Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
3 Pages<123>

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Since69  
#21 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:23:23 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
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.


The counterpoint is that the ZBS also wears down a d-line. By the end of the game they're so bruised and wary that they start to slack off. I see the logic of it, I just don't agree with it.

Another reason I dislike it is that, against some teams, the lack of initial success may cause the offense to give up on the running game. (As we have seen.)

ZBS isn't as effective in the first half of the game as it is in the 2nd. You spend the entire first 2 or 3 quarters gaining 1 or 2 or 3 yards per carry, and then you see longer runs at the end. But you have to stick with it if you expect it to work. And against some defenses (like Dallas' - a 3-4/5-2 with younger athletic linemen) it just doesn't work at all.
agopackgo4  
#22 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:23:54 PM(UTC)
Idk the teams with great offensive lines, still seem to have something in the 4th quarter. Thats when their running backs are most effective.
luigis  
#23 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:35:17 PM(UTC)
I agree with your post a lot ZBS I think the league adjusted to the ZBS and is not as hot as it was when Denver and Atlanta were running it.
Unfortunately it seems we have drafted our OLs with the ZBS system in mind and now we have and I say this with respect a bunch of players that can just be backups in any serious team. Spitz, Colledge, Barbre, Coston, Moll none of them is an elite player.

Luis
MassPackersFan  
#24 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:41:34 PM(UTC)
Coston is gone I think. Spitz could be a quality player for a while.
zerowley  
#25 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:55:37 PM(UTC)
Again, you guys should read this: http://www.atexansblog.c...bout-that-zone-blocking/

There is a ton of false information in this thread. Zone blocking is definitely utilized in pass protection, it isn't ineffective versus certain fronts, and you don't need sub 300 lb linemen to run it.

Our problem isn't with the scheme, it's with execution and injuries. The interior is the weakest link of our team and we lost 2 projected starters before the season even started.

I don't know if you guys noticed, but even the Eagles (who have maulers for offensive linemen and one of the best running backs in the league) weren't able to consistently gain yards against the Cowboys. The Browns (who have one of the best offensive lines in the league) weren't able to gain consistent yardage against them either.
MassPackersFan  
#26 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:00:48 PM(UTC)
I didn't really see an explanation of how pass blocking differs. Nothing to compare the ZPB to in the article, that I saw.
Zero2Cool  
#27 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:01:50 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Again, you guys should read this: http://www.atexansblog.c...bout-that-zone-blocking/

There is a ton of false information in this thread. Zone blocking is definitely utilized in pass protection, it isn't ineffective versus certain fronts, and you don't need sub 300 lb linemen to run it.

Our problem isn't with the scheme, it's with execution and injuries. The interior is the weakest link of our team and we lost 2 projected starters before the season even started.

I don't know if you guys noticed, but even the Eagles (who have maulers for offensive linemen and one of the best running backs in the league) weren't able to consistently gain yards against the Cowboys. The Browns (who have one of the best offensive lines in the league) weren't able to gain consistent yardage against them either.



Hey now, I'm not the one who said it has nothing to do with pass blocking after I said we haven't given up many sacks with the ZBS lol...

I also believe i mentioned that we didn't have any runs for a loss or zero gain too. Maybe that was in another thread.


My personal preference is a power OL. That's what I'm saying.
MassPackersFan  
#28 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:06:02 PM(UTC)
Actually I said the "smaller mobile linemen" were doing allright the past few years in terms of sack numbers. The ones who were hired to also execute the zone run blocking schemes.
Nowhere did I say anything about the ZBS itself not giving up many sacks. "lol"
Zero2Cool  
#29 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:07:35 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Actually I said the "smaller mobile linemen" were doing allright the past few years in terms of sack numbers. The ones who were hired to also execute the zone run blocking schemes.
Nowhere did I say anything about the ZBS itself not giving up many sacks. "lol"


" 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.


I suppose. "lol"


edit, the second quote there ... to ME ... implies we had high sack totals prior to implementing the ZBS. I feel that is not true. I could be assuming incorrectly as well to the meaning of the quote.
MassPackersFan  
#30 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:14:38 PM(UTC)
No I didn't mean that to be assumed. I just expected to give up many more sacks the past few years after losing the interior of our line, while we transitioned. I think our pass protection has been solid, for the most part. Nobody was complaining after week 1. And we've had Wells out and Spitz moved over.
Zero2Cool  
#31 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:17:34 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
No I didn't mean that to be assumed. I just expected to give up many more sacks the past few years after losing the interior of our line, while we transitioned. I think our pass protection has been solid, for the most part. Nobody was complaining after week 1. And we've had Wells out and Spitz moved over.



I'm not sure who is complaining now. We did a fairly decent job against the Cowboys, running the ball anyhow. We just (my opinion) stopped running it too soon.

Per the passing game. Rodgers was running around a lot, but it wasn't solely because the OL was letting them through. He held onto the ball way too long several times, I thought.

