for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

Stupid short yardage question...

Dan in the Springs : 10/7/2015 12:21 pm
Okay, I admit to not knowing football as well as many on here so I'm hoping somebody will straighten me out.

I was thinking about how whenever we see a short-yardage situation we have the same formations. 2-3 TE's, sometimes a tackle eligible. You generally have the QB under center with a single back. The back is deep, generally 6 yards or so behind the LOS. Occasionally you'll have a FB, or you'll see a receiver or TE go in motion to an h-back position. Sometimes you'll have a single WR split out wide.

I was wondering why you never see a closer formation. In a kneel-down snap you have the QB under center and two backs immediately at his side, directly behind the gaps between center and guard. I was thinking that if you wanted to attack a gap with power, why not try the following.

Put the RB under center to take the snap, have two additional OL directly behind the A-gaps. This puts 10 men on the LOS, the five traditional OL, two ends as required by rule, two OL, and the RB. The remaining player can be split wide to draw off a defender or could be an additional runner at traditional depth.

This formation would only be used when attempting a very short yardage conversion, like as a replacement for a QB sneak.

So BBI football experts, please teach me why this wouldn't work and if any of you football historians have any knowledge about formations like these being used in the past please chip in as well.
You hope that the OL  
robbieballs2003 : 10/7/2015 12:34 pm : link
can get that push. If a running back is there too fast then he is running into a lineman and loses all momentum. Also, It is hard to create any space to run through. If a running back gets there too early the decision is made and the defense clogs that hole. There is no room for the RB to adjust his target.
Thanks for your respons robbieballs...  
Dan in the Springs : 10/7/2015 12:39 pm : link
but what I'm getting at is a sneak play, just like the QB sneak, so they're not reading the play for the hole but diving behind a blocker.
Maybe it telegraphs your intentions just a little too much  
NoPeanutz : 10/7/2015 1:03 pm : link
to the D.
If you telegraph the play pre-snap, maybe the philosophy is that the D can sell out and stop you, making it low probability of success...? Maybe the offense never want to commit so much to one course pre-snap. They always want to leave the D with just a base-line amount of guesswork (I would think).
/not a football coach and never played.
Rules re: formations  
Mike in NY : 10/7/2015 1:15 pm : link
I think there is a rule regarding that sort of formation because they want to keep the players safe during kneeldown
Could be...  
Dan in the Springs : 10/7/2015 1:15 pm : link
Just thinking that with an unusual alignment like the the defense might not be prepared to counter. What does the defense do when you have Jerry and Hart in the A-gaps? Who are they going to set there - a LBer? The combined power from G-G would be Pugh, Jerry, Richburg, Hart, Schwartz and the defense would traditionally line up across from them with DT, NG, DT with LB, LB in the A-Gaps. Seems to me they should have a much better chance of getting a short push this way.

I imagine once they've seen it a few times they might replace the LBers with DT's as well, and then you'd have a rugby scrum going on, but at least the first time or two you should have them a bit unprepared.
Good Concept  
djstat : 10/7/2015 1:26 pm : link
But limits play calling. You know those lineman won't get the ball (unless it is William perry) and you can key the back. In the single wing offense there is a formation I refer to as Beast: Looks like this:

XXXCXXX
X
X X
QB

You have balanced like with two tight ends and then Three Man backfield. Shotgun QB who should be a running back kind of like the old wild cat. When I coached high school we ran this formation and converted 42 of 44 two point conversions. Beast Power, Beast COunter, Beast Sweep and Beast pop pass. Obviously the NFL is not high school, but I could see this working
Dis regard  
djstat : 10/7/2015 1:27 pm : link
The formation above. it didn't populate right.
that is a pop warner mighty mite play  
BCD : 10/7/2015 1:50 pm : link
just go to a game...
you want to give the back  
cjac : 10/7/2015 1:53 pm : link
some room to make a cut just in case the play isnt going to go where its supposed to. Also if the back is a yard behind the line you know where he's not going. doesnt seem like a good short yardage formation
a QB sneak is a very viable play call that we never ever call  
gtt350 : 10/7/2015 2:18 pm : link
also play action on 1st and goal is the best choice again that we never ever call
I do remember 3 fades and a field goal  
gtt350 : 10/7/2015 2:19 pm : link
and a thrown remote
RE: I do remember 3 fades and a field goal  
NoPeanutz : 10/7/2015 2:35 pm : link
In comment 12532681 gtt350 said:
Quote:
and a thrown remote


