MHR University - FB programs versus Singleback Programs (and a shocking conclusion)

Always good to hear from you!

The pleasure is all mine.

Nah. To be honest, when I started the rough draft of this story, I was focused on going over the differences between the single-back sets (that we are moving torwards) and the FB sets (that the League as a whole seems to be slowly getting rid of). We knew this for some time. But I didn’t get the “trend angle” until later.

But it wasn’t until I was writing that rough draft that the 5-2 looks entered my mind. At that point, it made sense that defenses would adjust to new looks as well. This season, as we ran the 5-2 look, it didn’t really dawn on me that we might be seeing the counter to many of the single-back looks that we can expect to see more of. So I didn’t catch the entirety of the trend either.

But it makes sense (at least to me). Offenses are puting more guys on the line, and now so are defenses. Trench warfare is getting a lot more tricky!

The trend shift and staying ahead of it separates SuperBowl Dynasties (SF, Pitt, NE, Dallas) from bottom dwellers (Det, Det, Det) , Other than the flash in a pan defensive wonders (Chicago, TB, Balt) innovating offensively seems to be the ticket to strings of playoff appearances.

I would imagine that most teams have…

1) Used both a FB as well as single-back formations (as I had mentioned), and/or
2) Likely most of the formations at the SB level have included a FB in most of the 2 WR formations, at least until the arrival of the modern Patriots and Colts.

I was pretty young so I don’t remember paying attention to formations, but I’m pretty sure he was out there most of the time.

I think you are right. Much of the action that we see is designed to attack the interior of the line. And yet, with modern 3-4s looking more like 5-2s, the line is spread out. Those zone blitzes and stunts are involving more than the classic 3 or 4 man looking front. There is a need for the additional TEs for the offense in those looks, or so it would seem to me.

Your interest in the increase in size for OCs and OGs is well founded too. Note that McDaniels seems to be moving away from the exotic zone block scheme in favor of bringing in larger linemen. In addition to the reasons given in previous stories (such as the last MHR-U), there is the additional idea that this fits in nicely with today’s topic – a need for more linemen (via 2 TE sets).

Good points all.

Particularly in the A gaps which many teams didn’t have an answer for. I like the inside pressure because it also seems to create more pass knockdowns by occupying the passing lane for the QB. I think knockdowns are better than incompletions of the standard variety. The switch to the 5-2 alignment does make a lot of sense against current single back offensive strategy, but it must also be because we had personnel more suited to it than a classic 3-4.

On one such occasion, Gradkowski was knocked out of the game. I was hoping to see more of it, because they seemed to reach the QB faster, as many outside bltzes failed to get there before the ball was thrown.

In fairness though, a FB is often blocking someone who has had to get through the front line, and may be slowed. Of course, that isn’t always the case, as some guys get through unblocked. In the latter case, folks are quick to blame a FB for not getting the block, even though he is facing a defender with a full head of steam (as you point out).

Blocking at the FB position isn’t as easy as many fans might think. Good point!

Graham is underrated as being a “complete” TE.

Some programs DO add an extra linemen. At the HS level, we called such a variant “heavy”. I don’t know what other programs may have called such a thing, since I have always been entirely focused on defensive terms. If the guy just couldn’t catch a pass to save his life, he might get thrown in on a heavy form to beef up the run game.

The reason this isn’t seen much is because the vey presence of a TE reveals nothing to the defense. Bring in an extra OLman, and the defense can adjust accordingly. I imagine this problem magnifies at the pro level, which is why I’ve seen it at the HS level much more often.

However, I might differ a little on a very minor point, which is calling for a player to be an OT/TE tweener. If a player blocks at the level of an OLman, I’d just call him that. If he catches well enough to line up as an eligible receiver, he’s a TE (at least in my opinion). Of course, the guy is called whatever he lines up as. But (unlike other tweener positions), I think the level of skill required to be an all out blocker probably precludes a player from being seen as a potential TE. What I’m saying is that the extra guy may be called a TE because of where he lines up, but if he’s anything less than a standard blocker, he probably ought to be listed as a TE on the depth chart. (I hope that makes sense).

I also agree very much on the ramifications of losing the FB position. There is no doubt that a dimension of football would be lost without guys like Larson on the field playing at FB. But a combination of finance, available skill sets, and improved game planning seem to point us away from that style of football. Don’t worry though; while the changes are happening, I would still guess that we have another 10 to 20 years of modern football left before we move to ancient football (trench heavy) but with the forward pass variation.

I think MHR is a prime source for football theory. There are other Xs and Os places out there (though very few), but not really much in the way of theory. I enjoy writing it, and I enjoy members and staff who contribute to the theory postings as well.

That’s why I’ve written that we are trending towards “ancient football”, in fact, even older than the 50’s game.

