Sporting News : Tom Silverstein

[motife]

Packers Team Report
Tom Silverstein
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

PERSONNEL ANALYSIS: The promotion of offensive line coach Joe Philbin to offensive coordinator means the same zone-blocking system the team introduced last year will continue. Philbin has a history in the system and believes in it. However, he also believes in toughness and discipline and may be open to more power-gap concepts, especially in short yardage situations. The team struggled to get first downs in short yardage and may need to adjust its philosophy. Philbin isn't a clone of departed offensive coordinator Jeff Jagodzinski and has some of his own thoughts on pass protection. He will spend a lot of time developing schemes that open up the offense and rely less on keeping running backs and tight ends in to block. . . .

WR Robert Ferguson's future is uncertain. He lost his starting job to rookie Greg Jennings and missed most of the season with a foot injury. A lot will depend on the offseason. If the club winds up taking a receiver early in the draft, it probably won't keep the oft-injured Ferguson around because he would be taking time away from a prospect. If the club doesn't add anyone of significance, it wouldn't hurt to bring him to camp and then make a decision based on how he competes with the other receivers.

SCOUTING REPORT: G Jason Spitz did a decent job as a starter in his rookie season, but he needs to develop more lower-body strength. He sometimes had trouble anchoring in pass protection and wasn't regularly able to drive defenders off the ball in the running game. His upper body strength is fine, and his toughness reminds some people of former C Frank Winters. He isn't the best athlete of the three rookie linemen, so he needs to gain every edge he can in preparation and aggressiveness.

SPECIAL PROJECT: Rookie WR Greg Jennings faded the second half of the season and it wasn't just because of a sore ankle. Jennings wore down physically and really needs to hit the weight room hard in the offseason, particularly with his legs. The coaches are going to put him through a strenuous program in the hopes he can develop physically the way Donald Driver did. Jennings is mature beyond his years, but he still made mistakes in reading coverages and needs more coaching on route adjustments.

Posted by twobrian5 on Mon Jan 22, 2007 04:03 am
I'm pleased with the way Mike McCarthy has gone about choosing his coordinators. Continuity is an important part of improving a football team. If you are constantly changing schemes, it takes the players time to learn and master not only the schemes, but what to expect from their teammates in that scheme. When McCarthy was hired, he kept the same defensive scheme in place by promoting defensive line coach Bob Sanders. That paid off with the team registering almost 50 sacks on the season. The same will be said for the offense. McCarthy calls the plays, but Philbin will handle the offensive design and schemes. Another great move by McCarthy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCarthy ...
Posted by mrwookie on Mon Jan 22, 2007 03:30 pm

While he may not have been the Coach of the Year, I feel that we definitely got a quality coach.

He has made a few rookie coach mistakes during the games, but his off the field hirings and planning seem to be top shelf.

While I worry that we won't see Favre next year, things are definitely looking better for the Packers, long-term.

[BooHoo]

Thanks for posting. Good reading. Any news is good news this time of year. :)

[Fritz]

"Philbin isn't a clone of departed offensive coordinator Jeff Jagodzinski and has some of his own thoughts on pass protection. He will spend a lot of time developing schemes that open up the offense and rely less on keeping running backs and tight ends in to block. . . ."

I don't think this is fair to Jags. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the guy's philosophy to keep everybody plus the beer vendors in to protect the QB; I think it had something to do with having three rookie linemen playing for long stretches of the season...

[prsnfoto]

"Philbin isn't a clone of departed offensive coordinator Jeff Jagodzinski and has some of his own thoughts on pass protection. He will spend a lot of time developing schemes that open up the offense and rely less on keeping running backs and tight ends in to block. . . ."

I don't think this is fair to Jags. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the guy's philosophy to keep everybody plus the beer vendors in to protect the QB; I think it had something to do with having three rookie linemen playing for long stretches of the season...

not to mention the fact McCarthy called the pass plays I doubt Jags was in charge of protection and MM was in charge of the play only cause how would you know how many targets you have to work with,then again oh never mind.

