So, as a stand alone thread, in response to several posts buried in a thread that argued VT loaded the box totally, and RU did not adjust, I had the time, and rewatched the game, freezing and slowing the playback as needed, and charted EVERY RU offensive play. I am not going to go play by play here - way too long even for me. But I will give the breakdown, with some definitions, and some of my conclusions/opinions.
First, let's define a "loaded" in the box. One poster said VT was "loading" the box with 6-8 players. So, getting this out of the way: 6 or 7 "in the box" is not loading the box. That is 8 or more. The STANDARD defense of 3 or 4 DL, and 3 or 4 LB (a 4-3 or a 3-4 ... or even a 52 defense) will have 7 "in the box." That is NOT "loading" the box. That is a base defense.
And "in the box" is defined - by me - as within 5 yards of the LOS, and inside, or JUST outside the tackles. If a team run blitzes - that is different than "loading the box." Important to know and understand, but different.
I would add that sometimes it is difficult to decide which DB's, if any, are "in the box" against RU, since RU has a relatively common offensive formation with 2 WR's (slot and WR) bunched just outside the OT (not wide), plus RU often motions 1 WR from one side to the other, bringing the tracking DB from out of the box to into the box ... is that defender now "in the box" or not? I included him as in the box if he truly trailed or passed the coverage to another DB on the other side and neither DB made it all the way outside - in other words how far the RU WR ended up motioning, how far outside the OT he got before the snap.
One last item on "loading the box." Though loading the box is supposed to help with run defense, against a ZONE BLOCKING scheme it is less effective (now run blitzing - a different beast, and more effective than merely loading the box). How so? because an effective zone blocking execution essentially seals one entire side of the defense AWAY from the running lanes - if executed well. I once charted a number of Ray Rice's games in 2006 and 2007, when RU used zone blocking, and the OL was very, very good at it. Rice actually gained MORE yards in plays where the box was "loaded" than not. WHY? because with 8 or 9 in the box, if the OL creates lanes that seal one side of the defense from being part of the play (it entails the Center or 1 OG to get to the 2nd level of the defense and seal block an inside LB, the TE sealing the gap lane to one side or the other for a RB to find)), then there are fewer DB's back once the RB gets into the 2nd or even 3rd level of defense (i.e. 3-5 yards past the LOS). Monangai does well with this also because of his ability to make a moving DB miss, or because he can break the tackle.
Now run blitzing is different than loading the box - because run blitzing can more effectively fill the lanes - unless the OL and TE blocking HOLDS.
So here is the breakdown. I did it by 1st Half, by 3Q and by 4Q - because VT changed its pattern noticeably in each of those time frames:
First Half (35 plays):
6 In the Box - 6 times (17%)
7 in the box - 20 times (57%)
8 in the box - 3 times (9%)
9 or more in the box - 6 times (almost always 3rd or 4th and 2 or less) - (17%)
Third Quarter (21 plays):
6 in the box - 5 times (24%)
7 in the box - 12 times (57%)
8 in the box - 2 times (10%)
9 in the box - 0 times (0%)
10 or more in the box - 3 times (always 3rd or 4th and 2 or less) - (14%)
Fourth Quarter (16 plays):
6 in the box - 0 times (!!! - big change!) - (0%)
7 in the box - 5 times - (31%)
8 in the box - 5 times - (31%)
9 in the box - 3 times - (19%)
10 or more in the box - 3 times - (19%)
In the 1st Half, VT loaded the box about 26% of the time, and did NOT load the box 74% of the time.
I could calculate the 2nd half overall - but the pattern of VT's defensive scheme choices was starkly different in the 3rd and 4th quarters, so it does not seem valuable to do so.
In the 3rd quarter, VT's choice on loading the box or not was essentially similar to the 1st half.
BUT ... the 4th quarter, now ... VT completely altered their approach. In the 4th quarter VT only ran 6 or 7 in the box 31% of the time - vs 75% of the time in the 1st half and the 3rd quarter ... that is a huge change. You can see from above VT loaded the box with 8 players 31% of the time in the 4th Quarter, the same number of times they only put 7 in the box ... and another 38% of the time they had 9 or more defenders in the box.. Thus, in the 4th quarter, VT loaded the box 70% of their plays - though it was only 16 plays.
