Offensive line needs....

[GreenBaySlacker]

So in my limited understanding of the zone blocking scheme. I see it as we tried to adopt a "zone" blocking scheme a decade ago....Basicly (IMO) taking 300 pound 2nd tier Olinemen. And make up for it with a complicated scheme where they are fast and their mobility becomes the weapon. Slowly GB got tired of getting steam rolled up front, and slowly evolved into this Power/zone hybrid. Which I like.
To keep the zone part, we drafted a pile of LTs, to keep the athleticism needed to play the zone. Sitton, Lang were both LTs in school. After we got a solid group, Ted quit drafting big Olinemen again... Maybe searching for the elusive diamond in the rough LT? Who knows, but the way I see it , we went from drafting 300 pounders, and got rolled. Moved to 320 pounders, and built our line out of them. Then went back to 305 range, and none are worth a crud. Taylor last year? Kowalski? Tretter too. He is a Center not a Tackle. I mean? WTH??? We had a couple big guys in the mix as well. But undrafted, practice squad guys arent going to make a impact usually. Even if they are 328.

We have 3x 4th round picks. Lets get some more 320 pound LTs. pick all 3, I dont care. Just make sure the Oline is deep with tallent so we dont get squashed when the probowl guards go to the highest bidder next season. If Ted pays either of them 10mil a year, or anything close, I will be pissed.

 

[Poppa San]

I always thought the ZBS was a running scheme. Never understood why they implemented it for a pass first offense.

 

[C-Lee]

We definitely need some reliable backups. I'm really hoping the starters stay healthy this upcoming season and play like they did in 2014.

 

[Mondio]

I always thought the ZBS was a running scheme. Never understood why they implemented it for a pass first offense.

I think the ZBS is more of a product of a pass first offense than a goal. The best pass blockers in the NFL are the guys that can absorb what's coming at them. They have to have good feet to be in position and maintain leverage and they can absorb and tactically give ground and win the war every time, because of feet and leverage. They don't ahve to gain any ground. Just give it up in a controlled fashion till the ball is out of the qb's hands.

Now those guys are great pass blockers because they absorb so well, but when you ask them to move 300lb'ers out of the way for a running back, they generally aren't the best for that. They are built on feet and leverage, not strength and brute force. So zone blocking in the run game seems like a logical solution for the run game. They can get in position and maintain leverage to move the defender in the direction they already want to go and the back looks for cut back lanes that are created.

 

[TJV]

IMO that's a convoluted OP. Is the point 'let's acquire better OL'?

 

[Croak]

IMO that's a convoluted OP. Is the point 'let's acquire better OL'?

I believe the point was that the makeup of the line flip flopped and now the line needs bigger bodies. If he had just posted "the line needs bigger bodies" without an explanation, some here would have called him out for an explanation. So he cut out the middle man and gave the explanation to start.

 

[TJV]

I don't know, Croak. I guess it's too much to ask for a coherent, well thought-out OP. It looks more like a stream of consciousness, I’ve got to post this in a hurry post.

 

[Croak]

I don't know, Croak. I guess it's too much to ask for a coherent, well thought-out OP. It looks more like a stream of consciousness, I’ve got to post this in a hurry post.

Then you are free not to respond to it.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

We definitely need some reliable backups. I'm really hoping the starters stay healthy this upcoming season and play like they did in 2014.

Tretter was okay. Walker was a disaster, and Barclay didn't look like himself. I think adding depth to this position via the draft is a no-brainer, although likely not on the first or second day.

 

[El Guapo]

We don't need to just add depth. We need to start finding our OL of the future. Both guards are entering the end of their contracts and will be 29 and 30 once they do. Bulaga is at least younger but I can't imagine that his body will survive until the end of his current contract.

 

[Croak]

We don't need to just add depth. We need to start finding our OL of the future. Both guards are entering the end of their contracts and will be 29 and 30 once they do. Bulaga is at least younger but I can't imagine that his body will survive until the end of his current contract.

Do you think the zone blocking scheme is a good fit for this team?

 

[mradtke66]

The zone-blocking scheme is actually an easier scheme. It has basically 4 runs: inside right, inside left. Outside right, outside left--these are typically called stretch plays.

The main thing that really differentiates a Man-scheme from a Zone-Scheme is calling out the hole. To facilitate this, there are technique changes, of course.

