MM on 3-4:I expect it to go as well as the ZBS did.

dedned · Post #1 » by **dedned** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:00 pm

From PackerChatters.com:

Mike McCarthy threw me for a little bit of a loop at Fan Fest this past weekend, a loop that almost made my heart sink. While sitting next to Ted in an interview with Larry McCarren, he was asked if he had any concerns about the switch to the new 3-4 scheme.

“Nah,” he said, “I expect it to go as well as the Zone Blocking Scheme did.”

I repeated this to myself, as well as the Zone Blocking Scheme did. This raised a couple of red flags for me in regards to how this transition may be taking place. The first and foremost concern has to be whether or not McCarthy has a clear, objective view of how successful his zone blocking scheme really is.

Of course, he’s not going to come out, at Fan Fest, following a 6-10 collapse last year, and publicly claim that the Zone Blocking Scheme was a miserable failure. And, it isn’t a miserable failure, though sometimes, you wish it was.

If it was a failure, it would be far easier to change it up and move on. But the ZBS has been a struggle, an ongoing work in progress, a search for positives amidst a flood of concerns. The Packers don’t even run a pure ZBS, utilizing sweeps and pulling guards…compensating for the lack of success the pure ZBS showed early on.

It is now 2009, and we are entering Year Four of the ZBS. Draft picks have had time to mature and develop, and the scheme has had more than enough time to ferment. You must remember we are now only five years removed from perhaps one of the most dominant offensive lines and running games the Packers’ organization has ever had.

Remember the U-71? Big, bruising, straight-ahead blocking that opened holes for a special runner named Ahman Green…a relative unknown before being acquired in trade from Seattle, and went on to become one of the best backs in Packer history.

The problem with McCarthy’s comment is it makes me think that the switch to the 3-4 isn’t going to be a monumental success or a complete failure…just a continuous mediocre process complete with catchphrases like “pad level” and “gap control”.

Since it was Mike who brought up the comparison, here is my list of parallels between the ZBS and 3-4 that I am nervous about.

The schematic change is a reactionary move made to a once-successful squad that had an off year due to injuries and departures.

Rest of article: http://www.packerchatters.com/op-ed/view.php?id=6227

SteveScheffler · Post #2 » by **SteveScheffler** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

maybe he has a really good sense of humor

eagle13 · Post #3 » by **eagle13** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:00 am

pretty darn good perspective imo especially re ZBS and history of our OL. Hope he's wrong about 34 but we'll see. So far lack of personnel does seem to be an issue but i'll wait until after draft & start of training camp to see the status of roster.

DB will freak out tho.

aaprigs311 · Post #4 » by **aaprigs311** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:18 am

That's laughable.

Ayt · Post #5 » by **Ayt** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:48 am

I think the ZBS would have worked out better if we had someone teaching it that is the caliber that Capers is in the 3-4.

eagle13 · Post #6 » by **eagle13** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:27 am

hated ZBS from day 1.

Post #7 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:32 am

The ZBS which paved the way for one of the best rushing games in the league in 07 when we had healthy and motivated running-backs?

Sounds good.

Flames24Rulz · Post #8 » by **Flames24Rulz** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:20 am

DrugBust wrote:The ZBS which paved the way for one of the best rushing games in the league in 07 when we had healthy and motivated running-backs?

Sounds good.

The second half of 07*

We couldn't run the ball worth a damn before that Denver game.

Post #9 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:33 pm

Yes, when we found a capable runningback the running game *gasp* looked good. Actually dominant.

Imagine that.

Post #10 » by **Jollay** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:46 pm

Of course bringing in a vet guard with experience in the system might have helped as well.

I expect it to be a rough transition to the 3-4, quite obviously because TT is not bringing in any immediate help in the transition whatsoever except for presumably a rookie or two.

I'm so confused with you DB. You didn't want FAs because we "weren't that close" before the 13-3 season. If you didn't expect much success that year, exactly how many years does it take to build a team through the draft?

Assuming rookies take about 3 years to really develop, I am guessing TT's plan should take effect in about 2011 or 2012 then, in TT's 7th or 8th year?? With our defense and multiple holes in the front 7?

Post #11 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:57 pm

Jollay wrote:I'm so confused with you DB.

Assuming rookies take about 3 years to really develop, I am guessing TT's plan should take effect in about 2011 or 2012 then, in TT's 7th or 8th year?? With our defense and multiple holes in the front 7?

