Reading the Tea Leaves 2013 is Reincarnated as Zone Blocking Zealot

Submitted by Eye of the Tiger on

Earlier this year I read a bunch of tea leaves, and suggested that we could explain our fortunes using George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire novels as metaphor. I planned to do a post-mortem, but got lazy/depressed by our bowl game performance and then Seth beat me to it. So this post isn't really about the past so much as what our SHINY NEW OC promises for our future (preview: zone blocking). But first, the perfunctory conclusion:

Our season is either A Dance with Dragons, if you prefer the preseason scheme--a meandering and listless journey through something and then something else, which has its moments but ultimately leaves you frustrated at the huge investment of time in an mediocre book that failed to live up to your expectations. Or, if you prefer the version written in the throes of alcohol-fueled post-Sparty misery, The Hedge Knight, described at the time as "a third-rate garbage time-waster," whatever that means. 

Goodbye, Al

Like many of you, I have mixed feelings about Al Borges’ tenure in Ann Arbor. When he came on board in 2011, he was basically tasked with not cratering Rich Rodriguez’ offense while introducing some West Coast/pro-style concepts into the mix (man blocking, pulling, route progressions, etc.). And I think he did an admirable job—not only holding serve in most respects, but also getting better production out of the running back position than we’d had in 2010. While overall performance declined in 2012, that can be attributed to three factors: a much more difficult schedule, which had us play the eventual AP #s 1, 2, 3 and 4; the graduation of David Molk; and Denard’s injury against Nebraska. The only thing I can really blame Al for would be the decision to go with Russell Bellomy rather than Devin Gardner as Denard’s backup—despite Gardner’s clear talent advantage and Denard’s propensity for coming out of games injured. Well, that and the INT problem, which actually began in 2011.

2013, though, was a different story. There are two basic theories of why our offense declined so precipitously: a) we didn’t scheme as much as throw a bunch of plays together; and b) we couldn’t execute plays that would have worked if we’d had different (i.e. more experienced) personnel. Both are true, and interrelated. While we certainly didn’t have experience in key areas, and especially the interior OL, we also insisted on running plays inexperienced offensive lines are unlikely to execute well. Compounding matters, there was no cohesiveness and not enough repetition to the things we ran, which meant guys on the OL weren’t put in position to improve over the course of the year. The result: TFLs, sacks, interceptions and lots of unmanageable 3rd downs.

In 2014, we looked to have the same problems in different places. While the whole interior OL was set to return (and likely to improve), we were also going to lose our two tackles to the NFL, as well as our most reliable receiver/Gardner’s safety blanket. Thus if we were to try to run a lot of different plays predicated on complex blocking schemes, as Borges clearly favored, we were going to run into similar problems to the ones that bedeviled us in 2013.

While I’ve always been convinced (and remain so) that Borges probably would have been successful by 2015 (when all his favored pieces would have beeen in place and we would have also been gifted with a favorable schedule), the fact is that our 2013 performance was so underwhelming that the fan base lost its patience. Were we to have another suboptimal year in 2014 (which our schedule and said roster changes suggest as a distinct possibility), it would have been likely to create problems for recruiting and probably put Hoke himself on the hot seat. So something had to change, and Al was the guy in the most precarious position.

Was it fair? Yes and no. We also played poorly on defense at times. The K State game in particular appeared to validate concerns about the awfulness of our “bend but don’t break” strategy this year. I mean, shout at Al Borges all you want, but it’s not his fault we gave up too many points to Akron, UCONN, Penn State, Indiana and Ohio. Without much pass rush from the DL, a mediocre secondary and a couple LBs who were just terrible in pass coverage, “the right to rush four” more often translated as “the right to sit back and wait for the other team to successfully execute yet another slow-developing crossing pattern.” This was not the defense we fielded in 2011 or 2012.

But on the other hand, the defense was young and didn’t feature 3 guys about to end up in the NFL, while Mattison is still the guy who turned our historically bad 2010 defense into the elite defense we fielded in 2011. And we looked poised to take a big leap forward on the defensive side in 2014, whereas we did not on offense.

 

Hello Doug!

