Jags installs cut blocking....

[CyclonePackFan]

Was trolling JSOnline and actually saw some good posts for once. Credit goes to VikingQuest2006 and Ezra over there.

Basically they provide nice explanation of cut blocking versus chop blocking and a full example of how it's implemented.

Cut blocking is when you are in the free blocking zone at the snap (4 ft. to either side of the center and three feet deep either way from the ball in high school and even smaller zone in college and pros) and an offensive lineman engages w/ you below the knees w/o anybody else making contact w/ you. This is the technique the Broncos and Falcons use. It does upset people but it is 100% legal. Chop blocking is when a DL is already engaged w/ a blocker and another blocker comes in low and takes out his legs. This is illegal in HS, college and the pros.

The post goes on to state the poster played DL in college and currently officials HS and College games and still supports cut blocking due to the team aspect and relative safety as long as not involving chop blocking.

The second poster also played DL in college and coaches at HS level and had the following to say with a very nice example:

Being the old-school OL guy, I wasn't really that keen on the idea of coaching it. I thought it was kind of a wussy way of playing football. Just line 'em up and run 'em over.

As a DL in college, I played against some zone schemes. I was more annoyed by cut blocks than worried about injuries. Contact from cut blocks is made within the first step-and-a-half, so there isn't that much force or momentum being generated by the OL yet. If you (as a DL) stay low and use your hands (like you are supposed to), you're not going to get hurt from a cut block. But you're also not going to get much push or penetration at the LOS.

Basicially, the OL is getting in your way, and even if you keep your feet, there isn't much you can do except go around the OL - thus creating the running lanes. Once that initial surge off of the LOS has occurred, the OL can no longer cut block. Also, if a defensive player is outside of the "tackle box" (see Viking Quest's post), an OL cannot cut block him (which means a LB can't get cut if he is lined up at a normal LB depth).

Here is an example:

Let's say I am a Center and we are running a sweep to the right side. I have a NT lined up on my right shoulder. In zone blocking, the RG is stepping right because that is where the ball is going. Unless that NT loops away from the play, he is going to cross my face and be my guy to block.

This is a critical block becuase if he penetrates, he could disrupt the timing of the play and the angle of the ball carrier. Trying to reach block the NT is a pretty difficult block for me to make. Thank goodness for the cut block!!

As I snap the ball, I take a hard jab step with my right (playside) foot. Sure enough - the NT is trying to penetrate. He's crossing my face, so he's my guy. As I take my next step, I make myself big, stay low, and let that poor sucker trip over me.

What a lot of people don't realize, if this same play were being run with a traditional man-blocking scheme, the Center may be called upon to cut block anyway.

The play is still a sweep right, and the LG is pulling. The NT can disrupt the play with penetration - getting in the pulling guard's way - so some combination of the RG and C needs to stop him. The RG and C might combo-block the NT - that is, double-team him at first, then one would slide off and go to the next level (LB). But if circumstances dictate that the RG cannot combo block on the NT (because he is covered by a DL, because he is supposed to pull, because the defense shifted right before the snap), it leaves the C to have to take the NT himself. In that case, the C would cut the NT.

Truth be told, if you look at the Packers from years past, you will see cut blocking too. The main difference between zone blocking and man blocking isn't really the cut block - although, the cut block is used more in a zone scheme.

In man blocking, it's "you get that guy, you get that guy, and I'll get this guy".

In zone blocking, it's "let's all go to our assigned areas and block the first person that crosses our face."

So when a DL is trying to penetrate upon the snap, after that first step toward the play, the OL knows if the DL is going to cross his face. So by the second step, he is cutting off his penetration with a cut block. If no one is crossing his face by that second step, the OL will have to take on the defensive player with a "normal" block, because he's beyond his "initial surge".

It's not that the zone blocking scheme was created specifically to use this "dirty" technique. To me, zone blocking is a lot easier to teach and easier to grasp than man blocking. But inherant to the principles of zone blocking - that is, taking a jab-step toward the play and blocking the first man to cross your face - is it is going to put you in a position to have to use the cut block as the blocking technique.

In summary, I guess, rather than emphasizing "driving the other guy out of the hole", the cut block portion of zone blocking kind of emphasizes "keep the guy from getting to the hole". But cut blocks are only a part of the zone scheme - just like they are part of a man scheme. The zone scheme is easy to teach, and there is less potential confusion about blocking assignments in a zone scheme.

