bring back Grant?

[El Guapo]

Really? Isn't that only slightly better than spending a #1 pick on a fullback? At least in the McCarthy system, the running back is an after-thought in the offense used just to keep the defense honest. I'd rather keep using high picks in areas of greatest need and offensive focus.

Trust me, I'd rather see the Ahman Green-led Packers of the Sherman era with a capable QB than what we see on offense now, but it's how we do things currently and is the current trend in the NFL. We're at the head of that curve so I'd prefer to keep riding that wave and then prudently lead the next trend BACK to a RB-focused offense. However I think that is a decade off from today

 

[weeds]

It’s not your Dad’s (or Grand Dad’s) NFL anymore: Excel passing the ball and at defending the pass is the name of the game now.

Yeah...I've come to recognize that...there's a name for it... Arena Football. ...and, I'm with you 100% on your assessment of the zone blocking scheme. I didn't like it from the git-go and wasn't too keen on Jagozinski (or however his name is spelled) for the very reasons you state. I think, as I recall, that 'our' ZBS was modeled after the Falcons model - not that it matters. It's been dog-sh*t from the start. Even though the Pack don't appear to be utilizing 'cut' blocks with any consistency, they (and I'm just pulling a number out of the air here based on observation only) using ZBS principles on perhaps 30% of their running plays. I could gurgle about this ad nauseam, so... I'll drop it. I'll just restate my admiration for the great big fat guys up front who control the LOS through sheer brute force and impose their will on a defense. There is no reason that an O-line can't run block and pass block with the same 5 fat guys. Those same "pass blocking" fat guys would probably rip off any one's head that would imply they're 'finesse' guys...

You know, just for sh*ts and giggles, I tossed in my disk of Super Bowl 31. The similarities between the two #25s, Ryan Grant and Dorsey Levens are kind of interesting -- sheesh, the two looked like carbon copies of each other.
I really and truly enjoy watching that particular SB over #45 ... Holmgren ran the ball a lot more than people remember ...

...thus, I have to say that the NFL isn't MY NFL anymore ... and that's what??... 15 years ago?

 

[TJV]

weeds, I just can’t tell what percentage of their running game is ZBS anymore. Every scheme I know about uses double teams at the point of attack and the Packers certainly do that and almost every team has the option of one of the “double-teamers” to come off that block and go after a LB or DB and the Packers do that a lot too. The distinguishing feature of the ZBS as far as I know is the backside cut blocks and I don’t see much of that at all. But I admit I haven’t focused on watching that much. Another aspect of the ZBS is smaller, more athletic OL can be utilized and I think we’ve seen the Packers going away from that model with the acquisitions of Sitton and Lang – even Bulaga.

I think it is difficult for an NFL team to field an above average run blocking OL AND an above average pass blocking OL. (I’m not sure if you are disagreeing with that point or not.) We both somewhat reluctantly agree the passing game reigns supreme in today’s NFL so pass blocking becomes more important, particularly for a team like the Packers. Pass blocking, particularly on the outside by the OTs, TEs, and RBs, involves finesse, not brute strength and that’s why I agree with the charge the Packers’ OL has leaned toward finesse since Wolf arrived. (Sherman’s team were the exception.)

As far as 1996 vs. 2011 I’m not sure the difference in run/pass is that stark considering the extenuating circumstances. As I calculate it from NFL.com stats for the regular seasons, the 1996 team ran the ball 45.9% while McCarthy’s 2011 team ran it 41.7% of the time. The time of possession was 31:51 vs. 30:29 in favor of the ’96 team. While the ’96 team had 66 more snaps from scrimmage, the 2011 team only passed the ball 4 more times. As to extenuating circumstances, one is the rule changes benefiting the passing game and the other is the difference between the teams’ defenses. The 1996 D was phenomenal and the 2011 D stunk. Holmgren could run the ball to eat up time and depend upon his defense. McCarthy absolutely positively could not. Both offenses led the league in scoring offense, but the 2011 team averaged 6.5 more points/game.

Just looking at the 2011 stats, the Packers completed 68% of their passing attempts and gained an average of 8.92 yards/attempt (9.3 yards per completion). They averaged 3.94 yards/attempt on the ground. The passing game rewarded the team with more than twice the average gain per attempt with a QB who was extremely careful with that ball in the passing game. All stats are interdependent so I’m not suggesting we draw grand conclusions from the stats I cited. My point really is when we consider all of the circumstances, there wasn’t that huge a difference between dependence upon the running game in 1996 vs. 2011. While it would be great for the Packers to have a dominant running game, that isn’t realistic or even needed. If they pose a good enough running threat to help protect Rodgers and to close out games, that’ll be enough.

