There is an interesting article on draftdaddy about Line and his pro chances. Some scouts call his 4.54 40 time pedestrian :eyebrows: and the fact that he has no juke moves ( joke ) and he gets all of his yards off of draw plays so he should be a fullback at the next level.
On the plus side they say he gets no momentum lined up as a fullback to the line and he has no fb or tight ends to block for him. Its an interesting read but the author can't seem to fathom why in his senior year in Michigan he had a great season and was so lightly recruited. What could it be?????????? Its amazing how many times we see this sheisen and the DWf's still argue the best pay.Riiiggght!
Its not a real article, well it is real but just bleacher report nonsense, and I doubt he talked to any scouts as most of his information has come off of message boards like draftcountdown and went to nfldraftscouts for the estimated time on him. I doubt he has seen one single SMU game if he thinks that Zach Line has no agility. His agility is amazing, and the fact that he is such a big guy makes it even more amazing. He doesn't get all of his yards on draw plays , or even most. Id say at best half. They line up in the pistol often and run the same types of plays you would run out of single back sets. They also get creative when he is in shotgun. When they aren't in the actual pistol they kind of have a hybrid pistol shotgun formation. Line is a couple of yards behind the qb but he is lined up to the side, still, he has to stop and isn't running downhill at full speed when getting the handoff, but he has some momentum. Most shotgun formations have the back on the side. They also have the runs out of shotgun where he can go left or right when they fake the screen pass and have pulling lineman paving the way (Patriots should take note of this).
The reasons teams don't use shotgun all the time is backs struggle to run out of this, even the best like Adrian Peterson, and they can't do it consistently. Most can't even pass block despite having endless amounts of "athleticism". Line can do this, although defenders will be closing in much quicker on the draw play like you see with Woodhead now, but if they used creativity it wouldn't matter. However, unlike Woodhead, Line is a big guy and could plow forward for more yards.
Most of the time on draws the blocking isn't that great, several defenders beat the linemen and he is juking around to find a hole to go through. His moves in the open field are great, sometimes I wish he would use his power more.
and the criticism about him getting ANY yards off of draw plays is invalid, because you might as well drop every back who runs out of some type of option offense, most use the basic zone read, if the elmos comes at the qb, the qb hands it off and the back goes straight up the gut, if he goes after the back then the qb takes off with it. Of course there are many variations, but this is a play backs in those systems get plenty of yards from and many plays that aren't conventional NFL style runs. Ben Tate was one example, I didn't see any traditional runs when I looked at his highlight tape, but he has adapted and worked well with the zone read, although his vision isn't as good as Foster's, and he is considered more of the bruising back (timed at 4.4something) while Foster he more of the homerun guy at 4.6something
I mean every team schemes to get favorable matchups. The article states that he doesn't have to face a crowded box because of the pass heavy offense. Almost no back has to face a crowded box in any of these spread offenses. When they see a crowded line they throw the ball, when they are back further they run. Teams that are run heavy just add extra blockers for this and use the deep pass so defenders don't try to cheat up for the run.
What part of the article was interesting? the fact that he had no clue what he was talking about? or do you find everything interesting?
