Zone Blocking/Pass Protection

[FirstSgt]

Thanks for the great chat and my first post is:

For all the talk of what OLman is best for the zone blocking scheme, how does that affect pass protection? Does having a smaller, though athletic lineman compromise pass protection especially against bigger DLman?

[swede]

Excellent question, Sarge.

I have several guesses. The first is that technique is more valuable than bulk, and even our smallest guys are in the 290's anyway. My second guess is that part of the new offensive scheme will include a return to the more traditional WC offense: shorter patterns designed to get under coverage and putting a premium on YAC.

I'll be interested to hear what the truly smart football dudes have to say about this.

BTW. Welcome aboard!

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think it definitely can have problems pass protecting against bigger DL, but I think the coaches feel that it can be offset by the short passing game. A lot of quick drops. Helps offset blitz packages too. However, I'm worried that Favre will take a pounding if the passing game is not in synch, and he's not able to get the ball out quick.

[KYPack]

This topic is one of the biggest bones of contention in implementing the zone scheme. Obviously, you need quick, agile guys to get the run blocking accomplished. At the same time, the lineman need to be able to pick up the DLineman for their pass blocking assignments.

You've got to find guys who are hybreds, quick enough to zone block in either direction, strong enough to take on bull rushing DLineman in passing situation.

The process is two fold. You've got to recruit and draft quick strong guys who can physically do this double job. Then you have to relentlessly coach this bunch into a strong unit. With the Zone scheme, one guy who's consistently screwing up will scuttle the whole deal.

Last year's line, with the tangle-footed Klemm & the too green Whitticker would be a disaster. You must have all 5 guys acting as one. It takes time & it will be ugly until they get some cohesiveness.

If they don't get the group to gell as one? Ugh, it'll be ugly often.

[Sparkey]

With the Zone scheme, one guy who's consistently screwing up will scuttle the whole deal.


In fairness, I think every offensive blocking scheme relies on all 5 guys, plus the TE and RB too do their job and be on the same page, not just the ZONE scheme.

[Patler]

Denver wanted a QB who could throw while moving for a reason. Smaller O-lines generally (not always) are not as good in setting up stable pockets for the passing game. So you simply move your QB a little instead of just droppping straight back in the pocket.

Shouldn't be a big problem for Favre. He is good at throwing while moving to either side, and the Packers have traditionally used little roll-out type plays with him anyway. Some have argued over the years that Favre is much better throwing while moving than he is from a straight drop back.

[mraynrand]

"You must have all 5 guys acting as one. It takes time & it will be ugly until they get some cohesiveness. "


This sounds like a trailer line for a new movie starring Denzel Washington.

[Scott Campbell]

Some have argued over the years that Favre is much better throwing while moving than he is from a straight drop back.


That's because pure drop back passers have to have way better mechanics than Favre.

[Patler]

Some have argued over the years that Favre is much better throwing while moving than he is from a straight drop back.


That's because pure drop back passers have to have way better mechanics than Favre.

YUP! Most of his "risers" are thrown from a straight drop back, often when he has had good protection.

[Deputy Nutz]

Patler is right, the zone blocking linemen fall quickly to the bull rush by large defensive tackles. The pocket can collapse quickly, that is why teams that run the zone scheme rely on roll out pass plays, and get their QB out of the pocket as quickly as possible.

What defenses will do is send their outside backers on blitzes to the outside to contain the bootleg and to turn the QB back to the inside. Defenses will scout a team and determine if an opposing teams offense tends to roll their QB to the short side of the field or the strongside, and then they will blitz mostly from that side and force the offense to roll the QB out to the other side where they might not be as comfortable.

[Noodle]

The emphasis on being able to move would explain why 3M was impressed and pleased with A-Rod's athelticism. I never heard anyone care how athletic Sonny Jurgensen was, or Marino for that matter, but clearly in this system, if you can't move, you die.

I hope Favre goes back to some of that core strength work out he did last year. During his run as Hamlet, I didn't hear that he was working out at all. He's going to need to get some gas in tank. If he does, he could thrive under this system.

[MJZiggy]

I read that he was doing the core workout on his own and that he was going to be hiring a personal trainer this offseason to work on other stuff. The core stuff he did last year did help a lot with his elusiveness IMO.

[swede]

I read that he was doing the core workout on his own and that he was going to be hiring a personal trainer this offseason to work on other stuff. The core stuff he did last year did help a lot with his elusiveness IMO.

