Zone Blocking Schemes Revisited

It was sitting and watching the formerly 4-12 Atlanta Falcons clobber our Green Bay Packers with the rushing game that got me thinking about some old discussions about the Zone Blocking Scheme that I used to have, and how that applies to us today.

The reason that the Falcons, in particular, made me think of the ZBS (because I had a ton of teams that have gashed us this year in the run game) was the fact that I did a bit of research on other teams that had implemented the scheme (other than the Broncos, of course). As it turns out, the Falcons HAD once decided to copy Denver and use the scheme, only to find that it wasn't working for them. So they scrapped it.

But the scrappage wasn't just calling a meeting and changing the scheme. They had drafted players that were "cut out for the ZBS". While the source link is outdated and dead, this is a blurb I copied a couple years ago, when the Falcons had decided to scrap the ZBS: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

So, what is the Zone Blocking Scheme, and is it a part of our present problem?

The answer is yes, not because of just the scheme, but the talent we have to run it.

Pete Doughterty addressed this issue in a recent GBPG Chat, which rang true with words I've stated many times, from the first day the Packers announced they were going to implement the ZBS.

They've drafted guys to fit this system, so if those guys aren't performing well, then they just made mistakes evaluating talent. Clifton isn't a good run blocker, I don' t know if it matters what system they're playing, though maybe the cut blocks are especially tough for him because of his knees, I don't know.

There are people in the league who think you need more of a power run game to be a champion, and they'll argue that Denver won the SB with this scheme because it had a Hall of Fame-caliber halfback in Terrell Davis who would have been dominant in any scheme (not to say Davis will be in the HOF, his career was too short, but he was that good in '97 and '98) Others, like McCarthy, will argue that there's a lot of ways to run the ball, and the zone scheme will work. They'll point to ... the Broncos. I'm beginning to think you're right, that something about that scheme isn't working here. The problem is, overhauling the run game would be a major project, and doing it right - this is, not setting the team back -would be difficult. They couldn't do it during the season, it would have to start in the offseason, but even then it would be disruptive, and MM's first three seasons would go down the drain in that regard. Don't know if it's something MM would consider. He says no way, but if he were thinking about it he'd never say. Link

I didn't like the ZBS because, for one, it isn't wise in any business to copy what a competitor made successful and expect the same success. You are better off innovating and being the first on the block with the new product, as the Denver Broncos did twice in the 90s, not only innovating the small, quick defensive line that combatted the West Coast Offenses, but implementing a zone blocking scheme that was remarkably effective.

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.

But what the Packers did, as the Falcons did years ago, is they started drafting players who "fit the scheme", instead of the best athletes available. And today, this is coming back to haunt us.

The following are some comments I made back in 2007 on the topic of zone blocking:

Drafting players to fit a scheme is a very slippery slope to be treading on.

At this point, the only team that has shown any sustained success with the ZBS is Denver. Atlanta is trying to get rid of the scheme, and has now found themselves saddled with one-dimensional personnel that is going to take time to rebuild.

The more we keep drafting players based on how they fit a certain scheme, which so far has proven zilch, the bigger a hole we dig for ourselves if it ends up not working (as the Falcons have found out).

In essence, Ted Thompson is living and dying by the ZBS.

In regards to the idea that all teams use the ZBS to some degree:

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.

In regards to the idea, then, that the ZBS is easy to defend because there are only four basic plays:

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.

What kind of players are brought in, then? Colledge seems like a sizable specimen, perhaps comprable in his measurements to, say, Mike Wahle? Shouldn't equally sized guards be able to play at the same level?

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. link

Patty, a former NFL scout with the Houston Texans and fellow contributor to PackerChatters, chimed in on the topic:

It is not so much as size as it is skill sets. Look I can show you 2 players. They both stand 6-4 and weigh 310 but when you look at them you see a difference. One might be much wider and the other more stocky up high. They do not carry their weight the same and they do not play the same style of play.One player will have much better foot speed and the other more power.

