You are not logged in. Join Free! | Log In Thank you!    

Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Share
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline gbguy20  
#1 Posted : Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:43:40 AM(UTC)
gbguy20

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,162
Joined: 8/28/2009(UTC)

Applause Given: 185
Applause Received: 247

source

Please click the link to get the author his hits.

Quote:
Since assuming the lead running back role from Benson in the middle of the Colts game, Green has actually been pretty consistent. He cannot gain yardage when running to the left. On 32 attempts, Green has gained only 44 yards. That’s an average of 1.38 per carry. In two games, he actually averaged less than a yard per carry when running to the left.

Yet, when Green isn’t running to the left he’s much better. Up the middle he averages 5.29 yards per carry and to the right he averages 2.63. Combined, when not running to the left, Green averages 3.73 yards per carry, and has gained 153 yards.

Is Green simply incapable of running to his left? Or is there something schematically wrong with the left side of the Packers line?

Cedric Benson had more luck than Green when running to the left, but not consistently. In week 3 versus the Seahawks, Benson averaged .75 yards per carry to the left. And in week 5 versus the Colts, before getting hurt, Benson averaged 1.6 when running to the left.

The left side of the Packers offensive line is anchored by T.J. Lang and Marshall Newhouse. Newhouse’s play has been up and down this season, and while Lang is an outspoken player on twitter and quickly becoming a fan favorite, perhaps his, and Newhouse’s, play on the line is also to blame for the Packers running problems.
call me Dan
Sponsor
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:58:55 AM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,647
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 345

I do believe the run game problem is a combination of bad blocking and the scheme not working. This zone scheme hasn't really worked since McCarthy brought it in. Even in its best year, it was very unconsistent with many 0 and 1 yards runs. Only then Grant would blow up for a 60yrd TD which made it look better. Today we are getting the same normal runs, just not breaking the big ones.

It is supposed to be the stick in any back and gain a 1000 yards. Well that worked on Denver because they could block it. When we run to the edges, especially to the left, the defense always beats our line to the point of attack. The biggest single reason I do not like the scheme, is because it is designed to be blocking on the LOS or behind it. Not on the defensive side.

We do not have a finese Oline, we have road grinders. We need to let them get off the ball and drive the dline backwards. We need to get back to playing the run game on their side of the LOS.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
DakotaT on 10/30/2012(UTC)
Offline beast  
#3 Posted : Tuesday, October 30, 2012 12:07:05 PM(UTC)
beast

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,518
Joined: 10/5/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 119
Applause Received: 211



Sitton and Bulaga are the best two run blockers on the team and they're on the same side.
So I don't think it really comes as any surprise the other side isn't doing as well...

I haven't been following the running game too closely but I have noticed the OL has looked better at zone blocking at times compared to other years, though one mistake and the play messed up.

I'm thinking they need to mix up the RBs a little more...

Green in for the spread offense, zone blocking and passing game.

Starks in for the power running and passing game.


Defense will pick up on what type of running goes with which back, but as long as they willing to pass with both in there and Rodgers is passing they still will key the pass more than the run, so they won't know weather it's a pass or run (unless Mike McCarthy starts calling only one of them like he did in the first half of the Seahawks game).
America's team... of the people, by the people, for the people
UserPostedImage
~ made by pack93z
Offline beast  
#4 Posted : Tuesday, October 30, 2012 12:15:40 PM(UTC)
beast

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,518
Joined: 10/5/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 119
Applause Received: 211

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
I do believe the run game problem is a combination of bad blocking and the scheme not working. This zone scheme hasn't really worked since McCarthy brought it in. Even in its best year, it was very unconsistent with many 0 and 1 yards runs. Only then Grant would blow up for a 60yrd TD which made it look better. Today we are getting the same normal runs, just not breaking the big ones.

It is supposed to be the stick in any back and gain a 1000 yards. Well that worked on Denver because they could block it. When we run to the edges, especially to the left, the defense always beats our line to the point of attack. The biggest single reason I do not like the scheme, is because it is designed to be blocking on the LOS or behind it. Not on the defensive side.

