Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
RB Participation
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="slugboy" data-source="post: 821804" data-attributes="member: 282"><p>I may be missing a point, but it looks like there are a few main points in this thread:</p><p></p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">We have talented backs, but only have one on the field at any time, and we’d play better with more backs in the backfield<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Variant: The flexbone got the ball to our backs, would be nice to have three backs in the backfield again</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">We stick with a straight RPO formation almost all the time, and we should vary our sets to put our opponents on their heels<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Variant of that: Put Gibbs in the slot so that we can run an end-around misdirection play with him while defenses are keying on another RB</li> </ul></li> </ol><p><em><strong><u>Point 1: </u></strong></em></p><p>One problem about multi-back backfields is that there’s only one ball. It’s one of the big problems with football in general compared to other sports that only half the offense is even allowed to touch the ball, and most of them don’t touch the ball on most plays. </p><p>Gibbs and Mason and Smith and Griffin probably get the same distribution of running plays where they get the ball in a single-back formation as they would in a split or multi-back backfield. The difference is, when they’re not getting the ball, they’re on the sideline. </p><p>The back who isn’t getting the ball is either a diversion or a blocker, or maybe both. </p><p></p><p>If you go back to when we started with the flexbone, the B-back got the majority of the carries, the QB next, then one of the A-backs, then all of the others. If you were A-back number 2, you didn’t get your hands on the ball nearly as much as other players. As A-back number 2, your best bet was getting a pass reception, and you were usually behind one of the wide-outs. As a wide receiver, there was a receiver who got the ball and one who almost never did and was waiting their turn until next season. </p><p></p><p>Think of it like this: B-Back gets the ball 40% of the time, QB 30%, A-Back 1 20%, rest of the players 10%. </p><p></p><p>Towards the end of the flexbone era, the main ball carrier was the QB. Ironically, a lot of our frustrations yesterday were from Sims running the ball instead of hitting open receivers. </p><p></p><p>{complete aside: one of our problems right now is not running much of the playbook. We probably only got close to really running a large flexbone playbook under Tevin Washington, who is highly appreciated as a QB by a few, but was derided when he was the starter}</p><p></p><p>The problem is that the ball is a scarce resource, and it’s not allocated evenly. Putting the extra player in the backfield doesn’t solve the problem of getting more touches, which is what the player wants. </p><p></p><p>If the argument is that there are more variations with more back—there are more variations than we will ever probably use in an RPO—there are RB run/QB run/pass options out of the signature RPO play—the problem is that we aren’t executing it well, and our 1Q fumble was on a run pass option Saturday. </p><p></p><p>With split backs, it’s the same issue—one of the backs gets the ball more than the other, and eventually most OCs swap back to an I-formation or a one-back backfield because split backs doesn’t bring much. The one thing split backs does bring is left and right blockers for pass protection, and there are better formations for pass protection. </p><p></p><p>For I-formation, after Franco Harris in the 1970’s, the fullback started their unrequited love affair with the football. Maybe they’d get a pity pass reception, but it was mostly a long-distance relationship between the fullback and the football. They’re mainly an OG/TE in the backfield now. </p><p></p><p><strong><u><em>Point 2: </em></u></strong></p><p>I like this point a lot. </p><p><em>I’ll just put the main counter argument up front: If we don’t understand have haven’t fully implemented our base offense, why would we add in variations that would make it more complex for the QB and other roles to understand what their responsibilities are? We have enough trouble lining up and running the plays correctly NOW</em></p><p></p><p>Fridge would run 3-back backfields (he lined them up in an “I” once). He’d use a fullback or an H-back. He’d run 3 TE sets. He’d run 5 wides. Our players learned the plays and the assignments. It was fun to watch. I think it would still run well today. </p><p></p><p>We’re not substituting players in well on defense, and I think we’d probably have the same issue on offense. There’s a teaching issue, and there’s a communication issue. We’re not learning the plays and the formations, and we’re not getting the right players in and out in a timely fashion. If we have that problem on defense, we might have that problem on offense