(This topic has been mentioned, albeit briefly, in several different threads, so I wanted to consolidate posters' opinions into one single thread.)
Several years ago there was a train-of-thought that said that it's difficult, if not rare, for most O-lines to be great on both pass blocking and run blocking. The reasons for given for this are usually: (1) pass blocking and run blocking involve two completely different skill sets; and (2) pass blocking and run blocking involve two completely different mind sets.
Pass blocking is taken to mean that the O-line blockers have to step back and become an "impenetrable wall" to the oncoming pass rushers, but run blocking means that the O-linemen are transformed into "road graders" - going forward and demolishing everything in their paths to lead the way for the RB's.
Last year, Pitt under Paul Chryst (with James Conner, et al) was basically a running team -- Wisconsin-lite. Our O-linemen focused on being the "straight-ahead, no one-can-stop-us road-graders".
This year -- at least to this point, with Jim Cheney calling the offensive schemes -- we seem to be more pass-oriented. Our O-linemen have to be more "take a step back and pass-block" oriented as a result.
My question for the board is this: will the switch to the re-emphasized passing game have a negative impact on the team's ability to run the ball?
(Now before I go any further, I anticipate that there will be responders who'll say, "No, the real reason for the difference in the running game will be because of the absence of James Conner." You could be right...I don't know. But it seems as though Pitt's RB's would be doing better than they are with better blocking, Ollison's performance versus YSU being the obvious exception.)
So I'll rephrase the original question: can Pitt's offense become more of a passing team without it costing them their ability to run the ball with effectiveness?
Comments?
Several years ago there was a train-of-thought that said that it's difficult, if not rare, for most O-lines to be great on both pass blocking and run blocking. The reasons for given for this are usually: (1) pass blocking and run blocking involve two completely different skill sets; and (2) pass blocking and run blocking involve two completely different mind sets.
Pass blocking is taken to mean that the O-line blockers have to step back and become an "impenetrable wall" to the oncoming pass rushers, but run blocking means that the O-linemen are transformed into "road graders" - going forward and demolishing everything in their paths to lead the way for the RB's.
Last year, Pitt under Paul Chryst (with James Conner, et al) was basically a running team -- Wisconsin-lite. Our O-linemen focused on being the "straight-ahead, no one-can-stop-us road-graders".
This year -- at least to this point, with Jim Cheney calling the offensive schemes -- we seem to be more pass-oriented. Our O-linemen have to be more "take a step back and pass-block" oriented as a result.
My question for the board is this: will the switch to the re-emphasized passing game have a negative impact on the team's ability to run the ball?
(Now before I go any further, I anticipate that there will be responders who'll say, "No, the real reason for the difference in the running game will be because of the absence of James Conner." You could be right...I don't know. But it seems as though Pitt's RB's would be doing better than they are with better blocking, Ollison's performance versus YSU being the obvious exception.)
So I'll rephrase the original question: can Pitt's offense become more of a passing team without it costing them their ability to run the ball with effectiveness?
Comments?
