Does Size Matter?

[PackFanInSC]

A couple of weeks ago, I posted an article about the Atlanta Falcons and their new head coach's desire to revamp the offensive line due to the fact that they had been drafted primarily for the zone blocking system and, in turn, struggled when it came to pass protection.

Vick Allowed to Call Plays from NFL.com

MIAMI BEACH, Fla. (Feb. 2, 2007)
Petrino has studied extensive film on Vick's passing style and talked with the quarterback about what he "needs to do to get better and what the people around him need to do to get better."

To that end, Petrino acknowledged the need for changing the philosophy of the offensive line, which favored smaller, quicker players and relied on zone blocking schemes under Mora. While the Falcons led the league in rushing the past three years, they struggled to give Vick adequate protection when he dropped back to pass.

A major overhaul is impossible, Petrino said, but the new staff will encourage its linemen to get bigger and stronger.

I question whether this perception that the teams that run the ZBS are truly smaller than the other teams in the league or if it is just something that has been said so often that it is accepted as fact. I think rather than being smaller, the players are possibly just more athletic, like the pulling guards used to be in the west coast offense.

So, I looked at the starting o-lines for the 3 teams that run ZBS (Green Bay, Atlanta, and Denver) as well as the top three offensive units in the league (New Orleans, Indianapolis, and San Diego). The results are as follows:

Team LT LG C RG RT Avg WT
Pack 330 294 304 313 315 311.2
ATL 315 304 286 314 297 303.2
Den 305 283 286 295 290 291.8

NO 313 328 291 318 315 313
Ind 332 290 295 295 320 306.4
SD 336 310 295 311 312 312.8

So, what do you think? Do you prefer the slightly larger hybrid of the ZBS line that the Packers seem to have? We average 14 pounds more per man compared to the other ZBS teams and seem right in line with the other teams. Does it benefit us more when it comes to pass protection?

In the games that Clifton (330) was out and Moll was in, our average weight was 306.8. I know that we struggled then but, was that due to being much smaller or just the inexperience factor?

With all offensive systems, teams make their own variations. Green Bay, Seattle, San Francisco and Philadelphia all play slightly different versions of what Bill Walsh came up with in the WC offense. With the ZBS, maybe our version will have something that the others do not. Rather than being primarily a running team (like Denver and Atlanta), we could end up more balanced. I would have no problem having the big, hulking tackles on the ends, providing they can run when they need to, and the smaller, more athletic interior linemen that can pull or cut back as the play dictates.

 

[Tiger]

good thread, move to main forum so ppl can see it please.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

So, what do you think? Do you prefer the slightly larger hybrid of the ZBS line that the Packers seem to have? We average 14 pounds more per man compared to the other ZBS teams and seem right in line with the other teams. Does it benefit us more when it comes to pass protection?

Actualy the main reason GB has a larger average is because of the 2 hold-overs from the previous blocking scheme - Clifton and Tauscher. These guys weren't identified for the new scheme and if GB stays with the ZBS, then we'll see smaller OTs eventually replace Clifton and Tauscher, making GB's OL average weight about the same as other ZBS teams.

In the games that Clifton (330) was out and Moll was in, our average weight was 306.8. I know that we struggled then but, was that due to being much smaller or just the inexperience factor?

Actually I think you are referring to Tauscher being out. Moll never replaced Clifton, he replaced the injured Tauscher at RT. The one game that Clifton missed (due to the flu), Colledge filled in at LT and Moll played LG.

So the average weight of OL while Tauscher was out was actually about 310, not 306.8. In the one game that Clifton was out (Miami), the average weight was 306.8.

With all offensive systems, teams make their own variations. Green Bay, Seattle, San Francisco and Philadelphia all play slightly different versions of what Bill Walsh came up with in the WC offense. With the ZBS, maybe our version will have something that the others do not. Rather than being primarily a running team (like Denver and Atlanta), we could end up more balanced. I would have no problem having the big, hulking tackles on the ends, providing they can run when they need to, and the smaller, more athletic interior linemen that can pull or cut back as the play dictates.

I agree that GB's offense could be more balanced by appropriately applying the ZBS. But I think that using the 2006 OL to determine the direction of the ZBS in GB is flawed.

For one, their were at least 2 rookies starting, who are not fully mature in their size and ability. The 3 rookie OL are all working on getting stronger this offseason. It's difficult to know what their ideal playing weights.

Another falacy is that 3 of the starters were brought in for the previous blocking scheme: Clifton, Tauscher and Wells. Wells was thought to be too small for the previous scheme, which actually helps him in the new ZBS. We don't know how long Clifton and Tauscher will be around, nor who their replacements will be. Their current roster backups were the smaller, faster rookies in Colledge and Moll. But this year's backups may be the bigger Klemm and Barry, who both were injured last season.

Whatever the case, it's painfully obvious that a good balance between passing and running is the best offense. Denver's offense has struggled because of a poor passing game. GB's offense has struggled because of a poor running game. Get a balance like San Diego or Indy and you'll have a very solid offense to build a team on.

GO PACK GO!!!