Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
3 Pages123>

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Zero2Cool  
#1 Posted : Monday, September 22, 2008 7:53:22 PM(UTC)
I can't recall being a huge fan of it when we first adopted it. I know after seeing the Cowboys game I'm far less fond of it.

I don't know a whole lot about the zone blocking scheme, however, I do know not many teams use it. That says a lot to me especially since this is a copy cat league.

But, every team uses a flavor of it in some capacity.


I miss the days when we had a power oriented OL. One that just manhandled people. You know what, we still have those two tackles that anchored that line too. I'm not convinced that Colledge will be the answer at LT be it zone or power scheme.


It's impossible to switch now, mid season. I just kind of hope we draft some big OL this next off season and start moving for a OL that just punishes people instead of the one we have now that tries to finesse people into not tackling our RB's.


I'm ignorant to the knowledge of a OL and how one works so this isn't some educated rant or anything like that. I just don't like our OL being smaller than 85% of the DL's we face.
TengoJuego  
#2 Posted : Monday, September 22, 2008 8:06:39 PM(UTC)
Well we saw the zone scheme have success last season... obviously. But I am like you, I'm not very educated on O-line schemes.
Greg C.  
#3 Posted : Monday, September 22, 2008 9:34:42 PM(UTC)
Zero: I've had the same thought as you about the ZBS. McCarthy emphasizes that he does not run a pure ZBS, he mixes it up, but it does have a big effect on what kind of players the Packers use. The emphasis is on getting linemen who are more nimble, which usually means sacrificing some strength. The downside is that linemen of this type tend to have problems in pass protection, as they get overpowered at times.

When Josh Sitton won a starting spot in the preseason, that may have been a move away from the ZBS. At 317, Sitton is about 15 pounds heavier than our other interior O-linemen, and he is supposedly stronger. I think the coaches were ready to go with more of a mauler-type lineman. Unfortunately, Sitton got hurt and hasn't been able to play yet.

The fact remains that the interior O-line is the one area of the team that continues to be an Achilles' heel for Ted Thompson and the coaching staff. And it says something that our best interior O-lineman is Scott Wells, who is a holdover from the Mike Sherman era. It may be time to move back toward more of a power running scheme. I'm not expecting anything dramatic, but when Sitton returns we may see this trend begin to play out on the field during the course of this season.
agopackgo4  
#4 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:38:28 PM(UTC)
I dont like it. There is a reason that not many teams around the league run one. I just dont get why a team goes away from what has always worked...Doesnt make sense to me.
Cheesey  
#5 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:42:08 PM(UTC)
I'll wait till this season is over before passing judgement on it. We haven't had our O-line healthy, or for that matter our starting RB yet.
So it's hard to say how good it CAN or CAN'T be until we have the pieces in place to properly judge it.
JMO
WhiskeySam  
#6 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:47:01 PM(UTC)
The zone blocking scheme has really only worked when Alex Gibbs was coaching it Denver or Atlanta. The concept is simple: smaller, faster linemen move around and block a zone instead of straight man up blocking. You have to have the right personnel for it, though. You have to have guys who can work in space but are also smart enough to recognize where the pressure is coming from and shift to it. My personal preference agrees with most of you, in that I'd much rather line up behind some monsters and just smash the ball down the defense's throat.
agopackgo4  
#7 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:51:55 PM(UTC)
I wish we could trade for the Badgers O line...and plow people over.
MassPackersFan  
#8 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 1:21:02 PM(UTC)
Say what you want about the ZBS and the types of blockers it gives us, but since we've switched we have had extremely low sack numbers given up by these "smaller, mobile linemen." I don't have a problem with it in the running game either.
zombieslayer  
#9 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 1:28:18 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
I dont like it. There is a reason that not many teams around the league run one. I just dont get why a team goes away from what has always worked...Doesnt make sense to me.


Yeah. That's what I don't get. The scheme we had before the ZBS was working great from '01-04. Why fix something that's not broken?
zerowley  
#10 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 2:12:34 PM(UTC)
I think we'll be fine. We've been banged up on the offensive line and Favre's pocket presence masked some of the problems we had in the interior. I expected a slight drop in the line play and the injuries have exacerbated it.

About the scheme, multiple teams are using it. Us, Denver, Oakland, and Houston all use it, and Atlanta used it with success as well. From what I understand it places even more emphasis on communication than a typical blocking scheme, and injuries make that more difficult.

Here's an excellent article explaining it (most analysts and commentators have no idea what they're talking about): http://www.atexansblog.c...bout-that-zone-blocking/
Zero2Cool  
#11 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 2:22:05 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Say what you want about the ZBS and the types of blockers it gives us, but since we've switched we have had extremely low sack numbers given up by these "smaller, mobile linemen." I don't have a problem with it in the running game either.


