Philbin to the 'Phins

[Smidgeon]

Congratulations are in order to Philbin; sorry to lose him but I'm glad he's having the chance.

We had a pretty good running game for a few years under Sherman there; can't remember the last time we had a back regularly put up big yards. Even Davenport nearly hit 2 bills once.

Has zone blocking ever really been the dominant running scheme we expected in GB?

[Smeefers]

I wish him the best. If he grabs Flynn, at least he can toss it up to Brandon Marshall.

[pbmax]

Has zone blocking ever really been the dominant running scheme we expected in GB?

No, but there was a fundamental problem from the get go, and the scheme was limited by the tackles M3 and Jags had on hand at the time (Tauscher and Clifton). If Jags did his job, and was not just a loudmouth, he would have told T2 and M3 that the tackles would make the scheme hard to run. Then the men upstairs have a big decision to make.

I suspect Jags was mostly looking for work or climbing a ladder. And so they sort of muddled through, running Alex Gibbs ZBS without the lineman needed to run it the way it was designed.

[denverYooper]

No, but there was a fundamental problem from the get go, and the scheme was limited by the tackles M3 and Jags had on hand at the time (Tauscher and Clifton). If Jags did his job, and was not just a loudmouth, he would have told T2 and M3 that the tackles would make the scheme hard to run. Then the men upstairs have a big decision to make.

I suspect Jags was mostly looking for work or climbing a ladder. And so they sort of muddled through, running Alex Gibbs ZBS without the lineman needed to run it the way it was designed.

I thought the ZBS was the supposed reason for drafting Moll, Coston, Colledge, etc -- they wanted athletic tackles.

[KYPack]

I thought the ZBS was the supposed reason for drafting Moll, Coston, Colledge, etc -- they wanted athletic tackles.

Yeah, it was.

& none of 'em made it.

PB has the idea. Tausch and Chad could not run the Gibbs/ZBS. So they put it a modified form of it with less radical initial turns, etc. The other factor was that NFL defenses caught up with the scheme. You had 4-6 NFL teams running the Gibbs/ZBS. Teams learned how to stop the play side & how to defense the counters. Most teams now run about the same system we do. Limited zone blocking mixed in with lead draws and power gap.

Houston and Denver have both junked the Gibbs system and they were the last teams to run the scheme.

[woodbuck27]

No, but there was a fundamental problem from the get go, and the scheme was limited by the tackles M3 and Jags had on hand at the time (Tauscher and Clifton). If Jags did his job, and was not just a loudmouth, he would have told T2 and M3 that the tackles would make the scheme hard to run. Then the men upstairs have a big decision to make.

I suspect Jags was mostly working for work or climbing a ladder. And so they sort of muddled through, running Alex Gibbs ZBS without the lineman needed to run it the way it was designed.

'


Interesting. How come YOU see that so clearly pbmax? Is that a hindsight observation? or Did you know that scheme wasn't feasible considering player availability and talent need for that schemes success? It seem to me your analysis says that scheme was bogus and doomed to fail as the team was looking at their Tackle position as a LOCK for the next 4-5 seasons. The ZBS wasn't going to work with Clifton and Tausch.

We knew the ZBS would take time given the loss of interiour lineman Wahle and Rivera but your post is an EURIKA!!! moment. That takes me to this:

If Packer fans see that a change is silly or a waste of time..just WRONG. Why not allow fans to give their input. I hate politics in sports and I feel that they exist.Why should fans suffer politics? Really I want to see fans more involved in team decisions especially given that OUR team is owned by Packer fans.

Do the PACKERS need a Fan Base Suggestion BOX? One nailed up and to the LHS of TT's office?

GO PACK GO !

[pbmax]

'


Interesting. How come YOU see that so clearly pbmax? Is that a hindsight observation? or Did you know that scheme wasn't feasible considering player availability and talent need for that schemes success? It seem to me your analysis says that scheme was bogus and doomed to fail as the team was looking at their Tackle position as a LOCK for the next 4-5 seasons. The ZBS wasn't going to work with Clifton and Tausch.

No way woodie. Hindsight is 20/20 here. Posters like KYPack, ND72 and Nutz each helped illuminate the problem. Each of them has coached or played the O line. The idea that the Packer tackles were part of the problem with the run game was first broached early in M3's tenure, but probably not before Year 2, when people felt more comfortable reaching conclusions and it also began to be reported locally. ND72 was the first guy I remember commenting on it but I am sure others picked up on it as well.

Yooper is also correct that TT took a boatload of athletic tackles to try and run the scheme, but none of them could beat out the old vets and each ended up at Guard. So the old vets held their job and the Packers adjusted by not cutting the backside pursuit to the ground. Some teams run it this way, but the Packers seemed to struggle to. It was not all the Tackles fault, there were problems inside as well, but a scheme change like that probably meant one tackle had to go and be replaced by someone more fit for the system.