I found these two great photos (they actually might be stills from a film) at Pro Football Journal this morning.
Aside from being in color - pretty rare for the early 1950s - they show the alignment of two classic formations opposing one another. The Giants A-Formation on offense opposing the Redskins in a 6-2 defense.
I've dated this photo as Nov 11, 1951 at the Polo Grounds. This was right at the close of the Wing-style football in the NFL. The Redskins had alreay commited to the T-Formation in the late 1940s, the Giants had been flip-flopping between the T-Formation and A-Formation since 1949 and didn't fully commit to the T until 1954 under Jim Lee Howell and Vince Lombardi.
Five and six man lines on defense still ruled the day in 1951. Steve Owen introduced the Umbrella Defense in 1950, which was a 6-1 backed by a two-deep shell pre-snap, but once the play started the ends dropped into the flats which esentially was a rudimentary form of what would become a 4-3 defense with zone coverage (pioneered by Tom Landry in the mid 1950s which he termed the Coordinated Defense that was predicated on reading "Keys").
What made the A-Formation so unique was its unusual line splits and inverted alignment of backs which were shifted over to the weak side of the line. The center also had the option of snapping the ball to any of the three deep backs.
You can see that both guards are to the right of the pivot (he's not a center in an unbalanced line!) The split between the pivot and the left tackle is enormous - Washignton could easily walk a safety up and send two blitzers through that gap! The left end also has a wide split off the left tackle. Interestingly, Washington has their DT lined up directly across from the Giants LT and their DE out wide covering the edge (possibly unblocked, depending on the Wing Back's assignment). We can't see Washington's DB deployment, but the norm would be two defensive half backs in the flats with a single high safety covering the middle.
This reverse view offers a look at the defensive backfield. The safety is in the middle but only 5 yards off the line of scrimmage, and the right halfback isn't was wide as we'd expect, he's right on the hash marks, esentially stacked behind the DE. Giants back #31 Eddie Price is in motion across the formation, and Washignton's left LB appears to be keying off him, but is not traveling with him. The Giants pivot and two guards are literally lined up shoulder-to-shoulder. The gap between the outside guard and right tackle is broad, and Washington has left it uncovered - their left DG and DT mirrored the Giants split.
I find these strategic chess games from this innovative era of football to be fascinating.
Several years back I wrote a pair of articles focused on the Giants-Browns rivalry and how much of modern football was spawned by the brilliant monds of Paul Brown, Steve Owen, Vince Lombardi and Tom Landry.
https://www.bigblueinteractive.com/2014/01/20/rivalry-changed-professional-football-new-york-giants-cleveland-browns-1950-1959-part/
https://www.bigblueinteractive.com/2014/01/22/rivalry-changed-professional-football-new-york-giants-cleveland-browns-1950-1959-part-ii/
And, I am proud to say that I created those diagrams myself! ;-)
Thanks for posting. Fascinating!
I could be wrong about this, but it almost seems like some of the formations we see today have more in common with the 1940s and 50s than, say, the 60s, 70s and 80s.
In other words, the offensive formations of the 60s-80s seemed so unvarying and standardized, whereas the 40s and 50s seemed to have a lot more variation, which is something we are seeing today.
Is that fair?
Thanks for posting. Fascinating!
I could be wrong about this, but it almost seems like some of the formations we see today have more in common with the 1940s and 50s than, say, the 60s, 70s and 80s.
In other words, the offensive formations of the 60s-80s seemed so unvarying and standardized, whereas the 40s and 50s seemed to have a lot more variation, which is something we are seeing today.
Is that fair?
The original Shotgun formation (1960s- up to the Run & Shoot early 1990s) was a derivitive of the Single Wing formation. The T-Formation was based with the QB directly under center. Any formation with the QB dropped back has its roots in the Singel Wing where the QB was actually the TB (or LHB in the A-Formation).
Remember when the "Wildcat" was all the rage about 10 years ago in Miami? IT was nothing new, it was the Single Wing with a new catchy name - the only difference was the balances linw where the center had a guard on either side. The traditional Single Wing (and Double Wing) had an unbalanced line.
1934:
Using the parlance of the times, the LoS positions were labeled as: End, Tackle, Outside Guard, Inside Guard, Pivot, Tackle, End
Notice in the 1934 photo that the backs are set to the strong side of the line. In the A-Formation they would be shifted over to the weak side of the line.
Different animals.
Quote:
Thanks for posting. Fascinating!