[Joemailman]

It's pretty hard for us to know whether the max protection schemes were the idea of Jags or MM. However, it is fair to say that it had to be frustrating for Favre, and probably had a lot to do with his career-low completion percentage. The willingness to open up the offense a bit may well be a key to whether or not Favre returns.

[BooHoo]

Max protection plan for next year will depend on how well are young line develops. We might find ourselves in the same boat as last year.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Max protection plan for next year will depend on how well are young line develops. We might find ourselves in the same boat as last year.

The rookies did not really have an offseason workout plan last year other than combine preparations. They started in with the mini-camps in May.

This year they will be monitored with individual programs begining in March. They will have much longer to prepare.

[SD GB fan]

its true that max protect lowered favre's options. but if we didnt protect favre, landing on his ass with higher frequency wud have been the other option.

[wist43]

They had to max protect - Favre would still be in the hospital if they didn't.

Everybody talks about how well the interior guys played, and while I'll admit they improved as the season wore on, the fact remains that none of the 3 was a starting calibur NFL linemen at any point in the season.

Wells isn't much bigger than a blown up fullback - I don't know what they list him at, but he routinely gets ragdolled. Spitz and Colledge, given an offseason to get bigger and stronger should be able to compete well enough to at least reduce the amount of help they'll need, but they're both smallish/movement guys who are probably going to get bounced around pretty good all of their careers.

The bottom line is, the Packers like smallish/weak offensive linemen that can get out and block in space... there's a trade off for that. Big DT's will always eat their lunch, and they'll never be able to get movement straight ahead.

[cheesner]

The bottom line is, the Packers like smallish/weak offensive linemen that can get out and block in space... there's a trade off for that. Big DT's will always eat their lunch, and they'll never be able to get movement straight ahead.
There is a huge advantage in drafting players for this scheme. The smaller faster OL guys are available later in the draft because only 2 other teams are interested in these players. Yes there is a trade off - but why would we run to the strength of the other team. Go ahead Vikings - invest money in Pat Johnson - we will see how the 350 lbs does running sideline to sideline all day.

[Patler]

Wells isn't much bigger than a blown up fullback - I don't know what they list him at, but he routinely gets ragdolled. Spitz and Colledge, given an offseason to get bigger and stronger should be able to compete well enough to at least reduce the amount of help they'll need, but they're both smallish/movement guys who are probably going to get bounced around pretty good all of their careers.

The bottom line is, the Packers like smallish/weak offensive linemen that can get out and block in space... there's a trade off for that. Big DT's will always eat their lunch, and they'll never be able to get movement straight ahead.

Any team that relies as much on zone blocking as GB intends to, and consequently has the faster (though not always that much smaller) O-linemen, will have linemen with smaller butts and thinner legs and less pronounced guts. They will be more nimble on their feet and will move better, but will have more difficulting "anchoring" in pass protection than the behemoths many other teams prefer. Teams that emphasize zone blocking in the running game also need QBs who can move and throw while moving because the pocket will be less stable in passing. Thats why Denver went to Plummer originally. It's also why Favre would have been and is a good fit for it.

[wist43]

The bottom line is, the Packers like smallish/weak offensive linemen that can get out and block in space... there's a trade off for that. Big DT's will always eat their lunch, and they'll never be able to get movement straight ahead.
There is a huge advantage in drafting players for this scheme. The smaller faster OL guys are available later in the draft because only 2 other teams are interested in these players. Yes there is a trade off - but why would we run to the strength of the other team. Go ahead Vikings - invest money in Pat Johnson - we will see how the 350 lbs does running sideline to sideline all day.

We saw how it worked... the Vikings defensive line kicked the living snot out of those guys for 8 quarters. The Packers winning those games had everything to do with the difference between Brett Favre and Johnson/Tavarus Jackson, and nothing to do with the OL/DL matchup.