Seems like the media was able to catch him any time they wanted.

[wist43]

It all comes down to talent - regardless of size.

Scott Wells and Will Whitticker both got rag-dolled on a regular basis last year; Wells is what, 290 lbs??? and, Whitticker is 335 lbs???

If a player plays with good leverage, technique, and strength he can negate the charge of much larger players - but, he has to play with flawless technique... there's less margin for error that's for sure.

Pro Bowl Center, Mark Stepnoski played at 265-270.

Those comments aside, I don't really see the Packers line as being too small. Clifton, Tauscher, and Colledge are all over 300#'s, and Coston - who lined up as the starter in this past mini-camp - was listed at 313#'s in the paper this week.

Wells is very small, however... If Wells is going to be the starter, the Packers will probably have to give him help when he has Sean Rogers or Kevin Williams lined up on his nose.

If you have good players who understand leverage, I really don't see it as too much of a problem - my preference, however, would be for "road grader" type interior linemen.

[Joemailman]

Wist,

Wells is actually listed at 304. Chris White is listed at 285. You are right however, about giving him help against the bigger nose tackles. You simply cannot allow the nose tackle to get a lot of penetration up the middle.

[Tarlam!]

Quick aside question:

Why do defences only need 4 linemen, while offenses need 5?

[swede]

Offenses are restricted by rule to legal formations at a certain distance from the line of scrimmage and with certain splits between players.

As far as I know the defense can do what they want other than line up offsides.

In ye olde leather helmet days I think defenses mirrored the offense more closely.

[swede]

Eeegads my first PR double post!

[BooHoo]

I hope the coaches get this all figured out before this fall. Sounds like an esay system to teach but do we have the right personnel for the job? Hate to have a repeat of last year. The OLine did not perform well enough last year.

[Joemailman]

I hope the coaches get this all figured out before this fall. Sounds like an esay system to teach but do we have the right personnel for the job? Hate to have a repeat of last year. The OLine did not perform well enough last year.

One thing you won't see is the coaching staff waiting until just days before the start of the season before deciding who their starting guards are. That should help. Look for McCarthy to have that figured out in time for the 3rd pre-season game.

[BooHoo]

I hope the coaches get this all figured out before this fall. Sounds like an esay system to teach but do we have the right personnel for the job? Hate to have a repeat of last year. The OLine did not perform well enough last year.

One thing you won't see is the coaching staff waiting until just days before the start of the season before deciding who their starting guards are. That should help. Look for McCarthy to have that figured out in time for the 3rd pre-season game.

Agreed. Maybe that was a big part of the problem last year.

[wist43]

Can't imagine that Wells is a legit 304... nor do I think Coston is a legit 313. I'm sure both of them have bulked over the offseason, but neither guy is very big.

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

As for the question 5OL vs 4 DL... it simply is the most workable configuration for both units. The NFL does have a rule which states that both OT's must be covered, i.e. there has to be 7 players on the LOS.

The defense is under no such restriction - however, it is more difficult to play defense than it is to play offense - there are simply too many unknowns and variables to account for - not to mention the fact that the defense not only has to defend the offensive players, they have to defend the field as well.

Of course, that's oversimplifying it, but in a nutshell it works.

[ND72]

in response to the first question...some teams put the pass protection emphasis over run blocking. in a zone blocking team, you should find good pass protectors first. cause honestly, zone blocking is designed to "hide" weaknesses in the run blocking because it is all angle blocking. as long as you can move laterally you will be ok.

Honestly, going from HS to College for me was going from a straight ahead, power run team, to a zone blocking team. So I had a lot to learn. But once your learn what angles to take, and where guys are and what all is going on, it's an amazing scheme. You will see our OL guys making a lot more calls at the line than you ever heard or saw under sherman. I know at my D-2 school...at the guard position, I had about 7 calls i could make one 1 play. telling the center where my guy is, possibly telling hte center where he's going, telling the tackle where he goes, maybe calling out a cut possibility if i'm the backside.

we had GAT (guard around tackle) on the front side, TAG (tackle around guard on the back side) COG (center over guard on the front side) GAC (guard around center on the back side) TUG (tackle under guard, where the backside Tackle would cut the DT and the guard woudl get up to the LB) CUG (same thing as TUG but the center would do it, on the front side)...and those are the ones i remember. we also had some calls for the TE if the TE was in there, and the FB if the FB was part of the block.

