One thing that's absolutely clear from every coach and player interview is that our offense is now a wide zone based attack. Here's a good article on the history of the attack, which has been around a long time in the nfl, including the super bowl winning broncos teams. https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/01/17/titans-offense-origins-wide-zone-run-game-derrick-henry-arthur-smith

From what I've read some key potential benefits of this attack are (1) it simplifies the blocking schemes for the OL; (2) it makes it more difficult for the DL to key in on specific gaps b/c the RB can run to any whole; (3) it eliminates backside help (or should).

Some questions about the scheme and how it will impact our personnel:

(1) it seems like for RBs in this offense there is a premium on good vision (finding and anticipating holes). Out of our current running backs who does this benefit the most? Ebner comes to mind. What about the younger guys?
(2) Do we think the simplification of the OL will help us reduce many of the missed assignments from last year?
(3) which OLinemen will be best suited to benefit from the new scheme?
(4) how long do you think it will take to really get this down? Obviously there will be nowhere to go but up from last year, but do we have the potential to be a "good" offense this year or will the learning curve be so great we can't get beyond medium (which might be good enough to win a lot of games mind you but not likely compete for the big 12 champsionship)
(5) anyone else have insights on this scheme and how it will impact our personnel choices?

So this is basically stretch zone?
The basic idea is that the OL engages the man in front of them and tries to hold that block. The RB then strafes (runs laterally) down the line and tries to find a hole. In theory, it means the RB is free to find whichever gap develops at any lineman who wins his battle.

In practice, it devolves into the RB having no forward momentum, always trying to find the "home run" hole instead of taking the 4 yard gain hole, being ankle tackled or being escorted out of bounds for no gain. While OL likes zone blocking due to the simplistic concept, it gets thwarted if a defense loops or overloads. One OL will have several defenders, while others will be "blocking air".

MAYBE if a couple of very dominant TEs emerge, capable of flexing out to H back style lead blockers or receivers, it might be successful in modern football. My gut feeling is that there's a reason the article refers to absolute monolithic RBs from the 80's and 90's.

Perhaps it could be modernized with some imaginative wrinkles.

Mr Tulip said:

---

So this is basically stretch zone?
The basic idea is that the OL engages the man in front of them and tries to hold that block. The RB then strafes (runs laterally) down the line and tries to find a hole. In theory, it means the RB is free to find whichever gap develops at any lineman who wins his battle.

In practice, it devolves into the RB having no forward momentum, always trying to find the "home run" hole instead of taking the 4 yard gain hole, being ankle tackled or being escorted out of bounds for no gain. While OL likes zone blocking due to the simplistic concept, it gets thwarted if a defense loops or overloads. One OL will have several defenders, while others will be "blocking air".

MAYBE if a couple of very dominant TEs emerge, capable of flexing out to H back style lead blockers or receivers, it might be successful in modern football. My gut feeling is that there's a reason the article refers to absolute monolithic RBs from the 80's and 90's.

Perhaps it could be modernized with some imaginative wrinkles.

---

Well Grimes certainly made it work last year at BYU without any world-beaters at RB or TE (although he did certainly have a very talent QB that he molded from an underrecruited one). It sounds to me like this is a concept many teams utilize, but not full-time like we will. Aranda made it sound like it acheives balance from counter-running concepts, Play-action, etc., which I'm sure is meant to keep the defense from overloading. I'm certain there are enough wrinkles that you can threaten the entire field and keep the defense honest if you are executing well. Like any offense it will come down to execution, but I am very curious to know if it will be a particularly good or bad fit for any of our personnel. The article above also mentions the effectiveness at stopping some of the negative running plays that have really plagued us in recent years when things were going poorly, both under Fedora and the previous regime (think of the 2019 big 12 championship game).

Some good stuff on wide zone in this interview. --- link in different thread. https://sicem365.com/s/9313/watch-baylor-oc-jeff-grimes-te-ben-sims-visit-with-media/2


Grimes says:
(1) this is the most consistent play in nfl over last 20-30 years. This must be true, but it makes me wonder why I've never heard of it. You hear things like "Run and shoot," "west coast offense," etc. all the time, but I've never heard of wide zone as an offensive style before.
(2) it is versatile enough you never really need to add anything to it for special situations/plans (this reminds me of the Leach air raid philosophy --- do a few patterns with variations and rep it to death, but of course this will be more balanced than pass )
(3) it does not require world-beater athletes. You can be successful with people that "can move their feet" and "be coachable." I do wonder if this offense will be less of a fit for the huge road-grader guards that we used to specialize in under the Briles offense --- think Laquan McGowan. It's a positive that he thinks we can be successful with this with the current level of talent. Will be fascinating to see if there are any adjustments in recruiting, particularly for the OL.

new article on Grimes and wide zone by football scoop

https://footballscoop.com/news/why-wide-zone-is-the-best-run-scheme-out-there-according-to-baylor-oc-jeff-grimes/

Regardless of the scheme name.....I'm sure if/when the Bear offense isn't putting XBOX Football type numbers on the stat sheet fans will start chirping and chattering again for someone's head.