The news that we’d canned Borges elicited a mix of relief and concern—that we’d endure another “Process,” that we’d eventually settle a GERG to follow Borges-Schafer, that we’d potentially lose out on prized recruits and, most troublingly of all, that we might embark on yet another chaos-inducing strategic/philosophic transformation. Never in a million years did I believe Saban's weird thing for Lane Kiffin would push his extremely competent OC into our arms (and not, say, into a head coaching position at a major school).

Make no mistake: Nussmeier is the best pro-style OC not currently a head coach somewhere, and is about as close to a sure thing as you get in this business. In his last two stints, he’s overseen a successful reclamation project at Washington and provided a significant performance boost to an already efficient Alabama offense. He’s known as an elite QB mentor, while Alabama’s performance from the OL and RB positions speak for themselves. Plus he represents a good fit for our personnel and the kind of kids we’re recruiting, so we won’t have to endure yet another multiyear vision quest to get to the proverbial promised land of elite offensive performance.

 

The Zone! The Zone! The Zone!

Keeping that in mind, Nussmeier does promise some significant changes to how we approach offensive football, particularly in how we block and run—the two biggest deficiencies of our 2013 offense.

Nussmeier’s system is built the simplest, most efficient base run play: Inside Zone. Why is this such a big deal? Consider what happened when Denard graduated. In 2010 our base run play was a QB Iso, which follows zone blocking. In 2011 and 2012 it was the Inverted Veer (to QB), which follows “Power O” blocking—a system that has elements in common with zone blocking, but which prefers the guard to pull and block a guy who's either covered by the blocker in his zone or optioned off. This worked in large part because we had Denard running behind a fairly experienced OL. Exit Denard and 3 starting OL and in 2013 we decided to go with a collection of plays usually associated with zone blocking and single-back formations, but featuring pulling guards and Power O blocking, fullbacks and general confusion. “Zone” Stretch Left and the various doomed attempts to power up the middle actually started pretty well, but cratered against Akron and got worse as the year went on.*

Here’s why Inside Zone is the solution to most, if not all, of our run blocking problems: because it’s the simplest play to block for, because you can run it from under center, shotgun or pistol, because you can run it with one or two backs and—crucially—wherever your team fits on this increasingly complicated Venn diagram, the blocking scheme does not need to change dramatically.  The OL just blocks the guy in front of him, and if there’s no guy in front of him, he goes and blocks the next guy in his zone. It’s a relatively simple read that is basically designed to mitigate things like inexperience and being too small/weak, while still providing rewards for experience, size, speed and strength.

As a consequence, Inside Zone works equally well for both the little speedy Oregons and the big, muscular Wisconsins and Alabamas. Inside Zone has, furthermore, been the dominant base run play in the NFL since Mike Shannahan started using it with Denver in the late 1990s. Of more direct concern for us is how well it’s worked for Alabama, as this primer explains in detail.

Inside Zone has another advantage--flexibility:

The majority of the time in a zone blocking scheme the tailback will follow the design of the play, but occasionally the tailback will perform a cutback and change direction during the run.  A cutback is when the tailback changes direction and runs away from where the linebackers are flowing (the tailback can only do this once and must not hesitate).  This cutback made by the tailback is what makes zone blocking so dangerous because of how easily a cutback can lead to a big play.  The cutback exaggerates the advantages of the zone-blocking scheme.

Watch this video highlighting Texas’ use of Inside Zone to see this point illustrated nicely, not only for cutbacks, but for alternate read options.

 

More importantly, for those of us scarred by the semirandom-collection-of-formations-and-plays approach pioneered in 2013, there’s also these tidbits from an ex-player on Saban's thinking on Inside Zone, which Nussmeier brings to Ann Arbor from Tuscaloosa:

Q. Is the inside zone a play, or a series of plays?

A. It’s a scheme. It’s a concept. You can have play-action off the inside zone. You can line up in the same exact formation and run the outside zone. The difference between inside zone and outside zone is just your aiming point and footwork. You’re still trying to accomplish the same thing. The backs end up going a little wider. As an offensive lineman, you’re aiming for the defender a little wider for leverage. What you’re trying to accomplish is the same thing. We run the zone out of several formations, but you can’t always tell if it’s inside zone or outside zone. You’ve got to read linemen and read running backs. It’s definitely not a play. There are many variations, formations. There’s a lot of stuff you can do out of it.