We do not have a finese Oline, we have road grinders. We need to let them get off the ball and drive the dline backwards. We need to get back to playing the run game on their side of the LOS.



It doesn't matter weather it's power or zone, the Packers haven't been able to run with it. Yet zone blocking seems to get most of the blame.

Also there are different types of zone blocking, not all types of zone stay on the LOS. Sitton ran a lot of inside zone in college and he was often times on LBers, and really that's when Lang is at his best, zone where they get to double team and then one gets to move to the second level.

I agree that Sitton and Bulaga are road grinders, maybe D-Smith as well... not so sure about the others. Newhouse has looked finese at times. Lang seems like a tweener with everything, jack of all trades king of one (getting to the second level and getting him some).
America's team... of the people, by the people, for the people
UserPostedImage
~ made by pack93z
Offline Pack93z  
#5 Posted : Tuesday, October 30, 2012 12:22:20 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

U.S. Minor Islands
Posts: 12,603
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 353
Applause Received: 936

I posted this in 2009... I have more posting back to 2006 upon this site and another that shall not be named.

Our problem starts with Campen himself.. IMO.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z Go to Quoted Post


This has been a consistent theme since Philben and Campen took the reigns and continued to the pairing of Campen and Fontento.. we look around the roster and see development in almost every other unit on the team.. that alone speaks volumes to me.

That and the fact that we all the lineman we have ran through here since Ted has come to town.. we can't find a solid starting 5?

Something is amiss.. we see that the players have the ability for stretches of time.. lacking consistency to get it done on a week to week basis.

Yes.. I am banging the drum for a change at the units coaching.. something we have been commenting on since 06 and 07.. 06 we had three rookies starting.. I can sort of expect that.



Personally, I feel this is the best talent we have had on the line in some time.. across the board.

They flash at times.. but are far from consistent... that starts with coaching.
The wolves will never lose sleep over the feelings of the sheep.

UserPostedImage
Offline zombieslayer  
#6 Posted : Tuesday, October 30, 2012 12:32:23 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

I agree with Pack93z. Ted Thompson has done his job in drafting. Let's look at Ted Thompson's drafts:

2005 - 2 picks, neither worked for very long. Ted Thompson fail.
2006 - 3 picks, 2 of them still in the NFL (on other teams though) and one played until last year. Ted Thompson win
2007 - 1 pick, played in the NFL until last year on other teams. Ted Thompson draw
2008 - 2 picks, both in the NFL. One of them still on the team and has been nominated for Pro Bowls before. Ted Thompson win
2009 - 2 picks, both in the NFL. One of them still on the team. Ted Thompson win
2010 - 2 picks, both in the NFL. One of them still on the team. Ted Thompson win
2011 - 2 picks, both in the NFL. One of them still on the team but injured (fluke injury, can't blame Uncle Ted). Ted Thompson win
2012 - 1 pick but was a 7th rounder and we needed D help more than OL help. However, we did lose our starting C and picked up another who's a future Hall of Famer and still better than average, despite his advanced age.

All in all, looks like Ted Thompson has done his job. Must put the blame elsewhere.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Gaycandybacon on 10/30/2012(UTC)
Offline Rios39  
#7 Posted : Tuesday, October 30, 2012 12:32:46 PM(UTC)
Rios39

Rank: 5th Round Draft Pick

Posts: 592
Joined: 8/9/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 1
Applause Received: 30

It seems like we don't run well either left or right. Only good up the middle probably going between saturday and sitton or saturday and lang. Going outside of that we drop backwards.

Starks should be used. At least he has a history of good games and averaged much, much better yards per carry than what we are getting this year. McCarthy is being bull-headed.
blank
Offline Porforis  
#8 Posted : Tuesday, October 30, 2012 12:34:46 PM(UTC)
Porforis

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,733
You have been a member since:: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Applause Given: 167
Applause Received: 328

Originally Posted by: Rios39 Go to Quoted Post
It seems like we don't run well either left or right. Only good up the middle probably going between saturday and sitton or saturday and lang. Going outside of that we drop backwards.

