In reply to: here's the play I was talking about posted by jt
I'm looking to be educated here, I don't see any noticeable shifting with the OL in their blocking.
and are responsible for that gap if anyone comes through it and they do not chase a man; that's why in the video the guy talks about Nelson "looking for a looper." The RT is responsible for #2 on the LOS (5 technique usually, but can be a 7 or a 9 depending) and the back is helping outside to inside (probably should be vice versa but he doesn't pick up the blitzing safety and either way he's fucked in this scenario).
That's a 4 man slide. In a 3 man slide, the center "turns" the protection and slides in a direction with half of the line (guard and tackle to the side he turns it to) and the other side of the ball is in man protection--guard has #1 man on the line of scrimmage, tackle has #2 and they follow them wherever (preferably working as a tandem to pass guys off if there's loops/stunts/whatever). In a 6 man protection the back will be responsible to either get # 3 LOS or the backer at depth, usually inside to outside first (in other words, if both guys go, he takes the guy with the shortest route to the qb). In a 5 man protection the back is hot if one of those guys blitz.
That's why the qb and center identify the MLB pre-snap. Depending on the protection called they're either sliding to or away from him and it lets the back know where to go.
to my amature eyes. Thanks for the tutorial.
and you can see it easily there, just watch the center.
...which is clear, concise, and very informative to a football layman like me. It also reinforces what I've been saying since the Cotton Bowl debacle: it is the coaching. No one criticizes the French soldiers at the battle of Waterloo--it was Napoleon's responsibility to design a strategy appropriate to the forces he commanded, to the forces he faced, to the geography, the weather, etc., and then to implement it soundly. Here is what Clausewitz said about Napoleon--it might sound familiar:
"Bonaparte and the authors who support him have always attempted to portray the great catastrophes that befell him as the result of chance. They seek to make their readers believe that through his great wisdom and extraordinary energy the whole project had already moved forward with the greatest confidence, that complete success was but a hair's breadth away, when treachery, accident, or even fate, as they sometimes call it, ruined everything. He and his supporters do not want to admit that huge mistakes, sheer recklessness, and, above all, overreaching ambition that exceeded all realistic possibilities, were the true causes."