PDA

View Full Version : Zone Blocking vs. Man Blocking


Steeldude
02-17-2009, 12:51 AM
some food for thought :noidea:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5913890/Zone-Blocking-vs.-Man-Blocking

For those of you unfamiliar with the Denver offensive line scheme, they use a technique known as "zone blocking". In a "man" or "drive" blocking scheme the lineman is responsible for an individual, and the play is designed for a running back to hit a particular gap. The zone blocking scheme, on the other hand, has a lineman blocking an area instead of a designated defensive player. If multiple linemen are blocking an area than one can break off and block into the second level.

The offensive line typically moves as a unit laterally, and the result of their blocks should create some natural seams or gaps in the defensive formation. The running back is responsible for finding a hole, making a cut, and then running upfield. One of the key tenets of the Denver system is that the running back takes what he can get. He should never dance around waiting for a hole to open. He needs to be agile, authoritative, and possess good instincts. Nothing fancy, just try to gain positive yardage

looks similar zierlein's zone blocking scheme. at times it looks like parker is at fault. this is not a post to bash parker, so relax :smile: the O-line is as much to blame on certain plays too. perhaps parker isn't as effective in a zone blocking scheme compared to a man blocking scheme. seems to me when moore was running the ball he appeared to be more decisive and positive than parker. again, this is not a post to bash parker. keep the inane hater comments to yourself :smile:

One reason it has not been widely adopted is time: it takes time to teach, time to master, and time to get the smaller, more agile offensive linemen that the system requires. If you take zone blocking and try to implement it with 340 pound behemoths, you will probably fail

could this be the problem? i saw too many times where one of pitt's linemen just let a guy go right by him. this wouldn't(for the most part) happen in a man-blocking system. is kemo too large to play a zone block scheme? a knock on kemo has been his football intelligence. the zone blocking is a more complicated system than a man blocking scheme.

here is another link on zone blocking...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_blocking

Zone blocking schemes frequently employ deception. For example, plays may be called in which blitzing defensive linemen and linebackers are permitted to rush into areas of the offensive backfield that are unimportant in the play called by the offense. Meanwhile, the offensive linemen who vacated the unimportant area migrate to the point of attack, blocking material defensive players

how many times have we seen that?

so what's the problem? is it talent across the O-line? is it zierlein's fault for not coaching his system better? are the RBs partly to blame? or is it everything?

IMO, i believe it's a combonation of average talent on the O-line and a poor blocking scheme. Or a scheme that isn't being taught very effectively.

MasterOfPuppets
02-17-2009, 02:32 AM
:busted: PARKER BASHING....:busted:...PARKER BASHING...:busted:

XxKnightxX
02-17-2009, 07:09 AM
Definitely a time consuming process. Our current linemen are meant for double team and one on one power blocking so that is why the running game struggled do to our makeshift line.

We gotta understand that having a zone scheme gives the running back more freedom to choose since 3 lanes can open where as in man blocking only that one lane will open and eventually will get clogged. We have to wait and see for next year and how the O line performs.

JEFF4i
02-17-2009, 07:53 AM
Parker bashing will end when we get an o-line that can give him decent gaps, against good teams.

C'mon now, Madden treats the Steelers like dirt a lot, and still says Willie is the fastest in the league.

Steely McSmash
02-17-2009, 10:18 AM
Starks and Kemo are definitely behemoths

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-17-2009, 10:54 AM
Sorry, but Larry Zeirline is not a zone blocking coach. The Steelers do not employ a zone blocking system.

They do have some plays where they do zone block, but ist not the base of their running philosophy.

SteelMember
02-17-2009, 10:59 AM
I think El Gonzo might have some ideas on this perception of "zone blocking".

As for me, I would just like to see some more consistent (better) blocking...zone, man or any other type. :noidea:

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-17-2009, 11:08 AM
Yeah, Zone is basically what the Colts always did with Edge James running a "stretch play". Houston uses zone block. Take a look at this video of Steve Slayton and the Texans. The O line basically takes one step to their right, blocks the guy in front of them and the RB reads the block. Classic Zone block principle.

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80d24a14


Now, take a look at this video of Parker in the Super Bowl. Kemoateu pulls in a classic man blocking play. This is not Zone Blocking.

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80e88298

lamberts-lost-tooth
02-17-2009, 11:19 AM
The Steelers are built for "Man-Blocking"...or as some call it "Power Blocking". We have big fat linemen who use strength...leverage..and a solid anchor. Zone blocking schemes use smaller faster linemen.

In a "man" or "power" blocking scheme the big fat lineman is responsible for a specific defensive player, and the RB should be hitting pre-assigned gaps. The zone blocking scheme, on the other hand, has a lineman blocking an area instead of a designated defensive player. If multiple linemen are blocking an area than one can break off and block into the second level.

