Article - The Eye in the Sky

[texaspackerbacker]

Re: Eye in the Sky

No! It's NOT reality. Reality is 13-3/14-4 last season and 2-0 with a new QB, with an ace RB playing hurt, against one very good team and one inspired home team.

Funny you should bring up last season. When I did that, somebody claimed it was irrelevant. That O Line--basically the same personnel as this year--merely allowed a totally unknown RB gain more yards than any other RB in the NFL for the weeks he started.

I wouldn't disagree with a word you wrote about the details of the blocking situation. Smaller more mobile ZBS O Linemen traditionally DON'T do as well in short yardage--although they sure came through in that Sneak on the goal line. Granted, Clifton and Tauscher are getting a little bit old, and maybe not quite getting there in certain situations. Last year, and his one big run this year, Grant didn't need that cut back.

I think this whole idea--knocking the performance of the O Line--is grasping at straws to knock a WINNING TEAM. It took a while for the Packers running game to kick in last season. With time--and a healthy Grant--it WILL do the job this season too--hopefully against the Cowboys. If it takes a little longer, well, it was unlikely we'd go unbeaten anyway, and they ARE the best opponent on the schedule.

So just enjoy the ride and don't try to dig up lame reasons to complain.

Well, we have a failure to communicate. I don't think pointing out weak areas in the Pack is knocking the team or anything else. What I (and "The Goat") are doing is observing and reporting. We've got a winning record in spite of an inability of our interior line to get runs blocked.

Sometimes I wonder if you watch the games. Every post from you seems to be "You rah, rah, sis boom bah, go Pack go!" & shit.

There isn't one complaint in my post. I ain't yelling, I'm telling.

We need to get some shove from our interior line (& the tackles, too) or we won't be a factor in big games and the play-offs. You must be able to win the alley fight to win the SB.

If you don't believe me, ask the Patriots if a smash mouth team can knock you off your pedastal. It's a goal that must be met & I'm posting the observation that we ain't there yet.

We might be in the future, but right now we are far short of being an effective run blocking line, especially in the interior, and especially in short yardage.

KY, you may not be yellin', but you're the one who claimed doom and gloom was reality--against all evidence.

Sure, the running game isn't quite hitting on all cylinders yet. That didn't stop the Packers from not only beating Minnesota, but doing so with a more effective running game than Indianapolis, a damn good team.

What we have are two aging mid round tackles built around a bargain basement interior three--OK, Colledge was a #1, but he's the exception, and he's criticized more than any of 'em. That O Line may not be up to a perfectionist's level, but it's outperforming most of the NFL O Lines in the running game, on top of being one of the very best in pass protection. And it's doing all that with our super RB playing at maybe 75% effectiveness--my estimate. What more do you guys want?

As for getting some "shove", you ought to realize by now, that's not exactly what ZBS is all about. And when it counted--on the goal line QB sneak, I'd say we had some "shove".

It would be one thing to whine if we were losing, but we aren't. U Rah Rah--we're winning--proving wrong the critics and naysayers--both the know-nothing outsider ones as well as the insider pretend-to-know something ones.

And I suppose if we lose to the Cowboys--likely the most talented team in the league--you guys are going to revel in that and feel all justified for having your negative and defeatist attitudes. Well, I think we will beat the Cowboys, but if we don't, who ever said we'd go unbeaten anyway? And no opponent on the schedule is tougher than this one.

Sorry, but negativity annoys me--ESPECIALLY when the negativists have the GALL to claim they are being realistic.

[KYPack]

Well Tex, here goes the infamous and hated "we've got to agree to disagree" post.

Because I basically disagree with you all up and down the line.

1stly, Daryn Colledge was a #2 pick, as was Chad Clifton.

Secondly, Eric (and my) contention that the interior of our OLine is underperforming against the run is NOT a statement of "Doom and Gloom". It's an observation based in fact. I don't think pointing out areas that need improvement is being a "negativist"

I know that is one of your pet words, but it's not negative to point out facts. Our Oline was LAST in the league in short yardage last year and we are having trouble getting push in short yardage plays this season. Our Oline needs to improve in these areas if we are going to be a top team and go to the big dance.

I am also confident that we will improve and get it done. We've got some good athletes at those interior spots that are maturing. When Wells and Sitton get back in form, we will have 5 good guys competing for the 3 interior spots. Competition builds performance and that's just what we'll do. Perform at a higher level. To say that we are performing at a high level in our interior run blocking is foolish and bullshit.

