Calling on Coaches: Run Blocking vs. Pass Blocking
As the season approaches one of the biggest lingering question marks is how the Offensive Line, particularly the 3 new starters, will perform this year. There are a lot of reasons to believe that we will see improvement in this department such as scheme and personnel fit with regards to size and technique.
The question I have for the coaches and learned football scholars out there is specifically how are the skill sets different for run blocking vs. pass blocking? For all the flack our OL got last year they seemed to do pretty well in pass blocking situations. Was this a result of having upperclassman using techniques that translated from a zone blocking scheme (which our OL was recruited for) to our current scheme? Will it be "easier" for our young OL to run block because of their size advantage, ability to pull, and overall fit within the system than to pass block that requires fine-tuned technique?
Just curious to see in what situations our OL can do well and if that will skew the playcalling in one direction or another.
August 27th, 2013 at 8:24 PM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 8:27 PM ^
Spellcheck and I didn't catch that on the first post.
August 27th, 2013 at 8:29 PM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 9:50 PM ^
Its difficult to rock the mullett and not come off as a perv.
August 27th, 2013 at 8:33 PM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 8:34 PM ^
Pass blocking is a slower skill to develop, partly because kids grow up run blocking in middle school, high school, etc. If you have a massive offensive lineman in high school, you're probably not going to waste that physical dominance on pass blocking while your mediocre quarterback throws the ball 40 times a game. You're going to line it up and run behind your massive offensive tackle. Personally, I think Michigan will be at its best running power, iso, etc. with the guards. As long as Miller can hold his own in the middle and not get pushed back to disrupt the pulling guard, we should do well there. I'm more concerned with running outside zone stuff because I don't think Bryant, Glasgow, and Kalis are good fits there. The tackles and center can run zone, but unless all five guys on the offensive line can run zone effectively, those plays will be problematic, because any penetration kills a zone run (especially inside zone).
August 27th, 2013 at 9:46 PM ^
Is there a need to run any zone blocking plays in terms of setting up the defense or keeping them honest? Can we just stick to power exclusively?
August 27th, 2013 at 10:10 PM ^
The "inverted veer" play that Michigan runs is set up by the outside zone play. Without the threat of the outside zone, Michigan wouldn't be able to take advantage of those running plays up the middle for Denard Robinson, Devin Gardner, etc. A team can't run power exclusively - you need to run iso, counter, etc., too.
August 28th, 2013 at 12:05 AM ^
So with our Glasgow-Miller-Kalis interior line would you see them being more adept at run blocking or pass blocking immediately? Which aspect should improve more during the season?
August 28th, 2013 at 7:11 AM ^
August 28th, 2013 at 7:09 AM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 8:36 PM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 9:17 PM ^
I think a lot of fans don't realize that, and in a way it was silly for teams to do that since Denard never took off running anyway. Hopefully Gardner can instill that fear in defenses too by scampering a few times a game for 10+ yards when he has an opening.
August 27th, 2013 at 9:54 PM ^
For the most part last year Gardner also had a pretty clean pocket. I'm not sure teams were as keyed in on his running prowess.
August 27th, 2013 at 8:44 PM ^
So it depends on where you are at on the line that determines which skill is easier. All that being said we are lucky to have experience at both tackle positions. We should be able to easily get by with inexperienced talent on the inside while they adjust to speed of the game.
August 27th, 2013 at 8:56 PM ^
to do right, as there is so much more involved in the reads for the O-line and the line calls. you have to be able to make a number of calls immediately right before you put your head down. you are reading the D-line, LB's and the safeties, and barking out calls right then. timing, timing, timing. and then there is the physical part of run blocking. it is fun, but i have always felt it is more difficult than pass blocking and teaching it is also more difficult.
pass blocking is usually a function of calling a set (one of three for most O-lines, or at least that i ever played on) and doing it. the hardest thing is getting your back to figure out which way your line is sliding so they step up to the right place. see the recent comments about the michigan backs.
August 27th, 2013 at 9:53 PM ^
So if I understand corretly you are saying that run blocking takes time to develop because everyone has to know their assignment and how their linemates will react. Is technique as important with our roadgrader guards and power blocking? Is pass blocking just a quicker learn technique wise?