I think our best 5 starters in this system will be Clifton, Colledge, Wells, Conston, Tauscher...all of them are athletic enough to run block, and all of them can pass block. Barry could beat out Conston. I saw someone say Wells got kind of beat around, which is true, but he played guard most of hte year, and believe it or not, he fits perfectly at Center in this type of offense. In pass plays, unless he's linedup head on, he'll be a "chip" person where he'll just float, check for blitz's and end up getting crack blocks if he has nobody to block.

[Deputy Nutz]

We ran the zone scheme in high school, and it was perfect. We were athletic with the largest kid weighing 250 pounds, and the smallest weighing 180. At any other high school I probably would have played at my true position, backup quarterback. We could all pass block, if you can't pass block as an offensive lineman, you should be taken out back and shot. Regardless of what level you are playing, pass blocking is the easiest and easiest to learn. In college our offensive line was really young with only one returning starter, we couldn't run the ball for shit, so we threw the ball 40 times a game.

Pass blocking will be the standard for who starts and who sits the pine in Green Bay. If you can't protect Favre, you sit, and sit some more.

[motife]

http://www2.jsonline.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=33326&catID=7&sessionID={1ED41A5F-77A0-48A1-893E-53DA52BEB175}
from Tank : (I hope he didn't get banned.)

"Under Mike Sherman, the Pack had one of the best rushing attacks in the History of the NFL. All Sherman's work, work that are for the good of the Packers, dismantled by the Polar Bear; obliterated by McCarthy.

The Zone Blocking scheme is a mistake.

McCarthy thinks he's a football genius. All he has caused is heartaches for Aaron Brooks and that rookie qb the 49ers drafted last year (what's his name again?). McCarthy has never been a winner in the NFL. McCarthy is Thompson’s new partner… in marriage. Jagodzinski thinks he is better than Sherman with his "I told (Berry) the 'U-71' package is done" remark. WTF? The Falcons lead the NFL in rushing last year not because of Jagodzinki's cheap shots zone blocking scheme but because of Michael Vick. Vick paved the way for Dunn because defenses had to respect the faclons bootleg plays, thus opening up holes for Dunn to run between the tackles.

All in all, we, Packers fans the world over, would be lucky if McCarthy and Jagodzinski turn out to be a fraction as good as Sherman and Rossey.

O Polar Bear, Polar Bear! Wherefore art thou Polar Bear?"

[Iron Mike]

Wells is very small, however... If Wells is going to be the starter, the Packers will probably have to give him help when he has Sean Rogers or Kevin Williams lined up on his nose.

Don't you think most of the NFC North DTs will be spending most of the game worrying about getting their knees blown out by being cut blocked???

[Noodle]

Don't you think most of the NFC North DTs will be spending most of the game worrying about getting their knees blown out by being cut blocked???

I for one do not want to see the Pack get the kind of rep that Denver's line had of being cheapshot artists. Can you imagine Lombardi supporting that kind of crap?

Football is brutal, but aiming to blow out knees has no place in the game. I know you weren't advocating that, Iron Mike, but there's no question this system with its focus on cut blocks can be played dirty, just like Denver. I am going to be watching how we implement this system. I never played it, and guys who have said it doesn't have to be dirty. So I'm willing to wait and watch.

Green Bay stands for something. And it's not career-ending cuts at the knees.

[Iron Mike]

I know you weren't advocating that, Iron Mike, but there's no question this system with its focus on cut blocks can be played dirty, just like Denver.
Green Bay stands for something. And it's not career-ending cuts at the knees.

Yeah--definitely NOT advocating that..........just trying to make the point that the threat of the cut block seems to slow down some of the pass rush that everyone else thinks will be the end of BFs career.

I will admit though--I probably wouldn't have gotten too bent out of shape were Clifton able to get some payback on Sapp with a legal cut block!!!! :wink:

[KYPack]

We ran the zone scheme in high school, and it was perfect. We were athletic with the largest kid weighing 250 pounds, and the smallest weighing 180. At any other high school I probably would have played at my true position, backup quarterback. We could all pass block, if you can't pass block as an offensive lineman, you should be taken out back and shot. Regardless of what level you are playing, pass blocking is the easiest and easiest to learn. In college our offensive line was really young with only one returning starter, we couldn't run the ball for shit, so we threw the ball 40 times a game.