And:

Q. How do you explain Alabama running this scheme so well?

A. On the first day of spring practice, the first day of training camp, the first play we install is the inside zone play. That’s kind of what everything else in the playbook evolves from. They get a lot of reps every single day. When it comes to those crucial moments when it’s something to lean on, those guys are very well prepared to execute it, no matter how good the front seven is or how big the nose guard is. They repeat it and take a lot of pride in it. There’s certainly an asterisk on it in Tuscaloosa.

Do those sound like philosophical concepts we missed in 2013, and to an extent throughout the Hoke/Borges era? They do to me.

For the schematically minded, here are some diagrams of Alabama's Inside Zone against a base 3-4 and base 4-3 (unfortunately a pdf, so not embedded). Here are more diagrams:

 

Passing behind Zone Blocking

The main disadvantage, of course, is the inferiority of zone blocking as a conduit to playaction, as this article from Smart Football describes. And Borges did dial up some wicket playaction in 2013. But I often found myself wondering: without a credible run game, wouldn’t simple designed pass plays without the fake work just as well, if not better?

Traditional thinking about zone blocking is that you prefer smaller, speedier guys for your run game whose performance doesn’t quite translate to pass protection, so you need fast developing pass plays that mitigate this disadvantage. Hitches, screens, slants, naked bootlegs and an expanded role for pass-catching RBs/TEs mark zone blocking schemes from early-2000s USC to, well, most of the others.

But Nussmeier’s system at Alabama wasn’t quite like that. His OL were, as a rule, massive and more capable of sustaining their blocks than is often the case in offenses that utilize zone blocking. Part of this is due to the insane multiyear recruiting bonanza Alabama has enjoyed under Saban (and which is undoubtedly buttressed by that whole oversigning thing). But Nussmeier has done an excellent job developing young and talented OL—exactly what we need someone to do. Yet like Borges, he isn’t so much about dink-and-dunk as setting up the opportunity to go vertical. This is, then, a playaction-friendly version of the zone blocking scheme.

 

Concluding Thoughts

In sum, we look like we’ve landed the one guy who appears like both an extension of the upsides to the Borges era and a well-timed departure from its failings. I’ll miss Al as a personality and thank him for all the great games he called over the past few years (Notre Dame 2013, Nebraska 2011, etc.)—and certainly wish him and his family the best in all future endeavors. Like Rich Rod, there were better things on the horizon, but that horizon was still too far off, and there was too much uncertainty and disillusionment involved to continue down that path. As such, this hire really looks like move in the right direction.

 

*Note: we did run some Inside Zone this year--just not consistently or as a base run play except in a couple games towards the end.

Comments

Brightside

January 9th, 2014 at 6:09 PM ^

While I have been a fan of football for years, and knew inherently that there was something missing this past year, this helps simplify both the issues and the hope of resolution.

I am guessing our entire offense is pumped up as this promises to enable the talent to show through.

P.S. Isn't this scheme what allowed Fitz to run for over 1,000 back in 2010?

Eye of the Tiger

January 9th, 2014 at 7:29 PM ^

...a cross between what we ran in 2006-7 under DeBord and what we ran in 2010 under RR. In 2011, if I'm not mistaken, we utilized Power O blocking, which has some elements in common with zone blocking, but involves pulling guards and doesn't option off defenders. We certainly did that well then, and I'm not so zealous about zone blocking that I can't see how other schemes can work. But I see zone blocking--and the Inside Zone play in particular--as one of those sublimely elegant setups that's super easy to implement and can paper over some structural deficiencies in the roster.

Nussmeier did an incredible job getting the most out of new starters at Alabama this year, including 3 new starters on the OL, a new RB and new TE--all of whom were involved in the run game and pass protection. 

