Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

What about a 2 RB set?


chaught76

Recommended Posts

I have read some threads about running the ball more and got to thinking about what a 2 Runningback set would gain us. I'd see the following personnel groups running this formation:

1) RB1-Portis, RB2-Cooley, TE-Royals, Sellars, etc.

2) RB1-Portis, RB2-Betts, Rock, TE-Cooley, Royal, Sellars

The formation could be started in or shifted to; but it would be a split back formation (think Tom Rathman & Roger Craig of the old 49ers type formation). Depending on the personel, I see this opening up a lot of misdirection plays and possible mismatches. I believe this might also open things up for Portis because by having 2 backs in the backfield, the linebackers have more running plays to consider. Not to mention, the blocking scheme might be more difficult to read. The last team I can remember starting 2 RBs at the same time was Pittsburgh a couple of years back. What do you all think?

Peace. Go Skins!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I recall when Joe Gibbs first coached the Redskins in '81, he started off with both John Riggins and Joe Washington in the backfield. For whatever reason, he removed the fullback and replaced it with 2 TEs. Gibbs went back to it from time to time, but after Otis Wonsley left, Gibbs never had a real FB.

An H-back can do the same thing a FB does. Mike Sellers and Chris Cooley are not ball carriers, but pass receivers. Even in today's offenses on both the college and professional levels, the fullback gets very little carries anyway. A fullback is more of a lead blocker, something a H-back can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I recall when Joe Gibbs first coached the Redskins in '81, he started off with both John Riggins and Joe Washington in the backfield. For whatever reason, he removed the fullback and replaced it with 2 TEs. Gibbs went back to it from time to time, but after Otis Wonsley left, Gibbs never had a real FB.

An H-back can do the same thing a FB does. Mike Sellers and Chris Cooley are not ball carriers, but pass receivers. Even in today's offenses on both the college and professional levels, the fullback gets very little carries anyway. A fullback is more of a lead blocker, something a H-back can do.

The reason for the two tight ends was named Lawrence Taylor.

But very very few teams at any level utilize a two back set anymore. The main reason is you lose so much in blocking. Does anyone really want Rock Cartwright lead-blocking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd never expect Sellars to carry the ball, but Cooley used to receive some handoffs when he played at Utah State if I'm not mistaken. I was thinking this would be more of a shift into formation and out of formation depending on what Brunell reads at the line.

No, I wouldn't want Rock lead blocking for Portis; however I was looking at using the two more individually. Obviously, some plays might call for one or the RB to lead block, but the formation would be intended more for option, yes I said option, counters, and misdirection type plays.

It has it risks, but I believe it would force the defense into quicker reads and potentially help keep our offense in run-oriented attack mode. Just my opinion. :2cents:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We called this a "Pro Set" back when I played ball. We used it to great success on sweeps and outside handoffs. We never passed the ball but I'm sure you could use the extra RB to pick up the blitz on passing downs or set up screen options on both sides.

It's not used much in today's NFL as teams like the "I" more. Probably due to the speed of OLBs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I thought it would be effective because it isn't used in the NFL today.

Also, it is not the personnel group I am pitching it is the formation. I've heard it called Pro Set, Split Set.

Just out of curiousity for anyone who has played football, have you ever seen or played against a T-Set or Straight Set. Here's the formation:

WR T G C G T WR

QB

RB RB RB

I played against this once. It is easy to defend on power sweeps, but was a real pain on delay and misdirections. Also, it only worked well with a quick QB. Just curious if any of you have ever seen this formation or played against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I thought it would be effective because it isn't used in the NFL today.

Also, it is not the personnel group I am pitching it is the formation. I've heard it called Pro Set, Split Set.

Just out of curiousity for anyone who has played football, have you ever seen or played against a T-Set or Straight Set. Here's the formation:

WR T G C G T WR

QB

RB RB RB

I played against this once. It is easy to defend on power sweeps, but was a real pain on delay and misdirections. Also, it only worked well with a quick QB. Just curious if any of you have ever seen this formation or played against it.

Sorry, this didn't come out posted, but the QB is behind the center and middle RB about 3 to 4 yards behind the QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, this didn't come out posted, but the QB is behind the center and middle RB about 3 to 4 yards behind the QB.

That's a t-formation.

Notre Dame used to run it occassionally under Lou Holtz. Mostly at the goal line.

I don't think it would work in the modern NFL because the running plays out of that set take a long time to develop and the two running backs would be forced to block linebackers.

Basically, you are inviting 8 defenders to the line of scrimmage by the formation alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Wing-T or T formation can be DEADLY when used correctly. The defense cannot be as aggressive because of the misdirections and over pursuit.

As far as the two back set is concerned. Yes, it MIGHT work with some misdirections. It MIGHT work with some passes out of the backfield. But as far as Gibbs RUN GAME is concerned, Gibbs himself has already stated the problems. The main thing he said was blocking. Gibbs prefers to run it str8 at the defense and two RB's doesn't really fit. Yes Portis and our other RB's can pass block and block down field but they're not RUN BLOCKERS. Only one back can carry the ball at a time so why not have as many blockers on the field as we can.