Where people get confused is that we use stunts and pull guards (and sometimes tackles) to trap DE's and OLB's.

In the past we have had very athletic yet very strong players to fill those requirements...Harting...Faneca...etc, part of our problem now is that we have either had players that are very strong but not quite athletic enough...(Kemo)....or athletic enough but not quite strong enough...(Mahan).

Dino 6 Rings
02-17-2009, 11:47 AM
Parker is too fast to wait for his slow pulling linemen to get in position to make their blocks so he's beating them to the holes all the time.

We need faster Olinemen to compliment his speed.

Yeah...I said it.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-17-2009, 12:01 PM
Parker is too fast to wait for his slow pulling linemen to get in position to make their blocks so he's beating them to the holes all the time.

We need faster Olinemen to compliment his speed.

Yeah...I said it.

That is what Parker was doing his rookie year. Its what a lot of young and inexperienced backs do. Bettis showed him how to "set up his blocks" and "be more patient". Remember the video of Bussy telling parker at halftime of XL to "run like you are going outside then stick it back inside"??

Steelers need linemen that are quicker and stronger at the point of attack and have better feet to seal off rush lanes. Also, guys that consistently do that and establish a "post foot" in pass protection. Kemo, Starks and Stapleton need improvement in those areas.

Show me "faster linemen" and I will show you guys that should be TE's.

Dino 6 Rings
02-17-2009, 12:02 PM
LOL. Good points Gonzo

I would like to see Parker and Mendenhall one two punch with Moore as the 3rd guy spelling them. I think that offensive running attack, complimented by Ben and our Passing game is going to be something awesome.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-17-2009, 12:08 PM
LOL. Good points Gonzo

I would like to see Parker and Mendenhall one two punch with Moore as the 3rd guy spelling them. I think that offensive running attack, complimented by Ben and our Passing game is going to be something awesome.

I dont think we are gonna see that. Arians believes that you can get 4 yards by passing the football, just as easy as you can by running the football. I bet we see more of Ben in shotgun as a staple of the offense. Steeler nation is gonna be grumpy with that in the upcoming season.

Dino 6 Rings
02-17-2009, 12:10 PM
I dont think we are gonna see that. Arians believes that you can get 4 yards by passing the football, just as easy as you can by running the football. I bet we see more of Ben in shotgun as a staple of the offense. Steeler nation is gonna be grumpy with that in the upcoming season.

Oh I don't know, Mendenhall with an entire off season to work with the offense, maybe some changes on O-line to improve the running game, plus now that we are the champs everyone will be studying our bunch formation and shotgun even more, now is when we pull the Rocky II and go back to South Paw and punch people in the face again with our running game, just as they have gotten used to our passing attack.

revefsreleets
02-17-2009, 12:23 PM
Regardless of whether or not the Steelers are a zone or man blocking team, there were significant schematic changes to the way the OL blocks under Zierlein from Grimm. The lineman themselves admitted there were some transitional problems.

vasteeler
02-17-2009, 12:23 PM
I dont think we are gonna see that. Arians believes that you can get 4 yards by passing the football, just as easy as you can by running the football. I bet we see more of Ben in shotgun as a staple of the offense. Steeler nation is gonna be grumpy with that in the upcoming season.

some of steeler nation will always be grumpy with something:noidea:

lamberts-lost-tooth
02-17-2009, 12:26 PM
Regardless of whether or not the Steelers are a zone or man blocking team, there were significant schematic changes to the way the OL blocks under Zierlein from Grimm. The lineman themselves admitted there were some transitional problems.

Yep..its called trying to find a "work-around" because you ignored your O-line needs and now do not have the correct personnel for the scheme you are designed for.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-17-2009, 12:33 PM
Regardless of whether or not the Steelers are a zone or man blocking team, there were significant schematic changes to the way the OL blocks under Zierlein from Grimm. The lineman themselves admitted there were some transitional problems.

Could you please eleborate on these significant schematic changes?? I there a link to what they were??

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-17-2009, 02:32 PM
Could you please eleborate on these significant schematic changes?? I there a link to what they were??
OK, since nobody can tell me what these "significant schematic changes" were. I will have to answer my own question. There were almost none! If anything, Coach Z tried to adapt to what the O-line was already doing.

"I liked how Coach Z came in," Simmons said. "He didn't try to change everything that we do. He did a nice job compromising with us. It was like, 'We're going to work together. You guys work with me on trying to incorporate some of these new things, and I'll work with you on what you like to do and do best.' I liked that. I think all of us did."