That said, I have grown to appreciate zone blocking as a blocking. I still think cut blocking is kind of wussy because it goes against the whole gladiator imagery of being a lineman. The testosterone in me still makes me favor going toe-to-toe. But it's not this cheap-shot, injury-causing, dirty, bull$hit scheme like some people seem to think it is. And most importantly, IT WORKS. Just ask Denver and Atlanta.

Once upon a time, the forward pass was probably frowned upon as some kind of dopey gimmick - a wussy alternative to the running game. But once other teams saw how effective the passing game could be, gimmick or not, other teams started doing the same thing.

The NFL is one big copycat league anyway. Everyone went from 4-3 to 3-4... then back to 4-3... and now it is going back to 3-4. How many teams jumped on the run-and-shoot bandwagon? How about the 46 Bears defense? Two TE, single back offense?

As long as they are effective, these "gimmicks" or "trends" or "flavors of the day" will exist in the NFL. The forward pass is still around. Run-and-shoot teams, not so much. My guess is zone blocking isn't going away, and will fal somewhere in between.

bojangles, I could not have summed up the issue any better.

I played OL for the better part of 13 years, from the time I was 5 until the end of my senior year of high school. For 12 of those 13 years, I played center, with the exception of my junior season where I was needed at LT. My senior season, when I was moved back to center, I utilized the cut block frequently, more often than not because of one of the scenarios presented above. I was usually matched up with a quick NT playing head up or to the strong side of the line (we ran an unbalanced look that went TE, G, C, G, T, T). As a result, a combo or chip block was in order, perhaps a scoop block by the weak side guard if the NT was to the weak side. From my perspective, on most plays I had two options if the NT was dead on or strong side. Either 1.) engage and cut if I lose him or 2.) get help from the strong guard. From a global standpoint, the better option was usually to cut the NT, leaving the SG to go for the MLB, rather than forcing him to settle for the WOLB and leaving the MLB to blow up the play.

For the record, as often as I cut, NEVER once was someone I cut injured. It seems everyone thinks that the new scheme is 'just cut the guy and you're done', when in reality, the cut block is more of a last resort, to be used when the OL senses he is going to lose his block. Also, IF a cut block is executed properly, the types of injuries DL are whining about shouldn't happen. Ideally, the OL doesn't hit the knees of the DL, the OL dives and puts his body in front of the knees of the DL and crabs away from the play, causing the DL to run into the torso of the OL, creating a road block and effectively taking the DL out of the play. As has been stated, this is completely fair game close enough to the LOS, and it happens even outside of a zone scheme.

Oh, and as for why this isn't done in practice, it's because the ribs of the OL take a beating as a result of the technique from the knees of the DL crashing into them. Granted, this is easily remedied by using a rib guard, but there's still no point in putting the OL's torso or the DL's knees through the contact in practice, and having your players falling over each other.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I have no objection to cut blocking.

I do hate blocking on the lower legs from behind. I don't think it happens all that often, but when it does, you sometimes see the defensive lineman buckle back and go down like they just got shot by a rifle. It's obviously very dangerous and cheap. It's strange that it is legal near line of scrimmage.

[Noodle]

I'm not opposed to a cut block done correctly. No hitting from the side or back, no rolling up on the player. But here's the problem -- guys are going to lunge. Tausch said as much in the article. And a lunging 320 lb man is akin to a scud. Maybe it hits in front of the legs, maybe not. But when it hits, bang! And we're going to be launching a lot of scuds this year.

One last thing -- I found an article from 2001 about cut blocking, and it features lots of quotes from our own dearly departed Larry Beightol. Seems the Packers have been cutting for years (if so, why is Tausch having to "learn" it, unless we're doing it differently than old Larry taught?).

Anyway, the article follows:


NFL Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw is now on record as saying he will push again for the banishment of "cut blocks" from the game after the Denver Broncos have KO'd two defenders with lower leg injuries in their most recent games.

Upshaw's opinion counts for a lot. He represents all players. He also is a Hall of Fame offensive lineman who doesn't see the necessity of cut blocks.

He might be wrong. The game is different than when Upshaw played.

"Nobody on defense lines up and plays head-on anymore," said Green Bay Packers line coach Larry Beightol. "[Bill] Parcells was the last two-gap coach in the NFL [where a defensive lineman is directly across from the offensive lineman]. These guys are shifting, moving, jumping in the gaps. If we can't cut block, we can't play football."

"You're just not going to be able to run the ball without cut blocks," said Beightol, who is the dean of NFL line coaches. "I mean, zero yards. And if you can't run the ball, it's all over for the quarterbacks. They will be fair game, even moreso than they are now."

