It’s time to fish or cut bait…

[Maxie the Taxi]

It's pretty clear that the Packers’ OL is undersized. Compare the Packers’ and Cowboys OL’s. No wonder our OL get “pushed around” (as McGinn writes):

PACKERS/COWBOYS
CLIFTON 6’5” 320/ ADAMS 6’7” 340
COLLEDGE 6’4” 305/ KOSIER 6’5” 305
WELLS 6’2” 295/ GURODE 6’4” 312
SPITZ 6’3” 300/ DAVIS 6’6” 366
TAUCHER 6’3” 315/ COLOMBO 6’8” 320

PACKER SUBS/DALLAS SUBS
COSTON 6’3” 313/ McQUISTAN6’6” 315
BARBRE 6’4” 300/ PROCTER 6’4” 305
MOLL 6’5” 304/ BERGER 6’5” 305
PALMER 6’2” 311/ MARTEN 6’7” 309
NONE/ FREE 6’6” 324

When the pre-McCarthy holdovers, Clifton and Taucher, are replaced, the Packers OL will be at even more of a size disadvantage.

But wait, it’s no accident the Packers’ OL is undersized. McCarthy and Thompson hand-picked this current OL.

Why give up size? Because the highly touted zone blocking scheme requires quicker, more athletic linemen. This usually also translates into “smaller linemen.” The advertised advantage of the zone blocking scheme – a vastly improved running game – was supposed to more than offset the size disadvantage.

However, the zone blocking scheme requires that individual linemen move in concert as never before. Zone cut blocking requires split-second timing with the ball carrier. This quote from Packers.com speaks to what went wrong against the Eagles on Sunday:

“The difficulties with the ground game were broken down into three areas - the push on the front side of the play, the cut-blocking on the back side, and the angle being taken by the running back. Offensive coordinator Joe Philbin said it wasn't always a case of the line not doing its job, but not executing with the proper timing or finish to its maneuvers.

”’When we got some guys to cut on the ground, we were a little too quick at times,’ Philbin said. ‘We wouldn't take our full run and cut. We'd kind of get them down too fast and then they'd get up and make the play. So we have to get that corrected there.’”

Apparently, because of the injury-dealing nature of cut-blocking, the Packers’ OL cannot hone their zone blocking timing and techniques in practice against the Packer defense. Therefore, the only opportunity to gain expertise in zone blocking is live action against another teams’ defense, which means in preseason or regular season games.

However, even in preseason and regular season games, the Packer OL can hone their zone blocking timing and technique ONLY when the Packers actually run the ball. (My understanding is that pass protection blocking has absolutely nothing to do with the zone blocking scheme.)

Isn’t it reasonable then to conclude that Sunday’s breakdown of the zone blocking scheme was due to not enough reps by the starters in the preseason, not enough rushing plays in the preseason when the starters were in there, or some combination of the two?

Isn’t it also reasonable to conclude that if McCarthy only calls 16 rushing plays a game, instead of say 32, the Packers’ OL will take just that much longer to perfect their zone blocking since they can’t really perfect it in practice?

Here is the crux of the matter. Because the Packers’ linemen have been selected to fit the zone blocking scheme, the Packers ARE, like it or not, a zone blocking team, which means primarily a rushing team, not a passing team.

Another way to put it: if the Packers are going to consistently throw the ball 40 or 50 times a game and run it only 20 time, why zone block in the first place?

Why not simply go with a new set of Dallas-sized linemen whose forte is pass protection?

McCarthy has been circumspect and contradictory when quizzed about his pass-heavy offense. On the one hand he has said that he wants the Packers’ identity to be as a rushing team. On the other hand, he has said he calls a preponderance of passing plays because passing leads to scoring and game situations dictate passing.

In my opinion you can’t have it both ways. McCarthy and the Packers have to bite the bullet, truly commit to zone blocking, i.e., rush the ball 35 or so times a game, and allow our OL a real opportunity to perfect the zone blocking scheme against live competition as quickly as possible.

Or the Packers should junk the zone blocking scheme, bring in some Dallas-sized linemen and compete on an equal basis with the rest of the pass-happy NFL.

