| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AlexGreen#20
Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 7937
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
driftwood
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Posts: 6768
Location: Milwaukee
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 11:58 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
im not so sure that we run a ZBS anymore... (at least not primarily)
looks like it had been slowly getting phased out when Jag left to BC
i know MM still really wants to bring in 1 cut RB's for the system (which is fine), but i'm not so sure he truly runs a ZBS anymore |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
palmy50
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 14222
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
They have been talking about this for 20 damn years!
If they do anything(and I view that as a big if) they might clamp down on the cut blocks past the first level. There will always be a place for the ZBS in the NFL though, I bet.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AlexGreen#20
Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 7937
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| palmy50 wrote: | They have been talking about this for 20 damn years!
If they do anything(and I view that as a big if) they might clamp down on the cut blocks past the first level. There will always be a place for the ZBS in the NFL though, I bet. |
Fair enough, in your opinion how does banning cut blocking past the first level impact the Packers? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
palmy50
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 14222
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| AlexGreen#20 wrote: | | palmy50 wrote: | They have been talking about this for 20 damn years!
If they do anything(and I view that as a big if) they might clamp down on the cut blocks past the first level. There will always be a place for the ZBS in the NFL though, I bet. |
Fair enough, in your opinion how does banning cut blocking past the first level impact the Packers? |
Something that will need to be worked out with all teams in. The backside tackle and center both do a ton of it in this Packers fit. That would hurt the Texans more than anyone though.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AlexGreen#20
Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 7937
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| palmy50 wrote: | | AlexGreen#20 wrote: | | palmy50 wrote: | They have been talking about this for 20 damn years!
If they do anything(and I view that as a big if) they might clamp down on the cut blocks past the first level. There will always be a place for the ZBS in the NFL though, I bet. |
Fair enough, in your opinion how does banning cut blocking past the first level impact the Packers? |
Something that will need to be worked out with all teams in. The backside tackle and center both do a ton of it in this Packers fit. That would hurt the Texans more than anyone though. |
Yep, and the backside guard does a fair bit in the second level because neither Lang nor Sitton are fast enough to chase down the LB.
My question is what does that do for draft value. Does that hurt a guy like Uzzi or Cooper and help a guy like Warmack or Frederick? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
palmy50
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 14222
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I highly doubt it will do anything at all to anyones draft board. They all have their place and you build fits in house that your players can excel at running. It's like the center play this year. Both Wells and Saturday did a ton of it, EDS, not so much.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BartStarving
Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 1140
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ZBS will go away when running backs by committee goes away. I don't see that happening under the current Packer regime. They seem to like the Denver/Shanahan/small line/back per year mold of the late 90s. I'd love for McCarthy and company to prove me wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justo
Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 13594
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Looks like Pittsburgh might be moving to the ZBS? I don't think this is a big deal
_________________
| Webmaster wrote: | | The difference is that this is a FOOTBALL forum. Heated debates about FOOTBALL are expected and encouraged. If you want to discuss your cure for Ebola, try ebolasfuture.com or any other appropriate forum. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PossibleCabbage
Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 3348
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BartStarving wrote: | | ZBS will go away when running backs by committee goes away. |
Which is to say, never?
How many teams are there out there that don't employ a RBBC approach? The only playoff team that doesn't, by my count, is Minnesota and they happened to luck into the greatest RB prospect of this era.
I mean, even other teams with good #1 RBs still give considerable touches to their backups (Baltimore with Pierce behind Rice, Houston with Tate behind Foster, etc.)
It just doesn't make sense to not employ a stable of backs, unless you luck into a truly rare prospect like Peterson. Even so, with the punishment RBs take (moreso than any other position) putting all your eggs into one basket isn't wise.
Plus, why would man-blocking be a better alternative if you do have a truly special back? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HokieHigh
Joined: 18 Aug 2009
Posts: 1948
Location: Blacksburg
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| PossibleCabbage wrote: | | BartStarving wrote: | | ZBS will go away when running backs by committee goes away. |
Which is to say, never?
How many teams are there out there that don't employ a RBBC approach? The only playoff team that doesn't, by my count, is Minnesota and they happened to luck into the greatest RB prospect of this era.
I mean, even other teams with good #1 RBs still give considerable touches to their backups (Baltimore with Pierce behind Rice, Houston with Tate behind Foster, etc.)
It just doesn't make sense to not employ a stable of backs, unless you luck into a truly rare prospect like Peterson. Even so, with the punishment RBs take (moreso than any other position) putting all your eggs into one basket isn't wise.
Plus, why would man-blocking be a better alternative if you do have a truly special back? |
In fairness Minnesota spent a first round pick on their back-up RB as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nfldraftguru1
Joined: 07 Feb 2009
Posts: 10362
Location: Whitewater, WI
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| HokieHigh wrote: | | PossibleCabbage wrote: | | BartStarving wrote: | | ZBS will go away when running backs by committee goes away. |
Which is to say, never?
How many teams are there out there that don't employ a RBBC approach? The only playoff team that doesn't, by my count, is Minnesota and they happened to luck into the greatest RB prospect of this era.
I mean, even other teams with good #1 RBs still give considerable touches to their backups (Baltimore with Pierce behind Rice, Houston with Tate behind Foster, etc.)
It just doesn't make sense to not employ a stable of backs, unless you luck into a truly rare prospect like Peterson. Even so, with the punishment RBs take (moreso than any other position) putting all your eggs into one basket isn't wise.
Plus, why would man-blocking be a better alternative if you do have a truly special back? |
In fairness Minnesota spent a first round pick on their back-up RB as well. |
*2nd rounder on Gerhart.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PossibleCabbage
Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 3348
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| nfldraftguru1 wrote: | | HokieHigh wrote: | | In fairness Minnesota spent a first round pick on their back-up RB as well. |
*2nd rounder on Gerhart. |
They spent a premium pick on Gerhardt, but they don't seem to use him very much (except for third down blocking/catching.) Which is fair, because they have Peterson. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nfldraftguru1
Joined: 07 Feb 2009
Posts: 10362
Location: Whitewater, WI
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| PossibleCabbage wrote: | | nfldraftguru1 wrote: | | HokieHigh wrote: | | In fairness Minnesota spent a first round pick on their back-up RB as well. |
*2nd rounder on Gerhart. |
They spent a premium pick on Gerhardt, but they don't seem to use him very much (except for third down blocking/catching.) Which is fair, because they have Peterson. |
Really a waste.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PossibleCabbage
Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 3348
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| nfldraftguru1 wrote: | | PossibleCabbage wrote: | | nfldraftguru1 wrote: | | HokieHigh wrote: | | In fairness Minnesota spent a first round pick on their back-up RB as well. |
*2nd rounder on Gerhart. |
They spent a premium pick on Gerhardt, but they don't seem to use him very much (except for third down blocking/catching.) Which is fair, because they have Peterson. |
Really a waste. |
I could really see Gerhardt having a sort of Chester Taylor career renaissance after he leaves MN as a free agent, it's not like he can't play, it's that they have some sort of futuristic cyborg playing RB ahead of him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