Cut blocks are legal under NFL rules. They are below-the-knee blocks within a tackle-to-tackle zone, extending three yards on both sides of the line of scrimmage. In 1998, the NFL modified the rules to make illegal any block that strikes the defender below the knees from behind.

The illegal block that Broncos tackle Matt Lepsis delivered to Chargers defensive tackle Maa Tanuvasa on Oct. 21 broke Tanuvasa's ankle, ending his season. Lepsis was fined $15,000.

The play in which Patriots linebacker Bryan Cox suffered a broken leg on Sunday against the Broncos is a little different. It came on a pass play outside the tackle-to-tackle zone. Broncos guard Dan Neil's block is potentially a classic clipping penalty. However, Broncos coach Mike Shanahan says he has seen the play "51 times" and isn't sure there is even contact. He believes Cox broke his tibia (a small bone that will keep him out only three or four weeks) trying to jump over Neil.

While the cut block (as defined above) is currently legal, some of its variations are illegal. A blocker who starts with a legal cut block, but then rolls up on the defender, is in violation of the rules.

Cut blocks have become routine with the advent of zone-blocking schemes that are now the norm in the NFL. Coaches like Beightol and Alex Gibbs -- who is working this season on a part-time basis for health reasons -- teach cut blocks to effectively stop pursuit of a running play from backside defensive linemen.

One thing is for sure: Blocking within the interior line evokes plenty of emotions. It was no surprise that Cox, perhaps the NFL's most emotional player, has threatened to "get Neil" if they ever play on the same field again. He has softened his comments somewhat, but it is old-school to retaliate on the field.

Cox also again dressed down the NFL for not caring about the health of defensive players. The league notes that Lepsis was fined (Neil's block is being reviewed) and that the rules were changed in '98 to limit a defender's exposure.

Beightol himself is aware that players become emotional. This Sunday, his Packers play the Bucs, led by All-Pro defensive tackle Warren Sapp. A few years ago, when Beightol was the line coach in Miami, Sapp confronted him in the tunnel after the game for numerous cut blocks directed at him.

Sapp already had confronted the guard, Jeff Buckey, who delivered the cut block.

"Buckey told Sapp that if he didn't cut him, he'd probably be cut -- by me," said Beightol, who then chuckled. "Nice of Buckey to finger me, huh?"

Will the Packers cut Sapp this Sunday?

"Whatever's legal, we're doing it," Beightol said.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Cut blocks are legal under NFL rules. They are below-the-knee blocks within a tackle-to-tackle zone, extending three yards on both sides of the line of scrimmage. In 1998, the NFL modified the rules to make illegal any block that strikes the defender below the knees from behind.

Well I'll be damned! I've seen blocks from behind in NFL games more recently than 1998, and the announcers definitely said they were legal within 3 yards of line of scrimmage. Huh. Guess I can call off the protest marches.

[KYPack]

Bojangles,

Great post my man. This stuff is tough to explain and you did a helluva job with that post. You did cover one point that needs to be emphasized. A cut block in a man or conventional offense is not all that dangerous a weapon. Most cuts come very quick, right at the point of attack. An OLineman cuts the guy immediatly, usually as some kind of quick seal for quick hitting play.

The ZBS is different. The block takes place after the Olineman has 5 to 10 yards of momentum. This means the DLineman is being hit with a much stronger blow. Also, because the Oline moves "down the line", slower moving lineman can be cut both below the knees AND from behind. With the OLinmean having this increased momentum, the cut blocks become almost deadly in the ZBS.

That is one lethal combination and can end careers. I saw this first hand a couple years ago. The Broncos were playing the Bengals in Cincy two years ago. Marvin Lewis is an old DCoordinator and had a good D Scheme for Shanny the Rat. The Bengals were running interior stunts against the ZBS that were almost like offensive plays. Their lineman were taking inside techniques that were opening holes in the Broncs line. The Bengals LB's were shooting thru those gaps and stopping the Denver backs in their tracks. Late in the first half, Bengals tackle (who had been chasing down tackles all day) Tony Williams was blocked low and from behind. He was in the box, so the play was legal. It resulted in a broken leg for Williams and the normally placid Cincy fans went apeshit. I thought there was gonna a riot in the place.

Marvin Lewis went crazy claiming that the block was illegal. Williams never started again & there is bad blood btw the two teams to this day.

That is the kind of stuff that will happen here, there ain't no way to stop it. Jags is a true believer and will install the ZBS here in all it's glory

[pbmax]

Excellent find Noodle. But there are differences between what the Packers and other team have done with cuts and what the Gibbs system calls for. Beightol is arguing for the rule to stay, but he isn't running the same plays, not is he cutting the same people.