As far as the latter part of your post, if you think I'm one of the naysayers or you classify me as "an insider pretending-to-know something", then I'll say you are 100% full of shit.

I like people who subscribe to the "power of positve thinking".

But they aren't the kind of people I'd go scuba diving or mountain climbing with.

Sometimes you have to put down the pom-poms and pay attention to reality and the details.

The devil is in the details, ya know?

[boiga]

Here are some interesting and relevant articles from JSO and their weekly magazine: Notes: Tauscher aims to play better; Tackle struggled in first two games
The first talks about how Tausch as been a little rusty with his fundamentals so far this season. He wasn't happy with his performance against the lions (he gave up 4.5 pressures and 2 bad runs) but should be back to form shortly.

Colledge strong-arming his way back; Guard rolling after rocky ‘07
This one discusses Colledge's improvement since last year. They say that his performance against the lions was "outstanding" in pass protection and Campen has very positive things about his performance against the Vikings.

If the Coaches are right and the problems thus far from the veteran tackles are merely rust, then hopefully these worries will simply amount to much ado about nothing.

[sheepshead]

Here are some interesting and relevant articles from JSO and their weekly magazine: Notes: Tauscher aims to play better; Tackle struggled in first two games
The first talks about how Tausch as been a little rusty with his fundamentals so far this season. He wasn't happy with his performance against the lions (he gave up 4.5 pressures and 2 bad runs) but should be back to form shortly.

Colledge strong-arming his way back; Guard rolling after rocky ‘07
This one discusses Colledge's improvement since last year. They say that his performance against the lions was "outstanding" in pass protection and Campen has very positive things about his performance against the Vikings.

If the Coaches are right and the problems thus far from the veteran tackles are merely rust, then hopefully these worries will simply amount to much ado about nothing.

Not everyone's worried.

[texaspackerbacker]

Well Tex, here goes the infamous and hated "we've got to agree to disagree" post.

Because I basically disagree with you all up and down the line.

1stly, Daryn Colledge was a #2 pick, as was Chad Clifton.

Secondly, Eric (and my) contention that the interior of our OLine is underperforming against the run is NOT a statement of "Doom and Gloom". It's an observation based in fact. I don't think pointing out areas that need improvement is being a "negativist"

I know that is one of your pet words, but it's not negative to point out facts. Our Oline was LAST in the league in short yardage last year and we are having trouble getting push in short yardage plays this season. Our Oline needs to improve in these areas if we are going to be a top team and go to the big dance.

I am also confident that we will improve and get it done. We've got some good athletes at those interior spots that are maturing. When Wells and Sitton get back in form, we will have 5 good guys competing for the 3 interior spots. Competition builds performance and that's just what we'll do. Perform at a higher level. To say that we are performing at a high level in our interior run blocking is foolish and bullshit.

As far as the latter part of your post, if you think I'm one of the naysayers or you classify me as "an insider pretending-to-know something", then I'll say you are 100% full of shit.

I like people who subscribe to the "power of positve thinking".

But they aren't the kind of people I'd go scuba diving or mountain climbing with.

Sometimes you have to put down the pom-poms and pay attention to reality and the details.

The devil is in the details, ya know?

OK, KY. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I sure don't hate you for it. As for the "power of positive thinking", I don't much care one way or the other about that. The Packers are not a super team because I or anybody else among fans wills it to happen by positive thinking or any other psycho-babble crap like that. They are a super team because they are a super team. Even that super team, however, has better takent in some areas than others.

The crux of our disagreement is when you claim the O Line is "under-performing". I would say they are over-performing. We don't have the greatest talent there--decent, but not like some teams. And yet we have outstanding pass protection and way above average run blocking--you can disagree all you want, but the FACTS say different. Both yardage last year and comparative stats vs. the Vikings to what Indy did against the Vikings support the idea that the O Line is doing damn good.

And if you want to nit-pick about short yardage, well, maybe we weren't in short yardage situations as much--with all the passing TDs as well as Grant's long gainers, that would certainly seem likely. Also, as I said, the ZBS with generally smaller more mobile O Linemen isn't conducive to the big "shove" you are so hung up on.

Record-wise--which is the ultimate bottom line REALITY, we've done pretty damn good without that big "shove".

[Guiness]

Here are some interesting and relevant articles from JSO and their weekly magazine: Notes: Tauscher aims to play better; Tackle struggled in first two games
The first talks about how Tausch as been a little rusty with his fundamentals so far this season. He wasn't happy with his performance against the lions (he gave up 4.5 pressures and 2 bad runs) but should be back to form shortly.