As for me, I say we’ve gone too far down the zone blocking road to scrap it. I say McCarthy should truly commit to zone blocking and the running game by calling at least as many rushing plays as passing plays. If he does this, I’m confident that even Favre and the passing game would eventually benefit, and sooner rather than later, because our rushing game would vastly improve.

Then again, maybe I’m just too “old school.”

One thing is for sure. McCarthy could have rushed the ball on every single play and his offense could not have scored less points than it did on Sunday against the Eagles.

Moreover, if he had rushed the ball on every single play against the Eagles, his zone blocking OL would have gained a ton of experience and would have been light years ahead of where it is now.

[b bulldog]

A tad premature to do anything drastic. One thing that does hurt our run blocking in the ZBS is both of our tackles. Both are too big and both are not athletic enough to do what they need to do to make this work.

[Maxie the Taxi]

bulldog,

I completely agree. I guess I just don't think calling an equal amount of rushing and passing plays is "drastic."

[b bulldog]

It is if the wholes aren't there. We need to get the backs more involved in the short passing game. We were once great at screen passes, why don't we use them more. Those would have been nice against a blitzing team like Philly.

[packers11]

Why even convert to "ZBS" with smaller lineman...

In 2003, that was ONE OF THE BEST lines i've seen GB have... It was top 5 in the league... Green had over 1800 yards... Favre had tons of time... Why did we change to the ZBS its beyond me, I am more into the "power system" that SD/Dal uses (which GB had in 03)...

[b bulldog]

Flanny was the center, Wahle was a big athletic G, Marco was a brawler and the two T's were younger and had less miles on them. They weren't huge but they weren't small. This group of five linemen were one of the leagues best at the time and it is a shame we didn't do ore with these players.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Why even convert to "ZBS" with smaller lineman...


I hate to say it, but I think one huge reason was financial. Denver uses ZBS and is able to find all-pro linemen and running backs in late draft rounds. They seem to just draft them and plug them into the system. The Packer thinking probably was we wouldn't be held hostage by high profile "key" players going free agent.

[Maxie the Taxi]

We were once great at screen passes, why don't we use them more.

It's a mystery to me too. More dink and dunk passes and screen passes instead of all the downfield passes...and more rushing. The holes are never gonna be there if these guys don't get enough reps in the games. The downfield game will open up too, the more short passes and runs we commit to.

[Harlan Huckleby]

this is kind of a cheap-shot by McGinn.

The offensive line isn't that small.

McGinn can throw out any pet theory a couple days after a disaster and it will sound credible. Where was he with this theory last year or this summer?

[Patler]

It's pretty clear that the Packers’ OL is undersized. Compare the Packers’ and Cowboys OL’s. No wonder our OL get “pushed around” (as McGinn writes):

PACKERS/COWBOYS
CLIFTON 6’5” 320/ ADAMS 6’7” 340
COLLEDGE 6’4” 305/ KOSIER 6’5” 305
WELLS 6’2” 295/ GURODE 6’4” 312
SPITZ 6’3” 300/ DAVIS 6’6” 366
TAUCHER 6’3” 315/ COLOMBO 6’8” 320

PACKER SUBS/DALLAS SUBS
COSTON 6’3” 313/ McQUISTAN6’6” 315
BARBRE 6’4” 300/ PROCTER 6’4” 305
MOLL 6’5” 304/ BERGER 6’5” 305
PALMER 6’2” 311/ MARTEN 6’7” 309
NONE/ FREE 6’6” 324



So he picks a line that has 340 lb and 366 lb starters and uses that to prove a point? The other three Packer starters are outweighed by a combined total of 22 lbs. The 4 subs are outweighed by a combined total of 6 lbs. Doesn't seem all that significant to me.

I would be more impressed by his argument if he compared each Packer to the league or conference averages for the players at their positions,

[Patler]

Colledge, Wells, Spitz - 305, 295, 300
Wahle, Flanagan, Rivera - 304, 297, 307.

What's the big deal?

It's NOT their size, it's how they are playing and/or what they are being asked to do.

Wahle and Rivera were pretty much useless until their third years, and were not good when they first became starters.

