I had pulled together a pretty large post (with pictures and everything!), but the internet ate it.
In discussing some other things with a few of the BbtL staples, I had brought this topic up and began discussing it with Super Nomario.
Long story short, I'm curious if the Logan Mankins move symbolizes a shift back to a more traditional setup (best pass blocking interior lineman moving to LG) as well as a full focus on a zone blocking scheme instead of their current zone/power hybrid blocking scheme.
Since I'm at work, I'll include the messages below as the genesis to this thread. Sorry for the structure. It's from my mailbox and I don't know how to format the quotes properly.
What are peoples thoughts about the Patriots moving to a full ZBS? Is it happening? Will it help cure some of their problems with interior pressure? Will the run game suffer or thrive?
My Response:
Super Nomario:
My response:
I'll be the first to admit that I never re-watched a single play form last season, but I certainly recall the team getting into trouble with some of their play-actions. It sounds like the Patriots were taking the most difficult job on the interior line (RG) and increasing the level of difficulty with plays like that. The Patriots obviously want the defense to bite on the play action, and pulling your guard is a great way to do it. Obviously you don't pull a guard on a pass play, safeties and LB's key on first step (forward is run, backwards is pass) as well as guard movement, etc. But, as you alluded to, if the Patriots end up in a full ZBS, the team won't be pulling the guard often anyway, so there's no reason to do so in play-action. I think the offense was out-thinking themselves if they were pulling on play-actions. Peyton Manning has run a zone scheme in both Indy and Denver and I think he and Brady are the two best play-action QB's in the NFL.
2.) I truthfully don't know much about the young guys the Patriots brought in. You're right about Stork. Zone blocking for a center is essentially the same as power blocking. With that said, I think this situation is similar to the old adage, "All Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholics". If an interior lineman has the ability to play in a power/counter scheme, there is no reason he can't play in a zone scheme.
The power/counter scheme involves a lot of movement. Pulling across the line, getting up through a hole before the lead back, engaging linebackers, etc. While zone blockers have always been considered "smaller", there isn't any reason that the larger linemen who already do all this movement in a power scheme can't also commit to a ZBS.
In practice, the ZBS should be easier for the big interior guys. They're in charge of the "inside zone" and have 3 responsibilities.
1.) Block the guy in front of you.
2.) If nobody is in front of you, double team the play side (help center if the run is to the opposite side of the line, or help tackle if its to the outside of the guard)
3.) Work your way up to the linebacker
It's a simplistic view, but that's basically it for the inside zone.
I think the misconception of "only lighter linemen play the ZBS" occurs because people look at teams who run a ZBS and see smaller linemen. In reality, the teams that run a ZBS simply choice smaller linemen because you don't NEED to be big to play in a ZBS, so they implement the smaller linemen because they're usually cheaper or have the added benefit of being better at pass blocking (quicker, more agile, better at hand checks, better at backpedaling, better balance, etc).
In other words, big linemen can play a power scheme or ZBS, but smaller linemen have a difficult time in a power scheme.
TL;DR, I don't think the Pats drafting larger linemen precludes them from running a full ZBS.
In discussing some other things with a few of the BbtL staples, I had brought this topic up and began discussing it with Super Nomario.
Long story short, I'm curious if the Logan Mankins move symbolizes a shift back to a more traditional setup (best pass blocking interior lineman moving to LG) as well as a full focus on a zone blocking scheme instead of their current zone/power hybrid blocking scheme.
Since I'm at work, I'll include the messages below as the genesis to this thread. Sorry for the structure. It's from my mailbox and I don't know how to format the quotes properly.
What are peoples thoughts about the Patriots moving to a full ZBS? Is it happening? Will it help cure some of their problems with interior pressure? Will the run game suffer or thrive?
Super Nomario said:They've tended to play the smaller guys (like Kline) at LG and bigger guys (like Cannon, Devey, and Fleming, who are all 6'5+ 315+) at RG. Maybe part of the goal is to get bigger on that right side, which is why we've seen Connolly (more of a LG type) working at C instead of RG this preseason.
He has literally played G before, like week 6 last year when Connolly left with injury. I do think they see him more as a T though.