Colledge strong-arming his way back; Guard rolling after rocky ‘07
This one discusses Colledge's improvement since last year. They say that his performance against the lions was "outstanding" in pass protection and Campen has very positive things about his performance against the Vikings.

If the Coaches are right and the problems thus far from the veteran tackles are merely rust, then hopefully these worries will simply amount to much ado about nothing.

Good synopsis boiga. I wonder if our good buddies at JSO will complain that your paraphrasing is stealing content???

[Guiness]

Yeah, you are right Fritz, I failed to mention that. I've always thought there might be another underlying problem. Personnel groups feed off & copy their leader. All our receivers play tough, run slants, and focus on YAC, etc., just like DD

Our Olineman excel at pass pro, but don't focus on their run blocks. The leaders of the line are Cliffy and Tausch.

One thing I've been hoping about is that one guy will rise up and become the interior road grader in short yardage that we lack. Maybe Sitton, Barbre, Spitz, I don't care, but some internal leader coming to the forefront could go a long way to helping our problem.

Do you think we have a guy on the team who can be a road grader?

I tend to think our personel almost precludes that. I know what you're saying about 'shove'. Aside from a couple of plays (and yes, the QB sneak for a TD was one of them) we don't drive the DL back two yards on running plays. The question is, are we trying to?

Grant's long run against Minn is interesting to look at. However, I think Moll blocking of K.Williams into the backer was as much the LB taking himself out of the play as anything, as opposed to a 'road grader' type move.

[Merlin]

I think the line has done a great job at keeping Rodgers protected. I also think Rodgers decision making has also kept him from getting killed out there. Rodgers has done a far better job than I and a lot of people thought he would after a shaky pre-season. I think that helps out everything a ton. As far as the run blocking, maybe it's just the whole "zone blocking" thing. I know last year we had at least a few plays that weren't zone blocking, I didn't see any the past two games, although I wasn't really looking either. I do agree that you can't continue to beat a dead horse with certain players. It's obvious that our guard situation has not improved under Thompson. I am not very optimistic that when Tauscher and Clifton's contracts are up that he will pay much to keep them (one of them is soon I believe and the other is the following year?). I haven't seen anyone on our roster that can step in at either tackle position and do the job consistently.

Something needs to be done to shake this line up, the OL is one place that the "build through the draft" attitude has not helped us at all. I also don't agree with over paying your OL like MN does.

[KYPack]

Yeah, you are right Fritz, I failed to mention that. I've always thought there might be another underlying problem. Personnel groups feed off & copy their leader. All our receivers play tough, run slants, and focus on YAC, etc., just like DD

Our Olineman excel at pass pro, but don't focus on their run blocks. The leaders of the line are Cliffy and Tausch.

One thing I've been hoping about is that one guy will rise up and become the interior road grader in short yardage that we lack. Maybe Sitton, Barbre, Spitz, I don't care, but some internal leader coming to the forefront could go a long way to helping our problem.

Do you think we have a guy on the team who can be a road grader?

I tend to think our personel almost precludes that. I know what you're saying about 'shove'. Aside from a couple of plays (and yes, the QB sneak for a TD was one of them) we don't drive the DL back two yards on running plays. The question is, are we trying to?

Grant's long run against Minn is interesting to look at. However, I think Moll blocking of K.Williams into the backer was as much the LB taking himself out of the play as anything, as opposed to a 'road grader' type move.

The two guys I think could be out interior "brutes" are Sitton and Barbre. That said, Colledge and Spitz may well be the end of the year starters at G. I really don't care who "wins", we've just got to get more productive in the interior.

As has been pointed out, we can be effective with the guys blocking at their present level of competence. We just won't be complete until we can "root hog 'em" for first downs. Finesse blocks and pass pro can get you some offense, but until you can blow the opponents up from time to time, your offense will be limited.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Rodgers has done a far better job than I and a lot of people thought he would after a shaky pre-season.

He had one shaky game. He was good in the Cincy game. He was poor in the San Fran game. He was great in the Denver game. He played one play in the Tennessee game and threw a long TD pass to Jennings. What shaky preseason did you see?

Bottom line: Rodgers had a 101 QB rating in the 2006 preseason. He had a 98 QB rating in the 2007 preseason. He had a 104 QB rating in the 2008 preseason. He had a 105 QB rating in his only relevant regular season action before this year (against Dallas). He had a 116 QB rating vs. Minnesota. He had a 117 QB rating vs. Detroit.