When you look at OL you look at their skill sets. Whether they block straight on or they have lateral slide and shuffle blocking skills. Just because they are the same size does not mean they play the same. The Packers are locking themselves into certain skill sets of players that will make it difficult to do much more than what they were brought in for. I think this is what has LA concerned. I tend to agree. I look for an OL that has that slide potential and can shuffle down and out but also has enough power to handle the brunt bull blast of DL.

Mike Wahle is a great example used. He was so multi-layered in his skill sets that he could operate well in a zone blocking scheme but he also had great athleticism to play other schemes. As the Falcons discovered drafting players to fit a specific scheme can lead to some horrible situations.

As the person who used the Bear Bryant statement I say this: I want a team that builds their schemes around the talent on the team. I do not want to see waste created because a coach has a scheme in mind and refuses to acknowledge he has a different skill set players.

I also do not want to build a team with 1 dimensional type of players.

I added:

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 we're acquring linemen AND a backfield designed for the ZBS, well, hopefully, we're choosing the right corner to paint ourselves into.

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.

So, now let's catch up to the present. The interior line that we've drafted (Colledge, Spitz, Moll, and Barbre) all had "a good fit for the zone blocking scheme" somewhere in their scouting reports or writeups.

Allen Barbre: "he fits into the athletic mold in which the Packers like their linemen in order to play in their zone-blocking scheme."

Jason Spitz and Daryn Colledge: "It's no surprise that lightweight rookie second-rounder Daryn Colledge and third-rounder Jason Spitz are what the new coaching staff is looking for as they implement a zone blocking scheme"

Tony Moll: "The easy part for me was we ran the same kind of run scheme at Nevada," he said. "I came into minicamps already knowing all the rules and how to run-block."

But, the run game since 2006 has been AWOL, with the exception of the final seven games of the 2007 season. McCarthy has tinkered repeatedly with the scheme, trying to open up more sweeps and screens, but as we've seen, these plays don't execute well when your guards don't pull well.

With Favre gone, some of the weaknesses are more glaring. Pass protection has been an issue, somewhat hidden when you have an overhyped quarterback adept at avoiding pressure and making the line look good. And when you have a quarterback who commanded the respect of the defense, as Favre did through the entire first half of 2007 without a running game, it eventually opens up a running game for a good runner like Ryan Grant.

But, Aaron Rodgers has put up almost identical numbers to Favre in his first five games, and yet, a line and backfield that is almost completely unchanged from the end of last season has struggled. Linemen in the third and fourth years, expected to come into their own by this time, are regressing instead of maturing.

And, the cost to move this line to a more conventional blocking system may require a complete overhaul of the talent presently on the team. Interior linemen without the lateral movement skills required in a full rushing game plan (sweeps, screens, particularly in a WCO) and who struggle in pass protection means we may be starting over not only with the interior lines, but with the tackles, who both look like their best days may well be behind them.

So, is it the fault of the scheme? In some ways, yes...because it seems like we drafted players to fit the scheme, instead of designing our scheme around the assets of the best players available.

What happens if the scheme fails?

Even more daunting...what do you do with all the one-dimensional talent you drafted to fit that scheme.

Easy. Ask the Atlanta Falcons.

Tundra Vision QuickHits: Falcons Aftermath

As they say, close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and slow dancing.

The Packers lost to the Atlanta Falcons on their home turf today, and while there are a couple of silver linings to be found in the aftermath, there were far too many messes "in our house" to make us feel good about only losing by three points.

The Packers fall to 2-3, fall out of the division lead, and have two more games against playoff teams from 2007 before finally getting a week off. The boos you heard from the stands weren't imaginary, nor were they undeserved.

That stated, let's get to this week's QuickHits:

* First and foremost, Aaron Rodgers fought through pain to have a very gutty and efficient game (posting a 109.4 efficiency rating). As Packer fans, we have to give a shout-out to #12 for manning up and trying to set a tone for the rest of the team. As usual, when he was on, he was remarkably efficient, and put a couple of passes in nearly impossible holes. The touchdown to Donald Driver seeming passed through the defender's hand, and the touchdown to Greg Jennings had a window smaller than the football itself. You can't deny that this kid can put the ball almost exactly where he wants it, given time.

