[Fargofootball]

IMHO, This draft will tell us much of what the Pack is expecting from Colledge. Does he play to get experence, no matter where on the line, with the intent of some day replacing Clifton? Was he always intended to play G for GB?
Where does Tony Moll figure into all of this?
I think DC is the future LT in GB and perhaps we mined gold in the draft with Moll at some point in the years ahead playing to RT.
DC was excellent at LT in school and IIRC he did not give up a sack there. Do we really search for some other LT prospect without knowing if Colledge can do the job at LT. I doubt it.
Look for TT to select 1 or 2 Gs in the draft.
Love to see Jones (Iowa) R5/6 and Otto (OSU) R5/6 come to GB.
If something like this happens you can bet DC gets his shot at LT and sooner rather than later.

[LosAngelis]

i very much agree that you can't run the sweep with today's fast lb's and good tackling ss's, but i still think the temptation for mccarthy will be to mingle in some power concepts with the zone scheme, to get away from the alex gibbs straight up kick out frontside, cut down backside approach. the running game might end up resembling indy's who runs a lot of zone but still will get their interior out in space from time to time. i just think it's interesting that mccarthy is really bringing back the zone concept to gbp, and being tradition minded, i could see the temptation to try and play with the concept in much the same way lombardi did.

Oh, I agree completely, and I hope he does. I'm not sold on the four basic plays of the ZBS, and I think that the more you innovate, the more successful it will be.

However, in order to do that, you need some pulling guards. I'm hoping the three undersized kids can do that and block effectively.

[craig]

.... personally, I think this season is a big one of TT and MM. .....I think that if we were to see a similar product this year as we did last season, I would say that is the time to make some major changes in the blocking scheme. Two years on a scheme is enough time in today's NFL to show you are going the right direction or not.

Agreed. Two years is enough to show if you are going in the right direction. Last year the spin was: "they are doing pretty well.... for rookies". But, it was also that "they are not doing very well..... relative to the league." Relative to the league, it's clear that the 3 rookies were below average in effectiveness and certainly in terms of strength.

Now they've had a full year to learn the ropes, to get stronger, to recognize the plays and the things that defenses will do. Many rookies improve, substantially. That is now the necessity for the 3 rookies who won't be rookies anymore. There will still be some "doing well.... for young linemen" talk. But they will increasingly be judged relative to the league reference rather than the "rookie" or "young lineman" reference.

If they improve as much as (or more than) most rookies-to-sophomores do, I think they'll be on pace to be pretty productive players. I hope that happens. But if they improve less than most rookies-to-sophomores, not so good.

Why is the standard for rookies so much lower than for regular NFL guys? I think thre reasons include: 1) strength, 2) decision making, and 3) basic technique/execution. Can you recognize what you should do at the right times? (decision making) Are you strong enough to actually do what you should do? (strength) And if you know what/when to do things, and you have the physical strength to do what you should do, do you have the technique to actually execute?

Of those three, I think the question of physical strength is really central for these three players. LA has noted that they are all undersized. Bruce has emphasized that they each have a lot of potential for strength improvement, and that the Packer strength-building program is so superior to what they've done in college that it's not only possible but very probable that they will show up significantly stronger. We'll see.

My feeling is that both Colledge and Spitz are pretty bright and motivated guys. In terms of decision-making, I think both have the concentration and brains to become good players. Whether they have the strength or the quickness or the leverage or the flexibility to get low and under defenders and leverage them, not so certain. But getting stronger would help a lot.

[IowaPacker]

I am of two minds:
1. I am optimistic about the potential of the young guards, Colledge in particular. As others have pointed out, the value of having a year to increase strength, etc., shouldn't be underemphasized.

2. On the other hand, I am apprehensive, since all the eggs so far are in the "last year's rookies achieving their potential" basket. That one of the three will be excellent I am confident, that two or three will be is increasingly problematic. I think of Wolf's triumvirate of Edwards/Vinson/McKenzie or Sherman's Carroll/Thomas. As of right now, it looks like Packer success depends on TT being able to pull off a 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 3 success rate. And that, quite frankly, is Hall of Fame level GMing or above.

