Offensive Scheme Q&A Thread

[ramblinvak]

During the game yesterday against Clemson, the announcers kept saying our B-Back position is synonymous to a full back in a conventional offense. I have also heard times in the past running back recruits do not want to come here because they think the are going to be playing fullback. This confuses me because our B-back carries the ball in this offense and does not block ahead for out ball carriers, which would lead me to believe our b-black is more related to a running back. Could someone clarify this for me? Is it just espn spewing nonsense information or is there some merit to that claim.

 

[TampaGT]

During the game yesterday against Clemson, the announcers kept saying our B-Back position is synonymous to a full back in a conventional offense. I have also heard times in the past running back recruits do not want to come here because they think the are going to be playing fullback. This confuses me because our B-back carries the ball in this offense and does not block ahead for out ball carriers, which would lead me to believe our b-black is more related to a running back. Could someone clarify this for me? Is it just espn spewing nonsense information or is there some merit to that claim.

The definition of fullback has changed over the years. The original meaning Of halfback and fullback have flip flopped. The halfback got its name because he was half of the way back and accordingly the fullback was all the way back. So when they say fullback in regards to our b backthey are talking about the original meaning a fullback in which The fullback got the majority of the carries.

 

[AE 87]

During the game yesterday against Clemson, the announcers kept saying our B-Back position is synonymous to a full back in a conventional offense. I have also heard times in the past running back recruits do not want to come here because they think the are going to be playing fullback. This confuses me because our B-back carries the ball in this offense and does not block ahead for out ball carriers, which would lead me to believe our b-black is more related to a running back. Could someone clarify this for me? Is it just espn spewing nonsense information or is there some merit to that claim.

There are two ways of labeling a position: formation and function. When we label backs as A-Backs and B-Backs, we are labeling them based on formation, what many call the flexbone.

The name flexbone arises because the h-backs of the old wishbone formation are flexed into the slots closer to the line of scrimmage. Our B-back is still lined up where the wishbone full back was lined up. For that reason, people familiar with the wishbone see it still as a full back by formation.

 

[Buzz776g]

But not by function, correct? And that is what we need to emphasize to 'croots?

 

[AE 87]

But not by function, correct? And that is what we need to emphasize to 'croots?

Correct. However, it's a tough thing for TV commentators to communicate to the public. In many ways discussing the running back positions in our offensive scheme will always be like translating from one language to another when you simply don't have equivalent terms.

If it were up to me, I'd have our SID tell the commentators to call the B-Backs the Feature Backs and the A-Backs, the Slot-Backs, or something like that. If you tell them to use the CPJ lingo which doesn't communicate anything to the public, then they will always translate somehow.

Regardless though, you can't change the fact that our B-Backs get into a 3-pt stance, and we will still face the negative recruiting attached to not operating from a 2-pt stance like pro tail backs.

 

[forensicbuzz]

But not by function, correct? And that is what we need to emphasize to 'croots?

Incorrect. The B-Back follows the function of the Wishbone Fullback too. He is the initial dive read and quick hitter. If the dive is open, he'll get the ball every play in the 3-O. However, because the 1 and 3 backs (H-Backs) are flexed out to the end of the line, there are a few other formations that can be run that typically aren't out of the wishbone.

 

[forensicbuzz]

The difference is that in the I formation, the fullback is typically a big, bruiser that is a lead blocker for the tailback. Like @AE87 said, our fullback is more of a "feature back" than a blocking back. Very rarely is our fullback a lead blocker, with the exception of the midline option or midline QB keeper.

 

[AE 87]

Incorrect. The B-Back follows the function of the Wishbone Fullback too. He is the initial dive read and quick hitter. If the dive is open, he'll get the ball every play in the 3-O. However, because the 1 and 3 backs (H-Backs) are flexed out to the end of the line, there are a few other formations that can be run that typically aren't out of the wishbone.

Yeah, but he meant not function in terms of how the function of a fullback is typically understood today, as your next post says.

And if you want to tag me, then you need to put a space between the E and the 8, @AE 87

 

[forensicbuzz]

Yeah, but he meant not function in terms of how the function of a fullback is typically understood today, as your next post says.

And if you want to tag me, then you need to put a space between the E and the 8, @AE 87

yes, but the announces equate our offense to the wishbone, so when they refer to the B-Back as the fullback, they're talking about a wishbone fullback. Other coaches use the term "fullback" pejoratively when negatively recruiting us to feature backs, but the announcers aren't necessarily. I think his question was directly related to the announcers' use of the term. Anyway, I think everyone understands.

 

[GT_ATL]

Do we regularly audible at the LOS? Or is the playcall that Johnson sends in final? It seems natural for our offense to react to the pre-snap alignment of the D. For example, let's say we're in a symmetric formation with 2 A-backs and a rocket toss to the right is called. If the D comes out in a traditional 4-3 and the right side safety cheats up to the LOS a fair amount, would we audible the toss to go the other way? Or, let's say the D has their two outside linebackers play on the edge of the line and we have a B-Back option called. Do we audible to a B-back dive or something similar? I don't recall our QB ever making any obvious motions to indicate that they're changing the play.