All this just my opinion: As I posted, its very difficult to field an OL which is good in both the running and passing games, but the Packers are 3/5ths the way there. Sitton, Lang and Bulaga all are, or soon will be in that category and they range in age from 23 to 25. I exclude Saturday at OC because my guess is at his age he he’ll likely be a small step below Wells in the running game and he's a one or two year stop-gap. They are certainly looking for a bigger stronger OC of the future and if they get one (like Genus who started there in the recent rookie camp), they’ll be 4/5ths of the way to an ideal OL. LT is the rub but look at the running game under Sherman: It excelled running the ball with a below average run-blocking LT in Clifton. Both Newhouse and Sherrod have a good chance to be better in that category but far more important is if they can emulate Clifton protecting the QB.

 

[HyponGrey]

weeds, I just can’t tell what percentage of their running game is ZBS anymore. Every scheme I know about uses double teams at the point of attack and the Packers certainly do that and almost every team has the option of one of the “double-teamers” to come off that block and go after a LB or DB and the Packers do that a lot too. The distinguishing feature of the ZBS as far as I know is the backside cut blocks and I don’t see much of that at all. But I admit I haven’t focused on watching that much. Another aspect of the ZBS is smaller, more athletic OL can be utilized and I think we’ve seen the Packers going away from that model with the acquisitions of Sitton and Lang – even Bulaga.

I think it is difficult for an NFL team to field an above average run blocking OL AND an above average pass blocking OL. (I’m not sure if you are disagreeing with that point or not.) We both somewhat reluctantly agree the passing game reigns supreme in today’s NFL so pass blocking becomes more important, particularly for a team like the Packers. Pass blocking, particularly on the outside by the OTs, TEs, and RBs, involves finesse, not brute strength and that’s why I agree with the charge the Packers’ OL has leaned toward finesse since Wolf arrived. (Sherman’s team were the exception.)

As far as 1996 vs. 2011 I’m not sure the difference in run/pass is that stark considering the extenuating circumstances. As I calculate it from NFL.com stats for the regular seasons, the 1996 team ran the ball 45.9% while McCarthy’s 2011 team ran it 41.7% of the time. The time of possession was 31:51 vs. 30:29 in favor of the ’96 team. While the ’96 team had 66 more snaps from scrimmage, the 2011 team only passed the ball 4 more times. As to extenuating circumstances, one is the rule changes benefiting the passing game and the other is the difference between the teams’ defenses. The 1996 D was phenomenal and the 2011 D stunk. Holmgren could run the ball to eat up time and depend upon his defense. McCarthy absolutely positively could not. Both offenses led the league in scoring offense, but the 2011 team averaged 6.5 more points/game.

Just looking at the 2011 stats, the Packers completed 68% of their passing attempts and gained an average of 8.92 yards/attempt (9.3 yards per completion). They averaged 3.94 yards/attempt on the ground. The passing game rewarded the team with more than twice the average gain per attempt with a QB who was extremely careful with that ball in the passing game. All stats are interdependent so I’m not suggesting we draw grand conclusions from the stats I cited. My point really is when we consider all of the circumstances, there wasn’t that huge a difference between dependence upon the running game in 1996 vs. 2011. While it would be great for the Packers to have a dominant running game, that isn’t realistic or even needed. If they pose a good enough running threat to help protect Rodgers and to close out games, that’ll be enough.

All this just my opinion: As I posted, its very difficult to field an OL which is good in both the running and passing games, but the Packers are 3/5ths the way there. Sitton, Lang and Bulaga all are, or soon will be in that category and they range in age from 23 to 25. I exclude Saturday at OC because my guess is at his age he he’ll likely be a small step below Wells in the running game and he's a one or two year stop-gap. They are certainly looking for a bigger stronger OC of the future and if they get one (like Genus who started there in the recent rookie camp), they’ll be 4/5ths of the way to an ideal OL. LT is the rub but look at the running game under Sherman: It excelled running the ball with a below average run-blocking LT in Clifton. Both Newhouse and Sherrod have a good chance to be better in that category but far more important is if they can emulate Clifton protecting the QB.

Oi! Fine print as a contract... Actually all of the rookie linemen we signed this year have decent run blocking ability. Most of our offensive UDFA acquisitions point to GB looking to upgrade its run ability. Genus is still small IMO, but he is a bit broader than EDS Wells and Saturday. Brooks (another UDFA) is about EDS' size, but Draheim and Barclay (there's a picture of him snapping for Hill in mini camp) are both nice big center prospects. The kind I've been trying to lobby for since two years ago.

 

[TJV]

I’m not sure what the purpose of quoting an entire post is, particularly long posts like #28. Not a big deal, just asking.

The rookie OL first have to prove they belong in the NFL, let alone showing the ability to run block as pros. And if they don't excel at pass blocking they won't be around for long. Like it or not, the passing game is preeminent and that means so is pass blocking.