In a Man scheme, you might design a run that is for the 3-hole (let's say between the left guard and tackle). Those two guys form the point of a wedge or lever and need to move their guy(s) out of the way. All the action is to create the crease in that 3-hole. The back takes the ball and rams into the 3 hole. Most all of the blockers have an assigned man, even if it gets called and adjusted at the line.

In a Zone scheme, play call is more general. There isn't a clearly defined hole. Blockers have their assignments reduced to "first man who shows himself." The magic, of course, the backside cut block and/or bouncing it out. The back is supposed to veer to one side, look for his opening, and take it. "Run to daylight," as it were. Which by the way makes for a fun fact. The Fabled Packers Sweep of the 1960s was really a zone play, as are similarly "power sounding" plays, such as "student body right," which by definition is zone: the blockers don't have assigned defenders to block.

To the real thesis of your argument, which is I think is A) We need bigger linemen and B) TT stopped drafting linemen.

A) There's not a lot that separates a 305 pound lineman and a 315 pound lineman at the end of the day. Similarly, size doesn't necessarily mean a lineman is good at his job. It can also be a hindrance. Sherrod, for example, was listed at over 320. He had a pretty bad stance--he was a waist bender. As a result, he had bad leverage and could get manipulated by smaller, more athletic defenders surprisingly easy. Obviously, we'll never know how he could have ended up with that injury. Bhak, at a svelt 300 even, has a better set and moves better at the blind side. He has his short comings, but more in the run game that passing game.

And lets not forget Scott Wells at 296 or whatever he played at. And Trettor at 307. Or Linsley at 298. Size isn't everything at O-Line, so long as they can get the job done.

B) TT's has routinely drafted linemen and done so in the mid rounds. I'm not really sure what you're after here? I mean 4 of our starters were drafted in the 4th round or later. When Bulaga popped his ACL and Barclay played all season, no one was drafted earlier than the 4th round. Their ability to take mid-round guys and turn them into sufficient or competent players is something they routinely done. So, keep doing that?

 

[TJV]

Another valiant effort mradtke66...

 

[mradtke66]

Another valiant effort mradtke66...

You'd think I'd learn not to feed the trolls. Oh well.

 

[Croak]

The zone-blocking scheme is actually an easier scheme. It has basically 4 runs: inside right, inside left. Outside right, outside left--these are typically called stretch plays.

The main thing that really differentiates a Man-scheme from a Zone-Scheme is calling out the hole. To facilitate this, there are technique changes, of course.

In a Man scheme, you might design a run that is for the 3-hole (let's say between the left guard and tackle). Those two guys form the point of a wedge or lever and need to move their guy(s) out of the way. All the action is to create the crease in that 3-hole. The back takes the ball and rams into the 3 hole. Most all of the blockers have an assigned man, even if it gets called and adjusted at the line.

In a Zone scheme, play call is more general. There isn't a clearly defined hole. Blockers have their assignments reduced to "first man who shows himself." The magic, of course, the backside cut block and/or bouncing it out. The back is supposed to veer to one side, look for his opening, and take it. "Run to daylight," as it were. Which by the way makes for a fun fact. The Fabled Packers Sweep of the 1960s was really a zone play, as are similarly "power sounding" plays, such as "student body right," which by definition is zone: the blockers don't have assigned defenders to block.

To the real thesis of your argument, which is I think is A) We need bigger linemen and B) TT stopped drafting linemen.

A) There's not a lot that separates a 305 pound lineman and a 315 pound lineman at the end of the day. Similarly, size doesn't necessarily mean a lineman is good at his job. It can also be a hindrance. Sherrod, for example, was listed at over 320. He had a pretty bad stance--he was a waist bender. As a result, he had bad leverage and could get manipulated by smaller, more athletic defenders surprisingly easy. Obviously, we'll never know how he could have ended up with that injury. Bhak, at a svelt 300 even, has a better set and moves better at the blind side. He has his short comings, but more in the run game that passing game.

And lets not forget Scott Wells at 296 or whatever he played at. And Trettor at 307. Or Linsley at 298. Size isn't everything at O-Line, so long as they can get the job done.