Now, let's add in the run blitzes. This is more difficult to identify. I only counted plays on which RU ran the ball (excluded pass plays or sacks), and only counted plays I interpreted as the LB's or DB's "blitzing" on the snap, not a LB and DB moving and reacting to filling a hole or lane. I counted 9 run blitzes in the 1st Half, and just 6 in the 2nd Half (and only 1 in the 4th Quarter). I speculate that when a team loaded the box, as VT did more of in the 2nd Half, and in particular in the 4th Quarter, it is not technically run blitzing. I may be wrong, but that is how I measured it. So there!
So ... when you then add in the VT LB's, DB's or DT's making plays vs the RU blockers making plays, you add the final dimension here. And I charted this also, looked very closely at plays that worked and those that did not work - though I focused more on the 2nd Half charting than the 1st Half charting. I would add, Schiano has long said that often a successful offensive running play can be blown up and fail with just ONE blocking assignment missed. I think the RU staff will have a lot of film work available to show OL's and TE's where they missed.
IMO ... the bigger issue with a tougher ability for RU to run the ball (only 4 runs of 10 yards or more, and NONE over 12 yards) was NOT VT's scheme (i.e. whether they were loading the box or not, or run blitzing or not). Rather, RU had blocking breakdowns, which caused more problems than the defensive scheme - to which you should give the VT DL, in particular, a lot of credit.
In the 2nd Half, I counted EIGHT (8) plays where the VT DT (once the LB) blew up an RU offensive lineman or the TE, those RU players missing key blocks, or getting overpowered, blowing up running plays - at least 6 of those 8 plays were with Monangai running.. I am not going into detail here on each of those plays, but the 2 most common plays were:
1) The TE (twice Fletcher, once Konopka) either not pulling fast enough to seal the lane, or simply getting over-powered by a DL.
2) An RU OL getting beaten and blown up: Asamoah most often, though it happened to Felter once or twice, Needham once and Zelinskas once.
3) On a couple of occasions it was BOTH the above happening
IF ... the TE and/or OLmake their blocks even 3-4 times of those 8-9 misses, from the flow of the play, Monangai gets AT LEAST 20 additional yards, maybe 25-30 additional yards. a line of 26 for 110 yards looks a lot better for Monangai and the RU offense than 26 for 86 yards, eh?
When the blocks to hold the running lanes/gap open were held, RU generally got at least 4-5 yards, sometimes more. I will say that again, the defense makes great plays too. In the 2nd half, in RU's 1st drive of the 4th Quarter, the score 23-15, RU at the 35 yard line ish, on 2nd and 2, the line and TE did GREAT jobs holding their blocks on an 8 man in the box overload by VT, Brown cut to the correct lane/gap being blocked and sealed open ... and a diving DB made an ankle tackle - because of the shallow depth of the safeties, and the side of the field it was on (away from the safeties), if that DB misses Brown's ankle, Brown has a 65-yard TD run ... a great save. He did gain the 1st down and 7 yards ... and even if the DB had not grabbed the ankle, but merely slowed Brown down (i.e. if Brown had kept his balance and broken the ankle tackle), the closing safety would likely have cleaned up (though he might have gained more than 7 yards). But a miss of Brown's ankle entirely meant a long TD run.
One last item, not related to the "loading the box" issue: AK being sacked 3 times:
1) The 1st sack was a blitz, Asamoah beaten badly that forced AK to step up into a LB playing spy on a delayed blitz.
2) The 2nd sack, with a minute left in the 3Q, was a 7-defenderr blitz. RU kept in to block both Monangai and Fletcher - so only 3 WR's in patterns (man coverage on all 3, plus safety help). The pocket really squeezed too fast for any WR to get open, let alone for Ak to find anyone.
3) The 3rd sack, on the next play (and yes, at 2nd and 16 a pass was called for), VT blitzed just 1 defender, making it a 5-man rush. Pierce blocked IN, against the DT, leaving Konopka on an island against VT's star edge rushing DE (#52) ... oops, what a HUGE mismatch. Konopka was destroyed and AK had no time to even finish his drop.