LOL o god that was really memorable. I'm too young to have lived thru the 70s, but look forward to shaking my cane at the next BBI generation and regaling them with such tales. "And this was with the best QB in Giants's history!"
how does your proposal  
giants#1 : 10/7/2015 2:42 pm : link
differ from a jumbo set where 1-2 of the TEs are replaced by extra OL? The only other difference seems to be the RB under center or with a shallower set. A RB under center increases the chances of a poor exchange/fumble and almost eliminates any chance for a pass, making it easier to defend.

And if you bring in an extra 1-2 OL, the defense will just counter with an extra 1-2 DL. You can't really catch them by surprise unless their coaching staff isn't paying attention to your subs.

RE: how does your proposal  
Dan in the Springs : 10/7/2015 3:16 pm : link
In comment 12532745 giants#1 said:
Quote:
differ from a jumbo set where 1-2 of the TEs are replaced by extra OL? The only other difference seems to be the RB under center or with a shallower set. A RB under center increases the chances of a poor exchange/fumble and almost eliminates any chance for a pass, making it easier to defend.

And if you bring in an extra 1-2 OL, the defense will just counter with an extra 1-2 DL. You can't really catch them by surprise unless their coaching staff isn't paying attention to your subs.


Difference is in the formation. Bringing in the extra OL and placing them in the backfield directly behind the A-gaps, so that you still only go 7 across the line, not 9. The 2 extra OL are next to the RB just like two players line up next to the QB in a kneel down.
RE: you want to give the back  
Dan in the Springs : 10/7/2015 3:19 pm : link
In comment 12532616 cjac said:
Quote:
some room to make a cut just in case the play isnt going to go where its supposed to. Also if the back is a yard behind the line you know where he's not going. doesnt seem like a good short yardage formation


When have you ever seen a QB take the time to read the play and react to the blocking in front of him? He simply gets behind an OL and drives forward. The trick is to do it quickly and only the OL knows which angle the QB is going to take/dive behind in advance.

I'm far from convinced that this would work, just don't see yet why it couldn't.
I've seen a QB sneak yes  
cjac : 10/7/2015 3:24 pm : link
you were asking why the RB is 5 yards from the LOS, there are lots of reasons, you can run play action and suck the LBs in to sneak a TE out and pass. there are a lot of reasons why that is a common formation. if you're asking why cant you have the RB right next to the QB and hand it off... sure, i guess. You can also just have the RB play QB on the play and run a QB sneak. I personally always like some element of "the ball can go somewhere else" on a play. but if you think your guys can get the push for the yard i guess your concept would work.
Runningbacks don't take  
St. Jimmy : 10/7/2015 3:52 pm : link
snaps so that would be an issue. You would need to practice that or eventually there would be a fumble. You also are losing the threat of the pass so the defense could have more guys at the line of scrimmage.
Bears did this with Walter Payton  
WideRight : 10/7/2015 4:06 pm : link
more out of the shot gun. It worked pretty well, but that's because it was Walter Payton. Anyone couldn't handle nine in the box
RE: I've seen a QB sneak yes  
Dan in the Springs : 10/7/2015 4:21 pm : link
In comment 12532878 cjac said:
Quote:
you were asking why the RB is 5 yards from the LOS, there are lots of reasons, you can run play action and suck the LBs in to sneak a TE out and pass. there are a lot of reasons why that is a common formation. if you're asking why cant you have the RB right next to the QB and hand it off... sure, i guess. You can also just have the RB play QB on the play and run a QB sneak. I personally always like some element of "the ball can go somewhere else" on a play. but if you think your guys can get the push for the yard i guess your concept would work.
.