too. </p><p></p><p><strong><em><u>TL;DR: I think schemes can help with 15% of our issues, which is worthwhile, but 85% is on fundamentals. </u></em></strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="slugboy, post: 821804, member: 282"] I may be missing a point, but it looks like there are a few main points in this thread: [LIST=1] [*]We have talented backs, but only have one on the field at any time, and we’d play better with more backs in the backfield [LIST] [*]Variant: The flexbone got the ball to our backs, would be nice to have three backs in the backfield again [/LIST] [*]We stick with a straight RPO formation almost all the time, and we should vary our sets to put our opponents on their heels [LIST] [*]Variant of that: Put Gibbs in the slot so that we can run an end-around misdirection play with him while defenses are keying on another RB [/LIST] [/LIST] [I][B][U]Point 1: [/U][/B][/I] One problem about multi-back backfields is that there’s only one ball. It’s one of the big problems with football in general compared to other sports that only half the offense is even allowed to touch the ball, and most of them don’t touch the ball on most plays. Gibbs and Mason and Smith and Griffin probably get the same distribution of running plays where they get the ball in a single-back formation as they would in a split or multi-back backfield. The difference is, when they’re not getting the ball, they’re on the sideline. The back who isn’t getting the ball is either a diversion or a blocker, or maybe both. If you go back to when we started with the flexbone, the B-back got the majority of the carries, the QB next, then one of the A-backs, then all of the others. If you were A-back number 2, you didn’t get your hands on the ball nearly as much as other players. As A-back number 2, your best bet was getting a pass reception, and you were usually behind one of the wide-outs. As a wide receiver, there was a receiver who got the ball and one who almost never did and was waiting their turn until next season. Think of it like this: B-Back gets the ball 40% of the time, QB 30%, A-Back 1 20%, rest of the players 10%. Towards the end of the flexbone era, the main ball carrier was the QB. Ironically, a lot of our frustrations yesterday were from Sims running the ball instead of hitting open receivers. {complete aside: one of our problems right now is not running much of the playbook. We probably only got close to really running a large flexbone playbook under Tevin Washington, who is highly appreciated as a QB by a few, but was derided when he was the starter} The problem is that the ball is a scarce resource, and it’s not allocated evenly. Putting the extra player in the backfield doesn’t solve the problem of getting more touches, which is what the player wants. If the argument is that there are more variations with more back—there are more variations than we will ever probably use in an RPO—there are RB run/QB run/pass options out of the signature RPO play—the problem is that we aren’t executing it well, and our 1Q fumble was on a run pass option Saturday. With split backs, it’s the same issue—one of the backs gets the ball more than the other, and eventually most OCs swap back to an I-formation or a one-back backfield because split backs doesn’t bring much. The one thing split backs does bring is left and right blockers for pass protection, and there are better formations for pass protection. For I-formation, after Franco Harris in the 1970’s, the fullback started their unrequited love affair with the football. Maybe they’d get a pity pass reception, but it was mostly a long-distance relationship between the fullback and the football. They’re mainly an OG/TE in the backfield now. [B][U][I]Point 2: [/I][/U][/B] I like this point a lot. [I]I’ll just put the main counter argument up front: If we don’t understand have haven’t fully implemented our base offense, why would we add in variations that would make it more complex for the QB and other roles to understand what their responsibilities are? We have enough trouble lining up and running the plays correctly NOW[/I] Fridge would run 3-back backfields (he lined them up in an “I” once). He’d use a fullback or an H-back. He’d run 3 TE sets. He’d run 5 wides. Our players learned the plays and the assignments. It was fun to watch. I think it would still run well today. We’re not substituting players in well on defense, and I think we’d probably have the same issue on offense. There’s a teaching issue, and there’s a communication issue. We’re not learning the plays and the formations, and we’re not getting the right players in and out in a timely fashion. If we have that problem on defense, we might have that problem on offense too. [B][I][U]TL;DR: I think schemes can help with 15% of our issues, which is worthwhile, but 85% is on fundamentals. [/U][/I][/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What jersey number did Justin Thomas wear?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
RB Participation
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top