I hope you all enjoy this!
First, let's define a "loaded" in the box. One poster said VT was "loading" the box with 6-8 players. So, getting this out of the way: 6 or 7 "in the box" is not loading the box. That is 8 or more. The STANDARD defense of 3 or 4 DL, and 3 or 4 LB (a 4-3 or a 3-4 ... or even a 52 defense) will have 7 "in the box." That is NOT "loading" the box. That is a base defense.
And "in the box" is defined - by me - as within 5 yards of the LOS, and inside, or JUST outside the tackles. If a team run blitzes - that is different than "loading the box." Important to know and understand, but different.
I would add that sometimes it is difficult to decide which DB's, if any, are "in the box" against RU, since RU has a relatively common offensive formation with 2 WR's (slot and WR) bunched just outside the OT (not wide), plus RU often motions 1 WR from one side to the other, bringing the tracking DB from out of the box to into the box ... is that defender now "in the box" or not? I included him as in the box if he truly trailed or passed the coverage to another DB on the other side and neither DB made it all the way outside - in other words how far the RU WR ended up motioning, how far outside the OT he got before the snap.
One last item on "loading the box." Though loading the box is supposed to help with run defense, against a ZONE BLOCKING scheme it is less effective (now run blitzing - a different beast, and more effective than merely loading the box). How so? because an effective zone blocking execution essentially seals one entire side of the defense AWAY from the running lanes - if executed well. I once charted a number of Ray Rice's games in 2006 and 2007, when RU used zone blocking, and the OL was very, very good at it. Rice actually gained MORE yards in plays where the box was "loaded" than not. WHY? because with 8 or 9 in the box, if the OL creates lanes that seal one side of the defense from being part of the play (it entails the Center or 1 OG to get to the 2nd level of the defense and seal block an inside LB, the TE sealing the gap lane to one side or the other for a RB to find)), then there are fewer DB's back once the RB gets into the 2nd or even 3rd level of defense (i.e. 3-5 yards past the LOS). Monangai does well with this also because of his ability to make a moving DB miss, or because he can break the tackle.
Now run blitzing is different than loading the box - because run blitzing can more effectively fill the lanes - unless the OL and TE blocking HOLDS.
So here is the breakdown. I did it by 1st Half, by 3Q and by 4Q - because VT changed its pattern noticeably in each of those time frames:
First Half (35 plays):
6 In the Box - 6 times (17%)
7 in the box - 20 times (57%)
8 in the box - 3 times (9%)
9 or more in the box - 6 times (almost always 3rd or 4th and 2 or less) - (17%)
Third Quarter (21 plays):
6 in the box - 5 times (24%)
7 in the box - 12 times (57%)
8 in the box - 2 times (10%)
9 in the box - 0 times (0%)
10 or more in the box - 3 times (always 3rd or 4th and 2 or less) - (14%)
Fourth Quarter (16 plays):
6 in the box - 0 times (!!! - big change!) - (0%)
7 in the box - 5 times - (31%)
8 in the box - 5 times - (31%)
9 in the box - 3 times - (19%)
10 or more in the box - 3 times - (19%)
In the 1st Half, VT loaded the box about 26% of the time, and did NOT load the box 74% of the time.
I could calculate the 2nd half overall - but the pattern of VT's defensive scheme choices was starkly different in the 3rd and 4th quarters, so it does not seem valuable to do so.
In the 3rd quarter, VT's choice on loading the box or not was essentially similar to the 1st half.
BUT ... the 4th quarter, now ... VT completely altered their approach. In the 4th quarter VT only ran 6 or 7 in the box 31% of the time - vs 75% of the time in the 1st half and the 3rd quarter ... that is a huge change. You can see from above VT loaded the box with 8 players 31% of the time in the 4th Quarter, the same number of times they only put 7 in the box ... and another 38% of the time they had 9 or more defenders in the box.. Thus, in the 4th quarter, VT loaded the box 70% of their plays - though it was only 16 plays.