[Deputy Nutz]

I agree with Harlan, cheap shot,

Big deal, who cares every team takes linemen based on the skill set they have to better the system that you currently running. You would like multi-dimensional players but that isn't always available.

If anything this offensive line is a mixture o young players, and veterans that are both relatively new to the system. Colledge is more of a left tackle than he is a guard, and I just think Scott Wells might not be the answer at center, he is quick, but he still can't even dominate linebacker at the second level.

Right now I could go on and on, but size isn't the reason or answer at this point.

[Patler]

Funny thing is, a year ago many including Wolf said Clifton and Tauscher would do fine in the new offense, especially Tauscher who is a lot more athletic than people give him credit for. There also was an article just before Tauscher got hurt last year that said he had picked it up the best of all the linemen, and was making few mistakes. Now, after one game this year, the tackles aren't right for it.

I will raise again the question I raised earlier, is it the players or the coaches that have made this offense fizzle?

[Patler]

Many of us would agree, if you know what you're doing - SIZE DOESN'T MATTER :oops:

[cheesner]

It's pretty clear that the Packers’ OL is undersized. Compare the Packers’ and Cowboys OL’s. No wonder our OL get “pushed around” (as McGinn writes):

PACKERS/COWBOYS
CLIFTON 6’5” 320/ ADAMS 6’7” 340
COLLEDGE 6’4” 305/ KOSIER 6’5” 305
WELLS 6’2” 295/ GURODE 6’4” 312
SPITZ 6’3” 300/ DAVIS 6’6” 366
TAUCHER 6’3” 315/ COLOMBO 6’8” 320

PACKER SUBS/DALLAS SUBS
COSTON 6’3” 313/ McQUISTAN6’6” 315
BARBRE 6’4” 300/ PROCTER 6’4” 305
MOLL 6’5” 304/ BERGER 6’5” 305
PALMER 6’2” 311/ MARTEN 6’7” 309
NONE/ FREE 6’6” 324



So he picks a line that has 340 lb and 366 lb starters and uses that to prove a point? The other three Packer starters are outweighed by a combined total of 22 lbs. The 4 subs are outweighed by a combined total of 6 lbs. Doesn't seem all that significant to me.

I would be more impressed by his argument if he compared each Packer to the league or conference averages for the players at their positions,
And there biggest guy, Davis, isn't any more effective than Spitz, even outweighing him by 66 lbs.

[Noodle]

Our line does practice cut blocking, a lot, according to Philbin. But I agree they need to do it against real, angry, men, not just dummies.

In the preseason, when we faced real, angry, men, the 1s didn't run much -- we were getting our QB and receivers on the same page, which makes sense. But the lack of preparation, I think, shows.

Philly didn't blitz all that much after the first quarter, so I'm not sure screens and flairs would have been all that effective. Instead, you have to keep trying to run the ball, wear those big DLs down, and then dominate in the fourth quarter. But to do that, the QB is going to have to convert some early 3rd and 5 or 6s, and he's going to have to be very accurate. We didn't convert 3rd downs against the Iggles, so we never got a chance to get it rolling.

It's way too early to just give up. But we are going to have to commit more to the run and not get panicked after a few 3 and outs. Our D will keep us in the game.

[mmmdk]

What I got from the article, plus I've stessed this numerous times before, Packers/McCarthy just doesn't run the ball. One could, very much so, argue that ZBS is then mute. Both ZBS teams, Denver & Atlanta, run more than they pass (stats don't lie). McCarthy has never as OC committed to running, apart from his year in SF where they started, what?, 4 QBs!?. Always heavy passing game with McCarthy; then why not pass protect your quaterback? It's a valid question. There was no ZBS in NO or SF.

With all this pondering; I do believe the Packers O will have success versus the Giants. Actually, I kinda expect it - with Favre carving up the Giants in a classic Favre showing ala his near flawless game in Detroit last season. That's if the OL can pass protect...

[CaliforniaCheez]

McGinn is negative until he finds something else to be negative about.

I remember some of his pre-draft and post draft comments.

McGinn is negative even if the Packers do what "expert" McGinn recommends.


I'm not so sure that laying down in front of D linemen while attempting block then below the knees is a good idea.

