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!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

The o-line...what is it built for? pt.1

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by rodell330, Sep 12, 2012.

  1. rodell330

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,991
    Ratings:
    +1,013
    This is a question i've had for a long time. I looked at the san Fran o-line and those guy's were huge across the board. I think 3 or 4 of them were 1st round picks if i'm not mistaking. The interesting thing i noticed was how athletic they were as well, Altho Matthews got the best of staley at times he did hold his own against Matthews who's fast and strong. That is a line built to be able to run block when it's time to grind a game out and pass block when needed.

    Then theres our o-line. Little and slow imo. They are small compared to most nfl lines and you can even tell when you see them on tv which should make them look bigger. I think that's one of the reasons they can't pass or run block right now. To darn small and slow...how many plays did you see where the guard pulled to lead the way for a rb? I saw San Fran do this 4 or 5 times in the course of the game and it worked. Some GM's draft to build good pass blocking attacks and some draft to dominate on the ground but i can honestly look at our line and say wow, these guy's can't run block or pass block. Maybe we need some more brothas on the o-line haha. Jk our "brotha's" can't block either.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,118
    Ratings:
    +3,190
    I have two questions for you:

    1. 7-9; 2-14; 4-12; 7-9; 5-11; 7-9; 8-8; 6-10.

    As a Packers fan would you be willing to put up with the 8 years of W-L records displayed above so the team could build a better OL and team generally? Would you be willing to patiently wait through a period of 8 years with only one reaching a .500 record?

    2. What did you think of the Packers' 2010 OL?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. rodell330

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,991
    Ratings:
    +1,013
    Great questions.

    Of course i would rather be a winning team or at least be .500 but you don't always have to draft high in the draft to be able to put together a solid roster. I guess that's my point.

    The 2010 o-line was average to say the least. They couldn't run block then and they still can't from what i've seen. If we had the Patriots o-line Rodgers would have thrown 60 touchdowns and over 6,000 yds. They are ok when it comes to passs blocking but below average in run blocking.
     
  4. fettpett

    fettpett Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Messages:
    928
    Ratings:
    +217
    I personally don't have a problem with the guys on the O-line, I have an issue with the stupid zone blocking scheme...bring back the power blocking scheme
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    Clifton had good size, Colledge was light, Wells was tiny, Sitton is short, Tauscher was short.
    Newhouse is fine, Lang is fine, Saturday is tiny, Sitton is still too short, Bulaga is light.

    Your opinion of James Campen?
     
  6. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,635
    Ratings:
    +2,559
    There are a couple of factors at work here.

    We use a zone blocking scheme. Assignment blocking is generally reserved for short yardage with heavy (numbers, not weight) line packages. We're not trying to grade any roads; it's a finesse approach where you influence a hole rather than plow one. Denver popularized zone blocking with an undersized line and a continuous string of 1000 yard seasons from Terrell Davis, Mark Anderson and Clinton Portis in the 1995 - 2003 time frame. They were so confident of their ability to produce "system tailbacks" they traded Portis after two consecutive 1500 yard season.

    Why even do this zone thing? That brings us to the second point. The guys you can get who fit the scheme (smaller, more agile which does not necessarily translate to "fast") tend to be cheaper, and can be developed into decent pass blocking guards. Mostly, it's because they're cheap. If you look at our guards, they were LTs in college, did not project at LT in the pros, and could be gotten without high picks. The fact these kinds of players may have sufficiently quick feet and agility to work in the tight spaces at guard in the passing game, though not necessarily in space which is why they didn't project to tackle, makes them economical. But since they're not going to blow anybody up, the zone blocking scheme is a compromise.

    A recent note (at JS Online I believe it was) indicated we're at about $122 mil against the base cap of about $120 mil and adjusted cap of about $128 mil. The adjustments were for the one-time cap penalty against WASH and DAL (which won't be there next year), and the cap carryover (which I don't believe will apply for next year given we're at $122 mil). Buying high priced guards (or centers for that matter) does not seem to be in the cards.