"I (Zeirline) didn't want to come in and make wholesale changes," he said. "I changed some technique things, but there was no need to change the system. I looked at how the players did things and I tried to learn their words, their lingo. Their system didn't need fixed. It's not like the wheel was broken.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07271/821211-87.stm

lamberts-lost-tooth
02-17-2009, 02:43 PM
OK, since nobody can tell me what these "significant schematic changes" were. I will have to answer my own question. There were almost none! If anything, Coach Z tried to adapt to what the O-line was already doing.

"I liked how Coach Z came in," Simmons said. "He didn't try to change everything that we do. He did a nice job compromising with us. It was like, 'We're going to work together. You guys work with me on trying to incorporate some of these new things, and I'll work with you on what you like to do and do best.' I liked that. I think all of us did."

"I (Zeirline) didn't want to come in and make wholesale changes," he said. "I changed some technique things, but there was no need to change the system. I looked at how the players did things and I tried to learn their words, their lingo. Their system didn't need fixed. It's not like the wheel was broken.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07271/821211-87.stm



There was never a problem with the scheme...there has not been changes to the scheme..

......as I said

its called trying to find a "work-around" because you ignored your O-line needs and now do not have the correct personnel for the scheme you are designed for.

The difference is the personnel...and finding the right players to plug into the scheme.

revefsreleets
02-17-2009, 07:07 PM
So what exactly was Alan Faneca rebelling against then?

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-17-2009, 07:20 PM
So what exactly was Alan Faneca rebelling against then?

If I seem to remember correctly he wanted to be paid a huge contract or traded or released.

"You go somewhere, you've been here for nine years; to do what I've done to help this team out. The things I've done for this team ... and the offer I get is pretty much a non-offer. What am I to think? What are the guys in this room to think? If they can do it to me and everybody else and let Joey [Porter] go and do things like that, what does that say to the rest of the guys?"

Faneca said he's talked to "everyone" in the front office, including Art Rooney, Dan Rooney and Kevin Colbert.

"I've been asking since February, to trade me, to let me go,'' Faneca said in such an emotional interview that at times his left hand was shaking slightly. "I've done my piece, I've done my time, I've done everything I can for this organization.

"I lived and breathed Steelers football for nine years and gave them everything I had, helped them win a Super Bowl. In my mind, I've earned the right to be treated fairly. To make me go out there this year, play football with no security ... for what I've done for this organization, in my mind is not right."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07131/785306-66.stm

The "significant schematic changes" that Faneca was rebelling against were that the Rooney's were blocking the Benjamin's from his wallet........not any blocking that Coach Z was changing.

revefsreleets
02-17-2009, 07:40 PM
So Grimm leaving had no bearing on his decision?

Faneca just went right along with Z's changes? Oh, wait, I forgot There WERE no changes.

Riiiight.

SteelShooter
02-17-2009, 07:57 PM
Faneca wanted money, plain and simple. No "significant changes" were there. He wanted a big check and found it in New Jersey.....but it appears there will be no more rings in his future.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-18-2009, 12:00 AM
So Grimm leaving had no bearing on his decision?

Faneca just went right along with Z's changes? Oh, wait, I forgot There WERE no changes.

Riiiight.

The transitional problems, if any were because Faneca and maybe Smith thought that Grimm should have been the head coach, Sean Mahan was the new center and Willie Colon, the new RT. Not any "significant schematic changes" as you have said.

If you meant roster changes, I agree, but if you meant that Zeirline suddenly changed them to an Alex Gibbs style Zone blocking scheme, then I disagree because that never happened.

revefsreleets
02-18-2009, 10:29 AM
I see. So Z just incorporated Grimm's schemes and there were no changes at all.

Source?

I found this:
http://news.steelers.com/article/92062/

there was some resistance to the changes Zierlein brough

“I think Coach Zierlein took a blow. He wanted to establish his system,” said Colon. “They put the reins on him as far as having such a veteran group. He held back some. His time is this year. We had all spring and OTAs learning what he wants us to do and we have to come in and perfect it.”

But he did point out how some just weren’t ready or willing to make a change.

“Any time you have a new coach come in it’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks,” said Colon. “It doesn’t work like that. With Alan (Faneca) gone it’s a new year, a new ship. There are a lot of guys on deck. Alan is gone and we all realize that. Coach Zeirlien is the boss and we all realize that.”

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-18-2009, 11:19 AM
I see. So Z just incorporated Grimm's schemes and there were no changes at all.

Source?



“They put the reins on him as far as having such a veteran group. .”

Zierlein is quoted below in the Post-Gazette as saying he didn't change the system, he changed some technique things. Offensive line technique is much different than "significant schematic changes" which you unknowingly guessed at.

Zierlein, who has been coaching for 38 years, might not be much of a computer genius, but he's clearly no dummy.

"I didn't want to come in and make wholesale changes," he said. "I changed some technique things, but there was no need to change the system. I looked at how the players did things and I tried to learn their words, their lingo. Their system didn't need fixed. It's not like the wheel was broken.