[the_idle_threat]

Colledge, Wells, Spitz - 305, 295, 300
Wahle, Flanagan, Rivera - 304, 297, 307.

What's the big deal?

It's NOT their size, it's how they are playing and/or what they are being asked to do.

Wahle and Rivera were pretty much useless until their third years, and were not good when they first became starters.

This is a great point.

If bigger linemen = success, then why did guys like Mike Williams (in Buffalo), Leonard Davis, and Wisconsin's own Aaron Gibson flame out?

It's about technique and execution. It will come around as they get repetitions playing together against live bullets.

This is why I'm not a fan of the idea floating around that they should rotate Spitz and Orange Junius throughout the year. They need a consistent starting five on the field.

[run pMc]

In the case off Colledge vs. Kosier or Tauscher vs. Colombo,

I'd think the shorter person would actually be harder for a DL to shove around since since they have a lower center of gravity (lower pad level?) and weigh the same. A taller player might be able to get around that by having longer arms, though.

I think experience, good technique, and consistently executing well have more to do with it than height/weight. All these guys are big.

[MJZiggy]

In the case off Colledge vs. Kosier or Tauscher vs. Colombo,

I'd think the shorter person would actually be harder for a DL to shove around since since they have a lower center of gravity (lower pad level?) and weigh the same. A taller player might be able to get around that by having longer arms, though.

I think experience, good technique, and consistently executing well have more to do with it than height/weight. All these guys are big.

So does that mean we need a gorilla or a Neanderthal in there?

[Maxie the Taxi]

this is kind of a cheap-shot by McGinn.

I can guarantee that this wasn’t a cheap shot by McGinn because McGinn didn’t write the “article.” I wrote the post. I was trying to credit McGinn with saying that the Packers’ line was being “pushed around” Sunday. Sorry if my language mislead.


It's NOT their size, it's how they are playing and/or what they are being asked to do.

Point well-taken. I’m no football expert. Just a fan. If 3-4” in height and 10-20 lbs in weight per man is no “big deal” then so be it. But the truth remains that our OL is being asked to do what our OL’s in year’s past have not been asked to do, i.e., zone and cut block. So, in this sense, it’s not reasonable to compare this offensive line to our OL in years past.

The basic points of the post remain…Why did McCarthy choose to build his offense (OL and running backs) around a ZBS and then emphasize the pass (and pass protection) in his play calling?

No one can deny that several times in post game press conferences McCarthy has criticized the “play caller” for not committing to the rush. Since he’s the play caller, only he can answer that criticism, and so far his answers have been vague at best.


McGinn is negative until he finds something else to be negative about.

As I said, I wrote the post, so I KNOW it’s not negative. I’m simply a confused fan asking a question or two. I’d love to see the running game gel sooner rather than later. That’s my other major point.


McCarthy has never as OC committed to running, apart from his year in SF where they started, what?, 4 QBs!?. Always heavy passing game with McCarthy;

I didn’t know this about McCarthy, which makes me even more confused.


So he picks a line that has 340 lb and 366 lb starters and uses that to prove a point?

The reason I chose Dallas to compare to is that Dallas IMO is one of the best teams in the NFC and they don’t use ZBS.

Another major reason I chose Dallas is that down here in Florida there are a lot of Dallas fans and they’re big mouth braggarts. One is my partner at work.

Green Bay plays at Dallas November 29 and I want to make sure the Packer OL is competitive and our running game solid by then. If the Packer offense plays Nov. 29 in Dallas as they did last Sunday in Philadelphia, I’m going to be shredded by these loud mouths. I'll be too embarrassed to show up for work. Not to mention all the bets I’ll lose.

“Negative” against the Green Bay Packers??? Maybe McGinn, but sure as hell not me!!! I’m a proud Packer fan in enemy territory. Trying to survive down here with a-holes who claim Brett Favre isn’t good enough to shine Tony Romo’s shoes is exhausting. These morons (even the local guys on the radio) think the Big Ten is a pee wee league and that the Wisconsin Badgers are… Well, you get the point.

Fix the OL by Nov. 29, McCarthy. Start running the damn ball against the Giants.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Packers biggest problem is that Brett Favre is too short.

