Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

There goes our run game.

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:01 am
  • Chop blocks are now illegal. Is Tom Cable obsolete?
    "It's about us getting ready to play. It's not about the other team. We'll beat ourselves before they beat us. That's always our approach."

    Pete Carroll
    User avatar
    Mick063
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 925
    Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:11 pm


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:06 am
  • No, because cut blocks are still allowed.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 5778
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:10 am
  • In other words, our run game is dependent on judgement calls?
    "It's about us getting ready to play. It's not about the other team. We'll beat ourselves before they beat us. That's always our approach."

    Pete Carroll
    User avatar
    Mick063
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 925
    Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:11 pm


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:22 am
  • Mick063 wrote:In other words, our run game is dependent on judgement calls?


    The difference between a cut and a chop is pretty clear. And all actions on a football field are judgement calls.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 5778
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:35 am
  • From Rappoport's twitter:
    Image

    And yes, cut blocks are still allowed. The ZBS will not go away. Try not to get too incendiary too quickly. The sky is not falling.
    User avatar
    jdemps
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 846
    Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:11 pm
    Location: SF bay area, shaping young minds with a tinge of Hawk homerism


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:50 am
  • It's all good. Minimal impact on the Hawks running game.
    kobebryant
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2209
    Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 1:45 pm


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:26 am
  • Uhh this is actually good for this O-line, because Cable because chop and cut blocks are about timing and technique. While they are effective when implemented how many times have when seen players completely whiff on thier assigment. I rather players use the old-fashion way and just pancake players to take them out of plays.

    The most effective runs from what I remember are plays in which guys totally dominate one on one blocks off the ball and drove thier guys downfield. If these means more of that, I think it will do well for a young O-line that has one or two less techniques to implement that doesnt work all to well if your just diving at air.

    This will definately challenge the Seahawks way of imposing the physicality and fear based mental game of an opponent worring about thier knees.

    But I like the idea of just putting classic one on one blocks on the opponent and imposing consistent sucessful blocks rather the hit or miss nature of trying to create holes by creating a pile away from the ball. Its highly effective when it works but completely useless when it doesnt.
    WE ALL WE GOT, WE ALL WE NEED!!!!!!!!!!!
    Pandion Haliaetus
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3212
    Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:07 pm


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 12:37 pm
  • ??? I thought chop blocks were already illegal....
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4041
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 12:49 pm
  • Saw this from Pat Kirwan (I immediately thought Pete Carroll, Pat's buddy vs Tom Cable's view):

    Leon Washington 2010-2012 Red Bryant 2008-2013 Golden Tate 2010-2013 Breno Giacomini 2011-2013 - Gone but not forgotten.
    R.I.P Les "PithyRadish" Norton 9/13/2014
    User avatar
    drdiags
    * The Doc *
     
    Posts: 10682
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:33 am
    Location: Kent, Washington


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 12:59 pm
  • fenderbender123 wrote:??? I thought chop blocks were already illegal....

    Yes mostly they were already illegal. Now they are totally illegal. I'm sure that the posters who are more knowledgeable about Xs and Os could explain the nuances but it doesn't seem to be a big change. You can still cut block as long as the defender is not engaged by another blocker above the waist.
    User avatar
    naholmes
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 301
    Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:02 pm


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:07 pm
  • fenderbender123 wrote:??? I thought chop blocks were already illegal....



    Only in specific instances, like RBs or offensive lineman not immediately next to each other, etc.
    User avatar
    FlyHawksFly
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1607
    Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:23 pm


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:50 pm
  • Here's one example of an (illegal) chop block:
    http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/10/calais- ... ius-thomas

    I'd like to think our OL doesn't rely on chop blocks, but really have no idea.
    In any case, the timing of the rule change allows us to make any draft plan adjustments. We'll no longer be looking for guys who can chop block? Lol, chop blocks have been illegal in college football since 1980, according to Wikipedia, so not like we were scouting that anyway.
    2017 Adopt-A-Rookie: Chris Carson
    User avatar
    olyfan63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1928
    Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:03 am


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:56 pm
  • olyfan63 wrote:Here's one example of an (illegal) chop block:
    http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/10/calais- ... ius-thomas

    I'd like to think our OL doesn't rely on chop blocks, but really have no idea.
    In any case, the timing of the rule change allows us to make any draft plan adjustments. We'll no longer be looking for guys who can chop block? Lol, chop blocks have been illegal in college football since 1980, according to Wikipedia, so not like we were scouting that anyway.