But, the shoulder injury seemed to wear on him as the game went on, and while he played through it, you could tell that the soreness was intensifying. The interception at the end of the game transferred every bit of momentum back to the Falcons that the Packers had gained from the Tramon Williams interception.

And, as has been the case the past few weeks, we are seeing Rodgers lock in more and more on a receiver, not going through all of his progressions, likely because he knows he doesn't have that much time. The thought did go through my head that he might have been forcing his interception to his buddy, Ruvell Martin, who appeared to be in double coverage.

This brings me to my downside for Rodgers, and I guess, the difference between how I feel about him and Favre. I would have been very comfortable with Rodgers sitting out this game and giving his shoulder another week. Not that I think we would have had much of a chance with Flynn playing, but you have to wonder if this particular game was that important for Rodgers to risk prolonging the injury. I know it is 20/20 hindsight, but he played and we still didn't win the game. Now, we have to go face Holmgren and the Seahawks at home next week, then host the Colts the week after.

Somehow, I would rather have had a healthy and rehabbed Rodgers for those two games, than risking his shoulder against the Falcons.

I know that differs from how I and many others felt about Favre, admiring his grit and playing through pain. But, we also realize that Rodgers is not Favre, and right now, #12 is the only reliable quarterback we have on this roster. I predicted that he would play 14 games this season, max. It's time to be smart with this kid, and while we admire his commitment to playing, we also have to keep him on the field, not risk losing him for the rest of the season.

* Speaking of Favre, try and find one of those folks from last summer who preached up and down that it didn't matter how the quarterback played the rest of the game, or how the rest of the team played...if you throw an interception at the end of the game, the loss is all on the quarterback. Remember those folks who made the case against Favre and last year's playoff loss? I wonder if they will apply the same rationale to Aaron Rodgers today.

My guess is that they are pretty quiet on the topic right now. And well they should be. Rodgers played a heckuva game and had one costly play at the end, as did Favre last year. And the major reasons we lost had little to do with the quarterback.

* Kudos on getting the heart of this team involved in the offense again. Donald Driver showed why he is still a #1 receiver, making big plays and taking hard hits...and then letting everyone in that stadium know that he's the man and he just made a first down.

You can tell that his leadership is rubbing off on Greg Jennings. It was great to see Jennings always in there at the end of a play or after a score, encouraging and celebrating with his teammates. Our receiving corps is in good hands, even if they do drop more passes than I would like to see.

* Wil Blackmon absolutely has to get a chip in on Roddy White off the line. The timing pattern in which White scored an easy touchdown started with the ole' that Blackmon gave him at the beginning.

If you don't chip that receiver on a timing route, and the quarterback is even moderately accurate, White will catch that ball ten out of ten times. Blackmon is growing and doing a yeoman's job in the nickel in the absence of jam-specialist Al Harris, but that was one play that might not have gone for six with #31 in the game.

* Anyone noticing Mike McCarthy looking angrier and more frustrated on the sideline? This is a man who is starting to feel like the boat is taking on water faster than he can bail it out. I've said it before: Brett Favre took a lot of hype and heat off of everyone else in the past. McCarthy is now front and center when it comes to fixing whatever is ailing this team.

Week after week, McCarthy continues to decry the sloppiness and lack of discipline and execution, stating that needs to be addressed. But, every week, the same issues happen. This week, nine penalties were accepted against the Packers for 97 yards. The penalties are just as devastating to this team as an ill-timed interception or muffed punt.

This is essentially the same team that cruised to a 13-3 record last season, minus a quarterback and a defensive lineman. This type of execution is unacceptable, and McCarthy better start doing more than just cursing on the sideline pretty quick.

* Incidentally, whining about penalities is a loser mentality. Good teams overcome bad calls. A team that was a field goal from the Super Bowl last season should never be in the situation for the refs to decide a game when playing a team that went 4-12 last year.

Alert: the Packers lead the league in penalties. This isn't something new this week. They have 419 penalty yards in five games, an average of almost 84 yards a game. When you consider our starting running back is nowhere near that total in rushing yards, the problem isn't with the refs being mean to you.

