1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

I hope during the time off

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by warhawk, Oct 24, 2007.

  1. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    That MM and the offensive line coaches got together during this break and simplified this thing so the guys can go out there and we can get back to blocking and running.

    It seems to me there is SO MUCH INVOLVED in this scheme that all the parts never add up to a whole. If the tackle doesn't get a push on the DE then the gaps shrink and if the backside guy doesn't get the cut block the crease closes. CRAP! Go out there and block somebody damn it!

    Get out there and knock the DL out of the way, send the FB thru there to kick the hell out of somebody, and, and get the RB flying into the crease.

    And for CRISSAKES don't let that guy come down the line from behind the play and tackle our guy at or behind the line of scrimmage.

    I am really tired of seeing that happen.

    We were decent at it last year and three o-linemen didn't even know the damn playbook.

    No excuses. Just go do it.

    It's not rocket science. Running the ball means getting a body on a guy and MOVING them out of the freaking way. It looks to me at times our scheme let's too much **** get in the way of this and we end up with this huge ball of humanity and......no gain.
     
  2. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    I know.........i'm starting to think they should just scrap the cut blocking thing and go back to basic blocking. It's OBVIOUS these guys can't do it.
     
  3. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Isn't it basically the same line as last year, where they did cut block, and did it well (ahman over 1000, morency averaging 4.9,etc)

    obvious? K.
     
  4. pack_in_black

    pack_in_black Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,876
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think I'll wait to post in a running game thread (what? This is a running game thread? Oh, the title disguised it) until we lose a game because of it. We are winning, albeit probably in spite of it, and Denver is a tough team to beat @ home in a prime time game.

    So I'm not gonna complain just yet....
     
  5. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Yes, obvious. This is NOT last year, this is this year, and from what i have seen their run blocking has dissappeared. Look at how our backs have run on the RARE occasion where they had a hole to run through. They can run, IF the guys open some holes. That seems to be a BIG if right now.
     
  6. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    My point of the thread is that I hoped they used the time off to work on the things to do this better.

    Last year when we looked like a sinking ship after getting smoked by the Jets and NE McCarthy came out and said NOTHING was going to change other than getting back to the basics. It worked.

    That's what I hope they used the time off to do with the run blocking. As Trom said they did it last year well enough. You don't just forget how to block but you may forget how important little things are in order to be successful.

    I think MM was intent on getting the passing game in shape in pre-season and may have spent more time there than he now wishes he had. I'm not bitchin' or saying he was wrong to do this because we are hard to beat because of it.

    I just hope he used this time to get the other part moving.
     
  7. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    Hmm, its that simple eh? Well shuckity diggity damn I'm gonna go be a coach or offensive lineman!!
     
  8. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think warhawk is saying less is more.

    I think Brett echoed the same sentiments yesterday when he held his press conference.

    That is a good point, that the coaches are making things too complex. It would certainly explain really well why on earth our running game regressed the shocking level it has from last year.

    Just have the assignments of the o-line more simplified. You have this man, and you block this man at any cost. Don't try pulls, where the Gs or C have to come out and decide which guy to block at the 2nd level, or have too many adjustment calls where "If X happens then the guard must do Y, or if A happens then you must do B, etc.".

    Keeping things simple, keep the assignments our o-linemen have simple. Find a few running plays that actually work, and stick with them. Don't try and get fancy trying to make things more complex by adding in all these exotic plays that the coaches think will confuse the D and lead to big gains.

    Like I said above I think this is a great point, and I hope our coaches realize that.

    Edit - obviously there will need to be some degree of complexity when dealing with picking up blitz packages and etc. but try to keep the complexity to a minimum.
     
  9. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    Wasn't Mike Sherman doing something similar to the effect of simplifying the running game in the injury plagued 2005 year what actually led to our running game getting some respectability during the final few games?

    We arguably had worser guards than what we have now, yet we had some semblance of success.
     
  10. Greg C.

    Greg C. Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,856
    Ratings:
    +0
    No, it's not rocket science. But they sure make it LOOK like rocket science, don't they?

    I couldn't agree more. Simplifying the running game may be their best bet at this point.
     