Peyton Manning 6'5"
Brett Favre 6'2"

[Maxie the Taxi]

How tall is Tony Romo?

[Harlan Huckleby]

If you were going to pick a line to compare with, it probably ought to be Denver, since they made the ZBS famous in NFL.

(I don't even know if they still are a zone blocking team. Probably.)

I always thought that Denver was noted for having a small, athletic offensive line. But maybe I'm confusing their defensive line.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Denver's OL:

LT Matt Lepsis - 6'4" 290
LG Ben Hamilton - 6'4" 290
C Tom Nalen - 6'3" 285
RG Montrae Holland - 6'2" 322
RT Erik Pears - 6'8" 305

[Merlin]

The Packers biggest problem is that Brett Favre is too short.

Peyton Manning 6'5"
Brett Favre 6'2"

LOL....

Seriously, the issue is the ZBS right now. We can't afford to go years trying to find the right players. Denver is successful because they have had the same coach and the same scheme for years. They normally haven't had replace 60% of their offensive line in the off season. Patience is fine but this is year two and we aren't running worth a shit.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So does that mean we need a gorilla or a Neanderthal in there?

As discovered in the "ladies" thread, this is Ziggy's kind of man - the strong, hairy, silent type.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Denver's OL:

LT Matt Lepsis - 6'4" 290
LG Ben Hamilton - 6'4" 290
C Tom Nalen - 6'3" 285
RG Montrae Holland - 6'2" 322
RT Erik Pears - 6'8" 305

see - munchkins!

[Maxie the Taxi]

always thought that Denver was noted for having a small, athletic offensive line. But maybe I'm confusing their defensive line.

You're right. Denver is most well-known ZBS team. I think their line is smaller than the norm and more athletic. But Denver is still a bad comparison for the Packers because they actually choose to run the ball.

Time by itself won't cause the Pack's OL to gel. For the OL to gel in the ZBS you have to actually run the ball in real games.

[Merlin]

I am also not convinced that your OL has to be smaller. If you have an athletic guy like a Joe Thomas, just because he is a beast doesn't make him a poor fit. Clifton and Tauscher don't really fit the athletic or smaller part anymore. Clifton is charged with blocking Favre's backside and as far as I am concerned he has done an excellent job over the years.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I am also not convinced that your OL has to be smaller. If you have an athletic guy like a Joe Thomas

Right, which is probably why Denver has a big guy or two on the line.

[Noodle]

You're right Merlin, but guys like Thomas are pretty rare and will cost you a high draft pick or, God forbid, a chunk of coin in FA.

One of the alleged advantages of going ZBS is that you can do it on the cheap. Smaller guys don't cost a premium, they're still there in rounds 4-7, and you can pick them up off the street for a song.

I've never liked ZBS due to the emphasis on cutting, which can be punk, and because smaller OLs need to be technique perfect to provide good pass pro. Remember, this line has never, by itself, shown that it can pass pro without keeping a TE or back in protection. Against the Iggles, or 5 got whipped consistently by their 4. That's a problem.

But I still say give them 5 or 6 games together, as a consistent unit, before scrapping the scheme or the players.

[wist43]

It is if the wholes aren't there. We need to get the backs more involved in the short passing game. We were once great at screen passes, why don't we use them more. Those would have been nice against a blitzing team like Philly.

The running game and short passing game are easy fodder for defenses b/c they don't have to respect our WR's and TE's.

Because defenses don't respect our ability to move the ball thru the air, they can just sit 8-9 guys w/in 5-10 yds of the LOS, and there's no room to operate for the backs in the running game, or in the short passing game.

That problem is exaggerated b/c of the small linemen... they can't mash it straight ahead, and as long as a defense is prepared to cut off the backside they can't run it via "student body left/student body right" either.

Add to that some very pedestrian RB's, and you've got a complete mess.

[swede]

I'm not convinced that going to the ZBS was a bad move--other teams have used it successfully. I understand that smaller, athletic linemen are part of the deal, so you may lose something on 4th and 1. Cut blocking, RB angles, linemen timing, it's all got to come together blah, blah. blah...

This brings up the fundamental concern that Patler had going into the season:
Do we have the coaching to make our running game work?