Go back and watch the 2nd game at Lambeau - Pat Johnson manhandled all three of those guys on virutally every snap...

Why you guys like "finesse" football is beyond me... I guess it's a metrosexual generational thing - all things wimpy.

As I've been saying, give me smash mouth football any day.

[wist43]

Wells isn't much bigger than a blown up fullback - I don't know what they list him at, but he routinely gets ragdolled. Spitz and Colledge, given an offseason to get bigger and stronger should be able to compete well enough to at least reduce the amount of help they'll need, but they're both smallish/movement guys who are probably going to get bounced around pretty good all of their careers.

The bottom line is, the Packers like smallish/weak offensive linemen that can get out and block in space... there's a trade off for that. Big DT's will always eat their lunch, and they'll never be able to get movement straight ahead.



Any team that relies as much on zone blocking as GB intends to, and consequently has the faster (though not always that much smaller) O-linemen, will have linemen with smaller butts and thinner legs and less pronounced guts. They will be more nimble on their feet and will move better, but will have more difficulting "anchoring" in pass protection than the behemoths many other teams prefer. Teams that emphasize zone blocking in the running game also need QBs who can move and throw while moving because the pocket will be less stable in passing. Thats why Denver went to Plummer originally. It's also why Favre would have been and is a good fit for it.

Patler, I understand all that... I just hate it.

Give me Jacksonville, San Diego, Chicago, Baltimore, et al... i.e. smash mouth football.

I would like to at least have the option to run it on 3rd and inches... hell, 3rd and inches in Green Bay is a passing down - that's embarrassing.

[Patler]

Wells isn't much bigger than a blown up fullback - I don't know what they list him at, but he routinely gets ragdolled. Spitz and Colledge, given an offseason to get bigger and stronger should be able to compete well enough to at least reduce the amount of help they'll need, but they're both smallish/movement guys who are probably going to get bounced around pretty good all of their careers.

The bottom line is, the Packers like smallish/weak offensive linemen that can get out and block in space... there's a trade off for that. Big DT's will always eat their lunch, and they'll never be able to get movement straight ahead.



Any team that relies as much on zone blocking as GB intends to, and consequently has the faster (though not always that much smaller) O-linemen, will have linemen with smaller butts and thinner legs and less pronounced guts. They will be more nimble on their feet and will move better, but will have more difficulting "anchoring" in pass protection than the behemoths many other teams prefer. Teams that emphasize zone blocking in the running game also need QBs who can move and throw while moving because the pocket will be less stable in passing. Thats why Denver went to Plummer originally. It's also why Favre would have been and is a good fit for it.

Patler, I understand all that... I just hate it.

Give me Jacksonville, San Diego, Chicago, Baltimore, et al... i.e. smash mouth football.

I would like to at least have the option to run it on 3rd and inches... hell, 3rd and inches in Green Bay is a passing down - that's embarrassing.

I know you realize that, I was just making the point. You also brought up the other thing I intended to mention, but forgot to. Teams that emphasize zone blocking in the run game are generally very inconsistent on 3rd and 1 or 3rrd and 2.

This is one thing you and I agree on Wist. I am not a big fan of over using zone blocking.

If you're lucky, you can find a linemen or two that can do well in either situation. Tauscher seems to be one of those. I suspect Wahle would be too. Clifton, even as big as he is, actually might be more effective in the running game in MM's scheme than he was in Shermans. He was not all that effective or consistent in the running game under Sherman.

Colledge and Spitz are interesting young players. Each could end up bigger than the "typical" guard you would expect in this scheme. Both are said to have a bit of a nasty streak in the way they play. I look forward to seeing how they develope.

People forget how bad Wahle was in pass protection his first few years. Rivera was too his first year as a starter. Each was the clear weak link in a line that was not dominating by any means. We won't know about any of the three rookie lineman from this year for another 2 years or so.