We weren't giving up many sacks with the old Power OL either.
Since69  
#12 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 2:39:53 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
McCarthy emphasizes that he does not run a pure ZBS, he mixes it up, but it does have a big effect on what kind of players the Packers use. The emphasis is on getting linemen who are more nimble, which usually means sacrificing some strength. The downside is that linemen of this type tend to have problems in pass protection, as they get overpowered at times.


I sincerely hope this is McCarthy putting his best spin on the personnel moves that Thompson has made. It makes no sense otherwise. Either you zone block or you don't. Either your personnel are nimble enough to zone block or they're bulky enough to push people out of the way. We have to pick a side and stay with it. Offensive linemen don't have time to think. They have to react. What they do in any given situation must be second nature to them. It has to be practiced and repeated until it can be done without thought.

This half-assed "this week you'll be a road grader and next week you'll be throwing yourself at the other guys legs" crap has to stop. McCarthy has preached cohesiveness and consistency since his tenure began and this part-time zone blocking :xcensoredx: isn't going to allow that to happen - especially with young, inexperienced linemen.

On a personal note, zone blocking - and especially cut blocking - seems dirty to me. Its a good way to cause injuries. The only reason it works is because by the 3rd or 4th quarter the other team's defensive line is so beaten up they tend to slack off.


" said: Go to Quoted Post
Say what you want about the ZBS and the types of blockers it gives us, but since we've switched we have had extremely low sack numbers given up by these "smaller, mobile linemen." I don't have a problem with it in the running game either.


Rodgers was sacked five times Sunday night.
zombieslayer  
#13 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 2:49:07 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post


We weren't giving up many sacks with the old Power OL either.


That's the thing. If you look at Favre's sack totals, they started getting really low with Sherman. I'm no fan of Sherman, but he got one thing right - a good, solid OL. Why fix something that's not broken?
MassPackersFan  
#14 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:21:19 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post

Rodgers was sacked five times Sunday night.


I refuse to judge this O-line while Tony Moll is in there.
agopackgo4  
#15 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:36:17 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Say what you want about the ZBS and the types of blockers it gives us, but since we've switched we have had extremely low sack numbers given up by these "smaller, mobile linemen." I don't have a problem with it in the running game either.


We weren't giving up many sacks with the old Power OL either.


Not only that, but Like Larry McCarrin said in the lion game during the radio broadcast.. "Normally the QB takes the O line out to eat, but in the packers case the O line should take Rodgers out" Rodgers is definitily doing a great job avoiding pressure. And he is making that O lines stats look a lot better than how they have played.
Zero2Cool  
#16 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:40:55 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Say what you want about the ZBS and the types of blockers it gives us, but since we've switched we have had extremely low sack numbers given up by these "smaller, mobile linemen." I don't have a problem with it in the running game either.


We weren't giving up many sacks with the old Power OL either.


Not only that, but Like Larry McCarrin said in the lion game during the radio broadcast.. "Normally the QB takes the O line out to eat, but in the packers case the O line should take Rodgers out" Rodgers is definitily doing a great job avoiding pressure. And he is making that O lines stats look a lot better than how they have played.

Our previous QB was nifty in the pocket as well.


I would just much rather a OL that punishes people so we can get a better running game in the 4th quarter. I really believe that's going to be our downfall this year unless we pick it up a bit.
agopackgo4  
#17 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:44:40 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Say what you want about the ZBS and the types of blockers it gives us, but since we've switched we have had extremely low sack numbers given up by these "smaller, mobile linemen." I don't have a problem with it in the running game either.


We weren't giving up many sacks with the old Power OL either.


Not only that, but Like Larry McCarrin said in the lion game during the radio broadcast.. "Normally the QB takes the O line out to eat, but in the packers case the O line should take Rodgers out" Rodgers is definitily doing a great job avoiding pressure. And he is making that O lines stats look a lot better than how they have played.

Our previous QB was nifty in the pocket as well.


I would just much rather a OL that punishes people so we can get a better running game in the 4th quarter. I really believe that's going to be our downfall this year unless we pick it up a bit.


You think thats going to hurt us, trying to close out games? Or do you think we can get the job done with the passing game?
MassPackersFan  
#18 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:54:05 PM(UTC)
ZBS has nothing to do with pass protection unless you're saying it's a personnel issue. If so, who do you want to get rid of? Wells and Colledge? Spitz too? That basically means a completely replaced O-line within a few years. If you want to see struggling, I suggest we go that route.
Zero2Cool  
#19 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:16:36 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
You think thats going to hurt us, trying to close out games? Or do you think we can get the job done with the passing game?


I think having a OL that tries to finesse its way around allows the defense to have more energy in the 4th quarter. If we had a OL that punished a DL I just think we'd have a more productive 4th quarter running attack. Mike McCarthy made a excellent counterpoint to that theory and in support of the Zone Blocking scheme. I just don't recall it right now.







" said: Go to Quoted Post
Say what you want about the ZBS and the types of blockers it gives us, but since we've switched we have had extremely low sack numbers given up by these "smaller, mobile linemen." I don't have a problem with it in the running game either.

