Tweet
Originally posted by pbmax
-
I don't think Timmerman started his first year. Tauscher started only because Dotson couldn't play after a few games. Both backup tackles were rookies that year, and both ended up starting shortly into the season because Dotson's back gave out and Wahle was awful. Going with two rookie tackles and a left guard just converted from tackle (Verba) was a good coaching job. -
Timmerman replaced Taylor in the wildcard game against Atlanta, due to a patellar tendon tear. Timmerman then started against San Fran and Dallas, and acquitted himself rather well.Originally posted by Patler
I agree about the coaching in 2000. It was interesting how the Packers played to their strength in the running game, and it served them well, as they were able to destroy the Vikings' chances with a victory at Minnesota late in the season.Comment
-
Calling the bengals a first rate line is a bit a of stretch.Originally posted by KYPack
You still can't deny that it is the exception.
Our way has developed players. Wells, Spitz, Colledge, Sitton, and now Lang.
We tried FA with Klemm and that guy we brought in this year who didn't make the club. You are acting like we never tried.
We did try the scrap heap..and it was less successful than what we are doing.
They are on the scrap heap because they suck.
And, you can't deny that the Bengals have a better line coach.Comment
-
If we give credit to Lovat for Timmerman, Tauscher and Clifton starting and not being abysmal in their first year (and Clifton is a bit outside your original parameter of later round picks as was Wahle in my previous post), then we need to credit Campen for Sitton and Lang.Originally posted by Patler
But I do not think its easy to separate coaching from talent and compatibility to the Packers' version of the pro game in those instances of almost immediate success.
I think a better case can be made for earlier O line coaches (esp. Lovat) with those mid-round guys that took years to develop. Wahle, Rivera, Flanagan (injury played a factor) and Andruzzi (Patriots). Two of those guys had the NFL-E to help them.
And its interesting to note that I am having difficulty remembering if Beightol developed any depth behind his tremendous starters during his time. The injury to Clifton put Flanagan at Tackle (a feat that by itself should almost put him in the Packers Hall of Fame) but Winters went in as center again. He did convert Wahle successfully to guard and helped implement the Power O running game*. Someone else can help us out here.
Do not get me wrong. I have my doubts about Campen and your arguments have swayed me. The failure to get Moll, Colledge, Barbre and Coston to amount to more is troubling. Even more troubling are the indecision about Colledge at Tackle and the ludicrous move of Lang away from RT when it was only Giacomini and Barbre there.
But I am also open to the argument that Campen has gotten exactly what was there. That Colledge is average despite better than average physical skill. That Coston and Barbre just don't and may never get it. That Spitz is maxed out and best at Center (a transition that should be to Campen's credit). And that Moll was never going to be more effective because he was a puffed up TE.
When given actual talent (Sitton and Lang) it was ready to start. Giacomini might be the next test as will finding Lang a permanent position.Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.Comment
-
* From my previous post. Has anyone else noticed how the Power O run game has spread everywhere in the NFL? If I recall correctly, the Packers were using this system first this decade with Beightol/Rossley/Sherman. At the time, I remember a couple of offensive minded commentators stating that our running game in some respects was untraditional for the pros and more like a college team. I think, but am not sure, that the reference was to that run scheme.
There is nothing truly new in football, but apparently those coaches were ahead of the curve given how widely that running scheme has caught on. If I am out of my mind, please someone correct me.Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.Comment
-
I probably haven't been clear enough in arguing two different things. So let me try to better explain my thoughts regarding two different situations .Originally posted by pbmax
First - coaches who take players and make them better each year for several years until they become very good, or even pro bowl players. Rivera is a good example of this. Even after he became a starter, he was a very weak link on the line. After his first year as a starter there was an article about whether the Packers could continue with their patience with him starting, or if they should look for veteran replacements to "win now". But Rivera got better. In fact, he got better and better each year for many years until he became a pro bowl player. Wahle is another example of a guy who developed over 4 years or so. I can look back at a lot of the guys thrust into the starting lineups who were not that good their first year, somewhat better their second, and usually turned a corner their third season. I can make that argument even as far back as Ron Hallstrom (for whoever was coaching back then). I think arguments can be made that Tauscher especially and maybe even Clifton to some extent showed significant improvement over their first couple years, getting to the point a few years ago when they rarely needed help and could be stuck out there and forgotten about.
Second - coaches who are given a real problem usually because of injuries, and are forced to patch together a line of rookies and castoffs, but still perform well. The Packers in 2000 are an example. They wanted Dotson at RT, but his back (I think it was) failed him after a couple games, and they had no choice but to go with Tauscher the rookie, Wahle was as bad at LT as Barbre was this year at RT, maybe even worse, so Clifton was put in after a few games. Verba had just been converted in training camp to guard from tackle. That was a lot of inexperience, yet they made it work.