Pass blocking will be the standard for who starts and who sits the pine in Green Bay. If you can't protect Favre, you sit, and sit some more.

OK Nutz. This post makes sense. Your previous post made me think you were saying that we could run rollouts, quicks and other scheme's to compensate for our inexperienced guards in pass blocking.

I wanted to know WTF you were thinking.

You are right, pass blocking is a basic. We've got to get two guards who can cowboy up and get their protections executed. I have an expectation that Colledge will get it done. I hope Coston will, too.

Whatever the the cost, we've gotta get two guys who can protecdt Brett to the Max. Roll-outs and the other tricks won't get us thru the year.

I hope they can keep Verba floating around until we get an idea that Coston is OK. Ross might not be the ideal guard for the Zone run scheme, but he can pass protect.

[ND72]

We ran the zone scheme in high school, and it was perfect. We were athletic with the largest kid weighing 250 pounds, and the smallest weighing 180. At any other high school I probably would have played at my true position, backup quarterback. We could all pass block, if you can't pass block as an offensive lineman, you should be taken out back and shot. Regardless of what level you are playing, pass blocking is the easiest and easiest to learn. In college our offensive line was really young with only one returning starter, we couldn't run the ball for shit, so we threw the ball 40 times a game.

Pass blocking will be the standard for who starts and who sits the pine in Green Bay. If you can't protect Favre, you sit, and sit some more.


Up until you said pass protection is the easiest block to learn, i believed in everything you said. I think the Proper Pass Pro, the kick slide, is the most difficult pass protection, which all NFL teams use, and i'd say 99.9% of all colleges use today. It's extremely difficult, especially if you come from a smaller school who doesn't do it. It took me more time to learn how to pass pro at the next level than anything else. Then you add a person in there you actually ahve to block, not easy at all.

[Noodle]

ND, Yeah, I didn't get the "pass pro is easy" bit. Again, I never played at the college level, but from guys who did, they seemed to think drive blocking was easier/more fun than getting beat on in pass pro. Especially as the athelticism of the DL guys goes up, pass pro can be a real bitch. So what you might have found easy to do in HS becomes a whole different game as you move on up the ranks.

And KY, Colledge can cowboy up all he wants, but his 290 pound frame will not be able to anchor and keep some of those 320 lb monster DTs from collapsing the pocket. Mass time acceleration equals force, and there's not much you can do about it. With good leverage and technique he can buy the QB some time, but I don't expect a lot of classic pockets with this O-line and with this system.

Finally, Iron Mike, if Clifton were to snap a Sapp, that wouldn't be dirty, that would be justice.

[KYPack]

And KY, Colledge can cowboy up all he wants, but his 290 pound frame will not be able to anchor and keep some of those 320 lb monster DTs from collapsing the pocket. Mass time acceleration equals force, and there's not much you can do about it. With good leverage and technique he can buy the QB some time, but I don't expect a lot of classic pockets with this O-line and with this system.

.

Yeah, Noodle, I'm worried, too.

I'm HOPING we get the job done, not saying it will happen.

I'm a Packer fan who spent last season watching a team with, essentially, no guards. Neither Klemm or Whitticker could execute their assignments at the NFL level.

At least these kids will have a chance of getting the job done. Last years guards were flopping around on the field like fish on a deck.

All 3 of the core OLineman are a little light in the butt, this is true. We have to hope that they are great athletes and technicians and are able to counter the huge interior lineman they will face.

if they can't? We don't have a real good plan B, that I can see.

[Patler]

IF MM is true to his word, and gets back to the basic WC offense passing philosophy, there will be very few passes on 5 and 7 step drops. Most passes will be on three step drops. There will be a lot of 6 and 7 yard tosses, very few over 15 yards. It will be up to the receivers to make yardage after the reception. It will force linebackers to honor their pass coverage responsibilities instead of blitzing. A lot of this will negate any deficiencies in pass blocking abilities of the smaller O-line.

[Deputy Nutz]

Up until you said pass protection is the easiest block to learn, i believed in everything you said. I think the Proper Pass Pro, the kick slide, is the most difficult pass protection, which all NFL teams use, and i'd say 99.9% of all colleges use today. It's extremely difficult, especially if you come from a smaller school who doesn't do it. It took me more time to learn how to pass pro at the next level than anything else. Then you add a person in there you actually ahve to block, not easy at all.