* I will say it again: I didn't like the Jermichael Finley pick when it was made, and I certainly don't like it now. This kid has done nothing productive on the field at all this season, besides get penalized for fighting and now, taking three points off the board with a holding penalty on a field goal.

When expectations are high, and you just jettisoned your veteran backup tight end over the offseason, you don't draft some project and sabatoge your team just to get him time on the field (or because you don't have any other guys to play at the position). This kid needs to be on the inactive list. For cripes sakes, activate Breno Guacomole, or whatever his name is, and let him block.

Idiotic penalty once, shame on you. Idiotic penalty twice, shame on me.

* Ryan Grant finally got his feet under him in the second half, and as the announcers noticed, it helped open up the passing game a bit more. He finished with 83 yards on 18 carries, and started to show some of the explosiveness that got him that big fat contract this offseason.

I'm still of the opinion, though, that Grant may not be what the Packers need right now. Grant is an explosive back, able to break a big play maybe once or twice a game. But he simply isn't consistent, and disappears in big games against a solid defensive line. I know much of that blame has to go to the offensive line, too, but Aaron Rodgers is going to need a guy who can consistently threaten to gain five yards on you, in any quarter, on any carry.

Brandon Jackson continues to be little more than a safety valve on third down plays. I don't know why we haven't seen more of Kregg Lumpkin, a guy who seems to make yards on every play.

This wasn't a particularly difficult run defense to go against. The Falcons ranked 23rd in rushing yards per game, and Cold Hard Football Facts had their Defensive Hog ranking at 20th overall (tied with the Packers). Seattle is in the Top Ten on both lists, and that is who is up for the Packers next week.

* Time for Ted Thompson to man up and admit his mistake with Derrick Frost. Yes, he put one inside the 20 today, but his early shank led directly to a touchdown.

Oh, by the way, those for you clamouring for the return of Jon Ryan will get your wish, sort of. Guess who is the Seahawks' punter? The Hawks currently rank 32nd in net punt yardage, so there's a chance that Ryan may soon be available.

However, I would be willing to venture a bet that, given Grady Jackson's vendetta and sack on the Packer's first play, Jon Ryan may be out to prove something to the Packers next week.

* I was going to be fatalistic and predict that the Falcons would have nearly 300 yards rushing, given the prowess of Turner and Norwood and the sieve-like quality of our defensive front. However, while the Falcons did have 194 rushing yards (and Turner did have a 100-yard game), the rush defense did better than I thought they would. Of course, that's not saying much.

Turner had 26 carries and a 4.7 yard average. The absence of Cullen Jenkins was noticeable, Aaron Kampman continues to be nearly invisible, and unless the safeties are tackling, the wrapping up continues to be weak.

* Anyone else notice Falcons coach Mike Smith out of the field arguing a call while apparently holding his latte' cup? Funny.

However, a couple plays later, he screamed for a time-out, and prevented a 12-men-on-the-field penalty. Gotta give him credit that he's the only one able to count, including the safety who is responsible for that assignment.

* Predicton: the injuries are going to continue piling up, and its not just physical. This is starting to be a mental thing. In 2005, when the Packers were on their way to a miserable 4-12 season and the atmosphere was funeral-like, you saw player after player have injuries that took them off the field. Remember that?

I do believe there is a synergy between on the field success and injuries. The less injuries you have, the better your team does on the field. But, the better your team does on the field, it seems you have players willing to gut out pain, running on adrenaline. Adding Chad Clifton to a list of walking (and not walking) wounded takes our injury list to length we sure don't like to see.

* I have long been a critic of Thompson's lack of developing a true free safety in the secondary, and in some ways, I'm beginning to see some improvment. When I think of Atari Bigby, Nick Collins, and Aaron Rouse, I think of prototypical strong safeties...hard hitters able to come up in run support and help out on short routes.

But we've been missing that free-wheeling free safety..the Eugene Robinson who was the quarterback of the defense, able to get guys in position and took fantastic angles to help out in coverage and make plays.