I'm an enigma 8-)

I see only two holes in the front seven. DE opposite Jenkins and OLB opposite Kampman. Yes, that is multiple, but we're not talking about positions that can't be taken care of in the first three rounds of the draft and we'll have Poppinga and Jolly there as backups.

eagle13 · Post #12 » by **eagle13** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:07 pm

DrugBust wrote:Yes, when we found a capable runningback the running game *gasp* looked good. Actually dominant.

Imagine that.

Never mind the hype that the ZBS is supposed to work with most any RB and not need a star.

Post #13 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:20 pm

Tell that to Houston. Their system didn't work for sh*t until they got a stud in Slaton.

eagle13 · Post #14 » by **eagle13** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:44 pm

DrugBust wrote:Tell that to Houston. Their system didn't work for sh*t until they got a stud in Slaton.

Exactly my point. ZBS hype is bs. Still need a quality back. So ZBS is no better and due to complexity and use by few colleges and need for more athletic and perhaps smarter players it is an inferior scheme overall.

Since Pack's ZBS = marginal OL every year and only a 1/2 year of a damn good running game.

B4 Pack ZBS = dominant OL & very good running game most years.

Post #15 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:51 pm

We had a dominant runningback, remember. I don't know how you can differentiate the two. The only constant between when the ZBS was effective and before was the presence of an elite runner. Put a prime Ahman Green back there and it would look just as good as when Wahle and Rivera were on the interior of our line.

eagle13 · Post #16 » by **eagle13** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:08 pm

DrugBust wrote:We had a dominant runningback, remember. I don't know how you can differentiate the two. The only constant between when the ZBS was effective and before was the presence of an elite runner. Put a prime Ahman Green back there and it would look just as good as when Wahle and Rivera were on the interior of our line.

Again you make my point. ZBS hype is BS.

Post #17 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:22 pm

I thought your point was that the ZBS doesn't work?

Well, it does when you have the horses to make it work. When Grant was healthy and motivated it looked incredible. Same as when Ahman Green was healthy and racking up the yards.

In the end it doesn't matter what the scheme is. If you want an elite ground game, find a game-breaking runner. Fortunately there are plenty of them out there. Thompson unfortunately paid the wrong guy IMO. If there's one move I've vehemently disagreed with it was giving Grant that contract. Sort of like Hammond trading for RJ and not moving him in February, Thompson had a chance to cut Grant and didn't.

eagle13 · Post #18 » by **eagle13** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:57 pm

Read my post. I said ZBS hype is that you do not need great RB to succeed. Hype notes Denver just plugged any back in and it worked. And hype was any ZBS team could do that. That hype is BS.

eagle13 · Post #19 » by **eagle13** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:44 pm

DrugBust wrote:
Jollay wrote:I'm so confused with you DB.

Assuming rookies take about 3 years to really develop, I am guessing TT's plan should take effect in about 2011 or 2012 then, in TT's 7th or 8th year?? With our defense and multiple holes in the front 7?

I'm an enigma

I see only two holes in the front seven. DE opposite Jenkins and OLB opposite Kampman. Yes, that is multiple, but we're not talking about positions that can't be taken care of in the first three rounds of the draft and we'll have Poppinga and Jolly there as backups.

You changed your tune. You have said in past that Jolly would be fine as starter at DE. Glad to see you came to your senses

El Duderino · Post #20 » by **El Duderino** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:49 pm

eagle13 wrote:
DrugBust wrote:Tell that to Houston. Their system didn't work for sh*t until they got a stud in Slaton.

Exactly my point. ZBS hype is bs. Still need a quality back. So ZBS is no better and due to complexity and use by few colleges and need for more athletic and perhaps smarter players it is an inferior scheme overall.

Since Pack's ZBS = marginal OL every year and only a 1/2 year of a damn good running game.

B4 Pack ZBS = dominant OL & very good running game most years.

If you have a good OL the ZBS can work well even without a special RB, Denver for years churned out a top running game with nothing special backs and Atlanta had a very good running game with a Dunn/Duckett combo, not exactly elite RB's.

The Packers running game has been so inconsistent since McCarthy got here because the OL has been overall mediocre at best from a run blocking standpoint, but it also hasn't had a great back to make it look better than it really is.

So i'd put it

Mediocre OL and no special RB= Subpar running game since McCarthy arrived except for a 7-8 game stretch in 2007.