    Pretty much all ZBS teams rely on chop blocks.
    User avatar
    FlyHawksFly
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1607
    Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:23 pm


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:58 pm
  • olyfan63 wrote:Here's one example of an (illegal) chop block:
    http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/10/calais- ... ius-thomas

    I'd like to think our OL doesn't rely on chop blocks, but really have no idea.
    In any case, the timing of the rule change allows us to make any draft plan adjustments. We'll no longer be looking for guys who can chop block? Lol, chop blocks have been illegal in college football since 1980, according to Wikipedia, so not like we were scouting that anyway.

    Pretty good demo of the illegal block. I think there used to be a technicality that the blocked player had to be engaged high for it to technically be an "illegal chop block" but it has been modified, I guess, because of that kind of situation, where the rusher is being set up-"lured"- for the high block and then hit low.

    Cut blocks are, I believe, a block from the front aimed between the waist and knees. The idea is you take the guy down without serious danger to the knee/ankle joints. O-linemen don't think so, but the D--linemen practice aiming for the thigh pads and up. As long as the blocked player is not engaged with another guy, it is legal.
    Talent can get you to the playoffs.
    It takes character to win when you get there.

    SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS
    User avatar
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 14828
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
    Location: Kent, WA


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:20 pm
  • sutz wrote:
    olyfan63 wrote:Here's one example of an (illegal) chop block:
    http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/10/calais- ... ius-thomas

    I'd like to think our OL doesn't rely on chop blocks, but really have no idea.
    In any case, the timing of the rule change allows us to make any draft plan adjustments. We'll no longer be looking for guys who can chop block? Lol, chop blocks have been illegal in college football since 1980, according to Wikipedia, so not like we were scouting that anyway.

    Pretty good demo of the illegal block. I think there used to be a technicality that the blocked player had to be engaged high for it to technically be an "illegal chop block" but it has been modified, I guess, because of that kind of situation, where the rusher is being set up-"lured"- for the high block and then hit low.

    Cut blocks are, I believe, a block from the front aimed between the waist and knees. The idea is you take the guy down without serious danger to the knee/ankle joints. O-linemen don't think so, but the D--linemen practice aiming for the thigh pads and up. As long as the blocked player is not engaged with another guy, it is legal.


    Cut blocks really aren't all the nasty as long as it is in trenches. There are a ton of drills, on any football level, where defensive players practice on staying square, feet always moving and hands down. For instance side straddling big bags and a coach throws another bag at your legs at the end. The real issue is getting chopped (essentially getting cut blocked) while being engaged because your feet a planted as opposed to both feet moving. Madden has been lobbying against the chop block for years.

    Another block that is really brutal sometimes and I can see being made illegal someday is a RB chip blocking an end. While it doesn't affect the legs, it is at times a blindsided hit and can mess someone up. IMO it's just as bad as a crack back block which is now illegal.
    User avatar
    seahawkfreak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4620
    Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:36 pm
    Location: Aiken , SC


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:07 pm
  • Basis4day wrote:
    Mick063 wrote:In other words, our run game is dependent on judgement calls?


    The difference between a cut and a chop is pretty clear. And all actions on a football field are judgement calls.


    But I dont think he knows that difference.
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 11240
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:08 pm
  • Mick063 wrote:Chop blocks are now illegal. Is Tom Cable obsolete?


    No, but J.R. Sweezy is.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 15482
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:32 pm
  • Chop blocks have always been illegal, but as far as I understand it, a player had to be engaged for it to be a chop block.

    the "Lure" chop block wasn't illegal, and I don't think Thomas was flagged for that play. I think they're saying all of it was illegal now.

    A cut block is a block from the front or side where the player isn't engaged. You can even get a guy around the ankles as long as you do it with your body and not arms, hands or legs (tripping).

    A clip is when you cut block a guy from behind.

    I was a bit worried about this, in that defensive coaches have been lobbying against cut blocks for years, and I was hoping that the media didn't mix up "chop" block with "cut" block. I'm honestly not sure what the big deal is for this to be "official" outside of the "lure" chop block.
    Hawks46
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7485
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:20 pm
  • This is a thread worth bookmarking.

    I'll spring it when the "That chop block call was bull$&!t" thread pops up.
    "It's about us getting ready to play. It's not about the other team. We'll beat ourselves before they beat us. That's always our approach."

    Pete Carroll
    User avatar
    Mick063
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 925
    Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:11 pm


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:26 pm
  • We had one chop block penalty all last season...it was on Sherman. During a kick return.
    User avatar
    253hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3099
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:36 am
    Location: PNW


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:53 pm
  • The way the rule is reading it sounds like cut and chexop blocks will be illegal. It sounds like any block below the thigh pad will be illegal. I hope I am not reading that correctly but I am not so sure the nfl distinguished between the two.
    stang233
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 238
    Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:59 am


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:21 pm
  • Chop blocks were previously illegal on just passing plays and certain uncommon run blocking situations (non-adjacent blockers). Now, they are illegal on all running plays. This would outlaw a player from going low on a schemed combo block/double team.

