Sporting News : Tom Silverstein

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't care what scheme we use--as long as it works. If we can run and protect like Denver did late in Elway's career with Davis, I'm all for the zone blocking scheme. The "West Coast Offense" is a wimpy offense, but it's worked damn well for a lot of teams. There are teams that suck that play smashmouth too. Just look at Chicago before 2005.

[Partial]

The bottom line is, the Packers like smallish/weak offensive linemen that can get out and block in space... there's a trade off for that. Big DT's will always eat their lunch, and they'll never be able to get movement straight ahead.

There is a huge advantage in drafting players for this scheme. The smaller faster OL guys are available later in the draft because only 2 other teams are interested in these players. Yes there is a trade off - but why would we run to the strength of the other team. Go ahead Vikings - invest money in Pat Johnson - we will see how the 350 lbs does running sideline to sideline all day.

We saw how it worked... the Vikings defensive line kicked the living snot out of those guys for 8 quarters. The Packers winning those games had everything to do with the difference between Brett Favre and Johnson/Tavarus Jackson, and nothing to do with the OL/DL matchup.

Go back and watch the 2nd game at Lambeau - Pat Johnson manhandled all three of those guys on virutally every snap...

Why you guys like "finesse" football is beyond me... I guess it's a metrosexual generational thing - all things wimpy.

As I've been saying, give me smash mouth football any day.

Tell that to Denver. Those metrosexual, doily toatin', queer eye watching, martini drinkin' cake boys have had as much success as any team in the last ten years. They've also done it using a 4-3 defensive scheme, with linebackers of similiar stature and play style to that of Nick Barnett!!!

[wist43]

You guys know that my argument against the ZBS, and the west coast offense - as we transition out of the Brett Favre era - is based on quarterbacking.

Denver, SF, GB, and whoever else you might want to include in the WCO/ZBS/smallish OL philosophy (NE???) all had one thing in common - a HOF QB.

Simply put, I don't think any team that runs that system can win a SB w/o a HOF calibur QB - or at least a QB that is playing at a pro bowl/all pro level.

And, of course, what are the odds of landing that guy??? If they land that guy???... then go ahead and diversify the playbook and open things up; but, until they have that guy, the only chance they would have of winning a SB, would be with the power philosophy.

As for the 3-4 vs the 4-3... I don't necessarily have anything against the 4-3, and if you have a Reggie White/Michael Strahan type DE, then go for it - finding that guy is just about as hard as finding the franchise QB though.

My preference for the 3-4, is just that, a preference... but, you can certainly win a SB with either. The offensive system the Packers are utilizing, however, is another story. W/O that HOF/All Pro QB, they will have no shot.

[Zool]

Pat Johnson is Brad Johnsons brother?

[Partial]

Pat Johnson is Brad Johnsons brother?

Brother from another mother.

[Lurker64]

As for the 3-4 vs the 4-3... I don't necessarily have anything against the 4-3, and if you have a Reggie White/Michael Strahan type DE, then go for it - finding that guy is just about as hard as finding the franchise QB though.

My preference for the 3-4, is just that, a preference... but, you can certainly win a SB with either. The offensive system the Packers are utilizing, however, is another story. W/O that HOF/All Pro QB, they will have no shot.

Isn't the 3-4 even more personnel dependent than the 3-4? The scheme really depends in a fundamental way on having a huge run eating DT that is a wall and eats up as many blocks as possible (we don't have one) and two very large DEs who can both play inside run and rush the passer (Jenkins might be big enough, Kampman isn't.)

The thesis of the scheme is to have 3 DL occupy the attention of 5 offensive linemen, allowing the linebackers to flow freely to the ball. If you try the scheme with pedestrian DL, the LBs tend to end up blocked and the defense gets steamrolled. Personnel wise, you need fewer special players to really execute the 4-3 well, as you're not expecting your defensive linemen to be physical freaks of nature. You don't need Reggie White to run the scheme well either, all you really need is ends who can keep contain, rush the passer, and play the run. You don't need to be a hall of fame type player to do that.