As I have said before. I prefer a power OL over a finesse OL. Just a personal preference.
zerowley  
#32 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:48:12 PM(UTC)
Sorry if I sounded like I was calling people out; I wasn't trying to. The zone blocking scheme is just heavily misunderstood (again, I blame commentators who try to sound like they know what they're talking about when they don't) and I think that article does a great job pointing out how it differs from typical blocking schemes, as well as pointing out some pros and cons to using it.

About the pass blocking scheme, I was pointing out that the ZBS is definitely utilized in pass protection; it's not just for the running game.
Rios39  
#33 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:56:54 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
No I didn't mean that to be assumed. I just expected to give up many more sacks the past few years after losing the interior of our line, while we transitioned. I think our pass protection has been solid, for the most part. Nobody was complaining after week 1. And we've had Wells out and Spitz moved over.



I'm not sure who is complaining now. We did a fairly decent job against the Cowboys, running the ball anyhow. We just (my opinion) stopped running it too soon.

Per the passing game. Rodgers was running around a lot, but it wasn't solely because the OL was letting them through. He held onto the ball way too long several times, I thought.

As I have said before. I prefer a power OL over a finesse OL. Just a personal preference.


The whole "Holding the ball too long thing" Is kind of iffy IMO. I can see if he was not throwing the ball to open receivers. But earlier in the game he was hitting quick slants and throws down field. But if they aren't open he can't just throw it anyways lol The line was horrendous after the 1st quarter.
Pack93z  
#34 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:02:18 PM(UTC)
Here is a piece I posted a long time ago on another board.


Quote:
For those looking for a definition to the scheme... here you go.. and it will maybe help dispell the illusion that any running back can be successful in the scheme. To me the running back needs to have great vision, decisive decision making, instincts and a decent burst to utilize the scheme.

But Warhawk's point above to me is correct.. you have to have the correct personal to run the scheme, the lineman have to be athletic and be able to make reads at the line. Additionally they have to be able to get out of their stance quickly.

The running game in football used to be pretty simple. The most complex things you would see for line play were some pulling guards to run sweeps or traps. But then several years ago you began to hear the word zone get thrown around more and more frequently (with the likes of Denver, Atlanta and others adopting it... yes us too) until it's about all you hear anymore.

In a general overview this is how a zone should be blocked, but I won't pretend to be an expert, but I will try to explain the basics to simplify things a bit. In the offense you and I grew up in, most of the time the running back had a specific point to try to run through, and the OL tried to create a seam right in that spot. Called man or drive blocking, requires more strength and doesn't require as much agility because everything happens in front of you.

With zone, you don't tell the running back exactly where to go. You direct his first couple of steps, and the point at which he gets the hand-off from the QB, but from there it's his responsibility to find a seam. Hence the "one" cut and go mantra that you hear about from the coaches.

There are a couple different kinds of zone, two of the most common being the inside zone and the zone stretch.

The "inside zone" is more of a downhill attack, and is more likely to produce the cutback lane. The back must be able to read the progress of the play and cut and go.

The "zone stretch" does just what it sounds like - runs more towards the edge, trying to get defensive flow horizontally so a vertical seam can be created, moreso of the drive or man scheme. Big play potential here.

Blocking the zone is where it really helps to have athletic linemen who can move horizontally with decent power and push. In fact, the OL must be able to move horizontally, all while keeping their shoulders square to the line of scrimmage and while engaging the defense. If they open up their shoulders at all, at can create a seam for the defense to get penetration and disrupt the play before it starts.
Greg C.  
#35 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:48:15 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" 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.


What McCarthy meant by mixing it up is that it depends on the play. Sometimes the linemen block specific players and sometimes they block in a zone. McCarthy also made the point that this is true of any offense. Your caricature of this ("this week you'll be a road grader and next week you'll be throwing yourself at the other guys' legs") is very misleading.

My main point was that I agree with Zero. I liked the power running scheme better. I think the ZBS is too complicated for its own good. I wonder if McCarthy would've gone with the ZBS if he'd known that Jeff Jagodzinski would get hired on at Boston College after only one year as our offensive coordinator.
Zero2Cool  
#36 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:59:53 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
The whole "Holding the ball too long thing" Is kind of iffy IMO. I can see if he was not throwing the ball to open receivers. But earlier in the game he was hitting quick slants and throws down field. But if they aren't open he can't just throw it anyways lol The line was horrendous after the 1st quarter.


I disagree. QB's are told they have a certain amount of time in the pocket to get rid of the ball. I can't recall the exact number, but I think its like 2.4 seconds or something like that. If they don't see an opening and can't scramble for yards, throw it away instead of taking the sack.

Rodgers held the ball too long and where it worked out great last week, this week it didn't. We can't expect our OL that is small to fend off guys bigger and stronger than them for 5 seconds a play because our WR are covered. He needs to ditch the ball or run for a few yards.

