[Arrigo]

Well, after taking some time off (to re-charge my batteries) I started to think about the players Ted Thompson has drafted in the past 3 years and I see a common thread when it comes to the offensive players that he intends to have a major role (or starting spot)...almost all played in a version of the WCO or in a ZBS.

Let us go back to his drafts for the Packers:

2005

1.) Aaron Rodgers- Cal- Jeff Tedford runs a version of the WCO.

2.) Terrence Murphy- Texas A&M- Another school that ran a version of the WCO.


2006

2.) Daryn Colledge- Boise St.- They do not run the WCO, but they do use the ZBS

2.) Greg Jennings- W. Michigan- They run a version of the WCO.

3.) Jason Spitz- Louisville- His school didn't run the ZBS or WCO.


2007

2.) Brandon Jackson- Nebraska- They run the WCO

3.) James Jones- San Jose St.- They run the WCO

4.) Allen Barbre- Missouri Southern St.- They use a ZBS.

5.) David Clowney- Virginia Tech- They do not run a WCO.

6.) Cory Hall - Boise St.- They don't use the WCO, but he was a LB in college.

7.) Clark Harris- Rutgers- Played in a ZBS scheme.


So this leads me to think that Ted Thompson, Mike McCarthy and the staff would rather have players come in that are already have some idea what the offense is about and be "a head of the curve" so to speak. It work well last year with Jennings and Murphy had all the skills in the world and was starting to get more time when he got injured. That is why, if you put all YOUR PERSONAL FEELINGS AND FAVORITE PLAYERS ASIDE (when it comes to who the Packers "should have drafted") the picks make sense and should not be a major surprise to those who follow the Packers closely.

Ted Thompson's plan is really easy to see. Build through the draft, do not over spend on "fringe" FA's, resign your "core guys" and draft players that fit what you are doing now. Is it a popular method? NO, well not to fans and pundits, but it is the "right way" to go. I cannot be to upset about him not signing certain players, because Thompson is building the Packers for the long haul, not a quick fix. Yes it would be nice to see Brett Favre hold up another Lombardi Trophy, but at what cost? The Packers future?! I would rather see the Packers go on a run like the Steelers of the 70's and win multiple titles for a long, sustained period of time, not another 1 and done like the past few champs (the Buccaneers, Rams, and Steelers).

The bottom line is the Packers under Ted Thompson are being built on a strong Offensive and Defensive line....hard hitting, hard nosed defensive players...a sound game...and a timely passing attack. I could see the Packers improvement as last season progressed and I believe the staff and team will continue to grow together and learn form past transgressions. With only 1 "major" Packers FA to resign, Corey Williams, (which is not to much of a "need" because of the drafting of Justin Harrell) the Packers look to be in good shape in 2008, not to mention a lot of cap space to lock up certain players long term or reward players for their contributions and efforts.

I don't see this as the 70's and 80's all over again...I see it as building your team through the draft and being fiscally responsible. Ted Thompson's plan is not fan friendly, but if the end justifies the means...well Thompson would have proved his doubters wrong and made ALOT of Packers fans happy.

[the monkey soul]

LA: I'm sorry that I felt the need to respond to Patty in two different threads. It happens. I'm most definitely not a stalker. Work has just been very slow today.

About the only team having success with the ZBS: it's not just Denver that runs it - every team in the NFL runs it. I believe I read a story that, on average, teams in the NFL run zone blocking plays 30% of the time. Denver does it 80% of the time.

I think that believing we're drafting for one system and that our coaching staff adheres to one system is oversimplifying the NFL.

[LosAngelis]

About the only team having success with the ZBS: it's not just Denver that runs it - every team in the NFL runs it. I believe I read a story that, on average, teams in the NFL run zone blocking plays 30% of the time. Denver does it 80% of the time.

I think that believing we're drafting for one system and that our coaching staff adheres to one system is oversimplifying the NFL.

And I'd like to believe you. But the ZBS, when run as Denver and the Packers do, is a very specific approach in which there are four running plays: left outside, left inside, right outside, and right inside.

I think that just because you happen to run a play in which the running back chooses one of those patterns, behind that style of blocking, doesn't make you a ZBS team. It's like saying that just because you run four WR's a couple times a game makes you a "Run and Shoot", or because you run a zone nickel on some passing downs that you are now a "Cover 2" defense.

The ZBS is designed to do that type of play all the time, not just a bullet in the arsenal.