    The third point is you need the right kind of running backs. Since there's no assigned hole to run through...you find the hole the line is able to influence...the zone running back needs to be a read and react guy ("one-cut-and-go"). Take the ball, spot the hole (or where you think it is about to develop), cut to it, go. Grant was and Starks is that type of runner. I think the book is open on Benson. He's not played in this kind of scheme, and to my eye he may not be a good fit.

    Fourth, little or no Kuhn. MM said in the preseason he was looking to go with more one-back sets, and based on one game he's being true to his word.

    As far as I'm concerned, when you're a pass-oriented offense, you need to be able to run the ball in short yardage, goal line, and in the 4th. quarter when you have the lead and are trying to burn clock. On this last point, see Murray's 4th. quarter vs. a gassed Giants D last week. We've been able to accomplish those objectives with the running-back-by-committee the last two seasons. The book is still open on whether Benson can be that guy.

    I'm more concerned about the defense...the back 8 lacks a physical presence (Bishop is a BIG loss) and are generally confused, in much the same way they were confused last season. The pass rush is better, which is kinda like what they say about a coat of paint...it covers a lot of sins.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. rodell330

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,991
    Ratings:
    +1,013
    Campen should have been gone imo. I've never liked the zone blocking scheme. Our o-line is not built to power block they are finese.
     
  8. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    476
    Ratings:
    +190
    Not to pick you specifically, but I dislike referring to "not-zone" blocking as "power." It implies that "zone" is "weak." This isn't necessarily the case.

    A more appropriate name for the scheme we don't normally run is "man to man" run blocking. The play side guard is responsible for this man, the center this man, etc.

    Consider a run play that most of us recognize as "student body right." That is a zone running play, there are no "this blocker to this defender" assignments.

    If the word "power" blocking must use, reserve it for 'actual' power-block, which in my experience, means the particular case of the back-side guard pulling and either leading up in the hole or kicking out the widest play-side defender.
     
  9. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    476
    Ratings:
    +190
    This doesn't make a whole lost of sense to me. From Packers.com:

    Newhouse = 6-4, 319.
    Bulaga = 6-5, 314.

    Lang = 6-4, 318.
    Sitton = 6-3, 318.

    Our tackles are nearly identical in size. Our guards are near identical in size. Half of them are fine, half are not. Could you elaborate further?
     
  10. rodell330

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,991
    Ratings:
    +1,013

    I actually don't think our secondary is that bad. Should Bush be starting? no way! but i think it would benefit us if we could play a little more man to man and we had at least one other pass rushing specialist besides Woodson who needs to be in coverage picking off passes or causing fumbles.

    As for Benson Maybe he isn't the guy but geeze...at least make a hole for the guy to be able to run through.
     
  11. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    I think we have good offensive line talent with the question being Newhouse who I think will be decent. I have no problem with Lang, Saturday, Sitton, or, Buluga. Look, we played a team that doesn't give up rushing yards to anybody and the game didn't go the way it had to for any chance for the run to work because we were playing from behind the whole time.

    This was a game where our defense needed to get the 49r offense off the field enough to let Rodgers have the necessary opportunity to score points. It BECAME a game where Rodgers wasn't on the field enough because our D was allowing extended drives. We needed to get a few 3 and outs in there and that just didn't happen. When they did punt it was after a seven or 8 play drive.
     
  12. rodell330

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,991
    Ratings:
    +1,013

    Yea and way to light to be a power runing team which is probably why we are still runing this darn zone blocking scheme. The San Fran line averaged 6-5 325 across the board. I think Boone was the leightest guy but he was like 6-8!!
     
  13. Raptorman

    Raptorman Vikings fan since 1966.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,221
    Ratings:
    +847
    Really? To light to be a power running team.

    B. Fusco 6-4 305
    Charlie Johnson 6-4 305

    Phil Loadholt 6-8 343
    Matt Kalil 6-7 308

    Think maybe it has to do with something other than size of the players? BTW, MN runs zone blocking.
     