The draw play and some play action pass calls would have been good in the game. I believe anyhow.
dannychau22  
#37 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:26:19 PM(UTC)
anybody know the status of scott wells??
would be nice to have Clifton-Colledge-Wells-Spitz-Tauscher again
porky88  
#38 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:35:54 PM(UTC)
The ZBS always takes a while to get going considering you don't practice it much. You can't cut your own guys. Every year the running game takes a while to get going. Eventually it does. I wouldn't worry that much. I think eventually it can get going. GB did run the ball pretty well against Detroit and Minnesota. Certainly not terrible.

The problem is Dallas is a great football team. You had an outstanding front seven going up against an offensive line that has their starting center out, starting guard playing center, and a running-back with a bad hamstring.
longtimefan  
#39 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 9:37:05 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" 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.


+20
Zero2Cool  
#40 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 9:42:17 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
The ZBS always takes a while to get going considering you don't practice it much. You can't cut your own guys. Every year the running game takes a while to get going. Eventually it does. I wouldn't worry that much. I think eventually it can get going. GB did run the ball pretty well against Detroit and Minnesota. Certainly not terrible.

The problem is Dallas is a great football team. You had an outstanding front seven going up against an offensive line that has their starting center out, starting guard playing center, and a running-back with a bad hamstring.



Yep. Very true and good points.


I still prefer to have a power OL. I don't mean to knock one in favor of the other. I just prefer to out power people on the lines. I think it frustrates a team when they get out physicalled. &lt;-- new word?

Not that getting cut doesn't piss off players, cuz ... it does and its funny listening to them whine about it. Vikings?
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123>
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
Smokey (51m) : GB needs to trade up in the draft to get THE Ohio State CB - Marshon Lattimore !
Zero2Cool (7h) : QB Mark Sanchez joining the Bears.
Zero2Cool (10h) : double it up
Zero2Cool (10h) : I'm kidding, relax....
Zero2Cool (10h) : and now he has been cut
uffda udfa (23-Mar) : Per Schefter: Former Skins DT Ricky Jean Francois signed a one-year, $3M deal with Packers, per source.
uffda udfa (23-Mar) : Per Schefter: FormerSkins DT Ricky Jean Francois signed a one-year, $3M deal with Packers, per source.
Zero2Cool (23-Mar) : lol by .01 not what i thought
Zero2Cool (23-Mar) : he's faster than Montgomery
uffda udfa (22-Mar) : Packers re-sign Christine Michael
Smokey (22-Mar) : Easier said than fixed .
Nonstopdrivel (22-Mar) : The web version lists who started the thread; the mobile version lists who last updated it.
Nonstopdrivel (22-Mar) : Also, there's a weird disparity between the web version and online version of this site.
Nonstopdrivel (22-Mar) : ;-)
Zero2Cool (21-Mar) : Packers wanted D. Ware in 2005. Thank you Cowboys!
Zero2Cool (21-Mar) : lol Rourke
Nonstopdrivel (21-Mar) : I HATE HATE HATE the way all threads get marked as read after viewing a few of them in one session. It's obnoxious.
Smokey (21-Mar) : Check out this site, NFLdraftscout.com , a great resource site.
Smokey (20-Mar) : Jared Cook signs with Raiders .
Smokey (20-Mar) : I did watch SB 45 on YouTube the other night, very eye opening .
Smokey (20-Mar) : Watching Spring Training Baseball, Nationals vs Yankees, very interesting .
Zero2Cool (19-Mar) : B1G making some noise in that bracket
Zero2Cool (19-Mar) : The more join, the more talk, the better. including John
Zero2Cool (19-Mar) : no forum should need one person, we have others, speak up!
gbguy20 (19-Mar) : slow forum needs more uffda
Smokey (19-Mar) : There's always next year .
Smokey (18-Mar) : Virginia is still in it !
Smokey (18-Mar) : On Wisconsin
Zero2Cool (18-Mar) : Down goes Villanova!! Badgers!!!
Zero2Cool (18-Mar) : Might have went into your SPAM or JUNK folder??
yooperfan (18-Mar) : Funny I never got the invite
wpr (17-Mar) : Ignoring the Signing Bonus, Jones' base is only $725K above the vet min
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Not many seem interested, but I did invite those from last year.
dhazer (16-Mar) : no bracket challenge Kevin?
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Blame twitter on the /home page here lol
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2016 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 11 @ 12:00 PM
at Jaguars
Sunday, Sep 18 @ 7:30 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Sep 25 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Oct 2 @ 12:00 AM
BYE
Sunday, Oct 9 @ 7:30 PM
GIANTS
Sunday, Oct 16 @ 3:25 PM
COWBOYS
Thursday, Oct 20 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 30 @ 3:25 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Nov 6 @ 3:25 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Nov 13 @ 12:00 PM
at Titans
Sunday, Nov 20 @ 7:30 PM
at Redskins
Monday, Nov 28 @ 7:30 PM
at Eagles
Sunday, Dec 4 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Dec 11 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Dec 18 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Saturday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Jan 1 @ 7:30 PM
at Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
4m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

55m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

23-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

23-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

23-Mar / Announcements / Zero2Cool

23-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23-Mar / Fantasy Sports Talk / wpr

23-Mar / Fantasy Sports Talk / Smokey

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

17-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

Headlines