One of the points of Magic 3 (a concept that not only includes 3 TE sets, but bases entire team systems on 3 TEs / 1 WR) is that we will return to a very old form of American football, but with the twist that the passing game is in full effect. You are entirely correct. Perhaps we’ll even bring back old position terms, such as flanker and wing for specialized TE line-ups and specialties.

Click on the link in the story (about radical shifts) for more on this.

You aren’t off your rocker at all!

In one way it is a shame. I grew up with football the way it has been over the last few decades. There have been many changes, not all of which are to my liking. But there ARE changes I’ve embraced. Some of the changes over the years include the forward pass (MANY years ago), the change in rules for how linemen can use their hands, the West Coast (and the Tampa counter to it), and restrictions on what CBs may or may not do. My bias has been with the tougher, physical game of football, not the hyper-modern / high scoring / crowd pleasing stuff we get a lot of now. Of course, part of my bias is that defenses should have a bigger role in the game instead of being speed bumps for high scoring games. (And yes, I HATE arena football).

Still, the changes I like are changes that come from coaches where a newer approach trumps something that has always been done the same way. I don’t like rules changes (for the most part), but I love strategic innovation.

The move towards 3 TEs, while long, is moving along pretty well. Down the road, some fool is going to be given the credit. But in fact, the changes have been gradual all along, and there are already several names that have nibbled at the edges.

I think that I’ll like the changes. The game will be much more physical (in terms of brute force), but will have moden elements of the passing game to make it much more clever than it was when the game began. Think of Godzilla with the mind of Hawkins.

: )

Folks love hearing about guys who have played the game, and what they experienced.

(I wish I could talk MY wife into watching some games. Sigh.)

There are two schools of thought on Hillis. One is that he is in the dog house with McDaniels for some reason, and the other is that there was an injury issue involved. A third thought may be that he just doesn’t fit what we are doing.

Sometimes versatility can allow a player to play multiple positions, but sometimes the change involves a lot more complexity than than we on the outside can see (Chris Cooley of the Redskins has played at FB and TE).

I don’t know why he isn’t playing. But from my own coaching experience, I know the public is often insistent on moves that coaches (having an inside view) now better about. For example, there may be severe problems in practices that the outside doesn’t know about (such as a failure to adapt to a new system, or difficulty with a radical change in the playbook or language), or a physical or even mental condition. Sometimes attitude is a problem. I’m not assigning any of these to Hillis; just pointing out that there can be all kinds of reasons. If the staff thinks Hillis gives us the best chance, he’ll be in there.

Here’s another thought. If Hillis isn’t playing, something is probably wrong. The team may be doing him a big favor by not explaining the situation to the public, so that Hillis’ marketability doesn’t decrease. Just a possibility.

What I saw of Hillis I really liked. But then again, I didn’t see all that much. Hillis was limited in the number of games he played.

I think Hillis has a better shot of playing as a RB than making the switch to TE. Of course, Hillis may prefer (or may be better suited) to play at FB for another team. I really don’t know.

I think our record was to be expected, and there was improvement. I’ll be expecting more in 2010, as the coach has a year under his belt with the team and the schedule looks a bit easier.

1 – “Part of me likes the the FB part in because of the advantages you stated in the beginnning…”

I grew up in coaching with FBs on the field, and cut my defensive teeth and planning for FBs who where lead blockers. I’m old fashioned in the sense that I prefer having the FB position, but the game is going to evolve (and it should). A lot of football (at the pro level) has already moved past what I grew up on. But that’s not a bad thing.

2 – “I really hope we keep Scheffler. I know you stated that moving toward blocking TEs like Graham is more beneficial than receiving TEs but wouldn’t it be better to have both than put everything on one side so to speak.”

I like Scheff a lot, and would like to see a system where we could enjoy his talents. But in fairness to the Broncos coaching staff, if Scheff doesn’t fit the scheme, he is worth more to another team than to us. Scheff is much more of a receiver than a blocker, is fun to watch, and gives a team a dynamic option. But if a team runs a system that doesn’t favor receiving TEs and needs more emphasis on blocking TEs (who can catch in a pinch), then Scheff may be better of where he can earn a bigger contract. (Everyone wins too. Scheff – bigger contract; Broncos – compensation; other team – key player).

Good thoughts all!

Most of all, we are moving towards a system that our coach is versed in. Second to that, it seems to be part of a bigger trend.

(Note, several teams have moved to ZB over the past five or six years, but just as many teams have moved away from it. As OL coach GIbbs and his disciples get older and have less followers, I imagine the scheme will fall further away. It is a shame, given how wonderfuly innovative and effective the scheme is. However, even larger trends like the loss of FB positions, the increase of TEs [and blocking TEs in particular], and the movement from the traditional 3-4 to the 5-2 are making the ZB less appealing to most teams).