I see a pattern here that I really like.

[Harlan Huckleby]

As has been pointed out, we can be effective with the guys blocking at their present level of competence.

I don't know about this. This is like saying the team can be effective with Grant getting 4 yard per carry instead of 5. Depends on your goal. The team is competitive for the Super Bowl, and they will probably advance or be eliminated by a slim margin.

I want to see a shake-up on the O-line, there is much room for improvement. Just wishful thinking on my part, hope that they can be better than last year.

[boiga]

As has been pointed out, we can be effective with the guys blocking at their present level of competence.

I don't know about this. This is like saying the team can be effective with Grant getting 4 yard per carry instead of 5. Depends on your goal. The team is competitive for the Super Bowl, and they will probably advance or be eliminated by a slim margin.

I want to see a shake-up on the O-line, there is much room for improvement. Just wishful thinking on my part, hope that they can be better than last year.

But at this point in the game, would it really be worthwhile? Having Colledge, Wells, and Spitz in the middle will give us consistent pass protection and occasional big gains in the run. Our O-line isn't going to turn into Dallas' overnight and neither Barbre nor Sitton have shown the consistency required to be considered an upgrade.

If our Tackles can up their game and shake off the rust like we know they should, I don't see us having any difficulty with the run game. We won't be consistent in short yardage, but we should be productive.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Having Colledge, Wells, and Spitz in the middle will give us consistent pass protection and occasional big gains in the run.

Having Wells at center guarantees mediocre play from the position.

Having Colledge, Spitz and Sitton in the middle will give us consistent pass protection and occasional big gains in the run.

neither Barbre nor Sitton have shown the consistency required to be considered an upgrade.

Sez who? All we know for sure is that the coaches thought that Sitton was their best bet at RG before he hurt his knee.

I don't have any idea if Sitton is any good, all I know is that he looks like a big body. I'm engaged in wishful thinking, nothing more or less, but you don't have any more info than I do.

[pbmax]

tpb does have a valid point that is usually not the focus of articles on the O Line. The run blocking is far from a lost cause. Grant's injury is no doubt hurting production this year, as Jackson is still not his equal. And I don't think its fair to say Grant is the sole reason we can run at all. He's not the second coming of Dickerson or Sanders, otherwise, he would still be on the Giants with the dominant role in their RBBC approach. He is a very good fit for what we do.

But what is fair is what Eric, KYP and others have said. We struggle mightily in short yardage and goal line for the reasons described at length. And that does impact games. In the third quarter, when you have a lead and want to clock to run, the running game has been stymied by both the Vikings and the Lions. What is left is a choice, and this is where discussion of McCarthy's choice is fair. He has selected a run scheme that lends itself not to grinding out the clock, unless execution up front is exceptional. Even Denver's O Line could be had in short yardage during the days of Terrell Davis. He knows this coming in, but he still must devise a way to control the clock in the second half.

This leaves him with two competing needs; one, to get a lineup's performance on a level like Denver's where short yardage isn't the strongest suit, but is at least average. Currently, this requires training, game experience and possible lineup changes. However, the second need is to execute an offense that can keep the D off the field in the second half. If you have a lead, the opponents are throwing more and if you O isn't on the field you are going to gas your pass rushers. Especially this D that can itself struggle to get off the field on 3rd downs.

In both the Lions and Vikings games, McCarthy committed to the run in the 3rd and 4th QTRs and had a bunch of three and outs. That put his defense in a bad place. Sometimes running the football is good, even if you don't make tremendous yards because of how it can shorten the game if there are no O penalties. But the time to do that may be later in the 4th Quarter, not the 3rd.

In the 3rd, M3 might need to forget the training and do what worked in the first half (assuming you have the lead) and save the short yardage, grind it out training for late in the game.

[Patler]

A true zone running game is not a ball control running scheme. It is not expected to generate time-consuming fourth quarter drives. If you come in and run-run-run, you might see several "three and outs". What is hoped for is that in the course of one of those late game series, you will catch an anxious, but tired linebacker or safety out of position, a lane will open and the runner takes it the distance. As McCarthy once said, it isn't expected to eat the clock, it is expected to break the back of the other team with a demoralizing long run.

In some ways, you can say that it has worked as expected, with Grant's 56 yard run to the 1 and Jackson's 19 yard TD coming in the 4th quarters of the two games, with the Packers protecting small leads. Both were crucial scores putting the Packers up by two scores.