"Russ did a good job here." http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07271/821211-87.stm

Kendall Simmons is quoted below as saying that Z didnt try to change everything. Possibly because he had the reins put on him as Colon said, but probably more like they wanted continuity like with the promotion of Arians to OC.

"I liked how Coach Z came in," Simmons said. "He didn't try to change everything that we do.

My understanding is that all Coach Z did was focus on some technique things which Grimm was admittedly lacking on. For instance, Zeirline might have Colon step with his left foot first and target his hand placement on the left side of the DT's chestplate to block for an outside pitch. Grimm would just tell Colon......."Block down on the D-tackle"!

The guy is a teacher and a technician apparantly, where the previous O line coach was just one of the guys.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-18-2009, 11:33 AM
A 10 year vet like Faneca probably didnt like being told how to block by the new coach, even though his technique had gotten sloppy due to lack of focus on it by the previous coach.

Many astute people on this board had recognized that Faneca's play the past couple seasons had slipped. He probably didnt wanna hear it and have it pointed out by Coach Z.

Either way, its not a schematic change. Draw up a toss right against an odd man defensive front and see how many schematic variations you can come up with. I can think of a few off the top of my head, but Coach Z said he didnt do that because, "There system didnt need fixed, its not like the wheel was broken".

lamberts-lost-tooth
02-18-2009, 11:52 AM
A 10 year vet like Faneca probably didnt like being told how to block by the new coach, even though his technique had gotten sloppy due to lack of focus on it by the previous coach.

Many astute people on this board had recognized that Faneca's play the past couple seasons had slipped. He probably didnt wanna hear it and have it pointed out by Coach Z.

Either way, its not a schematic change. Draw up a toss right against an odd man defensive front and see how many schematic variations you can come up with. I can think of a few off the top of my head, but Coach Z said he didnt do that because, "There system didnt need fixed, its not like the wheel was broken".

I think that even the casual fan knew that Faneca was resistant to any kind of change at all...and could be something of a whiner when asked to so. I think he was INCREDIBLY TALENTED...and loved what he did on the field...but his off the field personality left alot to be desired.

revefsreleets
02-18-2009, 11:54 AM
What can I say to a guy who's never once been wrong about anything?

So you are saying there were no transitional problems at all when Grimm left and Z stepped in?

tony hipchest
02-18-2009, 12:02 PM
already posted this but its relevant here-

here you had faneca, smith, simmons who's coach, friend, drinking buddy(?) was essentially shown the door and replaced by an old man who gained their respect by sending porn to everybody in the nfl.

im sure he's still the butt of jokes for that.

i think it was colon who suggested that a core group wasnt on board with the changes that were being made.


and what were these changes?

heard an interview with marvel smith today. he said his greatest coach ever was russ grimm. said he made coming to work fun, and that he was just one of the guys, like a fellow lineman as opposed to a coach. said he never came across as an authorative figure and wasnt demanding. he was a fun guy to hang around with.

i just about got the feeling that it was almost boarderline taking shots at his current coach.
looks like the veterans lost their fishing buddy and could no longer loaf around at practice. perhaps they didnt like larry z demanding they condition themselves.

i think the biggest change is they were no longer gonna be the spoiled brats/teachers pet of the team.

tomlin didnt let hampton get away with that shit, so why would tomlin allow larrys unit to continue and get away with it?

so basically the older "grimm crowd" got fat, happy, lazy and content (especially after the SB) whereas the younger guys (such as colon were coming in, embracing the competition and winning jobs they had no business winning).

you see this all over on the defensive side of the ball. harrison, woodley, mcfadden, now timmons. none of our younger linemen under grimm were able to win shit. (essex, kemoeatu, okobi etc.)

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-18-2009, 12:12 PM
What can I say to a guy who's never once been wrong about anything?

So you are saying there were no transitional problems at all when Grimm left and Z stepped in?

No, I am saying that there were no "significant schematic changes" which is what you said there was.

I have openly posted I was wrong about the draft of Bryant McFadden. I thought Nate Washington would be replacing Hines Ward by next season back in 2004 and many other things.

Yet you are unable to admit that there were no "significan schematic changes" to the offensive blocking schemes, because you dont know what those schemes would look like. Way to sack up and admitt you were wrong. :thumbsup:

revefsreleets
02-18-2009, 12:19 PM
Grimm hardly ever zone blocked.

Z incorporates situational zone blocking.

Does THAT not constitute a schematic change?

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-18-2009, 03:43 PM
Grimm hardly ever zone blocked.

Z incorporates situational zone blocking.

Does THAT not constitute a schematic change?
It would be so much easier if you just admitted you are wrong and are not really sure what zone blocking is. Since you are the guy that will "sack up and admitt it".

