that what you saw outta Boselli was natural or the result of hard work?

As stated, this is ridiculous. I give you Occam's razor. If it was that simple to find natural guys....EVERYBODY WOULD DO IT. Therefore it isn't a)natural or B)incredibly hard to find enough guys to do it.

Either way, your point is moot. Sorry, to Sharpe you basically covered what i am saying.

Bobble, you have many fine ideas. THis isn't one of them, and you are veering into Partial territory. Stop, take a breath, and actually think about it.