B) TT's has routinely drafted linemen and done so in the mid rounds. I'm not really sure what you're after here? I mean 4 of our starters were drafted in the 4th round or later. When Bulaga popped his ACL and Barclay played all season, no one was drafted earlier than the 4th round. Their ability to take mid-round guys and turn them into sufficient or competent players is something they routinely done. So, keep doing that?

Thank you. I'm not a troll. I'm also not up on all the latest football jargon. This was very helpful.

 

[mradtke66]

Thank you. I'm not a troll. I'm also not up on all the latest football jargon. This was very helpful.

You, good mod, are no troll.

 

[mradtke66]

I always thought the ZBS was a running scheme. Never understood why they implemented it for a pass first offense.

Pass Blocking and Run Blocking are two different things. Just because you run a ZBS running scheme doesn't mean you can't man to man your pass sets.

 

[Half Empty]

Pass Blocking and Run Blocking are two different things. Just because you run a ZBS running scheme doesn't mean you can't man to man your pass sets.

See, it's not all trolling. Have to agree with that part.

 

[Poppa San]

Pass Blocking and Run Blocking are two different things. Just because you run a ZBS running scheme doesn't mean you can't man to man your pass sets.

But wouldn't the different stance and initial step tip the play to the defense. Not all passes can be backside rollouts or tosses off the read-option. 5 & 7 step drops would require a different blocking stance I'd think.

 

[mradtke66]

But wouldn't the different stance and initial step tip the play to the defense. Not all passes can be backside rollouts or tosses off the read-option. 5 & 7 step drops would require a different blocking stance I'd think.

They shouldn't, though some linemen certainly have tells.

Your stance before the snap should be the same if you're doing a fullback lead in the A-gap, a toss sweep, stretch left, a 3 step, a 7 step, a fullback-lead-play pass, whatever. Once the ball is snapped, it does change. However, there isn't much difference from a Man-Running team that is setting up a pocket vs. a Zone-Running team setting up a pocket.

If you're running a play-pass, some of the linemen will execute something at least close to a running play, but if all 5 did, your quarterback wouldn't have much room to throw. Running lanes for your back can quickly turn into rushing lanes for defenders!

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

The zone-blocking scheme is actually an easier scheme. It has basically 4 runs: inside right, inside left. Outside right, outside left--these are typically called stretch plays.

The main thing that really differentiates a Man-scheme from a Zone-Scheme is calling out the hole. To facilitate this, there are technique changes, of course.

In a Man scheme, you might design a run that is for the 3-hole (let's say between the left guard and tackle). Those two guys form the point of a wedge or lever and need to move their guy(s) out of the way. All the action is to create the crease in that 3-hole. The back takes the ball and rams into the 3 hole. Most all of the blockers have an assigned man, even if it gets called and adjusted at the line.

In a Zone scheme, play call is more general. There isn't a clearly defined hole. Blockers have their assignments reduced to "first man who shows himself." The magic, of course, the backside cut block and/or bouncing it out. The back is supposed to veer to one side, look for his opening, and take it. "Run to daylight," as it were. Which by the way makes for a fun fact. The Fabled Packers Sweep of the 1960s was really a zone play, as are similarly "power sounding" plays, such as "student body right," which by definition is zone: the blockers don't have assigned defenders to block.

To the real thesis of your argument, which is I think is A) We need bigger linemen and B) TT stopped drafting linemen.

A) There's not a lot that separates a 305 pound lineman and a 315 pound lineman at the end of the day. Similarly, size doesn't necessarily mean a lineman is good at his job. It can also be a hindrance. Sherrod, for example, was listed at over 320. He had a pretty bad stance--he was a waist bender. As a result, he had bad leverage and could get manipulated by smaller, more athletic defenders surprisingly easy. Obviously, we'll never know how he could have ended up with that injury. Bhak, at a svelt 300 even, has a better set and moves better at the blind side. He has his short comings, but more in the run game that passing game.

And lets not forget Scott Wells at 296 or whatever he played at. And Trettor at 307. Or Linsley at 298. Size isn't everything at O-Line, so long as they can get the job done.

B) TT's has routinely drafted linemen and done so in the mid rounds. I'm not really sure what you're after here? I mean 4 of our starters were drafted in the 4th round or later. When Bulaga popped his ACL and Barclay played all season, no one was drafted earlier than the 4th round. Their ability to take mid-round guys and turn them into sufficient or competent players is something they routinely done. So, keep doing that?