Collins has definately shown improvement in that area, but will always be a strong safety type. Perhaps Peprah, who was also a strong safety in college, will take that heralded smooth athleticism and take on those free safety roles I've been hoping for.

Certainly, allowing Roddy White to have 132 receiving yards from a rookie quarterback doesn't look good for the secondary, but they did shut him down in the second half.

* In the first two games, the Packers lived on the big play. The last three games, they have died by the big play.

Certainly, they had some big touchdown passes to Driver and Jennings, but they have to be able to sustain a drive and control the ball consistently.

In the third quarter, the Packers had two six-minute drives, one that ended in a punt, and another that ended in a Mason Crosby field goal. Playing from behind, that is unacceptable, three point in twelve minutes.

Other than that, the Packers averaged only five plays and barely three minutes on their remaining drives. Against a bottom-half defense like the Falcons, that is unacceptable.

This team can't rely on the big play to win game, especially when the defense has become so adept at giving up big plays.

* Finally, the pass pressure again was again tilted in the favor of the other team. The Falcons entered the game ranked only 15th according to CHFF's Defensive Passer Ratings, and yet managed to place 2 sacks and consistent pressure (at least ten hits and hurries, according to a FOX graphic) on Rodgers.

The Packers pass rush didn't gain a single sack against Ryan and was rarely in trouble. The graphic from FOX at one point had only 1 hit on Ryan and five pressures.

Scott Wells, Mark Tauscher, Daryn Colledge, and Allen Barbre were all victimized by the Falcon pass rush, not one that is particularly regarded as a top-notch line. Clifton's injury makes the line play all that more dangerous for whomever is lining up behind center.

Without Jenkins, Kabeer Gbaja-Biamilia looked like his old, one-move self again, out of the plays and handled by one blocker. Whether you like Corey Williams or not, his absence right now is glaring.

Even more glaring is Jamal Reynolds...oops, I mean Justin Harrell, who according to reports, rehabs in private away from the rest of the team, and will likely not see the field this year, if ever. Fourth round pick Jeremy Thompson saw time for the first time in an NFL game today, though you'd never know it from watching.

***

*In conclusion, the Packers lost a game that they never should have lost. While Rodgers' gutty performance was inspriring, Grant's resurgance is encouraging, and big plays by Driver, Jennings, and Williams were exciting, it just isn't enough.

This team has now lost to a Super Bowl contender, a wild card contender, and a rebuilding team. The two wins over the Vikes and Lions seems like a long time ago, and with two playoff teams ahead, the Packers could easily find themselves 2-5 at the bye week.

It is bad enough that we had to look at the stats and begrudingly admit that the Falcons might be a team on our own level this year. It is worse yet to lose to that team.

A good team has to beat the teams that they are even with or better than. The Packers managed to let a 4-12 team with a rookie quarterback come on their own field and beat them.

As that quack from "The Natural" kept saying, "Losing is a disease". I hope Doctor McCarthy finds the cure, quick, because the cancer is spreading.

Thompson's Shadow Longer Than Favre's

During the telecast of the Packer/Buccaneer game last Sunday, FOX put up a graphic “4” over a live shot of Aaron Rodgers and the offense approaching the line of scrimmage. The graphic cast a long shadow over the Packers, and on Rodgers in particular.

Favre’s six-TD game for the Jets aside, I’m growing weary of the media trying to make this out that all the pressure that might be on Aaron Rodgers comes completely from Brett Favre. Sure, there is a part of the fan base that is trying to constantly compare Rodgers to Favre, but those folks would have done that with anyone, even if Favre had retired and wasn’t available to play. It’s the way it goes, and we’ve seen that play out with Joe Montana, Joe Namath, Bart Starr, and any other legendary quarterback. Memories are hard to shake.

But, the pressure of Aaron Rodgers isn’t coming from Brett Favre, as much as FOX and Tony Kornheiser would like us to believe. And, if FOX had wanted to be accurate, they would have placed a large graphic of Ted Thompson casting a shadow over #12 last weekend, for it is his actions that have placed Rodgers in the position he is now. In fact, credit should be given to Favre for sticking around as long as he did, because at least now Rodgers’ career has a chance to get going instead of getting knocked around and having his growth stunted like Alex Smith did.