Well I gotta disagree with ya a little bit. I played guard in high school and college and it was a bit easier to battle inside then out in space. I also weighed 220 pounds in college and consistently tried to block guys 50 to 70 heavier than me. It was easier to lock on(legally hold) to those guys and ride them down the line of scrimmage or hold my ground at the line of scrimmage in pass pro, rather than try to drive block them off the line with our run blocking scheme. I begged our offensive coordinator in college to switch to some zone concepts in the running game, and finally half way through my Sophomore year he tried them out. They worked wonderfully.

Pass blocking is not simple, I over spoke a little bit, but it is the standard for offensive lineman, if you can't protect your QB you have little value to the team, other than playing on the goal line. Blitz pick up, Twists and over/unders aren't always the easiest things to pick up, and trust me it drove me nuts when I would switch the line call to pick up a twist and the tackle would totally blow the assignment.

You have to have good footwork to be successful offensive lineman, but if you don't have a brain in your head, and you refuse to look at film, or run through senarios in your mind then forget it. You can put the most athletic guy in the world and put him on the offensive line, and he would get blown away 99% of the time if he just went out their and tried to play on the offensive line. I can't stress technique and awarness enough when I am coaching the offensive line in high school. I really don't care how strong an offensive lineman is, it's his savy thats important.

[Deputy Nutz]

ND, Yeah, I didn't get the "pass pro is easy" bit. Again, I never played at the college level, but from guys who did, they seemed to think drive blocking was easier/more fun than getting beat on in pass pro. Especially as the athelticism of the DL guys goes up, pass pro can be a real bitch. So what you might have found easy to do in HS becomes a whole different game as you move on up the ranks.

Run blocking is fun, but it is not easier. If run blocking was so easy teams wouldn't have needed to throw the football. If you are a good running football team you average over 4.0 yards a carry. You have to usually block at least 7 guys for the run to be successful, in pass blocking you might have to block 7 or 8 guys if a team is blitzing, but usually it is 4 to 5, even as low as 3. You have to prepare for the blitz, but in most cases there are more double teams and help from running backs in pass protection than in run blocking. Think of it this way, if you give up 2 sacks per 30 passes your an average pass blocking line. How many runs for no gain or a loss to think happens in 30 rushing attempts? Probably more than two.

[ND72]

at the guard position, it can be easy to pass pro cause you basically are lined up with the fatter slower guy across from you. I played tackle, and it was never easy. it became easy as i got better, but was never easy.

Run blocking I always found to be easy to me. even when i had to learn the zone blocking, it was simple. I rarely met a person i played with that didn't say Pass blocking was hard, and run blocking was easy. the concept of the zone blockign is to make it easy on the lineman. they don't have to worry about specific guys, they worry about an area. a DT can do all he wants vs. a zone, it doesn' tmatter cause for hte most part the zone is designed for anythign that DL guy can do.

i donno where you went to college, but I know at my D-2 level, that threw the ball a lot, pass blocking was not easy. we did 1-on-1 man pass pro, kick slide, and it was always a challenge. And I know from working with the coaches at Wisconsin for a clinic they battle day in and day out getting guys to pass pro successfully.

[KYPack]

IF MM is true to his word, and gets back to the basic WC offense passing philosophy, there will be very few passes on 5 and 7 step drops. Most passes will be on three step drops. There will be a lot of 6 and 7 yard tosses, very few over 15 yards. It will be up to the receivers to make yardage after the reception. It will force linebackers to honor their pass coverage responsibilities instead of blitzing. A lot of this will negate any deficiencies in pass blocking abilities of the smaller O-line.

Well this is cool. A little disagreement makes for good threads.

As far as your post about 3 step drops, ah, no.

A 3 step drop is a critical piece of any offense. A lot of your blitz control routes are 3 step drops. With the blitz crzazy defenses of the past few years, teams add quicks to all parts of their passing offense. The Pack even run those zero routes when the wide reciever catches a quick pass and tries to make what he can on his own speed and moves. Those are basically one step drops.

We will have a complete compliment of quick and blitz control routes to help Brett and our young lineman.

But this statement "there will be very few passes on 5 and 7 step drops.". ain't gonna happen. You can mix in the quick stuff, but you can't live off it. The bulk of a passing offense requires at least a 5 step drop. If you go with all quick stuff, the defenses will quickly counter it and your O will grind to a halt.

It'd be a nice idea to go to a majority of 3 step, but it can't happen.