Here is a copy of a chat transcript with Jeff Hartings from 2004 where he lays out some of Russ Grimm's situational Zone blocking.


BGI Interview: Jeff Hartings
Friday, October 08, 2004
By Gerry Dulac, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Q: Is the line doing more zone blocking this year?

HARTINGS: I think so far we are. I kind of feel that's a result of the 3-4 teams, playing in a pond (in Miami), where I wasn't real enthused about pulling a whole lot and I don't think the guards were, either, and that's 3 out of 4 games. Last week we zone blocked really well.

Q: Did you start doing more of it last year because of all the juggling on the offensive line?

HARTINGS: We definitely did more of it last year. It's just easier. It's take a step and go, read the defense. That's what a lot of teams do nowadays. We still like to man block and we're going to do our share of it

Q: What is the advantage of zone blocking versus man blocking?

HARTINGS: Man blocking, you want to create a hole. It's basically a down block and try to hit that hole where one or two guys are creating a wall. In zone blocking, it's probably most difficult for the back because the back has to ride it out and hit the cutback. You have a back who's really good at that, zone blocking is a good scheme.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04282/392600-66.stm

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-18-2009, 03:55 PM
Grimm hardly ever zone blocked.

Now..............wasnt Grimm the O line coach in 2004???? It appears by what Jeff Hartings said back then, that they did zone block.

and you think DACEB and I think we know everything. :chuckle:

revefsreleets
02-19-2009, 08:59 AM
I was wrong. Apparently Z did not change the system very much. That makes the OL situation WORSE, not better, because that excuse is no longer applicable. I was hoping to give them the benefit of the doubt...

(Not the first time I was wrong and admitted it, and certainly won't be the last)

Happy?

You can add this to your list of deflections and diversions from the actual topic in the Arians thread...

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-19-2009, 10:02 AM
I was wrong. Apparently Z did not change the system very much. That makes the OL situation WORSE, not better, because that excuse is no longer applicable. I was hoping to give them the benefit of the doubt...

(Not the first time I was wrong and admitted it, and certainly won't be the last)

Happy?

You can add this to your list of deflections and diversions from the actual topic in the Arians thread...



I dont think his not changing the system made things worse, I just dont think he has the talent on the line(compared to 2004) and doesnt inspire the current group to play beyond expectations.

Actually, I am not really ......happy that you said you were wrong, but happy that you can admitt it. You seem to be able to call other peoples arguements stupid or retarded without hesitation, but reluctant to recognize the shortcomings of your own arguements at times.

I dont think I deflected or diverted at all in this thread. Its about the different schemes and I was trying to clarify that we dont run a pure zone block scheme and its pretty much the same as what Grimm used to run.

I posted a couple direct quotes of myself admitting I was wrong......................I'm just glad that you proved to be a man of your word and "sacked up" on this thread. We all make mistakes.

revefsreleets
02-19-2009, 10:41 AM
You seem to be able to call other peoples arguements stupid or retarded without hesitation, but reluctant to recognize the shortcomings of your own arguements at times.

I dont think I deflected or diverted at all in this thread.

There are hundreds of stupid posts on these borads every day. Most of them are self-evident. Some people are worse than others (DACEB comes to mind). All I ask is that if you are going to blast me, prove what you are saying. I do it. You did it to me, and I admitted I was wrong.

You didn't deflect in this thread. But every post in the Arians thread that brings up irrelevant nonsense from other threads, that has nothing to do with either supporting or critiquing Bruce Arians, is either a diversion, a deflection or an ad hominem falacy.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-19-2009, 11:36 AM
You didn't deflect in this thread. But every post in the Arians thread that brings up irrelevant nonsense from other threads, that has nothing to do with either supporting or critiquing Bruce Arians, is either a diversion, a deflection or an ad hominem falacy.

Sorry, but you are the one that sidetracked the Arians thread by trying to put words in my mouth and stating that I would be a better OC than Arians. Here is how it went....check it out if you need to.


-You stated in the Arians thread that .....give this guy (Arians) and offensive line and we will tear this league apart

- I disagreed and said if you give him a good o-line that we would still be ranked around 15th in the NFL in total offense. Chan Gailey or Norv Turner would be better O Coordinators.

-YOU then brought up "irrelevant nonsense" that deflected from the discussion at hand by saying to me ....You are, by proxy, saying YOU would be a more capable OC than Arians

Sorry, but I was just trying to talk football and you were just trying to bring up irrelevant nonsense by incorrectly pretending to know what I think.

revefsreleets
02-19-2009, 12:27 PM
Sorry, but you are the one that sidetracked the Arians thread by trying to put words in my mouth and stating that I would be a better OC than Arians. Here is how it went....check it out if you need to.