August 28th, 2013 at 10:32 AM ^
correct. as you get more sophisticated in your offense, there are that many more calls to make. zone blocking can actually simplify things greatly, but it also prevents some advantages from being realized because you inhibit some of the calls that would change a given blocking scheme to the O-line's advantage.
our guards are pretty average BIG10 guards, though we all certainly hope they develop beyond that. if they don't have excellent technique they will get blown up. first two steps, staying low, and using hands effectively are the most critical part of that. part of the difficulty of run blocking is that it needs to happen usually lightening quick, with micro-seconds of thought for line calls and reacting to D-line stunts or mixing up their look.
pass blocking is a more simple technique (imho) to perform and teach, assuming you aren't getting out-quicked by the defender. and sometimes that isn't a safe assumption.
August 27th, 2013 at 9:36 PM ^
Guess the year for these combined measurements for our starting interior OL:
A: 909 pounds, 19 feet tall
B: 895 pounds, 19 feet and 3 inches tall
If you guessed 2012 for A and 2013 for B you are correct.
This year's interior OL is 3 inches taller and 14 pounds lighter than last year.
August 27th, 2013 at 9:49 PM ^
So clearly they are longer and more athletic, duh.
August 27th, 2013 at 9:51 PM ^
What's your point? Is this a continuation of your sky is falling post from the OL preview? What does this have to do with the OP's question?
14 pounds is nothing, that's less than 3 lbs per person on average. Miller is the only guy that could be described as undersized.
August 27th, 2013 at 10:20 PM ^
Yes, a continuation of my "improvement is not a given on the OL" post, in a sense.
The OP (and many many others) seem to think we are likely to improve due to "better fit". This idea often, as above, includes mention of improved size -- but I've yet to hear that Hoke wants a smaller OL.
Our OL getting bigger is another one of those false assertions floating around to support the idea that the offensive line HAS to be better, but I don't think many people realize we're actually even smaller this season.
That could easily change with some substitutions, but right now the line doesn't have more size, or more talent (Rivals ranks last year 5.8, 5.8, 5.1, this year 6.1, 5.5, NA) -- it's just more inexperienced.
August 28th, 2013 at 11:00 AM ^
Ok, I'll bite. I think the part you're missing is that the guys last year massively under performed their expectations. On paper, based on size, experience, maturity, pedigree, prior performance, etc, they should have been the strength of our offense. You're absolutely right, they were 5th year seniors with prototypical size and athleticism. Instead, for whatever reason, they just couldn't put it together on the field. More often than not, 1 or more of them would block...let's see....no one. I think that's what Brian means when he says it can't get worse (which is hyperbole of course), you can't do much worse than blocking air. Can this year's guys go out and be just as confused? Absolutely, but there's no reason to jump to that conclusion yet.
Regarding the guys this year, I think you're analysis is flawed because you assume skill level is static. You can't say on one hand that a upperclassmen trumps an underclassmen and on the other hand assume a guy with one more year in the system isn't better than the player he was a year ago. These guys were redshirt freshmen and, in Kalis's case, a true freshman. The fact that they couldn't beat out last year's guys isn't any indication that they can't be better this year. OL is the most developmentally intensive position and guys very seldomly contribute as true or redshirt freshman. I've also heard a lot of reports that the coachs were considering playing Kalis but decided not to burn his redshirt in the end. Again, nothing is guaranteed, but I see no reason for doom and gloom prognostications.
As for Glasgow being a walk on, there are two points here. 1) The kid didn't play football until his senior year. It's hard to catch coaches' eyes when you're starting out just as the recruiting cycle is practically over, especially these days. 2) Recruiting ratings are an necessary evil for making decisions about HS students about what they'll turn out to be 4-5 years in the future. It's inherently inaccurate, especially for a position like OL where blue chip guys routinely bust and 1st and 2nd rounders come out of places like Midwestern State. Are they a statistically useful metric when making offers? Sure, but when you have the product that the ratings are trying to predict sitting in front of you 3 years later, it's folly to ignore that and instead focus on ratings or a guy's offer sheet. Glasgow turned out to be a 6' 6", 303 guy that can move just fine, there's nothing about that that screams (former) walk-on. He's gotta show it on the field now, but I see no reason to write him off just yet.
August 28th, 2013 at 1:53 PM ^
Omameh is far from a prototype (2-star recruit) and Barnum, clearly, wasn't as good as his recruiting hype. These guys were not great, but they were also far from bad. Would they miss blocks on occassion - yes. Where they slow on pulling - yes. But when not tasked with pulling or with pass blocking, they were very competant. I scanned their UFRs and they were fine. Now, they're whipping boys.