  11. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    I know.....they might just need to simplify. But GEEZ.....these guys are college graduates! You'd THINK they could master a lil' ole blocking scheme!
    But by what i have seen, i guess not.
    "Shuckity diggity damn!" (That made me laugh!!!) :lol:
     
  12. Pack93z

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    All buck 185 of ya :shock: .. as a coach they'd squash ya.. as a player, we'd have to send out a search party to find the pieces. J/K! :razz:
     
  13. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    At times I see more thinking then hitting going on when it comes to the run game and that's the ONLY aspect of this team that does not appear like we are PHYSICALLY taking it to our opponents.

    They are aggressive in their pass blocking assignments, the WR's are taking it to the defense, and our defense is taking it to the other teams offense. Even our special teams are aggressive.

    The one area where we seem timid is run blocking. Our guys seldom get on the guy opposite of them and physically move them out. I think simplifying things will allow the "0" line to be more aggressive, and, allow them to focus on being fundamentally sound vs. memorizing a three page orientation on the mechanics of all that has to happen for a play to work.

    Like my golf swing. Sometimes I just have to forget all the **** I read in Golf Digest and go out there an hit that sucker and often when I do this I break 80 for the first time in months.

    I sense too much clutter.
     
  14. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    I would also like to point out a few things in defense of the offensive lines woes in the run game.

    How many here knew that all five of the teams we have beaten so far were in the top ten in run defense. ALL FIVE.

    They averaged allowing a whopping 85 ypg. and the group averages being rated 6th out of 32 teams with the lowest 4th and the highest being tenth.

    Against several of these teams we DIDN'T EVEN TRY to run it. We just kept throwing it and winning.

    Now some here have said in other threads we have a "lousy" offensive line. I absolutely disagree with that. We keep Brett upright and provide him adequate time to beat teams thru the air.

    We have not gotten the better of teams that are among the best in the NFL against the run. O.K.

    Let's be realistic here. If we HAD just gone out and averaged a decent number of yards running it against the TEAMS WE FACED SO FAR you might as well just cancel the SB and hand over the trophy.

    I doubt any team has faced a group of opponents so strong in a single area. Probably, in fact, not even close to it.
     
  15. Greg C.

    Greg C. Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,856
    Ratings:
    +0
    It's really unusual to have played so many teams who are so strong against the run. That's why this Denver game (I think they are last in rushing defense) should tell us something. Although I am still more interested in winning than in running the ball well, and I bet McCarthy is too.

    I agree that the offensive line is not lousy. Pass blocking is not easy, and they are an above average unit when it comes to that.
     
  16. Timmons

    Timmons Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Messages:
    623
    Ratings:
    +1
    Half of the reason the teams that we played against are rated so well against the run is because they played us and we didn't/couldn't run.

    I did like the U-71 package from Sherman's days, when Brett broke his thumb. We'd like up and declare run, and then do it. I also remember many short yardage runs (3-1 or 4th-1) going for big gains because of it.

    You don't have to be sneaky to run well, you have to be dominate. We may have good pass blockers, but it's a lot different than trying to move a Dlineman. Pass blocking is about not letting him past you, running blocking is about moving him where you want.
     
  17. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Good point.
    Like Warhawk, i don't think our line is terrible, they HAVE for the most part kept Brett alive. But like you say here, they arn't moving dlinemen to allow our RB's to get to the next level.
     
  18. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    Sorry, but it takes more than playing one team to build the stats by this time of the season.

    I already pointed out the five teams we have beaten have AVERAGED allowing 85 yards a game between them. That's FIVE teams playing six games and is the average yards allowed on the ground in over THIRTY games played. The Pack aint the only teams these teams stuffed.

    My point is to play that many teams rated that highly is UNHEARD of. To parrallel these numbers the Patriots opponents average rating in run defense is TWENTY SECOND.

    Every Division leaders opponents are averaging over 10 places lower against the run then our opponents.

    I just wonder what the numbers would look like if these teams got stuck playing who we played the last six weeks and we got their opponents. My guess is the rushing yards would get a lot closer together than they are right now.
     

Share This Page