Both Cyclone Packer Fan and mrbojangels have posts that describe zone blocking as how to determine who you are going to block, regardless of pre-snap alignment. This is not what makes the Gibbs system unique.

What makes the Zone Blocking Scheme of Gibbs, Denver, Atlanta and the Gophers different is that penetrating lineman are not the only people who are getting cut. Linebackers get cut too. Gibbs scheme, on the stretch, uses typical blocks on the front side (including a double team on a DE) and cut blocks on the backside to cut off pursuit from offside LBs and DT/DE.

See the article ND72 found to explain the Gophers scheme.

Here's a great article i got on espn insider on the University of Minnesota zone blocking scheme...just some good reading for what we could possibly be seeing. Pretty similar to all the other zone idea's i know and have read...

ESPN.COM
Over the past several years, Minnesota has done a better job of consistently running the football than any other team in the country. Most college football coaches would agree that even though the Gophers have had some talented players, no staff has done more with less than Minnesota's -- particularly in the running game.

Glenn Mason, who has been named Coach of the Year in the MAC, Big Eight and Big Ten, is committed totally to the running game. Much like with the Denver Broncos, it doesn't seem to really matter who lines up at tailback for the Gophers. They all have success.

Every team in the country has some kind of zone blocking scheme, but Minnesota's looks different because of its efficiency. This is a credit to the offensive staff led by coordinator Mitch Browning. No one does it better, which is why coaches from all over the country study Minnesota every spring to see what it does differently.

When you watch the tape, though, it is not what the Gophers do that makes them unique, it is how they do it. Minnesota has made a total commitment to the running game and zone blocking. Commitment is an easy word to say, but the tape clearly proves that the Gophers' identity is formed by their ability to run the football.


What is zone blocking?
Zone blocking in the running game is when two offensive linemen work in tandem to block an area as opposed to each having a predetermined specific man to block. The concept calls for two adjacent linemen to come off in unison and hip-to-hip to attack a down defensive lineman or area. Depending on the charge of that defensive lineman, one offensive lineman will stay engaged on the defender, while the other will come off for the linebacker. The initial double-team at the point of attack provides movement and allows the offensive linemen to be aggressive because they have help if the defender pinches inside.
It appears that the linemen have double-teamed the down linemen and allowed the linebackers to go free. However, all four eyes of the offensive guard and tackle are on the linebacker while they are engaged in the initial double-team on the down lineman.

If the down lineman stays outside, the offensive tackle will stay engaged and the offensive guard will come off the initial double-team and block the linebacker.

If the down lineman pinches inside, the offensive tackle will go to the linebacker and the offensive guard will stay engaged and take over the down lineman.


Inside zone blocking

Launch play breakdown


Keys to Minnesota's zone blocking technique

1. The linemen stay hip-to-hip as they attack.

2. The linemen keep their shoulders square.

3. Most importantly, all four eyes of the two offensive linemen are on the linebacker as they double-team the down lineman.

4. The linemen must know who and when to take over the defensive lineman and who leaves to block the linebacker.

What separates Minnesota?
When watching Minnesota on tape, you see there are two things the Gophers do better than anyone in college football. The first is their ability to pull linemen on their outside stretch play. The second is their great technique in cutting defenders with legal cut blocks.

Pulling linemen on outside stretch
Minnesota does a great job pulling linemen on their outside stretch plays. Which lineman pulls is based on the alignment of the defense. This is actually a man-blocking scheme with the tight end blocking down on the defensive end and the guard blocking down on the defensive tackle. The offensive tackle pulls around for the outside linebacker and the center pulls around for the middle linebacker.


Outside stretch with man blocking

Launch play breakdown

Cut blocks


Minnesota linemen do an outstanding job of utilitizing legal cut blocks to chop linebackers to the ground. The reason they are good at it is they practice the block at full speed. Many teams in the country don't like to chop block in practice because of injury concerns. As a result, they never get good at it. Again, we mention the word commitment. The Gophers are committed to chop blocks and obviously practice them.

Cut blocks are illegal if two linemen are engaged on one defender at the same time or if an offensive blocker is blocking from the outside back in toward the line of scrimmage and blindsides a defender. As long as the defender sees the chop block coming, it is legal.


Summary
Minnesota is obviously well-coached and totally committed to running the football. Every college football team uses zone blocking, but no one does it as well as the Gophers.
_________________
ND72

[/quote]

[Noodle]

Dang, fellas, this is high quality stuff. PBMax and KY, I've done some more reading and talking to my old man (former college OL), and you guys are exactly right.