 

[Squints]

Do we regularly audible at the LOS? Or is the playcall that Johnson sends in final? It seems natural for our offense to react to the pre-snap alignment of the D. For example, let's say we're in a symmetric formation with 2 A-backs and a rocket toss to the right is called. If the D comes out in a traditional 4-3 and the right side safety cheats up to the LOS a fair amount, would we audible the toss to go the other way? Or, let's say the D has their two outside linebackers play on the edge of the line and we have a B-Back option called. Do we audible to a B-back dive or something similar? I don't recall our QB ever making any obvious motions to indicate that they're changing the play.

When you see the A-backs wave their hands I believe that's an indication to the wide receivers that the play has changed. The QB changes it using only his voice so you won't see a lot of gesticulating from him when it happens. CPJ has also called timeouts when he doesn't like the play that the QB has checked in to.

 

[B Lifsey]

My mind is foggy on when this happened but on a 3rd or 4th and long didn't JT totally change play to a BBack dive off left side when defense had really stacked right offensive side leaving a huge hole for Days? He made a 25+ yard gain or something.

 

[steebu]

I believe it was against NC State and they had overloaded our left side, so Justin audibled to a dive to the right. I think it was something like 3rd and 8, too.

The QB has the ability to flip a play, so if PJ called triple to the right but the numbers aren't good there Justin can flip it and run the triple to the left.

Back in 2009 I asked PJ if he allowed his QB's to change plays (not just sides) and he said, "That would be a 'no'." (direct quote)

I think, however, that probably depends on his QB; he has a lot of trust in Justin and I'm sure he allows Justin to switch to certain running plays but maybe not to passing plays. Even though PJ said, "I love Justin Thomas", if Justin ever switched from Spread Triple to Trips Right Go we would probably see PJ go berserk.

We only run six plays so there really isn't much to audible to, anyway.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

We only run six plays so there really isn't much to audible to, anyway.

Thanks for the informative post Steebu. I have nothing pertinent to add but could not resist giving you props for this last line. I cracked a big grin at that!

 

[gtg936g]

I thought CPJ sent in the play and the corresponding audible.

If I remember the Miami OT game Tevin changed from the follow to the toss based on the D alignment. The D then shifted and he ran the follow while the team ran the toss.

 

[Big Philly]

I believe it was against NC State and they had overloaded our left side, so Justin audibled to a dive to the right. I think it was something like 3rd and 8, too.

I remember that but I believe he audibled to the Triple. There were only two in the count on that side and he checked at the line. I think someone asked him about it in the post-game interview and his response was something to the effect of "they didn't have enough guys on that side."

 

[Skeptic]

Inspired by Eric's thread, I'll add this variant.

I'm not an "expert", but I am at least somewhat knowledgeable about what we do on offense.
If you have any X's and O's questions, fire away. If I can't answer them, I'm sure one of masterminds here can chime in.

Wow. This is one of the real attractions of this board. So you having opened it up, maybe you can address a question I raised elsewhere: did Johnson implement a lot more of his playbook with Thomas this season, particularly as the season went along, and was Thomas doing some really funky footwork and kind of backside handoffs and such that none of the other QBs ever did?

 

[Skeptic]

Thanks for the informative post Steebu. I have nothing pertinent to add but could not resist giving you props for this last line. I cracked a big grin at that!

I heard that again after the Clemson game this year, but it was more in admiration than pejorative. That was a top flight defense that was burned for a lot more rushing yards than they were used to.

 

[slugboy]

Wow. This is one of the real attractions of this board. So you having opened it up, maybe you can address a question I raised elsewhere: did Johnson implement a lot more of his playbook with Thomas this season, particularly as the season went along, and was Thomas doing some really funky footwork and kind of backside handoffs and such that none of the other QBs ever did?

At least one of the "new" plays were JT running to the wrong spot and getting big yardage anyway. Look at some of @Longestday 's video breakdowns on the main football forum.

 

[Skeptic]

At least one of the "new" plays were JT running to the wrong spot and getting big yardage anyway. Look at some of @Longestday 's video breakdowns on the main football forum.

Nice. I played against a guy like that once. We all threatened to rip his legs off. When we caught him.

Adding a new question but Thomas/offense related obviously, did we throw more back shoulder stuff in '14 than in the past? It sure seemed so to me, but maybe we never had the arm or accuracy before. TW certainly not, Nesbitt not in terms of accuracy, and I just never figured Lee out. But in the Orange Bowl it worked with Waller, and against Clemson particularly Thomas and Smelter just wore out that phenom Clemson safety, to the point I was told that Venables -- who I think is an outstanding DC -- was giving him a clinic in the locker room at halftime. Anybody?