True Blue in CO

January 9th, 2014 at 6:28 PM ^

Your perspective provides reason for hope that all the linemen can pick this up and that we can improve every week in our execution next season.  This should be a dream for our running backs as they will just need to head towards the right hole in the line or go to the outside if we can contain the edge.  I think we have the right kind of backs in Green and Smith to make this happen.

This also sounds like an approach that should allow Coach Funk to work on very specific technique for his linemen making his job more focused.  Our linemen need some consistency to rebuild their confidence and this transition may be just the right solution.

MadMonkey

January 9th, 2014 at 7:03 PM ^

Well done.  Thank you for a great insight into why we it rational to be excited about our new OC and his likely transformation of our offense into a  group that plays with greater consistency while maintaining the flexibility to exploit our weapons at QB, RB, TE, and WR..

westwardwolverine

January 9th, 2014 at 7:37 PM ^

Akron: The defense gave up 17 points. (Gardner pick-six)

UConn: The defense gave up 14 points. (Fumble returned for a touchdown)

Penn State: The defense gave up 34 points in regulation, but 14 of those came after turnovers inside the Michigan 20. They forced 4 turnovers and scored a touchdown. 

What are you trying to say again? 

Michigan Marshmallow

January 9th, 2014 at 8:20 PM ^

UCONN ended up 3-9. 

Akron, 5-7.

Penn State was 7-5. 

While, yes, some points were given up by the offense, the defense still did not play great (or even good) against mediocre to poor teams. The defense isn't terrible, but it underperformed in many places last season.



Also, your last line "What are you trying to say again?" is completely unnecessary. The point you are arguing is a minor detail in a very well written diary.

Stop being either a troll or an ass.

GoBLUinTX

January 9th, 2014 at 7:59 PM ^

Of zone blocking did Mike DeBord install in 2006?  Not that there would be any remaining institutional memory.

Follow up question.  What does this mean for Coach Funk?

Eye of the Tiger

January 9th, 2014 at 8:02 PM ^

But there are some significant differences, both in blocking technique (emphasis on hand placement [DeBord] vs. footwork [Nussmeier]) and playcalling (scripted/dictate-to-defense [DeBord] vs. constraint-based/respond-to-defense [Nussmeier]). And Alabama runs relatively  less Outside Zone and more Inside Zone than we did in 2006/7. Oh, and Nussmeier likes to go vertical more than DeBord did--in that sense he reminds me of Borges. 

So even if the two systems have the same structure, they don't really resemble each other in execution. I would say Nussmeier's (and Jim McElwain's) reminds me a bit of Shanahan's Broncos, in that you can pretty much plug any B+ running back into the system and expect results. Hopefully we see that next year with Smith and Green.

Space Coyote

January 9th, 2014 at 8:12 PM ^

I will add, inside zone is easy once you have a feel for it, but your OL needs to get a feel for it, otherwise you end up with massive busts and LBs slashing through the play into the backfield. The nice part about inside zone is that it's quick hitting with a natural cutback and a natural bounce.

I will also add that inside zone doesn't adhere to the smaller OL as much as teams that run more outside zone. Because you aren't required to ever really reach a DL in inside zone, you don't have to be a ton quicker than the defense. You just have to get to the playside shoulder, and if you don't you push them by. Because of that, you can get lineman more like Wisconsin and Alabama that run inside zone a lot.

Supposely, Saben dictated much of the offense at Alabama. I'm assuming Sark also had some influence out in Washington. I actually think his offense at Michigan will be something more between the two, with sprinkles we haven't seen before from him as he's allowed more leeway. It will also be interesting if - because Hoke does prefer a Power O base - that becomes a bigger part of the playbook for Nussmeier than it has in the past (he still ran some power O at Bama and some in Washington I believe, but it was certainly not the regular or base blocking scheme).

Very nice write up overall.

Eye of the Tiger

January 9th, 2014 at 8:26 PM ^

...yes, you're right about the size of OL and whether you run Inside or Outside Zone as your base play. What I was getting at, though, was that there's a theory of zone blocking that stresses smaller, faster OL, and that a lot of people thought this to be generally true--even though it's really not, for exactly the reasons you point out.

