Tweet
It's pretty clear that the Packers’ OL is undersized. Compare the Packers’ and Cowboys OL’s. No wonder our OL get “pushed around” (as McGinn writes):
PACKERS/COWBOYS
CLIFTON 6’5” 320/ ADAMS 6’7” 340
COLLEDGE 6’4” 305/ KOSIER 6’5” 305
WELLS 6’2” 295/ GURODE 6’4” 312
SPITZ 6’3” 300/ DAVIS 6’6” 366
TAUCHER 6’3” 315/ COLOMBO 6’8” 320
PACKER SUBS/DALLAS SUBS
COSTON 6’3” 313/ McQUISTAN6’6” 315
BARBRE 6’4” 300/ PROCTER 6’4” 305
MOLL 6’5” 304/ BERGER 6’5” 305
PALMER 6’2” 311/ MARTEN 6’7” 309
NONE/ FREE 6’6” 324
When the pre-McCarthy holdovers, Clifton and Taucher, are replaced, the Packers OL will be at even more of a size disadvantage.
But wait, it’s no accident the Packers’ OL is undersized. McCarthy and Thompson hand-picked this current OL.
Why give up size? Because the highly touted zone blocking scheme requires quicker, more athletic linemen. This usually also translates into “smaller linemen.” The advertised advantage of the zone blocking scheme – a vastly improved running game – was supposed to more than offset the size disadvantage.
However, the zone blocking scheme requires that individual linemen move in concert as never before. Zone cut blocking requires split-second timing with the ball carrier. This quote from Packers.com speaks to what went wrong against the Eagles on Sunday:
“The difficulties with the ground game were broken down into three areas - the push on the front side of the play, the cut-blocking on the back side, and the angle being taken by the running back. Offensive coordinator Joe Philbin said it wasn't always a case of the line not doing its job, but not executing with the proper timing or finish to its maneuvers.
”’When we got some guys to cut on the ground, we were a little too quick at times,’ Philbin said. ‘We wouldn't take our full run and cut. We'd kind of get them down too fast and then they'd get up and make the play. So we have to get that corrected there.’”
Apparently, because of the injury-dealing nature of cut-blocking, the Packers’ OL cannot hone their zone blocking timing and techniques in practice against the Packer defense. Therefore, the only opportunity to gain expertise in zone blocking is live action against another teams’ defense, which means in preseason or regular season games.
However, even in preseason and regular season games, the Packer OL can hone their zone blocking timing and technique ONLY when the Packers actually run the ball. (My understanding is that pass protection blocking has absolutely nothing to do with the zone blocking scheme.)
Isn’t it reasonable then to conclude that Sunday’s breakdown of the zone blocking scheme was due to not enough reps by the starters in the preseason, not enough rushing plays in the preseason when the starters were in there, or some combination of the two?
Isn’t it also reasonable to conclude that if McCarthy only calls 16 rushing plays a game, instead of say 32, the Packers’ OL will take just that much longer to perfect their zone blocking since they can’t really perfect it in practice?
Here is the crux of the matter. Because the Packers’ linemen have been selected to fit the zone blocking scheme, the Packers ARE, like it or not, a zone blocking team, which means primarily a rushing team, not a passing team.
Another way to put it: if the Packers are going to consistently throw the ball 40 or 50 times a game and run it only 20 time, why zone block in the first place?
Why not simply go with a new set of Dallas-sized linemen whose forte is pass protection?
McCarthy has been circumspect and contradictory when quizzed about his pass-heavy offense. On the one hand he has said that he wants the Packers’ identity to be as a rushing team. On the other hand, he has said he calls a preponderance of passing plays because passing leads to scoring and game situations dictate passing.
In my opinion you can’t have it both ways. McCarthy and the Packers have to bite the bullet, truly commit to zone blocking, i.e., rush the ball 35 or so times a game, and allow our OL a real opportunity to perfect the zone blocking scheme against live competition as quickly as possible.
Or the Packers should junk the zone blocking scheme, bring in some Dallas-sized linemen and compete on an equal basis with the rest of the pass-happy NFL.
As for me, I say we’ve gone too far down the zone blocking road to scrap it. I say McCarthy should truly commit to zone blocking and the running game by calling at least as many rushing plays as passing plays. If he does this, I’m confident that even Favre and the passing game would eventually benefit, and sooner rather than later, because our rushing game would vastly improve.
Then again, maybe I’m just too “old school.”
One thing is for sure. McCarthy could have rushed the ball on every single play and his offense could not have scored less points than it did on Sunday against the Eagles.
Moreover, if he had rushed the ball on every single play against the Eagles, his zone blocking OL would have gained a ton of experience and would have been light years ahead of where it is now.
PACKERS/COWBOYS
CLIFTON 6’5” 320/ ADAMS 6’7” 340
COLLEDGE 6’4” 305/ KOSIER 6’5” 305
WELLS 6’2” 295/ GURODE 6’4” 312
SPITZ 6’3” 300/ DAVIS 6’6” 366
TAUCHER 6’3” 315/ COLOMBO 6’8” 320
PACKER SUBS/DALLAS SUBS
COSTON 6’3” 313/ McQUISTAN6’6” 315
BARBRE 6’4” 300/ PROCTER 6’4” 305
MOLL 6’5” 304/ BERGER 6’5” 305
PALMER 6’2” 311/ MARTEN 6’7” 309
NONE/ FREE 6’6” 324
When the pre-McCarthy holdovers, Clifton and Taucher, are replaced, the Packers OL will be at even more of a size disadvantage.
But wait, it’s no accident the Packers’ OL is undersized. McCarthy and Thompson hand-picked this current OL.
Why give up size? Because the highly touted zone blocking scheme requires quicker, more athletic linemen. This usually also translates into “smaller linemen.” The advertised advantage of the zone blocking scheme – a vastly improved running game – was supposed to more than offset the size disadvantage.
However, the zone blocking scheme requires that individual linemen move in concert as never before. Zone cut blocking requires split-second timing with the ball carrier. This quote from Packers.com speaks to what went wrong against the Eagles on Sunday:
“The difficulties with the ground game were broken down into three areas - the push on the front side of the play, the cut-blocking on the back side, and the angle being taken by the running back. Offensive coordinator Joe Philbin said it wasn't always a case of the line not doing its job, but not executing with the proper timing or finish to its maneuvers.
”’When we got some guys to cut on the ground, we were a little too quick at times,’ Philbin said. ‘We wouldn't take our full run and cut. We'd kind of get them down too fast and then they'd get up and make the play. So we have to get that corrected there.’”
Apparently, because of the injury-dealing nature of cut-blocking, the Packers’ OL cannot hone their zone blocking timing and techniques in practice against the Packer defense. Therefore, the only opportunity to gain expertise in zone blocking is live action against another teams’ defense, which means in preseason or regular season games.
However, even in preseason and regular season games, the Packer OL can hone their zone blocking timing and technique ONLY when the Packers actually run the ball. (My understanding is that pass protection blocking has absolutely nothing to do with the zone blocking scheme.)
Isn’t it reasonable then to conclude that Sunday’s breakdown of the zone blocking scheme was due to not enough reps by the starters in the preseason, not enough rushing plays in the preseason when the starters were in there, or some combination of the two?
Isn’t it also reasonable to conclude that if McCarthy only calls 16 rushing plays a game, instead of say 32, the Packers’ OL will take just that much longer to perfect their zone blocking since they can’t really perfect it in practice?
Here is the crux of the matter. Because the Packers’ linemen have been selected to fit the zone blocking scheme, the Packers ARE, like it or not, a zone blocking team, which means primarily a rushing team, not a passing team.
Another way to put it: if the Packers are going to consistently throw the ball 40 or 50 times a game and run it only 20 time, why zone block in the first place?
Why not simply go with a new set of Dallas-sized linemen whose forte is pass protection?
McCarthy has been circumspect and contradictory when quizzed about his pass-heavy offense. On the one hand he has said that he wants the Packers’ identity to be as a rushing team. On the other hand, he has said he calls a preponderance of passing plays because passing leads to scoring and game situations dictate passing.
In my opinion you can’t have it both ways. McCarthy and the Packers have to bite the bullet, truly commit to zone blocking, i.e., rush the ball 35 or so times a game, and allow our OL a real opportunity to perfect the zone blocking scheme against live competition as quickly as possible.
Or the Packers should junk the zone blocking scheme, bring in some Dallas-sized linemen and compete on an equal basis with the rest of the pass-happy NFL.
As for me, I say we’ve gone too far down the zone blocking road to scrap it. I say McCarthy should truly commit to zone blocking and the running game by calling at least as many rushing plays as passing plays. If he does this, I’m confident that even Favre and the passing game would eventually benefit, and sooner rather than later, because our rushing game would vastly improve.
Then again, maybe I’m just too “old school.”
One thing is for sure. McCarthy could have rushed the ball on every single play and his offense could not have scored less points than it did on Sunday against the Eagles.
Moreover, if he had rushed the ball on every single play against the Eagles, his zone blocking OL would have gained a ton of experience and would have been light years ahead of where it is now.
Comment