My Response:
I got 1/2 way through a pretty lengthy post playing off of something SN picked up on (BB playing smaller guards at left guard). The post was operating under the old adage that you put your best pass blocking interior lineman at LG (which is a common rule of thumb), that BB may have been making plans for removing Mankins (at least) all preseason by trying out solid pass blockers at LG, that it makes sense why he'd put the bigger guards at RG if he was operating under this premise, and that this could symbolize a shifting to a full zone scheme blocking from their current hybrid zone/power scheme they run (much less pulling involved from RG - where BB has been trying out his larger interior linemen - in zone blocking, left guards do pull outside TE on left side during outside zone runs, etc).
Anyway, I had some pictures and examples, but the post got eaten on me. Awesome way to waste 45 minutes.
Super Nomario:
I have two reactions:
1) Some of the sacks on Brady last year were on play action plays with complicated blocking structures - e.g., Mankins would pull as if it was a run play, and Wendell would try to pick up the 3-tech left unblocked by that action. Sometimes this didn't work and Brady was left dead to rights. A ZBS run game less dependent on pulling action would let them use more conventional play action, helping protect Brady and eliminating some of these negative plays.
2) I'm having trouble squaring a shift to ZBS with the guys they drafted. Stork is probably fine either way, but Halapio and Fleming are a lot more man/power guys - some of the biggest and slowest players in the draft (and Stanford famously runs man/power). Do you see these guys as exceptions or part of the shift?
Interested to see what you come up with.
My response:
To your first point, not just are left guards supposed to be the better pass blocker, but right guards actually have the hardest job on the interior line.
Without question the most difficult of the interior line positions, right guards are most likely to be left one-on-one with an elite inside rusher. The predominance of teams to slide their center to the left to protect the quarterback's blind side creates a greater value for the right guard position. Fourteen-year veteran Todd Steussie, currently available on the free agent market, says, "Right guard is definitely harder than left guard." Recently-retired lineman Todd Fordham, a 10-year NFL vet, agreed: "The left guard always has help."
Though the difference in value between the two guard spots is lessened somewhat in an offense that rarely slides the pass protections like the Colts, the strength of the formation often dictates that the right guard has the wider alignment, and thus more difficult assignment, on his side.
I'll be the first to admit that I never re-watched a single play form last season, but I certainly recall the team getting into trouble with some of their play-actions. It sounds like the Patriots were taking the most difficult job on the interior line (RG) and increasing the level of difficulty with plays like that. The Patriots obviously want the defense to bite on the play action, and pulling your guard is a great way to do it. Obviously you don't pull a guard on a pass play, safeties and LB's key on first step (forward is run, backwards is pass) as well as guard movement, etc. But, as you alluded to, if the Patriots end up in a full ZBS, the team won't be pulling the guard often anyway, so there's no reason to do so in play-action. I think the offense was out-thinking themselves if they were pulling on play-actions. Peyton Manning has run a zone scheme in both Indy and Denver and I think he and Brady are the two best play-action QB's in the NFL.
2.) I truthfully don't know much about the young guys the Patriots brought in. You're right about Stork. Zone blocking for a center is essentially the same as power blocking. With that said, I think this situation is similar to the old adage, "All Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholics". If an interior lineman has the ability to play in a power/counter scheme, there is no reason he can't play in a zone scheme.
The power/counter scheme involves a lot of movement. Pulling across the line, getting up through a hole before the lead back, engaging linebackers, etc. While zone blockers have always been considered "smaller", there isn't any reason that the larger linemen who already do all this movement in a power scheme can't also commit to a ZBS.
In practice, the ZBS should be easier for the big interior guys. They're in charge of the "inside zone" and have 3 responsibilities.
1.) Block the guy in front of you.
2.) If nobody is in front of you, double team the play side (help center if the run is to the opposite side of the line, or help tackle if its to the outside of the guard)
3.) Work your way up to the linebacker
It's a simplistic view, but that's basically it for the inside zone.
I think the misconception of "only lighter linemen play the ZBS" occurs because people look at teams who run a ZBS and see smaller linemen. In reality, the teams that run a ZBS simply choice smaller linemen because you don't NEED to be big to play in a ZBS, so they implement the smaller linemen because they're usually cheaper or have the added benefit of being better at pass blocking (quicker, more agile, better at hand checks, better at backpedaling, better balance, etc).
In other words, big linemen can play a power scheme or ZBS, but smaller linemen have a difficult time in a power scheme.
TL;DR, I don't think the Pats drafting larger linemen precludes them from running a full ZBS.