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
The o-line...what is it built for? pt.1
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="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 462761"><p>There are a couple of factors at work here.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 462761"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
shockerx
Pkrjones
mradtke66
rmontro
Latest posts
The Crew - 2026
Latest: weeds
17 minutes ago
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: milani
Today at 5:43 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Movies and TV shows Thread
Latest: milani
Today at 5:37 PM
Movies and Entertainment
M
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: Magooch
Today at 4:05 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Badgers Football 2025-2026
Latest: Voyageur
Today at 2:15 PM
Wisconsin Badgers Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The o-line...what is it built for? pt.1
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