[CaptainKickass]

All that being said, I did see some really nice pulling coming in late in the season, on both some running plays and bootleg passing where they'd pull one or even 2 guys out in front of Favre.

Just trying to see an area of improvement.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't care what scheme we use--as long as it works. If we can run and protect like Denver did late in Elway's career with Davis, I'm all for the zone blocking scheme. The "West Coast Offense" is a wimpy offense, but it's worked damn well for a lot of teams. There are teams that suck that play smashmouth too. Just look at Chicago before 2005.

[Partial]

The bottom line is, the Packers like smallish/weak offensive linemen that can get out and block in space... there's a trade off for that. Big DT's will always eat their lunch, and they'll never be able to get movement straight ahead.
There is a huge advantage in drafting players for this scheme. The smaller faster OL guys are available later in the draft because only 2 other teams are interested in these players. Yes there is a trade off - but why would we run to the strength of the other team. Go ahead Vikings - invest money in Pat Johnson - we will see how the 350 lbs does running sideline to sideline all day.

We saw how it worked... the Vikings defensive line kicked the living snot out of those guys for 8 quarters. The Packers winning those games had everything to do with the difference between Brett Favre and Johnson/Tavarus Jackson, and nothing to do with the OL/DL matchup.

Go back and watch the 2nd game at Lambeau - Pat Johnson manhandled all three of those guys on virutally every snap...

Why you guys like "finesse" football is beyond me... I guess it's a metrosexual generational thing - all things wimpy.

As I've been saying, give me smash mouth football any day.

Tell that to Denver. Those metrosexual, doily toatin', queer eye watching, martini drinkin' cake boys have had as much success as any team in the last ten years. They've also done it using a 4-3 defensive scheme, with linebackers of similiar stature and play style to that of Nick Barnett!!!

[wist43]

You guys know that my argument against the ZBS, and the west coast offense - as we transition out of the Brett Favre era - is based on quarterbacking.

Denver, SF, GB, and whoever else you might want to include in the WCO/ZBS/smallish OL philosophy (NE???) all had one thing in common - a HOF QB.

Simply put, I don't think any team that runs that system can win a SB w/o a HOF calibur QB - or at least a QB that is playing at a pro bowl/all pro level.

And, of course, what are the odds of landing that guy??? If they land that guy???... then go ahead and diversify the playbook and open things up; but, until they have that guy, the only chance they would have of winning a SB, would be with the power philosophy.

As for the 3-4 vs the 4-3... I don't necessarily have anything against the 4-3, and if you have a Reggie White/Michael Strahan type DE, then go for it - finding that guy is just about as hard as finding the franchise QB though.

My preference for the 3-4, is just that, a preference... but, you can certainly win a SB with either. The offensive system the Packers are utilizing, however, is another story. W/O that HOF/All Pro QB, they will have no shot.

[Zool]

Pat Johnson is Brad Johnsons brother?

[Partial]

Pat Johnson is Brad Johnsons brother?

Brother from another mother.

[Lurker64]

As for the 3-4 vs the 4-3... I don't necessarily have anything against the 4-3, and if you have a Reggie White/Michael Strahan type DE, then go for it - finding that guy is just about as hard as finding the franchise QB though.

My preference for the 3-4, is just that, a preference... but, you can certainly win a SB with either. The offensive system the Packers are utilizing, however, is another story. W/O that HOF/All Pro QB, they will have no shot.

Isn't the 3-4 even more personnel dependent than the 3-4? The scheme really depends in a fundamental way on having a huge run eating DT that is a wall and eats up as many blocks as possible (we don't have one) and two very large DEs who can both play inside run and rush the passer (Jenkins might be big enough, Kampman isn't.)

The thesis of the scheme is to have 3 DL occupy the attention of 5 offensive linemen, allowing the linebackers to flow freely to the ball. If you try the scheme with pedestrian DL, the LBs tend to end up blocked and the defense gets steamrolled. Personnel wise, you need fewer special players to really execute the 4-3 well, as you're not expecting your defensive linemen to be physical freaks of nature. You don't need Reggie White to run the scheme well either, all you really need is ends who can keep contain, rush the passer, and play the run. You don't need to be a hall of fame type player to do that.