    I would imagine this would affect us.
    User avatar
    DavidSeven
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5742
    Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:32 pm
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Mick063 wrote:Chop blocks are now illegal. Is Tom Cable obsolete?


    No, but J.R. Sweezy is.


    nobody whiffs on cut blocks more than Sweezy....nobody
    User avatar
    Smellyman
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4387
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:58 pm
    Location: Taipei


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:03 pm
  • naholmes wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:??? I thought chop blocks were already illegal....

    Yes mostly they were already illegal. Now they are totally illegal. I'm sure that the posters who are more knowledgeable about Xs and Os could explain the nuances but it doesn't seem to be a big change. You can still cut block as long as the defender is not engaged by another blocker above the waist.


    So Miracle Max was on the Competition Committee?

    Eh, in any case, don't see as this is the end of the world. Mostly, anyway.
    "The ultimate number is W's, and that’s what matters in Santa Clara. As such, Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does." - Paul Gutierrez
    User avatar
    Seahawk Sailor
    * .NET Navy Bad Ass *
     
    Posts: 22068
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
    Location: Mandaue City, Cebu, Philippines


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:17 pm
  • I just hope this doesn't turn into a way for the referees to penalize us for legal cut blocks.
    hawknation2016
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 932
    Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:14 pm


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:39 pm
  • Smellyman wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Mick063 wrote:Chop blocks are now illegal. Is Tom Cable obsolete?


    No, but J.R. Sweezy is.


    nobody whiffs on cut blocks more than Sweezy....nobody

    It doesn't matter. Whiffing on a cut block actually isn't a bad thing. It means the d-lineman is looking for the cut block. The more times he jumps over a cut block, the easier it is to make him pay for looking for it when you run directly at him. When you worry, is if you keep cutting a guy and he keeps falling down. This means the cut blocks aren't slowing him down at all, and he's still coming at you hard regardless. Those DT's very rarely chase down a play from the backside anyways, so even if they jump the cut block, it very rarely ends up costing you any yards. If Sweezy were to give-up, and stop trying to cut after the player had jumped him a few times, Cable would have his rear-end. If the DT is jumping your cut, you're in his head.
    I'm fly
    I should be in the sky with birds
    User avatar
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3693
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:37 pm


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:41 pm
  • Seahawk Sailor wrote:
    naholmes wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:??? I thought chop blocks were already illegal....

    Yes mostly they were already illegal. Now they are totally illegal. I'm sure that the posters who are more knowledgeable about Xs and Os could explain the nuances but it doesn't seem to be a big change. You can still cut block as long as the defender is not engaged by another blocker above the waist.


    So Miracle Max was on the Competition Committee?

    Eh, in any case, don't see as this is the end of the world. Mostly, anyway.


    Humperdinck!
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 104989
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:29 pm


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:54 pm
  • Smellyman wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Mick063 wrote:Chop blocks are now illegal. Is Tom Cable obsolete?


    No, but J.R. Sweezy is.


    nobody whiffs on cut blocks more than Sweezy....nobody


    Image

    At least the dude who punked Sweezy here is now a Seahawk.
    hawknation2016
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 932
    Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:14 pm


Re: There goes our run game.
Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:54 pm
  • hawknation2016 wrote:
    Smellyman wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Mick063 wrote:Chop blocks are now illegal. Is Tom Cable obsolete?


    No, but J.R. Sweezy is.


    nobody whiffs on cut blocks more than Sweezy....nobody


    Image

    At least the dude who punked Sweezy here is now a Seahawk.


    I won't miss that flopping around like a fish on land.

    Sweezy always seemed like a try 'hard guy' to me. Like the guy at pickup basketball game who is out working and out hustling everybody but not accomplishing much.
    User avatar
    Smellyman
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4387
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:58 pm
    Location: Taipei


Re: There goes our run game.
Wed Mar 23, 2016 1:39 am
  • Hawks46 wrote:the "Lure" chop block wasn't illegal, and I don't think Thomas was flagged for that play. I think they're saying all of it was illegal now.


    I understood that flavor of chop block, on a passing play, was already illegal. You read it differently?

    In any case, on the (illegal) chop block by Julius Thomas, on AZ's Calais Campbell, in the video I shared, the Broncos WERE flagged for the chop block. However, apparently, the flag was attributed to Denver LT Ryan Clady, so says the article. The flag wiped out a 77-yard TD pass by Denver on the play. Clady was called apparently for "luring" Calais Campbell into the chop block. Very legit call, but I'm not sure if the refs really meant to call it on Clady, or just chose his number because he was there and it was visible. It seemed to me like Thomas was the one who made the illegal block, so the call should have been "credited" to him, IMO.