[Patler]

KYPack, the key is whether MM intends to return to the original conncept of the WC offense, as he said he will. The longer drops and longer routes under Sherman are not part of the original WC offense passing game.

The real WC offense has virtually no long passes. In its early years it was said the QB doesn't even have to be able to throw a 20 yard pass. In the early Holmgren years it was rare that a play was designed with a 7 step drop, and only a handful of 5 step drops were used in a game. The bread and butter was the 3 step drop, usually to Sterling Sharpe so he could run over a hapless cornerback!

[Deputy Nutz]

I don't know why it matters where I went to college, but I am not arguing that pass protection shouldn't be worked on. I already retracted my previous statement about it being easy. I made several statements regarding why I thought it was easier than run blocking though. All you state was that it was easier for you to run block than pass block. Great for you and your division 2 team. Awesome that you had the opportunity to work with the Badgers and their offensive line, and I sure hope that a football team at any level works on pass protection everyday I knew that my lowly division 3 team did everyday. I know when I was a coach at the high school level, I made sure that my offensive line worked on it everyday.

This conversation is getting a bit overblown.

[Deputy Nutz]

KYPack, the key is whether MM intends to return to the original conncept of the WC offense, as he said he will. The longer drops and longer routes under Sherman are not part of the original WC offense passing game.

The real WC offense has virtually no long passes. In its early years it was said the QB doesn't even have to be able to throw a 20 yard pass. In the early Holmgren years it was rare that a play was designed with a 7 step drop, and only a handful of 5 step drops were used in a game. The bread and butter was the 3 step drop, usually to Sterling Sharpe so he could run over a hapless cornerback!

In the original west coast offense, the QB didn't need a very strong arm, look at Joe Montana. He has a jelly arm, but it was good enough to make all the throws. Even Steve Young had an average arm. Very few west coast qbs had the arm strength of Brett Favre, infact I don't think any QB had the arm strength of Brett Favre.

I don't know where the demand for big receivers came from either. Rice and Taylor weren't very big. Freeman, and Brooks didn't have great size. Sharpe Owens were the biggest of the productive recievers in the West Coast offense that I am fimilar with, but those two would have been productive in any system. I guess big receivers were wanted to break tackles after the catch, but without the quickness and the abilty to accelerate after catching the ball, defenses with speed will swarm the ball carrier after a minimal gain. I think Thompson realizes this and instead of going with bigger receivers in the draft that I think McCarthy likes he went with sure handed route runners.

[Fritz]

I recall a lot more three step drops in Favre's early years, and it was frustrating for defenses who would often blitz, but to no avail. The guy has gotten rid of the ball before you get two steps past the line of scrimmage.

One problem - and why Shermy ended up stretching the field so much later on - is that corners and safeties creep up more and more if you only run short routes. Remember the Rams' playoff game when the Ram corners were all over the Packer receivers like Paris Hilton on Matt Leinart?

[KYPack]

KYPack, the key is whether MM intends to return to the original conncept of the WC offense, as he said he will. The longer drops and longer routes under Sherman are not part of the original WC offense passing game.

The real WC offense has virtually no long passes. In its early years it was said the QB doesn't even have to be able to throw a 20 yard pass. In the early Holmgren years it was rare that a play was designed with a 7 step drop, and only a handful of 5 step drops were used in a game. The bread and butter was the 3 step drop, usually to Sterling Sharpe so he could run over a hapless cornerback!

Ah....no.

Hell no.

You a mis-remembering. I loved them quicks to Sterling, even when I hated Sterling, but..........

The WCO has 3 step quicks in it, but it's not the staple of the offense. Just to test this, I looked at my "Favre Forever" tape. It's highlights from All Brett's games from 92 - '04. (Ican't bring myself to put '05 on it.) I looked at '92 & '93.

You are basically 100 % wrong.

Out of 50 passes from that era, 4 were 3 step drops. 3 to Sterling, 1 to Jackie Harris. the other 46 were 5 AND 7 step drops.

5 & 7's aren't rare, they are the staple of a pass offense.

There are only a few plays you can run from a 3 step.

A quick circle to the back, 3 step pattern, right. No, it's a 5 step. If your line is clicking 90 % of your drops are 5&7 steps.

This whole deal started because you've suggested we will go go to 3 step passes to help our young line. The frequency may go up a little, but this team will still use a 5 or 7 step drop in tha vast majority of it's pass plays

[Merlin]

KYPack, the key is whether MM intends to return to the original conncept of the WC offense, as he said he will. The longer drops and longer routes under Sherman are not part of the original WC offense passing game.

