[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.

[VictoryGB]

JimATX, I think you're right about zone blocking not being exclusive. I think Sherman even ran some zone plays for his linemen at times. I think the biggest difference is that this group recently drafted here is a more athletic one capable of both zone and counter blocking. Seems they've put more emphasis on zone here now, but that they finally look to have players versatile enough to change it up a little - and like you say, they have some size to them too. Maybe we see more of a mix of zone and counter blocking this year, and a more effective group altogether.

After being skeptical to start '06, these guys seem to be headed in the right direction. Hopefully they gel like the '02-04 OL.

[LosAngelis]

LA: I'm sad that this debate has to be left at us agreeing to disagree.

But it just blows my mind that you think that teams in the NFL use one type of blocking exclusively.

Dude, I have no problem disagreeing on it at all. I'm not married to my position on the ZBS, and not only do I hold the possibility that I am mistaken, I really hope that I am. I want this team to be successful. That certainly doesn't mean you can't hold your own opinion on ZBS. Another poster showed use statistics to show that the Falcons' ypc for their running backs was quite impressive under the ZBS. I then showed that it wasn't much different from the two previous seasons when they weren't using the ZBS.

LA, I understand your concerns about zone blocking, and you've articulated your point well.

I guess I just don't see us drafting a bunch of small, light offensive linemen.

Colledge is 6'4" 305, Spitz is 6'3" 300, Moll is 6'5" 304, and Barbre is 6'4" 300. Certainly not the big maulers like some teams like, granted. But not small men either. I think we're on par with other teams there, really.

Of this year's top guard prospects, only 5 of the top 20 (on the list I happened to look at when making this post) weighed more than 320 pounds. Most of them are in the same size range as the guys we've drafted the last couple years.

I think Patty did a great job (and likely better than I could have) explaining my point: its not just about size and height and speed, but just playing the game (see my comment about guys with the same size as Sterling Sharpe).

When I look at a lot of these scouting reports, I see more and more qualifiers being given to players who don't fit the prototype: for linebackers, you get this "would be good in a 3-4 scheme", because they don't have the skill set to play in a 4-3. This is for those tweeners who often couldn't make it as a DE or linebacker in a traditional defense.

I saw this in a lot of Barbre's write-ups, too, that he is limited and would be best suited for a ZBS. I have nothing against the kid and hope he does well, but if he's limited outside of the ZBS, well, then he's probably going to hope we stick with it. And if, as Arrigo is suggesting, we're acquring linemen AND a backfield designed for the ZBS, well, hopefully, we're choosing the right corner to paint ourselves into.

[Nacho]

Sorry but i have to give my two cents on this.

Taking players in the draft that are coming from a WCO or ZBS offence is a good thing.

If only two teams are running the ZBS and the other 30 are not, then the other 30 are running a specific type of football that the coach or coaches have drawn up.
If you simplify it then you could say that the two teams have the pick of the best ZB OL men.

if you want to look harder at it then you could say that with Javon Walker, he left one team that runs the WCO and joined another that does the same. Walker was great with Denver last season and to get that kind of production in your first year comes from a playing background, he was good in the WCO in one team and just as good in another.

I think to a lesser degree the same will be said about draftees!! if they are Football people and want to play hard and put the effort in then you will see that, like greg jennings last year, you get out what you put in.

[LosAngelis]

I guess I am missing the part where we say...
Player X is suited ONLY for the ZBS. If we go away from it, Player X will be no good. Here is why.
So let's stop talking semantics and armchair theory and get down to business.
I think some of us are making a BIG assumption that TT is drafting for scheme and not getting the best football player he can get. By most accounts it seems to me that he is drafting guys that are hard-working and love the game of football. Guys that have had success playing football. Our lineman draftees have been athletic guys one and all.

Can Colledge not pull? Can Spitz not slide? Can Jackson not follow a pulling guard?
I think some of us like to take a concept and blow smoke into it until it is a big fat balloon.

Here's my pin.
LA have you thought of a trite term to refer to these so called one-dimensional draftees? It's really all that's missing from this witch hunt.