Like Bojangles says, everybody cuts, but cutting under the ZBS and cutting under traditional man is apples and oranges for just the reasons you explain. The need under ZBS to move and extend also explains why Tausch is finding it tempting to lunge even though he's been doing cut blocks his whole career. And I'll say it again, when those big fellas are getting a little tired, their aim is going to be off, and you're going to have 320 lbs of hurtling scud OL going at some DL's knees.

Boom.

I'm not all that excited about this direction. Not at all.

[Partial]

I am amazed at you guys and how last year I heard nothing but rants on the broncos for this.

Warren's Sapps hit was legal, was it acceptable as well?

[RashanGary]

I thought Sapp's hit was acceptable. He was playing football. Clifton was jogging half assed and Sapp threw him on the ground. Had Clifton been paying attn, he wouldn't have been injured, he would have just fought off a block. Because he got injured, people make it bigger than it was, but IMHO Sapp was just playing football. I also never cared about cut blocks against the Packers. It was just part of football like Sacking the QB or a safty hitting a WR. It's a violent game. Teams get frustrated because the cut block keeps them on their toes. They should slow down and not play at 100% just like a WR protects his body going over the middle, just like Steve Smith protects his knee when he's getting tackled similar to the Barnett tackle. DT's don't have to run 100% right into a cut blocking lineman. They could just fall over and not try so damn hard. A WR isn't forced to put his arms up and take a hit right in the ribs. He can fold over adn let the ball drop. Thats life in the NFL.

[Rastak]

I thought Sapp's hit was acceptable. He was playing football. Clifton was jogging half assed and Sapp threw him on the ground. Had Clifton been paying attn, he wouldn't have been injured, he would have just fought off a block. Because he got injured, people make it bigger than it was, but IMHO Sapp was just playing football. I also never cared about cut blocks against the Packers. It was just part of football like Sacking the QB or a safty hitting a WR. It's a violent game. Teams get frustrated because the cut block keeps them on their toes. They should slow down and not play at 100% just like a WR protects his body going over the middle, just like Steve Smith protects his knee when he's getting tackled similar to the Barnett tackle. DT's don't have to run 100% right into a cut blocking lineman. They could just fall over and not try so damn hard. A WR isn't forced to put his arms up and take a hit right in the ribs. He can fold over adn let the ball drop. Thats life in the NFL.

I posted my take on that on JSO when it happened....legal hit that was not necessary and therefor somewhat cheap.

[Partial]

blatantly cheap. Now illegal.

I don't think any play has ever enraged packer fans as much as that cheap shot. Remember Sherman yelling after the game. Hopefully M3 shows that passion!!

Anyway, to the point -

If we were getting cut, I guarantee you guys would hate it. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you all (generally speaking) think its acceptable.

I don't like it at all. I have high hopes for the running scheme and will support the Packers obviously, but I think its cheap and should be banned from the NFL. No one needs 300 pounds getting slammed into their legs. Especially if you're already a big guy and have bad knees to begin with.

[KYPack]

I am amazed at you guys and how last year I heard nothing but rants on the broncos for this.

Warren's Sapps hit was legal, was it acceptable as well?

Partial,

Man, we are going with a stretch zone scheme. There ain't nothing any of us can do about it. MM is the coach and him and Jags are gonna do it come hell or high water.

What is the sense pissing and moaning about it?

& no, it ain't cheating.

& I know that there will be more hell over it than just a little bit when the first NFC North opponent leaves the field with an injury from a cut block.

But, that is football. & all the complaining in the world ain't gonna make that zone scheme go away.

[billy_oliver880]

Didn't wisconsin play alot of stretch zone under alvarez?

[Noodle]

[quote="KYPack"]

Man, we are going with a stretch zone scheme. There ain't nothing any of us can do about it. MM is the coach and him and Jags are gonna do it come hell or high water.

What is the sense pissing and moaning about it?

Cripes, KY, if we all followed that advice, there'd be no point in having a forum. Piss and moan is the lifeblood of this place.

[KYPack]

[quote="Noodle"]

Man, we are going with a stretch zone scheme. There ain't nothing any of us can do about it. MM is the coach and him and Jags are gonna do it come hell or high water.

What is the sense pissing and moaning about it?

Cripes, KY, if we all followed that advice, there'd be no point in having a forum. Piss and moan is the lifeblood of this place.

OK Noodle.

ya got me.

I guess I only like it when I piss & moan.