With that said, I don't give a coach a lot of credit just because a first or second year player starts. Often it is due only to circumstances, or just to the ability the player came to camp with. I am more concerned with what they do with them. So far, I have not seen Campen make much if any difference in the play of the young players through their first 2, 3 or 4 years. I haven't seen him do anything notable with overall line performance, He made nothing of Coston, Moll, Barbre or Giacomini; I saw no dramatic change in Colledge or Spitz; and the jury is still out on Lang and Sitton as to whether they will be what they are or get even better. Many have said Sitton has pro-bowl potential. Will Campen get him there, or will Sitton just stay as he is? Further, Campen's lines have started the seasons quite poorly for three seasons, and seem to take half the season to find themselves. I have to consider coaching when I see that year after year.
In short, nothing changes under Campen. Contrast that with the improvement shown by runningbacks under Bennett, and the marvelous job he did patching together backfields with a new back seemingly every week in Sherman's last season.
Maybe you are right, and the 10 or so guys Campen has been given never would have amounted to much for anyone, but the shear numbers of them would suggest there should have been a few he could do something with.
The most telling might be what happens with Meredith. All the Packers reporters at the end of camp sang the same tune about him - that he was no where near ready to play, and at best would be a practice squad player. Yet Buffalo gets him, spends a little time with him, is forced to play him and seemed happy-enough with his performance. Meredith himself commented about the Buffalo coaches clarifying a lot for him in just a couple weeks. Why was he so ill-prepared in Green Bay? It will be interesting to see if he becomes a player or not.Comment
-
I will need to return to this later, but work calls. I am largely in agreement that long term development is the best measure. But the 2000 O line and Meredith will take some parsing. Good thread everyone.Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.Comment
-
I considered presenting a counter argument in that the line fared pretty well this year after a really rough start; however, I think it is important to remember that the Packers, and MM specifically, made a number of changes to help compensate for the poor line play. IMO, those changes count as much or more than anything that Campen did.Comment
-
Power O and Power Gap are two terms for the same thing. Most coaches use the term "Power Gap" to differentiate from one of the key plays in a power gap offense. The play "power O" is the old Ahman Green play Sherm ran forever. The G & C double team the NT to the inside. The tackle kicks out on the DT (or player in that gap). the left guard pulls and leads thru the gap, & Ahman runs for 12 yards, right? That's power 0 and it's a staple of the power gap running game.Originally posted by pbmax
Power Gap is the term for blocking a hole (gap). it's real old and was probably invented by an old Indian Chief or Walter Camp or somebody like that. "power" means a double team or multiple players hitting that area and opening up space for the back.
The term gap has replace hole as the word for the area you are targeting to block. As the 3-4 being the 7 men from you face came into vogue, the old term hole fell out of place. now the coaches refer to gaps and block their playes accordingly.Comment
-
What's amazing to me is that the Packers just set a team record for points scored, and yet the only certainty on the OL is that Josh Sitton will be the RG. I could probably come up with 10-15 perfectly plausible scenarios for the starting OL lineup.
Possibililties per position:
LT: Clifton/Lang/Rookie
LG: Colledge/Lang/Spitz
C: Wells/Spitz
RG: Sitton
RT: Tauscher/Lang/Giaco/RookieI can't run no more
With that lawless crowd
While the killers in high places
Say their prayers out loud
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
A thundercloud
They're going to hear from me - Leonard CohenComment
-
The common denominator is Lang. And a rookie. One good rookie pick who can play right away, and we could have a very solid line next year.Originally posted by JoemailmanComment
-
Don't forget we're gonna get Joe Thomas!
Plus the Pats will let Mankins walk and we'll snap him up!
So I've got:
Thomas/Mankins/Wells/Sitton/LangWhen the going gets weird, the weird turn pro ~Hunter S.Comment
-
:bookingsuperbowltickets:Originally posted by denverYooperComment
-
Well, that was a fun week of work.
Back to the O Line. KYP, thanks for the explanation. Does Power Gap necessarily include the pulling guard?
As for O line coach Patler, I think I misread your post on Tauscher and Clifton and thought your were giving Beightol more credit for their rookie year than you are. So no disagreements here. Rookies who start their first year and play reasonably well are relying significantly on their own talent and to a smaller degree from coaching that is making things simple enough for them to execute well. In this case, the coach is responsible for giving enough information and getting out of the way I think.
One point about Rivera. In 1998, Rivera played Left Guard opposite Timmerman on the Right. I believe this is the year you reference that he struggled. After 98, he was at RG exclusively since Timmerman left. Its possible the side of the line made a difference to him. I know they liked his nasty streak on the side they ran to most often. It could be that runs to his side were a particular strength, opposed to pulling, cutting people off or reach blocking, or peeling back and preventing pursuit.
That is a challenge they will have with Lang. He could probably play 3 (RT, RG, LG) positions capably, and could be used in a pinch for a 4th (LT). If he is to excel, he needs to find a permanent home that matches his best qualities. The Barbre experiment is not encouraging in this respect.
