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

Packers' offense remains biggest unknown

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Zero2Cool, May 7, 2007.

  1. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    I hope TOPHAT didn't post this in his DRAFT PREVIEW as well.


     
  2. refpacker

    refpacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Messages:
    320
    Ratings:
    +0
    I just dont see us goin anywhere without a RB....Sure we have 5 but I think that will serve as a problem....It will restrict how many plays a back can learn and reps to perform....Good luck with that mike.....I feel ur pain...
     
  3. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    What does having 5 Rbs have to do with them having trouble learning the playbook?

    Reps I can understand your statement, but...learning the plays won't be an issue (unless of course they're just dumb).
     
  4. refpacker

    refpacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Messages:
    320
    Ratings:
    +0
    In alot of cases u learn plays by doin reps.....when to hit the hole, how to hit the hole and so on.....
     
  5. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    I see what you're saying, but i disagree. Thats what the playbook,coaches, and film study is for.

    And each player will get decent reps in camps to 'learn' the plays anyway.
     
  6. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    It was McCarthy that said last year (something along the lines of) "we'll put the players in a position to make plays, but it still comes down to them actually making the play"...

    The thing I like with having McCarthy is that he is a supposed "creative" guy. With his creativity, I'm feeling a little easier about the O, especially given that he said last year we'd focus on gaining yards after the catch, and while many of us were skeptical at how good we could be in that area given our lack of talent, the stats speak for themselves.

    Being only behind New Orleans in Yards After Catch, I'm willing to give McCarthy the benefit of the doubt that he'll find a way to make our O at least respectable once again.
     
  7. Timmons

    Timmons Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Messages:
    623
    Ratings:
    +1
    I'll go it one further, offense is not going to be Green Bay's problem. It won't be a juggernaut, however, it also won't have to be. If our defense steps up from where it left off (and I'm betting that it will), then our offense will be allowed to be more patient, and run the ball and the clock.

    Special teams is our biggest weakness, and risk. If our new kicker can hang it high, and our new LB draft picks can cover, then that may help dramatically.
     
  8. Pack93z

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

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    That is the question I have for this team, unless the interior Oline steps it up, how do we expect our running game to improve on what was the 23rd ranked rushing attack.

    I am waiting for mini camps and training camp already :kickcan: that to me is going to tell the tale of the 2007 Packers. Can they step up?
     
  9. Arles

    Arles Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Ratings:
    +0
    GB was in the bottom 3rd in carries (worse than that early on) because of poor field position and falling behind. We had 5-6 games where the entire RB crew had fewer than 22 carries for the game (and still had a decent ypc). You can't get a consistent running game if you only run the ball 18-20 times for the game. Still, if you improve your ST and defense, you will be in a position to run the ball more and have successful playaction to help the pass. We were just a 1-dimensional team too much last season because of game situations.

    If we have an improved defense and special teams, you can throw Arliss Beach back there and our running game will be better than last year. We need to be a team that is able to commit to the running game and I think the 07 Packers could be that team.
     
  10. Pack93z

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

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    Although your points have validity, we got just plain stuffed at times and had to abandon the running game. They are not physical enough to power people out of the way, so they have to carry out the principle of the Zone scheme.

    Put us at the 50 yard line everytime, if we can't open a hole, we aren't going to run the ball.
     
  11. Arles

    Arles Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Ratings:
    +0
    As you say, that's why we went to the zone scheme. I would expect with 2 rookie guards now settled in, the interior will be better. My point is that the success of the running game will be largely independent of the back. It's more of a factor of if this team improves enough in ST and defense to allow GB to stick with it. There will be times where your opponent will have initial success against the running game. And, in those spots, it's much harder to stick with the run down 14 than in a tie game.
     
  12. Lare

    Lare Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    705
    Ratings:
    +0
    According to every team that runs the zone blocking scheme, it's success is dependent on the play of the offensive linemen. The offensive linemen must be effective in making the backside cut-blocks so that the RB can make one cut through the seams that are then created. In fact, one of it's biggest benefits of the scheme is supposed to be that you don't need a high-priced star running back to make it work.

    As with every other team, the success of the Packers offense this year will depend on the play of their offensive line. If they don't improve as expected, the offensive production will be similar to last year's. And something else that everyone seems to be overlooking in the loss of Henderson and Green is their blitz pickup and pass-blocking abilities. If Miree and our RB-by-committee don't do a good job in that area, it's going to be a very,very long year for whoever is playing QB.
     
  13. Pack93z

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

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    Yes, and to me, that is where we will make it or break it this year. We don't have a proven backfield, so they (o-line) will have to step it up another notch.

    They showed progress last year and hopefully will take another step this year. Another note, with the changing at the guard of the OC, what impact if any will that have.