Headed to the store for popcorn......

Sic'em

Mr Tulip said:

---

So this is basically stretch zone?
The basic idea is that the OL engages the man in front of them and tries to hold that block. The RB then strafes (runs laterally) down the line and tries to find a hole. In theory, it means the RB is free to find whichever gap develops at any lineman who wins his battle.

In practice, it devolves into the RB having no forward momentum, always trying to find the "home run" hole instead of taking the 4 yard gain hole, being ankle tackled or being escorted out of bounds for no gain. While OL likes zone blocking due to the simplistic concept, it gets thwarted if a defense loops or overloads. One OL will have several defenders, while others will be "blocking air".

MAYBE if a couple of very dominant TEs emerge, capable of flexing out to H back style lead blockers or receivers, it might be successful in modern football. My gut feeling is that there's a reason the article refers to absolute monolithic RBs from the 80's and 90's.

Perhaps it could be modernized with some imaginative wrinkles.

---

I would actually push back against this take.

Yours is an apt description of teams running wide zone with poor execution/coaching, but when properly coached and executed the scheme is one of the most consistent and explosive ones in football (reliably violent, anyone?).

The concept is more about stretching/widening the defensive front via lateral steps and first-level combo blocks from the OL/TEs before moving up to the second level and cutting off the backside. The RB is actually coached to make one cut and go, rather than dance around looking for open holes.

Originally, the overall scheme (wide zone, tight zone, play-action and other constraints) was developed by Alex Gibbs and Mike Shanahan and powered some of those dominant, old-school rushing attacks that the article mentions, but nowadays it is alive and well in the NFL, with the Titans, Packers, Rams, Niners, Vikings, Browns, Falcons and others running the updated version of the offense.

That right there represents a significant portion of the league's dominant rushing attacks and overall offenses (reigning rushing champ and runner-up, pretty dominant backfield duo in Cleveland, the scheme that powered peak Todd Gurley and now CJ Henderson/Cam Akers, and then Kyle Shanahan's teams who seem to rush well with literally any old Joe off the street while still making it to the Super Bowl).

Now, the college examples are considerably fewer in number and I'm not trying to say that Grimes will be able to replicate the relative successes of the teams above, but to say that the scheme isn't effective in practice is simply untrue. It's just like pretty much any other system out there: it is rarely effective unless you dedicate yourself to primarily that scheme. Wide zone has to be mastered, it can't be dabbled in and still be effective.

Whether or not Baylor can achieve success with the system is yet to be seen, and I have significant questions about Grimes and its transferability to the Big 12, but I wouldn't write the wide zone off until we have seen the product on the field in 2022 and beyond (and yes, it will likely take a couple of years to truly evaluate).

Here's to hoping the offense picks the system up quickly and efficiently and blows all our expectations out of the water.

Every offense works when executed correctly. In my head, I'm arguing the contrary. The NFL doesn't run collegiate offenses, and there's reasons why. The athletes are of different styles. Things that work in the NFL don't always work in college, and vice versa.

The NFL doesn't field a lot of 425 or 335 defenses. The Big 12 is adopting them at a rapid rate. The extra DBs, faster players but less massive, reflect an emphasis on defending space rather than overpowering a player. In a well blocked outside zone, an offensive lineman either blocks the first thing in his path (zone) or tries to seal off his man by getting across his opponent's face and pinning the outside shoulder (reach). If done correctly, eventually the RB is left behind an OL player engaged at the 2nd level, and looking to cut either direction to green grass. Either works.

I'm suggesting that what actually happens in the Big 12 when you try that is that the offensive lineman may indeed successfully engage a DL (reach blocks mean you absolutely MUST win your first step. Otherwise you're beat for a tackle for loss or a holding penalty), but two DBs have likely flowed to that gap and cut the RB. The emphasis on speed over mass on a Big 12 defense limits cutback lanes.