I could be wrong about this, but it almost seems like some of the formations we see today have more in common with the 1940s and 50s than, say, the 60s, 70s and 80s.
In other words, the offensive formations of the 60s-80s seemed so unvarying and standardized, whereas the 40s and 50s seemed to have a lot more variation, which is something we are seeing today.
Is that fair?
The original Shotgun formation (1960s- up to the Run & Shoot early 1990s) was a derivitive of the Single Wing formation. The T-Formation was based with the QB directly under center. Any formation with the QB dropped back has its roots in the Singel Wing where the QB was actually the TB (or LHB in the A-Formation).
Remember when the "Wildcat" was all the rage about 10 years ago in Miami? IT was nothing new, it was the Single Wing with a new catchy name - the only difference was the balances linw where the center had a guard on either side. The traditional Single Wing (and Double Wing) had an unbalanced line.
Thanks for info!
Speaking of unbalanced lines, I played on one in the early 1970s for Coach Lou Amundson at New Rochelle High School. Typically we had a Center and Left Guard and everything else was to the right of Center. We ran this with a "Crooked-I"; that is, the QB was under Center and the FB was lined up behind him but to the left (the weak side). Behind the FB was the Tailback who was aligned behind the QB.
Bottom line: I never really understood the virtue of our unbalanced line, nor the philosophy behind it. In retrospect I could guess... but not sure?
Any thoughts on the unbalanced O-line much appreciated!
Quote:
In comment 14703655 M.S. said:
Quote:
Thanks for posting. Fascinating!
I could be wrong about this, but it almost seems like some of the formations we see today have more in common with the 1940s and 50s than, say, the 60s, 70s and 80s.
In other words, the offensive formations of the 60s-80s seemed so unvarying and standardized, whereas the 40s and 50s seemed to have a lot more variation, which is something we are seeing today.
Is that fair?
The original Shotgun formation (1960s- up to the Run & Shoot early 1990s) was a derivitive of the Single Wing formation. The T-Formation was based with the QB directly under center. Any formation with the QB dropped back has its roots in the Singel Wing where the QB was actually the TB (or LHB in the A-Formation).
Remember when the "Wildcat" was all the rage about 10 years ago in Miami? IT was nothing new, it was the Single Wing with a new catchy name - the only difference was the balances linw where the center had a guard on either side. The traditional Single Wing (and Double Wing) had an unbalanced line.
Thanks for info!
Speaking of unbalanced lines, I played on one in the early 1970s for Coach Lou Amundson at New Rochelle High School. Typically we had a Center and Left Guard and everything else was to the right of Center. We ran this with a "Crooked-I"; that is, the QB was under Center and the FB was lined up behind him but to the left (the weak side). Behind the FB was the Tailback who was aligned behind the QB.
Bottom line: I never really understood the virtue of our unbalanced line, nor the philosophy behind it. In retrospect I could guess... but not sure?
Any thoughts on the unbalanced O-line much appreciated!
Pop Warner conceived the Single Wing while at the Carlisle Indain School (a teenaged Jim Thorpe was in his backfield, running, blocking and drop kicking like nobody had before!) and unleashed it for the first time during a vidit to West Point when they upseat the heavily favored Black Knights (captained by Dwight Eisenhower!) 27-6.
The key to the formations success was deception. They could run, pass or kick on any play without tipping their hand. The unbalanced line was a necessity because the Indians were a very small team. They were not recruits, they were orphaned children from reservations west of the Mississippi. Carlise gave away significant size to every team they faced (and Army was perinially one of the biggest teams of that era) so the play often went to the strong side of the formation where they had an extra blocker. When the defense cheated they would counter with an end around or a pass off a play fake (which they killed Army with).
The irony is that the Triple-Option offense the Black Kiights run today is conceptually not all that different then what the Single Wing did in 1912, and Army runs it for the same reason - they give away too much size to most of their opponents!
New York Herald Tribune
https://i.imgur.com/xxuOY7E.png
New York Times
https://i.imgur.com/wQPzjbR.png
1934:
Using the parlance of the times, the LoS positions were labeled as: End, Tackle, Outside Guard, Inside Guard, Pivot, Tackle, End
Notice in the 1934 photo that the backs are set to the strong side of the line. In the A-Formation they would be shifted over to the weak side of the line.
Jesus, half of those guys look like 50+ year old mechanics.
...such great information!
The photos are very helpful and nice to see.