The real WC offense has virtually no long passes. In its early years it was said the QB doesn't even have to be able to throw a 20 yard pass. In the early Holmgren years it was rare that a play was designed with a 7 step drop, and only a handful of 5 step drops were used in a game. The bread and butter was the 3 step drop, usually to Sterling Sharpe so he could run over a hapless cornerback!

Ah....no.

Hell no.

You a mis-remembering. I loved them quicks to Sterling, even when I hated Sterling, but..........

The WCO has 3 step quicks in it, but it's not the staple of the offense. Just to test this, I looked at my "Favre Forever" tape. It's highlights from All Brett's games from 92 - '04. (Ican't bring myself to put '05 on it.) I looked at '92 & '93.

You are basically 100 % wrong.

Out of 50 passes from that era, 4 were 3 step drops. 3 to Sterling, 1 to Jackie Harris. the other 46 were 5 AND 7 step drops.

5 & 7's aren't rare, they are the staple of a pass offense.

There are only a few plays you can run from a 3 step.

A quick circle to the back, 3 step pattern, right. No, it's a 5 step. If your line is clicking 90 % of your drops are 5&7 steps.

This whole deal started because you've suggested we will go go to 3 step passes to help our young line. The frequency may go up a little, but this team will still use a 5 or 7 step drop in tha vast majority of it's pass plays

A true WCO relies on a combination of both. The 5-7 step drops create the allure of a deep throw, only to come under neath or for a screen pass. This causes problems for the defense because you can set up the same short passes (except the RB screen) from a 3 step drop. Traditionally the WCO relies on short-high percentage passes. It also calls for receivers that can slant to the middle and take a hit. The idea behind it is to spread the field, whether the corners come up or not. What you need to do is compare the passing lanes and depth from the Holmgren era to the Sherman era. There you will find the difference. Sherman riled on the run to open up the passing game (down field). Holgren relied on the pass to open up the running game. Once the field is streched, even if the corners come up, you can pound the run up the middle. No more of this U-72 off tackle wide crap!

[Fritz]

"Just to test this, I looked at my "Favre Forever" tape. It's highlights from All Brett's games from 92 - '04."

Is it possible that since it's highlights the tape would only show the flashier plays - difficult throws, touchdown throws, stuff like that? If so, then it's possible there are a lot more three step drops than you think. My guess is that not many three-step-drops-and-a-five-yard-gain plays are going to make a highlight tape.

[KYPack]

"Just to test this, I looked at my "Favre Forever" tape. It's highlights from All Brett's games from 92 - '04."

Is it possible that since it's highlights the tape would only show the flashier plays - difficult throws, touchdown throws, stuff like that? If so, then it's possible there are a lot more three step drops than you think. My guess is that not many three-step-drops-and-a-five-yard-gain plays are going to make a highlight tape.

Yeah Fritz. I thought the same thing myself. & I'm sure the highlights would skew the frequecy of certain plays, sets, formations, etc,

But from the comments, I'm also sure that for some reason, people think there are a helluva lot nmore quicks than there actually were.

From my own memory, I knew they ran that play some, but not every other series or anything like that

Maybe we've got some coach wanna be that could crack some game film for us to get the definative answer.

For now, my research proved my gut feel, so I'm happily dropping out of the argument.

There was that guy on JSO that wanted 90 - 05 tape on ALL the games. Now that's a freak. Let him do it.

[Patler]

KY I suspect if you were looking at a Favre highlight film, they showed most of his deep drops and long passes for the whole season, and not a representative sample. How interesting would it be to see him throw 20 completions of five yards each in a highlight film?

Holmgren in the early years would call plays to have Favre throw 2 or 3 deep balls a game, and that was about all. Just enough to make the defense think about it. Favre wasn't good with deep throws then, and Holmgren just didn't trust him. By about his 3rd and 4th year, Hlomgren opened it up a bit simply because Favre has such a strong arm and can rifle a 20 yard throw that others can't. But this is also when it was recognized that Holmgren was developing his own variation of the WC offense.

MM has said he wants to return to the "true" WC offense. That is basically an offense in which a bunch of quick, short passes are used almost in place of a rushing attack. I didn't say we would do that to help the line, I said if MM does what he said he intends to do inadequacies in pass protection will not be as noticeable, because they will not have traditional pass protection requirements.

