Our Starting Offensive Line....

[Bob_Loblaw]

Jerry Kill likes playing a lot of TE's, I wouldn't be shocked to see us run 6 OL out there on occasion (another T as a TE).

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

You are right about the importance of strength. But strength and size are not as important as athleticism and technique in a zone blocking scheme which is what the Gophers use or use often.

Mason ran zone and his best linemen (or at least interior linemen) tended to be undersized and not physically dominating including Eslinger, Setterstrom and Hamilton (all of whom played at around 285). Those 3 dominated because of great feet, great technique and making great reads (intelligence being the controlling factor for the last two attributes).

You make good points about footwork and technique (another reason why OL need seasoning, usually). But I am a little surprised at your comparisons between our OL now and Mason's OL. I realize that we have elements of zone blocking and I do agree that OL agility is important with our system, but I don't think our offensive line assignments are similar to the Mason years. Mason ran a straight zone blocking scheme. I think we are much more of a power running team under Kill.

 

[Gopherprof]

I thought that Marek Lenkiawicz played really well when given a chance, I'd give him the edge over Gjere.

Agreed, although as I posted in the other thread, Marek is much better suited on the left side. He's on the small end for a Big Ten lineman, so I think the staff will move Ed over to RT and play Marek on the blindside (an unconventional opinion, I'll grant you, but I was never so overwhelmed by Ed last year that I consider him unmovable).

As for Gjere, I agree with Bob that he just seems better suited at guard, freakish height aside. He has a lot to prove next year if he's going to start, wherever that might be.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Agreed, although as I posted in the other thread, Marek is much better suited on the left side. He's on the small end for a Big Ten lineman, so I think the staff will move Ed over to RT and play Marek on the blindside (an unconventional opinion, I'll grant you, but I was never so overwhelmed by Ed last year that I consider him unmovable).

As for Gjere, I agree with Bob that he just seems better suited at guard, freakish height aside. He has a lot to prove next year if he's going to start, wherever that might be.

I don't think it's a bad take at all. Ed Olson is a perfect RT in that he is more of a grinder and his issues are that he has some problems with footwork. Being moved to the RT, will help alleviate some of those issues with not having to block the really athletic RE (usually the best pass rusher). Marek looked good last year, he's really athletic and I think the move could make a lot of sense.

That said, it's hard to judge Ed too much on last year. He was supposedly real banged up all season.

We are starting to have those good kinds of problems with our OL (how do we start Bush, Gjere, Lenkiawicz and Ed Olson).

 

[howieramone]

I don't think it's a bad take at all. Ed Olson is a perfect RT in that he is more of a grinder and his issues are that he has some problems with footwork. Being moved to the RT, will help alleviate some of those issues with not having to block the really athletic RE (usually the best pass rusher). Marek looked good last year, he's really athletic and I think the move could make a lot of sense.

That said, it's hard to judge Ed too much on last year. He was supposedly real banged up all season.

We are starting to have those good kinds of problems with our OL (how do we start Bush, Gjere, Lenkiawicz and Ed Olson).

+1

 

[GophersInIowa]

Jerry Kill likes playing a lot of TE's, I wouldn't be shocked to see us run 6 OL out there on occasion (another T as a TE).

I was thinking the same thing, especially now that we're developing some depth.

 

[Parski1]

Now that we know Campion and Gjere are back, I'll go with:

LT: Ed Olson / Lenkiawicz
LG: Tommy Olson / C. Bak
C: Mottla/Christenson
RG: Campion/Epping
RT: Gjere / Bush

What a situation to be in! This might be the most depth we've had at OL since the last century...

Agree, but now we need a really good HB to come in and run behind that line. Or will one of the current HB's on roster develope?

 

[50PoundHead]

You are right about the importance of strength. But strength and size are not as important as athleticism and technique in a zone blocking scheme which is what the Gophers use or use often.

Mason ran zone and his best linemen (or at least interior linemen) tended to be undersized and not physically dominating including Eslinger, Setterstrom and Hamilton (all of whom played at around 285). Those 3 dominated because of great feet, great technique and making great reads (intelligence being the controlling factor for the last two attributes).