Starks should be used. At least he has a history of good games and averaged much, much better yards per carry than what we are getting this year. McCarthy is being bull-headed.


Or doesn't want to kill starks within a few games of giving him a full load.
UserPostedImage
Offline zombieslayer  
#9 Posted : Tuesday, October 30, 2012 12:39:29 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

OK, this part of the article I don't understand. Not the author, but the play selection.

If we're having so much trouble running left, why are half the plays to the left? Why not run more right up the middle and to the right?

Quote:
In the last two games, 23 of Green’s 42 attempts have been to the left. Despite the poor production, the Packers are running to the left. Until the Packers can find a way to block that side of the line better, no matter who is running the ball, the Packers running game will struggle.


Maybe run 50% up the middle, 25% to the right, and 25% to the left. The middle seems the best. Why not run right up the gut more?

And for the love of God, throw more screens to Green and Cobb. Play to your strengths. Green actually is pretty good in the open field.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#10 Posted : Tuesday, October 30, 2012 12:58:50 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,647
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 345

Originally Posted by: beast Go to Quoted Post
It doesn't matter weather it's power or zone, the Packers haven't been able to run with it. Yet zone blocking seems to get most of the blame.

Also there are different types of zone blocking, not all types of zone stay on the LOS. Sitton ran a lot of inside zone in college and he was often times on LBers, and really that's when Lang is at his best, zone where they get to double team and then one gets to move to the second level.

I agree that Sitton and Bulaga are road grinders, maybe D-Smith as well... not so sure about the others. Newhouse has looked finese at times. Lang seems like a tweener with everything, jack of all trades king of one (getting to the second level and getting him some).


Well technically every scheme is a zone scheme of some sort. But the zone Mike brought in, the Outside Zone from Denver. We don't block well, and have never blocked well. And it is predominately LOS blocking, hoping for a lane to open up from a cut block or over pursuit of the defense.

There has been a switch to inside zone, with Benson and lately when we do run up the middle not from shotgun.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#11 Posted : Tuesday, October 30, 2012 1:04:34 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,647
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 345

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer Go to Quoted Post
OK, this part of the article I don't understand. Not the author, but the play selection.

If we're having so much trouble running left, why are half the plays to the left? Why not run more right up the middle and to the right?


I think much of the reason is the plays from shotgun, how Rodgers likes to hand the ball off and fake. When the back is coming from his right, running left. When Rodgers would come out of a fake, he would have his body turning in the same direction as his normal drop.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline beast  
#12 Posted : Tuesday, October 30, 2012 1:25:06 PM(UTC)
beast

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,518
Joined: 10/5/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 119
Applause Received: 211

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
Well technically every scheme is a zone scheme of some sort. But the zone Mike brought in, the Outside Zone from Denver. We don't block well, and have never blocked well. And it is predominately LOS blocking, hoping for a lane to open up from a cut block or over pursuit of the defense.

There has been a switch to inside zone, with Benson and lately when we do run up the middle not from shotgun.



I disagree every scheme is a zone scheme... power scheme the Packers ran in the early 2000 with William Henderson clearly wasn't a zone scheme, it was a hat on a hat, beat your guy down...

And the Packers have run zone blocking where is wasn't LOS blocking, I remember in the NFL opener against the Saints, the Packers were able to run the ball at times very well, and people were so glad, it was working and they brought back the power blocking.... well it wasn't power blocking it was it was zone blocking and getting to the second level (my favorite type). Also you can have outside zone up the field as well. I think up the field outside zone would work best for RB Green. Speed RB who's doesn't have the best power or reading of blocks.

I agree with you that I have never liked the look of the LOS zone blocking, but if you can hold the rusher, then get the moving, and just one guy stop the movement of his guy, huge holes can open up. you have to be willing to go hit a guy around his knee though at times...



