Green Bay Packers Forum

Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
3 Pages<123>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Zero2Cool  
#16 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:40:55 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Member

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,999
Applause Received: 2,302

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " 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.
"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

UserPostedImage
Offline agopackgo4  
#17 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:44:40 PM(UTC)
agopackgo4

Rank: Registered

Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Received: 3

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " 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?
Offline MassPackersFan  
#18 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:54:05 PM(UTC)
MassPackersFan

Rank: Registered

Joined: 9/16/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 1
Applause Received: 7

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.
UserPostedImage
Offline Zero2Cool  
#19 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:16:36 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Member

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,999
Applause Received: 2,302

Originally Posted by: " 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.







Originally Posted by: " 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.

Originally Posted by: " 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.
"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

UserPostedImage
Offline agopackgo4  
#20 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:23:18 PM(UTC)
agopackgo4

Rank: Registered

Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Received: 3

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " 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.






Originally Posted by: " 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.

Originally Posted by: " 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.
Offline Since69  
#21 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:23:23 PM(UTC)
Since69

Rank: Registered

Joined: 11/2/2006(UTC)

Applause Given: 83
Applause Received: 83

Originally Posted by: " 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.
UserPostedImage
Offline agopackgo4  
#22 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:23:54 PM(UTC)
agopackgo4

Rank: Registered

Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Received: 3

Idk the teams with great offensive lines, still seem to have something in the 4th quarter. Thats when their running backs are most effective.
Offline luigis  
#23 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:35:17 PM(UTC)
luigis

Rank: Member

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 99
Applause Received: 105

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
Luis
Offline MassPackersFan  
#24 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:41:34 PM(UTC)
MassPackersFan

Rank: Registered

Joined: 9/16/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 1
Applause Received: 7

Coston is gone I think. Spitz could be a quality player for a while.
UserPostedImage
Offline zerowley  
#25 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:55:37 PM(UTC)
zerowley

Rank: Registered

Joined: 8/28/2008(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.
blank
Offline MassPackersFan  
#26 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:00:48 PM(UTC)
MassPackersFan

Rank: Registered

Joined: 9/16/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 1
Applause Received: 7

I didn't really see an explanation of how pass blocking differs. Nothing to compare the ZPB to in the article, that I saw.
UserPostedImage
Offline Zero2Cool  
#27 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:01:50 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Member

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,999
Applause Received: 2,302

Originally Posted by: " 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.
"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

UserPostedImage
Offline MassPackersFan  
#28 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:06:02 PM(UTC)
MassPackersFan

Rank: Registered

Joined: 9/16/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 1
Applause Received: 7

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"
UserPostedImage
Offline Zero2Cool  
#29 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:07:35 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Member

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,999
Applause Received: 2,302

Originally Posted by: " 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"


Originally Posted by: " 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.
"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

UserPostedImage
Offline MassPackersFan  
#30 Posted : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:14:38 PM(UTC)
MassPackersFan

Rank: Registered

Joined: 9/16/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 1
Applause Received: 7

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.
UserPostedImage
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


Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / porky88

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

27-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

27-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / mi_keys

26-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

26-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

26-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / OlHoss1884

26-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf


Tweeter