Epping’s issue wasn’t strength. Epping is, as Limegrover described him, a bull (and a good kid, too). His problem was footwork and technique and learning an originally complicated scheme. Once Limegrover adjusted and simplified the scheme, Epping and the rest were better able to develop the technique and judgement sufficient to execute it or at least execute it better than before.

If you want to pick players who could prosper under Limegrover then look for kids who possess sufficient size and strength but who exhibit superior athleticism and intelligence as zone schemes tend to depend more on the fleet and smart than the big and strong.

Regards.

That was my view as well. He got called for blocking below the waist a couple of times early into his extended playing and I think Limegrover backed off that after that. It may be that Epping was having trouble making that particular block and getting flagged or the technique taught by Limegrover actually was blocking below the waist and should have been flagged. I know Kill was quite animated with the officials after every time it was called and mentioned in one post-game interview that he wanted an explanation from the Big 10 higher-ups as to why it was being called.

Hard to make any comparisons between Mason's approach and Kill's approach upfront at this point. I always thought Mase's approach was almost exclusively finesse, but it drove opposing defenses crazy. At the same time, it was never a "blow 'em up" approach that could move a good defensive line when it was stacked up inside. I think Kill wants a more straightforward physical approach that can grind it out inside, but I'm relatively sure he'd be happy if he could get Mason's results in the running game.

 

[To Be Named Later]

That was my view as well. He got called for blocking below the waist a couple of times early into his extended playing and I think Limegrover backed off that after that. It may be that Epping was having trouble making that particular block and getting flagged or the technique taught by Limegrover actually was blocking below the waist and should have been flagged. I know Kill was quite animated with the officials after every time it was called and mentioned in one post-game interview that he wanted an explanation from the Big 10 higher-ups as to why it was being called.

Hard to make any comparisons between Mason's approach and Kill's approach upfront at this point. I always thought Mase's approach was almost exclusively finesse, but it drove opposing defenses crazy. At the same time, it was never a "blow 'em up" approach that could move a good defensive line when it was stacked up inside. I think Kill wants a more straightforward physical approach that can grind it out inside, but I'm relatively sure he'd be happy if he could get Mason's results in the running game.

It is not illegal to block below the waist. The specific rule is a "chop block," which people often confuse with a "cut block." A chop block is a high/low block. If an OL is engaged with a defensive player above the waist, another OL cannot go low on that DL.

The connection between the Mason and Kill schemes is that the cut block usually happens on the backside of any outside zone play. In Mason's offense, the backside linemen were explicitly told to cut anytime they ran outside zone. It is legal, but the linemen must be sure that the DL isn't engaged.

A big part of avoiding the chop block penalty is proper footwork on the part of both the cutting OL and the OL directly to his play side. If the cutting OL doesn't recognize that his teammate is engaged or is too slow with his feet, a chop block will often occur. If the other (playside) OL is too slow and does not get off his block fast enough, the chop block might also take place.

When you see coaches get upset, it is because there the whole thing happens pretty quickly and it often is not clear whether or not the playside OL was engaged or not.

The reason Mason's offense did it so well was that inside and outside zone were the bread and butter of the offense. They drilled it to death and had their timing down pat. The zone running game that emerged as a result of that execution resulted in very few negative plays (a-la Mike Shanahan's offense) and was the reason why Minnesota was able to get yards on the ground even when guys like Terry Jackson had to play because of injuries (again, look at all the RBs that Shanahan has used for his offenses in the NFL). It is all a matter of approach.

While Kill certainly uses zone schemes, he uses more man blocking than Mason did. Being diverse in their blocking schemes might have some benefits down the line, but it is harder for new guys to pick up. It is a risk/reward thing.

I will be happy to talk zone blocking with anyone who is interested!

 

[50PoundHead]

Thanks for the clarification and you are right. I used the wrong terminology. I just remember that Epping got called two or three times for that particular penalty and Kill was adamant about wanting an explanation.