I'm nobody's OC. If Grimes says he can make it work, then I believe him. I'm concerned that zone and reach blocking are specific techniques that don't work well against shifting front defenses like the Big 12 has. Teaching those techniques to add a "wrinkle" is fairly complicated. Running it as your base offense doesn't leave a lot of room for Plan B.

There are many good reasons why these men are employed as collegiate OCs and I'm a dork behind a keyboard. I'm sure they're right, and I'm also sure there's more to the story than they're telling. Outside zone has been a sore spot with me for a couple of decades, so I'm likely needlessly sensitive about it.

Well, Baylor ranked 100 out of 120 teams on Offense last year, so, whatever Grimes does will be an improvement.

I'm a big believer in "If you can't block it, you can't run it" philosophy. That's saying that your offense can only run the plays that your OL can block. Everything else is just wishful thinking.

Jeff Grimes obviously knows his way around an offensive line. Whatever plays he puts into the playbook, whatever combinations and trees he has, it'll be because he knows his OL can do it.

For us old timers sounds like Vince Lombardis "Run to daylight offense"

Mr Tulip said:

---

Every offense works when executed correctly. In my head, I'm arguing the contrary. The NFL doesn't run collegiate offenses, and there's reasons why. The athletes are of different styles. Things that work in the NFL don't always work in college, and vice versa.

The NFL doesn't field a lot of 425 or 335 defenses. The Big 12 is adopting them at a rapid rate. The extra DBs, faster players but less massive, reflect an emphasis on defending space rather than overpowering a player. In a well blocked outside zone, an offensive lineman either blocks the first thing in his path (zone) or tries to seal off his man by getting across his opponent's face and pinning the outside shoulder (reach). If done correctly, eventually the RB is left behind an OL player engaged at the 2nd level, and looking to cut either direction to green grass. Either works.

I'm suggesting that what actually happens in the Big 12 when you try that is that the offensive lineman may indeed successfully engage a DL (reach blocks mean you absolutely MUST win your first step. Otherwise you're beat for a tackle for loss or a holding penalty), but two DBs have likely flowed to that gap and cut the RB. The emphasis on speed over mass on a Big 12 defense limits cutback lanes.

I'm nobody's OC. If Grimes says he can make it work, then I believe him. I'm concerned that zone and reach blocking are specific techniques that don't work well against shifting front defenses like the Big 12 has. Teaching those techniques to add a "wrinkle" is fairly complicated. Running it as your base offense doesn't leave a lot of room for Plan B.

There are many good reasons why these men are employed as collegiate OCs and I'm a dork behind a keyboard. I'm sure they're right, and I'm also sure there's more to the story than they're telling. Outside zone has been a sore spot with me for a couple of decades, so I'm likely needlessly sensitive about it.

---

This is an interesting thought about the impact of our DB-heavy league on this scheme. It seems to me what primarily motivated Aranda to adopt this system (by hiring Grimes), or at least what sold him on it, is that it reduces the effectiveness of the smaller and more developmental/athletic D-linemen who are always stuntings, etc., which has absolutely killed us against teams like W.Va. It does make me wonder how the trend to have more and faster/smaller DBs on the field will impact the effectiveness of the scheme. One thing I haven't seen anyone mention yet IS ANYONE IN THE BIG 12 ALREADY RUNNING WIDE ZONE LIKE WE INTEND --- not just occasionally but as their base play a? That would be the best data on whether it has the chance to work. Barring that, it would be interesting to know how BYU fared against defenses running the DB-heavy schemes so prevalent now in the Big 12. I have more than a strong suspicion that Aranda/Grimes have some very solid evidence that this will work against Big 12 defenses as a whole, not just against the DLs.

I swear this site has something against me on mobile. Every time I try to type something up it times out and I lose the whole thing, haha.

But it seems like we have similar concerns over the scheme's transferability to the Big 12. That original post was more so a response to the negative attitude towards wide zone as a whole. To your point about the XII prioritizing speed over mass, I think that's a valid point and something I'm concerned about as well.

That said, the NFL has certainly seen fairly heavy nickel defense usage in recent years, but it's still hard to compare NFL execution to college execution. I think a lot of Baylor's success/failure to run this play will depend on how well Grimes and the offense can set up, call, and then execute the constraint plays off the wide zone base.

If you start getting DBs filling late and making plays in the hole, that means they are triggering fairly quickly in order to reach their run fits and that aggressiveness can be exploited with play-action and PRO/RPOs. But if defenses are able to still cover those constraint plays while also defeating blocks at the LOS and 2nd level, we'll be in for a long season.