I'm convinced that if the Packers tried to switch to a 3-4 now, it would be an unmitigated disaster. We don't have a good outside blitzing backer, our DTs are stout but generally unspectacular, and our DEs are too small.

[Partial]

As for the 3-4 vs the 4-3... I don't necessarily have anything against the 4-3, and if you have a Reggie White/Michael Strahan type DE, then go for it - finding that guy is just about as hard as finding the franchise QB though.

My preference for the 3-4, is just that, a preference... but, you can certainly win a SB with either. The offensive system the Packers are utilizing, however, is another story. W/O that HOF/All Pro QB, they will have no shot.

Isn't the 3-4 even more personnel dependent than the 3-4? The scheme really depends in a fundamental way on having a huge run eating DT that is a wall and eats up as many blocks as possible (we don't have one) and two very large DEs who can both play inside run and rush the passer (Jenkins might be big enough, Kampman isn't.)

The thesis of the scheme is to have 3 DL occupy the attention of 5 offensive linemen, allowing the linebackers to flow freely to the ball. If you try the scheme with pedestrian DL, the LBs tend to end up blocked and the defense gets steamrolled. Personnel wise, you need fewer special players to really execute the 4-3 well, as you're not expecting your defensive linemen to be physical freaks of nature. You don't need Reggie White to run the scheme well either, all you really need is ends who can keep contain, rush the passer, and play the run. You don't need to be a hall of fame type player to do that.

I'm convinced that if the Packers tried to switch to a 3-4 now, it would be an unmitigated disaster. We don't have a good outside blitzing backer, our DTs are stout but generally unspectacular, and our DEs are too small.

Not necessarily. My understanding is to have a Nose Tackle eat a guard and a center. Have you ends both get into the fray with your tackles, and send one of the two ILB at the other guard. This provides flexibility because you have the nose guard push in either direction and send either ILB. It has a lot of different blitzing techniques as we all know. The benefit of the scheme is it is more forgiving towards undersized defensive ends and the too slow to get any penetration defensive tackles.

[Fritz]

Wist, I don't mind that you're opinion is negative, but to call any scheme "metrosexual" in some attempt to cast doubt on the "manliness" of a scheme is a bit much. I like smash mouth football too, but I also watched the manly Bo Schembechler get his smash mouth football teams' butts kicked by the womanly passing games of PAC ten teams.

[Partial]

Wist, I don't mind that you're opinion is negative, but to call any scheme "metrosexual" in some attempt to cast doubt on the "manliness" of a scheme is a bit much. I like smash mouth football too, but I also watched the manly Bo Schembechler get his smash mouth football teams' butts kicked by the womanly passing games of PAC ten teams.

That's exactly right.

[wist43]

Smallish OL and offenses predicated upon blocking in space certainly have their place in the NFL... and, given a HOF QB, I don't have a problem with it - in fact, there are a lot of good arguments in support of the system.

But, as I said, we're transitioning out of the Brett Favre era, and we're not likely to see another HOF QB come thru GB anytime soon...

If you don't have a QB, and you have smallish offensive linemen, your offense is dead in the water... that's what the future of the Green Bay Packers offense looks like.

Like I said, hopefully TT will keep drafting QB's in the hopes of hitting on one, b/c with the current offensive system they are using - no QB = no chance.

[Patler]

A long running argument is that the WC offense makes HOF QBs, not vice versa, because the WC offense empasizes short, safe throws, passing to set up the run, etc. all of which lead to inflated QB stats for completion %, total yards, etc.

Aaron Rodgers performances in college would indicate he is a good match for an old school WC offense. The one "issue" might be that it does require a sometimes relatively rapid progression through his reads. Even Favre was not good at that for a number of years. He just dropped back and threw to Sharp.