    Julius Thomas was the one who was issuing apologies afterwards. Campbell was injured on the block and was out 3-4 weeks with an MCL sprain.
    2017 Adopt-A-Rookie: Chris Carson
    User avatar
    olyfan63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1928
    Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:03 am


Re: There goes our run game.
Wed Mar 23, 2016 8:35 am
  • hawknation2016 wrote:
    Smellyman wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Mick063 wrote:Chop blocks are now illegal. Is Tom Cable obsolete?


    No, but J.R. Sweezy is.


    nobody whiffs on cut blocks more than Sweezy....nobody


    Image

    At least the dude who punked Sweezy here is now a Seahawk.



    I know this was posted to laugh at Sweezy's "eyes wide shut technique", but I can't stop focusing on Marshawn's absolute refusal to run the wide zone properly.

    Although we all love the guy for his toughness and ability to make yards from nothing...man, he just can't help but do his own thing time after time.

    In a two back set, the fullback has the same read as the tailback. Fullback reads the play properly and Lynch should have been right behind him, against a fill Safety. Who doesn't think Lynch wins that battle.

    Without knowing what the MIKE call was, Sweezy should have blocked #91 anyway.

    Britt has to get to the second level and cut #54.

    The cut block attempt on #96 was worthless as well. He looks like he was playing such a tight shade 1 tech anyway that C and G should have comboed that with Sweezy realeasing to #91 as he tries to fill.

    Lots of messed up stuff here besides Sweezys nosedive.
    Sgt Largent
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 240
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:39 pm


Re: There goes our run game.
Wed Mar 23, 2016 8:56 am
  • hawknation2016 wrote:
    Smellyman wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Mick063 wrote:Chop blocks are now illegal. Is Tom Cable obsolete?


    No, but J.R. Sweezy is.


    nobody whiffs on cut blocks more than Sweezy....nobody


    Image

    At least the dude who punked Sweezy here is now a Seahawk.


    Sweezy sort of punked himself on that one, didn't he? :stirthepot:
    Adopt A Rookie: Nick Vannett, TE - Ohio State University
    User avatar
    Laloosh
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8686
    Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:46 pm
    Location: WA


Re: There goes our run game.
Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:05 am
  • This is good news for Michael Bennett though, yeah?
    User avatar
    HawkAroundTheClock
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2417
    Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:30 pm
    Location: Over There


Re: There goes our run game.
Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:15 am
  • We'll have to see where this ends up. On nfl.com, they are calling it "chop style" plays, which could mean no more cut blocks.

    It's weird. Chop blocks were already illegal. Cut blocks weren't. "Chop style" is something that is ambiguous. If they're banning cut blocks, why don't they just call them cut blocks ?

    Then again, why call it "chop style" ? Sheesh, I wish the NFL were more clear on their rules. It's like trying to decipher what the government is telling us.
    Hawks46
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7485
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm


Re: There goes our run game.
Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:17 am
  • Is that Sweezy trying to cut block NE #96, one of the two defenders who is in on the tackle?
    Hard to make out some numbers and positions from this clip.
    There's another cut block on NE #54, which is reasonably effective.
    In any case, these are (attempted) cut blocks, not chop blocks, as there is no other blocker engaged with those defenders.

    And it does look like Marshawn coulda, shoulda followed his fullback and had more success on this play.
    2017 Adopt-A-Rookie: Chris Carson
    User avatar
    olyfan63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1928
    Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:03 am


Re: There goes our run game.
Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:39 am
  • I actually just read a SBNATION article on Hawkblogger, and it's as some of us surmised at first: all chop blocks are illegal in all situations now, and cut blocks are still legal.

    I find it tremendously ironic that the two examples they showed are Britt cutting a guy, and Sweezy and Gilliam cutting a guy. The first is almost universally regarded on this site as the worst OL we have, while the 2nd is generally viewed as a cut block "whiffer" (which there's tons of tape to verify). Pretty funny.
    Hawks46
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7485
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm


Re: There goes our run game.
Wed Mar 23, 2016 10:09 am
  • Seattle ran legal chop blocks all the time, so this will be a significant adjustment for Tom Cable. In the NFL's own demonstration video explaining the rule change, they showed two examples of previously legal chop blocks, and both of those examples were executed by the Seahawks offensive line over two different games.

    I remember my high school coaches debating the ethics of chop blocks almost 20 years ago. It's long been considered a dirty but in some cases necessary technique. That's why it's lasted so long despite being unethical.