Don’t get me wrong…I like Aaron Rodgers. I think he certainly has proven that he can handle any pressure that would have come from Brett Favre, and has shown more patience and maturity than most first-round quarterbacks we could have taken.

But, when Mike McCarthy announced in April that they weren’t going to do much to change the offense to adjust to Rodgers, he wasn’t kidding. Rodgers is continuing to play in an offense that alternates between spread and max-protect formations, just like Favre had to since 2005.

Why? Because, as many are suddenly noticing, our offensive line is porous and our running game isn’t a consistent threat. It’s really no different than it has been since the advent of the Thompson era, but in past seasons, it was easier to overlook.

When the Packers had a terrible 2005, many people pointed the finger at Mike Sherman (who was subsequently fired) and Brett Favre’s 29 interceptions, and called for the team to move on to a new quarterback. There were others (me included) who pointed out that Favre was playing behind guys named Whittaker and Klemm, throwing to guys named Chatman and Taco, and handing off to guys named Gado and Fisher. These folks (like me) were accused of making excuses for Favre’s problems.

Yet, none of those players returned for the 2006 season. And, thus began the efforts of Ted Thompson to essentially rebuild that entire offense from scratch, minus Favre, Donald Driver and two offensive tackles.

“Scratch”, of course, means building purely through the draft, and on offense, Ted Thompson has not added one major (or minor) free agent since then. This has placed a lot of pressure on the quarterback position in that time as we have waited for young guys to eventually develop.

Last season, Brett Favre was again asked to pass, pass, pass, on pace after the first eight games to break his own career mark for pass attempts he set in 2006, which broke the personal mark he set in 2005. He played behind a young interior line and had a stable of unproven running backs behind him.

Ryan Grant did establish himself over the last half of the season, but in retrospect, he was more explosive than consistent, a trait aided when you have a risk-taking gunslinger not afraid to push the envelope.

Other than Favre, there isn’t a single difference from the 2^nd ranked offense of 2007. The entire offensive line unit returned, a year more experienced. The backfield returned, a year more experienced (and Grant signed long-term). The receivers have returned in full force, bolstered by a top draft pick in Jordy Nelson.

Except, of course, that the offense has free-fallen to 15^th overall, and Aaron Rodgers appears to be in serious trouble when it comes to starting the next game, injured after having to run for a first down when it was clear our running backs were incapable of doing so.

You might think I’m setting this up to make out Rodgers to be the bad guy, and nothing could be further from the truth. Rodgers is a good quarterback, strong arm, tight spiral, good legs. He’s improved in his decision-making and has developed into a good check-down quarterback, taking what the defense offers him.

No, the problem is with the team that Ted Thompson has around him, and if McCarthy has decided not to change much with Rodgers behind center, he’s discovering quickly that he has a completely different quarterback than what he had.

Favre was a gunslinger, a confident guy who easily took the burden of the offense when the line broke down and the running game disappeared. He wasn’t a check-down quarterback like Rodgers. Yes, he would gun it into coverage, trying to make something happen. Sometimes he was intercepted. Sometimes, he made a breathtaking play. Always, he got the blame or the credit.

If I have said it once, I’ll say it again….Aaron Rodgers is ready to play. But the Packers are not ready for Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers’ style means you need a running threat to consistently challenge the defense, and he doesn’t have that. In all actuality, the Packers haven’t had that at all since Ahman Green was still healthy. The Packers haven’t had a 100-yard rusher this season, and frankly, they haven’t had a 70-yard rusher since the first week.

In front of him, the tackles are showing sign of age, and the interior linemen drafted by Thompson have continued to be a liability. When Favre was playing, it was excused, with claims that a Future Hall of Famer should be able to overcome such line play. And most of the time, Favre did. He had excellent evasion skills and moved the pocket easily to create that extra second.

But guys like Jason Spitz, Tony Moll, Daryn Colledge, and Allen Barbre have all had more than enough time to develop into athletes befitting their draft position, and only Spitz has shown any level of fulfilling of that promise. A fourth round rookie was able to beat all of them out this preseason, until an injury took him out.