The good and bad is that McCarthy seemed willing to go away from it, running some pulling guards on plays at the end of the year. The good news is that MM is willing to tinker with the scheme and do what it takes for it to be successful. The bad news is that, last year, the ZBS alone wasn't successful enough.

[the monkey soul]

And I'd like to believe you. But the ZBS, when run as Denver and the Packers do, is a very specific approach in which there are four running plays: left outside, left inside, right outside, and right inside.

I think that just because you happen to run a play in which the running back chooses one of those patterns, behind that style of blocking, doesn't make you a ZBS team. It's like saying that just because you run four WR's a couple times a game makes you a "Run and Shoot", or because you run a zone nickel on some passing downs that you are now a "Cover 2" defense.

The ZBS is designed to do that type of play all the time, not just a bullet in the arsenal.

The good and bad is that McCarthy seemed willing to go away from it, running some pulling guards on plays at the end of the year. The good news is that MM is willing to tinker with the scheme and do what it takes for it to be successful. The bad news is that, last year, the ZBS alone wasn't successful enough.

I don't understand your point here. Are you saying that Denver only runs zone blocking plays and so did we? Because if so I'm afraid you're gravely mistaken. If this were true how horribly easy it would be to defend against: the defense would always know what type of blocks to look for.

[WB PackerFan]

I agree withe Joe and Patty on this one.

You have to be able to win now in the NFL and the drafting players with knowledge of the system works for that cause . You also have to draft talent and take risks. Irally believe that TT is doing both.

I find a more common ingredient in how Ted drafts. He drafts high character guys that want to play and are coach-able. Now that does not mean he hasn't taken a character risk , just not high in the draft. He did take a risk on Woodson and so far has won.

I think if you have a bunch of players that have a hard work ethic, that come from a similar system you are ahead of the game. Football is as much about players having that extra push and effort as it is about talent and players that rely on talent only to get the job done.

ie Kampman (type) vs Hunt (type).

These players that are the foundation of the Packers D for now and the future:
Hawk, Collins, Harrell , Jenkins, Barnett, Poppinga, Kampman, Blackmon,Roushe, Underwood, Walker,Washington.
** common hard working, coach-able, good character.

These players are the foundation of the Packers offense for now and in the future:
Spitz, Colledge, Wells, Tauscher, Barbre, Miree, Jackson, Morency, Jennings, Jones, Clowney, Rodgers
** common hard working, coach-able, good character.

NOTE: Favre, Driver, Clifton Woodson, Harris are not listed , however are the leaders of this team I just don't think they are the foundation or the future of this team anymore.

Not saying it will work only time will tell, however I like the approach that is playing out. I just am a firm believer of having kids(players) that want to learn are coach-able and have a good work ethic is the way to go. Its how New England stayed competitive for so long. It will be interesting to see how this years New England team differs than the ones in the past.

I don't understand your point here. Are you saying that Denver only runs zone blocking plays and so did we? Because if so I'm afraid you're gravely mistaken. If this were true how horribly easy it would be to defend against: the defense would always know what type of blocks to look for.

Actually all teams if they are scouted against effectively know the offensive schemes pretty well. Especially interconference games. It comes down to one thing execution. All offenses running schemes are pretty basic block, cut and run. The teams that execute and communicate the best are the ones that succeed.

[LosAngelis]

I don't understand your point here. Are you saying that Denver only runs zone blocking plays and so did we? Because if so I'm afraid you're gravely mistaken. If this were true how horribly easy it would be to defend against: the defense would always know what type of blocks to look for.

You're absolutely right.

It would be tremendously easy to defend against. Unless, as WB says, you execute it well, as Denver has done for years.

Recall in 2003 that Mike Flanagan used to walk up to the line of scrimmage, tell the defense what play they were running, and then smile and get ready to hike the ball.

THen, they would run the play and gain 6 yards on an Ahman run.

That's not only execution, that's having great athletes and talent working together and executing.

But, the Packers did decide to get away from it. Sweeps are NOT a part of a strict ZBS scheme....the idea of the scheme is for all the linemen to make one quick block in the same direction and the running back to make one quick decision, one quick cut, and make the play.

That is the inherent danger of drafting for a scheme, especially when it calls for measurables that are inconsistent with what is the norm. Like bringing in 5'9" receivers with 4.2 speed to play the run and shoot. Like bringing in a mobile quarterback with better legs than an arm for an option offense. Like bringing in light offensive linemen for a scheme.