" said: Go to Quoted Post
ZBS has nothing to do with pass protection unless you're saying it's a personnel issue. If so, who do you want to get rid of? Wells and Colledge? Spitz too? That basically means a completely replaced O-line within a few years. If you want to see struggling, I suggest we go that route.
agopackgo4  
#20 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:23:18 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
You think thats going to hurt us, trying to close out games? Or do you think we can get the job done with the passing game?


I think having a OL that tries to finesse its way around allows the defense to have more energy in the 4th quarter. If we had a OL that punished a DL I just think we'd have a more productive 4th quarter running attack. Mike McCarthy made a excellent counterpoint to that theory and in support of the Zone Blocking scheme. I just don't recall it right now.

Idk the teams with great offensive lines, still seem to have something in the 4th quarter. Thats when their running backs are most effective.






" said: Go to Quoted Post
Say what you want about the ZBS and the types of blockers it gives us, but since we've switched we have had extremely low sack numbers given up by these "smaller, mobile linemen." I don't have a problem with it in the running game either.

" said: Go to Quoted Post
ZBS has nothing to do with pass protection unless you're saying it's a personnel issue. If so, who do you want to get rid of? Wells and Colledge? Spitz too? That basically means a completely replaced O-line within a few years. If you want to see struggling, I suggest we go that route.
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages123>
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.

Notification

Icon
Error

Fan Shout
gbguy20 (14h) : Agreed
Smokey (20h) : Yes, I like Chick-fil-a .
Smokey (20h) : Rabid Chicken ? LOL
rabidgopher04 (21-May) : Chick fil a
Zero2Cool (20-May) : Penguins & Bad Guys Tied 2 apiece! LETS GO PENS!
Smokey (20-May) : Who sells the best Chicken Sandwich ? Wendy, the King, McD, etc. ?
Smokey (20-May) : Just Visiting ? Join and post today !
Zero2Cool (18-May) : Screw you. (signed Pens fan)
TheKanataThrilla (18-May) : Go Sens!!! Will be in the crowd for the Friday game.
Smokey (18-May) : E.Lacy makes weight in Seattle by 2 lbs. (253 lbs.)
buckeyepackfan (17-May) : Blount signs 1 year deal with Eagles.
DarkaneRules (14-May) : and still! Miocic & Jedrzejczyk
Zero2Cool (13-May) : RP ... you mean Go Pens ... I fix for you.
RaiderPride (13-May) : Gotta Love P.K. T.K.T. I agree.. Go Preds.
Smokey (12-May) : CB Kevin King signs 4 yr deal, no 5th year option .
TheKanataThrilla (12-May) : Go Nashville in the West
TheKanataThrilla (12-May) : My son is wearing his Mario Lemieux Pens shirt and my daughter is wearing he Sens shirt. We win no matter what.
Zero2Cool (11-May) : Aaron Nagler:Packers announce first training camp practice to be held Thursday, July 27
Zero2Cool (11-May) : Capitals are dirty weak trash.
Zero2Cool (11-May) : NHL is great! PENGUINS!!!!
yooperfan (10-May) : Screw the NBA and the NHL, neither are worth watching!
wpr (10-May) : hahaha. Poor Bettman. Worth the price to see it.
TheKanataThrilla (10-May) : Bettman would blow a gasket if it was an all-Canadian finals. I want Nashville as I am a huge Mike Fisher fan.
Smokey (10-May) : Cheap Shot ? I think not .
wpr (10-May) : Thrilla how about an all Canada Finals?
TheKanataThrilla (10-May) : Pens tomorrow. Screw you Caps for the cheap shot on Crosby.
TheKanataThrilla (10-May) : Go Sens. Want to see the Sens pull it out tomorrow.
DarkaneRules (9-May) : that's a good thing. means the players are staying out of trouble
DoddPower (9-May) : awfully quiet in here
DoddPower (3-May) : darn
Zero2Cool (3-May) : Bob McGinn is leaving and the Packers
DarkaneRules (1-May) : Cutting two RBs today! Now drafting 3 makes more sense!
buckeyepackfan (29-Apr) : Malachi Dupree wr LSU final pick.
buckeyepackfan (29-Apr) : 3rd rb Devante Mays Utah St
Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : from Albert Breer
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2017 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 7:30 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 8 @ 3:25 PM
at Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 15 @ 12:00 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 AM
- BYE -
Monday, Nov 6 @ 7:30 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
RAVENS
Sunday, Nov 26 @ 7:30 PM
at Steelers
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 10 @ 12:00 PM
at Browns
Saturday, Dec 23 @ 7:30 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 12:00 PM
at Lions
Saturday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
at Panthers
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
31m / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

33m / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

16h / Packers Draft Threads / Smokey

20-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

19-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

19-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

18-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

18-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / hardrocker950

18-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

18-May / Around The NFL / Smokey

18-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

17-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

16-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

Headlines