I'm convinced that if the Packers tried to switch to a 3-4 now, it would be an unmitigated disaster. We don't have a good outside blitzing backer, our DTs are stout but generally unspectacular, and our DEs are too small.

[Partial]

As for the 3-4 vs the 4-3... I don't necessarily have anything against the 4-3, and if you have a Reggie White/Michael Strahan type DE, then go for it - finding that guy is just about as hard as finding the franchise QB though.

My preference for the 3-4, is just that, a preference... but, you can certainly win a SB with either. The offensive system the Packers are utilizing, however, is another story. W/O that HOF/All Pro QB, they will have no shot.

Isn't the 3-4 even more personnel dependent than the 3-4? The scheme really depends in a fundamental way on having a huge run eating DT that is a wall and eats up as many blocks as possible (we don't have one) and two very large DEs who can both play inside run and rush the passer (Jenkins might be big enough, Kampman isn't.)

The thesis of the scheme is to have 3 DL occupy the attention of 5 offensive linemen, allowing the linebackers to flow freely to the ball. If you try the scheme with pedestrian DL, the LBs tend to end up blocked and the defense gets steamrolled. Personnel wise, you need fewer special players to really execute the 4-3 well, as you're not expecting your defensive linemen to be physical freaks of nature. You don't need Reggie White to run the scheme well either, all you really need is ends who can keep contain, rush the passer, and play the run. You don't need to be a hall of fame type player to do that.

I'm convinced that if the Packers tried to switch to a 3-4 now, it would be an unmitigated disaster. We don't have a good outside blitzing backer, our DTs are stout but generally unspectacular, and our DEs are too small.

Not necessarily. My understanding is to have a Nose Tackle eat a guard and a center. Have you ends both get into the fray with your tackles, and send one of the two ILB at the other guard. This provides flexibility because you have the nose guard push in either direction and send either ILB. It has a lot of different blitzing techniques as we all know. The benefit of the scheme is it is more forgiving towards undersized defensive ends and the too slow to get any penetration defensive tackles.

[Fritz]

Wist, I don't mind that you're opinion is negative, but to call any scheme "metrosexual" in some attempt to cast doubt on the "manliness" of a scheme is a bit much. I like smash mouth football too, but I also watched the manly Bo Schembechler get his smash mouth football teams' butts kicked by the womanly passing games of PAC ten teams.

[Partial]

Wist, I don't mind that you're opinion is negative, but to call any scheme "metrosexual" in some attempt to cast doubt on the "manliness" of a scheme is a bit much. I like smash mouth football too, but I also watched the manly Bo Schembechler get his smash mouth football teams' butts kicked by the womanly passing games of PAC ten teams.

That's exactly right.

[wist43]

Smallish OL and offenses predicated upon blocking in space certainly have their place in the NFL... and, given a HOF QB, I don't have a problem with it - in fact, there are a lot of good arguments in support of the system.

But, as I said, we're transitioning out of the Brett Favre era, and we're not likely to see another HOF QB come thru GB anytime soon...

If you don't have a QB, and you have smallish offensive linemen, your offense is dead in the water... that's what the future of the Green Bay Packers offense looks like.

Like I said, hopefully TT will keep drafting QB's in the hopes of hitting on one, b/c with the current offensive system they are using - no QB = no chance.

[Patler]

A long running argument is that the WC offense makes HOF QBs, not vice versa, because the WC offense empasizes short, safe throws, passing to set up the run, etc. all of which lead to inflated QB stats for completion %, total yards, etc.

Aaron Rodgers performances in college would indicate he is a good match for an old school WC offense. The one "issue" might be that it does require a sometimes relatively rapid progression through his reads. Even Favre was not good at that for a number of years. He just dropped back and threw to Sharp.