Maybe we should draft some big fat guys that excel in an Iso scheme. I mean, we don't run the Iso scheme - but so what? By some of the logic in this thread we should identify what scheme we'll be running in 5 years and draft those guys now. Oh yea... That's not how it works is it?

Do fat guys pull better than athletic lineman? Slide? Shuffle? Marcarena?
I think we should draft lineman that can do the Micheal Jackson white glove dance, and running backs that excel at ballroom dancing. We should get Jerry Rice on our coaching staff. Then maybe we should let KGB play his true position... Ballerina.

Ok I'm having too much fun with this.. time to go back into my cage. You guys get back to work. I'm sure there's a mole-hill somewhere that aspires to be a mountain.

Ex oH, hate to tell you, but it sure seems like you worked a lot harder to mock, ridicule, and discredit my opinions than I did to simply express them.

I stated an opinion, one I've held consistently for years, even before the Packers went with it, and I think I've done a good job backing up my opinions. I'm not claiming to be right and I'm certainly not on any type of witch hunt. How about you?

As I said before, Patty did a much better job illustrating the concerns than I probably can (especially as a former wing back, who would ignore most of the blocking calls in the huddle ("blah blah blah blah Y-Curl blah blah")).

I hope you're right, and these guys you mention also have the overal skill set in the event we move to a traditional scheme. But, as I showed in the Atlanta Falcon quote, it doesn't look like, in general, players drafted for the ZBS scheme are able to do that as easily as you make it sound.

I am by far not an expert on this subject, but from what I have read and heard about MM, I don't that he is going to stick with the 'strict' (can't think of a better word) ZBS. If I remember correctly, didn't he do a little twicking last year?

There have been a lot of thought provoking opinions on this subject, but don't you think that MM is aware of the danger of becoming too one dimensional as far as running the running game goes? Don't you think that he will do some type of hybrid running game?

I've commented on that several times, and see it as a good thing. In the narrow view, I'm not sold on the zone blocking scheme as is. In the wide-angle, I've always felt that you're best off pioneering the next good scheme, not waiting for there to be enough tape for teams to game-plan against it before adopting it.

I think the way the ZBS will work in Green Bay is if we are able to do what MM did last year, and start putting in some sweeps and some designed pitches with a pulling guard, creating a hybrid...and hopefully, the scheme other teams will be copying, instead of the other way around.

.

if you want to look harder at it then you could say that with Javon Walker, he left one team that runs the WCO and joined another that does the same. Walker was great with Denver last season and to get that kind of production in your first year comes from a playing background, he was good in the WCO in one team and just as good in another.

The question would be, then, did Javon Walker succeed because of the WCO, or did the WCO make Javon Walker successful?

I think there are cases where the WCO has made players successful, players who may not have been as successful in more traditional offenses. Certainly, there are quarterbacks that have benefitted greatly from being reined in by the quick timing and short passes that the WCO discipline demands.

But there are also many of those players that would be successful in ANY offense, and while I'm not about to knight Javon Walker, I would say that the kid came in with a heck of a skill set and was slowed more by his struggles to learn the offense early on.

Who knows?

My prediction, however, is that if the ZBS is successful, it will not be in the pure and exclusive incarnation run by Denver for so many years.

And that's a good thing: because we wouldn't be expecting the scheme to make us successful. We'd be taking the skills and talents that we have and maximizing them however we can, tweaking the scheme to fit our needs.

Which is why I'm for bringing in the best talents and skills, not the talent and skills that best suit a scheme.

[Patty]

Caution Caution.

Adorning can lead to hard knock when the person you have puffed up fails.

I think the point is being mishandled by many on this topic. I have seen numerous and by numerous I am talking hundreds of players who were identified by skill sets.

Ever wondered why a player does good with another team after not doing so well with the original team that had him. It was because of the bsic building blocks of the team. The football player had very good numbers athletically but just looked bad and was considered a bust. Why you might ask? He , the player, was good as long as he played in a certain scheme.