Up the field zone, is based on starting with a double team, say Lang and Saturday, going towards Lang way, the double team the NT, with Lang in the better position, then they put a quick switch, where Saturday gets into the better position, as Lang is leaving the NT and going to the second level and getting him a LB to block...

So Saturday has to hold the NT a short while one on one, but the RB should be through that hole soon, and Lang is up the field. Clearly you have to have quick linemen for that, which is where the idea of zone linemen have to be smaller.... which isn't true. They have to be quick... they're not always the easiest to find, but big quick linemen can work great too (Bulaga)
America's team... of the people, by the people, for the people
UserPostedImage
~ made by pack93z
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#13 Posted : Tuesday, October 30, 2012 1:46:26 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,647
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 345

Originally Posted by: beast Go to Quoted Post
I disagree every scheme is a zone scheme... power scheme the Packers ran in the early 2000 with William Henderson clearly wasn't a zone scheme, it was a hat on a hat, beat your guy down...

And the Packers have run zone blocking where is wasn't LOS blocking, I remember in the NFL opener against the Saints, the Packers were able to run the ball at times very well, and people were so glad, it was working and they brought back the power blocking.... well it wasn't power blocking it was it was zone blocking and getting to the second level (my favorite type). Also you can have outside zone up the field as well. I think up the field outside zone would work best for RB Green. Speed RB who's doesn't have the best power or reading of blocks.

I agree with you that I have never liked the look of the LOS zone blocking, but if you can hold the rusher, then get the moving, and just one guy stop the movement of his guy, huge holes can open up. you have to be willing to go hit a guy around his knee though at times...



Up the field zone, is based on starting with a double team, say Lang and Saturday, going towards Lang way, the double team the NT, with Lang in the better position, then they put a quick switch, where Saturday gets into the better position, as Lang is leaving the NT and going to the second level and getting him a LB to block...

So Saturday has to hold the NT a short while one on one, but the RB should be through that hole soon, and Lang is up the field. Clearly you have to have quick linemen for that, which is where the idea of zone linemen have to be smaller.... which isn't true. They have to be quick... they're not always the easiest to find, but big quick linemen can work great too (Bulaga)


Even "hat on hat" is still zone, once past HS even in HS more these days. Many call it rules blocking, but in essence it is still the same. Whether inside or outside, a lineman has a zone to block, and rules determine who to block. Defenses move around and change to much to not block zones. Depending where the defense lines up, determines blocking assignment. Saturday would either block the NT over him, or if uncovered, doubling left or right depending on the play. Only real difference, is the blocking momentum forward or sideways.

Even on pulling plays, LG pulls right, his zone is the first guy not blocked on the end of the line
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline beast  
#14 Posted : Tuesday, October 30, 2012 2:06:13 PM(UTC)
beast

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,518
Joined: 10/5/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 119
Applause Received: 211

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
Even "hat on hat" is still zone, once past HS even in HS more these days. Many call it rules blocking, but in essence it is still the same. Whether inside or outside, a lineman has a zone to block, and rules determine who to block. Defenses move around and change to much to not block zones. Depending where the defense lines up, determines blocking assignment. Saturday would either block the NT over him, or if uncovered, doubling left or right depending on the play. Only real difference, is the blocking momentum forward or sideways.

Even on pulling plays, LG pulls right, his zone is the first guy not blocked on the end of the line


I'm not used to "hat on hat" being zone, to me it's man. Sounds like they're putting it in zone terms but it's still man... hit the first guy in your way, that's uncovered at you pull.
America's team... of the people, by the people, for the people
UserPostedImage
~ made by pack93z
Offline nerdmann  
#15 Posted : Tuesday, October 30, 2012 4:46:22 PM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Posts: 6,523
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,106
Applause Received: 472

Lang's been playing one handed due to an elbow injury. And Newhouse is a backup.

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

Still seems like dude could have a little better vision though. AND I think they could use him better toward his skill set.

But I guess I'm not as down on him as I was before. I thought Green played with some heart in the last game.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 2.1.0 | YAF © 2003-2014, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.342 seconds.