And you're also right about implementation--but I do find Inside Zone to be relatively easier to implement than Power O, and it's so flexible that you can (like Alabama and Wisconsin) run tons of misdirection and other shenanigans out of your base play. Doing so keeps things simple for the OL, and allows you to cut down on what you drill in practice--both advantages for the quick development of young/inexperienced OL. So in that sense, I see it as simple/elegant relative to most alternatives. 

As for who ran the Alabama offense, my understanding is that Nussmeier came in and tweaked the system Saban and McElwain had already put in place. So he's not an innovator like, say, Rich Rod--but rather a guy like Narduzzi who has mastered a system. I think he can import that system to Ann Arbor and implement it without much transitional pain, and in that sense I think he's just about the best hire possible for us right now.

Space Coyote

January 9th, 2014 at 9:10 PM ^

I think the nice thing about zone blocking (and it's the reason teams zone block in pass protection) is because it doesn't really matter what the defense does, how they align, etc. You read numbers (generally, but be careful of slants), run the play away, and pick up whatever happens on the fly. In that way it's much more versatile. And with the designed cut backs and bounce, inside zone can attack pretty much any area of the field. As long as you rep it and become good at it, it's a very power blocking scheme.

As a single scheme, I like zone blocking better than man blocking. I like man/gap blocking in that it allows for a more diverse run game playbook (and a bit more freedom to mess with keys and things of that nature). But, just as you said, with zone blocking you can essentially work on 3 techniques: inside zone covered, outside zone covered, uncovered. Man/gap blocking takes more than that, so with diversity you have more to learn.

And I honestly think the general "innovator" idea is fairly overrated. You still need to have creativity within your system, and having an innovator is fun and exciting, but it isn't always better, it's just different and new. I do think there are a few differences in player-type, scheme, etc (some of which you explain) between Nussmeier and Borges, but the nice thing about this hire (outside of Nussmeier appearing to be a good OC) is that he can use these players effectively within what he wants to do without making major changes.

nmumike

January 10th, 2014 at 8:34 AM ^

appreciate the discussion you two just had. You made concise points about scheme and made it both interesting and informative. What I am getting at is that this is exactly why I come to this site and love it so much. Sure there are Debbie Downers, and trolls, but discussions like the one this diary just elicited is an amazing display of the greatness of this site.

Questions I have: Do the personnel we have on the line fit with the scheme we will be implementing this year? What is his typical play/run breakdown?

Space Coyote

January 10th, 2014 at 9:27 AM ^

The offensive line Michigan was building is fairly similar as an inside zone blocking personnel. They may reshape their bodies to be a little leaner as now they have to get to the 2nd level from the behind the play (think about how a zone all works in one direction and an uncovered guy needs to catch up to a LB) rather than having an angle down on a LB from the backside (think how a combo block in a man scheme works back to the backside LB), but that's not a huge difference. Still need to pull in a man blocking scheme, still need to be able to move for pass protection and man blocking and screens, etc.

So this isn't jumping from a spread scheme that relies a lot on outside zone and working in space to a Power O scheme, it's really a shift to a zone scheme working in a similar space with fairly similar types of movements. And while the way they zone block and how often they zone block will probably increase into their base play, they did at least work on it a bit this season.

I think you have a typo in your last sentence as far and meant pass/run breakdown. Nussmeier, throughout his career, has been extremely close to 55-45 run-to-pass, which I think is damn near optimal. According to a post on by Brian, he's been between 49% run (Washington) and 63% run (2012 Alabama). I think he'll shoot for about 55% at Michigan.

Ron Utah

January 10th, 2014 at 2:04 AM ^

I agree with SC, and would add a few  things that Nuss does very differently from Borges:

  • WR screens.  And lots of them.  He often uses them early in the game to soften the middle of the defense and open-up the running game.  Which brings-up my second point...
  • Passing to set-up the run.  Nuss will come out with three WRs on one side of the field on first down, and then he'll actually pass it on a screen or quick hitter.  Then he'll run out of the same formation.
  • Three verticals.  Nuss will load one side of the field and have three guys go long from that side--the slot receiver running an arcing route deep to the opposite side of the field while the outside (split end or X) runs a fade and the TE or other receiver runs a seam route.  Sometimes he'll bring a deep in underneath those routes, and he'll use the back as a safety valve.
  • Full spread.  Watching some Washington tape especially, I saw plays where Nuss had the outside WRs almost on the paint on both sides of the field.  Rarely, if ever, saw that from Borges.  For Nuss though, you know a pass is coming.