I am certain that every player taken by Green Bay has some skills and talent. I am certain they can play football. But what I am not so sure about is if they can play any type of scheme and be as good as they were scouted and evaluated on.

Look it is simple. You have a player that can handle the bull rush and can power down with the strongest defenders in the game. But put him against the shifty and quick edge rushers and he looks silly out there. It goes both ways.

I think it is natural to ask the question that LA has asked. Are we so sure that it is a good thing to ignore a better player for a player that played well in a certain scheme but not be able to change and have the diversity to be able to make adjustments? I think that is the crux of this debate.

Some of you who think a player is multi changeable have a rude awakening to experience. Very seldom do you come across such and athlete that can adapt to any scheme and not lose in the transition. When you find one of them you quickly tag him and keep him.

And the statement about wondering if it is correct to pidgeon hole yourself into taking just players fit for 1 type of scheme is a very legit question and is one for watching closely.

We had this kind of debate last year over 1 gap versus 2 gap players. And the same argument was used by some.

I agree that the Packers should be bringing in players that have diverse skill sets and we create a new system that has not been seen by many. Sort of pioneers as it was said.

My concern is we paint ourselves into a corner by just fortifying the team with players who can only play ZB. Give me a guard who can pull out and lead block and not just zone block inside or outside within a small space. But can also stay at home and power block as well. Again for the person who mocked and made this into a swipe at character I have this statement. You have a lesson to learn. Not every player is able to do everything a position calls for. Using terms like white glove dancing and the macarena was an insult.

And taking only players that are proficient in just 1 phase of a position will quickly paint you into a corner and expose your weakness. And this stuff about the players we dafted being able to do everything a position calls for was a weak comeback. There are very few players capable of being and doing that.

[PApackerbacker]

Nice job Patty.

To all of you with an opinion: Keep posting, it is what this forum is all about.

To those of you intent on insulting: Keep posting, get banned.

Duane

[ATLPACK55]

LA, I understand your concerns about zone blocking, and you've articulated your point well.

I guess I just don't see us drafting a bunch of small, light offensive linemen.

Colledge is 6'4" 305, Spitz is 6'3" 300, Moll is 6'5" 304, and Barbre is 6'4" 300. Certainly not the big maulers like some teams like, granted. But not small men either. I think we're on par with other teams there, really.

Of this year's top guard prospects, only 5 of the top 20 (on the list I happened to look at when making this post) weighed more than 320 pounds. Most of them are in the same size range as the guys we've drafted the last couple years.

It's not the size of the players it's the athleticism that's important. I would like to add that I was thumbing through The Sporting News draft pub after the draft and it had Barbre listed as the most athletic tackle in this draft class...hope he does well.

[eire5199]

I agree that it's not the size as much as it is the athleticism. I guess I just brought the whole thing up about size in response to LA's post:

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.

It just struck me a little funny, because while I do perceive that these guys we've drafted over the past couple years are supposed to have skills suited to the ZBS, they didn't seem like overly small or light guys to me. And I'm not so sure that they couldn't be successful in the more "traditional" blocking schemes too.

[LosAngelis]

I agree that it's not the size as much as it is the athleticism. I guess I just brought the whole thing up about size in response to LA's post:

It just struck me a little funny, because while I do perceive that these guys we've drafted over the past couple years are supposed to have skills suited to the ZBS, they didn't seem like overly small or light guys to me. And I'm not so sure that they couldn't be successful in the more "traditional" blocking schemes too.

The thing that I've heard about the ZBS is that it does employ smaller offensive linemen, in general. The quote from that Atlanta discussion earlier in the thread would seem to give that some merit, as they want to get beefier, but the employees the presently have don't fit.

From wikipedia, on the ZBS:

In a zone blocking scheme, fleet-footedness and athletic ability trump size as desirable qualities in offensive linemen. Coordination and technique matter more than muscle in implementing a successful scheme because defensive linemen are often double-teamed at the point of attack. Creating movement on the defensive line is more important that opening a specific hole in the defense.

[Casey]

Does anyone know when exactly Denver started using the ZBS?