takethepoints
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 6,098
I think this is both true and false.I think you have extremely underestimated how complex some blocking schemes can be. This isn't high school where it's "you block anybody lined up head up or outside shouler." You have certain footwork, hand placement, leverage, chip and release, zone schemes, man/slant schemes, etc. All very different than 3 or 4 point stance and scoop, drive, or cut. On top of that you have D1 power 5 level DL across from you running shifts and more complex stunts than you will see at most high schools. Defense rarely stunts when defending the 3O so most these guys haven't seen much of that at least not lately.
It is true that the kinds of pass blocking schemes we are now learning to use are complicated. Our OL is getting better, but it will take awhile and, probably, some new players to see more efficient performance. I expect most of the present OL (+ injured players) will start next year and the year of game experience and new players will help. It is false when it comes to spread option blocking schemes. The single most complicated position on the team for the last 11 years was the OL. The reason for that is simple; blocking assignments would change on the fly during games for the same play. This made for some interesting work during the games themselves. Some here were always complaining about how Paul would bellyache about OL performance and then, predictably, blame Sewak. This was usually because of changes in blocking calls that OLs would miss during games.
Finally, it is completely false about stunting. First, we blocked pretty well against many stunts - especially against VT, btw - because stunting created option opportunities and, if repeated, were counterproductive. This had little to do with the complexity of the stunts or the quality of the D and everything to do with the scheme we were running. Did that stop opposing Ds from trying? Why, no. The stunts we faced were actually more complex then those we face now because the shifts took place right before the snap and were calculated to confuse the initial blocking assignments. Now that we are spending a lot of time pushing-and-dancing on OL it is easier to stunt, not harder. The reason some teams didn't stunt very much against the spread option was, again, because it creates option opportunities. The old adage is true; every play in the spread option except a straight dive was calculated to go for a long gain if correctly blocked. That meant that if you got caught in a stunt, you usually paid for it. Opposing Ds found ways to stunt anyway because that sometimes worked and, given the way the old O operated, you had to try to stop it before it got to 3rd and 3 or you might not stop it at all.