But there are some similarities that Brian might find maddening:

  • Seemingly pointless play action.  It's third and 11 and Nuss will still fake a draw and turn the QB's back when everyone knows a pass is coming.  Now, on a seven-step drop, I don't mind this too much because the QB can get to his depth faster, but he's still turning his back on the play and missing what the defense is doing in coverage.
  • Narrow field.  Nuss will motion his split end inside, and have his entire offense only about 30 yards wide.
  • Obvious short yardage plays.  He'll bring out the goalline set on 3rd and short, and then run the same (inside zone) play he's been running all day.
  • Triangle routes.  While he doesn't stack as much as Al, Nuss loves the bunch, and frequently runs triangle routes out of it.  This shouldn't frustrate too many fans, since Borges often did this to great effect, but it will look familiar when it doesn't work.
  • TEs, FBs, and H-backs.  There will be TEs.  And sometimes fullbacks.  And they will be asked to block.

Space Coyote

January 10th, 2014 at 8:46 AM ^

We saw pretty much the exact same thing. Tons of triangle concepts, more bunch than stack (but lots of bunch). Lots of verticals, especially off PA. I think he goes to the screen more than Borges did (until KSU) but his screen package isn't quite as deep. He'll be pretty much 50-50 run-to-pass, and doesn't care which sets up the others.

I will say one thing that should at least simmer some anger toward narrowing the field. Nussmeier likes to have tight formations, but it's really in an effort to spread the field post-snap. WRs closer to the center means they can attack any area on the field. Nussmeier likes crossing routes and deep crosses while still setting up his triangles. Narrowing the splits of his receivers gives him the ability to attack the whole field and utilize more schemes within the same initial formation.

Eye of the Tiger

January 10th, 2014 at 10:51 AM ^

You bring up some excellent points, and I think the bottom line is that Nussmeier's offense is more constraint-based than Borges'. If a defense keys in on something, like defenses were keying in on our "runnning game" and playaction passes all season, he will take what they are giving (the screen, the edge of the field, etc.).

One quibble: Alabama doesn't actually use the FB or H-back much--they go single-back most of the time. Nussmeier may use our FBs more liberally than he did at Alabama, but my feeling is that we move away from that and towards a single-back system (which I prefer).

And on that note, some Tide fans actually complain about underutilization of the TE. I think he'd be nuts to ignore Jake Butt, who should have a breakout year in 2014, but I think it also cements Funchess' move to WR and probably changes our recruiting a bit.

Space Coyote

January 10th, 2014 at 11:15 AM ^

Is mostly between the 20s. He used them pretty effectively in the RZ, but his concepts seem to really prefer straight line speed in the middle of the field.

I prefer a lead back when possible because I think it adds diversity to the run game, but the zone scheme can get by without it. When Nuss did use a FB, they were more often than not about 2-3 yards deep at more of an H-back depth. If I had to bet, with the personnel Michigan has, you'll see quite a bit of 12/21 personnel that utilizes a lot of H-back type stuff, at least early on.

Ron Utah

January 10th, 2014 at 11:22 AM ^

Depending on what you call an "H-Back," 'Bama uses a lot of it.  I'm referring to a TE-type that lines up behind the the O-Line and often goes in motion or downblocks.  We can argue over the name, but the second TE (sometimes called the "F" or "H") operates differently than the in-line guy.  I think we'll see a lot of that.

Eye of the Tiger

January 10th, 2014 at 11:56 AM ^

I actually just logged on to edit that comment--which I made much too strongly and which I should have qualified more accurately. They do use the H-back in the exact sense you mean (the guy who lines up just behind the OL and who can either block or go out as a receiver).