-You stated in the Arians thread that .....give this guy (Arians) and offensive line and we will tear this league apart

- I disagreed and said if you give him a good o-line that we would still be ranked around 15th in the NFL in total offense. Chan Gailey or Norv Turner would be better O Coordinators.

-YOU then brought up "irrelevant nonsense" that deflected from the discussion at hand by saying to me ....You are, by proxy, saying YOU would be a more capable OC than Arians

Sorry, but I was just trying to talk football and you were just trying to bring up irrelevant nonsense by incorrectly pretending to know what I think.

Fact: Gailey and Turner have been available in the last few years
Fact: The Steelers did not hire them as OC's
Fact: The Steelers retained Bruce Arians
Fact: The Steelers COULD have hired either and did not
Fact: You are implying that you know more than the Steelers FO, since you insist on making weird and wild statements (none of which can ever be proven)about what other OC's would be able to do given the same circumstances.

I bring the whole "you know more than Arians" to the table because you constantly second guess his playcalling, offensive strategy, and general offensive philosophy, and you do it with a tone of derision and an air of superiority which implies that you, a high school line coach, are a more capable OC than Arians.

I'm not even stating that you don't know what you're talking about. You actually bring a lot of keen insight to the table. But BA has probbaly forgotten 10X as much about the game of football as you'll ever know, and you (and MANY others here) can't seem to accept that. He's an NFL OC (and now a Super Bowl winning one, to boot) for a reason. You, and your compatriots, are not, and that's also for a good reason.

As for deflection, sorting through my old posts about Cowher brought exactly WHAT to the table in the Arians thread? It was what it was, and that's an attempt by you to attack me, and not my argument. Ad hominem attack.

I'll go round and round and round with you and DECAB and anyone else who wants to join in the fun for the next year if you want.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-19-2009, 12:58 PM
Fact: Gailey and Turner have been available in the last few years
Fact: The Steelers did not hire them as OC's
Fact: The Steelers retained Bruce Arians
Fact: The Steelers COULD have hired either and did not
Fact: You are implying that you know more than the Steelers FO, since you insist on making weird and wild statements (none of which can ever be proven)about what other OC's would be able to do given the same circumstances.

I bring the whole "you know more than Arians" to the table because you constantly second guess his playcalling, offensive strategy, and general offensive philosophy, and you do it with a tone of derision and an air of superiority which implies that you, a high school line coach, are a more capable OC than Arians.

I'm not even stating that you don't know what you're talking about. You actually bring a lot of keen insight to the table. But BA has probbaly forgotten 10X as much about the game of football as you'll ever know, and you (and MANY others here) can't seem to accept that. He's an NFL OC (and now a Super Bowl winning one, to boot) for a reason. You, and your compatriots, are not, and that's also for a good reason.

As for deflection, sorting through my old posts about Cowher brought exactly WHAT to the table in the Arians thread? It was what it was, and that's an attempt by you to attack me, and not my argument. Ad hominem attack.

I'll go round and round and round with you and DECAB and anyone else who wants to join in the fun for the next year if you want.

This is what I take exception with you about. You say that I make "weird and wild statements(which cant be proven)" and feel that is a basis for somehow putting words in my mouth. Yet you make statements like "significant schematic changes" were made to the O line (which can and have been proven wrong), yet defend them because you cant stand to admitt you were wrong.

The statement that Gailey or Turner would be better coordinators than Arians is an opinion and one that I believe in. I never for one second have thought that I would be a better OC than anybody and know that there are over 32 NFL O-line coaches and hundreds better than I in the NCAA.

Bringing your incorrect statements about the Browns coaching situation to the Arians thread goes to support the credibility of your football opinions. That is all the Arians thread that you started is .........your opinion. I attack your arguement of Arians and opinion of him as that of somebody that does not know offensive philosophy and schemes, but just trusts that somebody knows what they are doing.

I stand by the record that Arians offenses wherever he has gone have struggled in short yardage situations and if he was as great of a coach as you state.....he should be able to recognize and fix those things. I intuitively think he struggles with the same problem that you do......being too proud to admitt that he is wrong and then be able to improve.

I can go round and round all year too, but would rather talk football and not call peoples opinions or arguements stupid (which I don't do), nor divert threads by putting words in their mouth.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-19-2009, 01:12 PM
But BA has probbaly forgotten 10X as much about the game of football as you'll ever know, and you (and MANY others here) can't seem to accept that. He's an NFL OC (and now a Super Bowl winning one, to boot) for a reason. You, and your compatriots, are not, and that's also for a good reason.
.
THIS is what you dont understand about coaching. I wholeheartedly agree that guys like Arians know way more about football than I do......its their JOB!!! That is why I goto coaching clinics to learn from guys like that and improve the way I coach kids.

But, no coach knows everything about football and most that are great coaches are always interested in hearing about any new tips they can find that work. Admittedly I always can learn 10x more from pro coaches than they can learn from me, but it doesnt mean that amateaur football coaches dont know what they are doing.