Now, let's add in the run blitzes. This is more difficult to identify. I only counted plays on which RU ran the ball (excluded pass plays or sacks), and only counted plays I interpreted as the LB's or DB's "blitzing" on the snap, not a LB and DB moving and reacting to filling a hole or lane. I counted 9 run blitzes in the 1st Half, and just 6 in the 2nd Half (and only 1 in the 4th Quarter). I speculate that when a team loaded the box, as VT did more of in the 2nd Half, and in particular in the 4th Quarter, it is not technically run blitzing. I may be wrong, but that is how I measured it. So there!
So ... when you then add in the VT LB's, DB's or DT's making plays vs the RU blockers making plays, you add the final dimension here. And I charted this also, looked very closely at plays that worked and those that did not work - though I focused more on the 2nd Half charting than the 1st Half charting. I would add, Schiano has long said that often a successful offensive running play can be blown up and fail with just ONE blocking assignment missed. I think the RU staff will have a lot of film work available to show OL's and TE's where they missed.
IMO ... the bigger issue with a tougher ability for RU to run the ball (only 4 runs of 10 yards or more, and NONE over 12 yards) was NOT VT's scheme (i.e. whether they were loading the box or not, or run blitzing or not). Rather, RU had blocking breakdowns, which caused more problems than the defensive scheme - to which you should give the VT DL, in particular, a lot of credit.
In the 2nd Half, I counted EIGHT (8) plays where the VT DT (once the LB) blew up an RU offensive lineman or the TE, those RU players missing key blocks, or getting overpowered, blowing up running plays - at least 6 of those 8 plays were with Monangai running.. I am not going into detail here on each of those plays, but the 2 most common plays were:
1) The TE (twice Fletcher, once Konopka) either not pulling fast enough to seal the lane, or simply getting over-powered by a DL.
2) An RU OL getting beaten and blown up: Asamoah most often, though it happened to Felter once or twice, Needham once and Zelinskas once.
3) On a couple of occasions it was BOTH the above happening
IF ... the TE and/or OLmake their blocks even 3-4 times of those 8-9 misses, from the flow of the play, Monangai gets AT LEAST 20 additional yards, maybe 25-30 additional yards. a line of 26 for 110 yards looks a lot better for Monangai and the RU offense than 26 for 86 yards, eh?
When the blocks to hold the running lanes/gap open were held, RU generally got at least 4-5 yards, sometimes more. I will say that again, the defense makes great plays too. In the 2nd half, in RU's 1st drive of the 4th Quarter, the score 23-15, RU at the 35 yard line ish, on 2nd and 2, the line and TE did GREAT jobs holding their blocks on an 8 man in the box overload by VT, Brown cut to the correct lane/gap being blocked and sealed open ... and a diving DB made an ankle tackle - because of the shallow depth of the safeties, and the side of the field it was on (away from the safeties), if that DB misses Brown's ankle, Brown has a 65-yard TD run ... a great save. He did gain the 1st down and 7 yards ... and even if the DB had not grabbed the ankle, but merely slowed Brown down (i.e. if Brown had kept his balance and broken the ankle tackle), the closing safety would likely have cleaned up (though he might have gained more than 7 yards). But a miss of Brown's ankle entirely meant a long TD run.
One last item, not related to the "loading the box" issue: AK being sacked 3 times:
1) The 1st sack was a blitz, Asamoah beaten badly that forced AK to step up into a LB playing spy on a delayed blitz.
2) The 2nd sack, with a minute left in the 3Q, was a 7-defenderr blitz. RU kept in to block both Monangai and Fletcher - so only 3 WR's in patterns (man coverage on all 3, plus safety help). The pocket really squeezed too fast for any WR to get open, let alone for Ak to find anyone.
3) The 3rd sack, on the next play (and yes, at 2nd and 16 a pass was called for), VT blitzed just 1 defender, making it a 5-man rush. Pierce blocked IN, against the DT, leaving Konopka on an island against VT's star edge rushing DE (#52) ... oops, what a HUGE mismatch. Konopka was destroyed and AK had no time to even finish his drop.
I hope you all enjoy this!
Last edited:
