ZBS requires sophisticated play calling and techniques. It requires a much higher degree of precision to be effective. A strong case can be made that our repeated early season inability to effectively run the ball is at least in part due to the precision required to run it effectively.

The biggest problem with our ZBS is that our personnel are too ineffective as traditional blockers to effectively "hybridize" into a more traditional blocking plan. We are going to continue to see an inordinate amount of offensive penalties if we continue on this path of scheme and personnel to fit. Our offensive line is way too often out-physicalled by our opponents. Our offensive linemen will continue to attempt to make their assignements at all costs. This is certainly not about motivation or will. This will continue to result in false starts and holding penalties. Our quarterback will continue to have to run for his life when our smallish line fails in pass blocking. There has been graphic evidence to support a concept that Rodgers has gotten skittish in the pocket throughout the season. At times it has appeared like he has been lucky to survive a football game, much less win it.

The running statistics cited by some as meaning we don't have a ZBS problem, or do not have a running game problem...I submit that this mentality is too narrowly focused...by a long shot.

I submit that we will never realize the full potential of both our running and passing games until we start to repair the personnel decisions that have been made as a result of our ZBS philosophy. It has been pointed out by many that other teams do run it successfully, and the fact is, so do we at times. I submit we will never, ever be a dominating offense, either running or passing, with 305 lb. guards, 303 lb. centers, and 315 lb. tackles.

It has been said you never need a gun until you need one bad. I will also say that if you ever need three yards for a first down, or more importantly two yards for a touchdown, you are either going to have to pass the football, or run an easily broke-down ZBS play. Remember, there IS no hole in a ZBS play...there is a "cut back" lane ... almost an ephemeral objective for a running back. If the plan is to continue to use ZBS type players for a ZBS type scheme, do not be looking for a hole in front of your running back, because even when the oline goes hat on hat to try and make one, they cannot do it...you have seen it time and again.

4 yards or whatever a carry is lovely, but we are 5 and 8, and this lengthy set of threads is a large part of the reason why. This is not the offense versus defense argument thread, this is a contribution to start to handle the "other" part of the equation as regards BOTH lines.

SEE PACK93z For the linebackers... I AM SURE he can be sucked into the d-line discussion.

Very good post. Pass blocking is bound to suffer when you use lighter O-linemen. Favre overcame it with quick decision-making, a quick release, and an uncanny ability to evade pass rushers. (Had he been born in Spain, he would've been a great bullfighter--El Farvo!). Rodgers has to get by with pure athleticism, which at times is exciting to watch and at times is just plain ugly. If we had an immobile QB he would not survive the season.

I think at this point, McCarthy and Thompson have thrown their lot in with the ZBS, and they are going to stick with it. I hope it works out somehow. But it sure would be nice to get some good old-fashioned road grader O-linemen and just pound the ball. With bigger linemen, the pass blocking would probably also be stouter, especially in the middle.

---

I don't have any doubt that our line isn't a good line. However, I don't think it is a product of the system that they are in. I see it more of a product of not being that good. Tauscher and Clifton are old and past their prime, and Wells is really the only quality lineman I see in the interior. As you have said they are undersized.

Even with these facts, I really still just can't call the running game a problem. Last year we were 4th in the NFL in points, this season we are 4th in the NFL in points. Our offense clearly isn't why we're 5-8. We're also 11th in total yards offensively, which is pretty solid in a 32 team league and being led by a first year starter. Last years defense was 6th in points allowed and 11th in yards allowed, this seasons is 22nd in points and 23rd in yards allowed. Hey look! I found the difference. If our defense could stop a decent team we could very well be 9-4 rather than 5-8. If we had a different blocking system, it's tough to say we would have won more games than we currently have. 4th in the NFL in points is quite good.

Ever since Grant started getting the ball last season our run game has been pretty solid. He's the perfect back for a zone blocking system. One cut and go, and we've been able to adapt Jackson into a very good ZBS back as well even though he is a bit more elusive and jukes more than you would like for a ZBS back.

---

Greg (and sorry for getting so testy yesterday--I'm so USED to "digging in my heels" as regards TT/Brett/offseason)

I think I have found a "possible" way out of the "conundrum" of our lighter than I'd like lineman situation. We should entertain a "platoon" solution on our offensive line, much like we ran last year with our d-line. We could draft/FA a transition to a bigger line by bringing the "big boys" in on short yardage and pass protection plays. This is not ideal, but it is worthy of consideration. It should also be noted in the back of the mind that the kid aquired today doesn't look very protypical ZBSer... he's coming from Philly, right? hmm..... I honestly haven't looked at him at all, and he's PROBABLY some special team type aquisition, but....