After the last game Philbin was saying stuff like, "We were using the cut block and getting guys down, but we got them down too early in the play and they got back up again." (to paraphrase)

I'm worried that these coaches are making offensive line play a little harder than it actually is supposed to be.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Don't know if the following was posted earlier or not. It's from the JS blog and has some pertinent info on OL play.


Assistant coaches on....
By Greg A. Bedard
Monday, Sep 10 2007, 05:02 PM
Green Bay - Here are some of the questions and answers we got from assistant coaches the day after the Packers' 16-13 victory over the Philadelphia Eagles:

OFFENSIVE COORDINATOR JOE PHILBIN

When you looked at the film, where did you have the most problems?
There was a little bit of everything. It wasn't one isolated event that was our breakdown. The starting point was initially maybe the course of the running back on the outside zone was maybe a little bit too tight. We felt that wasn't exactly the way we'd like it to be. We got some guys cut (blocked) on the ground, but we'd kind of get them down too fast and the guy would get up and make the play. We have to get that corrected there. There were a few other occasions where we felt the movement at the point of attack wasn't quite enough. Those are three things that we felt caused the most problems in the running game. There were a couple of reads... The first run of the game we felt maybe could have gone outside but I think from a fundamental standpoint: the course of the back, cutting on the backside and movement at the point of the attack were three things we need to get better at, quickly.

Were you surprised that Chad Clifton and Mark Tauscher were giving up some of the pressures?
A little bit, yeah. I mean, yeah. We certainly had high expectations going in that we were confident in our ability to protect the quarterback and thought we would do a better job doing that. I'm sure they're disappointed in themselves, which is probably more important than me being disappointed by, yeah, we certainly went into the game feeling those were two veteran players that have played well here in the past and we were counting on them, sure.

When you don't practice cut blocking in training camp, is it natural for it to takes some time to develop?
Well, we don't necessarily cut our own guys but we spend an awful lot of time on it in drill periods. We were in position a number of different times to make the cut and actually at times cut the guy but we didn't finish the block so (Eagles DT Mike) Patterson would get up or (Brodrick) Bunkley would get up and get involved in the tackle.

So Brandon Jackson didn't play a perfect game, but for a rookie did all right?
Was his course perfect every time? No. Did he have the exact read every time? No. But he protected the football, had a couple good runs in there. Considering where he is in his career, we're not disappointed in what he did.

How did Junius Coston do when he replaced Jason Spitz?
He was solid. He came in and did a nice job. There were one or two times when he gave up some pressure on the quarterback where he didn't handle the spike of the defensive tackle very well and there was one twist that he could have passed off a little bit cleaner, but overall he was solid.

How much is his pushing for a starting job?
We all sat down together and watched the film and evaluated the tape but we really didn't talk personnel yet. We'll probably wait until tomorrow when we set the game plan and determine who's exactly available. Obviously Jason has a little bit of an injury issue. How severe that is, I don't know at this point.

How has Coston improved?
He's been more physical at the point of attack, he's moving guys, he's one of the more physical guys that we have. And we like what he's doing. He's always had that good athleticism.

RUNNING BACKS COACH EDGAR BENNETT

How did Brandon Jackson and DeShawn Wynn look in their first game?
Considering it was their first game, I thought they stepped up and made some plays when they had some opportunities they made some plays. There's still room for improvement. Will run through some areas where they need to improve, but for their first time in the NFL, I thought they did a very good job.

Picking up the blitz?
They did a good job. When you factor in DeShawn Wynn on third down, he did a good job. He knew exactly what his keys were and the different pressure looks he had and he made the necessary adjustments and he did a good job with his techniques.

McCarthy and Philbin brought up their route running and reads. What did you see?
Jackson did a good job on his run reads. Where he needs to improve on is his course as far as his initial aiming point. He needs to get better at that. It's something we're focusing on and he will improve going into this next week.

Can you explain more about a RB's course?
It's his initial starting point. Just like the offensive line and they have an initial starting point, the backs have an initial starting point as well. I'll just kind of leave it at that keeping in mind we're about to play the Giants. I don't want to get too far into it. But that's what he needs to improve on, his course.