    I hope the defense is good as advertised on paper. Special teams will need to be proven out.
     
  14. Packnic

    Packnic Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,454
    Ratings:
    +6
    im not as worried about the running game as i am the defensive backfield and maybe what we have at wide reciever. however in both the DBs and WR... we have guys that were brought in (DB.. Rouse, Walker) (WR. Clowney, James) that look to be able to plug those holes... wether or not they will remains to be seen.

    i believe in the ZBS. i believe in the o-line to improve more this year.
    so with our rb corp i think we will be ok. Morency, Beech, and Herron.. showed spurts of talent last year.... bring in the new guys, and youve got 5 options that can be very good in the system. (which is the beauty of the ZBS) and i agree that a solid D and great special teams play will help the offense as much as anything will.

    i honestly believe our special teams was a bigger thorn in our side last year than anyone wants to think. field position is so key, and when your constantly giving up long run backs and dont get long run backs it kills momentum and game plans. Im still a little iffy on our returners but i havent seen what MM plans to trot out there so you cant get too excited. But i feel that after the draft, and hearing some of the coaches especially Mike Stock after the draft... that Special teams is gonna be a huge focus this year. and i think its a great idea.
     
  15. Packnic

    Packnic Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,454
    Ratings:
    +6

    as far as proven backfield... its absolutely not a neccessity. Denver has been a rushing leader with the likes of Ruben Droughns, Mike Anderson, and Tatum Bell. Really no back to play in Denver since the ZBS has been star quality or a "proven" back until they left Denver. and these guys go elsewhere and get huge contracts but cant deliver due to the inflated numbers they get in the ZBS. Lineman are much more important than running backs in this scheme.

    If you look at Atlanta they have Warrick Dunn and Vick and run the ZBS, they get big numbers but its eventually the downfall of them season after season... I think we are in better shape than the Falcons already and they have not one but 2 "proven runners" in their backfield. because when teams start stackin the box, they cant cope. We proved last year we can move the ball in the air alone so if you add a potent rush attack to the passing attack... we might very well be in good shape.
     
  16. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Just looking at the success Morency(4.6 a carry) and a hurt Ahman had (only 4.0, but more carries, thus 1000+ yards) with a young inexperienced growing O-line.....that tells me this year, with more growth by the o-line, we'll be fine.

    People are just crying\worrying\bellyaching because we don't have the big name, and yes, Morency and Jackson are definitely not big names.

    I think we'll be fine...gotta wait and see.

    (ps, i think its funny people flip out that ahman is gone yet morency averaged more. I like funny things)
     
  17. MajicMan

    MajicMan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    211
    Ratings:
    +0
    Just a feeling, but I'd bet TT brings in a re-tred RB last min. On the ultra-cheap. No one will be excited about this player; but he'll have SOME experience.

    I just can't see us going into this season with Morency with the weight of the world on his shoulders. I would think TT would bring in a vet to at least BE AROUND.

    Then and there, you never know with TT. No one knows what he'll do.

    I love it, during the draft I was like: "Here comes the first pick no one will see coming." And sure enough.

    Note: I'm fine with the pick. Just saying, you never know what TT is gonna do.
     
  18. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    I just found out that Colledge had something like 22 reps bench pressing at the combine. That is pretty weak for an O-lineman.

    I'd have to think our new strength and conditioning coach has put in work with Colledge, improving his strength. If our G can improve their strength, I think half the job of improved play will be accomplished. The Gs seem to be strong in picking up the game, so that part isn't too much of a worry.
     
  19. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    22 more than you!! :p
     
  20. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    Pack - I think the reason our running game sucked so much wasn't the fault of the running backs and OL, it was more we kept falling behind early and had to pass to catch up.
     
  21. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings:
    +0

    Arliss Beah, you've got to be kidding
     
  22. Arles

    Arles Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Ratings:
    +0
    You don't think Beach could average 75 yards per start at 4.0 ypc? I think he'd have a solid chance at getting that next season if he was given the number of carries Green got in 06. GB's RB production was nothing to write home about in 06 and I think this current crew will easily reach it (and should eclipse it).
     
  23. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings:
    +0

    Based on?
     
  24. Arles

    Arles Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Ratings:
    +0
    Based on the fact that around 25 backs achieved at or above the level of production Green did in terms of yardage per game and about 30 had his ypc average (with atleast 130 carries). In total, around 45 backs with atleast 130 carries averaged more ypg or more yards per carry than Green.

    75 yards per game and a 4.0 ypc isn't exactly hallowed ground in the NFL. I don't think it's something that Morency and/or Jackson won't be able to handle. As to beach, we'll probably never know but 75 ypg wouldn't be a reach if he was given the carries Green got.
     
  25. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings:
    +0

    Uhhh yeah, but some had O-Lines to run behind
     

Share This Page