Toggle sidebar

Split Backs

C

ChattTide

All-SEC
Jul 20, 2000
1,640
164
187
53
Memphis, TN
Terry brought up a good topic the other day in passing in another thread and I wanted to continue with the discussion. Basically this is to my lack of knowledge in the subject. Been involved in band and can watch a good game and know what is going on. Don't know about all the X's and O's about how this would work.

What would the split backs bring to us? I mean, to look at what we have a running back and to see who we have recruited, we have a STABLE of running backs and know where to put all of them. Would a split back (I think this is called a pro set formation) help in the process of developing these young runners? It seems that it would put pressure on the defense to cover one or the other or try to cover both.

Those of you with football knowledge (or some knowledge :biggrin: ), give me some insight.

Roll Tide!!
ChattTide
 
ChattTide said:
Terry brought up a good topic the other day in passing in another thread and I wanted to continue with the discussion. Basically this is to my lack of knowledge in the subject. Been involved in band and can watch a good game and know what is going on. Don't know about all the X's and O's about how this would work.

What would the split backs bring to us? I mean, to look at what we have a running back and to see who we have recruited, we have a STABLE of running backs and know where to put all of them. Would a split back (I think this is called a pro set formation) help in the process of developing these young runners? It seems that it would put pressure on the defense to cover one or the other or try to cover both.

Those of you with football knowledge (or some knowledge :biggrin: ), give me some insight.

Roll Tide!!
ChattTide
Click to expand...


I don't see much benefit except in passing situations where you have two backs that catch well out of the backfield. But then you get into tipping your hand to the defense in that when they see those two backs in the backfield odds are they know you're going to throw.

Unfortunately only one player can carry the ball at one time.
 
The split back formation allows the backs to get into passing routes quicker. To be able to use it effectively, you need two backs that are both proficient in blocking, running, or receiving--otherwise, you give the defense a tip as to what you're going to do.

In addition, in passing plays, the back(s) start out in more or less the correct position for their blocking assignment, reducing the odds of a blown assignment.

It doesn't seem well suited for a power running game, as neither back is in a position to provide lead blocking for the other. Can be good for sweeps, in that the lead blocker is a little further ahead, allowing the runner a fraction more time to choose a hole.
 
The spit back set is a pure West Coast Offense formation. While it doesnt look like it has many benifits, I think Shaun Alexander would beg to differ.

The Seahawks are the last team to run a pure West Coast Offense, thus running many plays out of this formation.

Its effectiveness really just depends on your talent level. This formation was created to aid in the short passing game.
 
Last edited:
CornBiscuit said:
The spit back set is a pure West Coast Offense formation. While it doesnt look like it has many benifits, I think Shaun Alexander would beg to differ.

The Seahawks are the last team to run a pure West Coast Offense, thus running many plays out of this formation.

Its effectiveness really just depends on your talent level. This formation was created to aid in the short passing game.
Click to expand...


Shaun has definitely benefited from this type of quick hitting running plays that are generated from the WCO. Shaun also has benefited from running behind one of the best OL's in the NFL. Holmgren has put together in Seattle (as he did in Greenbay) a very solid OL.

We don't run a lot of high percentage short passes as does the WCO. Our passing game is more vertical which puts a premium on being able to run the ball effectively. I think CMS will tweak this approach (though he hasn't called for my advice) and begin to incorporate more of the intermediate high percentage passes. I just don't think we can afford to continue to ignore the intermediate middle part of the field like we have done so far. There is too much opportunity to slide a back or a TE behind the LB's and gain valuable yardage.
 
The players we have were recruited to suit the current offense, so why change it? Our offense is just fine, we receivers just need to catch the ball! We have good backs and an improving o-line, perfect for a play-action type of offense with balance. Moving the ball requires balance so defenses have to guess what we are going to do, but if we cannot catch the ball, we cannot present a passing threat. Take home message is that we perfect, not change what we have.
 
sdmcdona89 said:
The players we have were recruited to suit the current offense, so why change it? Our offense is just fine, we receivers just need to catch the ball! We have good backs and an improving o-line, perfect for a play-action type of offense with balance.
Click to expand...


I agree with most of what you're saying but we could stand to use a little more of the field than what we do with our passing scheme. The intermediate middle part of the field has weeds growing in it because we rarely use it.

I'm a firm believer in forcing the defense to defend the entire field not just a section of it. If our scheme doesn't use the middle of the field we're giving an advantage to the defense, one less thing to worry about.

Now I don't know how much of our lack of using the TE and the middle of the field had to do with our poor OL play but with the talent pool getting better it will certainly reveil whether our lack of interest in the middle of the field (with the TE) was the result of lack of talent or OL or philosophy.
 
I agree with that 100% and we can easily use the TE position in our current offense. I think the TE is one of the most valuable tools in any offense and if you have an athletic TE that is tall, fast, and has good hands it would be foolish not to use him. A good TE presents so many match-up problems because you would have to use a LB or SS to key on him. I think we have good TEs and the fact that we have a first year starter at QB, we need to emphasize throwing to him. A five to six yard dump in the flat to the tight end on first down puts as much pressure on a defense as an 0-2 count on a hitter.
 