Provided Vernand Morency is healthy this week, how is his skill set different than the other backs?
He's been in the system for a year so he has experience as well as he's elusive. The bottom line is he can help us win football games. He's a good football player and I know he's anxious to get back out there. We'll see how it goes this week.

OFFENSIVE LINE COACH JAMES CAMPEN

How did Coston play?
He did OK.

Could Spitz have played?
He was limping pretty good out there so I made a judgment call and put (Coston) in the middle of the series because he looked like he was laboring a little bit for him. So I took him out and I'm glad we did at that time.

How did Spitz react to coming out?
No player likes to be taken out of a series. Jason's a very tough, tough kid. But after you get him down and get him looked at, obviously I think it was a good decision to take him. He actually sat down and get it re-taped. He could have come back into the game but we decided not to push it.

Can you kind of explain the zone blocking scheme?
What you're basically trying to do is stretch the play-call side. So if we run to the right, you want to stretch the right side and you want to cut (block) the defense either with body position or you want to cut them down on the ground. So you look at it as building a wall, stretching the defense and insert the running back where his reads take him.

In a perfect world, what kind of linemen are best in that scheme? Is it like the Broncos under Alex Gibbs?
More like Denver. Smaller, quicker guys.

How does your personnel match up with that scheme?
Very well.

What did you see in the first game out of that group?
Our fundamentals weren't sound. We worked tremendously hard on that this whole offseason and training camp. The players feel the same way, the line, that they need to execute better and display what we're capable of displaying.

Can you put your finger on a reason why maybe they struggled on Sunday?
Any facet of football takes all 11 to execute. We were just off. We were off.

McCarthy said some coaches feel Coston should be under consideration to start at RG. Does that include you?
I don't comment on players. On who's better or who's worse, I never comment on those things.

OK. How would you term the competition there?
I think Juice has clearly made himself as the sixth guy and Juice could be pushing at other positions as well. And he is pushing. If his performance continues to increase... He's a young guy who'd doing a good job at all five positions. And that's tough for a young guy. He doesn't get as many reps at one position. But he's done a very good job to put himself in position to compete for a starting job.

What did you see that made you feel that you needed to take Spitz out?
He was limping pretty good two plays prior to the play where I took him out. He did a good job but he was laboring a little bit so we decided to get him out and get him looked at. Apparently it was the right thing to do.

WIDE RECEIVERS COACH JIMMY ROBINSON

How did James Jones do in his first game?
You know, James overall did a decent job for his time out there in a real live situation. He knew what he was doing, he understood the game plan well and really only had one mistake in terms of assignments. There are some technique things that he needs to continue to work on and improve. But that's kind of a week to week thing. You hope that you get a little bit better every week. So I think James is improving. First time out there, OK. It can be better and I know he feels the same way. Precision, route running and other techniques can get better.

Was he able to get sufficient separation?
I don't have any problems about him going against a secondary like that. He's big and strong and physical and there's things that he could have done better, and there's things he did pretty well. Yeah, he understands how to do it. He just has to do it consistently. But they are a good secondary and they do cause you some route disruptions and things that you have to fight through. I think he held his own and we expect to see him get better and better each week.

How much did losing Greg Jennings late in the week affect what you guys had in mind for the Eagles?
I don't think it changed a lot of what we were going to do. But there were probably a thing or two, maybe, that we had planned to do but we didn't when he wasn't in there. But for the most part, Ruvell (Martin) and Carlyle (Holiday), they know all the positions and they can move in and move and know what they're doing. I don't think it changes your thinking a lot. It just affects you because you want to put your best guys on the field. They're starters because they're your best guys.

That's it for now, guys and gals.

Oh, one more thing.

A few fans were asking why the Packers called timeout with six seconds left on fourth down before Mason Crosby's game-winner. I didn't get a chance to ask McCarthy, but I did talk it over with my much brighter colleague, Tom Silverstein. The reason is basically just to give yourself a cushion. Say the snap was fumbled. The Packers could have run or passed it the 4 yards needed for the first down -- stranger things have happened. Since they had two timeouts left, the Packers could have then called a timeout and tried the kick again. If you take the clock all the way down before calling timeout prior to the kick, you wouldn't get another chance at kicking it before regulation ended.

