Lets put this to rest.

[Boilerjd16]

I am getting so tired of all of the talk about this O-Lineman not fitting our system beause he is in a zone blocking system currently.  Last time I checked said O-Lineman was still blocking someone right?  It is just ridiculous that people on here and in the media want to pigeon hole these guys into this spot or that spot they are still FOOTBALL PLAYERS!!!!!!!  So please stop all of the talk that we don't want this guy or that guy because he doesn't block in a man-to-man scheme.  If I am wrong someone prove it to me with evidenece.  Sorry for the rant just something that touches a nerve.

 

Go Colts

 

In Grigs I trust.

 

[polians_pundit]

Agreed, Lets get Levitre.

[Everyone]

I agree, but system and scheme has alot to do with the performance of players

[SteelCityColt]

I'm not expert but I thought different schemes required talent in different areas (e.g. mental, physical) hence why although all Olinemen will tend to be well big and strong as a base level of talent I've always understood in a man scheme they need to be even bigger/stronger/meaner. Well there must be some reason Samson looks like a Crash Test Dummy at the line of scrimmage!

[Balzer40]

In a perfect world you would be right. All O-lineman would be able to block in any scheme, but unfortunately thats just not the way it works. Some O-lineman are just better in a man blocking scheme than others and that is usually because of their size and strength. 

[Vance]

I really thought this was another Luck vs RG3 thread...phew

[WhistlingDixie]

My ideal lines is to have some big uglies in the middle and have big, athletic 6-8 320 style tackles

[Balzer40]

Here is an article about the Dolphins(that switched from a man scheme to a zone scheme this season) that explains the difference in the schemes and why bigger, stronger o-lineman are required for a man scheme. Lineman that play in a zone scheme are normally smaller, quicker, and more athletic than man to man blockers. Thats because they can use their athleticism to beat the defenders instead of shear strength. A smaller O-lineman(like Levitre) may have trouble in a man scheme because he don't have the mass or the strength to take on a defender one on one. He excels in the zone scheme because is is quicker and athletic enough to do so.

 

http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/thedailydolphin/2012/03/29/days-of-bigger-and-stronger-are-gone-as-miami-dolphins-switch-to-zone-blocking-scheme/

[FightLikeSin]

I agree, but system and scheme has alot to do with the performance of players

agreed. Look what happened to Jake Long's performance.

[HGRekks]

I think Reitz and Castonzo (and perhaps Satele) fit the ZBS better than a man scheme. I wonder about Shipley and Justice, though.

[Superman]

You should do some reading on the advent and subsequent increase in popularity of zone blocking schemes. I agree to an extent that a player should be able to adapt, but in certain cases, there's a significant difference in the duties of a lineman in a zone scheme vs a man scheme. Some players simply don't have the ideal strength to play in a man scheme, and others don't have the ideal athleticism to play in a zone scheme. It matters.

[CR91]

a switch on scheme can have an effect on a player. look at hughes this year. first two season has one sack. we switch to a 3-4 he gets 4 sacks.

[PrincetonTiger]

I agree, but system and scheme has alot to do with the performance of players

agree

 

 

What kind of career would PM have had if he had to play in a pistol offense

 

 

Zone blockers can be a little smaller since they block a zone not a man

[Smonroe]

a switch on scheme can have an effect on a player. look at hughes this year. first two season has one sack. we switch to a 3-4 he gets 4 sacks.

That may have been more to do with opportunity, but your point is valid.

Besides, you don't bring in a guy and pay him a lot of money because of his specialty and then ask him to change it.

[TKnight24]

*Puts it to Rest*

Mission Accomplished Soldiers

[Gavin]

You should do some reading on the advent and subsequent increase in popularity of zone blocking schemes. I agree to an extent that a player should be able to adapt, but in certain cases, there's a significant difference in the duties of a lineman in a zone scheme vs a man scheme. Some players simply don't have the ideal strength to play in a man scheme, and others don't have the ideal athleticism to play in a zone scheme. It matters.

I think we had Zone Linemen last year playing a Man (primarily) scheme,  and as of today,before FA and the draft, obviously we still do

[theanarchist]

Here is an article about the Dolphins(that switched from a man scheme to a zone scheme this season) that explains the difference in the schemes and why bigger, stronger o-lineman are required for a man scheme. Lineman that play in a zone scheme are normally smaller, quicker, and more athletic than man to man blockers. Thats because they can use their athleticism to beat the defenders instead of shear strength. A smaller O-lineman(like Levitre) may have trouble in a man scheme because he don't have the mass or the strength to take on a defender one on one. He excels in the zone scheme because is is quicker and athletic enough to do so.