As a result, not only are we still drafting guards to improve on what we have, we are losing the ability to properly shore up our tackle spots in the event Chad Clifton or Mark Tauscher suddenly drop off.

When I talk about the Shadow of Thompson hovering over Aaron Rodgers, it is exactly that. He has had three full seasons to prepare this team for Rodgers’ coming out party, and had Brett Favre as the tackling dummy to take the heat (and the hits) until the team around him was ready.

Thompson was the NFL GM of the Year last year. Yet, the offense is looking more and more lost as defenses have more film on Rodgers and the 2008 Packers, and it is clear that Thompson’s penny-pinching ways are putting Rodgers at risk.

When the Packers go into max protect schemes, as they have since the Larry Beightol era, Rodgers has only two or three receivers to throw to. Since defenses have been able to create pressure with only a four-man rush or with only one blitzer, Rodgers has had problems. He’s good at taking what the defense gives you, but lately, the defense isn’t giving him anything.

This is where a game-managing quarterback needs a running game to take that pressure off of him, but in the last two games the Packers have managed only 112 rushing yards, and 18 of those belong to Aaron Rodgers. Conversely, the opposing teams have had 395 rushing yards in those games.

When the Packers shift to a spread offense, the defenses have, again, been able to create pressure with only a four man rush, leaving Rodgers to continually go to a safety valve route like Jordy Nelson or Brandon Jackson instead of having time in the pocket to allow the real threats like Donald Driver, Greg Jennings, or Donald Lee to do their thing.

When Thompson essentially dismissed the return of a quarterback that had proven himself able to work under these conditions, he gave the job to Rodgers. I’m guessing he truly must have believed that he had built an offense that was going to be able to continue to rack up yards without Favre. Perhaps winning awards and accolades will do that to you.

The fact that Thompson went so far as to eschew any and all veteran quarterbacks to back up Rodgers was a sign that he wanted Rodgers, and only Rodgers, to play behind center this year. I don’t think he wanted any competition for #12, and in retrospect, that was another rather inexplicable move, now that Rodgers is fighting off an injury.

Wait a minute…”in retrospect”? I thought that move was foolish at the time, not just with 20/20 hindsight. And this places yet another huge amount of pressure on Rodgers that, given the lack of talent or execution in front and behind him, he shouldn't have to have. Thompson has had three long seasons to have his draft picks and other moves pan out.

With the New York Jets (a team mocked as having less offensive talent than the Packers not too long ago), Brett Favre presently leads the NFL with a 110.8 passing efficiency rating. And yet, Thomas Jones hasn’t exactly dominated the running game for the Jets. In fact, he has only 83 yards in his last two games.

Perhaps Favre had many years of good training learning to bear the mantle of leadership when he was playing on a young team marked by inconsistency and mistakes. But, this is not the kind of team that Aaron Rodgers is going to have a lot of success with, not with the specific gifts he brings to the table.

And, for now, the critics point to decry Ryan Grant and the offensive line as the major culprits in the Packers’ sluggish slowdown. But, it probably won’t be long before Rodgers starts taking the heat, as Favre did.

And that would be tremendously unfair to Rodgers. The person who is responsible for creating the team around him is the one who should be getting pointed at (but, I suppose, having that GM of the Year trophy sitting on the mantle deflects criticism). His avoidance of expensive free agents may have won praise in a rebuilding cycle, but now that expectations are high and Aaron Rodgers is being asked to lead in his own way, the over-investing in traded-down-for draft picks should be under the microscope.

No matter how many first-day receivers Thompson drafts, it isn’t going to matter if he can’t get rid of the ball or have a running game to open it up.

I am going to continue to root for Aaron Rodgers to overcome, and/or the talent around him to provide the kind of offense that he needs to be successful. There’s no reason that a mobile, game-managing quarterback can’t be successful in the NFL.

But all of those successful game-managers in NFL history had one thing in common: a strong offensive line and a running game. Talk about a long shadow to live under.