    On an interesting side note, John Harbaugh, who was unhappy with the ruling, seemed to blame the rule change on Tom Cable.

    “Based on a few of the clips that they put in there by one team [Seattle], that posting and cutting people’s knee, that could be cleaned up real simply by getting that team [Seattle] to stop doing that technique,”


    If you want to draw parallels here to the "LOB rule" a few offseasons ago, at least one NFL HC would agree with you.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 15975
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


Re: There goes our run game.
Wed Mar 23, 2016 10:23 am
  • Hawks46 wrote:Chop blocks have always been illegal, but as far as I understand it, a player had to be engaged for it to be a chop block.

    the "Lure" chop block wasn't illegal, and I don't think Thomas was flagged for that play. I think they're saying all of it was illegal now.

    A cut block is a block from the front or side where the player isn't engaged. You can even get a guy around the ankles as long as you do it with your body and not arms, hands or legs (tripping).

    A clip is when you cut block a guy from behind.

    I was a bit worried about this, in that defensive coaches have been lobbying against cut blocks for years, and I was hoping that the media didn't mix up "chop" block with "cut" block. I'm honestly not sure what the big deal is for this to be "official" outside of the "lure" chop block.


    Much like the changes to the rules for the secondary were driven by, imho, the Seahawks success with jamming receivers, this new ruling comes hot on the heels of the Broncos winning the SuperBowl. They are definitely affected by this in Wade Phillips' system. Indirectly, this affects ZBS
    My Tapatalk for Ipad is bigger than yours. Size matters.
    User avatar
    MeanBlueGreen
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1181
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:56 pm
    Location: Redwood City, California


Re: There goes our run game.
Wed Mar 23, 2016 1:17 pm
  • kearly wrote:Seattle ran legal chop blocks all the time, so this will be a significant adjustment for Tom Cable. In the NFL's own demonstration video explaining the rule change, they showed two examples of previously legal chop blocks, and both of those examples were executed by the Seahawks offensive line over two different games.

    I remember my high school coaches debating the ethics of chop blocks almost 20 years ago. It's long been considered a dirty but in some cases necessary technique. That's why it's lasted so long despite being unethical.

    On an interesting side note, John Harbaugh, who was unhappy with the ruling, seemed to blame the rule change on Tom Cable.


    Nice info.

    Sweezy broke Tyrunn Walker's leg last year and Ian Williams ankle a few seasons ago on low blocks that could arguably have been called "chops" under these rules. In both plays, you can argue that the defender was engaged (at least momentarily) when Sweezy hit them low.
    User avatar
    DavidSeven
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5742
    Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am


Re: There goes our run game.
Wed Mar 23, 2016 2:47 pm
  • Following-up on Kearly's quote of Harbaugh (is there a link to the article with this comment?), I went to Hawkblogger's twitter feed and found this:




    So at least in this instance (with TJ Lang and his whining from the Fail Mary game, not sure if he is being a hater or not), sure seems like Seattle has a reputation for teaching cut block techniques that are on the edge. I gather it is the cut then roll aspect that is the issue but I am no OLine expert so just WAGs on my part.
    Leon Washington 2010-2012 Red Bryant 2008-2013 Golden Tate 2010-2013 Breno Giacomini 2011-2013 - Gone but not forgotten.
    R.I.P Les "PithyRadish" Norton 9/13/2014
    User avatar
    drdiags
    * The Doc *
     
    Posts: 10682
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:33 am
    Location: Kent, Washington


Re: There goes our run game.
Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:11 pm
  • DavidSeven wrote:
    kearly wrote:Seattle ran legal chop blocks all the time, so this will be a significant adjustment for Tom Cable. In the NFL's own demonstration video explaining the rule change, they showed two examples of previously legal chop blocks, and both of those examples were executed by the Seahawks offensive line over two different games.

    I remember my high school coaches debating the ethics of chop blocks almost 20 years ago. It's long been considered a dirty but in some cases necessary technique. That's why it's lasted so long despite being unethical.

    On an interesting side note, John Harbaugh, who was unhappy with the ruling, seemed to blame the rule change on Tom Cable.


    Nice info.

    Sweezy broke Tyrunn Walker's leg last year and Ian Williams ankle a few seasons ago on low blocks that could arguably have been called "chops" under these rules. In both plays, you can argue that the defender was engaged (at least momentarily) when Sweezy hit them low.