Our running game seems predictable and it's almost always the TB that gets the ball. If we had two threats in the backfield seems like the running game might be harder to defend. Of course we could just give it to the FB more often.
 
TexasTide said:
Our running game seems predictable and it's almost always the TB that gets the ball. If we had two threats in the backfield seems like the running game might be harder to defend. Of course we could just give it to the FB more often.
Click to expand...


Some of that has to do with the play caller having a good "feel" of the game. Many times it's not the play you call but when you call it. But I also don't think this offense is a finish product either. CMS is still learning and I'm sure that with experience and age he'll change and some of his philosophies will change.
 
With a split back field you either lose a lead blocker by using a dive, or to get a lead blocker you would have to run a lateral type of running game that requires a pulling guard, like the Green Bay Packers during the Bart Starr days. Back then linebackers where big and slow. Now linebackers are fast and can read those types of plays and make plays in the backfield. That's why those types of offenses are extinct. I agree that we have been predictable, but not because of the type of offense, but the play selection. If we execute the offense we have we can be successful. A few dropped passes and a few overthrown passes in the LSU game caused us to limited play selection. That game could have been similar to the UF game if we execute. And sometimes being predictable is good, if you have the personnel to say, "we are going to run it and you can't stop us". The next thing you know, play fake to darby, big Andre flattens the blitzing linebaker, and Wilson hits Stover on the post pattern for a 50 yard TD. Roll-tide baby!!!!
 
Anyone look back to CMS as an OC? How much did the Bucks use it? How well did they do? There's a LOT of backs on this team I'd like to see play, and more comming. Might go six-deep at A-day with nuttin-but-studs.
 
If we don't come up with a "true FB" to replace LeRon then we may see it in 07 by default. OTOH, with Johns, Coffee, Upchurch, Sharrief, Grant, Alexander, and Ford...it might not be a bad idea. Maybe we could also put in a little misdirection and counter plays. ;)
 
If I'm not mistaken, we used a split-back formation quite a bit during the 97 season. Bruce Arians was the OC that year. The next season, Arians was gone and Stubbs was brought in to replace him. (I think.) Anyhoo, we didn't set the world on fire in 97. (Painful memories.......)
 
CrimsonCable said:
If I'm not mistaken, we used a split-back formation quite a bit during the 97 season. Bruce Arians was the OC that year. The next season, Arians was gone and Stubbs was brought in to replace him. (I think.) Anyhoo, we didn't set the world on fire in 97. (Painful memories.......)
Click to expand...

Wasnt '97 Dubose's first year? Off the top of my head...I think we went 4-7?
 
CrimsonCable said:
If I'm not mistaken, we used a split-back formation quite a bit during the 97 season. Bruce Arians was the OC that year. The next season, Arians was gone and Stubbs was brought in to replace him. (I think.) Anyhoo, we didn't set the world on fire in 97. (Painful memories.......)
Click to expand...
No, but we almost set Bruce Arians on fire. ;)
 
"The spit back set is a pure West Coast Offense formation. While it doesnt look like it has many benifits, I think Shaun Alexander would beg to differ."

That's not necessarily true. Often times the veer option is run from the split back formation. Alot of high school teams run the splitback veer. Teams also run the veer from the I formation because they also run the toss sweep.
 
buzzincuzzin said:
Anyone look back to CMS as an OC? How much did the Bucks use it? How well did they do?
Click to expand...


You've hit on something that really is a concern (with me). During the time with the bucs that Shula was OC the problem never was the style of offense they were running. Because many teams have run just as conservative offenses and won superbowls. To me the problem was playcalling and the timing of the playcalling, which is a problem I forsee with CMS here at Bama.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with running a conservative offense. But when your offensive playcalling becomes predictable and you have a lot of "tendancies" that's when you fall into trouble. I see signs of that with our offense. But granted you have to (as of now) give the benefit of the doubt to CMS because lack of talent and execution hasn't held up to it's end of the bargain either. But I do see where if we don't watch it we could easily fall into one of those "bucs" teams where we are predictable. That is why I wish that CMS would delegate the playcalling to someone else. It's not a knock on CMS as a coach but I just feel he doesn't have a knack for playcalling. I've heard on more than one occassion from fans of other teams that have played us that our offense is "predictable". Some on here even vouch that they can call about 60-70% of the plays before they happen.
 
Doesn't the split backs help in an option too? I know we rarely run an option if at all, but with Wilson and maybe Barnes getting in at QB and McElroy coming later, and our awesome backfield wouldn't we be able to run the option? Also, we could sneak Alexander or Johns at QB for a play. Also, with this huge backfield, are we going to see any strong formation or T-Back formations?

RTR
 
I could see running the option with Johns or Alexander...but definitely not with Wilson, Barnes, or McElroy. But we don't really need to worry about it because CMS is not a fan of the option. He runs a pro-style offense. Unless he completely changes his offensive philosophy, we won't see Bama running the option except, perhaps, as a trick play with Johns or Alexander in an attemp to catch the defense napping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back