Split RB Strategy? Sign me up!

[Mick063]

Pete likes any RB he plays on the field to have a strong willingness to block and best ability to block can earn snaps on obvious passing situations which is why Travis Homer got many snaps as such. Christian Michaels was slow to understand that his early lack of willingness led to being in Pete's doghouse regardless of blessed ability to run.

Don't confuse an inexperienced rookie, learning how to block, with a person that "doesn't have a willingness" to block. That is more than just a presumptuous leap. This isn't pointed directly at you. It is directed at folks that would interpret your post differently than intended. Regardless, this discussion has now jumped the guardrail beyond a pro set.

Further, with respect to a pro set, if you have big-bodied Zach lined up with K9, you are not going to utilize K9 as a primary blocker. Either he is going to be a feint or a ball handler. One of the two.

 

[Hawkmode]

Don't confuse an inexperienced rookie, learning how to block, with a person that "doesn't have a willingness" to block. That is more than just a presumptuous leap. This isn't pointed directly at you. It is directed at folks that would interpret your post differently than intended. Regardless, this discussion has now jumped the guardrail beyond a pro set.

Further, with respect to a pro set, if you have big-bodied Zach lined up with K9, you are not going to utilize K9 as a primary blocker. Either he is going to be a feint or a ball handler. One of the two.

I emphasized Christian Michaels as an example to clarify "willingness". Pete continues to rave how K9 applies his efforts to improve in all aspects of his RB role...especially early in this years mini camp/OTA period.

 

[bileever]

The two-back concept has limited utility in today's NFL. What the offense needs to do is to stretch the field, horizontally (and vertically), and two backs don't really do that.

And deception? I don't think it's that deceptive, and deception only gets you so far, anyway. Resorting to trickery is for desperate teams. Disguise is more important, for an offense to line up in the same way, but to be able to run different plays out of that formation.

 

[Mick063]

The two-back concept has limited utility in today's NFL. What the offense needs to do is to stretch the field, horizontally (and vertically), and two backs don't really do that.

And deception? I don't think it's that deceptive, and deception only gets you so far, anyway. Resorting to trickery is for desperate teams. Disguise is more important, for an offense to line up in the same way, but to be able to run different plays out of that formation.

I would bet you money that the pro set is in the playbook. I would also bet that it is rarely pulled out of the library for the gameday short list or otherwise rarely practiced during the week leading up to gameday. I would also bet that the team could actually make the pro set situationally work, primarily because talent typically trumps strategy (strategy is a subset of talent, i.e. matchup exploitation). The two backs mentioned are not chopped liver, nor is the revised offensive line, but the personnel wealth at tight end and receiver makes the pro set an unlikely proposition. I still believe the team could make it situationally work, but there are better options.

 

[RiverDog]

Not sure where your opinion comes from? We don't use a split back set...

No, we don't. But I saw how good of a blocker Walker was last year, and he was horrible. If we did use a 2 back set, he would be called on to block more often than he would in a single back set.

 

[RiverDog]

Show me a running back, used primarily as a ball carrier in college, that is a good NFL blocker as a rookie.
It is an acquired talent at the NFL level. Coaches rarely utilize rookie running backs like that.

Which proves my point. You're right, most college backs used primarily as ball carriers in college aren't great blockers. So why put them in a position where they're bound to fail?

It's unlikely that in a two back set that both RB's will go out on a pass pattern. One of them is almost certainly going to be held in to block as you're not going to have anyone to protect the QB if the defense decides to blitz. I would much rather see an additional TE, H-back, etc in those situations rather than a 2 back set.

 

[Hawkmode]

I would bet you money that the pro set is in the playbook. I would also bet that it is rarely pulled out of the library for the gameday short list or otherwise rarely practiced during the week leading up to gameday. I would also bet that the team could actually make the pro set situationally work, primarily because talent typically trumps strategy (strategy is a subset of talent, i.e. matchup exploitation). The two backs mentioned are not chopped liver, nor is the revised offensive line, but the personnel wealth at tight end and receiver makes the pro set an unlikely proposition. I still believe the team could make it situationally work, but there are better options.

 

[Hawkmode]

The split back is getting a lot of "blow back" as if it was a serious option for a base set. 11 and 12 personnel will continue to be the formations of origin that most of our plays will work out of. Bump's suggestion is merely a reflection of having a high skilled RB stable. As you pointed out any sustained use of it would negate having JSN or even Noah Fant who are both able to accentsuate the best out of 11 personnel (JSN) and 12 personnel (Fant). Its not a gimmick/deception...its an option with a strong lead depending on down and distance.

 

[Hawkmode]

Which proves my point. You're right, most college backs used primarily as ball carriers in college aren't great blockers. So why put them in a position where they're bound to fail?