    This just makes me want to pick up where I left off looking at Sweezy whiff on blocks.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2676
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: There goes our run game.
Wed Mar 23, 2016 8:45 pm
  • Tical21 wrote:It doesn't matter. Whiffing on a cut block actually isn't a bad thing. It means the d-lineman is looking for the cut block. The more times he jumps over a cut block, the easier it is to make him pay for looking for it when you run directly at him. When you worry, is if you keep cutting a guy and he keeps falling down. This means the cut blocks aren't slowing him down at all, and he's still coming at you hard regardless. Those DT's very rarely chase down a play from the backside anyways, so even if they jump the cut block, it very rarely ends up costing you any yards. If Sweezy were to give-up, and stop trying to cut after the player had jumped him a few times, Cable would have his rear-end. If the DT is jumping your cut, you're in his head.


    It's basically the same concept as a pitcher using a fastball and changeup. You can look for a fastball, and you can look for a changeup, but you can't look for both at the same time. A good pitcher keeps the hitters guessing.

    It's a similar idea here. If a DT starts expecting the cut block, he's not going to be as fast out of the chute as he could have been.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 15975
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


Re: There goes our run game.
Wed Mar 23, 2016 8:51 pm

Re: There goes our run game.
Thu Mar 24, 2016 4:33 am
  • Nothing wrong with Sweezy's block on that GIF. He slowed his guy down. Play was a gain. And as pointed out, If Lynch follows the FB, the play is a bigger gain.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 14663
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


Re: There goes our run game.
Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:40 am
  • Scottemojo wrote:Nothing wrong with Sweezy's block on that GIF. He slowed his guy down. Play was a gain. And as pointed out, If Lynch follows the FB, the play is a bigger gain.


    Not saying you're wrong, but you really need a Mrs. Sweezy tag.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 15482
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: There goes our run game.
Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:46 am
  • Scottemojo wrote:Nothing wrong with Sweezy's block on that GIF. He slowed his guy down. Play was a gain. And as pointed out, If Lynch follows the FB, the play is a bigger gain.



    In the wide zone, or stretch, it's not about just slowing the backside down, you want them on the ground. The whole reason for the 1 cut and go is the timing and speed required on that cut to blow by that backside cut while the defender is getting off the ground. If they eliminate that 1 on 1 cut it will be much more difficult to hit that backside run (but I don't think this rule does that). Also, I'm saying backside here but the reality is that there is so much horizontal movement at LOS, that cut is basically an Off Tackle run in relation to original alignment.

    The 7 tech EMOL (end man on line) played outside contain. That's the FB and HB first read (if EMOL helmet is inside tackle/TE bounce, if outside change course to G/T gap). RB's eyes go to the Guard immediately as the running back changes course from aiming at TE's outside hip. Depending on which way the G's hips declare the hole, RB runs inside or outside that block. If the DT gets washed out, Marshawn would have been right on this run.

    In any case, I can't think of a MIKE call where the Playside Guard would be cutting the backside LB. He should initially looked for playside DT body to combo with the tackle and then moved to the Playside LB and NOT cut him but instead man him up and either run him into the pile of bodies wide or seal him. If that playside DT instead pinched hard, Sweezy would have stayed with him and the Playside Tackle instead would have slid to the Playside LB.

    The guy that should have been responsible for the backside cut block is the backside tackle. Notice how #68 blocks nobody and is kind of like WT?! Sweezy blocked his guy instead of staying on his feet with the playside backer. That's why #75 grabs #68 subtly as he releases, to stop that pursuit backside cut block. It's infuriating that the refs don't call that Defensive Holding penalty more but it is what it is.

    The more I watch film, and admittedly, this particular play is tough, because it's a GIF that starts after snap with no pause and no other angles, the more I believe our linemen don't suck physically, we just end up being assignment wrong way too often.

    Further, from what I've watched from last year so far, Rawls reads these plays WAY better than Marshawn. Isn't that exciting.
    Last edited by Sgt Largent on Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
    Sgt Largent
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 240
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:39 pm


Re: There goes our run game.
Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:25 am
  • Sgt Largent wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:Nothing wrong with Sweezy's block on that GIF. He slowed his guy down. Play was a gain. And as pointed out, If Lynch follows the FB, the play is a bigger gain.



    In the wide zone, or stretch, it's not about just slowing the backside down, you want them on the ground. The whole reason for the 1 cut and go is the timing and speed required on that cut to blow by that backside cut while the defender is getting off the ground. If they eliminate that 1 on 1 cut it will be much more difficult to hit that backside run (but I don't think this rule does that). Also, I'm saying backside here but the reality is that there is so much horizontal movement at LOS, that cut is basically an Off Tackle run in relation to original alignment.