How will it pan out? I don't know. But, most of the time, I'm looking forward to finding out. Because I think one of the three -- and, in keeping with the title of this thread, I think it will be Colledge -- will be special before all is said and done. And so, with a bit or three of luck...

[Ayt]

I'm still a little nervous about our three guys.
http://findarticles....03/ai_n17090822

I was very concerned about us drafting guys for a scheme, and it seems that we did...drafting guys who might be a little undersized (but ideal for a zone blocking scheme) instead of taking the best talents and prospects.

What happens when/if the ZBS is thrown out? Where has it been a tremendous success besides Denver? What if we continue to have inconsistencies and we decide that we need to return to a traditional blocking scheme?

We already began pulling some guards at the end of the season, a blatant deviation from a zone blocking scheme. Kudos for MM for having the guts to tinker with it a bit, but it doesn't remove the concept that either these kids have to grow into this scheme, because if they don't, how many more undersized linemen are we going to draft or sign?

I've said it before...I think out of the three guys, only one will end up starting along the line in the long run. I don't know who it will be, but I think the ZBS is far from a success thus far, and these guys are going to have to prove they can block in a traditional system.

Who has used it besides Denver? Atlanta.

The Broncos have consistently had one of the top running games in the league since Shannahan took over, and that was accomplished using a ton of different backs. In 12 seasons, they finished out of the top 10 in yards per carry only twice. They finished in the top 5 seven of twelve years, and the top 3 five times.

If we take out Vick, who distorts the rushing stats, we get an idea of how successful Atlanta was running the ball. Last year, Atlanta RB's averaged 4.7 yards per carry. That would have tied for 6th best in the NFL. In 2005, they averaged 4.5 YPC. Again, that would have tied for 6th best. In the first year in the scheme, they averaged 4.4, which tied for 8th.

[LosAngelis]

Who has used it besides Denver? Atlanta.

The Broncos have consistently had one of the top running games in the league since Shannahan took over, and that was accomplished using a ton of different backs. In 12 seasons, they finished out of the top 10 in yards per carry only twice. They finished in the top 5 seven of twelve years, and the top 3 five times.

If we take out Vick, who distorts the rushing stats, we get an idea of how successful Atlanta was running the ball. Last year, Atlanta RB's averaged 4.7 yards per carry. That would have tied for 6th best in the NFL. In 2005, they averaged 4.5 YPC. Again, that would have tied for 6th best. In the first year in the scheme, they averaged 4.4, which tied for 8th.

But in 2002 AND 2003, before they implemented the ZBS, they averaged 4.5 YPC, each year.

What was your point?

[Ayt]

But in 2002 AND 2003, before they implemented the ZBS, they averaged 4.5 YPC, each year.

What was your point?

It was pretty clear that my point was that they had success with the ZBS. Isn't that what you asked about?

How is it relevant what they averaged prior to the ZBS when you yourself acknowedge that the ZBS utilizes a different type of lineman? Do you know how the Atlanta OL was rebuilt under Mora?

[LosAngelis]

They had no more success with the ZBS than they did without it.

Perhaps they had good athletes along the line, strong blockers out of the backfield, and talented running backs.

Perhaps Vick adds a new dimension for defenses to consider, leaving a spy that isn't there for traditional run support.

Perhaps they stick with the run, regardless of the blocking scheme, regardless if it doesn't work right away or not.

I don't think the ZBS can be considered a "success" in Atlanta, at this point. Nor can it be considered as such anywhere else besides Denver.

Atlanta coach Bobby Petrino, according to rumors, wants to dump the ZBS, which has been so "successful". However, as I've noted, they now feel trapped as contracts have bound them to the small-bodies that they've aquired for the ZBS.