But, no matter. The Packers will find linemen who are great zone blockers AND pass protectors. (It's the off-season, I can dream, can't I?)


:smile:

[KYPack]

KY I suspect if you were looking at a Favre highlight film, they showed most of his deep drops and long passes for the whole season, and not a representative sample. How interesting would it be to see him throw 20 completions of five yards each in a highlight film?

Holmgren in the early years would call plays to have Favre throw 2 or 3 deep balls a game, and that was about all. Just enough to make the defense think about it. Favre wasn't good with deep throws then, and Holmgren just didn't trust him. By about his 3rd and 4th year, Hlomgren opened it up a bit simply because Favre has such a strong arm and can rifle a 20 yard throw that others can't. But this is also when it was recognized that Holmgren was developing his own variation of the WC offense.

MM has said he wants to return to the "true" WC offense. That is basically an offense in which a bunch of quick, short passes are used almost in place of a rushing attack. I didn't say we would do that to help the line, I said if MM does what he said he intends to do inadequacies in pass protection will not be as noticeable, because they will not have traditional pass protection requirements.

But, no matter. The Packers will find linemen who are great zone blockers AND pass protectors. (It's the off-season, I can dream, can't I?)


:smile:

Well I'll say this and then let it go. (So I don't go "Tank" and beat a dead nag to death)

The WCO never had a majority of it's pass plays with 3 step drops. Never happened. The WCO mixes the short pass and the run to cause the defense to cover, then takes the deep balls when the defense gives room for 'em. Bill Walsh mixed in the real quick 3 steppers and used 'em when few teams did. Mike H is a Walsh disciple and also implemented wuick passes, espec, quick slants to Sterling Sharpe.

But nobody ever ean a pro offense with a mqajority of 3 step plays, cause it can't be doen. There isn't enough you can run off those plays to base a whole offense on.

Nobody ever did it, and MM ain't gonna do it, either.

[ND72]

Nutz, i didn't mean for it to be a my D-2 vs. your D-3 situation. maybe it was because i understood run blocking better, but pass pro was a tough one. I know at the first school i coached at, we passed a lot, and getting HS kids to understand pass pro it a toughy. angles, and steps, not over stepping, not understepping etc. it's the same i guess for run blocking. but in run blocking YOU are in more in control of what is going on, than i pass pro where you are basically "playing defense" from keeping him away from your QB.

[pbmax]

OK, I'll give this a shot. In the original Walsh/Montana WCO, there were many three step drops. The offense Walsh developed was designed to defeat the basic Cover-2 of the day best exemplified by the Steelers Defense of the 70s. This is the defense Tony Dungy learned from Bud Carson.

A staple of that offense was to flood a zone horizontally with a RB, WR and TE. WR runs a slant or shallow cross. RB heads to the flat or runs a circle route and the TE heads downfield for the seam between safety and CB/LB.

If the CB jumps the slant, that means the quick toss to the RB is available as most RBs who could catch could outrun the OLB in those days. If the safety jumped up, the seam was open deep or to the corner side.

In the beginning, you had one WR (Clark), one RB (Cooper, Tyler or Craig) and a TE (Francis or Frank) leading the team in catches. Esp. Craig, who if memory serves, had more catches than Rice for a couple of years. You never saw receiver #2 near the top.

After defenses began to adjust, and as Holmgren and Shanahan were brought in as O Coords, and after they had Taylor to go with Rice, the offense opened up, went deeper and more frequently to the 2 WR.

The offense that Holmgren brought with him in GB in 91 had a lot of 3 step drops, but by then it had also morphed into a lot of five step drops and multiple receiver formations.

And Favre was a much different QB than Montana or Young. He had a cannon they didn't have, but he was not hyper accurate like they could be.

The bigger receiver deal was true in its time. Walsh like sized in his WR (see Clark or Rice or Taylor, all over 6 foot) but it wasn't Keyshawn or TO size. Mainly they were notable because at the time was a trend toward smurf receivers. It was considered a good quality because they had to defeat the CB in close quarters on a slant or frequently go over the middle.

Remember, however, that all this may be moot. McCarthy learned his WCO from Paul Hackett who learned in from Walsh in the early 80s. But Hackett left for Pitt before some of these changes were made. And I am not sure what changes he may have made.

Hope this post doesn't cover too much ground already covered.