I have shared tips with former Steelers special teams coach and a BYU line coach which they have used, because they are open to trying something that might work for them. It doesnt mean that I think I am a NCAA or NFL caliber coach, but just that I have valid ideas.

Kind of a myopic view to think that anybody that is not an NFL O coordinator doesnt know what they are talking about.........dont you think??

revefsreleets
02-20-2009, 09:05 AM
THIS is what you dont understand about coaching. I wholeheartedly agree that guys like Arians know way more about football than I do......its their JOB!!! That is why I goto coaching clinics to learn from guys like that and improve the way I coach kids.

But, no coach knows everything about football and most that are great coaches are always interested in hearing about any new tips they can find that work. Admittedly I always can learn 10x more from pro coaches than they can learn from me, but it doesnt mean that amateaur football coaches dont know what they are doing.

I have shared tips with former Steelers special teams coach and a BYU line coach which they have used, because they are open to trying something that might work for them. It doesnt mean that I think I am a NCAA or NFL caliber coach, but just that I have valid ideas.

Kind of a myopic view to think that anybody that is not an NFL O coordinator doesnt know what they are talking about.........dont you think??

New vocabulary word for ya...so there's that.

If you didn't/don't/won't understand what I was doing with the whole Cowher thing, how can you continue to "use it against me"?

I'm gonna try this one more time...

1st off, read Arians comments after the Eagles game. He took 100% blame. So you're way off on that one. He made adjustments accordingly, and the results are there on the field for all to see.

2nd, you're right, it IS the guys job. Now, I watch the same games you do, and I see us doing different things every week. It's not like the dude brings the same gameplan every week. We ran the ball some weeks more than we passed, and vice versa. We ran a FB some weeks and other weeks not so much. It's NOT like the guy never varied the plan.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, the guy has opposing DC's counter-strategizing every week. THIS is the thing that arm-chair QB's either don't get or gloss over. You guys always oversimplify things based on your own limited knowledge. Arians literally has HUNDREDS of plays in his arsenal, formations he never even used, stuff that he could NOT employ due to the ineptitude of his line.

By all accounts Arians runs an EXTREMLY complex offense...so complex that he had to dumb it down some this year. Now if his NFL-caliber players have trouble with it, why would a bunch of ham-n-eggers on a MB, MOST with extremely limited knowledge of the nuances of the game, be in a better position to criticize? "We mock what we don't understand" seems aporopos.

Anyway, I've had my say. The Steelers retained Arians for yet another year. Provided they upgrade their line, I expect the offense to be much more proficient. Ben will have yet another year under the system, so, ostensibly, the unit should be able to open up more of the playbook. The difficulty of doing what I do, by trying to project and guesstimate versus utilizing perfect pinpoint 20/20 hindsight (the haters favorite weapon) is obvious. It's MUCH harder to guess, much easier to look back and say "That didn't work, this was wrong, yada, yada, yada..."

But I'm positive time will prove me right. I stated earlier that this team, given it's mediocre to poor line, could win the SB if they managed to play at even an average level. They did that. I will continually maintain that Arians was EXTREMELY instrumental of that by making the most of what little he had to work with up front. That's my position.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-20-2009, 11:18 AM
Arians stood up and took the blame after the Eagles game as a good leader. He actually wasnt the guy that should have taken most of the heat, but he didnt make the halftime adjustments needed and I commended him for his actions.

As for your implying that I have limited football knowledge.....I would say compared to NFL coaches I have substantially less than them, but compared to a MB poster such as yourself that doesnt know the difference between a zone block and man block ...........I would say its clear to most on this board who is more knowledgeable about football.

Now if the question is who is better suited to be a defense lawyer, I would say you are. You can defend a topic that is completely false and has been demonstrated to be incorrect with such blind vigor that its all at once impressive and disturbing.

You could convincingly argue that Jason Williams didnt shoot the limo driver, that OJ didnt do it, or that we never landed on the moon.............and convince yourself that you are correct.

revefsreleets
02-20-2009, 11:38 AM
As for your implying that I have limited football knowledge.....I would say compared to NFL coaches I have substantially less than them, but compared to a MB poster such as yourself that doesnt know the difference between a zone block and man block ...........I would say its clear to most on this board who is more knowledgeable about football..

I never specifically accused you...it's you who have chosen to cast your lot with a group largely made up of people who simply don't know much about football.

Cute "attack" about me not knowing the difference between zone blocking versus man blocking. It's A) Wrong, B) ANOTHER attempt at diversion and C) Again, irrelevant because it's wrong.

Your superior intellect about the game of football has been duly noted...it's interesting to watch you step on me to elevate your own position though.