    The 7 tech EMOL (end man on line) played outside contain. That's the FB and HB first read (if EMOL helmet is inside tackle/TE bounce, if outside change course to G/T gap). RB's eyes go to the Guard immediately as the running back changes course from aiming at TE's outside hip. Depending on which way the G's hips declare the hole, RB runs inside or outside that block. If the DT gets washed out, Marshawn would have been right on this run.

    In any case, I can't think of a MIKE call where the Playside Guard would be cutting the backside LB. He should initially looked for DT body to combo with the tackle and then moved to the Playside LB and NOT cut him but instead man him up and either run him into the pile of bodies wide or sealed.

    The guy that should have been responsible for the backside cut block is the backside tackle. Notice how #68 blocks nobody and is kind of like WT?! Sweezy blocked his guy instead of staying on his feet with the playside backer. That's why #75 grabs #68 subtly as he releases, to stop that pursuit backside cut block. It's infuriating that the refs don't call that Defensive Holding penalty more but it is what it is.


    Wow. Every once in a while .net shocks me with its knowledge.
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 4189
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


Re: There goes our run game.
Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:41 am
  • Sgt Largent wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:Nothing wrong with Sweezy's block on that GIF. He slowed his guy down. Play was a gain. And as pointed out, If Lynch follows the FB, the play is a bigger gain.



    In the wide zone, or stretch, it's not about just slowing the backside down, you want them on the ground. The whole reason for the 1 cut and go is the timing and speed required on that cut to blow by that backside cut while the defender is getting off the ground. If they eliminate that 1 on 1 cut it will be much more difficult to hit that backside run (but I don't think this rule does that). Also, I'm saying backside here but the reality is that there is so much horizontal movement at LOS, that cut is basically an Off Tackle run in relation to original alignment.

    The 7 tech EMOL (end man on line) played outside contain. That's the FB and HB first read (if EMOL helmet is inside tackle/TE bounce, if outside change course to G/T gap). RB's eyes go to the Guard immediately as the running back changes course from aiming at TE's outside hip. Depending on which way the G's hips declare the hole, RB runs inside or outside that block. If the DT gets washed out, Marshawn would have been right on this run.

    In any case, I can't think of a MIKE call where the Playside Guard would be cutting the backside LB. He should initially looked for playside DT body to combo with the tackle and then moved to the Playside LB and NOT cut him but instead man him up and either run him into the pile of bodies wide or seal him. If that playside DT instead pinched hard, Sweezy would have stayed with him and the Playside Tackle instead would have slid to the Playside LB.

    The guy that should have been responsible for the backside cut block is the backside tackle. Notice how #68 blocks nobody and is kind of like WT?! Sweezy blocked his guy instead of staying on his feet with the playside backer. That's why #75 grabs #68 subtly as he releases, to stop that pursuit backside cut block. It's infuriating that the refs don't call that Defensive Holding penalty more but it is what it is.

    The more I watch film, and admittedly, this particular play is tough, because it's a GIF that starts after snap with no pause and no other angles, the more I believe our linemen don't suck physically, we just end up being assignment wrong way too often.

    Further, from what I've watched from last year so far, Rawls reads these plays WAY better than Marshawn. Isn't that exciting.


    Image
    hawknation2016
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 932
    Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:14 pm


Re: There goes our run game.
Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:53 am
  • hawknation2016 wrote:
    Sgt Largent wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:Nothing wrong with Sweezy's block on that GIF. He slowed his guy down. Play was a gain. And as pointed out, If Lynch follows the FB, the play is a bigger gain.



    In the wide zone, or stretch, it's not about just slowing the backside down, you want them on the ground. The whole reason for the 1 cut and go is the timing and speed required on that cut to blow by that backside cut while the defender is getting off the ground. If they eliminate that 1 on 1 cut it will be much more difficult to hit that backside run (but I don't think this rule does that). Also, I'm saying backside here but the reality is that there is so much horizontal movement at LOS, that cut is basically an Off Tackle run in relation to original alignment.

    The 7 tech EMOL (end man on line) played outside contain. That's the FB and HB first read (if EMOL helmet is inside tackle/TE bounce, if outside change course to G/T gap). RB's eyes go to the Guard immediately as the running back changes course from aiming at TE's outside hip. Depending on which way the G's hips declare the hole, RB runs inside or outside that block. If the DT gets washed out, Marshawn would have been right on this run.

    In any case, I can't think of a MIKE call where the Playside Guard would be cutting the backside LB. He should initially looked for playside DT body to combo with the tackle and then moved to the Playside LB and NOT cut him but instead man him up and either run him into the pile of bodies wide or seal him. If that playside DT instead pinched hard, Sweezy would have stayed with him and the Playside Tackle instead would have slid to the Playside LB.

