Wishbone
I had an epiphany on the bus this morning. While listening to some tunes and contemplating life and what I was going to do at work today my mind drifted back to the H-back/Magic 3. I really liked this posting but was always wondering if an athletic 46 defence could successfully throw a wrench in Denver’s plans of world domination. Then I started to think about a book I read last summer on Paul ‘Bear’ Bryant who was one of the greatest football coaches that ever lived. Bryant was most famous for being the head coach at several university but specifically Alabama. Another interesting fact for you football history junkies was that while playing for ‘Bama in the 30’s he was the other Flanker (WR) across from Hall of Fame Receiver Don Hutson. While at ‘Bama Bryant brought in the wishbone offense after copying it from the Darrell Royal, Head Coach at Texas and it was a huge success in of the 70’s and 80’s in college. A number of teams who used the offense won national championships with it.
I'm guessing that most readers are not fimiliar with the wishbone offense so I will start somewhere at the begining of its inception.
Flexbone Offense
(I have pictures but can't figure out why they won't paste)
Refer to this site for Pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_offense
Flexbone Offense
The Wishbone is a modification on the Flexbone Formation, which is an option offense. For those of you unfimiliar with the option here is link tha might help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_offense). The jist of it is that the QB has the regular options to pass or hand off the ball but it also allows for them to run with it and toss it to another player. Currently the best known team to run this type of offense would be the Florida Gators. The Flexbone would put the RB’s closer to the line of scrimmage almost in a ‘trips’ look being just outside the OT. The RB would be called Slotbacks or SB in the Diagram above. Out of the option formation you can run different types of running plays with the ball being passed out behind the line of scrimmage. You can get the ball to the outside much faster creating mismatches amongst players. If you have ever seen or played rugby think about the Scrumhalf getting the ball out quickly to the backs and then moving it on down the line. The wishbone is very similar but it moves the RBs behind the FB so when the QB turns he knows where the RB will be: visibility of your RBs was a major concern in the
Flexbone formation. In the flexbone the RBs are usually in motion before the snap and move in and behind the QB who will hand it off to them on running. Whilemost Option formations are primarily running formation you can set up big passing plays with play action fakes. The spread offense also has options that can be run out of the Shotgun or pistol formation (but that's getting off point).
Now for the Wishbone offense which as I said before is very similar to the Flexbone but has some destinct characteristics that have made it more effective. The Wishbone evolved from problems that teams were having with the Flexbone and other formations because the QB didn't know where his Back was going to be. The Wishbone rectified this problem by putting all the backs behind the Quarterback so he could turn and find them.
Wishbone
Same idea here
<!-- TOKEN_1237502551197_TOKEN -->
Wishbone
The benefit with the Wishbone was that in college you could freeze the Linebackers for a couple extra second because they would be afraid of the FB gaining 3 to 4 yards in a cloud of smoke. This gave the QB, RBs and WR the extra second or two get to the outside and start gaining yards. The reason it never transcended from college to the Pros was that it didn’t freeze the LBs when the FB rushed the ball at the pro level because they were athletic enough to make both the outside and inside stop without fear of the FB. Also, note that you don’t need to have two WRs: you can interchange a TE on the opposite side of the WR to catch and block. The limition of the Wishbone is that there are only so many formations (2WR,0TE), (1TE, 1WR), (0WR, 2TE) you can line up in because of the amount of player you need on the line of scrimage. Mind you there are countless numbers of plays you can run within a specific wishbone formation because of the fakes and routes you can add in.
What does this all mean for the Broncos? Simply put I think we could successfully run the wishbone because of some of the players we have on the roster. Primarily, the RB/FB on nearly everyone’s mind is Peyton Hillis. If you were to line Hillis up in the Wishbone FB position, not only could he block, run and catch outside but, as we know, one of his biggest strengths is his straight up the middle ability. Also, between the dozen or so RBs we have on the team, each with their own skill set, we could mix and match combinations of player to fit the play and really mess with people. Also it is important to note that a Zone blocking system which Dennison runs (Denver O-line Coach) would make the Wishbone even more potent because of the O-linemen's ability to block on the move.
The Wishbone has been so successful in college because you can move players around in it so well that it would be a great addition. Denver’s offense could be so explosive from the wishbone and magic three that teams won’t know what to think. Defences have a hard enough dealing with same old plays that when something new comes along, even if it’s been around a long time (like the Wildcat), they will have hard enough time adjusting.
Finally I was trying to find a good example of the wishbone offense at work and this is best that I could find (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cukCQWqaYE). It's not that great showing what I'm trying to get at with the wishbone but it gives you a prespecive beyond the X's and O's. Notice the fake to the FB which slides out the defense and then the RB drives it home.
A big thanks goes out to Broncobear who helped edit and gave helpful sight with this post. If you are looking for helpful insight before you make a post, send him a e-mail at MHRTales@gmail.com and I'm sure he will be a great help to you too.
This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR
1 recs |
15 comments
Comments
If Cutler goes
Using the wishbone could make a lot of sense. Only having a few formations would make the new QB’s job a lot easier to learn the system. It also seems like it’s a run-heavy system, which would take pressure off the new signal caller.
If Jay stays, though, I don’t know.
by Eyecore13 on Mar 19, 2009 5:20 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Can you run a wishbone without a spleen
Seriously, I can’t see Simms taking a beating like that, are you proposing we trade for someone like Vince Young?
Also saw a horrible article suggesting we sign Vick, the horror, the horror.