So, there you go.

[SudsMcBucky]

I'm not convinced that going to the ZBS was a bad move--other teams have used it successfully. I understand that smaller, athletic linemen are part of the deal, so you may lose something on 4th and 1. Cut blocking, RB angles, linemen timing, it's all got to come together blah, blah. blah...

This brings up the fundamental concern that Patler had going into the season:
Do we have the coaching to make our running game work?

After the last game Philbin was saying stuff like, "We were using the cut block and getting guys down, but we got them down too early in the play and they got back up again." (to paraphrase)

I'm worried that these coaches are making offensive line play a little harder than it actually is supposed to be.

I HATE the ZBS. Only Denver has seemed to had sustained success with it. Atlanta's attempt was terrible. Yes, they consistently were one of the top rushing teams in the league, but their stats were misleading due to Vick's scrambling and rushing for 1,000 yards due to pass protection breakdowns. Atlanta has since switched away from that methodology, too, since Petrino took over.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Actually, there are several teams using some form of the ZBS now. Carolina, Minnesota, Houston, Denver, and others. It's similar to the WCO--where many teams are using some type of variation on it. I'm not a huge fan, but it does give you an advantage when finding guys to fit the system. Kind of like the 3-4 teams. Most teams are looking for guys that are different than what you are looking for, so you don't have as much competition for the guys you want for the system.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I'm worried that these coaches are making offensive line play a little harder than it actually is supposed to be.

Here. Here. Today's game is way to complicated IMO. Sometimes I think we need to take a good dose of Vince, "block better than the other guy."

I was watching a replay yesterday of the 1999 NFC wildcard game between Green Bay and San Francisco. Favre hit a key pass for a touchdown to Freeman with less than 2 minutes to go. Favre drew the play up in the huddle. He basically told Free to go down and out after faking a short stop. Holmgren chewed him out afterwards (but not too harshly).

[Merlin]

I think the big problem with the ZBS is that we all but abandoned any other type of running scheme. During pre-season Chris White ran the ball down hill regardless of what the ZBS was doing and did it successfully. They are so concerned about having the one cut back that they over look the obvious. The ZBS doe make it very hard to pick up those 4th and 1's when you need one. Hall is dong an admirable job at FB but he isn't doing a good enough job to make downhill running effective. I don't get why we aren't using multiple schemes with multiple types of running backs instead of announcing "hey we are using the ZBS" and sticking to one cut backs. Some of whom make the wrong friggin cut!

[swede]

I was watching a replay yesterday of the 1999 NFC wildcard game between Green Bay and San Francisco. Favre hit a key pass for a touchdown to Freeman with less than 2 minutes to go. Favre drew the play up in the huddle. He basically told Free to go down and out after faking a short stop. Holmgren chewed him out afterwards (but not too harshly).

"Those were the days my friend, we though they'd never end..."

Favre drawing up a play in the huddle while Holmgren steamed on the sideline...classic mid-90's Pack!

[Maxie the Taxi]

Merlin Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 1:06 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the big problem with the ZBS is that we all but abandoned any other type of running scheme. During pre-season Chris White ran the ball down hill regardless of what the ZBS was doing and did it successfully. They are so concerned about having the one cut back that they over look the obvious. The ZBS doe make it very hard to pick up those 4th and 1's when you need one. Hall is dong an admirable job at FB but he isn't doing a good enough job to make downhill running effective. I don't get why we aren't using multiple schemes with multiple types of running backs instead of announcing "hey we are using the ZBS" and sticking to one cut backs. Some of whom make the wrong friggin cut!


I think it's a matter of degree of commitment. I'm no guru either, but from what I've read every team runs some of zone and some of other schemes. The Packers, Denver and Texans just have an all-out commitment to ZBS. I'm not saying they run it all the time. They don't. But they do recruit offensive linemen and running backs with ZBS in mind and they do coach to the ZBS.

My gripe is that if you're gonna be all-out committed to ZBS -- i.e., recruit players whose body type fits the ZBS, teach OL and running backs to function in the ZBS and spend zillions of hours in practice teaching and running the ZBS -- why when it comes to game time do you discard the rush (and ZBS) in favor of pass, pass, pass?