Defeating Zone Blocking- Creating the Wall

jmfb

Banned
Barret Ruud does a much better job of explaining it than I can:

"The two gap system is what Bo has favored since he returned to Nebraska as Head Coach in 2008. In the two gap system, the defensive linemen align head up to an offensive lineman and are responsible for the gap to either side of them, hence "two gap" (ex if a Nose tackle aligns over a center, he is responsible for both of the A gaps). Traditional two gap 3-4 defenses also had linebackers responsible for playing two gaps over the guards, but since the advent of the spread, they typically aren't responsible for playing both gaps head up on a guard. The modern linebacker playing behind a two gapping defensive line has to be very patient and able to flow to the ball as the defensive linemen occupy offensive linemen.

The positives of this system are that offenses have much more trouble scheming for them because they won't know what the final fits will look like, a well played two gap system looks like a built-up wall, so a RB isn't always sure where the seam will be. It also allows the defenders to be less burdened by run fits, so they're a little more free to flow to the ball, and don't have to have the structure that a one gap system has (a little less thinking for LBs and Safeties on exactly where they have to fit).

The negatives are that you need physically talented players to execute the system well. Your defensive lineman have to have the ability to separate from blocks and make tackles in their area, and Linebackers must have a natural feel for where a running back is heading and the instincts to play off his D Linemen in front of him."

So with zone, we talked about earlier moves the gaps and 1 gap players get moved a bit further past the direction they want to go via horizintal blocks- usually in tandem with 2 offensive linemen. These moving creases allow the zone running back to find daylight in an area. When the running back has no clue where the crease is and a "wall" is created- as you dont have guys flying upfield creating big creases- the zone run is less effective. So while we all get frustrated when we see our D getting gashed- just 1 gapping, flying up the field and hoping for the best- MIGHT not always be the best answer. SOme logic behind why Bo does what he does.

http://www.huddlepas...l/feature/20471

 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK....I'll admit, I have not been a fan of the two gap system and in general, the scheme our from 5-7 players play. Here is one of my main questions:

The idea is that the D linemen are going to occupy the O linemen so the LBs can flow to the ball and make the play. Obviously, if the D lineman can make the play too that's great.

So...let's say we play with our normal 4 D linemen and get spread out so we have one LB. They then have 5 O linemen. That's 5 on 5. I know, that means one D lineman needs to take up a double team. Well, my opinion is that this will work fine against the Illinoisss, Purdues, SDSUs...etc. of the world where Our D linemen are probably more talented than their O linemen. BUT, when you get to a program where the talent is very even or maybe they have a better talented O lineman compared to our D linemen, then the double team doesn't happen and it is much easier for an O linemen to get to the second level. When we only have one LB, that spells disaster.

I know we have discussed this at length but it is very important to increase the numbers up front to stop the run.

Also...back to two gap. Again....I have never been a fan of this. Isn't it easier for one O linemen to block one D lineman in this scheme? Personally, I would think it would cause more double teams if you had a D lineman that was controlling one gap and trying everything he can to get through hat one gap and into the back field.

 
Posting an article link, but not explaining why the concept is used to defeat a moving gap defense and zone blocking is of little use to most

 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK....I'll admit, I have not been a fan of the two gap system and in general, the scheme our from 5-7 players play. Here is one of my main questions:

The idea is that the D linemen are going to occupy the O linemen so the LBs can flow to the ball and make the play. Obviously, if the D lineman can make the play too that's great.

So...let's say we play with our normal 4 D linemen and get spread out so we have one LB. They then have 5 O linemen. That's 5 on 5. I know, that means one D lineman needs to take up a double team. Well, my opinion is that this will work fine against the Illinoisss, Purdues, SDSUs...etc. of the world where Our D linemen are probably more talented than their O linemen. BUT, when you get to a program where the talent is very even or maybe they have a better talented O lineman compared to our D linemen, then the double team doesn't happen and it is much easier for an O linemen to get to the second level. When we only have one LB, that spells disaster.

I know we have discussed this at length but it is very important to increase the numbers up front to stop the run.

Also...back to two gap. Again....I have never been a fan of this. Isn't it easier for one O linemen to block one D lineman in this scheme? Personally, I would think it would cause more double teams if you had a D lineman that was controlling one gap and trying everything he can to get through hat one gap and into the back field.
I understand and share your frustration

Your 1 LB question is one I think EZE spoke about in a thread about our defense. Yes, difficult to defend and when it's a zone read with 10 personell, they have 5 blocking 4- because 1 is purposely left unblocked, then there are 2 possible ball carriers. Its why NU gets gashed on that repeatedly until they drop a safety down

As to your second question- when you are running zone, you will always have double teams on that first level DT defender to start with until one leaves for a LB- IMO its almost always a MUCH easier block to make from the side than head up, as you dont have to take on the players full body, you attack a half. Knocking him off his intended path a bit HORIZONTALLY and creating a crease is much easier than taking on 100% of his body and trying to take him vertical. Hope that makes sense.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jm beat me to it.

BigRed - if you watch SDSU tape you find this exact scenario play out. As we talked about in a PM, I think SJB is a guy you can leave on an island especially on running down and distances. That would allow us to move a safety into the box.

 
The more I see of these schemes, the more I think it's just a matter of semantics. Put Rich Glover there, it's a great scheme...Elmer Peabody, it's not worth a damn. If our guy torpedos through and trips the runner before he gets up a head of steam, it's a great defense....if he gets held and the runner goes by like he's not there, it sucks.

 
Back
Top