"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
"McDaniels must go!" - Broncoman
by Broncoman on Mar 19, 2009 5:52 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Qb is the Question
Not matter who we have at QB I don’t think that the Wishbone really relies on the speed of the QB more so on his abillity to scramble and dump it off. I wouldn’t pick up either Young or Vick. As of right now both Cutler and Simms could probably run wishbone plays because they are both somewhat athletic. You could also throw in Hackney or a more mobile QB just for these types of plays. You would be running this formation maybe 5 to 15 times a game not everydown.
by maritimebronco on Mar 19, 2009 6:06 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure whare you got your history....
but the wishbone is a variation of the tee formation. In the 40s the tee featured a fullback behind the QB and two halfbacks to either side of the FB. When the T first came into being it wreaked havoc because the QB could easily fake to the FB before handing off the the trailing HB on a sweep. This ability to fake changed the way defenses had to play.
Daryl Royal took that a step further by backing the HBs up so there was more room, and having his QB read the defense before deciding to handoff, keep, or pitch – the triple option.
You don’t see the wishbone in major college anymore because it is too limiting in terms of other play potential, especially passing. Variations include the vere, and the spread option, which many colleges do run. Also tom Osborne developed the I-option but few team run that either.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Mar 19, 2009 7:15 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Agree with SWG
The Wishbone offense was good for college but has not proved it self in the pros. Why? It basically takes 4 runing backs, one being the QB. Interesting enough, the 3-4 that pros are moving too defeats the wishbone attack if they have the right package.
Actually Oklahoma ran the early prototype of the 3-4 back in the early 60s. Would it be successful today, probably not.
The OK defensive package had 4 LBs on the field. So how does that stack up today? The LBs were lighter and faster and were often envolved in what was callled a GAP 8 were they just set in the Gaps waiting for the bone to come. They also had to drop into pass lanes depending on the read.
The Wishbone may work, but not at the pro level where the players are bigger and stronger on defense and the bottom line what pro team can have their quaterback at risk when the passing game is big time?
by Halfmile on Mar 19, 2009 11:08 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
That is why that guy in Nashville, whatz hiz name...
is not the starter. No wish bone in Nashville.
It is better to keep silent, and appear to be wise, then to ramble on and remove all doubt! The Wisest Man, Solomon.
by metalman5050 on Mar 19, 2009 11:13 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
VY never ran a wishbone. The Longhorns ran/run a zone-read spread-option. Which is essentially the same offense that Oklahome, Utah, Florida, etc. run. It is very popular in college. It doesn’t work as well in the pros because you have to have a good running QB to make it work. Unfortunately, good running QBs are rarely actually good passing QBs as well (think Michael Vick). Running QBs tend to take off as soon as the play doesn’t seem to be working out. To succeed at the Pro level a QB has to be willing to hang in and complete their progression. It took Elway quite a few years to master this. Few other running QBs have.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Mar 20, 2009 10:15 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I also have to agree with SWG.
Not taking away from the article, but Wiki isn’t often the best source for football (and often other scholarly pursuits). My knowledge of the wishbone is closer to SWG’s take on it, and halfmile is correct to point out that the wishbone would face major hurdles with a modern defense.
While the wishbone isn’t used much, you could probably get away with it at the college level. Even there though, time seems to have passed it by.
Still, a good write-up and I’m giving you extra credit points for mentioning rugby (I played left lock, #4 with the scrum).
: )
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Mar 21, 2009 1:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
CU ran it back in the early 90's with quite a bit of success...
The option doesn’t work in the NFL though…DE’s and OLB’s are way too fast.
Any QB fast enough to run it wouldn’t be a good enough passer to keep the D honest. If it was possible, Plummer could have done it, Elway maybe in the early days, Steve Young could have. Another problem is that you are exposing your QB to hits on every down…after 16 games they are gonna look like they went through a meat grinder.
I like it as a trick or change of pace formation, NFL D’s don’t know how to defend it, but I don’t see it as an every down option.
by miner00 on Mar 20, 2009 3:51 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Actually CU ran an I-option offense in the late 80s and early 90s...
similar to what Nebraska ran. Mac actually called it the I-bone.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Mar 21, 2009 2:02 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't say that NFL level defenses don't know how to defend it.
If that were the case, NFL offenses would run it. I think the issue is the risk to the QB at the higher speed of the NFL, and the deeper complexities of NFL level defenses.
Just my opinion.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Mar 22, 2009 4:27 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me rephrase...
They aren’t used to seeing it…therefore it works as a surprise.
Yes, it wasn’t a pure wishbone, but the mechanics were pretty similar. I was going under the assumption that the original post was mostly talking about a 3 back option type offense. I-bone, wishbone is mostly semantics.
I agree though, danger to the QB and speed of the defense is the main hurdle.
by miner00 on Mar 24, 2009 4:18 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
In that case...
a variation of it can work at the NFL level. If you remember, back in 2005 the Broncos ran a variation of an option pitch a few times with success. Ron Dayne picked up a key 1st down late in the game against SD. Dayne also ran for the winning TD against Dallas. But it was mostly a trick play. If we ran it too often I’m sure it would have backfired like the blind rollout.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Mar 24, 2009 4:56 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough.
A well executed “college” play can work in the pros. But not likely over and over. Even the formation might signal the defense.
As a minor aside though, the pros ARE used to seeing it. They all played (or coached) college ball.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Mar 24, 2009 5:15 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I noticed that Miami's Wildcat formation
became less and less successful as the season wore on. These guys didn’t make it to the pros by being stupid.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Mar 24, 2009 5:50 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 






















