Drop Step or no

I agree completly whatever works for you

The reason i like the drop because the kids naturally wanna take a step forward and by teaching the drop step it almost compensates for this. It is really not that deep and when the defender is head up it's very small almost just to get outside of the guy. Yes I agree with your observations

Practice it and more like simultaneously

Zoneman,

I am in my 41st year of coaching, not a novice by any means with a whole lot of years as a HC. Am I to take your above post as working the two techniques together (simultaneously) or do you mean something else? At any rate, how do you get your second step down by making the first step backward?
If the DLM makes contact with your OLM while you are drop stepping, it seems to me that your OLM would be off balance with no power. Just wondering how you prevent that and how you teach it, not trying to be contentious.

Coach Easton

One problem I have with the drop step technique is that it seems to me that we are giving up the snap count advantage and playing at the LOS - instead of firing off, and playing on the defensive side of the LOS.

I think TigerOne's point about the 2nd step is worth discussing and further study. It seems to me that the 2nd step wouldn't be the winning step then in the drop step... I'd think it would be the 3rd step that would actually cause vertical movement on the inside zone, and be the 'power' step.

The other objection I have comes from my science teaching background and undergrad work - I fail to see how we get a momentum/force advantage by drop stepping. The quicker your weight transfers forward, the greater speed you would generate and,the more energy/power you would bring to contact. By going forward earlier, you'd be bringing more kinetic energy to the collision - combine that with the higher impulse (how quickly and how small of an area takes the contact) of a hand punch technique and you SHOULD bring more force/momentum to the moment of impact and thus be able to do more work.

In the end I can see how the drop step may help with positioning. IMHO it is best used by bigger stronger OL - I think that smaller zone blocking OL would need the extra momentum you'd get from the lead step to bring into the collision phase of the block. I'd rather see the drop step as a better technique on the outside zone - where it would create more horizontal movement and 'giving' a foot on the LOS might not be as paramount.

Just my thoughts - my wife would say I just 'geeked out'.

I have never really understood the drop-step technique. I want my o-linemen to attack and knock the defenders back. I have always felt that the drop-step (or even the lateral step) technique just gives too much of an advantage to the DL. I want my guys firing out straight ahead and getting into people. I just don't think that the average 185-200 lbs. high school offensive lineman can get that aggressive mentality necessary by not stepping to and attacking the defense directly.

The mentality needed is to stay on their blocks. Most of the OL we get at the hs level just are not as good as the dl we see. The defense gets the studs first. We may get some big ones, or some fast ones, certainly some strong ones, but if they are all three they are probably playing defense. Anyway, both steps work. It's just a matter of how you get the kids to understand the concept and the technique and effort it takes to do either. Both work. I like the full zone drop step system because I think it is easier for backs to see the windows made by that kind of blocking rather than the vertical openings created by vertical push. Now I am a big beleiver in vertical push blocking but you need a back that can feel it. It is not as intuitive for some as the horizontal gashes that full zone gets. You can meld both ideas into a best of both worlds scheme. Take the angle or step you need. It works. The main attitude is to stay on the blocks like a bulldog with it's teeth around something's neck. Yeah we would love for people to drive dline back ten yards and plant them on their ass. But I get just as excited seeing one of my boys just ride a dl all the way into the bench on the sideline when the whistle blows just because his desire to stay on is more than the dl's desire to get off that block. That really pisses off those dl. That is a good thing.

If you have one of those kids try to reach a 3 tech on their own with a 45 angle step at the dl the risk of penetration is much greater in my mind by them closing the angle to quickly and having the dl just flat out beat them than it would be with a bukcet step. which does give a little bend backwards in order to gain the leverage advantage of at least getting in front of the dl.

Ok, any kind of shade to their outside.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Oneback
Two thoughts on "3" techniques:

#1 - O-Lineman must be OFF the ball to get his step correct (regardless of HOW you step), and

#2 - The play is going to end up BEHIND the 3 anyway (you are not going to consistently reach a good 3!!!!! The Inside Zone is a BETTER play away from the 3 also.

---

Yep.

If we get a 3 technique or an outside shade on the guard, we are running a lead off the center, inside trap, or outside zone.

It makes no sense to me to run off-guard against a three technique unless you are running a zone play and the OT can help the OG out or if you are running an outside trap and the OT is blocking down on the 3 and the OG is kicking out the DE.

I made the comment a few weeks ago that the inside zone was a good play against the 3 technique as well as the 1 technique because the OG has a great angle on the 3. The OG can punch the 3, the OT can get around, and the OG can then go 2nd level to LB. The 1 technique on the other side is a very easy block for the C and backside OG.

govertical,

You are saying for inside zone to a 3 tech. you would have the guard and tackle combo instead of having the guard base block?

I think you can do that if the Sam backer isn't aligned to the playside of the combo meaning the tackle could only get a shot at the 3 then go to the backer. If he is then it is better to send the tackle over to the TE and just leave the guard alone. I wasn't sure how you described the combo on the 3 tech? you are trying to run inside of him?

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Coach Joe
govertical,

You are saying for inside zone to a 3 tech. you would have the guard and tackle combo instead of having the guard base block?

I think you can do that if the Sam backer isn't aligned to the playside of the combo meaning the tackle could only get a shot at the 3 then go to the backer. If he is then it is better to send the tackle over to the TE and just leave the guard alone. I wasn't sure how you described the combo on the 3 tech? you are trying to run inside of him?

---

Yes. If we run the inside zone at the 3, we want to run inside of him. Best case scenario, posted by many others, is to run the outside zone at the three and the inside zone at the 1. We seldom see a 3 tech/1 tech allignment. Because we seldom have a TE in our formations, the DTs usually line up in a 2 technique (head up on the OGs).

However, if we get a DT in a 3, first and foremost we are going to run leads and dives to the 0 hole and trap the 3 until the defense adjusts and stops us.

Coaches,

Don't want to belabor the point either, but the above post was my question from the get go. The OG is going to only be responsible for the inside half man originally, if the T blocks in combo with him. If OG than takes over the block, he is in position to do so. What are we not seeing here, Tog?

Coach Easton

Quote

---

Originally posted by: govertical

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Coach Joe
govertical,

You are saying for inside zone to a 3 tech. you would have the guard and tackle combo instead of having the guard base block?

I think you can do that if the Sam backer isn't aligned to the playside of the combo meaning the tackle could only get a shot at the 3 then go to the backer. If he is then it is better to send the tackle over to the TE and just leave the guard alone. I wasn't sure how you described the combo on the 3 tech? you are trying to run inside of him?

---

Yes. If we run the inside zone at the 3, we want to run inside of him. Best case scenario, posted by many others, is to run the outside zone at the three and the inside zone at the 1. We seldom see a 3 tech/1 tech allignment. Because we seldom have a TE in our formations, the DTs usually line up in a 2 technique (head up on the OGs).

However, if we get a DT in a 3, first and foremost we are going to run leads and dives to the 0 hole and trap the 3 until the defense

adjusts and stops us.

---

This explains a lot. You are rotating up to the pslb.

My zone background is rotating up to the bslb. Therefore, on stretch we try to first, run to the nearest de (the 7) then to the nearest dt (to the one)

on inside zone we run it to either side, but like running it to a 3 because or guards will generally have a hard time with 3 techs by themselves and it will wash outside, helping us cut up underneath it.