    The guy that should have been responsible for the backside cut block is the backside tackle. Notice how #68 blocks nobody and is kind of like WT?! Sweezy blocked his guy instead of staying on his feet with the playside backer. That's why #75 grabs #68 subtly as he releases, to stop that pursuit backside cut block. It's infuriating that the refs don't call that Defensive Holding penalty more but it is what it is.

    The more I watch film, and admittedly, this particular play is tough, because it's a GIF that starts after snap with no pause and no other angles, the more I believe our linemen don't suck physically, we just end up being assignment wrong way too often.

    Further, from what I've watched from last year so far, Rawls reads these plays WAY better than Marshawn. Isn't that exciting.


    Image


    Yep, nobody blocked the MIKE on this play. Coaches don't design too many runs where the MIKE is completely unblocked (none) so this is either some ISO variant where there is no read and the FB ISOs the MIKE inside and he (FB) is wrong, or Sweezy is wrong. I pick the latter as most likely.

    Edit..Edit..Edit..Ok...sigh, I can't see the #s of the Center and Backside Guard. But the one on his face in front of #54...The Center....Yeah that one...he's wrong. Maybe #60, if so, that is Unger and I didn't expect that :lol:

    Knowing this now, after getting a headache trying to watch this on repeating GIFs, Unger may have called 54 as the MIKE and Britt didn't pick up the call and went for the same guy (Unger may have felt Britt couldn't get there). In that case the FB would pick up the Fill in the read hole but Marshawn didn't trust the FB and went off script.

    Still don't like that line call, I'd want #91 or whatever as the MIKE and that leaves my FB free as a lead searcher.
    Last edited by Sgt Largent on Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
    Sgt Largent
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 240
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:39 pm


Re: There goes our run game.
Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:45 am
  • Sgt Largent wrote:
    hawknation2016 wrote:
    Sgt Largent wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:Nothing wrong with Sweezy's block on that GIF. He slowed his guy down. Play was a gain. And as pointed out, If Lynch follows the FB, the play is a bigger gain.



    In the wide zone, or stretch, it's not about just slowing the backside down, you want them on the ground. The whole reason for the 1 cut and go is the timing and speed required on that cut to blow by that backside cut while the defender is getting off the ground. If they eliminate that 1 on 1 cut it will be much more difficult to hit that backside run (but I don't think this rule does that). Also, I'm saying backside here but the reality is that there is so much horizontal movement at LOS, that cut is basically an Off Tackle run in relation to original alignment.

    The 7 tech EMOL (end man on line) played outside contain. That's the FB and HB first read (if EMOL helmet is inside tackle/TE bounce, if outside change course to G/T gap). RB's eyes go to the Guard immediately as the running back changes course from aiming at TE's outside hip. Depending on which way the G's hips declare the hole, RB runs inside or outside that block. If the DT gets washed out, Marshawn would have been right on this run.

    In any case, I can't think of a MIKE call where the Playside Guard would be cutting the backside LB. He should initially looked for playside DT body to combo with the tackle and then moved to the Playside LB and NOT cut him but instead man him up and either run him into the pile of bodies wide or seal him. If that playside DT instead pinched hard, Sweezy would have stayed with him and the Playside Tackle instead would have slid to the Playside LB.

    The guy that should have been responsible for the backside cut block is the backside tackle. Notice how #68 blocks nobody and is kind of like WT?! Sweezy blocked his guy instead of staying on his feet with the playside backer. That's why #75 grabs #68 subtly as he releases, to stop that pursuit backside cut block. It's infuriating that the refs don't call that Defensive Holding penalty more but it is what it is.

    The more I watch film, and admittedly, this particular play is tough, because it's a GIF that starts after snap with no pause and no other angles, the more I believe our linemen don't suck physically, we just end up being assignment wrong way too often.

    Further, from what I've watched from last year so far, Rawls reads these plays WAY better than Marshawn. Isn't that exciting.


    Image


    Yep, nobody blocked the MIKE on this play. Coaches don't design too many runs where the MIKE is completely unblocked (none) so this is either some ISO variant where there is no read and the FB ISOs the MIKE inside and he (FB) is wrong, or Sweezy is wrong. I pick the latter as most likely.

    Edit..Edit..Edit..Ok...sigh, I can't see the #s of the Center and Backside Guard. But the one on his face in front of #54...The Center....Yeah that one...he's wrong. Maybe #60, if so, that is Unger and I didn't expect that :lol:


    Unger had a pretty terrible game in the Super Bowl. Collins got the better of him a few times, forcing Lynch to cutback.
    hawknation2016
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 932
    Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:14 pm


Next


It is currently Thu Jul 19, 2018 4:53 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information