Zip-it-up and Zip-it-OUT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember an article early in the Gibbs I administration about why Gibbs got rid of the second back.

The expert's reasoning was that by moving the second back outside, you removed two people from "the box": The second back and the guy covering him. Fewer people in the same space implied bigger holes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While you guys are talkin about a full house backfield. maybe on goalline situations we should run a 2 TE wishbone backfield :rubeyes: :yikes: . have the 2 splitbacks run off the ends, and hand it off to the 3rd upback up the middle.:D i saw a college team do something like this a couple weeks back

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Full house formation isn't a good one for running the football, though there are more options as to where it might go, you are left with RB's trying to clear lanes and open holes. LBs, nowadays, are too fast for this scheme to work. I might be effective for a screen play or something into the flat but I wouldn't want to run with 8 in the box and only 5 linemen blocking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You better be a damn overpowering team to make the full-house formation work consistently. While we are not this type of team with our current personnel, I still think it could be effective in spirts. Would give a good max-protect look on 3rd and medium (4-7yds) too. Line up Cooley at FB, flanked by portis to one side and Rock/Betts to the other. Send Cooley in motion to one side of the field so Brunnell can get a clear read on how the D adjusts. From there, we can leave both backs in to protect, leak one out after pass blocking, or run a screen to either side. It is definately a good option for us because the extra WR on third downs isn't really helping us anyway -- no one respects them and brunnell doesn't throw them the ball. In this set, you will have your three primary weapons featured in a different look, and is likely to allow Santana the time to break deep once or twice a game also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah no kidding the Cards have combined for somewhere around 580 yds BTW the 2 of them (Ship/Arrington) Shipp has 297yds for a woeful 2.6 per carry average and thats there top rusher. By comaprison, CP has alone has 1,079 yds on 249 carries. We've been a very stingy defence on the ground. In our win against the Pheagles they gained an average of just 2 yds on the ground, while the Bucs averaged just 2.3yds per carry and the Raiderzzzz averaged only 1.7 per rush.

Look CP is best used in the I formation where he can better see the field make adjustments on the run, in-zone blocking and choose his cut backs. So this is not a blame game. It’s just an observation based off of what I see. I'm Skins through and through. But one has to wonder about how we think we're best using CP. Closing argument look at LTs stats and look at CPs its about a 100yd difference , LTs average is higher and his long has a delta of 20 yds with 17 TDs. Our decision making process on how we're using CP has room for discussion. Rotate Rock Cartwright, Cooley, Sellers, Royal, at the point and mix Betts with it.

So If the last month should be any indication then we should have an advantage in Arizona; spread should be at least us by 3. During the first 11 games when we ran 5 times , on 3d down ( we were successful 3 times) past Sunday 5 times and converted (5), % converted: 8 of 10 for 80 %. On 3d down first 11 games when we we passed 5 times ( sucessful 4-5) Sunday 0 % pass on 3d down, converted 4 of 5 for 80%. QB keeper 4 times (3-4), Sunday 1(0-1) % converted 3 of 5 for 60%. Our total on 3d down conversions first 11 games 10-14 for 71% Sunday 5 of 6 for 83%. So it looks like when we run on 3d down our chances to convert are better. Does anyone have anything different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I recall when Joe Gibbs first coached the Redskins in '81, he started off with both John Riggins and Joe Washington in the backfield. For whatever reason, he removed the fullback and replaced it with 2 TEs. Gibbs went back to it from time to time, but after Otis Wonsley left, Gibbs never had a real FB.

The reason Joe switched from the then-conventional two-back set to the H-Back scheme was that he went 0-5 to start the '81 season.

My read on it is that the H-back, with a blocking tight end, offers a more powerful inside running game. The tradeoff is the loss of deception and versatility of going outside with a halfback and inside with a fullback from the same formation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason Joe switched from the then-conventional two-back set to the H-Back scheme was that he went 0-5 to start the '81 season.

My read on it is that the H-back, with a blocking tight end, offers a more powerful inside running game. The tradeoff is the loss of deception and versatility of going outside with a halfback and inside with a fullback from the same formation.

Whoaaa thats powerful good post, lot of subsatnce and inciteful. So, I guess I'm right and some people may agree...others who don't well that's why they call it a sport:

Posted earlier:

Look CP is best used in the I formation where he can better see the field make adjustments on the run, in-zone blocking and choose his cut backs. So this is not a blame game. It’s just an observation based off of what I see. I'm Skins through and through. But one has to wonder about how we think we're best using CP. Closing argument look at LTs stats and look at CPs its about a 100yd difference , LTs average is higher and his long has a delta of 20 yds with 17 TDs. Our decision making process on how we're using CP has room for discussion. Rotate Rock Cartwright, Cooley, Sellers, Royal, at the point and mix Betts with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...