What I meant to say/should have said is that I don't believe Nussmeier uses that position as much as Borges likes to use FBs (i.e. as a default). But yes, you are right, they do use it more than I stated/implied. 

...and they also do use plenty of TEs, just in a pretty vanila way (mainly pass blockers with some rudimentary route running). I think that changes, given Jake Butt and the mismatches he potentially presents. But he didn't do much of that at Alabama.

steve sharik

January 9th, 2014 at 10:08 PM ^

"Here’s why Inside Zone is the solution to most, if not all, of our run blocking problems: because it’s the simplest play to block for...."

Inside zone is the simplest schematically, but not technically.  It takes a lot of reps (and untraining if your linemen have been primarily gap scheme oriented).  At first you see a lot of guys blocking a man rather than their gap, which is especially a problem if the guy in your gap pre-snap stunts away from the direction of the play.  All it takes is one OL to follow what he believes is his man and it opens up a huge crease for defenders to run through and blow up the play.

Also, you have to mix in gap schemes so defenses can't just tee off on zone blocking.  Penetration kills zone blocking, but penetration is bad against gap blocking, as defenders who penetrate are prime candidates for getting trapped/kicked out.

Spread option concepts also complement inside zone blocking well in a similar way to gap schemes, in that it can penalize defenders who over-penetrate.  If a defender over-penetrates and is the dive key with a down hill inside zone scheme, the ball is to the 2nd--and often 3rd--level in a damn hurry.  The spread version of midline can be especially nasty (see Oregon).  Mix midline with traditional reading of the end and the defense can option every defensive lineman.  Add in the QB power read (aka "veer") and also read ILBs against teams that want to use scrape exchange, and now you can option every defender in the 1st and 2nd levels.

A common ground found b/w spread guys and guys who want to run downhill has been the pistol offense.  The pistol's base run play is the inside zone.  I prefer these b/c I truly believe if your run game is always the QB turning and handing/pitching to a RB, you're playing a man short (in the run game).

It will be interesting to see how the offense evolves next fall.  I think in the spring scrimmage you'll see QBs under center (and maybe next year, too) but it will definitely be vanilla.

Eye of the Tiger

January 9th, 2014 at 11:47 PM ^

...is that you can run it out of the shotgun or pistol and not much changes from a blocking perspective. And, as you say, you can add complexity by introducing various QB option plays (Inverted Veer, Zone Read, etc.). Even from under center--if you have big OL like Alabama or Wisconsin (and presumably, like the Michigan of the near future), there's a host of possibilities (counters, playaction, screens, etc.).

Also, as a point of clarification: I don't think zone blocking is "simple," but I do think learning Inside Zone and being able to do a pretty large number of different things without changing personnel, formations, etc. makes it a great "value," so to speak--and this is why so many teams have moved in this direction. Why drill ten things when you can drill one and still get ten plays out of it? Just get it down pat and then add the wrinkles.

I also don't think zone blocking is invincible--clearly not, or everyone would do it and no one would fail. And other blocking schemes will work just as well with the right pieces in place. However, I do think it's very efficient, from a coaching perspective, and fits the exact point we are in right now, in terms of our roster and what we will reasonably be capable of in 2014 and 2015. I think it would have fit who we were in 2013 better than what we ran too (though of course we did run some zone plays).

Vote_Crisler_1937

January 10th, 2014 at 3:35 AM ^

One of my concerns is that Borges may have decided on power O as base blocking scheme instead of inside zone but was it being taught well enough? Maybe Nuss is a better teacher of inside zone than Borges was of power O? How likely is that?

Space Coyote

January 10th, 2014 at 8:41 AM ^

So it wouldn't be what Borges or Nussmeier are better at in this case, it would be what Funk and Jackson are better at coaching (and Ferrigno).

Now, Jackson has produced effective RBs behind both schemes, but struggled to produce as well with the zone scheme. That's a bit misleading in many ways, the talent wasn't as good during the zone years, and Hart played for four of those years, where as the names just kept on popping up back when Michigan ran man blocking schemes.