  14. JBlood

    JBlood Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    2,633
    Ratings:
    +1,022
    Campen has never produced an overpowering line, and it's unlikely he ever will. When they decided to go with the zone blocking scheme (popularized in the NFL by V. Lombardi, who seemed to know what he was doing) Jeff Jagodzinski was the 0 line coach. He was the ONLY guy with any real expertise in zone blocking, having learned it with Gibbs in Atlanta. Jago is now out of football (I think) but would still be a great addition to the coaching staff, imo--if nothing more than a consultant for Campen. In 2010 the o-line sucked until after the debacle in Detroit. They then went on the incredible run that brought us Championship no. 13. So, whatever Campen or McCarthy did to light the fire under the line, it's time to do it again.
     
  15. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    476
    Ratings:
    +190
    Now hold on here

    Newhouse/Staley
    6-4, 319 / 6-5, 315. PACKERS heavier, 4lbs.

    Lang/Iupati
    6-4, 318 / 6-5, 331. 49ers heavier, 13 lbs.

    Saturday /Goodwill
    6-2, 295/ 6-3, 318 49ers heavier, 23 pounds

    Sitton/Boon
    6-3, 318/ 6-8, 300 Packers Heavier, 18 pounds

    Bulaga/Davis
    Sitton = 6-3, 318/ 6-5, 323. 49ers heavier, 5 pounds

    Packers Average: 313 and change
    49ers Average: 317 and change

    You're really going to tell me that 4 pounds per player is the difference between a good running team and a bad one? The average average is 315 pounds. That's 1.2% difference.

    Good sir, I think you need a better argument.
     
  16. Shawnsta3

    Shawnsta3 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,037
    Ratings:
    +375
    Well they have height on us on every position. But I see your point.
     
  17. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    This 17 Lbs here may be a factor. Just sayin. also, look at the height.
     
  18. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    Just a quick question. which in the opinion of this forum and its members is harder to teach: run or pass blocking?
     
  19. Aaron rodgers is god

    Aaron rodgers is god Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    786
    Ratings:
    +154
    At this level it doesn't always mean how big you are. It matters how you get leverage and your ability to push. Some people can run block better than others its not dependent as much on weight height etc.... San Fran's guys are more suited for Run Block which is fine because we are a passing team
     
  20. Oshkoshpackfan

    Oshkoshpackfan YUT !!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    3,286
    Ratings:
    +1,453
    Blocking has a lot more to do with technique than it does having minor weight differences. If you start off in a bad stance and cannot come out of that stance correctly and into a "ready" position, have good lateral movement, have good quick feet, and a strong set of tree trunk legs....you wont be a good blocker. Just because you are big, does not mean you can block worth a sh!t. I have personally see guys that weigh in at 250lbs, out block and have their way with a 325lb guy, pushing him around like a child. Technique baby !!!!
     
  21. rodell330

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,991
    Ratings:
    +1,013

    Exactly my point. Those pounds and added height do make a difference and they have long arms.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  22. rodell330

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,991
    Ratings:
    +1,013
    Pass blocking hands down. Even tho i played corner and Wr in school you have so many thing to think about when it comes to pass protection. Who is coming? where are they coming from? run blocking is usually man on man. Or in our case the rb finding an opening and making a cut and getting up field. Which i hate by the way.
     
  23. PFanCan

    PFanCan That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,529
    Ratings:
    +879
    All I know is when I saw DJ Smith on the field being pushed back by one of the SF O-line guys (I think it was 6' 8" Boone), Smith looked like a short rag doll. He barely reached the guy's shoulders.

    There is no doubt that Smith couldn't see a thing. Big tall guys definately block the views of 5' 11" LBers. No vision... no chance.
     
  24. rodell330

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,991
    Ratings:
    +1,013
    i saw that a couple of times. I'm 6'2 and even i would be a dwarf compared to Boone.
     
  25. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    476
    Ratings:
    +190
    I don't buy that for interior linemen. The lower the man, the better leverage he can get and the lower his center of gravity. Both things should be a benefit for run blocking. Long arms don't necessarily help with run blocking either--you don't hit them with your arms extended. You often finish blocks by pushing them, but again, long arms don't necessarily help there.

    Now for tackles, I want a little more height so they can keep outside rushers away, but after a point, too much height just makes you a bigger target.
     

Share This Page