Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
State of the Line Offensive Line Coach/Scheme/Players
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TJV" data-source="post: 475170" data-attributes="member: 4300"><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">Regarding the OP, has anyone on this board defended the ZBS or advocated sticking with it going forward? As to Campen, as I've posted before I don't blame him for the ZBS being implemented or continued since he was as new to it in 2006 as anyone else in Green Bay save Jeff Jagodzinski. How would Campen do in a traditional scheme? If it's not his fault they use the ZBS (and it's not IMO) how much blame should he bear? </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">Also regarding the OP: Like it or not it has to be said that the "historical success of this scheme, coach, etc." resides in a Super Bowl victory and prolific offensive production over McCarthy's term.</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">One big difference between Thompson and Wolf is the ZBS IMO. Part of the reason to go to the ZBS was it didn't require the talent (or expense of talent acquisition) "normal" run blocking schemes require. My guess is McCarthy is more responsible for the ZBS than Thompson so I put more of the responsibility for the implementation of that scheme on McCarthy. Also as I've posted before I think they've gone away from the scheme and we've seen Thompson spend first round picks on OTs and drafted players like Sitton who fit the traditional schemes more than the ZBS IMO. BTW, although he plays OG, IMO Sitton is the caliber of Tauscher and Clifton. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">I was worried about Newhouse at LT and about the depth of the OL before the season started. I was/am very surprised at the sub-par play of Bulaga before he went on IR. I still think his injury and loss is a big deal because we've seen him perform very well at RT - perhaps he could have turned it around. And because his loss exposes the depth on the OL. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">McGinn's column talked about NFL OLs not being as important in today's game as they were in years past. He also wrote if you have a crap OL you're in trouble. I think we all agree the OL was crap vs. the Giants. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">The biggest problem the Packers had was having to help both OTs. Having to help one is a relatively easy adjustment IMO, but having to help two means only 3 guys out in coverage and if four or five rush the QB, all three can be doubled. I like the idea of giving Barclay a try at RT - as much as possible I prefer when one OL goes down that position gets replaced rather than changing two spots but I understand sometimes that's not preferable because of the talent available. But if Lang goes back to LG, that's at least four spots "OK", except against very good DLs like the Giants. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">Anyone thinking something radical can be done this season to correct this is going to be very disappointed. IMO the OL struggles are due mostly to lack of talent and lack of talented depth and that can't be corrected in-season. </span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TJV, post: 475170, member: 4300"] [SIZE=3][FONT=Tahoma]Regarding the OP, has anyone on this board defended the ZBS or advocated sticking with it going forward? As to Campen, as I've posted before I don't blame him for the ZBS being implemented or continued since he was as new to it in 2006 as anyone else in Green Bay save Jeff Jagodzinski. How would Campen do in a traditional scheme? If it's not his fault they use the ZBS (and it's not IMO) how much blame should he bear? [/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Tahoma]Also regarding the OP: Like it or not it has to be said that the "historical success of this scheme, coach, etc." resides in a Super Bowl victory and prolific offensive production over McCarthy's term.[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Tahoma]One big difference between Thompson and Wolf is the ZBS IMO. Part of the reason to go to the ZBS was it didn't require the talent (or expense of talent acquisition) "normal" run blocking schemes require. My guess is McCarthy is more responsible for the ZBS than Thompson so I put more of the responsibility for the implementation of that scheme on McCarthy. Also as I've posted before I think they've gone away from the scheme and we've seen Thompson spend first round picks on OTs and drafted players like Sitton who fit the traditional schemes more than the ZBS IMO. BTW, although he plays OG, IMO Sitton is the caliber of Tauscher and Clifton. [/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Tahoma]I was worried about Newhouse at LT and about the depth of the OL before the season started. I was/am very surprised at the sub-par play of Bulaga before he went on IR. I still think his injury and loss is a big deal because we've seen him perform very well at RT - perhaps he could have turned it around. And because his loss exposes the depth on the OL. [/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Tahoma]McGinn's column talked about NFL OLs not being as important in today's game as they were in years past. He also wrote if you have a crap OL you're in trouble. I think we all agree the OL was crap vs. the Giants. [/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Tahoma]The biggest problem the Packers had was having to help both OTs. Having to help one is a relatively easy adjustment IMO, but having to help two means only 3 guys out in coverage and if four or five rush the QB, all three can be doubled. I like the idea of giving Barclay a try at RT - as much as possible I prefer when one OL goes down that position gets replaced rather than changing two spots but I understand sometimes that's not preferable because of the talent available. But if Lang goes back to LG, that's at least four spots "OK", except against very good DLs like the Giants. [/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Tahoma]Anyone thinking something radical can be done this season to correct this is going to be very disappointed. IMO the OL struggles are due mostly to lack of talent and lack of talented depth and that can't be corrected in-season. [/FONT][/SIZE] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: OldSchool101
10 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: OldSchool101
Today at 1:58 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Movies and TV shows Thread
Latest: Poppa San
Today at 11:57 AM
Movies and Entertainment
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: gopkrs
Today at 11:08 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Badgers Football 2025-2026
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 9:07 AM
Wisconsin Badgers Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
State of the Line Offensive Line Coach/Scheme/Players
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