It's unlikely that in a two back set that both RB's will go out on a pass pattern. One of them is almost certainly going to be held in to block as you're not going to have anyone to protect the QB if the defense decides to blitz. I would much rather see an additional TE, H-back, etc in those situations rather than a 2 back set.

Proves your point? Many things apply for various positions when recruiting college personnel. NFL coaches are highly paid to coach up willing college personnel to transform their college talent into NFL use. Some of the "horrible' blocking you saw is with you not knowing what scheme/assignment for a particular play called is being executed.

Fans don't see a given play through a coach's eye. Your O-line personnel and even TE in-line blocking have trouble with very good stunting defenders...let alone the many move techniques/counters of a well coached defender.

Expecting a rookie RB to not look out of place at times with a blitzing NFL linebacker or stunting lineman attacking with a full head of steam is a bit assuming on your part. Travis Homer took well to being coached up at it but its still a mismatch upon impact.

 

[RiverDog]

Proves your point? Many things apply for various positions when recruiting college personnel. NFL coaches are highly paid to coach up willing college personnel to transform their college talent into NFL use. Some of the "horrible' blocking you saw is with you not knowing what scheme/assignment for a particular play called is being executed.

Fans don't see a given play through a coach's eye. Your O-line personnel and even TE in-line blocking have trouble with very good stunting defenders...let alone the many move techniques/counters of a well coached defender.

Expecting a rookie RB to not look out of place at times with a blitzing NFL linebacker or stunting lineman attacking with a full head of steam is a bit assuming on your part. Travis Homer took well to being coached up at it but its still a mismatch upon impact.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm agreeing with you.

What I am trying to say is that if we go to a two back set, the backs are going to be expected to do more blocking, something that at least based on his play from last season, we know Walker can't do, and as you pointed out, it's unlikely that either of our two rookie running backs will be able to do, either.

That's one of the reasons why I don't think you'll see us employing a 2 back set as a regular feature in our offense this season.

 

[Hawkmode]

I'm not assuming anything. I'm agreeing with you.

What I am trying to say is that if we go to a two back set, the backs are going to be expected to do more blocking, something that at least based on his play from last season, we know Walker can't do, and as you pointed out, it's unlikely that either of our two rookie running backs will be able to do, either.

That's one of the reasons why I don't think you'll see us employing a 2 back set as a regular feature in our offense this season.

Your last sentence (...That's one) makes the most sense for explaining your take on not wanting to use 21 personnel as a base formation. Agreed...with a strong lead into the 4th...split backs or the more stable 12 personnel...options for forcing our opponents defense to try to rotate in while we turn to high tempo once we see a rotation we like.

As for your insistent "we know Walker can't do"...its unwarranted with the small sample size a rookie RB sees...its as if you subbed in DK and Lockett and squacked about Locketts inability to seal a block to "spring" DK...thats where you lose me accepting your view since blocking as lead back in a two back set is not the same as effectively pass pro blocking a blitzing NFL LB.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

If I was an offensive lineman on the team without a starting position, I'd lobby to be a blocking fullback on short yardage downs. Or in any situation where they think they'd benefit from a blocking fullback in obvious running situations.

A bit of a side note but we had a family friend that was a UDFA as a mostly blocking TE out of college. He wasn’t quite OL big and he was slow, so his receiving career was limited. When he was on the bubble after 2-3 seasons, he listened to the vets that had made a career out of being borderline and learned to long snap. Bought him 5-6 more years in the league, very important for getting his benefits vested, on top of a nice salary.

 

[Scout]

I can see the pro set coming back in style as the explosion with WR salaries is making it harder to create a balanced passing attack by paying two WRs like they are #1s when modern NFL passing attacks need at minimum at least three WRs that are at least starter level.

RBs that can block and catch while a niche are also very cost effective and a great security blanket for a young or veteran QB like a TE is or 12 personnel formations.

 

[Mick063]

I can see the pro set coming back in style as the explosion with WR salaries is making it harder to create a balanced passing attack by paying two WRs like they are #1s when modern NFL passing attacks need at minimum at least three WRs that are at least starter level.

RBs that can block and catch while a niche are also very cost effective and a great security blanket for a young or veteran QB like a TE is or 12 personnel formations.

To add to your point, depth is an issue as well because injuries are a way of life. Given the right set of injuries, you can be damn sure that the team is going to experiment to put their best eleven players on the field. The pro set could easily become a very viable set given the right combination of injuries.

 

[chris98251]

Well at some point here I think the I or split back filed will make a come back, the FB will be valued again and hard to find in a few years. With light D lineman and LB'S burly Oxen on the O line and a blocking fullback will have their way with a defense. Not as sensational down to down as a all out passing attack but more cost effective across the team, time of possession is better for that offense, less turnovers typically. You can still have a great passing game, just isn't going to be 3 and 4 wide every down.