As for progress, I think there has been progress for Spitz and Colledge (and Wells, but he was made de facto starter in MM's first year). 2006 was a rough year even for Favre and certainly the run game. 2007 was far stronger for the guards. I also think Favre's hair trigger release at this stage of his career helped mask deficiencies in the O line's protection. Rodgers, while learning, does not help as much. In fact my fear is that he will revert if his protection is not more solid soon.
Also to Campen's credit, this line, that early in Campen's regime struggled so much to run, ranked 8th in Football Outsiders Adjusted Line Yards (which is their best attempt to measure O Line effectiveness running the ball). Standing in stark contrast to some earlier years, they ranked 3rd in Power attempts (basic short yardage, goaline and QB sneaks) and 4th in stuffs (run plays that went nowhere [no first down] or lost yardage). I also think that Spitz transitioning to center should deserve some credit. Moll, Coston, Barbre and Giacomini are all disappointments so far, for themselves and for their coach's reputation.
As for Meredith, his comments after his Buffalo start, might simply be trying to say something positive and unobjectionable rather than reveal any truth about coaching. And he did not remain the starter for a team that lost one starter from the previous season and had a poor offense. Time will tell.
One other point. The O line couldn't pass block a lick for the first half of the season. But that was largely due to three reasons. Barbre, an injury to the Left Tackle and the effect both had on the QB. I mentioned that the people responsible for Barbre getting the job unchallenged by Lang should all be put in the stockade for an extended amount of time. I think the Head Coach and GM are responsible for there being no reliable Left Tackle backup on the roster, ready to play. Colledge was no longer the answer and they had let everyone else go. They had to move Lang, nearly cold, over there to stop the bleeding. That was a roster and a coaching error. So while the pass blocking is an issue for Campen (especially with Colledge at this point), he wasn't alone in screwing up.
So they ran the ball well this season, and on the whole, have done so since MM's second year. And we are left with very mixed results. A decent to good running game, indifferent pass blocking and occasional horrible play. But even with those mediocre grades, this team can run and score against very good defenses. What did the Colts get on the Ravens D at home on the turf? 20? Packers put 27 up, albeit not facing Ed Reed. Some of this is scheme and some of this is skill position players, but if the line was a true fire drill, that couldn't happen.
I don't think Campen has proven himself anything other than average at best. But I also think his GM has provided only one player as high as the second round and that player might have fit a running system that we are no longer running exclusively. If Waldo is to be believed, Colledge's shorter arms are causing him to overcompensate while pass blocking and get himself completely off balance and out of position. This might have been more apparent early if Favre had not been his QB. Should coaching be able to correct this? I don't know. But if my guess is correct, they have switched their priority on drafting O lineman since Jagodzinski left.
Finally, the GM has also not supplied a viable candidate for tackle on either side yet (I exclude Lang only because it would seem his best position might be Guard and we can't be sure about Tackle yet). It might be Giacomini, perhaps Barbre can overcome his problems with technique. But unlike Sitton, Lang, Tauscher, Clifton and Timmerman, neither of those guys strikes me as starting caliber. Its interesting that each of the long developing guys for Lovat and Beightol was a guard. All of their tackles showed they could play early. Thompson has not landed one of those yet.
It may be that the lack of progress through coaching has caused some bad decisions to be made about the roster while waiting for talent to develop. I agree that the lack of breakout performances lends credence to the fact that Campen has not been effective. But the front office has left them holes at tackle and I think that is causing errors to be made elsewhere.Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.Comment
-
PB. Power running plays means a double team or multiple players hitting that area and opening up space for the back.
Double teams don't require a pulling guard. Some teams call the power O - power A for the A gap. The other blocks in a power series are the BOB and BOSS blocks. BOB blocks are a FB lead and blocking on the LB (Back On Backer). BOSS = Back on Strong Safety. These are pretty basic elements of a power gap offense. Power gap basically equals the blocking schemes we old moldies grew up watching the Lombardi Packers running.
I, too, share your concerns about last year's decision to merely plug Barbre into the RT position. Who in the hell knew if he could hack the program? it worked out by accident. Tausch obviously wanted to stay a Packer and came in to save our bacon. Very lucky for us, IMHO. We should have amassed more candidates for that job than just waiting to see if Barbre could do the job.
As far as Campen, he's Bob Sanders II in my book. I couldn't tell you if he's a good line coach or not. But I see better than I hear. I don't see guys developing at their interior spots like they do for other teams. Patler brought up Paul Alexander. That guy molded two LG's both better than Colledge in a season and a half for Cincy, both players off the NFL scrap heap. We don't look to that talent source since Klemm and Matt O'Dwyer bombed out on us 4 years ago. (I know about Duke Preston, etc) We don't aggressively pursue that kind of player. We have developed some good kids, but I don't think Lang can fill the 3 spots I see Packer Forum posters recommending he be moved to and start. Get more guys in here and let them fight it out with our developing kids.
If we don't sign Colledge and Spitz, the Pack will have grown two lineman in all these years (not counting Wells). That ain't getting it done.Comment
Comment