Thank you for the well thought out answer. I appreciate the insight into the zone blocking scheme...

I just see trends. And what I see is that right after we got stomped by the giants in the nfc championship. Favres last stand... TT went for bigger Olinemen. Oline got better, and they stuck.... Then he went back to the smaller guys... Bahk and Linsley did great as rookies. Everyone was healthy that year for the most part. 2nd year.... Not so much. Packers.com said Bahk 310, and Linsley 301...

Though I agree theres more to a pro Olineman than strictly weight. But Clifton/Tauscher? 320. Bulaga/Sherod our 1st round pick Olinemen. 316, and 320 something for Sherrod, if i remember right. Our Pro bowl Guards, who were LTs coming out, almost 320...........For some reason unknown to me. Centers tend to be under 305. I pushed for larger center when we had Wells. (wasnt a fan of Wells). But it is what it is....

Im definately saying we need bigger Olinemen. 15 pounds might only be 5% of the weight total. but it tends to point to the more dominant players.

I love the fact Ted does well finding these obscure coachable Olinemen in the mid rounds. And i would hope he would continue to use that ability. But maybe its time to put the Oline building machine back into overdrive... What do I want? I want 3 LTs that are 315+ before the 5th round is done. Infuse some talent so we can get rid of these scrubs we currently call depth...... Dont spend a comp pick on another development project 300 pounder, and call it good...

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I always thought the ZBS was a running scheme. Never understood why they implemented it for a pass first offense.

I always thought it was because the Broncos decimated our dynasty in the superbowl, with seemingly undersized Olinemen.....

 

[mradtke66]

I just see trends.

Have you heard the phrase "Correlation does not equal causation." ?

For some reason unknown to me. Centers tend to be under 305

Part of the job description and also a counter to how defenses work.

Against an even front (4-3, 4-2 nickel, 4-1 dime, etc) the center is typically uncovered. So he gets to the second level to attack linebackers. If facing a shaded nose, the center will double team the nose and then more than likely release for more linebacker hunting. In other words, speed and athletic ability is more useful at center than guard. As size and speed tends to be inversely proportional, centers tend to smaller.

Against and odd front (3-4, 3-3), the center will almost always be getting help from the play-side guard in a double team against the nose. It's not so much that bigger isn't helpful, but not needed, as he is getting help about 90% of the time.

Im definately saying we need bigger Olinemen. 15 pounds might only be 5% of the weight total. but it tends to point to the more dominant players.

Bold claim. I am skeptical. You have data that supports this?

And even if that statement is true, how do we acquire these more-dominant players? Are you prepared to draft them earlier at the expense of the more-rare pass rusher? The next pro-bowl quarterback? The next shutdown corner?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

We definitely need some reliable backups. I'm really hoping the starters stay healthy this upcoming season and play like they did in 2014.

Tretter was okay. Walker was a disaster, and Barclay didn't look like himself. I think adding depth to this position via the draft is a no-brainer, although likely not on the first or second day.

Tretter and Taylor are locks to make the roster so there is mostly likely only one spot on the offensive line available. I would be in favor of using that on a day 3 pick capable of playing both tackle spots. Walker probably won´t make the team and Barclay won´t be re-signed.

We don't need to just add depth. We need to start finding our OL of the future. Both guards are entering the end of their contracts and will be 29 and 30 once they do. Bulaga is at least younger but I can't imagine that his body will survive until the end of his current contract.

I expect the Packers to bring either Sitton or Lang back for the 2017 season but with limited cap space available the team most likely won´t be able to re-sign both. With backup tackle being a more pressing need and the re-signing of Lane Taylor I don´t see Thompson using a draft pick on a guard though.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Tretter and Taylor are locks to make the roster so there is mostly likely only one spot on the offensive line available. I would be in favor of using that on a day 3 pick capable of playing both tackle spots. Walker probably won´t make the team and Barclay won´t be re-signed.



I expect the Packers to bring either Sitton or Lang back for the 2017 season but with limited cap space available the team most likely won´t be able to re-sign both. With backup tackle being a more pressing need and the re-signing of Lane Taylor I don´t see Thompson using a draft pick on a guard though.

GB carried nine offensive lineman last year, and this year they'll have an extra spot on the 53 since they're unlikely to carry three quarterbacks. They might keep nine again.