If you abandon the scheme, those players better be able to play a more traditional offense, or they are useless, and in today's salary cap era, you can't afford to be saddled with players that are useless.

[GBP4EVER]

You have to take players who play the type of offense you run. It will take to long to teach a person a who new way of playing if they ever can pick it up. You dont take a guy just hoping cause he played great in this type of offense that he can play great in a total different offense.

[LosAngelis]

You have to take players who play the type of offense you run. It will take to long to teach a person a who new way of playing if they ever can pick it up. You dont take a guy just hoping cause he played great in this type of offense that he can play great in a total different offense.

Doesn't that go against the feel-good statements by THompson when he says he drafted a "good, coachable football player"? Would we feel better if he was saying, "We drafted a good zone blocking scheme player"???

This is purely my opinion, but you draft good football players, good athletes, and good work ethics....a good 320 pound guard like Mike Wahle, I'm guessing, would have done just fine in a zone blocking scheme. But he also offered you one of the best pulling guards in the business, and that gave you more flexibility, instead of restricting you to players who are fitting a scheme.

If anything, you should get those best athletes and football players you can, and adjust the scheme to fit their talents, not select just the players that fit the scheme.

[greystroke]

Doesn't that go against the feel-good statements by THompson when he says he drafted a "good, coachable football player"? Would we feel better if he was saying, "We drafted a good zone blocking scheme player"???

This is purely my opinion, but you draft good football players, good athletes, and good work ethics....a good 320 pound guard like Mike Wahle, I'm guessing, would have done just fine in a zone blocking scheme. But he also offered you one of the best pulling guards in the business, and that gave you more flexibility, instead of restricting you to players who are fitting a scheme.

If anything, you should get those best athletes and football players you can, and adjust the scheme to fit their talents, not select just the players that fit the scheme.

68 Wahle, Mike G 6'06'' 304 lbs.

Colledge, Moll, Spitz, and Barbre are very similar in size to Wahle.
Colledge, Moll, and Barbre are athletic like Wahle as well.

Did you think Wahle was 320 lbs.?? (not slamming...........just want to clarify. )

[LosAngelis]

68 Wahle, Mike G 6'06'' 304 lbs.

Colledge, Moll, Spitz, and Barbre are very similar in size to Wahle.
Colledge, Moll, and Barbre are athletic like Wahle as well.

Did you think Wahle was 320 lbs.?? (not slamming...........just want to clarify. )

Caught me there. I wrote that the first time through just stating the 320 number generally, without a name. After I finished the post, I wanted to add the part about pulling guards, and included Wahle's name as an example. My bad for not adjusting the weight.

It really wasn't the weight I was trying to make a statement on. There are many wide receivers who have graced the Packers roster with similar heights and weights to Sterling Sharpe, but none of them have made an impact. Like him or hate him, Sharpe was a football player, not a scheme player.

My biggest concern is that if we are targeting players to fit the scheme, every time we take one, we likely leave a more complete player out there for another team.

When teams like Houston and Detroit tried the Run and Shoot in the 80's and 90's, they drafted tiny guys who were fast. Remember Drew Hill and Ernest Givens? Both 5'9". And in the 1986 draft, the Oilers took Ernest Givens to fit their scheme. Not too long after in that draft, the 49ers took a more conventional receiver named John Taylor.

The Falcons, who were another ZBS copycat team, has now decided that they've had enough of it after 2-3 years of trying to implement it. But, there are problems with this:

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.


QUOTE
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

As I said, McCarthy and Thompson are pinning their hopes (and perhaps their jobs) on this scheme working. If it doesn't, you're looking at a long process of changing back again.

[ColumbusPackFan]

You have to take players who play the type of offense you run. It will take to long to teach a person a who new way of playing if they ever can pick it up. You dont take a guy just hoping cause he played great in this type of offense that he can play great in a total different offense.

I understand that a lot of teams use this approach, but IMO, a truly good coach can mold his attack to the players he has. I like coached like Jim Tressel. He won championships using several different offensive and defensive schemes. He just modified things to suit the strengths of the players he had at the time. The two OSU teams he's taken to the championship game were very different teams.

To me, that's the mark of a truly good coach. To paraphrase what someone said about Bear Bryant (I think) "He can take his guys and beat your guys, then he can take your guys and beat his guys."