I doubt a platoon situation would work. The best offensive lines are lines that have played together for years, see New England's and ours in the early 2000's. Each lineman needs to know the lineman next to him inside and out, and it is much harder to do so when you are rotating players in and out.

---

Those stats are misleading, because the Packers have scored 9 TD's on defense and special teams this year, which is much more than last year, and there are still three games to go. And being 11th in total yards offensively is a major step down from last year, when we were probably in the top four.

The defense has been the main problem this season, especially the inability to get stops late in games when it counts most. (That's what happens when you have no pass rush.) But the offense has taken a step backwards as well, and I think it is due mostly to O-line problems, with an assist from Grant's sore hammy early in the season as well as the injuries to James Jones and Ruvell Martin, which limited our options in the passing game.

---

Yeh, www.pro-football-reference.com is what threw me off. I knew we had scored an unprecedented amount from our D and from Blackmon, but they said offensive rankings, so I figured they didn't include the returns as points for our offense.

The big difference in our offense this year is obviously at QB. Teams have said that when we had Favre they respected the pass much more and didn't focus in on the run as much. This season I think they are making Rodgers beat them, and he is. They are keying in on the run more, so they are stopping it better. They aren't completely shutting our running game down though. Grant and Jackson have been able to find the cut back lanes and get some big gains. You can even see in some of Grant's runs vs. the Bears that his hammy was still injured, he was stressing the leg on his big runs. He is just getting healthy the past few weeks and he has been producing, and when he had the thumb injury, Jackson came in and produced.

I understand some fans have frustration with the system, and there's no proof to say that we wouldn't be better with a more traditional approach. The fact of the matter is though, this is working. We don't have an Adrian Peterson or Clinton Portis, we have a back who fits our system and a nice secondary option, and we are doing pretty well with that in my opinion. If you put Grant in a traditional NFL blocking system I don't see him being as successful as he has been with us.

---

I put up several lengthy posts elsewhere regarding how our offense failed us miserably in our last game. I used an interview with Jon Runyan, offensive tackle for the Eagles, as a
case in point as to how this happened.

Statistics can be so extremely misleading, and so often completely fail in the telling of the story. This last game is an excellent example of that point.

This offseason, this last weeks game will be remembered by all as the biggest failure of our defense in YEARS.

Statistically, our offense generated the exact same number of yards per play as the Texans. 7.4 yards per play. Pretty good, right?

We failed so completely on 3rd down that our offense never even gave our defense an opportunity to figure out how the hell to stop the scheme as it evolved from the Texans. We failed on 3rd down because our offensive line failed to pass protect.

Jon Runyan explained at length how this occurs... linebackers unable to consult adequately with those pictures that are taken and available on the sidelines, etc.


brnt247:
ZBS is a running scheme. Running the ZBS is WAY more complicated than the running game. I was hoping that after 5 full threads, I would have conveyed that, but I'm missing the boat some in the explanation department. This explanation of our last game is yet more evidence of ZBS failure, yet has NOTHING to do with our inability or ability to run the football.

The ZBS is in many ways was partially responsible for the fact that the Texans had 22 more offensive plays than we did. The game wouldn't have been close, but we .... yada yada yada (other aspects) :icon_smile:

As to the platoon question, you stated the obvious. We will have a very difficult time extricating ourselves from underneath this philosophy. However, as an example, a hybrid line of large guards with small tackles in every play will be ripe for exploitation, of course dependent upon who those guards and tackles are. We cannot shit-can the entire group, so we are going to have to either decide to do some more slow developing ZBS players, some fast developing ZBS players, or start getting some more traditional type linemen. Daryn Colledge is a prototypical superior ZBS candidate. Is this what you want on the future lines of the Packers? I'm thinking we just might have to shit-can him, so I guess my vote is NO.

Yeah, I hate it that defensive and special teams scores are not separated from offensive statistics. It is one of my pet peeves. (Don't get me started on college football stats counting QB sacks as negative rushing yards.)

I think the switch in QB's has pretty much been a wash. Look how similar the stats are for Favre '07 and Rodgers '08. I even think their style of play is pretty similar, although Favre did have that amazingly quick release.

The running game has gotten up to speed in recent weeks, but I do think these lighter O-linemen tend to have trouble with pass blocking, and that's probably not going to change.

---

There really is no question that they can't pass block effectively. I don't think that changes in either system though. It doesn't help that Jackson and Grant don't pick up the rush very well either. I think Favre's quick release is countered by Aaron's ability to scramble and make plays last longer. There may be ways to make our offense a bit better, and it may be based more on schemes rather than personnel. I think getting a guy like Gross, as mentioned before, and focusing more on the line of scrimmage this off season will help us become a better team. We aren't really lacking at any of the skill positions, but we could definitely improve both of our lines this off season and it could potentially dramatically change the results next year.

---