As stated previously many times by myself and other posters, I cannot stand the ZBS and it's results as it pertains to the Green Bay Packers. My intent on this thread and others is to examine and discuss zone blocking.

Zone blocking is touted as being simple and effective. I submit it was never simple, and I will delve into why it has been called simple in a later thread. As to effective, there are so many variables at work on any given ZBS play that are so interdependent upon one another that the effectiveness is easily undermined by the failure of any one of many attempting to execute it, and the physicality of those making the attempt at the NFL level.

Coordination and technique matter more (ostensibly--I argue this point) than muscle in implementing a successful scheme. This is probably the primary tenet of the advantage of utilizing the ZBS.

This first thread is not to argue about the pros and cons of the entire ZBS, but rather to start dissecting one piece of it, hopefully enlightening some that are unfamiliar with that piece of it, and discussing it. It would appear that we have many months for an examination.

The first and foremost concept in the ZBS is "covered" vs. "uncovered".

Each individual lineman identifies whether he has a defensive player in front of him. If he does, he is "covered". If not, he is "uncovered". If the latter is the case, he is asked to help playside on a doubleteam, then reacts to the movement of the defensive linemen as well as the movement of the linebacker. He does this with wide lateral steps and what are called "bucket" steps. The initial movement of these doubleteams is supposed to equalize defensive talent and create cutback lanes. Note strongly the term cutback lane. ZBS is not designed to create a hole for the runningback to run through.

Covered VS. Uncovered Explained:

[youtube]ST1koVGt50I[/youtube]

I would prefer that any discussion look towards what has been presented in this post. Not that I am trying to control the discussion for any agenda, but rather I would like to attempt to delve deeply into the subject at hand, which means multiple threads on the ZBS.

I see many pitfalls with the "covered" vs. "uncovered" scheme, and would welcome discussion in that arena.

Failing that, I'm willing to talk and/or argue about anything, f#ck it, I'm retired. :thumbleft:

I think you should include a comparison scheme and what the OL's responsibilities are!

---

I think some of our problems with consistancyin the ZBS is MM will tend to get away from the run at times and teams that are prolific with this system just keep pounding away. They, like us, don't always get results early on in games but keep pounding the rock until it starts to work.

We won't do that.

I am certainly against the system if that's what it takes to be successful because we are more than likely going to win many more games throwing the ball with our personnel than using some of the best WR's in the game to run block.

I am starting to think the ZBS requires an "all in" mentality to work and with the number of points this offense scores I think making that committment would be a mistake.
We ask Donald Driver and Greg Jennings to run block 35 times a game and I think we lose more games than if we were getting them the ball.

---

Bucket step definition: first step of an offensive lineman or back in which he steps at about 4 oclock or 7 oclock; purpose is to begin moving toward the sideline; backward angle is to clear away from an adjacent player in the case of a lineman or for timing purposes in the case of a back, same as kick step if you ever see that term.

I really don't see a problem with our running game. If there's something that we specifically don't need to fix, in my opinion it's that. Our lineman have been effective at run blocking since the Indy game and we've faced some prime time run stopping d's.

---

note: bucket step = backward step. the scheme is all about flow. not the flow of the offense, but rather the flow of the defense. it's intended to get the defense all moving one direction (left or right), then having the RB quickly change direction. this puts the defense in the position of having give chase, negating any advantageous angles they have secured. this works best against gang tackle teams such as Chicago, Baltimore, Tampa, Oakland, Indy, Dallas, and/or San Diego. These teams rely on speed, to reach the corner before the back. By cutting back, you punish them for the speed, and expose their aggression as an over-pursuit.

in theory, it's great. i love zone blocking. i think the problem arises in the generally accepted philosophy that prototypical zone blocking o-linemen are quick and agile, and not as strong as power blocking o-linemen. Quick and agile, yes. They need to be able to mover laterally. but an o lineman does NOT have to be fast. an o-lineman does not have to be fast. they have to be powerful enough to move the other dude. plain and simple. what a lineman can not do, is get put on their heels. it doesn't matter how fast you are, if you get pushed back, you have failed your run-block assignment. i mean, there is a reason we don't have guys like greg jennings and donald driver blocking on the o-line. they just can't get the job done. and neither can our o-line. their goal is to get the defense flowing and over-pursuing to a corner, then allowing the runner to cut back. but flow doesn't matter if the defensive player over-powers the offensive player, gets into the backfield, and interrupts our RB. the reason Ryan Grant always seems to be bumping into the butts of our offensive linemen is because the linemen are not supposed to be in the backfield! They are consistently over-powered. we don't need a steam-roller offensive line; but they need to be powerful enough to not get blown up every play.

---

I know I am beating a dead horse, but of all things this team needs to fix in order to be a contender, why try and fix the running game? Maybe because of Grants success last season we are holding him up to such a high standard.

---

Please read part 5 . You have a very legitimate point of view. See what you think of mine in answer to your question over there.