Think you mis-read what I wrote. I wasn't asking that, but was suggesting what you wrote in the second half of your post there. No QB on the play - RB takes the handoff from under center and performs the QB sneak, although the name is a complete misnomer as there is no QB and it's not sneaky.
RE: Runningbacks don't take  
Dan in the Springs : 10/7/2015 4:22 pm : link
In comment 12532950 St. Jimmy said:
Quote:
snaps so that would be an issue. You would need to practice that or eventually there would be a fumble. You also are losing the threat of the pass so the defense could have more guys at the line of scrimmage.


Yeah, the play would have to be run a few times in practice and you'd want the RB to show very good hands. More like a gimmick play used when you absolutely have to have a first down and it's a foot or less away.
RE: Bears did this with Walter Payton  
Dan in the Springs : 10/7/2015 4:23 pm : link
In comment 12532975 WideRight said:
Quote:
more out of the shot gun. It worked pretty well, but that's because it was Walter Payton. Anyone couldn't handle nine in the box


Did they put OL behind the A-gaps? Don't remember seeing that, but also was a pretty immature FB watcher during Payton's heyday.
The defensive line would simply cut  
dorgan : 10/7/2015 4:25 pm : link
the OL creating a big pile. No place to run.

You need space to run the football and your formation doesn't create any, it just creates a big pile of big men laying on the ground.

RE: RE: you want to give the back  
giants#1 : 10/7/2015 4:25 pm : link
In comment 12532860 Dan in the Springs said:
Quote:
In comment 12532616 cjac said:


Quote:


some room to make a cut just in case the play isnt going to go where its supposed to. Also if the back is a yard behind the line you know where he's not going. doesnt seem like a good short yardage formation



When have you ever seen a QB take the time to read the play and react to the blocking in front of him? He simply gets behind an OL and drives forward. The trick is to do it quickly and only the OL knows which angle the QB is going to take/dive behind in advance.

I'm far from convinced that this would work, just don't see yet why it couldn't.


Except the QB would quickly look at the DL and if the DT is shaded to the OC's left shoulder, then the QB will dive off right shoulder. And if 2 DTs are lined up on the OC, then the QB is likely calling something else (more likely the sneak is the checkdown based on the alignment).
RE: RE: how does your proposal  
giants#1 : 10/7/2015 4:26 pm : link
In comment 12532847 Dan in the Springs said:
Quote:
In comment 12532745 giants#1 said:


Quote:


differ from a jumbo set where 1-2 of the TEs are replaced by extra OL? The only other difference seems to be the RB under center or with a shallower set. A RB under center increases the chances of a poor exchange/fumble and almost eliminates any chance for a pass, making it easier to defend.

And if you bring in an extra 1-2 OL, the defense will just counter with an extra 1-2 DL. You can't really catch them by surprise unless their coaching staff isn't paying attention to your subs.




Difference is in the formation. Bringing in the extra OL and placing them in the backfield directly behind the A-gaps, so that you still only go 7 across the line, not 9. The 2 extra OL are next to the RB just like two players line up next to the QB in a kneel down.


Well once in a while a team will line up an big guy in the backfield as the lead blocker. NE used to do this with Vrabel and I think another DT (name escapes me right now).
RE: RE: RE: you want to give the back  
Dan in the Springs : 10/7/2015 4:47 pm : link
In comment 12533011 giants#1 said:
Quote:
Except the QB would quickly look at the DL and if the DT is shaded to the OC's left shoulder, then the QB will dive off right shoulder. And if 2 DTs are lined up on the OC, then the QB is likely calling something else (more likely the sneak is the checkdown based on the alignment).


With two OL lined up over the A-gaps even two DT on the OC wouldn't necessarily prevent the RB sneak. Would be interesting to see how the defense responds to that alignment anyway. Would love to ask Beason what he would do with his DL if the offense broke the huddle to that formation.
Back to the Corner