Article - The Eye in the Sky

[boiga]

If that's the case, Patler, we really should be throwing it more in the 4th quarter. Our most effective way of running out the clock is the short pass. 5 yarders to Lee and Jones have been much more effective for us than trying to gain consistent short yardage from the running game.

Also, one of our big problems against the lions was that Grant had his reps diminished so much that every time he was on the field we ran the ball. If we can only run the ball successfully by surprising the D-line, fine. But we're going to need to be more creative about our play calling from the rushing personnel packages to keep defenses honest. M3 discussed that during his press conference today.

[texaspackerbacker]

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.

Excellent Points, Patler. This is exactly what I've been saying.

Some of these posters--and the guy who wrote the article--would take their Corvette, put a trailer hitch on it, and whine because they couldn't pull a big enough load of rocks.

The aspect that goes the farthest toward making a good offensive line is playing together for a while. What they do is a team effort more than any other position group. Check out the O Line that won it all for the Packers in '95. Go way back and check out Gregg, Skoronski, Kramer, Thurston, and Bowman (show me the over-size "root 'em out" type behemoth there) .

And you know what? Other than a very notable goal line QB Sneak and maybe a few other instances, their forte was NOT a big "shove" either.

[KYPack]

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.

Excellent Points, Patler. This is exactly what I've been saying.

Some of these posters--and the guy who wrote the article--would take their Corvette, put a trailer hitch on it, and whine because they couldn't pull a big enough load of rocks.

The aspect that goes the farthest toward making a good offensive line is playing together for a while. What they do is a team effort more than any other position group. Check out the O Line that won it all for the Packers in '95. Go way back and check out Gregg, Skoronski, Kramer, Thurston, and Bowman (show me the over-size "root 'em out" type behemoth there) .

And you know what? Other than a very notable goal line QB Sneak and maybe a few other instances, their forte was NOT a big "shove" either.

Well, I'm some deep yogurt here.

I'm on the other side of Patler & Tex.

That's cool, I've been there before.

ZBS running games can be successful in short yardage and grind it out on the ground. If you don't believe me, go back to Super Bowl 32, when the Broncos ran our asses in the ground and off the field. Our present ZBS is not productive in short yardage, intermittent in general, and non-existent in the counters. Until we get more productive consistently on the ground, we will not have a Super Bowl winning combination on offense.

Tex, firstly, if that crack about hauling rocks with a corvette is directed at me, you can shove every syllable up your rectal sphincter.

Secondly, both our '95 Oline AND the Lombardi Packers offensive line were VERY productive in short yardage situations and in the running game in general.

On the '95 team Aaron Taylor, Frankie Winters and Adam Timmerman could root with the best of 'em. None of our current interior lineman can execute run blocks as well as this group could.

On the Lombardi Packers, who said anything about oversized as a criteria anyhow? That team was the essence of Oline teamwork and getting the job done. We are talking about the ability to move people off the line, hold'em and finish. Who could do that? Oh, two guys named Gregg and Kramer for one example. In the '67 play-off against the Rams in Milwaukee, my Uncle and I screamed ourselves hoarse as Jerry and Forrest totally manhandled a HOF defensive tackle and DE. Deacon Jones and Merlin Olsen were repeatedly blown off the line by Kramer and Gregg, in all running situations. When you speak of the Lombardi Packers you are talking about one of the greatest run blocking lines in NFL history. Were any of 'em behemoths? No, and no one has said you have to be. You must have the ability to execute your blocking assignments. Which of those lineman could deliver the "big shove"? All five 'em or Vince would go find a player who could get the job done.

That kind of line play is the bedrock of a sucessful offense. The NFL is now a passing league and you must have the kind of pass attack that we now possess to make it all the way. But a running game is the foundation of a successful offense. Our guys can pass pro with anybody. Run blocking , especially in short yardage is still lacking.

I've got a lot of faith in MM & his staff. I think he'll get 'em coached up, moved around and find the right combination to get the run blocked up in all situations. But he's not there yet.

Tex, you ain't worried, I guess. You think everything is fine and our Oline is just hunky dory. But somebody disagrees with you. His name is Mike McCarthy & he doesn't think the line is fine. He thinks it needs to improve if he's gonna have the kind of offense he wants to put on the field. Oh, he says nice stuff about our Oline and the guys in the papers. But look what he's done. He has been constantly shuffling guys around, trying to hit on a combination that will gel and click.

He wants to find a group that is confident and can execute. He ain't found it yet. I think he will, but I'm not gonna play head cheerleader and say this bunch is great and we don't need to worry. Because we need to develop a whole bunch if we are gonna get it done.

[texaspackerbacker]

Well, KY, your sense of history is right up there with mine. You know what that makes you--OLD.

As for invoking McCarthy, no good coach is ever satisfied or not looking for improvement, but worried? I haven't seen any evidence of that. Neither you or I are head coach OR head cheer leader. We're just fans, and as fans, the bottom line is winning games--not style points. I don't know if you're a Badger fan, but that Fresno game is a good example--just winning a tough game under difficult circumstances is good enough. I'll take that for the Packers anytime (well, actually, that's not exactly true because I've got so many Packers on so many fantasy teams).

Nobody ever said there isn't room for improvement in the Packers O Line, just that calling it under-performing, etc. isn't accurate when it's winning games and out-performing a helluva lot of other teams. That ought to be plenty good enough--from a fan perspective anyway.

And if I need to explain my metaphor, the Corvette is the line that is near flawless against the pass rush and damn good in springing receivers for long gains--in large part, BECAUSE they are smaller and more mobile. Hauling the load of rocks is expecting those smaller more mobile linemen to get the same kind of "shove" as a bunch of 350 pounders--and not just in a few crucial situations, but consistently. I don't know, KY. Do you have a trailer hitch on your Corvette?

[KYPack]

Actually, when I wanna haul rocks around, I use an old truck we have at the farm.

I think we're thru here. I think the line needs to get better in some situations. You think everthing is all good.

I hope the line gets everything corrected and we get on track in all the play situations. Then the "argument" is moot.

Regardless, I think the future is rosy. If these kids don't get it together this season, there is enough talent and energy around that one years experience will give us a helluva OLine.

[The Gunshooter]

One problem that is solved. Rodgers can pick-up a yard with the sneak. As long as the line gets low he can out quick the defense.