It will be interesting to see how Funk works. Funk has been teach a hand blocking technique on zone blocking schemes to his OL, which is more common in the NFL. College teams more often than not teach a "flipper" technique, which is an adaptation of shoulder blocking. The latter is quicker to work to the second level, but you don't control at the point of attack as well. Nussmeier has tended to utilize the flipper technique, as most in college have, and it'll be interesting to see if Michigan makes that change. FWIW, this is what I believe the OP is generally referring to as far as hand vs foot technique.

As far as Nussmeier's vs Borges's effect on scheme, I think Borges wanted to work to a Power O scheme and never got there, obviously. Where Nussmeier can help is establishing more of a base. Nussmeier will still run as many schemes as Borges did, he'll still do some Power O and Counter Trey and all those things, but they'll be utilized more as a constraint rather than in nearly equal parts like Borges tended to do in 2013. The key for Nussmeier will obviously be getting the inside zone to work so he can utilize it as a base. In that sense, I think he'll rep it more before going elsewhere, and he also won't have the temptation to switch away from it due to personnel. If inside zone doesn't work for Nussmeier, there isn't an all-american tackle that he's going to say "screw it, let's just run plays that make him the primary block". So this will be an inside zone team whether it works or not. My guess is come next fall, Michigan will be pretty decent at blocking it for how much they'll rep it (though I'm still interested in seeing if Hoke really wants a Power O scheme).

Eye of the Tiger

January 10th, 2014 at 11:22 AM ^

I talked about footwork, but in the sense that flipper/shoulder technique emphasizes getting your body in the right place to a greater degree than hand technique (via the feet, of course). I prefer that method, as I think it results in more physical play from the OL and, like most things blocking related that I prefer, is easier to grasp (i.e. better for getting the most out of younger/less experienced players). Plus, if I'm not mistaken, it's harder to draw holding penalties that way.

But again, there's no single "right" way--either method can work if implemented well.

...and I think that's my main concern: that we stick with one thing, use it consistently, and drill it like madmen.

steve sharik

January 10th, 2014 at 1:19 PM ^

In the sense that some coaches teach forearm shock, some teach hands.

In both zone blocking and ILB taking on blocks, I would teach both techniques and let the player and coaches decide which is most effective for that player, and also who is most effective on a consistent basis.

Mgotri

January 10th, 2014 at 9:57 AM ^

While it takes place in the same world, The Hedge Knight is not part of A Song of Fire and Ice series.

Other than that a great diary. Thanks for your input.

BlueKoj

January 10th, 2014 at 4:42 PM ^

This fantastic diary and even better dialogue forced me from the sidelines after years of juat reading...Thanks to all.

Question: Would Inside Zone be more favorable for guys like Miller, Bars, Kugler who may have some size/strength deficiencies due to youth or nature?

Space Coyote

January 13th, 2014 at 8:45 AM ^

But inside zone can really be done with the same maulers as most man blocking schemes. Foot speed is probably a bit more preferred with any zone scheme, but it isn't like a stretch zone that Michigan ran a lot under Rich Rod that had Molk doing great reach blocks.

Perd Hapley

January 12th, 2014 at 11:34 PM ^

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but I seem to remember Bama recruiting Henry Poggi for an H back or some position on offense. Does anyone think he may be used that way? Play both ways?

Space Coyote

January 13th, 2014 at 8:42 AM ^

His weight and build will be significantly different at H-Back than at DT. He came in lean and they've worked to build him up and Hoke and Mattison wanted him on defense. Besides that, Michigan actually will have plenty of bodies at the TE/H-back/FB position next year:

Hill, Williams, Paskorz (if he gets 5th year), Butt, Funchess (if he slides back inside), Kerridge, Houma, Shallman (if he isn't a RB), and Bunting. Not to mention, HB/FB is a good position to move LBs/DEs that aren't working up the depth chart to get them on the field, so it's a relatively easy position move spot. So that's 7-9 players for those three positions, which have relative flexibility.

As for both ways, not a chance. The further you work down and inside, the more work you have to do with technique and such. You'll see some athletic freak TE/DEs go both ways, but you really can't expect a DT to go both directions outside of goalline situations, and I like Michigan's personnel at the position there enough that they shouldn't have to do that.