Now if the question is who is better suited to be a defense lawyer, I would say you are. You can defend a topic that is completely false and has been demonstrated to be incorrect with such blind vigor that its all at once impressive and disturbing.

You could convincingly argue that Jason Williams didnt shoot the limo driver, that OJ didnt do it, or that we never landed on the moon.............and convince yourself that you are correct.

Twisted logic. And, ONCE AGAIN, completely irrelevant, diversionary, and an attack on me, my knowledge of the game, and my character, but completely devoid of any real substance or anything actually having to do with the topic at hand. I don't mind, though...it's entertaining to watch a guy slowly lose it post after post.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-20-2009, 12:02 PM
Your superior intellect about the game of football has been duly noted...it's interesting to watch you step on me to elevate your own position though.

.
Revs, quite honestly I dont try to elevate my position by stepping on you. I just find it unpleasant that you can at times verball attack other posters so aggressively and call their arguements or opinions "stupid", "retarded" and "myopic"........when you at times are guilty of making a false assumption like that there were "significant schematic changes".

Many of the posters on this board are just steeler fans and want to discuss football. Sure, we don't know everything and I think few on here pretend they do....they just speak their "opinions". When you jump all over them, it just starts a natural defense and escalated arguement which ususally ends up with the moderators telling somebody to cool it.

I honestly have just been jousting with you :duel: to hopefully give you some of what you give to other posters and hopefully make you realize that we all make mistakes and to accept them instead of lashing out at each other. Some of them PM me to applaud my efforts because they dont want to get in a shouting match with you, as it serves no purpose.

I'm done for now. I just wish you could tolerate or ignore posts that you find to be less than insightful instead of starting verbal wars and enraging other posters to the point of juvenille name calling.

Peace out brother!

revefsreleets
02-20-2009, 12:14 PM
Revs, quite honestly I dont try to elevate my position by stepping on you. I just find it unpleasant that you can at times verball attack other posters so aggressively and call their arguements or opinions "stupid", "retarded" and "myopic"........when you at times are guilty of making a false assumption like that there were "significant schematic changes".

Many of the posters on this board are just steeler fans and want to discuss football. Sure, we don't know everything and I think few on here pretend they do....they just speak their "opinions". When you jump all over them, it just starts a natural defense and escalated arguement which ususally ends up with the moderators telling somebody to cool it.

I honestly have just been jousting with you :duel: to hopefully give you some of what you give to other posters and hopefully make you realize that we all make mistakes and to accept them instead of lashing out at each other. Some of them PM me to applaud my efforts because they dont want to get in a shouting match with you, as it serves no purpose.

I'm done for now. I just wish you could tolerate or ignore posts that you find to be less than insightful instead of starting verbal wars and enraging other posters to the point of juvenille name calling.

Peace out brother!

Ah, the "anonymous cheerleaders". It's been awhile since they mobilized...

A dose of my own medicine. That's cool. The difference is, you don't ever see me whining or pissing or moaning, or complaining aloud (or quietly to the mods) about any of it. I state my opinions, then I go out and I find stuff to back it. If I'm full of shit I admit it.

(edit: Actually, have to clarify that. I did complain about that asshat NYC who kept telling me he wanted to shit in my mouth. That sunk to new lows for this board)

I'm still waiting to see where I personally attacked anyone, or got into any shouting matches with anyone. I'm wide open for debate with anyone on anything, but I'm not gonna sit there and listen to idiots waste my time, ESPECIALLY if I take the time to do a little fact checking, source a few things, post some articles and stuff. That is NOT a reference to you.

THIS was actually pretty spirited and interesting debate. I had to pack my lunch, and I appreciate that. It made my early afternoon interesting.

But you aren't going to teach me any lessons. I've been doing this for a long time. :hatsoff:

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-20-2009, 01:47 PM
But you aren't going to teach me any lessons. I've been doing this for a long time. :hatsoff:

I'm not looking to teach you anything. I was hoping you would learn about yourself. :noidea:

Self awareness and self improvement is a positive thing. The love of conflict and denial of its impact on others is not. I hope you leave most of this kind arguing here in this board, because it doesnt normally translate into healthy personal relationships with others in the real world.

cheers. :drink:

markymarc
02-21-2009, 10:34 PM
I never specifically accused you...it's you who have chosen to cast your lot with a group largely made up of people who simply don't know much about football.

Who are you to question who does and doesn't know football?

revefsreleets
02-24-2009, 09:44 AM
I'm not looking to teach you anything. I was hoping you would learn about yourself. :noidea:

Self awareness and self improvement is a positive thing. The love of conflict and denial of its impact on others is not. I hope you leave most of this kind arguing here in this board, because it doesnt normally translate into healthy personal relationships with others in the real world.

cheers. :drink:

Thank you for the dimestore psychoanalysis, Dr. Freud.

Save it.