 

http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/thedailydolphin/2012/03/29/days-of-bigger-and-stronger-are-gone-as-miami-dolphins-switch-to-zone-blocking-scheme/

I think the key there is "may have trouble". I understand there is a prototype for each scheme. I'm a believer in exceptions to the rule though. Just because a guy may be 20 pounds lighter than your prototype doesn't mean he can't be good in your scheme. I also think some players play better in situations that fit better with their particular "Skills" not necessarily their weight or body type. JMO

[Balzer40]

I think the key there is "may have trouble". I understand there is a prototype for each scheme. I'm a believer in exceptions to the rule though. Just because a guy may be 20 pounds lighter than your prototype doesn't mean he can't be good in your scheme. I also think some players play better in situations that fit better with their particular "Skills" not necessarily their weight or body type. JMO

 

 

Thats true, but if you're going to bring in a guy and pay him the money that Levitre will command, you better be 100% certain that he will be able to play within the scheme. This is why I highly doubt that Levitre will be signed, because he has only played in a zone scheme and we do not know if he can handle a man scheme. You don't sign a pricey FA without being sure if he even fits your scheme.

[theanarchist]

I think we had Zone Linemen last year playing a Man (primarily) scheme,  and as of today,before FA and the draft, obviously we still do

I don't know how much we ran zone vs man this last year. I will say this. I believe that our run blocking was better this year than it was the previous 3 or 4 years. Was that due to scheme? Personnel? I don't know. But I do know this, we have a couple of guys that look like they can play. We have a few that look like they struggle quite a bit. We need to upgrade a couple of positions there in my opinion. I don't want to see us fall into the trap we did when Manning was here. We spend all of our high draft picks on "skill" players and rely on late round picks an UDFA to be everyday starters on the line. I'm not saying you can't find a good player at that point in the draft but we all know the higher you pick the better the chance you have of landing a real anchor to your line. Jeff Saturday was the exception to this rule.

[theanarchist]

Thats true, but if you're going to bring in a guy and pay him the money that Levitre will command, you better be 100% certain that he will be able to play within the scheme. This is why I highly doubt that Levitre will be signed, because he has only played in a zone scheme and we do not know if he can handle a man scheme. You don't sign a pricey FA without being sure if he even fits your scheme.

I agree with ya. It is possible he could be good at both though but as you say Grigson needs to know for sure than he can accel in our scheme. Makes sense.

[Gavin]

Buffalo does have one FA to be that will very likely fit our scheme however....Chad Rinehart, who I think is better anyway, would have loved to have a look at Urbik to

[throwing BBZ]

A minimum of research would have answered the question. The Coaches have a lifetime of experience figuring out what works.

Our own Colts made it PERFECTLY CLEAR they were in pursuit of BIGGER O-Lineman. Hmmm! Did they mention a reason, or was it just a lark? Pretty sure it was about better run blocking. And pretty sure when you get a whole line of Big Boys it Tends to lead to some degree of negativity to the pass blocking.

That is where some years of experience playing together and having RB`s who are Good pass blockers comes in.

Ballards POOR pass blocking really hurt us against the Ravens.

[BOTT]

Buffalo does have one FA to be that will very likely fit our scheme however....Chad Rinehart, who I think is better anyway, would have loved to have a look at Urbik to

Think rinehart is a restricted free agent

[esmort]

Think rinehart is a restricted free agent

 

Rinehart is UFA according to PFF

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2013/01/01/free-agent-offensive-guards/

[Superman]

Rinehart is UFA according to PFF

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2013/01/01/free-agent-offensive-guards/

 

Yeah, he's got five years experience. No way he's a restricted free agent, aside from the franchise tag.

[Jay Kirk]

IMO the name doesnt matter,we need big strong and agile OL ,all there is to it,they must run block and pass protect equaly well,and lets not forget this new OC will probably have roll outs as well as screens incorperated in his offense,so they are going to have to be able to pull

[braveheartcolt]

I really thought this was another Luck vs RG3 thread...phew

 

Or a Schuab v Gabbert one......that would be fun....