It looks like new Falcons head coach Bobby Petrino wants to get away from the zone-blocking scheme and is interested in populating the offensive line with maulers. Because of personnel and current contracts, nothing will change in 2007, but going forward, Petrino expects to transition to a line full of fat bodies:

"We want to change the body type of our linemen but we have to do that over time," Falcons president and general manager Rich McKay said. "You can't do that overnight unless you are willing to invest, truly, an inordinate amount of money in free agency and that, as a lot of teams have learned, comes with great risk."

As McKay points out, a big factor in making such a change is money. With salary-cap restrictions, this isn't a one-year process, and the recent long-term deals for center Todd McClure and right tackle Todd Weiner complicate things. The club will make changes at guard -- Matt Lehr was already released -- and there was interest in Floyd Womack and Edwin Mulitalo, both weighing in at 330-plus.

With running back Warrick Dunn entering the twilight of his career, there may not be a need for a zone-blocking scheme. Instead, expect a more smash-mouth approach. Interestingly, I'd guess a player like T.J. Duckett would excel in such an offense, but he's now a Detroit Lion. Of course, Duckett had such a chance last season in Washington and couldn't get off the bench. So who knows.

Link

Sounds an awful lot like what I am fearing for the future of the Green Bay Packers, doesn't it?

[Ayt]

Atlanta completely rebuilt the OL and had good success with a very young and inexperienced line in the ZBS. Jags even discussed it after being hired when asked about our young line.

There is no doubt we might struggle if McCarthy is fired and we go back to a new blocking scheme. We also struggled when we first instituted the ZBS here. That's just the way it goes and its not unique to the OL. Teams often have to rebuild the DL, LB's, WR's, RB's, etc. when a new scheme is implemented.

When the Bears switched to a Cover 2 D from the system being run under Jauron, they had to make huge changes. They needed smaller, faster DB's to play the scheme. They needed safeties that were more like CB's in coverage. They needed faster LB's. They needed to completely scrap the big line Jauron wanted in front of Urlacher and to the smaller, very fast line they have now. The entire D was basically rebuilt.

If you change coaches big changes usually happen.

[LosAngelis]

Atlanta completely rebuilt the OL and had good success with a very young and inexperienced line in the ZBS. Jags even discussed it after being hired when asked about our young line.

There is no doubt we might struggle if McCarthy is fired and we go back to a new blocking scheme. We also struggled when we first instituted the ZBS here. That's just the way it goes and its not unique to the OL. Teams often have to rebuild the DL, LB's, WR's, RB's, etc. when a new scheme is implemented.

When the Bears switched to a Cover 2 D from the system being run under Jauron, they had to make huge changes. They needed smaller, faster DB's to play the scheme. They needed safeties that were more like CB's in coverage. They needed faster LB's. They needed to completely scrap the big line Jauron wanted in front of Urlacher and to the smaller, very fast line they have now. The entire D was basically rebuilt.

If you change coaches big changes usually happen.

That's the risk that concerns me, Ayt.

At one point, teams were happy to bring in 5'10" and 5'9" receivers with 4.3 speed, not because they were necessarily the best guys, or the prototype wide receivers, but because they "fit the scheme".

The scheme was called the "Run and Shoot".

I think its a lot easier to replace your receivers than it is your entire line. This concerns me because the only thing worse than a rebuild is having to rebuild the rebuild.

[Ayt]

That's the risk that concerns me, Ayt.

At one point, teams were happy to bring in 5'10" and 5'9" receivers with 4.3 speed, not because they were necessarily the best guys, or the prototype wide receivers, but because they "fit the scheme".

The scheme was called the "Run and Shoot".

I think its a lot easier to replace your receivers than it is your entire line. This concerns me because the only thing worse than a rebuild is having to rebuild the rebuild.

Now that I can agree with. What has been the problem with many teams that are consistently bad is that they realize they picked the wrong coach and again have to start over with a new staff and a new scheme. If the TT/McCarthy regime doesn't work out we may be in the same situation in a few years.

I don't expect that because I like McCarthy as a coach and I like what Thompson has done as the GM, but if things don't work out with them things in Packerland could get very ugly.