I am assuming improvement for this years starters from last year, but last year they were unplayable. So how big is the leap from one year to the next - we don't know. We're guessing, but to go from unplayable to better than a 5th year senior is a huge leap, even mediocre ones.
As Brian has pointed out with his brother, if Glasgow is beating proven players for a role that would be meaningful. He isn't - he's beating out kids who haven't played a lick. There are many many 6'6 300 lb kids who can't block a lick.
I'm not writing off Miller or Glasgow, or even Bryant or Braden. I'm just saying we don't have much objective evidence to be this optimistic. Just because we WANT improvement from last season doesn't make it so.
August 27th, 2013 at 9:58 PM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 10:08 PM ^
If Bryant starts at any point then our interior OL will be heavier.
August 28th, 2013 at 12:47 AM ^
Well that sucks since size is the only thing that matters for OL. Too bad Tony Posada left or we'd be sweet. I guess we should forget about redshirting Chris Fox and just play him from day 1, right one T Mat?
August 28th, 2013 at 1:54 PM ^
This is obtuse even for you, W-lovin
August 27th, 2013 at 9:47 PM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 10:38 PM ^
Like Magnus said, run blocking comes more naturally because most high school and little league offenses are run heavy so that where linemen get the most practice. Run Blocking, I think is easier because the schemes are alot simplier and you often know exactly who your blocking before the snap. Most of the time your not blocking a specific man but a specific area. For example a pulling guard might have resposibility for the end man of the line of scrimage, but if the defensive line has a stunt called his responsibility changes to blocking the tackle. Run blocking also allows OL to attack a defender which is a lot more fun for the road grading type OL we have. Pass blocking has more mental aspects to it, especially as defensive fronts get more complicated and creative with their blitzes and formations. If you guess wrong on whose rushing, you can get out of position and give up a sack. Also this is where a lot of the "chemistry" between OL comes into play, when you know exactly what the guy next to you can and can't do and what he like to and doesn't like to do, it makes your job a lot simplier. From a technique stand point, run blocking is more latching on to a guy, getting your hands inside and the driving him into the ground. Pass blocking is more about getting leverage and stopping a guys momentum while staying in front of him. Pass blocking involves a lot more lateral quickness and lower body strength. When for me personally, I enjoyed run blocking a lot more.
August 28th, 2013 at 4:41 AM ^
August 28th, 2013 at 12:13 PM ^
Your initial question concerned the difference in the skill sets for run and pass blocking. The answer to that quesion is: VERY. I'll go over the differences and then some similarities.
The first thing to point out is that what you do from the waist down is almost completely different in run blocking and pass protection. In pass pro, you're moving backwards and have to keep your feet underneath you. Especially for OTs, a good "kick-slide" is very important. If you lift a foot too much as you're retreating and the defender gets on you, he's going to be able to take advantage of your lack of balance. Pass blocking requires more agiliy and coordination, and is more technical in nature.
Run-blocking isn't easier, it's just different. You are generally engaging the defender instead of waiting for the defender to engage you. You must have extremely fast hands to get inside position as early as possible, and your hand placement must be good. Again, from the waist down, this is very different. You need to drive your legs and often want to keep your feet moving (on a drive block). In a zone you are looking to engage and then often disengage and move on to the next block. On a pull, you have to step with just the right distance and quickness, get to the gap, and then change directions (from lateral to upfield) and attack the defender.
I think the easiest way to clarify the difference is that pass-blocking is a lot like defense and run-blocking is a lot like offense.
Some similarities involve hand placement: in both cases, you need to win that battle and get your hands inside and engage the defender. You cannot allow yourself to get ripped or lose your arms to a swim move. Being able to "punch", which is quickly getting your hand/hands into a defender to knock him back or off-balance is an important skill. Also, you need to play with the proper pad level in both the run and pass game, which involves "sitting down" in your stance in pass pro and staying low as you explode out of your pre-snap stance (typically three-point) in the running game.
I would definitely NOT say one is easier than the other. They are just different. But yes, recruiting better athletes along the line, as we did under RR, would tend to favor the pass pro more than the running game. Big, strong dudes who might be less coordinated would tend to do better run-blocking.